User Score
5.6

Mixed or average reviews- based on 145 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 75 out of 145
  2. Negative: 42 out of 145
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 11, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The concept was good: show different perspectives of the same event. The problem is that it's unrealistic. Not the attempt on the President, but the terrorists plan would never unfold in such a way. First, the traitor secret service member is becoming cliche. Further, the secret service takes regular polygraphs to ensure loyalty. Second, the single special forces guy who is able to take out secret service control single-handed. The secret service are some of the best trained agents in the world, many of which have special forces training. It's ridiculous to think one guy could kidnap the President. And for some reason, no one was wearing bulletproof vests. Next, the meeting point had to be only a short way from the target so Forest Whitaker could save the little girl, but there is no way a terrorist group would do anything but run as far as possible. Lastly and what was the hardest to believe was that a terrorist who just orchestrated multiple bombings and murders who swerve and endanger his plan when a child stepped in front of his car rather than simply run her down. He most likely just killed a dozen children with bombs, but he hesitates to run another down. It's just not common sense. So while a good premise, terrible terrible execution. Expand
  2. KalebF.
    Jul 2, 2008
    10
    Very realistic situation of a thriller. Reminds me of Real-life 9/11. Very intelegent way of perception this film has.
  3. sVc.
    Aug 6, 2008
    3
    There are two reasons to watch this movie: the first five minutes and the main car chase. Other than that, nothing. I thought the idea of watching different points of view would be an interesting concept, but it becomes tedious very quickly. This movie is just so completely implausible. And when people say that the ending becomes ludicrious...well, the movie isn't even 90 minutes There are two reasons to watch this movie: the first five minutes and the main car chase. Other than that, nothing. I thought the idea of watching different points of view would be an interesting concept, but it becomes tedious very quickly. This movie is just so completely implausible. And when people say that the ending becomes ludicrious...well, the movie isn't even 90 minutes long and "the ending" they're spreaking about actually consists of OVER 1/3 of the movie. Way too many impossibilities and ridiculous scenarios they throw at you. Spend your time on something better! Expand
  4. CC
    Jan 21, 2009
    8
    I don't get why this movie was panned. I thought I would be bored to tears because of the way it was described by the critics, but I found it very interesting and entertaining, enough to want to know how it ends. And it does end satisfactorily, which is something I can't say for a lot of movies lately (Spanglish, Be Kind, Rewind, anyone?) Certainly not worse than most action films.
  5. BostonSeven
    Feb 23, 2008
    3
    Car chase scene is not terrible, but movie suffers from a loss of momentum since it replays every 10 minutes or so, each time adding on a bit more. Potential was there, but doesn't live up to the idea. Not worth it.
  6. elizabethg
    Feb 27, 2008
    1
    They always lure you with the trailers in the theaters. The trailer was much better and suspenseful than the movie. A TV movie or (Lost) has more suspense in it than this movie, relatively speaking. That goes to show that writing a script worth while is much more difficult than some special effects. But they knew they were going to get their money because people would go see it anyway.
  7. RJS.
    Feb 20, 2008
    10
    The movie takes you to a thrilling ride only to take you back again without finishing, leaving you hanging. And when that cycle ends, you are blown away. Spectacular action sequences, brilliant editing, relevant plot, though too unrealistic. But it succeeds more than any commercial post 911 film has done, because it immerses you on what the war on terror really is for normal people like us.
  8. SandyD
    Mar 20, 2008
    1
    No offense to anyone involved, but this movie was honestly a waste of time and money. If you think about it carefully, the movie is only really 15 minutes, which includes the little adventurous car chases and highway runs and one episode of the president being assainated. The rest of the 90 minutes was a repeated disaster of the presidents speech and the explosion. Everyone seemed to have No offense to anyone involved, but this movie was honestly a waste of time and money. If you think about it carefully, the movie is only really 15 minutes, which includes the little adventurous car chases and highway runs and one episode of the president being assainated. The rest of the 90 minutes was a repeated disaster of the presidents speech and the explosion. Everyone seemed to have the same point of view on what happened, which seemed ridiculous and repetitive. I just wish that the scene would have changed for everyone's point of views, and that everything wasn't repeated so much. The ending was the only part that really grasped attention. The rest needed work. Expand
  9. HP
    Mar 5, 2008
    6
    From a reality standpoint this gets a 0, but from a fun time in the theater, at least after the 4th reset, this movie satisfies. Are there things I would do to make this better? Yes there's a long list, but going in with low expectations, I enjoyed the ride.
  10. TheMovieCritic
    Mar 7, 2008
    10
    This was an amazing production......it was a captivating thriller that kept you guessing until the end. Well executed and masterfully assembled. no moment of pause and amazing action scenes mixed with clever plot planning.
  11. EinarJ.
    Apr 3, 2008
    3
    The movie is so stereotypical, that i can't believe i even found this movie somewhat appealing. The idea of viewpoints sounds wonderful (main reason i even gave this movie a 3), but it becomes tedious, revisited and in the end abandoned for an all out momentum, we-dont-have-enough-of-a-budget-to-add-more-viewpoints. There is almost no character development, and all the characters are The movie is so stereotypical, that i can't believe i even found this movie somewhat appealing. The idea of viewpoints sounds wonderful (main reason i even gave this movie a 3), but it becomes tedious, revisited and in the end abandoned for an all out momentum, we-dont-have-enough-of-a-budget-to-add-more-viewpoints. There is almost no character development, and all the characters are typical and uninteresting. Despite half the cast dying somewhere in the movie, without much emotion, the plot could've worked with some enhanced character development. Forest Whitaker acts decently, but seems to fit in the Forest Whitaker type of role, barely causing for major acclaim. The movie was just awful really, yet could keep you somewhat appealled for the first time in theatres. - Einar J. Expand
  12. RichardW.
    Jul 3, 2008
    1
    Distinguished by a plot so convoluted that even on reflection it can't be explained, and distinguished most by Dennis Quaid's gritted teeth, this is one major flop.
