Tweet

EMAIL

PRINT

Comments (0)

Related articles and links |  1 of 4

Over the weekend, gullible moviegoers willingly tossed about $30 million at a movie in which grown men hurl red rubber balls at each other. They preferred this instead of contributing to an artful new Steven Spielberg film, starring Tom Hanks—a film that required the construction of a complete airport terminal. That film earned only $18.7 million, a shocking disappointment for the studio.

But rather than start by surveying reviews of the most popular film of the week, let's start with the one that's halfway decent.

"Just call him Foreign Gump," writes Bob Smithouser (Plugged In) about Viktor Navorski in his review of Steven Spielberg's new film The Terminal.

And he's right. The central character of this whimsical, inventive comedy is played by Tom Hanks and bears a striking resemblance to Mr. Gump in the way he brings a simple, good-natured wisdom to those he encounters during his long, long stay in New York's JFK airport. Hanks plays Viktor Navorski, a man from the imaginary nation of Krakhozia who, upon his arrival in the Big Apple, learns that his country has fallen into violent political turmoil. The Department of Homeland Security officer at JFK (Stanley Tucci) informs Viktor that it is illegal for him to set foot on American soil, and worse, he can't go home until Krakhozia stabilizes.

So Viktor, who knows only a few words of English, is forced to live on limited resources (echoing another Hanks film—Cast Away), required to wrestle with an unfair and insensitive superior (echoing another Hanks film—Philadelphia), and driven to learn about a large and confusing world that is far from anything he's experienced before (echoing, yes, Hanks' classic comedy Big). Before it's over, Navorski will get a grasp of the language, find ways to earn some lunch money, transform an out-of-service flight gate into a home, fall for a beautiful flight attendant (Catherine Zeta-Jones), befriend a team of airport workers of all colors and sizes (Chi McBride, Diego Luna, and Wes Anderson's favorite supporting actor, Kumar Pallana), and learn to dodge the dispiriting obstacles thrown into his path.

In his review, Smithouser concludes that the "triumphant good-man-against-the-system element is the best part of this touching, poignant, often funny film. Intriguing people. Unusual circumstances. Inspirational moments. Not a bad place to spend a couple of hours. As always, Hanks is terrific."

But there are some problems in the film that bother many of the film's critics (including me). The fault lines of Spielberg's fractured style divide the film's multiple storylines into incongruous subplots. Some scenes are subtle and affecting, followed by others that spell out simple sermons in large capital letters so nobody misses the point. In Spielberg's multi-genre repertoire, this a cinematic jazz piece that boasts flourishes of masterful musicianship, but, unlike Spielberg's last film, Catch Me If You Can, it never coheres into a convincing and satisfying whole. Despite what may be Hanks's finest performance, The Terminal is like a sentimental, superficial, Hollywood movie that has strapped itself to a hard-hitting cultural commentary and entered a three-legged race—it proceeds at a stumbling, awkward pace and collapses before it reaches its goal.

My full review is at Christianity Today Movies.

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says its "weak script and lackluster performances keep viewers' attention in a holding pattern. Still, [the movie] is not without some uplifting moments. Harkening back to an old-fashioned Hollywood hopefulness, the movie is built around a Capraesque belief in the goodness and decency of humanity. For the most part, however, The Terminal is just that—terminal."

next page... |  1 of 4

June (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48