Theatrical Review of Vantage Point

---

Tools:
Send to a friend »

---

If I didn´t know any better, "Vantage Point" could be a sibling of television series "24." Terrorism, presidential assassins, a conspiracy…the only thing this movie is missing is Jack Bauer. (To be fair, co-star Matthew Fox plays a Jack on TV´s "LOST.") Well, let me back up for a minute. "Vantage Point" is missing two things: Bauer and a script which makes us care for any of the characters instead of moving them like chess pieces through the plot, the real star of the show.

At a terrorism conference in Spain, the president of the United States is shot. Television cameras capture the attempted assassination. At a terrorism conference in Spain, the president of the United States is shot. A group of assassins put a plot into motion. At a terrorism conference in Spain, the president of the United States is shot. A vacationer captures footage on a video camera. At a terrorism conference in Spain…oh hell, you get the idea.

The above events are told from various perspectives, six if I did my math right. Secret Service personnel, the assassins, the president, a vacationer, Spanish security and a news agency. Each time the shooting and bombing is rewound, another piece of the puzzle falls into place for the audience. Instead of being everywhere at once, as in most films, the camera follows one story at a time (until the perspectives merge into one preposterously coincidental story near the end). There is merit to this style of storytelling. It´s something which we don´t see very often in film. But a gimmick alone does not make for a compelling reason to create a film.

There have to be characters, people to root for, motivations and rationales for the audience to become emotionally invested in the action. Not one dimensional pieces being moved through the narrative by an invisible, yet completely noticeable, hand. As the story unfolds, there are exactly two people we understand: Dennis Quaid´s Secret Service Agent Thomas Barnes and presidential kidnapper Javier (Edgar Ramirez). Barnes was shot in a botched assassination the year before and has something to prove. Javier´s brother has been kidnapped himself, with delivery of the president the only hope for release.

No backstory for Barnes´ partner Kent Taylor (Fox) or tourist Howard Lewis (Forest Whitaker). No reason for Anna or her mother to be in the story. Clichéd rationale for a whole host of terrorists. There are half hearted attempts at making these people humans-like Howard talking to his wife and children-yet it´s all far too little.

To discuss "Vantage Point" in any real detail without giving away every twist and turn is impossible, so we´ll keep to generalities. Using the multiple perspective concept, director Pete Travis does well enough lining up his visual continuity, creating a situation which plausibly could happen. The opening, with Sigourney Weaver in a news van, happens to be the standout of the entire film due to its punch and her performance. Even though we know what is going to happen, the eventual event causes quite a shock, a shock the rest of the movie can´t hope to live up to.

Travis does as good a job as he can with the material while making sure we only see what the participants could have seen. He doesn´t cloud any shot with extraneous footage; only the most important gets committed to film. The camera is constantly in control of the situation, making us ask "what did we just see?" Yet it´s a bunch of pretty pictures with nothing between the ears.

Why go through the trouble of having this many name actors in the same film if you´re not going to use them to the best of their ability? Why cast Sigourney Weaver for little more than a bit part? Why get Whitaker-an Oscar winner-when just about anyone else would do? Why craft this story around Barnes, perhaps the most uninteresting of all the people put on screen? Don´t get me wrong: "Vantage Point" is a good looking movie with a clever enough concept, though it never justifies it´s presence on the big screen. For all intents and purposes, recut a scene here or there and Columbia Pictures has a movie of the week.

The terrorists plot, without going into too much detail, relies on killing, abducting and blowing up innocent civilians. So, in the climax, when the plan has come to fruition, it stands to reason nothing would get in their way, right, of complete success. Of course, in the most terribly convenient way possibly, nearly all the characters coalesce in the same spot, thus ensuring Mr. Bad Terrorist Man has to make the "wrong" choice based on his personality, thus ensuring the Master Diabolical Plan is foiled by a…nah, that would be a spoiler.

If I seem a bit cynical about "Vantage Point," that assessment would be spot on. Not much makes sense, logic wise. A bomb goes off. Does the president get evacuated? Of course not. Is a hotel crawling with security forces to protect said president? Heck no. How does every part of "the plan" hit nary a snag when it is largely contingent on the way people will react in a crisis or involve some sort of luck?

Remember I mentioned "24" a little while ago? Outside of the thematic similarities, the same mealy mouthed hawkish presidential advisors seem to be shared between this movie and the series. Someone´s been shot…the first thing we do is launch a counter attack, not secure the entire American delegation. There´s no time for things like satellite tracking or shooting a tire out during a car chase. We have to speed through crowded Madrid streets, narrowly avoiding causing a massive pile up. On the bright side, this isn´t any torture or someone named Chloe-and cell phone don´t play any role in the story-so maybe it all evens out.

I´m torn over "Vantage Point." The actors and director do the best they can with the script they are handed. Can the pitfalls the narrative falls into be counterbalanced by the uniqueness of the concept? Somewhat. A 5 out of 10 is the best I can do here with major points deducted because the completed picture amounts to very little in the end.

---

---