  13. AndyC.
    Feb 20, 2008
    0
    I am not judging certain aspects, but the motion capture was terrible. In the very first scene I just knew what the rest was going to be like. Vantage Point lacks on just about everything, and provokes the could-have-been good entertainment. Even sitting their for 1 hour and a half was stressful. My cheeks could not have been more aching, and frustrated. I can stand a long 3 hour movie, I am not judging certain aspects, but the motion capture was terrible. In the very first scene I just knew what the rest was going to be like. Vantage Point lacks on just about everything, and provokes the could-have-been good entertainment. Even sitting their for 1 hour and a half was stressful. My cheeks could not have been more aching, and frustrated. I can stand a long 3 hour movie, but not being able to stand 1hour and a half is ridiculous. This movie is ridiculous, the action was hard to watch, and weak too. I am very disappointed. 0/10 is my average, some might say thats way too low!!! Well trust me, this movie is awful, horrible, and terrible. It was a complete rip-off, with predictable ends, and no mysterious plots, it is obvious what happens. And the twists were not even mind-bending. Sorry if your confused but this movie was weak and terrible. Expand
  14. DanyChristenson
    Feb 20, 2008
    0
    There always is something to like about a movie, but this one doesn't have one single thing. The posters and ads look cool and exciting, twisting, engaging, and awsome. And the movie keeps those elements retained to the story, to make it look better, and it does. But in my opinion, it was just a poor execution. It has a style that is similar to "The Kingdom", "The Bourne Ultimatum", There always is something to like about a movie, but this one doesn't have one single thing. The posters and ads look cool and exciting, twisting, engaging, and awsome. And the movie keeps those elements retained to the story, to make it look better, and it does. But in my opinion, it was just a poor execution. It has a style that is similar to "The Kingdom", "The Bourne Ultimatum", but on the most part, it seems as if director Pete Traivs was doing nothing but presenting a stunning visual of action, chasing, violence, and fast-pace. It looked like he was trying to copy a Bourne movie or something because while he thought their was a really engaging story in the capture of the audience, the audience remains either confused or dulled out. It was absolutely weak! The script is terrible, Peter Travis tried the best he could to rushingly move such a dull plot and weak story. The assasination wasn't very grabbing. And here's the main thing, it starts off showing an assasination with a visual look around for about 7 minutes. And then it is nothing but people working together as if they know exactly what to do. There were average citizens working with high priority agents seemingly knwoing how to do things, survive car collisions, handling guns, chasing suspects, and helping investigations. And for 1 hour and 10 minutes there was nothing but watching video tapes, quickly getting information from witnesses, chasing suspetcs, car chases, public chases, shootings, very short and fast-talking deliberation, and pure action. This certainly isn't a dram/thriller/suspense, its more of an action/thriller. But once again, 2008 offers another marginally dissapointing piece of work. The writing was cheesy, everything went so fast. Pete Travis was doing nothing but focus on action, when he could have worked a whole lot more on story, character development, and deliberation, and at least a few breaks, (Which unfortanutely he never does). He never gives up, he keeps on going with the action, and after a while you just wan't to say ENOUGH! Right in the theatre. And the sad part is while it could have a been an okay 5 or 6/10 movie, it fails on suceedingly intense action. The action was weak, and poorly screen written, the events in each scene or sequence are either impossibley concluded or just relentlessly stupid, with each view having a dull break or bore added in. Well this film could have been way more hot and juicy, but all it was is a lame, absolutely piece of crap. Expand
  15. BarneyChristenson
    Feb 20, 2008
    0
    If you want to see some real action that stays true to whats happening in the story and to the characters, watch any of the Die hard movies or Bounre movies. Because this is probably the worst action movie I have ever seen. There was no single twist, or any thought convincing fun. This was completely boring, dull, and collosally stupid. If I were to see one movie this year that would be If you want to see some real action that stays true to whats happening in the story and to the characters, watch any of the Die hard movies or Bounre movies. Because this is probably the worst action movie I have ever seen. There was no single twist, or any thought convincing fun. This was completely boring, dull, and collosally stupid. If I were to see one movie this year that would be worth price of admissiom then I would see There Will Be Blood, aparently nominated for 8 academy awards, one for best leading role, and another for best motion picture of the year. Anything else that has tried an approach to the big screen this year lately has been implemented to be awfully stupid. And I have to say, after the pass of two months into the year, I am quite dissapointed having there being said that only There Will Be Blood and The Spiderwick Chronicles are the only goodie-goos of the year so far. As far as we can see only those two are winning Oscars like flying colours for 2008 films. Like c'mon, there has been nothing but low reviews for any film being released. E.G: Rambo, Jumper, The Bucket List, Colverfield, veggietales, etc, etc, they all suck. And this is no different, but worse, there has no touch of heart, engagement, or fun. Its too serious, and runs out of ideas right after the president gets shot. Expand
  16. HaroldMannyAndrew
    Feb 20, 2008
    0
    People, this movie sucks. There is no question. I was bored right when the first scene even started. I wasn't even excited for this. A total waste of my time. I wish I went to go see jumper whcih actually is marginally better than this.
