The Terminal (Steven Spielberg, 2004)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

The Terminal (Steven Spielberg, 2004)

#1 Post by Andre Jurieu » Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:07 pm

che-etienne wrote:Frankly, I think "The Terminal" may even be his best movie ever. It is certainly his most interesting.
How so? I thought it was a waste of time and that he really reduced the concept into an insulting farce. This is a great real-life story and instead we're treated to subplots involving Star Trek, and unbelievable scenes involving a minority who is willing to sacrifice a career essentially in order to deliver a bad one-liner to a plane, and a flight attendant who tells off the Head of Security though she has absolutely no logical reason to do so. This is looking past the fact that Spielberg decided to tack on another upbeat ending where everything works out decently, since in reality the man stranded in the airport went mad and became terrified to leave the airport even when granted his freedom. These are circumstances that provide a magnificent opportunity to explore the idea of politics, cultural identity, abandonment, and self-imprisonment based on fear of the attainment/accomplishment/unknown. The most impressive thing for me was his use of product placement, particularly the Borders book store, but other than that I was utterly disappointed.

That's not to say that I don't enjoy his filmmaking. In fact, I'd say he's been making more interesting films now than he did back in the 80s.

che-etienne
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:18 pm

#2 Post by che-etienne » Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:08 am

I agree that had Spielberg taken a more naturalistic and realistic approach to the film he might've explored really wonderful territory, however, Spielberg was out to make a farce intentionally. It is to me one of the most successful satires of modern American culture, and at the same time an incredibly humanist and optimistic work. "The Terminal" is like a latter day Chaplin film, and I enjoyed its slaptick humor, as much as I enjoyed the references to Kubrick and Fellini etc. The cinematography in that film is simply gorgeous and there is a wealth -at least from what I saw - of real depth to be explored there. If you recall, for example, in the scene where Gupta finally 'goes home' he confronts the huge plane, and the shot is framed such that it is him versus the plane. The individual, the immigrant (and all Americans are essentially immigrants) versus the physical manifestation of American bureaucracy. Of course, the Homeland Security department at the airport overreacts and sends out a whole SWAT team armed to the teeth to stop him. You just have to laugh at this overkill, and although it is not hard to interpret what Spielberg was getting at it is really quite well done, and most of the film is like this. Not only that, but I would argue that for the type of film Spielberg was trying to make the optimistic ending was practically mandatory. You couldn't end this with a sad ending, because that would just defeat the whole point. What does Navorski do at the end, but finally meet that jazz legend and then as he leaves New York the cab drives through Times Square, and it is luminously photographed by Janusz Kaminski. Still, Navorski is not going to stay for this dream but he is saying goodbye to it. It is not just a one-dimensional happy ending, but a concession that, yes, the American Dream can work and can succeed, and that there can be found some small measure of beauty in American banal commercialism, but that at the same time who'd want to stay there too long? Navorski is not an immigrant. He is an outsider, and so he can view this neon-lit paradise with same-time wariness and wonder, and then in the end he can put it away and go back home. I would love to see someone else make another version of this story that is perhaps more an adaptation of the real event, but Spielberg never claimed that he was trying to tell a true story. I'm sorry, but I just don't see why one would be so indignant about that, if Spielberg never intended to make that kind of movie in the first place. If I were to choose anyway, I'd rather someone else direct a more naturalistic version of it. Perhaps the director of "Keane" for instance (I forget his name) or maybe Herzog. It would be interesting to see what they would do with it, and it would probably make a far better movie than "The Terminal", but for Spielberg "The Terminal" is his first thematically consistent and potent film to date, save perhaps for "AI" but that was under the heavy influence of Kubrick who had conceived the project so I discount this one. Anyway, I enjoyed it thoroughly.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#3 Post by Andre Jurieu » Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:34 pm

Anyway to cut this stuff and place it in The Terminal thread?
che-etienne wrote:however, Spielberg was out to make a farce intentionally.
Yes, that's obvious, but, in my opinion, it's an insultingly daft farce rather than an accomplished one. My main point of contention is that the supporting characters are reduced to merely being cogs to the plot, which forces them to act and move only in service to the main character's story.
che-etienne wrote:It is to me one of the most successful satires of modern American culture, and at the same time an incredibly humanist and optimistic work.
I'd agree that it displays humanism and is optimistic, and while I do believe it attempts to be a satire of modern American culture, I'd disagree that it's an entirely successful satire. The satire that is attempted is fairly simple and doesn't really attack anything other than surface.
che-etienne wrote:... I enjoyed its slaptick humor, as much as I enjoyed the references to Kubrick and Fellini etc...

