If you haven’t seen the movie Vantage Point, starring Dennis Quaid, Forrest Whitaker and other people, give it a whirl. It’s not a bad way to spend 90 minutes.
If you have seen it, then perhaps you can answer this question:
SPOILER WARNING!!!
The bad guys killed about a jillion people, right? There were two bombs, endless gunshots and at least one stabbing. People were murdered left and right. The team of bad guys behind the killing were even willing to shoot their close friends if those friends were a threat to the cause. The team of bad guys were so under deep cover that they had been able to place at least two operatives high up in the American military, a la Kevin Costner in No Way Out. Clearly this was a vast conspiracy which took years to painstakingly piece together.
And I’m supposed to believe that these same bad guys–these same ruthless killers who have shot their own friends and have kidnapped no less a personage than the frakkin’ President Of the United States will swerve to miss a little girl standing in the road. Really?
Somehow I just don’t see it really playing out that way.
I guess the film focused too much on the way it was told, that is on multiple points of view. This, in turn, made the realism somehow weak.
For example, if you were a tourist caught up in the middle of bombing, would you suddenly get the urge to become a hero? I don’t think so. But that’s what happened in the movie.
Still, the story was enjoyable, despite lack of realism. If I was there, I’d make haste to my hotel, pack my stuffs and go home. I won’t even think of becoming a hero. That’s just me, though.
Forrest Whitaker was great, despite his “unrealistic” character.
For example, if you were a tourist caught up in the middle of bombing, would you suddenly get the urge to become a hero?
And–I say this as a bit of a tubbo myself–would you be able to run miles back and forth in a large foreign city if you were an out of shape tourist? I mean no offence to Forrest Whitaker and his football-playin’ self, but honestly. He did not look like the type of fellow who would run the four minute mile.
Not to mention the fact that a large black man running with a screaming white girl child in his arms is liable to get shot at his ownself in many parts of the world. (It may not be right, but it’s likely.)
Still, the story was enjoyable, despite lack of realism.
The story was fun. In fact it was a lot more fun than I had expected it to be. Of course, I always like the idea of Matthew Fox beaten bloody and senseless.
How I loathe that man!
We walked out of the theater and wondered why in the world we’d paid money to see this movie.
I’m so tired of Matthew Fox, seeing him beat was refreshing.
Didn’t care for it. Thought I’d like it and it was highly recommended to me. Seemed like they had a good (if not exactly original) idea; tell a story but from the viewpoints of various characters, but then the writers couldn’t figure out how to do that effectively so they just threw all that out the window a half hour into the film and just made a movie (that jumped from character to character in the standard third person point of view).
Well everyone has a different point of view. I was amazed at how all the streets in that city they went through in a huge car chase scene seemed to lead back to the same spot a few blocks away from the plaza, so imagining that a heartless terrorist had a heart wasn’t a giant leap. But I did enyoy the film. But I was like Forrest, why are you running down the street shooting video?