  17. HappySmith
    Feb 24, 2008
    10
    By far one of the greatest movies i've ever seen. It was suspensful and it had me itching for more. It was extremely creative that they showed the same thing 8 times. Different views of course. Dennis Quaid was extremely good and they other actors were too. I gave it a ten out of ten, those who didn't didn't appreciate its creativity and action!
  18. TriciaBall
    Feb 25, 2008
    1
    movie was horrible. boring.
  19. caseydibbs
    Feb 25, 2008
    4
    slightly entertaining, however mostly from the reaction by the audience! if you are ready to watch the same scene for an hour, with slightly different perspectives. the twist is actually pretty good, however there are so many holes with actors and scenes, that it makes for a dull ending. the line at the end with quaid is comical, i couldnt countain my laughter! At the end you realize that slightly entertaining, however mostly from the reaction by the audience! if you are ready to watch the same scene for an hour, with slightly different perspectives. the twist is actually pretty good, however there are so many holes with actors and scenes, that it makes for a dull ending. the line at the end with quaid is comical, i couldnt countain my laughter! At the end you realize that the car chase was not up to par, that you didnt know where the other supposed main actors and actresses went like sigourney weaver, and the secret service during the chase. it could have been a hit, but sadly there is no top performer to save the movie, the trailer is about the only thing here worth watching, as it usually always is! Expand
  20. LesleyW.
    Mar 1, 2008
    2
    Positively dreadful. No character development, no back story, no intelligence. The action scenes are nauseating. Totally implausible plot. Can't even enjoy it as a mindless thriller, only mindless. The dialogue is laughable; in fact, many in my theatre were giggling (between the groaning). P e e-y e w!!
  21. Fantasy
    Mar 1, 2008
    0
    NoDoz anyone? Just awful!
  22. Granger44
    Mar 10, 2008
    7
    Not the best movie, but definitely kept me entertained. I liked that each viewpoint brought to light new information while including elements (including off camera sound effects!!) from the previous view points. However, while I'm normally one to forgive some continuity and other editing gaffs, this movie suffers from some biggies. They usually only momentarily jarred me out of my Not the best movie, but definitely kept me entertained. I liked that each viewpoint brought to light new information while including elements (including off camera sound effects!!) from the previous view points. However, while I'm normally one to forgive some continuity and other editing gaffs, this movie suffers from some biggies. They usually only momentarily jarred me out of my focus on the movie, but it was frequent and obvious enough to be very annoying. Expand
  23. JimC
    Mar 3, 2008
    9
    There was a lot of action and all the vantage points fit together. It was great!!!
  24. Art
    Mar 6, 2008
    7
    Not as bad as the critics claim. Just enjoy the ride.
  25. ElKay
    Apr 17, 2008
    2
    Forest Whitaker needs to redeem himself for his horrible performance in this film. Sigouney Weaver was not needed for the role she played. Anybody can shout "Camera 1" "Camera 2, I'm losing you!" It's been a long time since I've sat in a movie theater and heard people laughing out loud at a movie that's not a comedy.
  26. ChrisA.
    Apr 21, 2008
    10
    AMAZING thriller and car chase.
  27. ML
    May 20, 2008
    8
    Saw this at a $2 theatre...besides the rip in the screen, I was on the edge of my seat for the complete last half of the movie. The characters seemed to fit well into their parts and the car chase scene was well done. The conspiracy theme wasn't too disturbing except for the poor untrained Secret Service actors...(they really are alot tougher and smarter than directors make them to Saw this at a $2 theatre...besides the rip in the screen, I was on the edge of my seat for the complete last half of the movie. The characters seemed to fit well into their parts and the car chase scene was well done. The conspiracy theme wasn't too disturbing except for the poor untrained Secret Service actors...(they really are alot tougher and smarter than directors make them to be ((I'm ex-military)). I really enjoyed the last few minutes...how all the parts collided together...nice twist. Fairly nice plot altogether. Kudos to William Hurt's character for being the gentleman president with a little common sense and straight thinking. -not a warhawk, nor weak-knee kind of guy. Expand
  28. PeterK.
    Jul 3, 2008
    9
    Many people won't like the narrative arc, but I was totally mesmerized by it. The car case blows its rivals out of the water!!!
  29. VasilikiP.
    Aug 16, 2008
    9
    The best movie since '' The Rock '' and '' Heat ''. Surprising and interesting. A good cast and good interpretations. Nice soundtrack.
  30. TonyB.
    Aug 6, 2008
    5
    An interesting comcept is developed fairly well but never takes full advantage of its potential. Although I couldn't believe a minute of it, I wasn't bored.
  31. MattG.
    Jan 5, 2009
    5
    This film starts very promisingly but quickly becomes increasingly tedious and unbelievable. There is some entertainment to be had from watching it but ultimately it leaves you feeling unsatisfied.
  32. RyanZ
    Feb 22, 2008
    9
    I think it would be a wise choice for people to actually watch a movie they are voting and reviewing before they do said voting/reviewing, please, kthxbye.
