Vantage Point (2008) User Reviews

The all-seeing eye

[phantomtristan · 6/10 · 22 February 2008]

As the Bourne series raises the bar for action films, and audiences balk at two-plus hour runtimes, the filmmakers of Vantage Point seem like they are trying to bring a fresh, new, unconventional take on the action/thriller genre. Though it may annoy some people, I felt the new take turns Vantage Point into a taut terrorist thriller.

The new take or approach is jumping right into the moment (everything is already planned out, people and weapons in place, etc.) of the action and then telling it from eight different points of view. This is where some people may be mildly irritated because after you see one point of view everything is suddenly rewound and shown from the next person's point of view (this is done six times) before they all converge into a thrilling finale filled with one massive adrenaline-fuelled car/chase sequence.

Because of the complex twists and turns of the plot and characters I will be brief, very brief actually, on the plot. It starts with a TV network covering a large gathering of leaders from all over the world (including the President of the United States) who have come together to form an alliance against the war on terror. At the beginning of this meeting the US president is assassinated as he takes the stage, and it begins replaying the assassination through all the different points of view. The editing must be commended in this film as it blends all the points of views so sophisticatedly you cannot help being engrossed, and the star-studded cast includes Dennis Quaid, Mathew Fox, Forest Whitaker, William Hurt, and Sigourney Weaver simply adds to everything.

In the theater I was watching some people called out their annoyance of "again?!" on the fifth rewind, which I find amusing as the filmmakers are simply trying to come up with something new in these sequel-ridden times. And probably as those same people say Hollywood is "out of ideas" they get angry when it tries something "different" and would rather go spend their money on Spider-man 8.

I felt Vantage Point was an intelligent thriller, and yes it had its' share of implausible plot points, but these were minor as the new technique makes you feel like you have an all-seeing surveillance system. I kind of felt like I was putting a puzzle together, piece by piece, and as you see a new point of view it adds more to the story and just when you think you have it figured out it changes again.

Surprisingly good from my vantage point

[Greenie123 · 8/10 · 22 February 2008]

I must admit I went into the theatre interested, but skeptical. Slowly, I got drawn into things, and by the time the we were at the fourth vantage point, I was fascinated by how all the stories interrelated with each other, and wondering the story would end up.

The acting is uniformly excellent, especially that of Dennis Quaid, who I had previously considered a mostly comic actor, but is very convincing here as a Secret Service agent.

The direction and script are also excellent, especially when you consider both are first-timers in the world of feature films. The script was not without its clichés, but I didn't see most of the plot twists coming, which I can usually spot coming a mile away in a film like this. There was one real groaner of a plot twist that you'd have to be an idiot not to see, but it goes by so fast that it doesn't really matter.

A lot of the audience in the screening I was at got frustrated by the repeated sections, obviously having no attention span. But once the third act of the film kicks into gear, everybody stopped complaining.

Speaking of which, the third act is the payoff which we've all been waiting for. Seeing all the plot threads converge in such a convincing matter was nice, as was the final action scene, which seems like it was plucked right out of one of the Bourne films. This comes as little surprise, since director Pete Travis and Bourne series director Paul Greengrass have worked together in the past.

As skeptical as I had gone in, I came out impressed. Not since The Bourne Ultimatum have I seen such a convincing, engrossing action thriller.

a gimmick film that delivers what it promises.

[dgranger · 8/10 · 22 February 2008]

What can I say? This film is a gimmick film that relates the same event through the eyes of eight different characters that each hold a piece of the puzzle. The film stops and rewinds back to 20 minutes before the event for each character. It gets a little annoying because each time it stops, the audience is left on a cliffhanger which carries the film's tension into the next character.

As for what the film promises, it promises a good puzzle, suspense and intense action. It delivers on all accounts. This plot has twists and turns and is completely logical. Half way through this movie, if you think you got it all figured out, you haven't got a clue.

The action is fairly balanced through out the film and keeps the film moving. The car chase in this film is one of the better ones I have seen in a long long time. It had some shots in it that I think were a small homage of the original The Italian Job (1969) car chase scene.

Even though I personally thought that some of the characters were paper thin, many of the actors gave strong performances that made the characters believable. Forest Whitaker was the best. I had a little problem with Dennis Quaid's character, Secret Service Agent Thomas Barnes, starting out as the thinnest of all the characters but he grows in the film. Of course, Edgar Ramirez, Saïd Taghmaoui, and Eduardo Noriega were right on and make the film (but not as much as Whitaker).

The premise of this film makes a refreshing change from the ordinary style of mainstream movies.

A Great Concept With Mediocre Execution.

[Matt_Layden · 6/10 · 22 February 2008]

Vantage Point tells the story of the assassination of the president of the United States from 8 different viewpoints. We see the people trying to protect the president, the media, civilians and the people taking out the attack.

Vantage Point's is Rashomon for today's audience, minus the talent and brilliance. The whole idea behind of Vantage Point is to tell the audience that everyone has their own perspective on things when in a crisis situation, then of course at the end it decides to tell us the whole story. This concept is really intriguing and could make a really intense action thriller. Vantage Point is indeed tense at times and has a really great car chase sequence, but the absurd plot and useless sub plots are too much for it's own good. It feels as if the film is trying to be to smart for it's own good.

