Point and Shoot (2014) User Reviews

"Crash course in manhood"

[paul-allaer · 6/10 · 13 December 2014]

"Point and Shoot" (2014 release; 83 min.) is a documentary about Matthew Vandyke, a 20-something guy who, having lived a sheltered life (only child of a well to do family), decides to do something about it and goes on a 3 year bike journey across much of Southern Europe and Northern Africa. Along the way he meets and befriends a guy from Libya, and the two develop a strong bond. At the end of 2010, Matt returns home to Baltimore, much to the relief of his girlfriend Lauren, who cannot believe how much Matt has matured (for the better). Then, just 2 months later, the Arab Spring explodes, including in Libya. Matt decides that he cannot stand idle so he returns to Libya to take up the fight alongside his friends against Omar Gaddafi. To tell you more would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: first, this is a very heavy Matt Vandyke-centric documentary. As we get to know him, including video clips from his youth, you can't help but wonder how in the world this guy gets along into his mid-20s without doing anything for himself. But at least he seems to realize that himself as well, reason that he decides to take a "crash course in manhood" (fueled by watching lots of TV and playing lots of video games). The first 30 min. of the documentary focuses mostly on that and the subsequent 3 year/35,000 mi. motorcycle journey (at no point is the question raised how he pays for all this). The remainder of the documentary focuses on his stint in Libya alongside the rebels, and makes for much more interesting viewing. If nothing else, it is fascinating to see archive footage of what Libya was like in those days, and the images are far more nuances that whatever footage we saw from US TV news. Second, as conflicted as I am about Vandyke, who seems mostly interested in himself, you can't help but at the same time also give him kudos for doing what he did, going to a war zone to fight alongside his Libyan friends against a brutal dictator. Beware, there are a number of very brutal scenes that may shock some viewers. Finally, there is a nice instrumental score by James Boxter, and for whatever reason the National also decided to contribute several tracks (including Mistaken for Strangers, and Hard to Find).

"Point and Shoot" opened without any pre-release buzz or advertising on a single screen for all of Greater Cincinnati this weekend. I figured this will not be playing log, so I went to see it right away, and at the early evening screening where I saw this at, I got a private screening (as in: I was literally the only person in the theater). This isn't the greatest of documentaries, but I'd still suggest you check it out, be it in the theater or eventually on DVD/Blu-day, and draw your own conclusion about "Point and Shoot".

Narcissus' Pool is Now a Digital Camera

[soncoman · 8/10 · 4 December 2014]

"Point and shoot" can describe what you do with a camera in order to capture life. "Point and shoot" can also describe what you do with a weapon in order to take a life. These two concepts collide in filmmaker Marshall Curry's latest documentary, which just happens to be entitled "Point and Shoot".

Curry's film consists mostly of footage shot by its subject, one Matt Van Dyke. Mr. Van Dyke is an excellent representative of the current generation and its incessant need to digitally record each and everything about their lives and then foist it upon the public to provide validation for their existence. Van Dyke, a sheltered (some would say spoiled) individual with mental health issues (he admits to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, but this film leaves you with the feeling there may be a whole lot more at play) decides that he wants to undertake a "crash course in manhood" through North Africa via a motorcycle and, of course, a video camera or two.

What might have been a semi-interesting documentary about world travel and the search for meaning in life soon takes a dark turn as Van Dyke ends up fighting on the side of the rebels during the Libyan revolution. Admittedly, there is value in the footage Van Dyke provides that gives us a rare look at a revolution from the inside, but the price we have to pay for that glimpse is more footage of Van Dyke posing and preening for the camera. This culminates in a stomach-churning scene where Van Dyke is pressed to kill a Libyan soldier, which at first he seems reluctant to do, but ultimately accepts – only after making sure his camera is recording it.

To have a film produced based on footage you shot of yourself must be a narcissist's wet dream. Van Dyke probably sees the release of this film as validation for all the choices he made and affirmation of his "manhood". At first glance, Curry seems to have provided this validation. Look deeper and you'll see a trenchant commentary on the voyeuristic nature of society today and how the meaning of "manhood" has changed from personal growth that is reached through a series of challenges and encounters to the filming and public exhibition of said transformation for all to see.

Matt Van Dyke's camera was clearly pointed at himself. Marshall Curry figuratively takes Van Dyke's camera and turns it back on us. As much as we don't like what we see in Van Dyke, when we think about what we watch today, be it "entertainment" or otherwise, should we feel any better about ourselves?

"Point and Shoot" is as frustrating and infuriating a film as I've seen in a long time.

Interesting story of a creepy protagonist

[ertxxpo23 · 7/10 · 18 November 2014]

Point and Shoot is remarkable footage of the Arab Spring from an American man who briefly lived it. The trouble is that the man is a textbook unreliable narrator who has an odd, narcissistic streak.

Point and Shoot tells the story of Matt VanDyke, a Baltimore man in his late 20s or early 30s who is doted on by his mother and grandmother and lives at home. To prove that he is not a wimp, VanDyke decides he needs an adventure to understand "manhood." He decides to go on a motorcycle ride across the middle east and, through a variety of accidents and decisions over several years, ends up fighting with the Libyan rebels against Gaddafi. VanDyke films many of these encounters and ends up giving them to a full-time director when he returns to the U.S.

The footage is very interesting, and the documentary is well-edited. But VanDyke is troubling to watch for most of the film. For example, he asks a friend to film him trying to kill another man, and repeatedly focuses on how his actions in Syria affect his "manhood." VanDyke seems to be overly fascinated with his own image and at the same time unable to understand how poorly his actions will come across on camera. The documentary director does a good job of raising subtle questions about VanDyke's mental state.

Other reviews were so bad I had to write this

[apeindex · 10/10 · 19 July 2015]

Ostensibly, the film shows the self-documented experiences of Matthew VanDyck, an American who goes on a motorcycle adventure through the "Arab" countries of Africa and the Middle East and then finds himself fighting in a Libyan War as a rebel soldier. On a deeper level the film explores the personal growth of a man leading a sheltered, coddled, and lonely life with obsessive compulsive disorder that discovers the joys of friendship, understands the value of moral obligation to those friends, and experiences severely challenging and life-changing events from the rare perspective of an American fighting among Muslims.

The general arc of the film is that VanDyck went to Africa and the Middle East because he was inspired to create an adventure documentary that would depict his transformation into a "real man" through travels on his motorcycle. The reality was that his transformation into a real man occurred through the relationships and friends he developed, notably his random friendship with a Libyan man named Nuri that shapes much of his personal growth as he develops a close bond with Nuri's Libyan friends that he did not have growing up. At that point in the film, the story could have ended with him returning home to his girlfriend with a bunch of neat travel experiences and a sense of how to take care of himself and others but then the Arab Spring happens and he feels a moral obligation to return to Libya to help his friends achieve their goal of freedom from an authoritarian regime. Obviously, you could belittle his motives here and this is where some of the armchair quarterbacks of the world might feel that his actions were self- centered and reflective of his earlier tendency to document a heroic version of himself but a reasonable understanding of events would assume that no sane person would subject themselves to the horrors of war and risk torture, permanent injury, or death simply to memorialize themselves. This idiotic urge to belittle such actions come from those who have clearly experienced very little outside of their bubble of urban comfort or feel the need to pompously strut their egos out for online self-worth. Here is a guy with OCD, something that typically becomes a crippling problem, going far out of his comfort zone to do what he feels is "right". His friends are in the midst of a violent conflict and he feels obligated to help them.

The film structure of a documentary about the experience of VanDyck as documented by himself seems to have jarred some viewers who are accustomed to being deluded or fooled by the illusion of the filmmaker as an invisible storyteller. The false perception of VanDyck as narcissistic could be explained by the belief some hold that documentary films are free of bias and only depict authentic experiences of "true" reality. Scenes where he is shown filming himself riding his motorcycle or where he is asked to shoot and kill someone might come across as narcissistic but if the purpose of his documentation was to tell a story then he needs to record even moments that reflect poorly on his character or the motivations of his actions so they can be remembered with the moral ambiguity or imperfection exactly as it happened and not just some rehearsed version of things.

