Vantage Point: There Is Little Point To This Vantage
I think that seeing events from different perspective is an interesting idea, especially in movies where you get pieces of the whole by seeing things from new angles. So why do I feel that Vantage Point, the newest exercise in puzzle cinema, was jerking me around? Maybe because it reveals pieces that we already know when the filmmakers think they have us by the scruffies? Maybe because the different perspectives do not give us any new substantial perspectives on things we see earlier that isn’t all wound up into the plot? Or maybe because it’s just a tedious and annoying movie?
This 90-minute movie ultimately revolves around 30 real-time minutes from seven perspectives. The scene is Madrid and there is a world-altering counterterrorist summit about to take place with the US President (William Hurt) spearheading the event. So, naturally, terrorist shoots him dead and blow up the summit. The first time you see the events from inside a mobile television unit covering the event with Sigourney Weaver shouting at her subordinates, the events seem to have a distinct eeriness to them. Unfortunately, each time we see the murder, it looses the weight of horror and becomes mundane.
We also see the events from a dogged Secret Service agent (Dennis Quaid) who had stopped another bullet for this president a year earlier. Then there’s an American tourist (Forrest Whittaker), a Spanish cop (Eduardo Noriega) who might or might not be apart of the plot. And there are the terrorists and an ex-special forces commando who has the biggest part in this whole ludicrous plot.
And then there is the “big twist” that is actually put on the trailers, which completely turns this quackish movie into an even dumber snooze. The entire movie feels like it’s kidding itself just how smart and cool it really is. What they don’t understand is that trying so hard to be either smart or cool doesn’t makes you either. Just look at movies like Basic that thought the same way and was pronounced dead in the water.
I have to be honest, the movie is not terrible, but it’s not good either. It does build action, especially in the third act that makes 24 look like high art. But unlike 24, it doesn’t build any sense of impending menace, especially since we keep being taken back to before the events take place and get more back story. It is in these “rewinds” that are most annoying. How on earth can you ask the audience to leave the excitement of a pandemonium to go back in order to follow another character, only to “rewind” again? Even worse, they leave to “rewind” in the worst spots. A character learns something important or sees something important and before we can find out ourselves, rewind! This is the reason I hate commercials while watching movies!
Director Pete Travis seems to have bigger ideas than he was able to implement into his movie. I’m pretty sure his pitch for Vantage Point might have been quite exciting to hear. But sometimes a complex idea has a way of coming off shallow, as too many filmmakers have found out recently. And the puzzle picture requires not only complexity, but also the kind of acrobatics that very few filmmakers really have the energy for. This movie isn’t an entire failure, but there is no middle ground for half-cocked movies that promise a spectacle.
All in all, I guess what I’m trying to get at is that most people who see this movie might be entertained, but if you are expecting the pizzazz of Memento or Mulholland Dr., this movie will leave you disappointed. The acting is wooden at best (Hurt the worst of the bunch), the screenplay is beyond stupid and the direction doesn’t really leave you with your adrenaline running at the speed it needs to be. And I hardly doubt anyone will perceive this movie any differently.
Grade: C-
This 90-minute movie ultimately revolves around 30 real-time minutes from seven perspectives. The scene is Madrid and there is a world-altering counterterrorist summit about to take place with the US President (William Hurt) spearheading the event. So, naturally, terrorist shoots him dead and blow up the summit. The first time you see the events from inside a mobile television unit covering the event with Sigourney Weaver shouting at her subordinates, the events seem to have a distinct eeriness to them. Unfortunately, each time we see the murder, it looses the weight of horror and becomes mundane.
We also see the events from a dogged Secret Service agent (Dennis Quaid) who had stopped another bullet for this president a year earlier. Then there’s an American tourist (Forrest Whittaker), a Spanish cop (Eduardo Noriega) who might or might not be apart of the plot. And there are the terrorists and an ex-special forces commando who has the biggest part in this whole ludicrous plot.
And then there is the “big twist” that is actually put on the trailers, which completely turns this quackish movie into an even dumber snooze. The entire movie feels like it’s kidding itself just how smart and cool it really is. What they don’t understand is that trying so hard to be either smart or cool doesn’t makes you either. Just look at movies like Basic that thought the same way and was pronounced dead in the water.
I have to be honest, the movie is not terrible, but it’s not good either. It does build action, especially in the third act that makes 24 look like high art. But unlike 24, it doesn’t build any sense of impending menace, especially since we keep being taken back to before the events take place and get more back story. It is in these “rewinds” that are most annoying. How on earth can you ask the audience to leave the excitement of a pandemonium to go back in order to follow another character, only to “rewind” again? Even worse, they leave to “rewind” in the worst spots. A character learns something important or sees something important and before we can find out ourselves, rewind! This is the reason I hate commercials while watching movies!
Director Pete Travis seems to have bigger ideas than he was able to implement into his movie. I’m pretty sure his pitch for Vantage Point might have been quite exciting to hear. But sometimes a complex idea has a way of coming off shallow, as too many filmmakers have found out recently. And the puzzle picture requires not only complexity, but also the kind of acrobatics that very few filmmakers really have the energy for. This movie isn’t an entire failure, but there is no middle ground for half-cocked movies that promise a spectacle.
All in all, I guess what I’m trying to get at is that most people who see this movie might be entertained, but if you are expecting the pizzazz of Memento or Mulholland Dr., this movie will leave you disappointed. The acting is wooden at best (Hurt the worst of the bunch), the screenplay is beyond stupid and the direction doesn’t really leave you with your adrenaline running at the speed it needs to be. And I hardly doubt anyone will perceive this movie any differently.
Grade: C-
And then there is the “big twist” that is actually put on the trailers, which completely turns this quackish movie into an even dumber snooze. The entire movie feels like it’s kidding itself just how smart and cool it really is. What they don’t understand is that trying so hard to be either smart or cool doesn’t makes you either. Just look at movies like Basic that thought the same way and was pronounced dead in the water.
boediger
Reply to this