I don't think I've ever used this word to describe a movie until tonight, but I just saw "Vantage Point" and the only word that leaps to mind to describe it is 'annoying'. In a big way.If you haven't seen it, I won't spoil it for you, but the film backs itself up 20 minutes over and over and over again, to give you the different perspectives of 5 people who experienced the same scene. Interesting in concept, but it failed in execution.
The first time it backed up, it was okay. The second time....well, alright. By the time they backed it up the fifth time, I was ready to throw my popcorn bag at the screen. I simply did not have time for this.
In addition, the acting was awful, the dialogue was flat, the script was predictable, and all that backing up ended in a crescendo of nothingness. Sitting through all the annoying rewinds produced nothing special for the viewer. Not one thing. The one comment from our movie group was about how inexpensive it probably was to make this film, since they got to use the same scenes over and over and over again. Ugh!
It starred an ensemble cast filled with a few has-beens, which didn't elevate the excitement any. William Hurt played the president like a piece of cardboard, and Dennis Quaid played the same character type he always does.
From this Vantage Point, I think I just wasted $8 and two hours that, unfortunately, I can't rewind and get back. Ugh.
I give it 1.5 stars for car crashes, but that's about it.
2 comments:
I saw Forest Whittaker talking about this film and I normally like him but I suspected this won't work. I think it is the sort of idea that lower budget, arty films generally do better than mainstream Hollywood films. Perhaps because the concept becomes everything in the Hollywood film and they neglect basic things like dialogue.
Agree. An Indie film of this sort might have worked because they spend so much more time on character development and meaningful dialogue. But this was awful. From the go, even before the rewinds, I was fully aware of bad acting and script. It felt like it was aimed at a lower IQ audience, and maybe it was.
It should have been called 'Vantage Pointless' IMHO.
Post a Comment