In his own narrative he reveals that he finds frequent conflict over his role as a participant as well as a documentarian and that many of his subjects frequently request staging of their photos so they're memorialized a certain way. VanDyck clearly knows that he doesn't have all the answers and many of his decisions were challenging because of their moral ambiguity. On the one hand he feels guilty for leaving his girlfriend and his mom behind while risking his life and making them worry, but on the other hand he feels obligated to helping his friends achieve their goal of living in a free country and while some might see this as a grandiose sense of self-importance I think it's more the reality of the war starting out as a collection of poorly organized civilians with no military experience doing whatever they could to fight against the violent crackdowns of Gaddafi's government. He felt that he could contribute in a meaningful way and didn't think it was fair to settle down with the comforts of his ordinary life while leaving his friends dying in a violent war. I don't think you can question that if you weren't there making the same choices about people you care about that are dying. This narrative is reasonably well depicted in the film.

The unique perspective of the film being about various self-filmed experiences lends it a more genuine self-awareness than other self-filmed things that most people see on YouTube where there's never any questioning of the person's motivations because there is no camera on the camera showing what actually goes into the production of the one "perfect" shot or the editorial decisions made to tell just the right story.

Perhaps my review focused too much on defending the film against its critics, but I think that perspective could help future viewers. What I found most compelling about the film was the general narrative of VanDyck's personal growth from a sheltered, OCD kid whose mom and grandma did his laundry and bought his groceries to someone who went on a solo motorcycle adventure in a relatively hazardous part of the world to someone that understood the value of freedom and friendship and chose to participate as a soldier in a violent conflict out of moral obligation and that all of these things existed within the context of ordinary Libyans struggling with problems that most of us take for granted. I appreciate the film's ability to sharpen how I perceive my first world problems in the context of a radically different perspective.

Point Out of My Mind

[comicman117 · 8/10 · 7 February 2015]

Marshall Curry's Point and Shoot is a documentary detailing the story of Matthew VanDyke, a man from the states, who on a motorbike set out to find his own adventure and his own manhood. His journey took him through various places, such as Africa, Arab, Afghanistan, and eventually, what turns out to be what the bulk of the film, leads to his involvement with the Libyan revolution of 2011. Point and Shoot is a very well made documentary, about a very unusual character, Matthew VanDyke. Like most good documentaries, it works because the main character is fascinating to learn about.

Matthew VanDyke suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and often washes his hands because he has an obsession with being clean. He also has a fear of really harming people. When we first meet him at the beginning of the film, he's talking about the equipment he brought on his journey. Afterwards, we cut to clips of his childhood, nicely intercut with interviews of him. We discover he had a very odd and not so pleasant childhood. Raised by his mother, after his parents divorced when he was 3 years old, Matthew became a bit of a weirdo, a loner having no real friends in school, and continued to live with his mother well into his twenties. The reason why Matthew decided to leave the country and set out on his journey was to make his own path, and become an adult, not just to his mother, but also to his girlfriend, Laura Fischer, whose relationship with him is a big part of the film. Not only did Matt accomplish his goals and grow-up, but he also discovered much more about himself then he really expected. According to Matthew himself, the greatest thing he encountered on his journey was a spiritual hippie named Nouri, who ends up becoming his best friend.

There are some nice directing choices in Point and Shoot. For example, there's a well done montage when Matthew is traveling from place to place, where we see him exploring the various cities and countries. Another good shot is when we see Matthew driving through various grasslands on his motorcycle. The way the scene is cut and paced is perfectly done. Another interesting and well done set of scenes are when Matthew is being taken prisoner. These scenes are done in a stylized sort of animation with the camera being very grainy, perhaps done by the director in an attempt to show things from Matthew's point of view.

Despite my praises for this documentary, there is one major problem I had with the film. It really falls apart in the final act when Matthew is finally freed from prison. What would seem like a logical place to end the film, it instead dragged on as we see Matthew continue to work in Libya. While I understand the filmmakers intent, and the documentary itself isn't very long (running around 83 minutes in length including credits, it felt somewhat tacked on and unnecessary. Aside from that, the film itself, while not perfect, is a very good and interesting watch.

Point and Shoot is well made, and shows us the story of a very fascinating character. Matthew VanDyke, who was a loner in his own country, but in his journey to Libya he found a place where he was accepted and made friends. His story is one of true courage, and the documentary does a good job of showing that. While I can't recommend the film for everyone, especially since the subject matter is very violent, but I can say that the film, as a whole, had me very fascinated and it was very entertaining to watch.

"Look at me, look at me, look at me....and, did I mention...there's always ME!'

