MoviePro.net

We have taken some photos of "Vantage Point". They represent actual movie quality.

• Tedious Disappointment posted on 29 August 2009

  Vantage Point is a unique film that suffers from the very thing that makes it unique. Seeing events unfold from several different "vantage points" sounds clever but, in reality, it seemed tedious and shallow. NONE of the characters have any possibility for development in this format. When any emotion or character development is attempted (ex: Forest Whitaker's character) it seems unnecessary and blatantly hammered in to the wrong place. Another problem is that each rewind offers no clues you can follow or solve. Everything is revealed over time but it's presented to you, there's no intrigue. The pace was crisp and the car chase was thrilling (even if totally implausible) but the resolution was far too convenient to sell. Overall, a disappointment.

• Bourne meets Groundhog Day. posted on 29 August 2009

  This movie has the Standard Jason Bourne Chase In A European City down pat. Refreshing use of flashbacks and restarts demands you pay attention so I guess the young slackers in the audience were forced to play Brickbreaker on their cell phones during the parts with no car chase or explosions. However, the ending was way out of line. A well organized terrorist group carefully plans the coup of the century, coordinates a mammoth conspiracy, carefully orchestrates mayhem, outwits the police and secret services of numerous countries, murders dozens, carries out their plans to clockwork perfection, and as they are getting away MAKES THE STUPIDEST MISTAKE POSSIBLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES! The last action is so out of character for a trained killer mastermind, considering what stakes he was playing for, as to begger belief. I would have rated this higher, but the ending ruined it for me. Siqourney Weaver had quite a small role considering her resume, but Dennis Quaid nails his part.

• What a movie! (contains spoilers) posted on 29 August 2009

  The reason I didn't give this movie 5 out of 10 was because the ending was so cheesy it made me cry with laughter.I won't give an in-depth over view of the plot for that can easily be found on this site or in other comments. The movie itself is similar to an episode of 24. A thriller, that would have been a lot better if not for the cheesy moments and numerous floors in the story line.To give it credit it does try something different by telling the story from 8 different points of view. But the way it does this, by getting to an explosion, rewinding and then starting again, got repetitive by the 4th time. I was sat wondering will this repeat for the next 3 hours. Fortunately for the second half of the film it continues in a normal chronological narrative.The Ending! Contains Spoilers!What the director and/or writer was thinker I do not know. The ending is amazing and in the cinema I was in, the whole audience was in laughter - Ending as follows - A young girl who was separated from her mother during the commotion of the assignation attempt, is found by Forest Whitaker, who takes her to a police officer. As the terrorists are getting away in an Ambulance, with the kidnapped president in the back. Out of no where this young girl who apparently has ran away from the police officer, is suddenly walking in the middle of the road and by another coincidence her mum who is near by, sees her and starts running towards her. At the same time the terrorists drive down the road towards the little girl. The terrorist then swerves to avoid the little girl, toppling the ambulance over. Dennis Quaid (a secret service officer) who was involved in another chase just happens to be there and finds the president in the Ambulance, he even calls out to him even though there was no way he could have know him to be there. I half expected Rambo to jump out and say, 'live for nothing or die or something' and kill the remaining terrorist. I'm not making this ending up and is worth watching this film just for the unintentional comedy ending.

