|
Vantage Point - Pete Travis A pretty thin but entertaining movie that really doesn't have any reason to have its gimmick and didn't really explore what the gimmick could provide. Still, the movie progressed briskly even though you are often exposed to the same scenes over and over so it wasn't too bad. Needless to say, the movie presents itself as a mystery and the greatest enemy of such movies is the trailer. The trailer does a little damage but left enough intact to keep interest. The good news is they get a lot of talent in front of the camera who deliver in varying degrees. I'll probably never get tired of watching Forest Whitaker so that was good. Some of the other name actors are better used than others. The plot is thin but the mechanics of the crime are occasionally clever so it was fun to watch play out. In a lot of ways, I was reminded of Snake Eyes, another thin movie that is overwhelmed by its gimmick but still entertaining. Call it a 3/5 for a good time at the matinee.
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2008 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
I would like to say that your choice of tag is excellent, considering that it contains the most memorable repeated line from the movie. (edit: it says poo poo post when you search for it) Forest Whitaker is underutilized here, and parts of the movie border on the ridiculous. Terrorists who just bombed a public gathering swerving to avoid a little girl? Come on. It seems, though, that underutilized is the best Forest Whitaker (and Dennis Quaid and the guy that played the president) could hope for here, since the alternative seems to be one-dimensional, like the ex-Special Forces Mr. "where's my brother" and a host of other bit characters who we get no development from. However, it still manages to be entertaining by virtue of exciting cinematography, especially in the car chase scene (which contains another semi-ridiculous moment, but a more forgivable one in context). The Rashomon gimmick helps drop a few pieces into the puzzle early on, but doesn't live up to its potential and ends up annoying more than anything. Despite that, once you get to the point where you're thinking "I'm going to snap if they do that rewind poo poo one more time", they go on with the movie and the pacing at this point is excellent; fast, but smooth. 3/5. MercuriusHG fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Feb 23, 2008 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2008 06:49
|
|
|
I just got back from the wonderful 7:15pm showing of Vantage Point and I have to say that I was not disappointed in this movie. It is true that some of the bits border on ridiculous. However I do understand that the writers I am sure have somewhere in the script that terrorists are humans too. So without saying too much on with the review. The story tales Dennis Quaid who could have rather been played by Harrison Ford minus him asking to get off his plane or asking where his family is, as a Secret Service Agent who was shot previously in an assassination attempt, but is back on the job. However he is a little jumpy. The time rewind does not get old as it happens a handful of times and shows a different perspective that opens up bigger pieces of the puzzle until you know what is going on. Matthew Fox has a smaller part in the movie than I expected since it was touted as him starring in the film, but focuses on Dennis Quaid's character more then any other person. Over all the reveal was a bit slow, but once it got going it moved well with the pacing. I was caught off guard by several surprises and they did a good job revealing pieces at a time to keep things fresh. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2008 07:32
|
|
|
“Vantage Point” is a political thriller powered by a gimmicky plot device worthy of Fox primetime. Occasionally entertaining but never smart or believable, the movie’s plot is clever beyond its means. The story is set in Salamanca, Spain just minutes before a speech from an American president (William Hurt standing in for el Presidente Bush) joining the United States in an historic alliance with the Arab world against a presumably monolithic terrorist threat the likes of which we’re incredibly unlikely to see in our lifetimes. As you have probably guessed, terrorists are present among the crowd of onlookers and protesters and quickly dispatch the US president live on the news (with producer Sigourney Weaver onsite), followed by a bomb in a public square, killing said onlookers and protesters. If things were this simple, of course, there would be no movie. So the film rewinds twenty minutes with a quickly tiresome effect and shows us the same event from the perspective of the secret service agent charged with protecting the president (Dennis Quaid), who observes some strange events leading up to the attack, including movement in a supposedly abandoned building. A camera he momentarily confiscates belongs to an American tourist (Forest Whitaker), who