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 31 July 2015]

We are in a self-absorbed world. Thanks to the internet, we have Facebook, Twitter and many other sources where anyone can voice their opinion and talk about themselves...incessantly. And, we have cellphones with cameras...so people can endlessly text about themselves and send pictures of themselves. Whether any of this is worthwhile or interesting...who cares, as we are now the generation of ME! In light of this, a film like "Point and Shoot" isn't at all surprising because of its inherent narcissism...whether or not there really is anything to tell.

The film consists of a bazillion bits of video footage made by an obsessive-compulsive guy, Matthew Van Dyke. He films EVERYTHING during his travels--close ups of dirty toilets, himself falling off his motorcycle (probably because he was filming himself), boo boos he gets along the way as well as...well, just about everything. Most of it is very dull and extremely narcissistic. It's only when Matthew happens to fall in the middle of the Libyan revolution does it get less tedious. But even then, instead of being a HUGE story about the Arab Spring, too often it's really just about him. The reviewer Leofwine_draca felt that during much of the film, the focus was on the wrong things...and I clearly agree with them.

For me, I'd much rather see a documentary just about the Arab Spring--such as the great Oscar-nominated films "Karama Has No Walls" or "The Square"--not a film that mostly seems like an annoying vanity project. Lots of folks died for freedom and focusing on them and their cause should be THE focus of any documentary on these uprisings.

Unique

[sixbells99 · 8/10 · 22 February 2015]

An incredible film that manages to capture mental illness, narcissism and the Arab Spring from the inside. The film starts off with an interesting concept with Matthew Vandyke who feels he's lead a sheltered life and needs to become a man. So he buys a motorbike and travels alone to the most dangerous places in the world.

During this journey we see him film first hand his mental illness which at times is painful to watch. Then the film takes an unexpected turn and we are given new and colorful characters as Mathew embarks on his mission to join the fight in Libya with his new found Libyan friends.

Impossible to label the director keeps the film focused and it's an unforgettable journey into a man's mental illness manifesting itself in the backdrop of the Arab uprising. Totally unique, compelling and brilliant!

Wrong focus

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 6 February 2015]

What could have been a gripping documentary on the Libyan uprising and overthrow of Gadaffi turns out to be a distinctly uninteresting effort thanks to the focus on the character of Matthew Vandyke, a man who decides to discover himself by driving a motorbike through the Middle East. Vandyke turns out to be a narcissistic nobody who fancies himself as some kind of 'white saviour' figure, leaving the viewer with a bad taste in the mouth throughout.

The only genuinely interesting part of the production is the footage shot from the rebel lines in Libya; the rest is exposition and character-building, but you just don't care about the guy. There are lots of long-winded interviews with both Vandyke himself and his girlfriend in the kitchen and they don't add anything to the experience. Instead they detract from it, making this dull in the extreme except when it focuses on the good stuff. It made me long for a Ross Kemp documentary, where the presenter knows well enough to take a back seat to the real story.

For those who enjoy the adventures of non-conformists

[rgm234 · 9/10 · 11 January 2020]

The star of this film is a very unusual person. Many of the reviewers here resent that, complaining that he's OCD, has no qualifications for anything, and a typical narcissist. These are people who are quick to judge, because something is strange to them, and therefore offensive. They are so smart and worldly that they feel they can tell everyone else in the world how to make a film, how to live their life, and gleefully describe all the short comings. Nevermind that these unqualified critics have never accomplished much themselves... they just know what people should do, and they get their thoughts, unedited, on the Internet.

This is a very smart, very unique portrait by genius filmmaker Marshall Curry. Look at all his awards and achievements, and measure your life against his, if you really want to be a serious critic and understand the nooks and crannies of great cinema. If you don't measure up, then please realize nobody gives a damn what you think.

Fantastic footage, but fails as a documentary

[jstrick1985 · 4/10 · 1 December 2014]

This movie contains two different stories, jammed together in a tight 83-minute runtime.

The one story, showing remarkable footage of the Libyan civil war, is an unusually privileged window into the Arab Spring.

The other story, the story of Matt Van Dyke himself, is a tendentious and even tedious tale of a privileged American thrill-seeker.

You can sum up Van Dyke's story in three sentences. A bored 27-year-old, with no job and few friends, decides to go on a motorcycle trip across the Middle East and record his adventures. Eventually he joins his new Libyan motorcycle buddies in their war against Qaddafi, although he doesn't accomplish very much other than getting thrown in prison. After he miraculously survives, Van Dyke takes his footage back to America and begins his new egotistical adventure: trying to become the man he always dreamed of being.

