User Score
5.4 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 126 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 66 out of 126
  2. Negative: 41 out of 126

Review this movie

  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 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
  4. 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 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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, 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
  7. 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", 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
  8. 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 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
  9. 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.
  10. TriciaBall
    Feb 25, 2008
    1
    movie was horrible. boring.
  11. 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 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
  12. 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!!
  13. Fantasy
    Mar 1, 2008
    0
    NoDoz anyone? Just awful!
  14. 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.
  15. 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 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
  16. 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 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
  17. 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 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
  18. 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 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
  19. 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 those car chases seem to take a long time, but only ended up going a few blocks from the shooting. Expand
  20. 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 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
  21. 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.
  22. MiguelJ.
    Mar 2, 2008
    4
    Good concept/Bad execution.
  23. 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 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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 and are entertained by an overly complex, completely unbelievable plot, see this film several times! Otherwise, save your money. Collapse
  26. 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 poor and the writing is worse! Expand
  27. 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.
  28. 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 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
  29. 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.
  30. 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 rerun. Too bad lost potential. Expand
  31. 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.
  32. 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 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
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. PauladlC
    Jun 29, 2008
    0
    Please, don not waste your money and time watching this movie.
  36. 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 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
  37. tankj
    Jan 16, 2009
    4
    Nothing special here. I don't understand how Forrest Whitaker can win an Oscar and then do this junk.
  38. 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.
Metascore

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.