Its slapstick was amusing for much of the film, but sometimes just grew tiresome and soon began to feel forced - like the imitation of slapstick rather than a genuine display.

References are nice, and I enjoy them as much as the next guy, but are they really meaningful in this case?
che-etienne wrote:The cinematography in that film is simply gorgeous and there is a wealth -at least from what I saw - of real depth to be explored there.
Yes, it was gorgeous.
che-etienne wrote:If you recall, for example, in the scene where Gupta finally 'goes home' he confronts the huge plane, and the shot is framed such that it is him versus the plane. The individual, the immigrant (and all Americans are essentially immigrants) versus the physical manifestation of American bureaucracy.
The framing is interesting, in that it shows the enormity of the plane versus the insignificance of the individual, which directly opposes the scene itself, where the individual is asserting himself. However, while it is clear that Gupta represents all immigrants, I find it hard to see the airplane as the physical manifestation of American bureaucracy. The bureaucracy in this case is caused by the airplane - which is a method of immigration - rather than the airplane being a result of the security bureaucracy. The physical manifestation of the bureaucracy would be the SWAT team and the security personnel/infrastructure. The scene functions more as "the little guy counts" rather than "the little guy can fight the usually overwhelming system", especially since Gupta is sacrificing himself, knowing full well that he cannot fight the system since he will be deported after his actions. Gupta can make a difference, but only represents the immigrant struggle, and in this case, I'd say he isn't a particularly great representation of the immigrant experience.
che-etienne wrote:Of course, the Homeland Security department at the airport overreacts and sends out a whole SWAT team armed to the teeth to stop him. You just have to laugh at this overkill, and although it is not hard to interpret what Spielberg was getting at it is really quite well done, and most of the film is like this.

I don't think this scene is quite well done at all. First off, the one-liner Gupta delivers is so cringe-inducingly bad I felt sorry for the fact that he was representing minority immigrants. Furthermore, the sacrifice Gupta makes is ludicrous, considering he's destroying his life in order to make a point that he could have just as easily conveyed with simple words. I'd also say the reaction of the security personnel is entirely justified from any position outside the perspective of the central characters. It's only an overreaction because we are aware that Gupta is not a significant threat. However, if any person ran out onto the airplane runway to go head-to-head with a 747, I'd hope our airport security would send out a SWAT team to investigate, instead of just one or two friendly security guards who just saunter up to the old man and laugh off the amusing scenario that just occurred. It's not overkill if you view the situation outside the limited perspective of the film.
che-etienne wrote:Not only that, but I would argue that for the type of film Spielberg was trying to make the optimistic ending was practically mandatory. You couldn't end this with a sad ending, because that would just defeat the whole point...

I disagree. Any ending is possible provided the filmmakers handle it properly, whether downbeat or uplifting. If the plot requires Navorski to meet the jazz legend, why not have the jazz legend meet Navorski at the airport, either leaving for a trip or playing a set at the airport jazz club/bar? If the point is for Navorski to withstand the banal temptations of the American commercialist Dream, then why not just give him the option to enter US soil at the end, but have him choose not to do so, and thus deny himself the title of immigrant? Also, I find it trite to reduce the idea of being American to a cab ride through Time Square.

Also, what type of "home" is he going back to? Is he even allowed to return home? The politics of the film feel quite convenient.
che-etienne wrote:...but Spielberg never claimed that he was trying to tell a true story.

And I'm not really holding him to make a film based entirely upon the true story. I am however, questioning his decision to ignore so many aspects of the true story that could have provided more significant weight to his film. He can make a humorous farce if he wants and he could change as many details as he wants, but his finished film isn't exactly effective in exhibiting the experience of being abandoned by your country, in effect losing a small portion of your identity, and living in a state of limbo where your existence is being ignored.
che-etienne wrote:I'm sorry, but I just don't see why one would be so indignant about that, if Spielberg never intended to make that kind of movie in the first place.
I'm not all that indignant about the fact that he didn't follow the real story to the last detail or that he made it into a brisk little comedy. I am indignant about the fact that results aren't all that great in my own estimation, and that could be due to him ignoring so much of the true story.
che-etienne wrote: ...but for Spielberg "The Terminal" is his first thematically consistent and potent film to date, save perhaps for "AI" but that was under the heavy influence of Kubrick who had conceived the project so I discount this one.
I prefer Catch Me if You Can, which I'm certain is just about as honest and critical as Spielberg has been in regards to the topic of Steven Spielberg.

che-etienne
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:18 pm

#4 Post by che-etienne » Tue Nov 08, 2005 2:28 pm

It's made clear in the film that Navorski's home country has returned to a somewhat stable condition and that he can travel back there now.

