Vantage Point: Askeleen edellä

For a dime-a-dozen commercial product, this movie is well thought out and engaging from the first minute to the last. In the end, it doesn’t really leave the audience with anything deep and doesn’t invite repeated viewing, but it will keep your eyes glued to the screen for those 90 minutes. And the only people irritated by the ending might be those who have never seen a single American mainstream action movie. (02.05.2008)

"Pete, let's throw in an unorthodox time loop, a Bourne-esque car chase, a cute guy from Lost, and an elite cast that's not yet a write-off, and it'll work." It's out of your head before you walk down the back row of the multiplex stairs. At the beginning, the repetitive time loop seems a bit tiresome, but as time goes on, the increasingly convoluted plot manages to at least activate the jaded senses of the tired viewer. The short runtime (one hour and twenty without credits) and the abrupt ending proves that 40 million is really not much for an action flick :o) (12.05.2008)

All the characters look like templates: the heroic president, the cool bodyguard, the good natured black man, the cute little girl, the hardened terrorist and others similar to him. All of them take part in a interesting action flick whose subordination to the mainstream is indisputable, notwithstanding the good idea of repeating the same moment. If you can put up with that, you’ll have more than enough fun for an hour and a half. The final car chase looks good, but it felt a little like déjà vu… no wonder, yesterday I watched Bourne. If Vantage Point was less naive and more uncompromising and tougher, it could get five stars, I really like films that play with time. (01.09.2008)

It's perfectly heroic, overwhelmingly pro-American, and predictable in detail. Yet given the ridiculous money spent on it, the director got it moving in a high-octane style that doesn't let up whatsoever. And when you cast Dennis Quaid, Matthew Fox, and Edgar Ramirez as uncompromising tough guys with guns in their hands, you can't go wrong. I’m very satisfied and it gets a strong 3 ½ stars from me. I will definitely watch it again, especially given its short runtime. (03.08.2009)

8 perspectives? You don’t say... Paul Greengrass: “Wow, I think I’m having a déjà vu." Screenwriter Barry Levy: “Hey, Director, I finished. I worked really hard on it at the beginning, but then I went at it a bit haywire, you know how it is with tequila. But don’t worry, the big cliché at the finale will cover that up. Why don’t you try a ten-minute car chase through the city? Your the king of your craft, boss, I got to hand it to you." Real American: “Oh, that’s a good movie, evil Spanish people allow terrorism on their soil? So, kill them all!" Spanish Spanish guitar player: “First I would like to appeal to our American amigos not to treat us like terrorists. Why did those evil American filmmakers have to choose our beautiful country to commit such a contemptible act? And I’ll say this much about the music: I wouldn’t play it alone, but it suits movies of this sort perfectly." Akira Kurosawa: “Interesting idea. It reminds me a bit of a story by Akutagawa. That would be worth filming!" Regular 24 viewer: “Good, almost like a double episode of Jack Bauer, the only difference is that the immortal agent is played by a 54-year-old Dennis Quaid. So it ain’t worth watchin’." Nitpicker: “Water! Water! I feel faint, so many hiccups and illogicalities! Take the last shot. A “bug" taxi typical for Mexico City drives past, the camera rises higher and there’s a forcefully grafted-on panorama of Salamanca with a departing CGI chopper. Yuck..." Terrorist: “The beginning is nice and explosive, but it went wrong again. Oooh, missus!" But only one of them can be right. Who? DaViD´82:, of course: “Watch, don’t get bored, finish watching and forget it. Simply a solid and inoffensive piece of popcorn routine." (02.04.2008)

A fun bite-sized snack that greatly entertained me for about an hour and a half, but its quirkiness bothers me. It doesn't hold back on adrenaline, nor on good actors, but I would have enjoyed it much more if it had truly been the originally intended script for a full-length 24 movie, and if I could have found common ground with the main character (in this case Bauer). As it is, it remains effectively, but excessively loosely designed trauma. The direction is brisk, the interweaving of characters and storylines is sufficient, but only a few moments and the current culmination of all perspectives stayed in my mind. (13.07.2008)

Vantage Point has such dynamic direction that I momentarily forgot about my prejudices toward action movies and even considered giving it five stars. But as the minutes went by, the simplicity of the film started to surface, with the script piling up one cliché after another and logical holes appearing in the plot. The moment when the kidnapped American president bravely started fighting with terrorists ultimately led me to give it a mere three stars. Nevertheless, it's not below average, as the film has a fast pace and offers a number of thrilling scenes. Overall impression: 65%. (24.04.2009)

A very energetically filmed thriller where you feel like you’re assembling a jigsaw without the picture on the box. It’s full of surprises. Telling the same story from various points of view is not at all stereotypical and the mode of storytelling often reminds one of Kiefer’s Twenty-four and the Bourne movies will definitely spring to mind during the closing car chase. The actors (perhaps with the exception of the weird-acting Forest Whitaker) give very decent performances. You find yourself crossing fingers for Dennis Quaid right from the beginning and that Matthew Fox is very surprising again. I had a great time. 80% (04.06.2008)

This film would be more than above-average entertainment if it didn't borrow so brutally from all possible action flicks of recent years: a weapon like in The Jackal, quickly edited, dynamic chases like in the Bourne films (the action music was so obvious that for a moment I thought it was a Powell advertisement), a bomb madness like in Kingdom (debris, sound effects, echoes, dirt), and so on. But for forty million dollars, I don't think more could have been done, and the material is squeezed to the maximum. What is disappointing the unrealistic shooting and the somewhat second-rate villain, whose compromise couldn’t be more predictable, and even a moron can see at that moment what the ending will be like. (24.08.2008)

I've been thinking about the rating for a long time, but in the end I'll be good again and give this film a thumbs up – Vantage Point doesn’t deserve to be slagged. It's true that from a filmmaking point of view it doesn't bring anything new and the serious premise is unpleasantly distorted by American exaggeration and jingoism, but for the ordinary popcorn viewer this film is a feast for which it's definitely worth making space and time. A big plus is the adequate runtime, which keeps the director constantly on his heels and forces him to keep a high speed, and then of course the actors around Quaid and Whitaker, whose roles may not have any great depth, but every viewer feels immediately more comfortable when looking at their faces. But I can say that I would have felt just as satisfied maybe even with a bunch of unknown actors, because Travis managed to create a very unpretentious and entertaining thriller that will probably make you change your mind if you ever want to be president. (21.01.2013)

An interesting idea that impressed me a lot. To film an event from the perspective of different people, and because everyone saw something different, someone more, someone less, it was possible to tell the whole story. The script is not perfect, but the element of watching the event repeatedly, but each time through the eyes of a different character, is able to evoke tension in us. This approach got to me, and even though the last half hour is just a simple resolution, I still enjoyed it. This is not easy to film in an interesting way, and I think this time it worked. (05.04.2014)