• American arrogance…Vantage Point posted on 27 August 2009

  I love the correlation between the Arab's comment of American arrogance making us think we are always one step ahead of the world and the fact that this film falls into the same exact trap. I understand the concept of multiple viewpoints on the proceedings, as well as the rewinding to show us those differences, however, if you are going to do it, only show us what we missed the first time. Not to spoil anything, the sequence of a character throwing a bomb underneath the presidential podium is shown four times as it is seen by four people…are you kidding? We know the person did it the first time, gloss over it and get to what we DON'T know. A gimmick can work if it is utilized to full effect. However, I can't really complain about that because the entire concept of the film is false advertising. Eight views, one truth? Not really. More like eight people with plot progression story lines that add up to the one truth. These people aren't seeing different things and coming up with different conclusions, they are only giving us the full picture rather than incomplete snippets. The tricks involved are great, in theory, but it seems that the filmmakers needed a lot of padding for the short script and decided hiding information and/or cutting away when the truth is apparent in order to show it later would be a more fun way to tell the tale.My real problem is the fact that we as an audience are played with at every moment. We are teased with answers and made to sit through a new character's account that holds 75% old information with only 25% new before we are actually given what we should have received twenty minutes ago. Where is the cream filling? Vantage Point ends up being all flash with no center to hold it together. It is a real shame because the plot and conspiracy going on are well thought out and planned. Maybe if it was a straightforward short film it would have been great, but as a feature, recycling footage and manipulating what's on screen in order to extend the runtime, it just plain fails. Also, the ending is real corny, clichéd, and obvious.I wonder how much of its trouble comes from a very extended cutting period. I saw the first trailer for this film in June 07 and it only came out yesterday at the end of February 08. Something is fishy there. Maybe they cut all the backstory, because honestly, there is absolutely none on display. We are never told why all this is happening; why people's allegiances have been changed; why a hero secret service man is "punishing himself" for what he did, (considering we only know he took a bullet for the President, we have to assume he did something after to make it appear that he might step out of the line of fire the second time); or why the orchestrator of it all is seemingly working on his own. The movie shows us just enough to get by and then throws a new twist so that we forget we haven't really been told anything. I guess the fact that America and Arab nations are at war and trying to come to a peace accord is enough background for us to believe this would all happen so quickly without any other nation's support.I can't disregard the work completely, though, because this cast is amazing. How they got everyone involved, I have no idea. Dennis Quaid does his usual stern face of contemplation, but he plays a secret service agent always on the job, so it is acceptable. Matthew Fox is a lot of fun especially later on when he lets loose a bit and has some fun. Forest Whitaker is probably the best thing the movie has going for it and shows that he can elevate any role given to him. He is pitch perfect with every emotion he is made to elicit after the tragedies that unfold in front of him. There are so many other people that it would be tough to get to them all, but mention for Edgar Ramirez and Saïd Taghmaoui (both desperately underused in Hollywood) and new face Eduardo Noriega needs to be made.In the end, Vantage Point becomes a by the numbers blockbuster that takes its possibly intelligent plot and dumbs it down completely in order to be served up to the lowest common denominator of the American public. Arrogance becomes the word of the moment as Hollywood has become so much so that they decide they know what's best for the country, churning out mindless action, brainwashing society into feeling that any movie that asks for thought is just boring. With a smaller budget, a more unique vision behind the camera, and the guts to let some carnage and desperation be shown, this might have been great. Instead we are shown a story that flips the supposed winner and loser roles. Where the terrorists think of American arrogance, it ends up being their own egos that ruins them. They think they have beaten democracy with their guard down, but in actuality they just turned a blind eye to the fact that one man could single-handedly have the fortitude to take down an entire cell by himself while his fellow agents think he is crazy, and a little friendly coincidence that every person he runs into has video footage of the exact moments necessary to put the puzzle together. Man those terrorists can be so stupid.

• Horrible Movie posted on 27 August 2009

  I spent 15 dollars to see this movie with my father and for the first time ever i walked out of the movie theatre feeling like i was conned out of my money. There is maybe 30 minutes of actual plot, Its like they shot the movie, found out they didn't have enough filmed, so they decided to replay the same scene like 6 times, by the 3rd time you just say to yourself enough, get on with the movie. About half the people in the theatre walked out after the 4th reenactment of the same scene. I did however finish the movie, thinking maybe it would have some redeeming natures. after they expanded the plot past the same event, it got a little better, but by the time the movie was over you think back and for an hour and a half the following happened; Man wakes up, protects president double, president double gets shot, stage blows up, body guard figures out its a double, goes after a rouge agent thats responsible for the shooting, catches guy, and it just so happens that after the real president attacked the driver who abducted him at the exact place the agent happened to be, end of movie... At least if this movie had been sent to straight to DVD(as it should have) for 15 dollars i could have bought the movie and been able to burn it after wasting 2 hours of my life.

