Critics’ reviews

The Terminal (2004)

11 reviews from 11 publications. Critics’ score 64: 5 positive, 5 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of The Terminal

64
Positive
5
Mixed
5
Negative
1

Most critics find The Terminal a charming, lightweight fable that leans hard on sentiment and largely gets away with it. The praise clusters around Tom Hanks: the reviews call his performance subtle, inventive and touching, and several think he carries the film. Spielberg’s fluent handling and the airport set, realised down to its ordinary, bustling detail, draw approval too, and more than one critic describes the film as buoyant or feelgood without apology.

The reservations gather around sweetness and slightness. Several critics find the film overlong, its central conflict thin, its romance the least convincing element and its emotional payoff falling short. Slant Magazine calls it inconsistent, with perceptive moments undercut by crude slapstick, and Radio Times faults Spielberg for avoiding the story’s harsher realities. The spread is wide: verdicts run from warm to outright rejection, with The Guardian dismissing it as irritating, over-sweet and empty, and objecting to its brand-name product placement.

Variety
13 June 2004 · Scott Foundas
80*

Foundas finds the film a buoyant, spirit-lifting fable, though its conflict is slight and a late subplot feels out of place. He praises Tom Hanks’s understated comic performance and the film’s optimistic outlook.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Ian Nathan
75*

Nathan finds the film an elegant, caustic fable whose humor and sentiment are more distinctive than its romance. He especially praises Tom Hanks’s subtle performance and the film’s graceful visual craft.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
14 June 2004 · Mike Goodridge
75*

Goodridge presents the film as an unabashedly sentimental feelgood heartwarmer. He praises Spielberg’s fluent craft and ability to move viewers.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
18 June 2004 · Kenneth Turan
70*

Turan finds the film a charming, consistently amusing diversion, though its attempts at emotional and romantic payoff fall short. He especially praises Tom Hanks’s inventive, energetic comic performance.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
18 June 2004 · A.O. Scott
64*

The article is identifiable as a review, but its verdict cannot be confirmed from the blocked page. The accessible text provides no reliable detail about what the critic praised or criticized.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· DC
64*

The page identifies itself as a review, but the review text is unavailable. Its verdict and any specific praise or complaint cannot be determined from the accessible content.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
16 June 2004 · ★★½/4 · Keith Uhlich
62

Uhlich finds the film frustratingly inconsistent, with perceptive moments undermined by crude slapstick and confused ideas. He praises Stanley Tucci’s performance and singles out the bar scene with jazz saxophonist Benny Golson as a standout moment of calm.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★ · Alan Jones
60

Jones finds the film affecting and amusing, but not fully convincing. He particularly praises Tom Hanks’s performance, while faulting Spielberg for avoiding the story’s harsher realities.

Read the full review →
Total Film
3 September 2004 · ★★★ · Total Film
60

The critic finds the film a beguiling, charming feel-good fable, though overlong and overly sweet. They praise the meticulously realised airport set and its ordinary, bustling detail.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
3 September 2004 · Peter Bradshaw
20*

Bradshaw dismisses the film as irritating, over-sweet and ultimately empty. He singles out its brand-name product placements and contrived feel-good moments for criticism.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
10 September 2004 · Josh Morrall
85*

Morrall finds the film thoroughly enjoyable, with its relaxed pace giving the characters room to develop. He particularly praises Tom Hanks’s touching performance and the supporting cast’s memorable subplots.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate