Vantage Point
Movie Review
"Vantage Point"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: B+
Rating: PG-13
Released: Friday, February 22, 2008
Directed by:
Cast:
I'll tell you up front that I love movies that show multiple perspectives of the same event, and I love movies that mess around with timelines. When a film shows something, then jumps back in time to show it again from a different point of view, I am as delighted as a child. "Vantage Point" does that with a terrorist bombing, and every time the bomb goes off and the clock resets itself, I smile. If that is the wrong reaction to have to a terrorist bombing, then I don't want to be right.
What you get from "Vantage Point" is a lot of vigorous actors -- Dennis Quaid, William Hurt, Forest Whitaker, et al. -- doing vigorous work in the service of a crafty, fast-moving, well-told story. Directed by Pete Travis and written by Barry L. Levy (the first feature credit for both), it feels like an episode of "24" (or, for that matter, like Jack Bauer himself): energetic, lean, and efficient, with no excess fat.
We begin in Salamanca, Spain, where a historic anti-terrorism summit is about to be capped off by a speech from U.S. President Ashton (William Hurt). First our perspective is from the news control van, where the director (Sigourney Weaver) and her crew fill us in on whatever backstory we need -- including that one of the Secret Service agents guarding Ashton is Thomas Barnes (Dennis Quaid), who took a bullet for the president last year and has been a little skittish ever since.
So it must be deja vu for Barnes when Ashton's speech is interrupted, rudely, by someone firing two shots into him. Panic fills the crowded plaza as Barnes and his fellow agent Taylor (Matthew Fox) scramble to get the president to an ambulance and to find the shooter. Moments later, a bomb goes off -- and the movie pauses, rewinds, and says "23 minutes earlier...."
The story begins anew, this time from Barnes' perspective specifically, and ending once again with the bomb. Then we go back again and follow a Spanish cop named Enrique (Eduardo Noriega), then an American tourist (Forest Whitaker), the president himself, a mysterious local (Saïd Taghmaoui), and so forth. Each retelling reveals new facts. Dialogue we heard in the background in one segment is given new context in the next. Little things make you go "hmm..." at first (why can't Barnes reach his command center on the radio?), then make sense later.
As is nearly always the case with these things, the conspiracy as it's eventually explained is outrageously elaborate, the type of scheme that requires the evildoers to have some pretty serious foreknowledge and to do an awful lot of lucky guessing. The dialogue is often pedestrian, too, with lines that are either old clichés (a betrayed man crying out, "You used me!") or laughably expository ("Your brother spoke very highly of your special forces training").
The effects of those deficiencies are offset, however, by the thrilling pace and by the strength of the cast. Hammier actors might have ruined it; these old pros take things seriously -- a crucial element in getting the audience to suspend its disbelief, given how implausible the whole story would be in the real world. The movie's all about how you can see something with your own eyes and still not know what really happened, and I'm happy to let it mess with my mind.
Grade: B+
Rated PG-13, a little profanity including one F-bomb, lots of non-graphic violence
1 hr., 30 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 15 comments
February 22, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I don't know if you've seen 11:14, but it's storytelling structure sounds similar to this movie. I would definately recommend it; I had never heard of it before I rented it at random one night, but it does have a few big name actors, and it's just a fun little movie.
February 23, 2008 at 4:12 am
Wow Eric, you're in the minority on this one. I don't plan on seeing it for the reasons you gave in the second to last paragraph.
February 24, 2008 at 12:02 am
Rob, pardon my being from Idaho, but how's Eric in the minority?
February 24, 2008 at 9:22 pm
We just saw this last night and loved it. I had to concentrate on relaxing afterwards because I was so tense with anticipation while watching the movie. I'm glad we went. It was a great movie!
February 25, 2008 at 7:41 am
Four of my friends saw this on Saturday night, and they didn't like it . . . so I wasn't going to watch it. BUT now that I know you liked it, I've changed my mind. We disagreed on Cloverfield but agree on most everything else, so I'm taking your word for this one. Plus, how could this cast be wrong, seriously?
February 25, 2008 at 8:47 am
Sorry, Rob D., but you are in the minority. I whole-heartedly agree with Eric's review and grade after seeing this movie a couple of days ago. It is a great flick. I was enthralled and drawn in from the first few minutes. There are some logical leaps that were necessary in order to make the plot gel as well as it did, but then, that is the case with all movies.
The long and short of it is that this movie was great. I highly recommend it. I, too, had to force myself to calm down after the credits rolled. Awesome.
February 25, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Eric's in the minority because every other critic out there has disparaged this film a great deal, a lot of it for the same reason's Eric explained in the second to last paragraph. Also, the movie has a supposed plot twist that they give away in the trailer.
February 29, 2008 at 11:22 am
I don't remember the trailer very well, nor do I remember a huge twist, but I was surprised by the revelations made in each vantage point. It did feel like 24 for the big screen and I quite enjoyed it.
I will say though, it was very violent. I don't think I'd see it again because of that. I knew there was a shooting and a bombing, but holy cow! I'm just glad that we were spared the gory details, if you will.
February 29, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I am terribly cynical about movies in any case, but the extreme coincidences in this movie were just too much. And we just didn't enjoy seeing the same scene over and over. By the fourth time, our theater audience was laughing and groaning.
The good news: it was better than Wild Hogs, that awful John Travolta motorcycle movie that also had a well-known cast. I'll give it that. And our popcorn was good. Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend it. Sorry Eric, usually I agree with you.
February 29, 2008 at 8:05 pm
For the first time I disagree with you Eric. [SPOILER WARNING] The storyline of this movie is rather thin: terrorists want to kidnap the president and use a bomb to distract the secret service - they fail. All the other stuff, the timewarps, the multiple viewpoints etc, are just to distract us from the fact that the movie really does not have a plot. Yes, the mean looking lady did it and -ooh- she used two men to plant her bomb. When I saw the movie, people left the cinema after the third jump back in time. Three more were to follow.
March 6, 2008 at 7:00 pm
I liked this movie, it was exactly what the name of the movie said , a look from several vantage points and the acting was good, the plot was entertaining although a bit stressful ..... if you want an hour and half of entertainment, this was it !! No more no less !!
March 11, 2008 at 11:48 pm
I thought this movie was a lot of fun even if it wasn't particularly smart. My biggest criticism is with Dennis Quaid's performance, which I thought was distractingly bad. He was supposed to be skiddish, but he came across as bumbling and dumb to me.
I would agree that the previews gave away an interesting plot twist, but I think that twist might have been too silly if I wasn't aware of it beforehand. I would have felt manipulated.
I did laugh and groan about the fourth and fifth time the movie started over, but ultimately I thought it was fun and had a very satisfying ending (the car chase was awesome!)
March 19, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I was very disappointed by this movie and I am usually a very forgiving sort, i.e., my tolerance for unbelieability and coincidence is very high. I have to agree with Jenny and Philip.
September 2, 2008 at 10:55 am
I'm usually rather skeptical about this type of movie but i loved this one from the word go. what it lacked in dialogue and plot, it more than made up for in style and pace.
Gotta agree with you Eric, different perspectives, messing with timelines, i'm a sucker for it.
November 15, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Sorry but I really have to disagree.
This is the only film that has nearly bored me to sleep. My friends may have enjoyed it, but after the 3rd or 4th rewind I wanted to walk out. Watching the same thing over and over again is a bore.