• Terrifying and heartening posted on 25 August 2009

  The brilliance of Vantage Point is underscored by the fact that its director, Pete Travis, had never directed a feature film before, just TV movies and miniseries. That lack of experience is completely invisible in this surprisingly taut and creative work of sheer genius.In Vantage Point, the President of the United States is assassinated moments after taking the podium to give a speech on antiterrorism in Spain. The event is then replayed numerous times through the eyes of various characters, and each replay gives the audience additional insight as to what has actually happened. It's not just a matter of determining the chain of events, it's a matter of figuring out who is involved in the shooting, and to what extent.Dennis Quaid plays Thomas Barnes, a Secret Service agent who's being eased back into the rotation; the previous year, he had foiled an earlier attempt on President Ashton's life by jumping in front of a bullet. Now he's on the job in Spain, keeping a watchful - yet nervous - eye out for potential problems. Matthew Fox plays his comrade, Agent Taylor, who's been the buffer for Barnes with the other men on the team. Forest Whitaker is an American tourist in the crowd during the speech, taping the proceedings with his Handicam, and Sigourney Weaver is a tough-as-nails news-program reporter who watches the events unfold before her on TV screens, helpless to do anything.At times, watching this movie feels like a particularly violent punch to the stomach, because so much of the movie - but not all of it - is shot in cinema verite' style, and you honestly feel like you're watching raw footage. And this filming style yields a movie that's just packed with searing emotion, taking you from shuddering lows to absolute euphoria. Whether you're looking at the events through Howard's camera or on the monitors in the GNN newstruck, you simply cannot turn away from the devastation. It's a testament to cinematographer Amir Mokri that the fast-paced action and unmitigated violence lend such an aura of reality to the proceedings that you feel as if you're watching the whole thing live on CNN at that very moment.As I said, the events are replayed through the perspectives of various characters, including Barnes and President Ashton (William Hurt), and each time we learn a little bit more. What events occurred before the Big Speech? Did anyone know there was a potential threat against the president's life? We need to piece things together ourselves, as if we are investigating the crime detachedly. It's worth noting that in the earliest scenes, the atmosphere within the courtyard in which Ashton is to make his speech is markedly different from that outside the complex, where people are basically hanging him in effigy.The entire cast is outstanding, but particular notice should be given to Quaid, as this may be his best work since Traffic, perhaps ever. Quaid has always been a poor man's (or younger) version of Harrison Ford, but even in his heyday he was never Mister Action Guy. Here he's a vulnerable human being, a shell of a man trying to recover both physically and mentally from the previous attempt on the president's life. Thomas Barnes is no superhero, and because Quaid is so good you never feel certain, not even nearing the end of the movie, that he's going to save the day and make everything all right. He might, and he might not. The bad guys might actually win.It's no surprise, too, that the perennially awesome Whitaker is outstanding here. His Howard Lewis is in Spain basically to get away from his wife, from whom he's estranged, in an effort to recharge and figure out how he wants to proceed - and, of course, to witness an historic speech. It's not implausible that an American tourist would be in the audience, and if there's one thing we Americans like it's our gadgets. Lewis is the common-man counterpart to Barnes and Ashton, a Johnny-on-the-spot at a critical, horrifying moment.Had this movie been released later in the year (or even late last year), it would likely have been a major Oscar contender. From my vantage point, it seems the studio got this one wrong. Vantage Point is extremely well done, evocative, exhausting, and ultimately rewarding exercise in realistic film making.