gets his own twenty minutes. Another man, an undercover cop he tries to detain (Eduardo Noriega), escapes from custody and receives his own chunk of movie. So on and so on. Each time the films pulls us back, we get another facet of the action, another plot revelation, another narrative. I won’t reveal the plot here, but it’s unnecessarily convoluted and riddled with idiotic problems and contingencies. Cobra Commander has executed plots less ridiculous. If real Muslim radicals ever get this sophisticated they’ll need a secret island skull fortress and an army of giant robots. The film is curiously apolitical, presenting an alternative present where the president supports the war on terror but idealistically refuses to break to law to take down would-be assassins. Almost refreshingly, the film doesn’t attempt to understand political realities or underlying motives, taking its busily plotted mayhem at face value. The good guys (president, loyal bodyguard) and bad guys (freshly unloaded from “True Lies”) are clearly demarcated, and despite its cinematic pretenses the story gets wrapped up neatly in a car chase and a couple of shootouts. Even the premise, a summit to end terrorism, is pure action hokum. “Vantage Point” is being marketed as a “Rashomon” story — Dennis Quaid has even invoked the Akira Kurosawa film by name in interviews — but whereas “Rashomon” attempts to illuminate, “Vantage Point” uses its narrative strategy as a thriller gimmick, wasting the potential of its premise on cheap thrills and “hair raising” revelations. “Rashomon” presented one story with divergent narratives, showing how different people can interpret a single event, a rape and murder in the film, in radically different ways. The premise, which was novel when “Rashomon” came out in 1950, aimed to challenge the very idea of an underlying, knowable reality. It says, in effect, that any single event can shoulder several interpretations and that without an objective observer there is no objective truth. This was a neat idea that both post-modernists and legal scholars could and did take to. However, “Vantage Point” isn’t even bold enough to borrow this now somewhat musty conceit, instead telling only one story from different vantage points, hence its inspired title ha ha. As I watched it, I kept expecting the director to pull away one last curtain that would upend audience expectations, something brave, challenging, crazy, but the film isn’t hiding an Ace. The bad guys are exactly who we expect them to be, conforming to stereotypes that were stale in 1997, the plot is the impossibly ingenious product of Script Writing 101, and the heroes are clearly identified right from the start. Nothing is unexpected, nobody challenges our preconceptions, and no event in the film makes us think its complex form is hiding a complex idea. “Vantage Point” is as densely plotted and shallow as an episode of “24.” 2 stars. I've made a psycho call to the woman I love, I've kicked a dog to death, and now I'm going to pepper spray an acquaintance. I mean, what's happened to me? Love Rat fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Feb 28, 2008 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2008 06:46
|
|
|
I agree with most of what BranceMulliganPI said, but it's enjoyable even as a "popcorn movie". The rewind gimmick annoyed me more than anything (no, seriously, we get that it's noon again after the first couple of times), the terrorists' plot is hilariously contrived ("ha ha, we are so much smarter than the silly Americans and we know exactly what they are going to do"), and the deus ex machina ending was really, really unnecessary. Nevertheless, it's a decent action movie, even if it doesn't do as much as it could have with the "multiple perspectives" gimmick. 3/5.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2008 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
It was a better movie than I expected. I agree that the rewind gimmick stopped exactly at the spot where I was thinking "ok that's enough" so that worked out well. I think for the pacing of the movie they did an alright job of backstory on most of the characters, except Whitaker. He seemed to be really upset by something involving his kids/family but they never really explained what it was. Excellent car chase scene, coming close to Ronin's. There are some points to the plot that came fairly obvious but I was honestly not expecting Matthew Fox to turn traitor. Just didn't see it coming. The only part that really pulled me out of the movie and made me laugh was the guy actually shooting someone by his palm pilot. But laugh in a good way, not in a "gently caress this movie, it's so unrealistic!" way. It was just a good action flick. Not every movie needs to shock you with a twist, or make you think about the world around you. That's what the pretentious crowd wants you to believe. Just sit back and enjoy a better than average action movie. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2008 12:16
|
|