We start off from the viewpoint of Sigourney Weaver and the media. She is the director of the station that is broadcasting the president. This is the perfect way to open the film because it is the closest thing that we, watching on TV at home, will get to see. The only information we know is what is shown to us. Bang, the president is shot, boom the stage explodes and then the film rewinds 23 minutes earlier to 12:00 noon and now we are seeing the event through the eyes of Dennis Quaid, one of the secret service agents protecting the president. The film tells everyone view in about 15 minutes or less, then rewinds to noon every time and then goes to another character. IT becomes very redundant and will no doubt get on people's nerves.

This is why the execution is not as good as it could have been. It could have been a new and innovative way of seeing things, but instead we literally see the events rewind and the clock strike noon 8 times. As repetitive as this is, it does keep things moving along nicely. The film never moves at a snails pace and it shouldn't. Since we know what happens, we sit there waiting for these things to happen every time. During Whitakers viewpoint I found myself sitting their simply waiting for the explosion to happen so it can get on with the story.

There are a lot of things going on in Vantage Point...a lot of things. Double crossers are being double crossed, think of the movie Heist. There are also dozens of characters, characters we never get to know. We get a quick back story on Quaid and know he 'took a bullet' for the president sometime ago and now he's back and that Whitaker has a family back in the States, but other then that we never get to know any of these characters or any explanation for their actions. Then again, that is the point of this movie. So it's safe to say the whole point of this movie is also its weakness.

That weakness is because of the script. There are many times when you have to throw logic out the window here, just to buy some of the things that happen. While the car chase scene is quite thrilling it would never ever happen. For one the streets are way to narrow and populated for these cars to be swerving in and out of. Also one of the vehicles takes a beating, yet keeps on ticking. It takes a giant truck to finally put it to rest. The subplots don't add anything to the film either. One character is doing things because the bad guys have his brother hostage. This subplot could have easily been taken out of the story and nothing would have changed. All you need to do is make the one guy simply be a bad guy instead of trying to save his brother and the same tasks can be taken out.

Vantage Point is not a bad film. Like Jumper I tried to like it, but there are just too many things about it that hurt it. It tries it's hardest to come off as a smart action thriller, but it's faults are too much to be forgiven. Enjoyment can be had, if you're willing to not take anything it shows you to be based on a certain reality.

A good concept gone awry

[Movie_Muse_Reviews · 6/10 · 27 March 2008]

One crime, multiple vantage points. Sounds cool right? Yes. But "Vantage Point" never really pulls it off quite how it sets itself up to. The result is a cool action flick with some clever storytelling that sort of fizzles in the end.

In "Vantage Point," the President of the United States (William Hurt) arrives in Salamanca, Spain to give a speech on global terrorism efforts and ties with Spain to improve them. He gets shot and then a bomb goes off killing many people. We get this story through the eyes of a variety of characters and by the end of the film know exactly what happened.

The cast is a solid mix of familiar and old faces. Dennis Quaid, Forest Whitaker, William Hurt, Matthew Fox (of LOST fame) and even Sigorney Weaver give this film the star power it requires. The terrorists are entirely new faces, which is no real surprise.

As the film first presents the vantage point concept, the first thirty or forty-five minutes develop a redundancy. You do get many new perspectives, but seeing the same events happen over and over again and the cheesy rewind sequences to establish a change in POV really gets a bit boring. Sometimes you're not really seeing something new, just the same old thing in a new way that doesn't really bring more insight into the plot. Sometime it does and it really helps the film, but mostly it's not the vantage points, but cutting the story off at pivotal moments and clues into the mystery so that when they're revealed in another perspective you can get excited. It's just good storytelling, nothing unique.

The film really loses its appeal, however, with the "final perspective." In fact, it's not really anyone's perspective. The writers sort of realized that adding five more perspectives to reveal the full mystery (which is what it would have taken) would really bother viewers and get absurdly repetitive, so they combined them all into a final twenty minute action sequence that is like any other normal action movie.

Was deviating from the concept in order to please viewers and keep the film short the best course of action? For this film, yes. Sticking to the concept would have made it bad considering the complexity of the plot. But even the ending can also be seen about 15 minutes prior to when it happens, so it's not really all that great. This film would have been better, however, if it could both stay true to the structural concept and please the viewer, which means first-time writer Barry Levy stretched his idea just a bit too far. ~Steven C

Visit my site at http://moviemusereviews.blogspot.com/

Thrilling and exciting picture set the city of Salamanca , Spain , where in a public square takes place extraordinary events .

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 3 November 2014]

US President Henry Ashton (William Hurt) is in Salamanca, Spain , accompanied by his security agents (Matthew Fox and Dennis Quaid as agent newly returned from previous wounds) , for a world summit where an international treaty dealing with the fight against global terrorism will be signed and which was highly promoted by the USA . Then an unknown sniper is able to shoot him and a bomb goes off in the square and it causes panic , destruction , mass confusion and hysteria . Meanwhile , TV Executive Rex Brooks (Sigourney Weaver whose role was originally written as a male but filmmaker changed it to a woman because he felt the movie lacked a strong female character) is shooting the surprising deeds . The attempted assassination of the American President is told and re-told from several different perspectives , as from a tourist (in the original screenplay, the tourist was a Russian , as when Forest Whitaker auditioned for a different role, filmmaker was so impressed that he rewrote as an American tourist) or a Spanish police (Eduardo Noriega) o terrorists (Edgar Ramirez ,Saïd Taghmaoui , Ayelet Zurer) and fourth is the president himself . At the end new vantage point is shown revealing additional details, which definitively completes the flick of what really took place during the incident and who was involved in the conspiracy.