• Not sure how anyone could like this movie. posted on 25 August 2009

  It was so awful that I had to text my best friend to vent while I sat there, dying to walk out. I think I've lost more brain cells sitting through that nonsense than Robert Downey Jr on his hardest night of partying! I'll give it a one, because I can't give it a zero. For that 1, I will give it credit that Matthew Fox is in it and he is HOT! Yep, that's how bad this movie is that the only credit I can give it is for the sexy star. OK, basically all of the characters are glorified extras. The writing was an insult to my intelligence. The plot, I didn't care about any of the characters, I wanted them all dead, including the little girl. Do I sound bitter? Well I am, and you will be too. What a waste of a talent such as Forest Whitaker to play the tourist with the video camera. Sigourney Weaver, another glorified extra. Matthew Fox who is amazing on Lost, again, well you get the drill. Forest Whitaker was there basically to showcase the Sony video camera. Also the cell phones, wow, how has Bush not been assassinated when so many of us have access to Palm Pilots? I was angry at this movie. I was wearing a hat and covered my eyes turned to the side and went to sleep after about the 3rd rewind. It was either that or get arrested for murder of my best friend for not letting us walk out. Also the camera work and rewinding made me dizzier than Cloverfield. After the second rewind the entire audience was complaining, which just kept getting louder as they kept happening. This is what Variety has to say about it and I couldn't agree more, "… a 23-minute movie dragged out, via some narrative gimmickry, to a punishing hour and a half." Cloverfield seems like Oscar material next to this film. The Bourne Film's seem like Shakespeare. Watch at your own risk of coming out dumber...

• Flimsy Characterization destroyed the Vantage Point posted on 25 August 2009

  Vantage Point displayed potential in the concept and its inherent qualities to weave a mysterious plot, but it was the character rot that pulled down the vote. I felt that the film had a spectacular action flick appeal, that kept the viewer watching, and even the most pretentious minds wondering what was going to happen next. But I simply could not get over the abominable characterization. The characters lacked a certain human dynamic that gave them a robotic feel. It wasn't the consistent time warp that made me angry, but how "singled-celled" the characters were. I felt that Forest Witaker certainly underachieved, not necessarily poorly acted, but poorly written. Probably a combination of the two. Whitaker was a make it or break it part, and he didn't sell it. It almost seems unfair to be so critical, because I felt like it stood up well against other movies in its genre. It kept me guessing and some of the action scenes were very well done, its a movie that should be rented on DVD.

• A Real Strtech, But Good Diversionary Entertainment posted on 25 August 2009

  Well, I doubt anyone will fall asleep watching this film. That's the best feature of this movie: it's very entertaining and once you start it, it's tough to put down. Being only 90 minutes, it's a quick hour-and-a-half. It also helps to know that you are going to get the story told from a handful of angles, so expect to see similar scenes running over and over, each with a few new wrinkles added. Also, expect a lot of the action scenes that are both fun to view but not very credible. My favorite - spoiler alert! - of that is when "Thomas Barne's" (Dennis Quaid) little blue car is totally bashed in by a huge 18-wheeler. Not only that, the car is smashed up against a brick wall. It should look like a metal pancake. Seconds later, Quaid emerges from the wreck and is running down the street like a football halfback shooting his pistol! He hardly has a scratch on him, and the limp disappears after about three strides!Credibility-aside, along with a few cheap shots with placards early on by a crowd which protesting the U.S. at an anti-terrorist summit (they prefer terrorists, I guess!) and the usual politically-correct characters, it's a fun ride not to be taken seriously but as a short entertainment diversion.The twists are fun to see, too, as the same-but-similar story slowly unwinds and all the pieces finally fall into place by the end.....even though, how they do manage that is by stretching things a bit!