Also, Gupta is not ruining his life. He's confronting his past demons and returning home for the first time, even if it does mean facing prosecution and execution. It is a responsibility he had shrugged off before, and frankly Gupta in this film is portrayed not as a simple caricature but as a character. He is not meant to signify all of minority America.

Finally, I'd just like to say that I did not mean to suggest that a cab ride through Times Square is what being American is all about. What I said was that the luminous sight of all those bright lights is meant to display the beauty inherent in the very banality that is American culture and the American Dream, for I defy you to tell me that the American Dream is not banal, and it works I think in a very Brooksian way.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#5 Post by Andre Jurieu » Tue Nov 08, 2005 2:55 pm

che-etienne wrote:It's made clear in the film that Navorski's home country has returned to a somewhat stable condition and that he can travel back there now.
Which I think is kind of convenient, considering it's implied that he is from an Eastern-European country. They make it sound as if the trouble in his country was just a small weekend coup and that everything returned to normal. Rarely are these things ever so simple, and the fact that he was stranded at the airport for so long makes me think that the troubles within his country were of far greater magnitude than the film is willing to address. Again, it's the light attitude to all this weighty stuff that irks me.
che-etienne wrote:Also, Gupta is not ruining his life. He's confronting his past demons and returning home for the first time, even if it does mean facing prosecution and execution. It is a responsibility he had shrugged off before, and frankly Gupta in this film is portrayed not as a simple caricature but as a character.
This perspective depends a great deal on the viewer's willingness to accept the filmmaker's viewpoint that the subsequent actions within Gupta's home country are only worthy of minor consideration. While it's commendable that Gupta is confronting past demons and returning home to responsibility he has shrugged off in the past, his prosecution and execution are not minor details. There is a good chance Gupta will die, or at least live the rest of his life under considerable duress, as a result of his hilarious runway antics, but the filmmakers are not willing to address this aspect of his story. He is a sacrifice that is made for the plot of Navorski's story arc.
che-etienne wrote:He is not meant to signify all of minority America.
I said "minority immigrants", not "minority America".
che-etienne wrote: ... I defy you to tell me that the American Dream is not banal...
It's only banal if you treat it as a slogan and examine the surface (which, I'll admit, most people who strive for the American Dream take it to be).
Last edited by Andre Jurieu on Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

che-etienne
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:18 pm

#6 Post by che-etienne » Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:26 pm

I disagree the American Dream is inherently banal, because it was in the first place an agreement between people rather than something more sacred - America was founded not for the virtues of brotherhood or equality really, but for the perservation and protection of private property, which is I think a rather banal ideal - but now we're getting into social sciences and politics. The fact is even if the American Dream did not start out banal it has become so now, even at its core.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#7 Post by Andre Jurieu » Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:25 am

che-etienne wrote:I disagree the American Dream is inherently banal
Um... I kind of lost you here. I didn't say the American Dream is inherently banal. I'm fairly certain you said the American Dream is banal, so I'm not sure why you disagree with statements you just made and you go on to elaborate upon. Unless, I'm missing something here.
che-etienne wrote:... in the first place an agreement between people rather than something more sacred

Wouldn't some people consider an agreement forged between people to be just as sacred, if not more so, than something decreed by a ruler, a religion, or simply upper class preference?
che-etienne wrote: ... America was founded not for the virtues of brotherhood or equality really, but for the perservation and protection of private property, which is I think a rather banal ideal
OK, but isn't that merely the surface of the American Dream. The protection of private property is the reaction to the fact that during that period in time a man's worth was defined by his ownership of land. That's an ideal of Western European culture, where only a privileged few were allowed to own land. America founded itself on an adjustment to this ideal because they wanted every "man" (and, yes, their initial definition was incredibly flawed) to be able to own land, regardless of class or history, in effect saying that any man can have value/worth. It's creating a definition based upon existing norms that they had to work with. Yes, the idea of ownership isn't the greatest notion to build an country around, but it is a reactionary definition that uses the basic social structure of the time in which it was developed in order to allow any/every man to have his own independence and sovereignty (though, yes, this wasn't a reality - but I would argue this basic ideal allowed for future corrections to be made). Yes, they were attempting to protect private property, but protecting land is a result of being a colony and living by the rules that another power is imposing upon you.
che-etienne wrote:The fact is even if the American Dream did not start out banal it has become so now, even at its core.
Perhaps it has become so now, but I don't think the core of the American Dream is banal, only the surface. I believe the core of the American Dream is what immigrants seek out (though they may not immediately recognize the present reality).