Stirring as well as exciting film packs noisy action , thrills , suspense , explosions , violence , twits and turns . Thrilling film with a peculiar edition narrated under several sight points , as various minutes are retold, emphasizing different characters' actions and gradually, we discover who's behind the script . The studio originally wanted to shoot the entire film in Salamanca, Spain, but the local government refused to close the Plaza Mayor for nearly 3 months and only the scenes filmed from the air were shot in Spain , as production was moved to Cuernavaca and Puebla, Mexico . Nevertheless , Matthew Fox, Eduardo Noriega, Forest Whitaker and director Pete Travis attended the premiere, held in Salamanca, Spain, on February 12, 2008 and City Hall declared them "Distinguished Guests". The original script set the story in Madrid, but the producers wanted a more "exotic" location. The fact is revealed in some scenes, like the secret service guy who says they can't locate a single person among "5 or 6 million" (Madrid's population; Salamanca's is much smaller), or when the cop enters a Muslim neighborhood during the foot chase , as Madrid has one, but Salamanca doesn't . Very good production design by Brigitte Boch , when shooting was moved to Mexico, the production design team built a replica of Salamanca's Plaza Mayor, which is slightly smaller than the original . There happens an impressive explosion on the Plaza , it was filmed by fifteen different cameras under direction of excellent photographer Amir Mokri who makes a colorful and evocative cinematography . Moving and adequate Original Music by Atli Örvarsson .

The motion picture was compellingly directed by Pete Travis . He is a director and writer, known for Dredd (2012) , Omagh (2004) , End game (2008) , TV Henry VIII (2003) and Falcón (TV Series) 2012 , set in Sevilla , Spain . The precocious technical mastery displayed by Peter Travis in ¨Vantage Point¨ is magnificent and he delivers narrative fluidity , being helped by a splendid editor , Stuart Baird , both of whom carry out a complex story paced from multiple viewpoints . Rating : 7 . Interesting action film and it will appeal to thriller fans .

One question.

[Sirus_the_Virus · 7/10 · 2 August 2009]

Vantage Point is a very cool and interesting film. But it leaves me with one question and one question only... who were the people. By that I mean who were the people trying to assassinate the president? I know there were a few people in the group but why would they try to assassinate the president really? Was it for fun? Vantage point is about the president's assassination. But through seven points of view. For instance, agent Barnes(Dennis Quaid)is the president's(Willam Hurt) bodyguard. Sigourney Weaver and two other people in a newsvan witness it also. Forest Whitaker plays a tourist with a cam corder. I just named off a couple of examples. The last point of view is a spoiler, so I won't post it. Vantage Point shows all of the points of view. At the end of the film, it all comes together. Vantage Point is a short film of an hour and twenty-five minutes. Do to bad reviews, I wouldn't have given it a chance. I saw it on Starz one weekend and really liked it. I'm really glad I didn't miss out on it.

Take it for what it is, a good, entertaining film

[agkato · 8/10 · 23 February 2008]

Some reviewers make it out to almost be a B-movie, but it isn't, not by a long shot.

The story revolves around the assassination of the US president who is attending a counter-terrorism summit in Spain. The film is told from multiple viewpoints and the events that transpire within a 23-minute time frame, thus a Groundhog Day-like experience.

Vantage Point is really just an action film . . . pure and simple. When seeing this film, don't expect a complex and deep storyline; it certainly isn't that. The proper approach is to just take it for what it is. I liked this film because it had no pretensions. It didn't want to pretend that it needs to be over-analyzed by the viewer. There are no lengthy sub-plots and behind-the-back conspiracy pieces, no need to explain who is fighting for what cause. And if you approach with this frame of mind, then I assure you, you won't get bored or disappointed.

It's a movie that doesn't need to be analyzed ad nauseam. It doesn't care about needing to tie up lose ends and explain all the circumstances surrounding the assassination. Approach it from *that* "vantage point" and you'll appreciate it more.

Rewind

[ctomvelu-1 · 7/10 · 18 January 2009]

Dennis Quaid and William Hurt star in this action thriller with a twist (or better yet, gimmick): the events leading up to the attempted assassination of an American president who is visiting Spain are told from several individuals' points of view. These include Quaid as a Secret Service agent, Hurt as the president, Forest Whittaker as a camcorder-wielding tourist and Edgar Ramirez (a Javier Bardem lookalike) as a Spanish cop. Bruce McGill is the president's hawkish adviser. VANTAGE POINT is fine if you can take the constant rewinding of events to show them from each character's perspective. Personally, I would have preferred fewer rewinds. For my money, Whitaker's overly excited tourist walks away with the movie.

A Clichéd Mess That Loses Direction

[DaveDiggler · 2/10 · 22 April 2008]

The start of "Vantage Point" was so good that it actually got my hopes up as I thought I was going to be in for a good action thriller. It's too bad that after the assassination of the President (William Hurt) shown through the scope of a CNN type cable News broadcast (GNN- instead of a "C" it has a "G." Get it? CNN? GNN?) the story is pretty much over, so they add some action scenes and car chases because they're all out of ideas. Sigourney Weaver is very good in this five minute opening scene that throws us directly into the fire without any set up once so ever. It's just… BAM!! Even though we know what's coming- which is routine throughout the film- it's still a very effective start. Then, we get the same thing played back to us over and over again from a large quantity of people's perspective. Instead of becoming interesting it becomes boring and trivial. It's no longer effective. We've seen it all and we become increasingly more impatient. Even though everything is always not what it seems, and everyone is always looking at same thing and seeing something different we know where the film is going, but it drags in getting there.