• Not Bad for a Mid Week Movie posted on 23 August 2009

  I rather enjoyed Vantage Point. Obviously it's not a 'great' movie, in the deeply meaningful, Oscar worthy, life enhancing sense. But it's pretty well made, modestly exciting, slickly edited and it brightened up what was threatening to be a dull, mid week evening in a way that didn't tax my poor brain too much. A Friday Night Movie. Even though I cheated by watching it on a Wednesday.The plot revolves around an assassination attempt on the US President played by William Hurt (looking uncannily like Gerald Ford) at an anti terrorism conference in Salamanca Spain. Why Salamanca I couldn't guess, as it looks like a place so impossible to guard effectively that it would be the last place on earth to host 150 assorted world leaders. But Salamanca it is – or it's supposed to be. I have read that most of it was actually filmed in Mexico – and the movie presents the attack from 5 different view points, played out over a time period of 23 minutes. Dennis Quaid is a twitchy Secret Service agent, Thomas Barnes, recently recovered from taking a bullet for the president six months previously. Will he hold up to the stress? Can he still be relied on? Let's just say there are few surprises.After the presidential shooting, there are two bombs, apparently to finish off the job completely, a ridiculous but nonetheless very enjoyable car chase through the streets of what purports to be Salamanca and many shots of Dennis Quaid grittily but attractively knitting his brow as he tries to work out who are the goodies and who are the baddies. Considering the way the man survives apparently unscathed after the bombing, shooting, a marathon sprint along the streets, a gut wrenching car chase and finally a wreck involving a truck, I can only assume he's auditioning to be the new Superman! All totally unreal of course, yet fun.The cast are all good; Forest Whitaker plays Howard Lewis, an American tourist whose camcorder provides vital evidence, Matthew Fox is an agent who is definitely more Secret than Special, as he may not be all he seems, Eduardo Noriega – looking tastefully soulful - plays a local policeman who is being cheated on by his girlfriend and is mistaken for an assassin, Edgar Ramirez is Javier, who has been blackmailed into helping the terrorists, and Sigourney Weaver is very good as a TV Co-ordinator (Producer? Director? I'm not sure what the correct term is, but basically she's in charge of the outside broadcast unit.) Unfortunately we barely see her after the early scenes, but it is at least good to see a middle aged woman in a serious role which doesn't involve her being someone's wife or mother.There are a few twists and turns as the plot unfolds. All is not as straightforward as it seems, and as we watch the event from different perspectives, we see how the characters link together. Personally I thought the story telling style worked perfectly well. A good movie.

• Pulse pounding actioner posted on 23 August 2009

  It didn't really look that way from the previews (looked more like a whodunit) but it is. It's like SPEED or THE FUGITIVE in that way and like RUN LOLA RUN in it's structure. So if you like those films I'd say it's a safe bet for you. It also has a really great car chase scene and this is coming from someone who usually doesn't "get" those. During that whole sequence all I could think was 'how did they choreograph that?' because it had to be really precise. I mean the cars were almost dancing.You have a stellar ensemble cast here. Forest Whitaker plays a witness to the events who gets caught up in the whirlwind. I don't think I've even seen him run before so this was a little different for him. Matthew Fox and Dennis Quaid play secret service men. I was surprised how little screen time Fox had and if there is a star it's Dennis. I don't think it appeared that way in the trailer either. But mainly the whole thing was split up between all these different characters and their vantage points on this assassination attempt on the US president in Spain. William Hurt plays the president and I'm thinking I'm going to write him in in November. He just looks the part. Sigourney Weaver plays a TV producer who is a witness as she's producing the live coverage and for a minute I thought we didn't see her vantage point but her's was the first one we watched. We were watching along with her and I didn't realize we were already doing the multiple point of views thing. They all culminate at about the same point and once we've seen all of them the action continues from there into a perfect ending.This film really gets going right away and there is no time for a potty break. There isn't a lot of cursing, just a couple words here or there, and not too scary violence so people who watch "LOST" and "24" level action should be able to handle it. This is the sort of movie you used to only get in the summer.