  33. BrettPhillips
    Feb 23, 2008
    4
    O.K, I gotta get this off my chest first. This movie could have been soooooo much more. I'm a huge fan of whodunnits, especially one with presidents and car chases. So, naturally, I figured that this movie would be awesome. Unfortunately, this film came off as dry, and a little bit cheesy. Dennis Quaid, who I think is a pretty good actor, was so corny, I couldn't really listen O.K, I gotta get this off my chest first. This movie could have been soooooo much more. I'm a huge fan of whodunnits, especially one with presidents and car chases. So, naturally, I figured that this movie would be awesome. Unfortunately, this film came off as dry, and a little bit cheesy. Dennis Quaid, who I think is a pretty good actor, was so corny, I couldn't really listen to what he was saying with a straight face. Also, watching what we've seen before 8 times, was unique, but the directors could have mixed it up a little. It always ended with the same blinking digital lights. The whole theater was laughing by the last one. All that being said, it has a few moments where it twinkles. Not shines, but twinkles. Forest Whitaker was by far the best actor in the whole movie. I actually cared about what was happening to him, unlike most everyone else. In addition, the twists were kinda neat. You don't really suspect most of them (though there are a few that were so obvious, my 10-year old brother guessed 'em in the first half hour.) But most of all, in the last few minutes, there is about a 20 second shot that...well..I don't even want to give away any details. Did I mention that some parts twinkle? This shot is a freakin' supernova. I can't stress enough how amazing this last shot is; probably on par with the infamous "Exploding White House" from Independence Day, (though nothing like it in substance.) Too bad, it'll remain buried in this sub-par movie. Anyway, I digress. You'd probably want to spend your money on something else, like Be Kind Rewind. Better yet, stay home, and watch Independence Day. At least there, the president kicks some @$$. Expand
  34. chads
    Feb 23, 2008
    8
    This movie is not nearly as bad as the critics say and a good few of these user reviews say. If you are looking for a solid action movie and aren't expecting the Oscar winner for best picture then there is no doubt that you will enjoy vantage point. The car chase scene is very bourne esque and while the first 1/3 to first 1/2 of the movie is a little redundant with all the rewinding This movie is not nearly as bad as the critics say and a good few of these user reviews say. If you are looking for a solid action movie and aren't expecting the Oscar winner for best picture then there is no doubt that you will enjoy vantage point. The car chase scene is very bourne esque and while the first 1/3 to first 1/2 of the movie is a little redundant with all the rewinding and then reviewing of nearly the same thing over again from a different vantage point the second half definitely makes up for everything and is extremely good. But like i said, its a good big screen action movie but not a departed or gladiator or braveheart type of quality movie. Expand
  35. BrianW
    Feb 24, 2008
    0
    Horrid. It reminded me of the old Saturday Night Live Skit where Buckwheat was shot...Over and over again - we watched the same pathetic movie clip - at least SNL was supposed to be funny; this movie just ended up making us laugh in the same manner. It made me think about I am Legend and realize that there actually is worse movie made this year. I also think that how in the world could Horrid. It reminded me of the old Saturday Night Live Skit where Buckwheat was shot...Over and over again - we watched the same pathetic movie clip - at least SNL was supposed to be funny; this movie just ended up making us laugh in the same manner. It made me think about I am Legend and realize that there actually is worse movie made this year. I also think that how in the world could any studio read this script and say - oh yes here is a blockbuster - well at least the everyone will get a nice payday; they should give the largest part of the money to the guy who pieced together the trailer, if he would have directed the movie - it might have been exciting. Not. Expand
  36. ChuckBarr
    Feb 24, 2008
    7
    Only time you see the same explosion five different times. This movie goes fast if you like action.
  37. EllenClancy
    Feb 24, 2008
    4
    A strange, less than credible mix of Groundhog Day and Crash--without the literate screenplay and superior acting--Vantage Point wants us to believe that Dennis Quaid is apparently from the planet Krypton and is completely industructible and that stampeding Spaniards can miraculously avoid runaway, high speed police cars, ambulances and gunshots. The audience in my theater literally A strange, less than credible mix of Groundhog Day and Crash--without the literate screenplay and superior acting--Vantage Point wants us to believe that Dennis Quaid is apparently from the planet Krypton and is completely industructible and that stampeding Spaniards can miraculously avoid runaway, high speed police cars, ambulances and gunshots. The audience in my theater literally talked to the screen during the last two "rewinds" in frustration--and the little girl, Anna, elicited giggles for her improbable and oh-so-obvious plot placement. This could have been a very interesting film in the hands of a better writer and director. Instead, Forrest Whitaker looks lost and embarrassed, and the starry cast has to work hard to sell this dialogue. I wanted this to work--but it's a bit of cheese. Expand
  38. MarcK
    Feb 25, 2008
    7
    I didn't think it was awful, yes it was drawn out, and a little predictable at some parts, but it was mostly well acted, good special effects and action, and a decent plot. it was an average film that i would of been a little more disappointed if I had paid to see it. Also it draws out to a point that is boring, but brings you back in towards the end of the middle
  39. AaronM
    Feb 25, 2008
    9
    This movie deserves an 8, but i'm giving it a nine to increase the user vote. I think this movie achieved everything it set out to do. I don't think the same story would have been suspenseful or dramatic enough if told from linearly or from a single point of view. It never got nauseated and there were quite a few edge of your seat scenes. Was it a perfect thriller? Of course This movie deserves an 8, but i'm giving it a nine to increase the user vote. I think this movie achieved everything it set out to do. I don't think the same story would have been suspenseful or dramatic enough if told from linearly or from a single point of view. It never got nauseated and there were quite a few edge of your seat scenes. Was it a perfect thriller? Of course not. Audiences have gotten used to the formulas and are smart enough to know it has to be tied up somehow. But stylistically, the movie worked and that's enough for a solid thumbs up. Expand
  40. JoannaS
    Feb 25, 2008
    10
    Exciting and smart and fun and full of action. I enjoyed every minute. I was surprised by all the negative reviews to be honest. I thought it was purely enjoyable. I wished the end was a little less "Hollywood" and stuck more with the structure of the beginning. But overall, I loved it.