The trailer gives away one of the huge plot twists in the film (I think there was supposed to be another, but that could also be seen from a mile away. Think- Rogue. Cliché? You bet.). The President used a double and it was he who was shot. Did the double die? We'll never know. I think the writer or director of the film forgot because of so many flashbacks. What does it want to do? They know they want to show the assassination of the President through the eyes of many, but as the plot expands to such wide extremes it just becomes muddled in its own fecal matter. Eventually the film is no longer about perspective, but about car chases and shootouts. This is where the plot holes come roaring in one after another and the overly done clichés continue. Dennis Quaid gives one of the worst acting performances of this millennium along with the guy from "Lost," who has such a big secret, both he and the writer can't wait to tell you. They hint at it long enough to actually make you wonder if they're stupid enough to go through with it, so you may doubt what they're going to do, because it's set up so poorly. You think they're trying to trick you, but trust your instincts. Expect terrible clichés and you'll know exactly where the film is headed.

The dialogue was horrendous. The coincidences were through the roof. The predictability starts in the trailer. I was laughing at it, literally, laughing at its terrible execution. There was no substance to this once so ever. It's like they got to a point were they were done with all the flashbacks and said, "Let's have a 10 minute car chase and a bunch of shootouts." I loved when the guy from "Lost" turns around after he's carrying the President off the stage and looks at Quaid and says "find that shooter!"

It's just so laughable. The car chase is terrible. For some inexplicit reason a little girl that Forest Whitaker takes a fond liking to is running through a highway- that for some odd reason isn't closed off during or after such an incredible event. An ambulance truck driven by terrorists are flying down the highway at her as she stands in the middle of the road screaming for about 30 seconds. It was like "Austin Powers" where they make fun of movies where they have morons standing in the road screaming for a long time instead of steeping back off the road and avoiding the oncoming car. As the little girl stands there screaming, coincidentally, the driver is preoccupied and not looking at the road (Yes, that cliché). When he turns around, he sees the girl in the street so he flips the truck instead of killing another innocent life. For some reason he tries to avoid her. This guy is responsible for killing a lot of people, but now he quickly grows a heart. Then Forest does something that is completely shocking. Not!!!! Just another cliché that has been done before. There's just nothing here to get excited about. It starts off good then continually get's worse and worse and by the end you'll find yourself watching some of the worst scenes in film history.

"The beauty of American arrogance is that they can't imagine a world where they're not a step ahead."

Interestingly enough this quote came out of this film and interestingly enough the filmmakers add to that "arrogance" of always being a step a head. Look who lives and look who dies when some of the people who don't look like they're going to live end up living. More Pro-American, Anti-Anyone else clichés.

"Vantage Point" is one of the most ridiculous films you're ever going to come across. Especially, when you're watching Dennis Quaid turn into Superman as he brushes off bullets, or when he jumps out of a car that was T-Boned into a building with him getting crushed in between the car and an 18 wheeler that weighs about 10 tons. He simply jumps out of the car, unscathed, and brushes off his shoulders. That's not a joke. That's actually what he does. This was more effective as a comedy and what made it so funny was that the filmmakers took it so seriously. This film is a joke. Another stinker for 2008 for Forest Whitaker to add to the heap of crap after his great performance in "The Last King of Scotland," which seems decades ago. Now he looks like a below average actor, which he might be.

For people who like thrillers, action and car chases

[zlufit · 8/10 · 16 February 2008]

I was lucky enough to watch it during an event of a company I work for. I really enjoyed this movie, because of it's editing, wonderful actors and full packed action.

The movie tells the same story from 8 different persepectives, most of them from a character view, makes the puzzle clear till the end. Some puzzle parts can be guessed but this makes the movie so fun to watch.

Matthew fox acting could be better, but the others are convincing. Cheers to Ayelet Zorer, an Israeli actress who surprises again with her beauty and acting.

If you like thriller, action and car chases all in same movie then this movie is for you.

Be Kind, Don't Rewind!

[zardoz-13 · 7/10 · 27 February 2008]

The adrenalin-laced, political conspiracy thriller "Vantage Point" depicts the shooting of an American president from eight standpoints. For the sake of simplicity, half as many perspectives would have been plenty, especially since few of the characters in this tense, white-knuckled nonsense are even remotely fascinating. The audience that I sat with chuckled each time director Pete Travis literally rewound the action that occurred in the opening 10 minutes to show the president taking two bullets in the chest before a terrific explosion obliterates the stage and sends everybody scrambling and screaming. Once this set-piece has been replayed ad nauseam during the first hour, "Vantage Point" regains its momentum during its remaining half-hour with an improbable but hair-raising car chase through narrow streets in an obvious homage to "The Bourne Identity." U.S. President Ashton (William Hurt of "The Big Chill") arrives in Salamanca, Spain, where he is to headline a landmark summit on counter-terrorism. A packed crowd of spectators greet him enthusiastically while Secret Service agents ogle everybody as a possible assassin. One of the President's bodyguards, Agent Thomas Barnes (Dennis Quaid of "Wyatt Earp"), is back on the job after taking a bullet for Ashton a year ago. Barnes' colleagues, Agents Taylor (Matthew Fox of "Smoking Aces") and Holden (Richard T. Jones of TV's "Judging Amy") think that Barnes has lost his nerve. Remember the Clint Eastwood character in the superior thriller "In the Line of Fire" (1993) and you'll have a clue about Quaid's queasy character. Meanwhile, a crew for the Global Network News has about as many roving cameramen in the crowd as security officials, and producer Rex Brooks (Sigourney Weaver of "Alien") coordinates their efforts as well as her correspondent on the scene, Angie Jones (Zoe Saldana of "Guess Who"), as the presidential motorcade wheels into the plaza. No sooner has President Ashton reached the podium than gunshots erupt and he crumples backwards wounded on the stage.