• the Mujahadin tricked me into seeing this movie posted on 23 August 2009

  Went to see this film based on the movie poster -- yes, has a respectable cast; yes, features intrigue with some sort of "vantage point" twist. For this I give the producers the credit of having drawn me into the theater. No further credit will be given.The film starts out poorly. We have Sigourney Weaver resurrecting her pushy character from Working Girl working for an American news channel. Fear grips me along with a sense of impending doom -- I can tell already this movie was written by a team of hacks. We have blatantly prototyped characters and loud, obnoxious, American anti-Americanism from the get go.Mind you, I have nothing against anti-Americanism -- just don't make it cute, preachy or get it mixed up with a the-Mujahadin-is-out-to-get-us plot, (or attempt thereat).Vantage Point opts-out from giving characters credible reasons for their actions. Thus, we follow the vantage points of several complete idiots. Watch as each successive vantage point reveals new holes in the increasingly worthless plot. Embrace the mindlessness of it all, or just hold on there buddy, there'll be a big car chase eventually and then everything will fall into place! Well, maybe they won't fall into place, but wasn't that car chase awesome?

• Downright stupid posted on 23 August 2009

  This was truly dreadful, made worse by the good cinematography and occasional excellent acting, which simply made the dreadfulness of the premise and the plot more glaring. Does nobody ever question this stuff before it's released? All the way through I was waiting for the clever plot twist that would show the whole thing to have been an ETA plot cunningly set up to undermine the viewer's assumptions about Islamic extremist terrorism etc. Nope. The moral of the story is that the US secret service rules the world, kills the bad guys, rescues the good guys, and spare Americans save the little children.Why, in a European city, do the US secret service appear to have absolute jurisdiction and the freedom to shoot Spanish police? On what planet would a small Spanish-speaking child trust a fat American non-Spanish speaking stranger over a Spanish uniformed police officer? Why, while we're ranting, would any Islamic extremist "pop up" in both Beirut and Darfur? Have any of the writers read a newspaper recently? Does anyone involved in the film have a clue? And this is before we even get near the gaping plot holes (terrorist pats small child on the head who he is prepared to kill, then the entire ending rests on the same terrorist abandoning his whole plan in order to not kill the same small child). Not to mention the painful comedy acting by everyone except Forest Whittaker and the atrocious dialogue that actually had this sofa laughing out loud towards the end.Without any doubt the worst film I've seen this year.

• Black humor (Rambo) posted on 21 August 2009

  This film sucks, Another typical American Rambo film, kill all came back alone. Don't you ever buy blue Opel car better buy Yugo and Hollywood will add shine to it also.Bottom line: you can not kill or kidnap any American president no matter how claver you are, there will be always Hollywood and some Rambo to save them.This film sucks, Another typical American Rambo film, kill all came back alone. Don't you ever buy blue Opel car better buy Yugo and Hollywood will add shine to it also.Bottom line: you can not kill or kidnap any American president no matter how claver you are, there will be always Hollywood and some Rambo to save them.

• Nauseating and Corny! posted on 19 August 2009

  I left the theater nauseated and disappointed. Too much camera movement and corny rewinds. The plot was decent but poorly told. Although the concept of "different viewpoints telling the same story" has been used successfully in the past, it actually detracted from this movie. Add in the obvious computer generated crowds (repeated over and over) along with repetitive ticking clocks, corny rewinding, and repetitive scenes and you have one tedious, nauseating waist of time and money. Save yourself from this one.Pros: decent story Cons: Poorly directed, too much camera movement and close ups, unrealistic dialogue, unfinished CG, tedious chase scenes, corny clock and rewind scenes, boring repetition of segments, etc. etc.

