The Terminal

What saves Spielberg's lastest film from tail-spinning into blatant stupidity and boring predictability is not the big man's directing, nor is it the comedic lead performance from Tom Hanks. It is Stanley Tucci, who plays an on-the-rise airport executive who gets stuck with taking care of Viktor Navorski. He has a substantial part that is essential to the film's plot and Viktor's character development, and thankfully (unlike what you'd usually expect from this kind of Spielberg drama) he is not another case of 'simply evil', but an interesting and decently developed character.

As a Spielberg film, The Terminal is something of a misfire, and a huge disappointment considering his unlimited scope as a director. Not only am I a fan of his, I am a fan of ridiculous and cheesy movies that finish with large crowds of people celebrating - and that is exactly what The Terminal is, so I figured I would enjoy it. But near the conclusion of the film, for some reason Spielberg falls flat on his face and delivers no magical sense of euphoria, only an itching sense of dissatisfaction - you keep expecting a pinnacle moment, but it just moves along at a moderate pace, and then ends.

Hanks is fun as the grounded Viktor Navorski, but feels like he's spoofing his own character throughout and can't be taken seriously. His airport friends are the most likeable personalities in the film, and as usual Spielberg has brought in tremendous underrated talents and break-out stars to take these roles. You might recognise Chi McBride from I, Robot, or Kumar Pallana from the Wes Andersons films, or Diego Luna from Y Tu Mamá También.


But what really destroys The Terminal is Catherine Zeta-Jones. Usually satisfactory in her roles, and especially good in 2002's Chicago (which won her a best supporting actress Oscar), here she is given a dreadful character with even worse lines she is forced to utter. Not that her whiney, irritating portrayel makes things any better.

The true life tale of Viktor Navorski would work well as a documentary, or even a political drama at that. But as an overblown 'romantic' comedy - though admittedly not without its charms - the story just doesn't work, nor was it neccesary for the jazz father storyline to be added in. Much more satisfying ways of finishing off the story could have been found. **1/2 out of 5.

The Day After Tomorrow

If global warming were as unlikely a notion as an alien invasion, a movie like The Day After Tomorrow would be discussed more for its destructive action sequences (tornadoes flatten Las Angeles, tidal wave floods New York) than for its political statements. But due to mounting controversy over how our government has been handling the global warming threat – an issue touched on in Emmerich’s film - many have commented on how much more the film means now then it did when the script was first concieved. But enough has been said on the subject, and plenty more will be said in the future, so for the time being I am going to focus my (very late) review on the film itself and not what it says about our current way of life.

The inspiration for the film originated from a book, The Coming Global Superstorm, that Roland Emmerich found in a library while working on another movie, and from which he took the basic ideas and created a movie. No doubt he put the more serious issues of the book aside, in order to create what we all know he's really good at - a disaster movie. And thankfully, as a disaster movie, The Day After Tomorrow is far from a disaster - in fact, it's a lot of fun.

One of the things that originally attracted me to the film, apart from the ultra-cool trailers, was the cast - made up of fantastic emerging talent Jake Gyllenhaal, veteran actor (and recently robbed of an Oscar nomination for Far From Heaven) Dennis Quaid, and even Emmy Rossum, the love-interest for Gyllenhaal's Sam. They all do not disappoint, and their performances often improve the more boring 'emotional' scenes of the film.



Sadly, the advertising for the film was misleading - there are no scenes in London, or Sydney, or Paris - in fact there are only two major destructive sequences throughout the movie, which is predictable but a big-let down. But at least those two are truly exhilirating, and impossible to fault visual-effects wise. Only problem is, the rest of the film can't live up to the standards set by Emmerich's last big disaster film, Indepence Day, and by those two sequences that had been so overhyped everyone seemed to forget about the other two hours of the film. Emmerich tries to make the talky scenes interesting, but despite some moments of good comedy, he fails.

Plot holes, inconsistencies and sheer silliness also mar the film's credibility - which wouldn't matter if it was a straight action blockbuster, but Emmerich really wants you to care about the character's and the situations they are in, which is impossible if you can't take the film seriously, even in the slightest.

Ultimately, despite some fun action and a few suprises along the way, The Day After Tomorrow fails as a film - though it does succed as a spectacle. Welcome back, Emmerich, now get out of our sight.

*** / *****.