"Vantage Point" suffers from several problems. Some characters come and go, while you wish some would just leave. For example, the Sigourney Weaver character hangs around just long enough to establish the Spanish setting and provide background about Dennis Quaid's troubled character and then she vanishes. On the other hand, Academy Award winner Forest Whitaker loiters on the sidelines as the least interesting character. He's walked out on his wife and kids and doesn't know what to do except attend the summit. However, he does show up again to rescue an innocent bystander in the last quarter hour. Talk about a great actor being wasted in a thankless role. The people that play the terrorists are cast according to stereotype. They are swarthy, dark-haired, suspicious-looking types that we never learn anything about, so the conspiracy part of this thriller is never sufficiently laid out. One of the terrorists has been coerced into participating because his brother is being held hostage by his colleagues, but too much information is missing from Barry Levy's screenplay so you cannot sympathize with either brother. The incomparable William Hurt looks sorely miscast as the president, too. It's doubtful that any politician with as little hair as Hurt has could charm voters into putting him in the White House. Worst, between the assassination attempt and the car chase, "Vantage Point" spends so much time rewinding the same action that the surprising are more annoying than interesting.

Freshman director Pete Travis borrows an idea first done by acclaimed Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa in his 1954 art-house hit "Rashomon." In that classic, four people tell different versions of the same story from their perspectives. The Kurosawa classic was remade in 1964 as a Paul Newman western called "The Outrage," but the movie that most filmgoers will compare "Vantage Point" with is the 1993 Bill Murray comedy "Groundhog Day." Unfortunately, these shuffling perspectives grow tiresome despite the additions that they furnish to plot. The last half-hour of "Vantage Point" provides some welcome relief with a slam-bang car chase that defies believability. Indeed, the Secret Service may see its applicant pool rise as a result of the indestructible nature of the Dennis Quaid hero who survives everything thrown at him.

The first-rate ensemble cast gives the hackneyed "Vantage Point" everything that they can muster, especially Quaid as a veteran Secret Service agent haunted by memories of a previous assassination attempt when he shielded Ashton. When everything is said and done, this high-octane, nail-biter depends on a tedious flashback gimmick to pump up its formulaic thrills and contrived chills in an incredibly convoluted plot that ultimately confuses more than it compels.

A Story So Preposterous and Campy I Started Laughing!

[liberalgems · 1/10 · 6 March 2008]

Vantage Point is a camp delight! By the film's end I was waiting for our shaky-handed, Secret Service hero to rip-off his shirt to expose a big Superman letter "S" on his chest! Terrorists who blithely slaughter innocent people left and right will throw everything out the window over a single child! You know a bomb has just been planted but you keep standing around talking. A bomb goes off right under your nose with loads of people lying dead and wounded but our various heroes barely have a scratch except for their tattered clothes! The Secret Service is totally inept except for one guy with shaky hands! I think you get the picture! But the best scene is one of the last. Its when the President snaps awake at just the right moment, after just being drugged, and kloncks the bad guy over the heads with a piece of metal all because the villains conveniently failed to strap him down properly! But just moments earlier taking out a score of Secret Service agents was a walk in the park!

I did find the 'Groundhog Day' technique of repeating the same day over, and over again, but from different perspectives, to be a very interesting approach to story telling. Too bad it was wasted on such a unbelievably ridiculous story! It's as if Hollywood's main concern is satisfying it's teenage market segment over all others. I'm not a teenager and I go to the movies virtually every week! What about the adult segment of your market? Don't we count for anything?

This film is trying terribly hard to be a frantic 'French Connection' type movie without worrying much about the story. If all you want is dumbed-down, murder and mayhem, a sort of terrorist war-porn flick, then Vantage Point is for you! But if a decent story is an important ingredient in your recipe for time well spent, then I humbly suggest renting something that has stood the test of time, like the French Connection, instead!

This years best comedy...

[Hanover · 24 February 2008]

At least it felt like it considering how many times the audience laughed. The biggest laughs seem to come each time the screen goes black and the beginning time starts ticking again.

The biggest problem was not the actors. It was the script. The horrible dialog began with the Sigourney Weaver and ended with Dennis Quad at the end.

The car chases and running were only bearable to laugh at all the funny faces Dennis Quaid makes as the camera zooms into his face to get is reaction to almost hitting something.

The premise of the movie is entirely blown when the last "replay" basically tells you everything that happened. The replays aren't clues....as it's suggested in the trailer, they are merely cliffhangers to set up the last scene that shows you how all the previous replays ended. The only thing the last part did was fill in the cliffhangers that the other replays left you with. Whats going to happen with the little girl? What did Dennis Quaid see?

Why didn't they just show us at those moments and spare us the replays? If you want a better movie that used this gimmick to much better effect, try "12:14" and stay away from this stinker.

the jury is still deliberating.

