http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=11198

apparently, this was indeed based on a true story
take a look here.


http://www.snopes.com/travel/airline/airport.htm

There are two reviews of the movie here on DVDTalk. This one is four stars:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=11211

I can go with the first poster. It seems the whole review is based on the fact that the movie is completely implausible.

But anyway, it is just one person's view. Read a half dozen others and throw that one out, if you base your movie going on reviews.

From the review: Talk about completely misunderstanding the film. It's clearly a comedy. It clearly takes place in an absurd world. Why is this critic trying to insist on plausability and real world solutions to the film's premise? He probably hates Casablanca because there were no such things as Letters of Transit. Reminds me of the kind of critic who doesn't understand critical theory and just makes lists of "goofs" in a film and then declares the film awful based on all the goofs.

I can't agree with that. Sure there are comedies like "Dodgeball" or "Airplane!" for instance that take place in zany, absurd, unreal worlds where anything can, and does, happen. But I didn't feel that The Terminal was one of those types of movies. To a certain extent this movie, although it is a comedy, is rooted more in the real world. Now, if you are able to suspend your disbelief and get past that, fine, but I can see how for some it would be a problem with this movie.

I wouldn't say The Terminal takes place in absurd world like Airplane. To me its like the worlds in Wes Anderson films. They are strange for the purpose of humour, but the emotions are real. The Terminal isn't meant to be taken seriously.

Just watch Jaque Tati's film Playtime. Then come back and tell me how you feel about what you just wrote.

Well you do have to admit that for some people, those inconsistencies could be a major detriment to their enjoying the product. Not everyone can suspend their disbelief. Some people can't watch movies with mediocre special effects, others can't watch films that take place in more surreal or absurdist places. While some of us love Daivd Lycnh, I'm sure some would just say "wtf" and call his movies awful. But his review clearly states WHY he didn't like the movie, so if you don't carry his sentiment about these implausibilities, you can infer from there. The critics job is to explain why HE did or did not like the movie, which this guy did. Granted, I'd probably tell him to get over it, but I can see why someone can have trouble with this.