I saw "The Terminal" yesterday and it was very good IMO. I had to chuckle and give my DH a tap, when Fodor's guidebooks were featured prominently by Tom Hank's character. Good publicity for Fodors, yes? Judy ;-)

Probably a paid-for product placement.

Yes, that's right -- your standard paid-for product placement. Most movie production companies rake in big bucks accomodating strategic advertisements such as that.

It's hard to believe that the airport in the movie was not real and entirely created as sound stages in two 747 hangars.

The true story on which the film was actually based is a very strange one. Here is a link:

http://csmonitor.com/2004/0621/p11s02-almo.html

KS452, thanks for the info, that was a fascinating article. I did not know it was not filmed at JFK! I never saw so amny adverts for differant products, it as an advertisers gold mine IMO. But it was a dear movie nevertheless. Tom Hanks was wonderful in that role. Judy

I have a question for those of view who saw the movie. I saw it on the first day it was out being a HUGE Tom Hanks fan...in fact my friends kid that if Rita Wilson is ever murdered, they'll have to know where I was at the time to make sure I'm not the one!

Anyway, back to the movie, one thing that bugged me is that quite often the top of Tom's head, and some of the other actors were cut. I can't believe and I hope that Steven Speilberg wasn't trying something new, because personally it distracted me from the actual story of the movie. I'm hoping that it was my theater that somehow had the reel badly placed in relation to the screen.

Anyone else noticed that?

Maybe they'll do a sequel and feature some "Fodorites!"

There was an article in Travel & Leisure (I think) a couple months ago about this and it was the only reason I saw the movie. All of the shops and such, like Hudson News, Starbucks, Sbarro, all got product placement out of that. Interesting that Spielberg traveled to various large int'l airports to research in order to make his look "real".

>>one thing that bugged me is that quite often the top of Tom's head, and some of the other actors were cut. I can't believe and I hope that Steven Speilberg wasn't trying something new<<

Nothing new about this technique-- goes all the way back to silent films--I remmber it particularly in Dreyer's "Passion of Joan of Arc." (from 1927 or so)

A more famous story of the technique--studio honchos were concerned in viewing "Bus Stop" (or was it "The Misfits"?) that the top of Marilyn Monroe's head was cropped out in intense closeups. The director, Josh Logan, responded: "I have already established the existence of the top of her head in previous scenes."

Usually it seems that directors use this technique so that yu can feel as if you are intimately inside the feelings of the character.

Oh, I know that cutting off people's head is nothing new, but I've never noticed Spielberg do it before. It was really distracting, because it wasn't just in close-ups, which I would have no problem with, but it was in long shots as well, in one scene, Tom's head was cut off from his eyes on, in fact, I don't think you even saw his eyes, I can't see a reason fro

Oops, pressed "post reply" and didn't mean to.

Anyway...Tom's head was cut off from his eyes on, in fact, I don't think you even saw his eyes, but you could see his feet, I can't see a reason for that kind of shot. As I said before, it was very distracting and took away from getting involved in the story for me because I kept trying to figure out if the theatre had it wrong.

Product placement is the means by which many films raise the funds to make the movie, and many smaller budget independent films would not survive without it....

I ended up seeing it last night, after I had read your comment, Lyb, and it gave me an added dimension to the movie, thanks.

Yes, SS did cut off the top of Tom's head alot and the sweeping camera made me dizzy sometimes too. I think that the shots and the length of the movie
were new tricks he is using to lend an importance to his comedies or dramadies.

I thought Hanks did a good job and he took his acting seriously which add made it more enjoyable. CZJ did her part well, if you can believe that she would give TH's character the time of day. She is beautiful, isn't she (did she have some work done?)

The custodian stole the movie though (I noticed that his head wasn't cut off).

did anyone besides me think that this movie was about 20 minutes too long?
I enjoyed it and recommend it but I thought it could have moved along faster, in general.

Yes it was way too long, the premise was not that complicated to have to have it shown over and over for over two hours, I think 45 minutes could have been sliced and kept a better pace, Oh why won't Steven listen to me?

HBO did a short on the making of the movie. Making the faux terminal was quite a feat. They said SS didn't see it until it was all done, so he could experience the whole thing.

Just curious to see if Fodors products get a "Terminal" boost ;-)!

I didn't think it was too long, but then again I'm biased, because I could watch Tom Hanks for hours on end. That's probably why I was irritated that his head was cut off, I want my entire Tom!

Catherine is absolutely beautiful, when I grow up, I'm going to look like her.

If you visit LA, go to Malibu, Tom is seen around the area and the restaurants all the time, I guess they live there, you could "approach" him!

Interesting letter to the editor in one of Seattle's alternative weeklies, <i>The Stranger</i>. Scroll down to the last letter, under <b>HANKS FOR NOTHING</b>

http://www.thestranger.com/current/letters.html

An excerpt...

&quot;[<i>The Terminal</i> is] based on the true story of Merhan Karimi Nasseri, an Iranian man who was forced to leave his country for political reasons. He was on his way to England, where he had relatives, when he was mugged on a train. The robbers stole his passport and papers, but not his plane ticket. He got on the plane, and flew to Paris, where he had to go through customs. When customs found he didn't have any papers, they said he couldn't leave the airport. They also said he couldn't get back on a plane without his papers. . . . So he's been living in the Charles de Gaulle airport for over a decade, and in fact is still there right now.&quot;

Product placement/special promotional or relationship-type branding . . .

I just flew LHR-&gt;IAD and some of the UA flight att's were wearing square The Terminal buttons.

The new United livery is pretty cool, BTW. Can't wait to see the flick, it's supposed to have some of that Lost in Translation vibe.