[abwilliams47 · 7/10 · 6 July 2008]

i didn't know what to expect from this film. i can say that there were plenty of plot twists that will surprise you and keep you interested throughout the movie. one annoying factor is the constant rewinding back to 12:00 noon. that part gets very annoying but its pertinent to each perspective being told.

another part i didn't like was the subtle clue to who was involved in the plot(quaids partner or whoever.dude from party of 5) because it made me automatically point out that he was involved nearly an hour and a half before he was actually implicated. if you notice when he's talking to Quaid in the car and Quaids just talking about being around and thanks him and his partner makes a face and says "Dont thank me yet" ..very subtle clue that goes thru one ear and out the other of most but once i heard it i knew he was either involved or was gonna be killed pretty soon, i was sure he was involved and just as i suspected he was. a movie is never as good to me when i pretty much figure it out early.

Forest Whitaker gives another great performance, albeit a small one. he was charming, informative, curious and even remorseful all in one character. he risks his life for a little girl who he previously had bumped into and keeps her out of harms way to find her mother after an explosion, these events magnify the events going on in his own life(battle with his wife) and make them actually seem much smaller when he thinks about it...good addition to the movie the whole subplot with the one guys brother being kidnapped has nothing to do with the movie. i don't know why it was in there but it easily could have been done without....

the remote controlled gun was amazing lol.. that part surprised me a lot.

overall a decent movie but if you expect it to be groundbreaking throughout you will be a little disappointed.

A Greatly Put Together Movie

[doctor301 · 7/10 · 9 August 2008]

Vantage Point is a movie directed by Pete Travis and written by Barry Levy. The movie follows the events of the president getting shot and goes through several different characters or different points and shows the event as they see it and what happens to them. The cast includes Denis Quad, Mathew Fox, William Hurt, Forrest Whitaker and Sigourney Weaver.

This movie was well under the radar for me as I didn't hear of it until seeing the trailer on a DVD for some over movie; I think it was "The Assignation of Jesse James by The Coward Robert Ford." So once seeing the trailer I automatically thought this looked like a ripper of a movie and I wasn't let down.

The story is greatly written and intertwined, i couldn't help but wonder how awkward and mind bending it would be to have read it on script.

Great acting by all in the cast, except for Mathew Fox, for me he just seemed like a less talkative Jack. Forrest Whitaker took the highlight for me though; he always steals the screen in a movie and doesn't fail here. His facial and tone just puts through to you the character greatly and makes you understand who is a lot better. Dennis Quad is his usual self and not much to say there, he is an American tough guy actor. I also though the two less Hollywood actors Edgar Ramirez and Said Taghmaoui did great job in portraying their characters and were stern on screen.

The movie was put together and shot great, when you just think you're about to find out something from the plot the rewind happens the camera angles are lined up great to keep you guessing.

I quite enjoyed this movie and found nothing at all bad about it. I'm giving it 7 and a half President shooting stars.

7.5 - www.dylanreviews.ning.com

Interesting movie

[best_friend1986 · 7/10 · 14 March 2008]

I saw the trailer and I thought wow, what a great movie I wanna watch it. The movie I would say didn't live up to expectation, but I still love the movie. The movie is different from other type of movie, this was told by each character point of view. Before it comes together with the car chase.

I love the car chase, which was great, I was wondering whether or not will they get away. Wow… I also didn't put together there was a decoy, and how they guessed. loved it.

I didn't know which character was part of the scheme, and it was interesting to find out who it was and I thought I knew who the bad guys where, but I was so mistaken… and i rate it a 7/10.

Had me interested in the outcome

[jnanasakti · 7/10 · 4 July 2008]

It was a decently good movie. Decently well put together. I mean at first I thought this was about war and terrorism, but its not, its more about the story. Its a thriller that you want to see to the end, and it got me on that, once I got past the first 15-20mins, I was interested to see what ends up in the story. It's not predicable, which is good. But the actual end scene (spoiler part) bothers me. If you have the president of the united states kidnapped in the back of your ambulance and see a kid in the middle of the street; if you know that if you swerve you're going to tip the ambulance, then you run over the kid, the damn kidnapped president of the united states is in the back of your ambulance, one kid in the street ain't sh*t.

A very engaging action film

[cappel-3 · 8/10 · 22 February 2008]

I enjoyed the movie. Dennis Quaid and Forrest Whittaker carried the movie and made it an enjoyable experience. For anyone that is easily made motion sick, the camera work is very shaky during the chase scene and had it lasted much longer would have detracted from the overall experience for me personally. The way the story was told was different but kept me engaged right to the end. I would recommend seeing this film if you get the chance.There is a little something for everyone here. Action, drama, a couple of jokes, and some nice views. There are some actors in this movie that may not be well known, but overall I think everyone in it did an adequate job. If you are a fan of Dennis Quaid you should really like this movie.