  41. BrandanDiMauro
    Feb 26, 2008
    10
    the best movie ever. Its a great brian teaser. You cant watch it without finishing it. You should go see it. You will love it!
  42. BillB
    Feb 27, 2008
    5
    You have to go into this movie knowing it uses the Groundhog Day scenario, but you don't have to go in hoping to get more than you asked for, which is a repetitive thrill ride.
  43. COry
    Feb 27, 2008
    7
    Yes the first few vantages were not nessesary, but other than that this was a good movie.
  44. DaveS
    Feb 27, 2008
    1
    I'll be honest, the trailer was more exciting then the movie. You had to watch through 7 "vantage points" until you saw the 8th one which filled in the real details. Seems like they only needed about 4 people in the movie to tell the story. When the movie was finished with everyone's "vantage point", it seemed like they ended it so quickly. And was it my imagination, or did I'll be honest, the trailer was more exciting then the movie. You had to watch through 7 "vantage points" until you saw the 8th one which filled in the real details. Seems like they only needed about 4 people in the movie to tell the story. When the movie was finished with everyone's "vantage point", it seemed like they ended it so quickly. And was it my imagination, or did those car chases seem to take a long time, but only ended up going a few blocks from the shooting. Expand
  45. MetaCritic
    Feb 29, 2008
    2
    It was entertaining until the second vantage point, when it became monotonous...every vantage point had *some* new information, but I felt it was honestly just a big filler. And by the third..and the fourth...I was ready to leave the theater. the only reason I stayed was because I was with friends, plus I wanted to finish my popcorn. The only parts I found exciting were the first couple It was entertaining until the second vantage point, when it became monotonous...every vantage point had *some* new information, but I felt it was honestly just a big filler. And by the third..and the fourth...I was ready to leave the theater. the only reason I stayed was because I was with friends, plus I wanted to finish my popcorn. The only parts I found exciting were the first couple of vantage points and then the ending; the rest felt like listening to a broken record player. Don't watch this movie; you'll never get that hour of your life back. Expand
  46. alexS
    Mar 1, 2008
    5
    The movie was basically ok in terms of action however, I would like to point out that the next time a film is supposed to take place in a white european country such as Spain, that they shouldn
  47. RayA.
    Mar 1, 2008
    0
    Complete trash. Each vantage point up to the fourth offers no new useful information. I walked out after the fourth.
  48. ThomasB.
    Mar 1, 2008
    6
    I saw Vantage Point tonight. It's sad that this light action film made every critic wonder why it was "no Rashomon." Here's a tip: there hasn't been another Rashomon since Rashomon. I'm not saying this was a classic action film, but it was hardly "dreadful" or an "unholy mess," as Travers and Morgenstern complain. Ryan Stewart provides the most accurate adjective: I saw Vantage Point tonight. It's sad that this light action film made every critic wonder why it was "no Rashomon." Here's a tip: there hasn't been another Rashomon since Rashomon. I'm not saying this was a classic action film, but it was hardly "dreadful" or an "unholy mess," as Travers and Morgenstern complain. Ryan Stewart provides the most accurate adjective: "serviceable." It's 40 probably should have been a 58-59. Nothing mindblowing, but satisfactory. I might not give it my fullest recommendation, but it was certainly not, as the metacritic score would have you believe, worse than Fred Claus. Expand
  49. KimL.
    Mar 15, 2008
    7
    Captivating and entertaining all the way through! But like most Hollywood output limited character depth and no reason for being other than just entertainment.
  50. MitchellK.
    Mar 17, 2008
    8
    Before I saw this picture, as with all the movies I see, I checked Metacritic and noted that the scores from both critics and moviegoers were mediocre. My wife and I had to pick one for the night and we decided to try regardless. We both did enjoy this movie. It was a thrilling story gaining momentum throughout the picture. I partially believe we liked it because we lowered our hopes due Before I saw this picture, as with all the movies I see, I checked Metacritic and noted that the scores from both critics and moviegoers were mediocre. My wife and I had to pick one for the night and we decided to try regardless. We both did enjoy this movie. It was a thrilling story gaining momentum throughout the picture. I partially believe we liked it because we lowered our hopes due to the lackluster reviews. I think we should all try this technique before we see new movies. The fact is that like the old saying goes: "They just don't make em' like they used to" couldn't be more applicable than to describe modern Hollywood. Expand
  51. StevenJ
    Mar 2, 2008
    8
    The editing is outstanding and the narrative crafting to piece together such a complex story is an amazing feat. Of course there was little back story... of course the actors didn't get much time to develop deep characterizations, but this is an action movie not an art house flick. Paul Greengrass shows once again that he is one of the most adept storytellers in Hollywood.
  52. MiguelJ.
    Mar 2, 2008
    4
    Good concept/Bad execution.
