[img]7|left|||no_popup[/img]
Judging by the reaction of other film critic-types at the screening I attended, “Vantage Point” isn’t a film that will earn glowing reviews. It’s simply not a good sign when people snicker at the odd line of dialogue or plot development, and audibly groan or sigh at the film’s fundamental structure, and I suspect that the words “repetitive” and “absurd” will feature prominently in many less-than-charitable reviews. But “Vantage Point” does work very well for what it is, a escapist thriller, and while screenwriter Barry Levy took a big risk in structuring the story the way he did, it was a risk worth taking.
Multiple Perspectives
“Vantage Point” is a puzzle centered on the attempted assassination of U.S. President Ashford (Hurt) – the post-Sept. 11th President we wish we had – during a vital summit in Spain in which Western countries and the Arab world are to endorse a landmark agreement. The film consists of re-experiencing the same event from (kinda-sorta) eight different vantage points, with each iteration offering pieces of the puzzle that come together in the final segment. Levy’s gamble is obvious: He’s betting that audiences will willingly go along with the repetition for the sake of what is novel. Not all the film folk in the screening audience accepted it; it worked for me, though. In the vague manner of “Memento,” there is an intellectual thrill to be had in a film that uses unconventional structure to involve audiences in the construction of a story.
Talk About Manipulation
Naturally, all this narrative sleight-of-hand makes “Vantage Point” a textbook example of audience manipulation, especially given how each character’s segment ends on a cliffhanger. Yet, however manipulative the film arguably is, it’s also a first-rate model in how to conceal and reveal information in a way that tightens the tension, ratchets up the thrills, and productively propels the story forward. J.J. Abrams could learn a lesson or two here. Unfortunately, as is the case with many mysteries, the unveiled solution doesn’t quite live up to the premise, although the issue isn’t so much a lack of ruthlessness – the film is about terrorism, after all – inventiveness, or even well-performed drama, but of the film falling into action movie clichés. Pete Travis’ meticulous direction, with a certain “Bourne”-flavoured panache, is very clever in rotating the story around a fixed central event, although it only narrowly avoids stretching plausibility beyond the breaking point. In the film’s defense, the action movie clichés lend “Vantage Point” no more absurdity than your average Tom Clancy thriller or action-oriented film, and though the film’s end point comes from a straight-line, it’s worth a few chewed fingernails. At the least, Travis delivers high-octane thrills that successfully build on the tension that comes with solving the puzzle.
Still, I wish the film had shown more ambition and delved much more deeply into the motivations underlying the film’s villains. Along with the politics surrounding the summit and this alternate-reality President’s approach to foreign policy, “Vantage Point” is ripe for hard-hitting political commentary and allegory. In choosing not to go beyond the obvious, however, “Vantage Point” ends up offering little more substance than escapist fare. Then again, with its topical politics and small but effective character portraits, the film might just be cleverer than your average cinematic diversion.
Entertainment Value: ** (out of two)
Technical Quality: ** (out of two)
Columbia Pictures presents a film directed by Mark Waters. Written by Barry Levy. Starring Dennis Quaid, Forest Whitaker, William Hurt and Matthew Fox. 90 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for sequences of intense violence and action, some disturbing images and brief strong language.)