Great action

[kyle-cruse · 7/10 · 17 September 2008]

"Vantage Point" takes on a unique perspective for an action film. It shows the assassination of the U.S. President from eight separate points of view, and each time the new vantage point reveals something new about what is really going on. To some this may seem tedious, though I found it increasing engaging and suspenseful with each new point of view. The acting is good here. Dennis Quaid is truly engaged in his role, and one can feel the pressure and stress he must be under at the time. While the film is tons of fun to watch and try to figure out, it is not without a few flaws. First of all, there is almost no character development. The film moves along so quickly that we are really unable to learn very much about each individual character. We pick up that Forest Whitaker may be having trouble in his family life, but we do not really find out for sure. Dennis Quaid is stressed because he took a shot for the president the previous year, yet we do not find out much about him personally. It seems to me that everything turned out too coincidentally here, that everything just happened to come together at the end, just a bit unbelievable. Nevertheless, the film is not meant to be very monumental, and I found it very exciting and entertaining, being put at the edge of my seat. It's worth seeing and quite enjoyable, though don't expect a perfect film. One of the best from 2008 so far.

*** out of ****

Interesting concept, poor execution

[dridi_i · 4/10 · 23 February 2008]

I just came back home from seeing this movie and I wanted to share my thoughts right away because this movie was disappointing. While the concept is interesting, the execution was very poor.

I will start my review with the good points. The first good point about this movie is the suspense. I must admit that I got hooked right away by the story. You see the president of the United States being shot but nothing is what it seems. The rest of the movie gives you the answers bits by bits. The second good point about this movie is the acting. Almost every character in the movie is believable and the performances are quite solid. Two thumbs up for Dennis Quaid in his role of veteran secret service agent Barnes and to Forest Whitaker who impresses me with every single performance he gives. Not only does he plays convincingly, he impersonates every character he plays (Last King of Scotland anyone?). However, Taghmaoui and Zurer are the weakest link in the bunch. That's it for the good points. As for the weaknesses of this movie, they are many.

I will start with the factual errors that plagued the whole movie from start to finish. The movie tells us events that happened during an international counter-terrorism summit. However, the host country is not represented by the Spanish prime minister or any other high ranking Spanish politician. The country is represented by the mayor of Salamanca who offers his city to the world. OUCH!!! Actually an International summit is organized on a state level and only the President (Or prime minister or Chancellor etc) of the host country is responsible of the city and the facilities that will be used for the event, not the mayor. This is an international summit for God's sake not a municipal trivial event. Secondly, in such summits, the general public is not allowed in the premises of the event as depicted in the movie. That is no way to have such a large crowd present during an announcement of such importance. The only people who could have been present would have been high ranking officials, head of states and important leaders, not average Joes. Furthermore, the protesters wouldn't have been allowed to be that close to the premises of the event. There's always a security perimeter that the general public can never cross and it's usually quite large.The second main weakness of the movie is how its subject matter is treated. I assume that the main subject of the movie was terrorism. However, the story doesn't give us any objective treatment, actually it's biased. Terrorism is again pinned on Arabs, as the summit unites Arab states and the West. There is no explanation as what western countries were present, it just states the West. There are no subtleties. There is no mention of what leads to terrorism or the way to confront this dangerous phenomenon. Therefore, terrorists in this movie are depicted as your usual stereotypical bad guy. There's not even a remote attempt to explain their background or the reasons that push them to do what they do or to believe in what they believe. They are just terrorists who want to hurt civilized countries. Later in the movie you'll learn that the attempt on the presidential life was a vendetta by the terrorists because they failed to smuggle a dirty bomb out of Morocco. Wow! How credible is that! Suffice to say that it's more likely for a dirty bomb to be smuggled out of Pakistan or Central Asia not out of Morocco. The third main weakness of the movie is its character development. It's actually non existent in this movie except for Thomas Barnes, Howard Lewis and Javier. There is no development for the other characters in the movie. Who are they really? What motivates them to do what they do? The terrorist bare Spanish names but are they truly Spanish? What led to the betrayal of Kent Taylor (Mathew Fox's character)? Was it ideological? Does he hold a grudge against his government? We don't know and the movie makes no effort to give us a clue. The last weakness that I will list here is the narrative style used to tell the story. We were supposed to see the story from the perspective of eight different people. However, this choice is ambiguous and not well executed. For the first two thirds of the movie you can really see the story from different perspectives. While this may be interesting at first, the constant rewinding sequences become boring and redundant by the third time. Many people left the auditorium after the third time and I couldn't help but close my eyes to avoid watching the rewinding sequences again. When the movie reached the final third, it was apparent to me that the director didn't know what he was doing anymore. The perspective story telling is totally abandoned and we are actually led to see the perspective of three different characters at the same time. This choice makes the first 60 minutes of the movie totally irrelevant. Why did the director choose to start with a specific narrative style and then abandon it for the final 30 minutes? Why didn't he stick with a conventional story telling style from the start? Did he want to make a Rashomon style movie? Was he trying to use a Pulp Fiction type of storytelling? If that was his intention, then he totally failed to accomplish his goals.

All in all, I give this movie a 4 stars out of 10. It remains a suspenseful and thrilling movie but its flaws outweigh its strong points. My advice: Watch it once, forget it and don't expect to see or learn anything new from it.

still running off the endorphins

[cr-blackshear · 9/10 · 21 February 2008]

I just got home from seeing an early showing of this film and I just must say, "OH MY GOD...". Within the first 5 minutes easily, I was so engrossed that I couldn't look away. It was very intense. And although some may find the constant 'rewinding' to be annoying, I just found that it made it that much more awesome. Every 20 minutes or so you're right on the edge of your seat and are left hanging until the very end. It's one giant tease, but it's totally worth it. Definitely one of the smartest, and most well executed movies I can remember seeing. The whole ensemble is absolutely flawless. It had the perfect combination of action, suspense, and humor.