  53. PaulG.
    Mar 22, 2008
    10
    Great Action Movie , very cool.
  54. kayleighms
    Mar 28, 2008
    5
    While the multiple
  55. HarryC.
    Mar 3, 2008
    0
    The worst cinematic experience I've been subjected to since Catwoman. Endless loops of the same footage, zero character development, wooden dialogue that seems to have been penned by an elementary school student (with delivery to match), all hyper-kinetically cut to try and mask the lethal dose of every cheeseball, overused, witless cliche' known to film. Those responsible for The worst cinematic experience I've been subjected to since Catwoman. Endless loops of the same footage, zero character development, wooden dialogue that seems to have been penned by an elementary school student (with delivery to match), all hyper-kinetically cut to try and mask the lethal dose of every cheeseball, overused, witless cliche' known to film. Those responsible for this hideous waste of...of....well, everything should feel great shame. Go to your room for an hour and think about what you've done. Expand
  56. RyanR.
    Mar 4, 2008
    1
    Terrible...This was a 30 minute film stretched out into a full length movie. They showed us the same 20 minute sequence 4 times adding on an extra 5min. to each segment. Then it ended with a semi-cool car chase (thats how it got a 1). This should have been one episode of 24..The whole theater was angry...uugh I hate dumb movies.
  57. DC.
    Mar 9, 2008
    9
    I just saw this movie last nite, and personally found it to be a great movie.
  58. Bangell
    Apr 21, 2008
    7
    A unique and interesting film.
  59. SamO.
    Apr 25, 2008
    10
    This movie was very well composed and put together. The action and suspense slowly combine together to form the story and the driector does this very well. 10/10!
  60. AndyW.
    Apr 4, 2008
    1
    If you enjoy watching the same 10 minutes of film repeated half a dozen times and calling it a "movie," you'll love this picture. Also, if you believe that a shaky camera, where you can't really tell what's happening in an action seen, is a substitute for good filmmaking, rush out and buy a ticket. If you don't really have to care about characters one way or another If you enjoy watching the same 10 minutes of film repeated half a dozen times and calling it a "movie," you'll love this picture. Also, if you believe that a shaky camera, where you can't really tell what's happening in an action seen, is a substitute for good filmmaking, rush out and buy a ticket. If you don't really have to care about characters one way or another and are entertained by an overly complex, completely unbelievable plot, see this film several times! Otherwise, save your money. Expand
  61. MauricioL.
    Jul 2, 2008
    8
    interesting movie, they look at it i lots of points of view and u really kick yourself for not noticing it , keep your eyes open and u will probably like it
  62. TylerS.
    Jul 23, 2008
    3
    I was bored half way through the film as it was the same thing over and over, and by the time it all came together i knew how it was going to end, there was no surprise and no climax that made me want to see this again. i thought it was a waste of time, the only reason i give this film a ratign of 3 is there are some really good performances in it, but that is about all the filmign is I was bored half way through the film as it was the same thing over and over, and by the time it all came together i knew how it was going to end, there was no surprise and no climax that made me want to see this again. i thought it was a waste of time, the only reason i give this film a ratign of 3 is there are some really good performances in it, but that is about all the filmign is poor and the writing is worse! Expand
  63. JustMe
    Jul 5, 2008
    3
    I give it a very generous 3. I know I wasted my money when I reach for a remote and skip a chapter (the one that I already saw 6 times!!!). B-O-R-I-N-G! It did get a little interesting with a car chase and action at the end, but I was already disapointed.
  64. MeghanK
    Aug 20, 2008
    2
    In spite of the over-promotion, I chose to give this movie a shot; the intrigue of many vantage points hooked me in. I thought "hey, this has the potential to be excellent". The concept was so promising, but its execution flopped dead on my living room floor. Every few minutes, time went backward to 11:59:59 and thought "Here we go again". Yes, there were many vantage points, but In spite of the over-promotion, I chose to give this movie a shot; the intrigue of many vantage points hooked me in. I thought "hey, this has the potential to be excellent". The concept was so promising, but its execution flopped dead on my living room floor. Every few minutes, time went backward to 11:59:59 and thought "Here we go again". Yes, there were many vantage points, but unfortunately the perspectives did not present anything new--- at least up until 47:00, when I turned it off, bored, drooling, and needing a nap. The acting was subpar. I laughed at Sigourney, who was downright silly playing her cheap role at the beginning. Forrest's character was sappy and almost soapish, and Dennis's character's paranoia was underdeveloped and overplayed. No depth whatsoever= no riveting movie= sleeping me. Expand
  65. DeniseB.
    Jan 12, 2009
    6
    Bearing in mind that I did not pay to see this movie (it was an On Demand feature), I give it a solid 6. My advice: watch the beginning ten minutes or so, in order to get a line on the plot and the players. Then skip forward to the last twenty minutes, which is filled by a fantastic chase scene and implausible but satisfying ending. The middle bits are bloody boring.
  66. DWc
    May 24, 2009
    2
    2 for the engineering of the chase scenes and the syncing of the points of view. Otherwise it would be a zero for the ridiculous plot, freshman-drama-class dialog, cardboard characters, and terrible acting. Worst waste of time I've seen in at least a year.
  67. samd
    Feb 22, 2008
    10
    This movie was off tha hook.