The film is a mix of VanDyke's original footage from the Middle East and an interview he did after returning to America. To his credit, he is handsome. But his constant vanity and posing for the camera is tiresome and immature. Van Dyke is especially obsessed with how the media portrays him.

And "Point and Shoot" has some serious problems. Although VanDyke's soliloquy is occasionally interrupted by the director, Marshall Curry, his narrative goes unquestioned and unchecked. For example, Van Dyke is thrown into Libyan prison for months, and says that he spent the time regretting how his actions have hurt his loved ones back in Baltimore, who are worrying over him. But as soon as Van Dyke is freed, he ignores everyone's advice to return to America, and instead decides to stay and fight, further troubling his mom and girlfriend.

Not having anyone push Van Dyke made this movie less a documentary and more of a vanity project. We were left with many, many questions after seeing the film. Van Dyke didn't have a job, so who paid for his long motorcycle trips overseas? How much time elapsed between different trips? Quick Googling revealed some of the holes in how VanDyke's story is presented, too. The film never mentions this, but Van Dyke annoyed many journalists with his decision to stay in Libya and fight. See the story "VanDyke's deception increases risks for journalists." That seemed like a pretty big news event to gloss over.

Having seen "Street Fight," I was excited to watch more of Marshall Curry's work. But while that movie focused on someone trying to make a real difference, activist Cory Booker, this movie only appears interested in making a difference for Matt Van Dyke's fragile ego.

This could be 'Monte Python - Middle Eastern Meddler Edition'

[Logan_Cummins · 2/10 · 17 May 2019]

I agree with Vasean 71009 on this whole movie, while it may have received various favorable reviews and accolades for being a 'film', what it truly is, is a trip down 'ego-road' with a touch of Monte Python 'you've gotta be kidding' effects for unintended humor. After the first 10-minutes of watching this 'documentary', I went from 'oh, this is droll' to 'omg, this guy actually believes this?' and it just keeps on going. He intentionally (for adventure, mind you) takes off to Libya during the early 2010's and meddles in what would become the utter destruction of the nation of Libya (he's playing court on the destroyer side, of course), and his grandiosity is only matched by the sick humor of his sheer luck in fighting with the rebels, to being hostage, to...well, watch it if you dare. In reality, this should be grounds for various international war crime charges...but none have been brought on him, that I am aware. That he played 'soldier-of-fortune' and ended up finding 'fortune' through the liberals on this end of his camera work is truly unfortunate... Watch it if you want, but in reality, it's a shining example of the mindset of many 'rebel freedom fighters' who don't have a clue what 'their side winning' would actually mean...and proof that they never 'hang around afterwards' to reap the 'results' of what their contribution really did to a nation. Modern Libya is a prime example of 'he got his way' and as a result, Libya has fell into a decade (and possibly much more) of ruin. Of course, he came back to the states, has meddled in MANY OTHER Middle East events since then, got rich from the camera work, and hasn't had a moment's punishment or suffering for what he helped to bring upon them. Sad. It is truly what I would expect from Hitler, had he had a digital camera in his day...the ego is comparable.

Spinal tap adventure story...

[vasean-71009 · 3/10 · 18 May 2018]

This film could have easily been a docu-comedy if edited differently. But instead we are expected to take a delusional Matthew Vandyke seriously as he hits the road to battle his mild OCD, fight alongside rebel forces, get captured and imprisoned, and create a fictionalzed character for himself along the way. At first it was easy and entertaining to laugh at the observations and realizations that spew from Vandyke's mouth. But as the documentary is edited in such a way to reinforce Vandyke's idea of himself and his "adventure", I found myself becoming annoyed in the character occupying my TV who I'm suppose to be taking seriously. I think it's also worth mentioning Matthew's inflated idea self of importance, and misguided adventure would be funny if not for what he's continued to do since, and especially do to the success of Point and Shoot. The character that Vandyke created in Point he has bizarrely continued to personify long after the film ends. And again this two would also be funny except he's used his notoriety to meddle even more extensively in various other middle eastern affairs. It's unfortunate that Point and Shoot somehow has earned Vandyke credibility and a platform.