• What could possibly go wrong? posted on 19 August 2009

  If you turn your brain off, this is an intriguing little thriller that builds suspense by keeping you guessing, with a high-adrenaline chase at the end. As soon as your brain kicks in, though, you'll be wondering about the following plot points (spoilers galore): 1. Terrorists entrust the most critical part of their incredibly complex scheme to an outsider they've blackmailed into it by holding his brother hostage. Considering all that they're asking the guy to do, this seems a little far-fetched, when there's no reason one of their own team couldn't do this themselves, unless they just plain ran out of terrorists. Maybe they could have used the TV cameraman who's also one of their moles, since his role doesn't seem that critical.(As long as we're at it: Let's kill the hostage before our plan is executed!) 2. On the other hand, there is a good reason for the female terrorist to romance a local cop: Because they assume he can get her bag through security when she asks him to bring it for her. Of course, this asks us to believe that the cop never notices that his girlfriend (I assume) is consorting with terrorists, even though he seems almost insanely jealous when he does spot her talking to some dude in the plaza (another problem with involving the random guy from point #1). Also, he'll never peek inside her bag or notice that he's carrying a bag full of explosives.3. No one in the Secret Service ever notices that one of the president's men is colluding with the terrorists in an incredibly complex plan which will require his involvement to the point of abandoning his duties and switching clothes to play a major role in their getaway, so we can assume they had to be in fairly regular contact. (On the other hand, we in the audience start to smell something fishy about him as soon as the plan starts going down.) Assuming in the first place that a terrorist mole could infiltrate the Secret Service and be assigned to the president's detail, since we never really get to know what turned the agent, if he was in fact a loyal servant from the start. This is the kind of plot device that always makes a lot more sense in the scriptwriter's mind than in the discerning viewer's.4. A lone gunman can always take out the president's entire secret service detail, except for the guys who run down the stairs without noticing one of their colleagues has just been shot one landing up.5. Even distracted as they are by the news and an explosion downstairs, you might expect the president and his aides to be alarmed by a gun battle breaking out in the hallway outside their room.6. Several times during the car chase Dennis Quaid's car seems to encounter obstacles that would translate into a wreck with serious damage, yet it emerges unscathed each time until it's finally sidelined by an 18-wheeler.Unlike some other posters, the bad guys swerving to avoid hitting a little girl in the middle of the street didn't faze me as much, perhaps because it might just be an instinctive move, perhaps because if you've ever actually hit someone with your vehicle, you'd know it could do serious damage to your vehicle, perhaps even to the point of disabling it.I'll still give it a five for keeping me intrigued about what was really going on (I kept waiting for them to explain the off-stage explosion that turns everyone's heads), then really annoying me when the big reveal proved the plot behind the gimmick was full of holes.

• Mixed emotions. posted on 19 August 2009

  Vantage Point to its credit is a taut, tense thriller. Although it is able to entertain for the duration of its running time it fails to deliver on a more sophisticated level.The concept of Vantage Point, seeing events from different character perspectives, although not novel is a refreshing change. The editing is crisp and sharp and the initial storyline has potential.The problem with Vantage Point is that the main character, Dennis Quaid, who is very good, is a stereotypical character and the supporting cast are very much the same. Together with some implausible moments and the ability to guess rather easily who will be the 'good' and who will be the 'bad' guy nullifies its entertainment value.Vantage Point is certainly worth a watch for it is an enjoyable, even exciting at times experience. However, its a real shame that it lacks depth both in plot and character and this leaves you with a sense of dissatisfaction.

• A linear plot for a nonlinear tagline posted on 19 August 2009

  Although the previews and synopsis would have you believe that this movie is shown in a nonlinear style, it is actually quite the opposite. And for such this comes down to the key necessity: Subtlety. This movie lacks of any such kind.They attempt the overused "rewind effect" to try to deliver the plot from 8 points of view, however in each rewind only a little bit more of the plot is revealed, most of which is something that happens after the end of the previous rewind anyway. They fill in the gap to the next plot point mostly with pointless filler and repeat footage from the same exact angle you saw it before. And about 3/4 of the way through the movie they just throw their rewind effect right out the window and go back to the more traditional linear character switching to deliver the remainder of the plot. The movie completely relies upon cut-off scenes that end by not showing something vital. Very cheap suspense.The only saving grace of the movie was the action. Very well acted, and choreographed (well, with the exception of the car chase). And the explosions and chaos well done. I only really wished for more subtlety in plot lines, because, well... once the movie was over, that was it. There was nothing more to the movie than what they plainly showed you. The plot itself was not even remotely believable. And I left the movie feeling cheated.Hope you enjoy it more than I did.