User avatar
ben d banana
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:53 pm
Location: Oh Where, Oh Where?

#8 Post by ben d banana » Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:44 am

Andre Jurieu wrote:
che-etienne wrote:I disagree the American Dream is inherently banal
Um... I kind of lost you here. I didn't say the American Dream is inherently banal. I'm fairly certain you said the American Dream is banal, so I'm not sure why you disagree with statements you just made and you go on to elaborate upon. Unless, I'm missing something here.
I believe what's missing is punctuation between "disagree" and "the" from the line you quoted, Andre. Now let's get back to discussing the Spielbergian magic of subtle commentary cloaked in ludicrous, heart-tugging, bombast.

che-etienne
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:18 pm

#9 Post by che-etienne » Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:58 am

My bad. I should have proof read the post better. Sorry.

Anyway, to get back to the matter, I'm afraid I expressed myself badly, because in no way did I mean to suggest (now that I'm reading our comments over) that Spielberg's commentary in this film was at all particularly inciteful or profound. I just meant consistent. I would cite "Catch Me If You Can" as well as one of his more consistent works. Both are I think his two best films to date, at least since "Jaws" and "E.T." I haven't seen "Close Encounters" yet and I've heard it is quite good so I'm keeping an open mind. My main problem with Spielberg's work though is that it is never consistent. Most of his films start out exceptionally well ("Saving Private Ryan" being a prime example) and then start to hiccup at some point along the way, only to screw up wildly at the climax. "Minority Report" for example started out quite well, and then just switched into Hollywood chase movie for a while, only to be closed out with a particularly convenient and unsatisfying ending. For me then, "The Terminal" was consistent throughout and much more polished and spare than his other films. No, it was not particularly deep, but I believe you should judge a filmmaker more based on his previous body of work than on what someone else might've done with the story. I liked it for that reason. Spielberg seems to be doing more interesting work, even if marginally so, and I guess that just impressed me. I liked "War of the Worlds" as well, though again it wasn't consistent. So I eagerly look forward to "Munich", because maybe this one will be the one I've been waiting for. The fact that Tony Kushner wrote it doesn't hurt either.

User avatar
Jun-Dai
監督
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:34 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

#10 Post by Jun-Dai » Sat May 03, 2008 4:31 am

Aaaaaaaaargghh!

User avatar
Morbii
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:38 am

#11 Post by Morbii » Sat May 03, 2008 4:36 am

I guess the reaper felt like this post was one to throw back to us...

User avatar
miless
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:45 pm

#12 Post by miless » Sat May 03, 2008 4:36 pm

I had just forgotten about this terrible, terrible movie... and then I visited this forum and a flood of nausea inducing memories crept back in like battery acid or draino being injected into my skull.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#13 Post by colinr0380 » Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:58 pm

I had a really strong negative reaction to The Terminal when I first saw it but on catching it again on television last night (I wonder if the BBC scheduled it as an ironic response to the recent conflict in Georgia? :wink: ) I strangely found myself warming up a little to it, even if the entire premise is still completely contrived. I still hate almost every character outside of Tom Hanks's Victor! On my first viewing I thought that the way the staff in the airport (not just Stanley Tucci's character) had abandoned Victor to his fate by walking by, refusing him work, letting him starve until they needed his help was bad, but I was most incensed by the way that as soon as Victor begins to drag himself out of the gutter he is immediately latched onto by the same people who would barely look at him earlier. This all reaches its climax as Victor is about to leave the airport for New York and is surrounded by hundreds of these repulsive characters trying to bask in reflected glory.

I'm not sure if my above feelings are at all in synch with Spielberg's intentions - I can only assume that the 'actual', more positive perspective on the above is that it shows the effect that one kind, saintly individual has over jaded, distracted and cruel characters, awakening their decent sides as he humbly takes their abuses (kind of the anti-Dogville!) If that's the case the film failed for me as I was left with a burning hatred for all of the 'yes men', not just Stanley Tucci's head bad guy character (who I assume is meant to be seen more simply as just totally irredeemable)!

