Let me start out by saying I had no real intentions of seeing this movie. But free tickets for a free screening at the directors Guild, nothing to do for two hours, and there I was.
The lights go down, the curtains open and the movie starts. 15 minutes later I'm searching from my Vantage Point for how many people I will have to step over in the dark to get the hell outta there. But I'm with a friend, so I drop it, give in and just go with the flow. Trouble is, there is no flow what-so-ever.
The film starts with William Hurt (who has now struck out), Dennis Quaid (who should have never been given a bat), and Sigourney Weaver (once the love of my life, now a woman with pink eye) converging on a summit in Spain, for which President William Hurt is to give a speech. Weaver, a Director for GNN is barking orders to her cameramen and reporter (who delivers lines like at her first audition for a two bit Soap Opera) while a crowd gathers.
In the crowd is the normally impeccable Forest Whitaker (but in this is a slightly more talkative guy from the Green Mile) filming the entire event on his DVCam.
Now, to tell you more will give away the film. Only because you've figured the entire thing out within those first 15 minutes. It's that predictable.
But I'll tell you this. Vantage Point is shot, looks and feels like a two hour "Fox Event" with limited commercial interruption. It truly looks as though "Free" was really how the makers intended this to be viewed, from the comfort of your home, microwave and toilet accessible.
No less than five times, the filmmaker makes you watch the same scene of the first act from the Vantage Point of each of the title players. Problem is, you never actually get their Vantage Point. You simply go back to the beginning and see the same damn thing from a slightly different angle with another actor as the central character, sort of. A better use of this device would have been to put us into the mind and life of each character as it leads up to the main event. Excluding ALL extremities that would be UNSEEN by that character, allowing only the myopic view that most of us have as we make our way. But allowing for that chance that in this one place, circumstances allowed for the peripheral and normal behavior in a crowd, certain people, occurrences and peculiarities would somehow stand out, or just simply be a part of the back drop of events happening without knowledge until the event thrust itself upon you at once. If that didn't make any sense to you, then you should see my problem with this television show movie.
Example: In Whitaker's Vantage Point, he is following after two Secret Service Agents who are chasing down a suspect with guns drawn firing into crowded Spanish streets. He gets on to a bridge to get a better view for himself and his camera and watches as they corner the suspect across the street from them and open fire, the suspect falls to the ground.
When the scene replays from Quaid's Vantage Point, who finds himself smack dead in the middle of the very same scene, and is fact a part of the cause for the suspect falling to the ground, those two Secret Agents are nowhere to be found. They never ever appear has the scene goes on for much much longer.
For a movie that is so obviously fashioning itself after the Bourne series, it completely misses the mark by a length unmeasurable in its vastness. This movie is HORRIBLE! 45 minutes of "The Shield" is a better use of time, and I hate that show. But at least they try to be believable. What happens in Vantage Point is so far out of the range of plausibility that it test the limits of suspension. Which is something that the subject manner provides limited room to suspend in.
Do yourself a favor and stay far, far away from this one.
Recent Comments