Confusing new perspective
“Vantage Point,” like many other films before (“Cloverfield” and “Memento”), tries to give us a different movie, not by changing the story but by changing the way we view the movie. In “Memento,” the entire movie is backward. In “Cloverfield,” we were treated to a first-person perspective of a monster attacking New York. In “Vantage Point,” we see the assassination of a president take place from numerous points of view. In both “Memento” and “Cloverfield,” changing the way we viewed the movie worked. But in “Vantage Point,” it just frustrated me. It was like reading the first chapter of a novel over and over again, only to finally skip to the last page, read it and then use it to prop up the wobbly leg of a coffee table.
The movie opens at a summit in Spain regarding worldwide terrorism; the time is just after noon (12:23 to be exact). The U.S. president, played by William Hurt (“Mr. Brooks”), is about to give a speech. As everyone is gathered around to hear the speech, gunshots ring out, the president goes down, and, not long after, a giant bomb explodes.
Then it’s time to rewind to 23 minutes earlier to see it from a different vantage point. This time we are treated to the point of view of two secret service officers played by Dennis Quaid (“In Good Company”) and Matthew Fox (“Lost”). We find out a few more things about the day, like how Quaid’s character is still a bit jumpy after taking a bullet for the president not too long ago. Then the president is shot, the bomb goes off, and it’s time to rewind again.
Get the picture now? We end up seeing about five or six different vantage points before the movie actually finds its way past the bomb scene and to the climactic car chase (the only thing that keeps this movie out of the “Grade D” range is the car chase. It’s exciting, nothing new, but still exciting).
Now that I’ve explained the movie, allow me to let you in on why I didn’t like it. “Vantage Point” has so many ridiculous plot twists and holes it’s almost laughable. Some I dare not reveal here, because it could spoil the movie, but it’s nothing you wouldn’t learn in the trailer that practically spoils the movie anyway.
In short, I felt cheated by this movie. I felt like it broke the cardinal rule of fiction: rather than showing me, it told me everything.
The end twist, if you could call it that, is ridiculous and not at all plausible. The plan these terrorists pull off would’ve taken years and years of planning, and with the twist it just doesn’t make sense.
But, one thing made me mad above everything else. The end scene is completely confusing. I didn’t understand what it was trying to tell me. Was it trying to tell me that deep down inside terrorists have feelings too? Or was it trying to let me know the filmmakers really needed to find a way to end this film so they chose that way? Maybe someone with a different vantage point of the movie can let me in on the secret.
Grade: C-