However then I came up with another interpretation of The Terminal - that it represents purgatory. Only relatively briefly for the stalled in transit, but always purposeful, Victor but rather for all the staff working there amongst the Borders bookshops. For example in that scene where Victor finally leaves for New York he makes it outside but that crowd of airport workers (the damned) remain stuck inside the building never able to leave (see also the way that many of the staff along with Victor hold significant events such as weddings and parties inside the terminal when they could always leave and go somewhere else, almost as if it is the only world they know any more). They may be able to physically leave at the end of the working day to go home but they are forever tied to that building for sustenance in a truly final way that Victor is not.

It is perhaps most obvious in the character of Gupta, since he has been driven to that particular menial job in that particular place to escape from the police. While his plane confrontation is smothered in syrupy sentiment there could also be the suggestion that he is finally able to leave the airport purgatory through choosing to face up to his past, something he'd never have done without it becoming necessary to help Victor become victorious.

It also impacts on Victor's romance with Amelia - we think the main stumbling block is that Victor is a countryless, jobless (or working class when he finally gets a job) nobody trapped in the airport and that is the reason why they'll never be able to become a couple, but it is eventually turned on its head to suggest that she is the one damned to adulterous relationships and frequent flyer miles as a dolled up stewardess. Their final silent meeting outside the terminal seems to show her realisation in particular that Victor is free and she never will be and so she has to let him go, rather than it being a simple rejection of him for his 'flaws'.
Last edited by colinr0380 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

#14 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Aug 26, 2008 2:29 pm

Coming off of Catch Me if You Can, which immediately cemented itself as my favorite Spielberg film (and hasn't budged), I remember being very excited for this one. But my goodness, it was such a middling affair. The set was obviously very impressive, and Spielberg did a great job at showing it off, but from the first moments until the most cornball, nonsensical ending to a non-Hallmark Movie of the Week ever (Who just says to a taxi driver, "Home"? Ick.) the movie had a lot of great ideas that, at a script level, were impossible for Spielberg to get off the ground.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Terminal (Steven Spielberg, 2004)

#15 Post by domino harvey » Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:11 pm

Is there any worse feeling than starting a film and realizing the central character is going to be doing a kooky impenetrable accent for the whole movie? I like Tom Hanks and this film made me hate him almost immediately. Some of the goofier aspects warmed on me as the film progressed, and I liked that the film grounded the highly unlikely romance between Hanks and Catherine Zeta-Jones, but overall this certainly gives Hook some serious competition for worst Spielberg film.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The Terminal (Steven Spielberg, 2004)

#16 Post by colinr0380 » Sun Jan 10, 2016 3:02 pm

That reminds me, what did you think of The Walk domino?

I've just checked and the interesting 1994 documentary A Great Day In Harlem (all about the meeting of jazz legends for one photograph, that object that gets used for Hanks's McGuffin in The Terminal) is up on YouTube

User avatar
Rayon Vert
Green is the Rayest Color
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: The Terminal (Steven Spielberg, 2004)

#17 Post by Rayon Vert » Sun Jan 10, 2016 3:50 pm

domino harvey wrote:Is there any worse feeling than starting a film and realizing the central character is going to be doing a kooky impenetrable accent for the whole movie? I like Tom Hanks and this film made me hate him almost immediately. Some of the goofier aspects warmed on me as the film progressed, and I liked that the film grounded the highly unlikely romance between Hanks and Catherine Zeta-Jones, but overall this certainly gives Hook some serious competition for worst Spielberg film.
I agree it's a terrible film. Spielberg’s (relative) winning streak in the last few films before this ended with this return to old habits and bad form. This reminded me of Moscow on the Hudson, with a similar sentimentality. The material is pedestrian to start off with and the first hour is at least "competent". But then things just go from mediocre to worse and worse as the predictable romantic subplot is thrown in and the thing fizzles out over a long 2 hours that’s much too lengthy for this kind of material. I gave this a D- and Hook an F, so we're of similar minds here. (I gave the last Indiana Jones an F too.)

Personally, I find Spielberg of the most irritatingly confusing filmmakers ever. He can make films (Jaws, Close Encounters) that are absolutely amazing and among my very favorite of all-time (like top 5), quite a few I find quite strong (Schindler, Ryan, W. of the Worlds, Poltergeist which I consider "his" film), but a solid half of his output suffers from so much bad taste and judgment that you wonder how the same person could have made all those films.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Terminal (Steven Spielberg, 2004)

#18 Post by domino harvey » Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:11 pm

Colin, I haven't seen the Walk, and it's not high on my list, but I imagine I'd gladly watch it over this again!