  68. TaylorC
    Feb 22, 2008
    7
    I was entirely ecstatic to see this movie, but was shocked when I visited Metacritic to see the low score. I began to second guess my plans to see it. I went anyway, and was not disappointed in the least. The rewinds to the new vantage points get old after the first 2 or 3, but once you get past all the vantage points the movie gets exciting and entertaining. Not great, but not as bad as I was entirely ecstatic to see this movie, but was shocked when I visited Metacritic to see the low score. I began to second guess my plans to see it. I went anyway, and was not disappointed in the least. The rewinds to the new vantage points get old after the first 2 or 3, but once you get past all the vantage points the movie gets exciting and entertaining. Not great, but not as bad as the critics may make it seem. Expand
  69. JohnGavin
    Feb 22, 2008
    10
    This has to be one of the greatest movies I've seen in awhile. And I dont enjoy seeing movies and am hard to please when it comes to them. But this was very well done. Seeing that I am the only one who really thinks this,you probally wont take it seriously. But hey your loss.
  70. PaulM
    Feb 23, 2008
    6
    There
  71. EliasProdigy
    Feb 23, 2008
    9
    The movie had a very interesting way of presenting the plot. Good action. Got a bit dull in the middle but made up for it in the end with twists in the plot. Very good movie.
  72. JudyT
    Feb 23, 2008
    4
    Had the possibility of being an interesting political thriller but the gimmick seemed to be a lot more important than telling a good story with decent characters. Ms. Weaver and Mr. Whitaker talents were wasted on this junk of a screenplay. The so called thrilling, surprise ending I guess after the second rerun and the more they showed the events the more it seemed like a really bad Had the possibility of being an interesting political thriller but the gimmick seemed to be a lot more important than telling a good story with decent characters. Ms. Weaver and Mr. Whitaker talents were wasted on this junk of a screenplay. The so called thrilling, surprise ending I guess after the second rerun and the more they showed the events the more it seemed like a really bad rerun. Too bad lost potential. Expand
  73. DerekBarth
    Feb 24, 2008
    3
    The various vantage points didn't reveal more facts until they led to the separate scenes with the different characters. They lost me with the dizzyfying chase scenes and implausible finish.
  74. ChadShiira
    Feb 24, 2008
    3
    What works for "The Flintstones"(the television series, not the movie) doesn't work for "Vantage Point". Two Freds bamboozles the zaftig quarry worker's throng of acquaintances(when Fred Flinstone doubles for the King of Astonia), but Thomas Barnes(Dennis Quaid) is a secret serviceman who must be the worst federal worker of-all-time if two presidents escapes his regard. Since What works for "The Flintstones"(the television series, not the movie) doesn't work for "Vantage Point". Two Freds bamboozles the zaftig quarry worker's throng of acquaintances(when Fred Flinstone doubles for the King of Astonia), but Thomas Barnes(Dennis Quaid) is a secret serviceman who must be the worst federal worker of-all-time if two presidents escapes his regard. Since Thomas has difficulty identifying our commander-in-chief, how is he capable of comprehensive thinking, let alone, possessing the rudimentary acumen to walk and chew gum at the same time? "Vantage Point" invites the viewer to recapitulate the J.F.K. assasination in "Rashomon"-esque style. Granted, this is a good idea, botched, unfortunately, by an over-reliance on overblown action sequences and its egregious mishandling of the edifying movements that Howard Lewis(Forest Whitaker) documents on his camcorder. Howard, an Abraham Zapruder stand-in, should contain the lowdown to the assasination plot, not the media's live feed, if "Vantage Point" purports to say something about the "lone gunmen" theory. For dramatic purposes, there should be something on Howard's film of grassy knoll proportions. Expand
  75. AnonymousMC
    Feb 25, 2008
    7
    Starts out brilliantly with an intense and emotional scene. Then you watch it again from another perspective and you think, that's pretty cool. Then you see it from another perspective and you think, oh I guess that's what was happening. Then you see it from another perspective and you see a little more of the puzzle, but the whole movie starts to seem comical. Then it starts Starts out brilliantly with an intense and emotional scene. Then you watch it again from another perspective and you think, that's pretty cool. Then you see it from another perspective and you think, oh I guess that's what was happening. Then you see it from another perspective and you see a little more of the puzzle, but the whole movie starts to seem comical. Then it starts over again from another perspective, and you really don't care about the shocking twist because the entire theater is laughing you have to see it again. Then you see it from the bad guy's persective, and 2 bad guys look exactly the same, and you've scene the scene a million times and it's more humorous than dramatic. Then they finally pull it all together perfectly, except for some plot wholes relating to the bad guys' motivation. In the end, the last 20 minutes are good enough you don't care. Expand
  76. RonParks
    Feb 26, 2008
    2
    No character development. This movie needed another 30 minutes to explain how all the characters got to the situation they were in. The one FBI agent is a double agent, and you never know why? Poor movie. What a good movie go to Michale Calyton.
  77. vidMan
    Feb 27, 2008
    9
    I really enjoyed this movie. I thought it had an interesting approach to tell its story and it was very exciting. Much better than any Bourne movie.
  78. GabrielRe
    Feb 29, 2008
    0
    In addition to the longest, most boring and most predictable car chase ever, the notion that the President would be able to overpower well-trained terrorists is utterly preposterous.
  79. ScottH
    Mar 22, 2008
    8
    While the concept of reliving the event from different perspectives seemed odd at first, the film managed to tie people and plot together once there were enough perspectives to see. This picture was a solid thriller, and by most accounts, was better than most of the genre recently seen.
