Discussion in 'Misc. Films' started by Hunter Rider, Mar 28, 2006.
the black dude?
Vantage Takes Point at Box Office
With a strong ensemble cast including Dennis Quaid, Matthew Fox from "Lost" and Forrest Whitaker, Sony's political thriller Vantage Point carved itself a definitive lead at the box office this weekend, grossing an estimated $24 million for first place in 3,149 theaters, averaging roughly $7,600 per site.
24 mill = good?
$24 million is good tally. Most films like this only tally about $15 million or so.
I got into the movie for free last night for 5 bucks. Usually I come out of movies saying it was amazing, but this movie let me down big time.
This movie was a joke. It was an interesting concept -- seeing this event happen from the point of view of different characters and seeing how it all came together. However, after each person's vantage point, they felt the need to rewind the movie back to the start and show us the time it started from. This was cool maybe the first two times, but after seeing the movie rewound 8 times it became funny. The whole theater cracked up every time this happened. We were all like, "Here we go again...". It was as if they didn't trust us to figure out when they went back to the beginning, so they had to show us.
Aside from that, the movie got a little ridiculous and corny once Forest Whitaker's character came into play. Overall, a pretty lame movie that had potential.
if you paid $5... then it wasn't free
I'd say 6/10. Not that great, not horrible either, but certainly not great. Hell, I knew the ending in the first five minutes of the film. That's how obvious it was.
I hope you're exaggerating, because that's just not possible. You hadn't met half of the important characters yet.
That's the most expensive free movie ever. Anyways i've heard the movie is decent, but nothing spectactular. But it is the second most buzz worthy movie of the year ( so far), behind cloverfield.
Well kinda, don't know the exact time but:
When the guy from Lost- forgot his name currently- came and told Quaid's character "don't thank me yet." That's the exact moment I knew. The line was just really odd and the way it was delivered was very ominous.
And didn't know how the ending would play out, only the main 'twist' of the film.
Even if you did figure out that...
Matthew Fox was one of the bad guys
...that's not the ending. In fact, that's not even that big of an aspect to the story, which is another reason I disliked the film. The twist was weak, and didn't have that much impact on anything.
I saw it on opening night and really enjoyed it for what it was. However, it did leave quite a bit unexplained though.
Why did Matthew Fox's character join the terrorists? Was their a reason for him joining them? Was he trying to destroy it from the inside?
Overall though I found it to be an enjoyable thriller that used a unique style of shooting the film by showing everyones different points of view. I looked on the time sheet and saw it was 2 hours and 20 minutes, it didn't feel like it was that long as the action and the story really made the time fly.
I recommend this movie though.
Yeah, they never explained why. I guess he shared their beliefs?
So it sucked? Just what I expected...
HAAHHAHAHAHHA! I can imagine it now!t:
Lol, yeah. It's said that the gimmick of the movie turned out to be a running joke.
I actually liked the rewinding of events and showing it from different characters point of views. For me it was a different type of storytelling that showed some originality with the director, it was no different than the method that's used for 24.
As I said, the only thing that disappointed me about the film is the lack of development for Matthew Fox's character. He just seemed to be placed there with no real indication of what to do with his character.
It would've been nice to have him confront Dennis Quaid's character in a different setting explaining why he sided with the terrorists. Rather than him simply saying with his dying breath "This war will never stop".
It also could've used more blood than what was shown, yeah it was a PG-13 film and all, but with the explosions and all you'd think the reporter, Quaid's character, and Forrest's character would've had more scratches, bruises, and blood on them.
Vantage Point is a unique film that suffers from the very thing that makes it unique. Seeing events unfold from several different vantage points sounds clever but, in reality, it seemed tedious and shallow. NONE of the characters have any possibility for development in this format. When any emotion or character development is attempted (ex: Forest Whitakers character) it seems unnecessary and blatantly hammered in to the wrong place. Another problem is that each rewind offers no clues you can follow or solve. Everything is revealed over time but its presented to you, theres no intrigue. The pace was crisp and the car chase was thrilling (even if totally implausible) but the resolution was far too convenient to sell. Overall, a disappointment.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of seeing a single event from different people's perspectives. However, the fact that they had to literally rewind the movie footage, and show us that they were going backwards to the beginning, became very tedious and repetitive. They basically couldn't find any other way to keep bringing is back to the start, or didn't trust the audience to understand that the event was starting again from a different perspective, so they rewinded the movie for us...eight different times.
Like I said, it was an interesting gimmick, but it soon became very tired and laughable.
yea woops..one of my friends got in for free..me and my other 2 friends had to pay 5 bucks.
Yeah I saw this on Friday, and haaaated it. This movie is really bad, it's real boring. Sure, the idea is cool with the flashbacks but they did nothing with it, such a boring film.
The 2 is for Matthew Fox.
It was that bad?
Well, looks like I'm avoiding it then
I didn't think it was that bad. I'd give it a 7-7.5/10. While, the rewinding did get a bit repetitive, it didn't really bother me (although, I could tell it did to some of the audience at the theater). I thought that they did well with keeping the tension between each perspective, even amidst the repetitive nature of what you were seeing. I will say some of the dialog was stale and cliche, especially toward the end, but overall I thought it did well in keeping you on your toes and providing some nice action (although some of it implausible). Overall, I thought it was entertaining.
Same here, rewinding didn't bother me in and of itself... I was more upset by the fact that they didn't milk it... this, like other films recently, feels unfinished, as though it had not been completely developed in concept before being written and shot.
I also knew that Matthew Fox's character was crooked. If that first line didn't sell it, then him running off after a shooter "No, you stay here" certainly did. It also upset me that they didn't go with it anywhere.
The thing that upset me most about the movie was precisely where they decided to put the rewinds, it's as though they decided to hold back every bit of information that might be useful in actually figuring out the storyline... they just yanked your chain around until you gave up trying to figure it out. The accentuate the fact that you don't get any clues as to what's going on, Dennis Quaid has this super-shocked face he gets 3/6 rewinds you go through... you don't get to see what he's looking at, but he gets a sudden revelation and rushes off, and then it's 12:00:00pm again... 23 minutes before the assassination. Really frustrating stuff.
But then, they clinched it... I actually suggested to my girlfriend that it would have been cheaper, and just as painful, for them to make the 23 minute version of the movie, and hire people to come into the theater and pimpslap us personally at the end...
The obvious resolution of having these different perspectives come together (the Newsroom was a PERFECT vehicle for this), and put together the pieces of the Kidnapper storyline that would run in the background obliquely of all the other stories (giving all the different perspectives PURPOSE)... this seemed to escape the movie makers... instead, Dennis Quaid's storyline is the only one that matters, accentuated by his ability to survive all manner of mortal injury, including getting in multiple car accidents while driving on unimpeded... and the fact that every other storyline except the Oscar-winner's ends in pointless unresolved death. Who cares? The president's safe, Dennis Quaid has his dignity back... none of the other Vantage points really matter...
Then why show them to us?
And I was also peeved at the way they killed Zoe Saldana. In a rewind film, just because someone is dead, doesn't mean that you never see them again (except repeats of their earlier part) that's a piece of narrative intensity that they couldn't seem to grasp. Oh, and the fact that I was watching her still breathing and they were like "Oh, no she's dead..." I'm thinking... "Uh... no..."