Tom Hanks plays a man stuck in an airport in “The Terminal,” and the movie wants you to believe that comedy and tragedy can live side by side. They mostly don’t.
Hanks plays Viktor Navorski, a traveler from a country that no longer exists who arrives at JFK Airport with a broken passport. He cannot leave the terminal and he cannot enter the United States, so he stays put, sleeping on benches and eating food he buys with money from a bank machine. The setup is simple and strange enough to hold attention for a while.
Trailer, via Paramount Movies.
A Simple Setup
The film opens with Navorski’s arrival and quickly establishes the rules: he is not a criminal, he is not a threat, and he simply has nowhere else to go. The government officials who deal with him treat him as a problem to be solved, not a person. That tension gives the early scenes some weight.
The problem is that the premise is thin. Once Navorski is settled into his routine, the film has little left to do beyond showing him doing things that are slightly out of place. He eats at restaurants, watches TV, and tries to communicate with customs officers who speak a different language. None of this builds toward anything larger. It simply repeats itself.
Hanks Carries It
Hanks does what he does best: he plays a man who is both bewildered and determined. His Navorski is patient and polite even when the system around him fails him. That patience is the film’s core appeal. It is also the thing that keeps it from going anywhere.
The supporting cast includes Stanley Tucci as a customs officer who becomes Navorski’s unlikely ally, and Catherine Zeta-Jones as a flight attendant who helps him along the way. Their scenes are pleasant, but they are not essential to the plot. They exist to give Navorski someone to talk to, not to push the story forward.
The Comedy Problem
“The Terminal” is pitched as a comedy, but the humor is uneven. Some jokes land because of Hanks’ timing. Others fall flat because the film is not sure whether it wants to be funny or sad. The result is a tone that shifts without warning, leaving the audience unsure of how to respond.
There is a scene where Navorski dances in the terminal, and it works because it captures the absurdity of his situation. There is also a scene where he is told he cannot leave, and it feels hollow because the film has spent too much time playing the situation for laughs instead of letting the stakes breathe.
The Political Question
The film raises questions about immigration, bureaucracy, and what it means to be stateless. Navorski is a man without a country, and the film asks the viewer to consider what that means in a world where citizenship is taken for granted. This is the film’s most serious thread, and it deserves credit for attempting something more than simple entertainment.
But the film never fully commits to exploring these ideas. Instead, it retreats to sentimentality and a happy ending that feels earned by neither the plot nor the characters. The political question is raised, but it is not answered.
The Ending
The final act of “The Terminal” rushes toward a resolution that feels rushed. Navorski gets his papers back, the government officials who mistreated him are punished, and he is allowed to leave. The ending is neat, but it feels like a compromise between what the film wanted to say and what audiences expect from a Tom Hanks movie.
It is a satisfying conclusion in the moment, but it leaves the viewer with nothing to think about afterward. The film’s attempt at depth is abandoned in favor of a clean wrap-up, and the result is a film that ends before it has finished saying anything.
What Works
If you are looking for a film that does one thing well, “The Terminal” does it. Hanks is excellent throughout, and the premise is clever enough to sustain a short running time. The film is also visually pleasing, with the terminal serving as a character in its own right. Its scale is small, but its execution is polished.
The film also benefits from a strong sense of place. The terminal is a closed world, and the film treats it as such. The details of the space — the restaurants, the customs desks, the benches — are rendered with care, giving the film a consistent visual identity that keeps it grounded even when the story drifts.
What Doesn’t Work
The biggest problem is pacing. The film is overlong, and it spends too much time circling its own premise instead of moving through it. Scenes that could have been brief and pointed stretch into filler. The middle section loses momentum entirely, and the film never recovers.
The supporting characters are underwritten. Tucci and Zeta-Jones are talented actors, but their roles are thin, and their scenes together feel like set dressing rather than character development. The film is about Navorski, and everyone else exists to serve him, which limits the range of the story.
The film’s attempts at comedy and drama sit uncomfortably next to each other. The tone shifts without warning, and the viewer is left feeling like they have watched two different movies that were never properly joined.
Ranking the Elements
Here is how the film’s strongest elements stack up:
- Hanks’ performance — the best reason to watch.
- The terminal setting — a consistent and atmospheric backdrop.
- The political question — the film’s most ambitious thread.
- The ending — a neat but unsatisfying conclusion.
- The middle section — filler that drags the film down.
Final Word
“The Terminal” is a modest success that never quite reaches greatness. It is a film with a clear idea and a talented lead, but it lacks the discipline to execute that idea with precision. The result is a movie that is pleasant to watch for a while, but forgettable afterward.
It is not a failure, but it is not a triumph either. It sits somewhere in between, a film that is easy to recommend to friends and harder to defend to critics. The score reflects that balance.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.
