I just had to say that.
-
Robbmonster — 13 years ago(February 05, 2013 09:18 AM)
If there is one thing I despise when people give reviews of films, it's the casual use of the word 'manipulative'.
My challenge to you is to name me one film - only one, out of the tens of thousands that have been made over the past century or so - that is in no way manipulative. One.
Film IS manipulation. It's just a lazy word people like to throw around, usually when taking a pot shot at Spielberg.
Never defend crap with "It's just a movie"
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds -
DreTam2000 — 15 years ago(January 30, 2011 03:08 PM)
because the rules are also NOT OKAY.
This was the point of the movie.
The Terminal
is a genius, cryptic, dark political satire. I too have not seen it in years. I look forward to seeing it again sometime soon.
I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way -
catscratch2000 — 14 years ago(July 22, 2011 04:05 AM)
I've just watched the first half hour and I'm not enjoying it - first of all why do they keep talking to him in English, and in FAST English, when he clearly can't understand? An interpeter would be the first thing they would organise, they would hardly just let him go without understanding what's happening, and without a place to sleep. And the officials themselves, surely they'd be a little more compassionate instead of just leaving him wandering the transit lounge indefinitely? I know they wanted him to just make a run for it, but even that seems ridiculous to me. I don't think I can watch the rest.
-
robertvaughn — 14 years ago(August 04, 2011 09:30 PM)
I agree with catscratch2000: the worst part of the movie for me is the beginning, the opening scene where the authorities continue to talk to Viktor in English, when it is fairly obvious he can't speak a word of it. There are three possible reasons why: the characters in the movie are complete idiots and incompetent at their jobs, the screenwriters are dumb (the screenplay needed a few more rewrites because of this particular lapse in both logic and realism) or the filmmakers don't think much of the audience's intelligence. Whatever the reason, the first five to ten minutes of the movie are painful to sit through.
-
jajceboy — 14 years ago(August 17, 2011 10:52 AM)
I watched it from Victors point of view, I ever understood it since I had a similar situation as Victors once.
It didn't make the move better unfortunately. The story had a lot of potential and could've worked as a satire over America, with the airport working as a America in miniature.
Instead the story really didn't go anywhere, and was neither funny nor anything else. And add to that a incredibly pointless romantic sub-plot that did nothing for the movie except to turn it into another bland romantic comedy the result is mediocre.
Spielberg's worst by far! A story that could've been better had he dared a more! -
DreTam2000 — 13 years ago(April 14, 2012 08:54 PM)
The story a satire over America, with the airport working as a America in miniature.
This is exactly what
The Terminal
is.
And boy, does it fly over most people's heads
The "jazz" was symbolic of America, for starters. This movie was not kind at all to American politics or governing forces, or the way America sees foreigners. Pay close attention, and view every piece of the movie subtextually, and you will get all the satire you need.
I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way -
ReservoirDerek — 14 years ago(September 25, 2011 07:59 PM)
I feel like a lot of this movie
is
a satire. I mean, with the made up country. The "Uncles Sam wipes his ass with Charmon two-ply" line also gives me a sense of,
Oh, Americans
.
With that said, satires can often be heart-warming and tragic. Perfect example?
Arrested Development
. Also, the heart that was put into this film. The music, the sets, the lighting, the performances, the dialog, the timing, the magic. It's all just perfect.
I feel you need to see the nostalgia within this sort of film. And if you can't just sit back and enjoy the surreal aspect, then I feel sorry for you.
Currently Filming: 'Road to Kingsville'
http://www.facebook.com/groups/RoadtoKingsville -
gerdd — 12 years ago(April 28, 2013 12:06 PM)
"become much better at English"
Right - only chance he (or the plot) had. Fat chance that even a single person at that airport would learn Krakovian all of a sudden
Hint: This is an integral part of the satire on the American Way of Life. Other languages don't play much of a role in it which also explains why he was bombarded with more English once it became clear he had a problem with it.
Maybe if he spoke French, Spanish or even German, but Krakovian?!!
Oh yes, there is a moral to this story, but it takes a bit of sensitivity to hear it. -
gerdd — 10 years ago(May 19, 2015 02:52 AM)
Ohhh - I just learned from Wikipedia that in the English-speaking world the country is actually called "Krakozhia" - as opposed to "Krakovien" or "Krakosien" in the German speaking patch.
In any event, I was not aware that in that - fictitional - country one speaks Bulgarian - and I am not sure if that wasn't only because Tom Hanks has some Bulgarian heritage and thus can probably make some credible Bulgarian-like noises.
But sometimes these things are a bit of a misconception anyway. For all I know the "Bulgarian" of Krakhozia may actually sound no closer to "real Bulgarian" than Swiss German (Schyzerdtsch) does to German - ignoring here that German is in itself varied enough to interest a legion of Henry Higginses. Or take the Spanisch of Latin America in comparison to the Castilian variety from Spain. Or let me quote the incomparable John Cleese who asked about the differences between the UK and the US mentioned this: "As opposed to you, we speak English." (You may prefer the "divided by a common language" crack, but I just learned that people can't agree on who said it first Shaw, Churchill, Wilde, or was it Mark Twain once again?) -
hairy_buddah — 12 years ago(June 27, 2013 10:26 PM)
His English language acquisition was carefully explained by the tour guide books. He had one in his language, and an identical book in English that he bought at an airport shop. This was prompted by his inability to read the screen crawl quickly enough on the news channels reporting on the revolution in his home country. One of the many clever nuances in this delightful movie.
-
bjewilson — 11 years ago(December 22, 2014 04:00 PM)
There's a message here to the anglophone Americans and British who don't (almost all) speak other languages: they don't usually need to; this induces an inner laziness; a boast that "we're useless at languages" which is a self-fulfilling declaration. What you need to learn a language - for quite adequate exchange purposes in far less than the many months our "hero" was in the USA -
are : intelligence; some 'learning' material like guides in 2 or more languages ; being in at the "deep end" with everyone around you speaking a common tongue, TV blaring out, newspapers to browse at will; time on your hands with few distractions other than survival. This is what young, entrepreneur-minded young people do when they emigrate, usually to English-speaking places - British and American migrants hardly ever seek to perfect the language of their destination country, why should they? That, is the question. Lazy, arrogant
that's one answer.
So Spielberg, an 'economic migrant' in his day, is supplying a subtle
message about escaping from the language-ignorant bubble; a mini autobiography
in a way And the next message? Human kindness, empathy and loyalty are universal - but you can't really convey them without the basic tenets of the
"other's" language.
My only complaint about the film is that the hero's English should have evolved more by the time he left the USA of the terminal, so as to get more out of the USA in his time outside it. He had everything going for him - linguistically!
For the rest I thoroughly enjoyed the terminal as comedy, of fun, pathos, conflict resolved and unresolved - and a Disney endingWhat more do you want?