March 25th, 2008

 

Movie Review

 

 

 

 

 

 Title            Vantage Point

 Director        Pete Travis

 Starring        Dennis Quaid

                   Matthew Fox

                   Forest Whitaker

                   Sigourney Weaver

                   William Hurt

                   Eduardo Noriega

 Released       February, 15th (US)

 Language      English & Spanish

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review

I have to confess that I am not kind of a guy who is interested in politics. The last political-themed movie I watched was "V for Vendetta" (although it is sort of half fantasy genre) and "The Interpreter" (God knows that I will care less if Nicole Kidman did not play in that movie). However, I have to admit that I enjoyed watching Vantage Point.

The credit is given mostly for the plot used to tell the story. Instead of telling it in linear and conventional way, the film maker broke down the whole story into at least 5 point of views: Rex Brooks (Sigourney Weaver) -a GNN television news producer , Thomas Barnes (Dennis Quaid) together with Kent Taylor (Matthew Fox) - Secret Agents responsible for protecting the president of US during his mandatory visit in Spain, Henry Ashton (William Hurt) -the president of United States, Enrique (Eduardo Noriega) -a local officer assigned to protect the mayor, and Howard Lewis (Forest Whitaker) -an American tourist who happened to capture the murder scene of President Ashton with his handycam .

The outline story of this movie is basically the well-planed murder of President Ashton during his speech at the anti terrorist summit in Salamanca, Spain. The main scene actually lasted for about 15 minutes the actual time (or based on time in the movie, it would be from 11.58 am until the second the president was murdered ). However, it was five times repeated back into 11.58 am in different point of view. Each of character in this movie always ended up in certain scene which encouraged suspense. The audience were left with a question about what was actually happening. It would be explained by the other point of view presented afterwards. The audience later had to gather pieces of information from various point of views to understand the whole puzzle. I found it was terrific way to nail the audience into the movie!

However, sometimes the audience were little bit distracted by the way the film maker dragging the movie back into 11.58 am (the starting time). It was typical : the scene played backward rapidly, and then suddenly the screen became dark and left  "11.58 am" on the left-bottom corner. People and I at cinema were rattling. The film maker should think more creative way to wrap up the plot, other than boring the audience or making them look stupid.

The main cast of this movie of course is Barnes. He just recovered from the traumatic event in the past when he has to rescue the president from a dramatic murder. It took him years before finally committing back to this assignment. It was Kent's idea to put him in charge. But it turned out to be a twist later when Barnes realized it was a set up.

There are some considerably reputable actors and actresses playing in this movie. But it actually made me think, "Is that necessary?" I can tell you that some characters did not nail attention. Rex Brooks for the example. She only appeared for the first 15 minutes. Howard Lewis is a character whom we would see for the entire movie, but I still do not think his role is significant. He happened to capture the scene where Enrique's girlfriend threw a bag filled with a bomb. But it did not have impact to the whole story. Barnes watched the record and realized that there was a bomb, but it was already too late to evacuate people away. 

There were also some twists that appears to me way too artificial. I can understand the concern of making the plot unpredictable to the audience. But it has to be taken carefully, because making up too many things would not do them good.  You may find later in the movie such things as betrayals, killing traps, heroic actions, and not forget to mention tough people who were not injured after being hit by car in sequences. My question still stands, "Is that necessary?" Because I can not see the point, or probably my "Vantage Point" just can not pull my understanding off....

I suggest that the film maker in the future has to consider the small aspects that could be spoilers if those were off. I kind of love its big picture. The technique is actually beyond average, regardless the film received mixed reviews from critics. As of February 29, 2008, the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported that 35% of critics gave the film positive reviews, based on 90 reviews.[4] Metacritic reported the film had an average score of 40 out of 100, based on 31 reviews.

    

 

See the trailer below:

 

 

 

Back to Movie Reviews