• Distracting due to its pace but ultimately quite unsatisfying posted on 17 August 2009

  At a political summit in Spain, the US President is to make a public appearance. Obviously the crowds pack in while the media swarms around with the secret service trying to keep everything tight and controlled. However a single shot marks an assassination attempt, with at least one bomb following it up. Within seconds what was calm is now chaos and with evidence and suspects thinning by the second, Agent Thomas Barnes has to try and work out what just happened based on what he saw – but the full story will only come from the actions and views of several of those involved.Like others have already said, this sounds like a great idea that should produce a mystery and action and, for a short period of time it IS a good film. The problem is that the gimmick of "points of view" isn't really that well delivered and in fact it isn't really true because it is not so much about people's memories or impressions of the event but more just we see the parts that each play in it at different times. So basically we have lots of characters involved and in turn we see what each of them did separately before later seeing how they come together – sounds like every other narrative structure to me. Except it isn't, it is just different enough to make you think that you are watching something fresh and new, whether it works or not. The thing is that it doesn't work in the way many viewers will want, even if it does work in regards the aims of the makers. You see, the gimmick of skipping back and forward in time doesn't really do anything of value narratively but it does provide yet more movement and "movement" is the thing that just about keeps this film afloat.Short and full of action, the film has a lot going on and will convince some that it is exciting and gripping. Others will see it for what it is, which is noise without a lot of substance and, like me, will perhaps find it easy to watch but, at the end, will be surprised by how little they care or remember about the film. I'm not convinced that Pete Travis was the best man for the job – not that he did badly but just that he is not an action director (looking at his resume) and this film needs someone who can do the Hollywood slick movement with ease – perhaps they thought he would effortlessly just be another Greengrass? The cast is better than the material deserves and, no matter how superficial the story or wasted the stars, at least they all try. Quaid enjoys his leading man role again and he does make a solid, grizzled action hero of sorts, even if his car chase is not that exciting or convincing. Fox is reasonably good but with this and Speed Racer I'm yet to see anything to really convince me that he can make the jump from Lost. Not entirely sure what attracted Whitaker but I suppose this is an "easy" piece for him after a few years of strong performances in Last King of Scotland and The Shield. Hurt, Weaver, McGill, Ramirez – hell, even Jones, are all reasonably wasted with very little to actually do – Weaver in particular must have turned up on set for little more than two days.Vantage Point is a fairly basic thriller that doesn't really do a great job of thrilling or satisfying. For 90 minutes though it uses its gimmick and its pace to carry it as fast as it can and, in this way, it distracts for that running time even if it never really engages or is satisfying as a product.

• Had so much potential but failed in the execution posted on 15 August 2009

  Put together eight points of view to find the truth of a terrorist plot. What an original and clever plot. I was really looking forward to this and the opening scene got me even more excited but after eight points of view where at least four didn't even need to be told (because they had no relevance whatsoever) I was over it. In fact the six stars just comes from the idea and the acting. Dennis Quaid was very good as the secret agent and William Hurt was also very good. Sigourney Weaver was good at doing absolutely nothing to the storyline whatsoever and Forest Whitaker was just wrong for the part. Matthew Fox was good as the double crossing agent and all the other minor characters were interesting but besides that the movie really fell flat on its face. The ending was one of the worst endings in cinematic history and some of the twists in the story were so pointless I couldn't care less what happened to the characters. Overall; 5.5/10