  80. PauladlC
    Jun 29, 2008
    0
    Please, don not waste your money and time watching this movie.
  81. ThismovieSucks
    Jul 29, 2008
    0
    I'm not the type of person who usually gets online and rates movies, but I felt compelled to let everyone know how BAD this movie is. While there's enough action to you interested throughout the movie, even get you hoping it might get good at any point, it drags you through person after person and how this event went down through their point of view. So in the end they are stuck I'm not the type of person who usually gets online and rates movies, but I felt compelled to let everyone know how BAD this movie is. While there's enough action to you interested throughout the movie, even get you hoping it might get good at any point, it drags you through person after person and how this event went down through their point of view. So in the end they are stuck with the task of trying to tie everybody's boring story together. The way they try to pull it off is complete nonsense. Don't waste your time. Expand
  82. tankj
    Jan 16, 2009
    4
    Nothing special here. I don't understand how Forrest Whitaker can win an Oscar and then do this junk.
  83. Jan 10, 2012
    7
    An interesting movie, with likable characters and an interesting plot that had me dying to see how it ended, some moments however feel unnecessary, and it does take a little while to get interesting, and the going back in time to see it from another persons point of view and can be a little jarring, and seems unnecessary until you finally see why they are doing it, but it all comesAn interesting movie, with likable characters and an interesting plot that had me dying to see how it ended, some moments however feel unnecessary, and it does take a little while to get interesting, and the going back in time to see it from another persons point of view and can be a little jarring, and seems unnecessary until you finally see why they are doing it, but it all comes together in the end to create a surprisingly enjoyable movie, but only a certain audience will like it. Expand
  84. Jan 26, 2011
    7
    After the 5th take of the same scene from a different "Vantage Point" started to become a bit annoyed, but the ending saved it. Vantage point can get a bit annoying with about an hour of the same scene but of different angles, yet if you stick with it, it turns out to be a fast, action packed who done it that should please most people.
  85. Jan 30, 2011
    4
    Vantage Point is a difficult movie for me to rate. It has good action, acting, and a good enough premise. However, going back in time 8 times makes the movie feel tedious and the conclusion is not satisfying enough to make the long 2 hours worth the wait. Overall, it isn't a bad movie, but compared to what it could have been, it is weak and unsatisfying.
  86. Nov 28, 2012
    6
    One of the only films I've seen that starts out as a solidly written piece of cinema and gradually turns into a maelstrom of phoned in plot twists and forced dialogue.
  87. Nov 12, 2013
    7
    If there’s anything to complain about, besides the script’s occasional dependence on coincidence and unrealistic behavior, it’s that the movie’s vantage point gimmick serves no real purpose. It’s there because the script is too lazy to weave all its characters together into one narrative, and not because they’ve thought of some unique and interesting way to tell this story. It works, butIf there’s anything to complain about, besides the script’s occasional dependence on coincidence and unrealistic behavior, it’s that the movie’s vantage point gimmick serves no real purpose. It’s there because the script is too lazy to weave all its characters together into one narrative, and not because they’ve thought of some unique and interesting way to tell this story. It works, but Vantage Point would have worked just as well told traditionally, maybe even better. Sure the movie's multiple viewpoint contrivance is just an excuse to get to a car chase, but it's a good car chase. Expand
  88. Jul 23, 2013
    5
    Interesting, unique way to tell a story with a good cast. The different "Vantage Points" though get kind of annoying around the third time, once all the characters come together things move very smoothly.
  89. Nov 9, 2013
    10
    If you ever see this movie at a garage sale as I did, you should buy it. I loved this movie; it's interesting and unique. A very good film with an excellent ending. Entertaining and "riveting". The action's especially top-notch, with a great car chase.
  90. Jun 20, 2014
    6
    Vantage Point has an intriguing premise, but the execution is kind of poor. The acting is okay, bit the movie could've been a lot more than it is with a better screenplay, and a better director. After about 30 minutes, the movie loses its freshness, although it picks up a little after the real story is revealed a bit more. It goes from a repetitive thriller flick to a generic action movieVantage Point has an intriguing premise, but the execution is kind of poor. The acting is okay, bit the movie could've been a lot more than it is with a better screenplay, and a better director. After about 30 minutes, the movie loses its freshness, although it picks up a little after the real story is revealed a bit more. It goes from a repetitive thriller flick to a generic action movie (which isn't much better). Even for a movie about the same story shown from different points of view, it feels repetitive and dry. Expand
  91. Apr 20, 2014
    9
    A clever, original yet unique thriller. While the acting is rather average, the film's narrative structure is very clever and the plot has a few well-executed twists, as well as a gripping finale.
Metascore
40

Mixed or average reviews - based on 32 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 32
  2. Negative: 12 out of 32
  1. Reviewed by: Scott Foundas
    30
    Produced by Paul Greengrass, and conceived as something of a companion film to his own "Bloody Sunday," there wasn't a moment in "Omagh" that rang false. There's not a single one in Vantage Point that rings true.
  2. Vantage Point starts to slide off the rails when it tracks a tourist (Forest Whitaker) and his trusty camcorder; instead of Zapruder-like intrigue, the episode has him running around like an agent in a rote thriller.
  3. 20
    If you can work your way past Vantage Point's goofy casting that places a bland, blank-eyed Hurt in the White House, then I suppose you can manage to forgive this "Rashomon" rip-off's other glaring idiosyncrasies, of which there are many.