I just can't say enough good things about this movie. Please, go now.. and enjoy.

very good movie

[desire_911 · 7/10 · 7 March 2008]

I couldn't remove my eyes from the screen for 90 minutes, Finally I saw a movie that really deserves to watch especially after the headache that came to me after watching Jumper in the Cinema.

I have to admit that this movie make me happy again .. After the disappointment I have been through after many movies, this movie give me a good feeling about this year, I hope that this year will be much better than the last one, hoping to see new thrillers that will make anyone shock about it stories and conclusion, Vantage Point is really a good start for the year, I know this movie is not awesome or even great ,but I found it a worth movie to watch.

Vantage Point: Good story, good visuals, amazing acting, high class of entertaining, I think this movie deserve a chance especially it is in the beginning of the year. If you want to see a thriller ,you have to watch Vantage Point.

8/10 for Entertainment

Overall Score: 7.5/10

8 viewpoints-many loose ends-one truth----stinker

[alex-2668 · 1/10 · 22 February 2008]

How do we begin?The President is shot, Secret Service agents chase down a "shooter", unconnected characters intersect in increasingly meaningless ways. Oh and did I mention the GROUNDHOG DAY-esqe time rewind? Audible audience laughter is not what you expect to hear in a thriller. When a film with such a reasonable premise is butchered and ultimately ends up dying an ignoble death, my first question was where was the strong hand of the director? Or the screenwriter? This film stinks of heavy handed hacking after test audience screening. It must hurt to lose control of your film.

I was teased by what appears on paper to be a stellar cast-William Hurt, Dennis Quaid, Sigourney Weaver, Forest Whitaker, Hollywood's favourite LOST boy-Matthew Fox. I can only hint at the angry disappointment I felt after the credits rolled. All of these actors have performed admirably in similar roles--here they are groundless, and the prestige they could have brought to the film is squandered.

Sigourney Weaver brings some pathos, only to be cast aside when her story plot is terminated. Dennis Quaid tries his best as the Secret Service agent trying to quell his demons, but he's not Clint Eastwood, and this is not IN THE LINE OF FIRE. William Hurt can be Presidential in his sleep, give him some depth please. Matthew Fox has no reason speaking bad Spanish when his co-pilot is speaking perfect English, Forest Whitaker does his best mumbly, stumbly, heavy faced bit, but his part in the story is simply meaningless, I'm happy he gets to reconcile with his wife and son, but please people, The President has been shot, blown up, kidnapped, drugged and tossed around an ambulance in a multi-car pile up....so is it ESSENTIAL to waste a final shot on Forest talking on a cell phone to his unseen son??...Someone must have some minutes to use up.

Ultimately VANTAGE POINT is half the film it could have been, it lacks sufficient character motivation or back story, the characters are caricatures, the script is diluted to the point of meaningless and while it sports a great climatic car chase, the final scene is as implausible as they come-----a highly trained band of ruthless conspirators, toting the latest in high tech gadgetry, killing co-conspirators as they see fit, assisted by an inside man, successfully pull off TWO intricate operations and on the road to getting away scot-free, only to be undone because an irrelevant character JAYWALKS!

Come on, we are smarter than that and as film makers you should be smart enough to know that.

Disadvantage Pretentious Point

[Chrysanthepop · 20 April 2008]

'Vantage Point' is pretty much another corny clichéd thriller. For a while it was a trend in Hollywood movies to portray the Japanese as the bad guys. This was followed by Russians and now I suppose it's the Muslim Arabs turns to be the heartless 'bad guys' in overly patriotic American films. Riddened with clichés, overdone shaky camera which is supposed to be effective, over-the-top high tech, excessive overblown stunts, heavily intrusive suspense music and one ridiculous twist after the other is what forms 'Vantage Point'. The reason why I was excited about this film was because I had seen, what looked like appealing clips and an interesting cast. However, none of the actors get enough scope to perform. Their roles are clichéd to say the least and unidimensional. The cast includes: that includes Sigourney Weaver (the only one who does not annoy), Forest Whitaker (dude, you just won an Oscar and this is what you come up with next?), Matthew Fox (if you're gonna be picky about movies at least pick something worthwhile), Dennis Quaid (how many times do we have to see a way-passed-middle-aged man play the action hero who saves the world?), Said Taghmaoui (just look how impartial the filmmakers are that they cast an Arab to play a terrorist leader!), Eduardo Noriega (as the Spanish police who had no clue before it was too late), Ayelet Zurer (a hot she-terrorist who's obviously there for eye-candy), Zoe Saldana (the annoying reporter for whom we're supposed to feel sorry because of her untimely death)Edgar Ramirez (the typical innocent-guy-who's-forced-by-circumstances or else terrorists will kill his brother) and William Hurt (the American president who can do no wrong). Not surprising, the American president is this saintly man who just wants to do what's right and has everyone's best interest at heart and the terrorists are ruthless killers with no feelings but of course, as mentioned before, there's a female among them and the director has to stick to his usual clichés, so this she-terrorist looks hot and since she's a woman, she has to have some empathy which is shown when she hesitates to kill the hostage. Lucky for her, her male partner does the job. Oh and there's more: Yes, the non-Americans are shown as people who think Americans are arrogant...oh so much ridicule there is. This isn't the end. There are too many more to merely list in this comment. The thing is, I don't mind watching a fun action flick as long as it doesn't pretend to be something else and insult the viewers intelligence like this piece of crap did.