En el punto de mira. Vantage Point

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.

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.

'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.

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/

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.