Columbia Pictures | Release Date: February 22, 2008
5.5
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 165 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
72
Mixed:
45
Negative:
48
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
3
sVc.Aug 6, 2008
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. 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
BostonSevenFeb 23, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
elizabethgFeb 27, 2008
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
SandyDMar 20, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
EinarJ.Apr 3, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
RichardW.Jul 3, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AndyC.Feb 20, 2008
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. 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
DanyChristensonFeb 20, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
BarneyChristensonFeb 20, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
HaroldMannyAndrewFeb 20, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
TriciaBallFeb 25, 2008
movie was horrible. boring.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
LesleyW.Mar 1, 2008
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, 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!! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
FantasyMar 1, 2008
NoDoz anyone? Just awful!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
ElKayApr 17, 2008
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
BrianWFeb 24, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
DaveSFeb 27, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
MetaCriticFeb 29, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
RayA.Mar 1, 2008
Complete trash. Each vantage point up to the fourth offers no new useful information. I walked out after the fourth.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
HarryC.Mar 3, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
RyanR.Mar 4, 2008
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
AndyW.Apr 4, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
TylerS.Jul 23, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JustMeJul 5, 2008
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
MeghanKAug 20, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
DWcMay 24, 2009
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
DerekBarthFeb 24, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
ChadShiiraFeb 24, 2008
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), 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
RonParksFeb 26, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
GabrielReFeb 29, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
PauladlCJun 29, 2008
Please, don not waste your money and time watching this movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
ThismovieSucksJul 29, 2008
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 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. Collapse
0 of 0 users found this helpful