Rayon Vert, Spielberg is indeed far more uneven than his reputation suggests, though I must confess I liked the fourth Indy movie far more than the third!

User avatar
Rayon Vert
Green is the Rayest Color
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: The Terminal (Steven Spielberg, 2004)

#19 Post by Rayon Vert » Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:29 pm

domino harvey wrote:Rayon Vert, Spielberg is indeed far more uneven than his reputation suggests, though I must confess I liked the fourth Indy movie far more than the third!
No problem there, that one is pretty dismal in my eyes too. :) I liked them as a kid, but in retrospect only the first stands up.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: The Terminal (Steven Spielberg, 2004)

#20 Post by swo17 » Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:41 pm

The second is actually best!

User avatar
John Cope
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true

Re: The Terminal (Steven Spielberg, 2004)

#21 Post by John Cope » Sun Jan 10, 2016 7:15 pm

swo17 wrote:The second is actually best!
I second that.

beamish13
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:31 am

Re: The Terminal (Steven Spielberg, 2004)

#22 Post by beamish13 » Sun Jan 10, 2016 7:51 pm

Hook certainly has more redeeming facets that Always, The Terminal, The Lost World: Jurassic Park or Spielberg's truly horrific segment from Twilight Zone: The Movie. John Williams' score is among his very best, the cinematography by Dean Cundey (why oh why can't Spielberg go back to him or Allen Daviau?) is gorgeous and it's got some great design work and visual effects (along with The Rocketeer, it was one of the first films to use digital matte paintings). There are some absolutely terrible sequences, like Peter's origin flashback/the Battleship Potemkin homage, pretty much all of the scenes in London and the baseball game in Neverland. It's probably because it was the first film of Spielberg's I'd ever seen, but it still amuses me and remains a guilty pleasure.

All three "real" Indiana Jones films are incredible, IMO.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The Terminal (Steven Spielberg, 2004)

#23 Post by colinr0380 » Sun Jan 10, 2016 8:59 pm

I seem to remember Sight & Sound running an article in the mid-2000s (2006?) that was trying to build a thesis that Spielberg had just created a '9/11 trilogy' with The Terminal, War of the Worlds and Munich. I'm not sure if I could buy that idea even then, or the idea it would have been anything that conscious and concrete on Spielberg's part, but I do remember finding the article interesting in suggesting all three of the films were about responding to upheavals and forced displacements (you could even throw Amistad into that too though, so it is perhaps a wider Spielberg theme than 'just' a 9/11 one)

I like the first and third Indiana Jones films the best though do concede that Temple of Doom has some of the most striking set pieces, especially the opening musical number. But it also feels scrappily made (the special effects in the minecart chase), too focused on stringing standalone set pieces together at the expense of sustaining a narrative by other means, and a bit uncomfortable in all of its culture clash stuff. Plus its got a really nasty, to the point of vicious, sense of humour that really jars in a 'family entertainment' piece (And I perhaps perversely described Human Centipede II as "surprisingly amusing" last week! Though it is perhaps working in similar territory to Temple of Doom in terms of incongruous brutality that the audience is meant to view with amused, maybe even callous, detachment!)

But I guess I mostly prefer the other Indiana Jones films as all these years later I still feel as if I have tinnitus after effects from Kate Capshaw's incessant screaming!

User avatar
Randall Maysin
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: The Terminal (Steven Spielberg, 2004)

#24 Post by Randall Maysin » Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:53 am

John Cope wrote:swo17 wrote:The second is actually best!

I second that.
Thirded, thirded, thirded!

Goddamnit Colin0380, I was going to do a little Randall Maysin post about the cruel comic tone of Temple of Doom! It's almost like its a Richard Lester film or something (except it's actually a good film) - so atypical for Spielberg. All I can add is that Temple of Doom is easily the most generally artful and beautifully visually-imagined and gorgeously shot film in the series, or indeed of Spielberg's entire career, which is really saying something.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: The Terminal (Steven Spielberg, 2004)

#25 Post by DarkImbecile » Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:27 am

Though I pretty firmly disagree, I'm not going to make a whole thing about how much better Raiders and Crusade are than Temple of Doom, but I'll be multiple-gods-damned if I let the suggestion that Crystal Skull is better than anything this side of ISIS and Ebola go without disputation. I never understood the way Star Wars fans my age felt about the prequels (which I hated, but didn't feel personally aggrieved by) until Crystal Skull was released. How Spielberg could stray so far from everything that made the earlier films work is inexplicable to me.

Post Reply