If only it had a point.... Review on Vantage Point Movie

In trying to put together a fast-paced thriller, the makers of this action movie forget that a movie ought to have a point first, that is worth its while. Instead of building real substance around an interesting pivotal idea, they get very lost in the minutiae and very wrapped up with the gloss. As a result, a bulk of the movie comes across as sheer extravagance, of belaboring an under-developed concept from many different vantage points.

Here, director Pete Travis and team, give us a rather botched-up application of the archetypal style of mystery story telling,  now poupularly called the Rashomon-effect. It was first used in the movie Rashomon(1950) by the famous Japanese director Akira Kurosawa. The original format makes use of subjectivity of perception on recollection, and employs the presentation of multiple reports of the same incident, from different viewpoints. Wherein, new and conflicting information is revealed each time. In Vantage Point, however, let alone conflicting information, but even new light gets to be in somewhat of a short supply with each replay of the central incident. The incident, in this case is the shooting of the President of USA at an anti-terrorism summit being held in Salamanca, Spain, and a subsequent bomb blast within minutes after that. It might appear quite sensational, at the outset, but the entire premise turns rather stale and shallow as the plot lumbers along, sneaking in just a little more of the yarn each time, while offering little or no room for analysis or investigation.  But, mercifully, it gets to be a bit relieving, but only for a little while. It happens just when you are getting a bit too tired of the empty, corny and special-effects laden rewinds, and are about to scream out loud saying ‘be kind, don’t rewind’. At that time, the script comes up with a fleeting moment, of a smidgeon, of mystery, that sounds rather clever and redeeming. And, as unconvincing and cinematic an element of intrigue as that turns out to be, by then, you are only too glad to take it in your stride.  You get ready to watch what happens next with renewed interest. But nothing of substance happens next. Instead, you get presented with a long car chase(dizzy, but rather slick and with an in-your-face feel to it, however), and a lame ending soon after.

Sigourney Weaver in the, rather festooned, role of the anchor of a CNN-like news broadcast clocks in just about as many minutes, or perhaps seconds, as in the movie’s trailer. Dennis Quaid, as the president’s secret service agent acts well, but ends up looking quite abject in a very unflattering role. William Hurt looks quite comfortable in the role of the president. When you link back that little piece of mystery, in your own mind, you like his performance even more, in the opening sequences when something does strike you as being bizzare about his demeanor. Forest Whitaker makes the most of the role, of the befuddled American tourist caught in the middle of the main drama with a camcorder. With his spontaneous expressions, he does the same with the sliver of scope for a sideshow of a quiet and more personal drama, in an otherwise noisy and hectic script.

The movie tries, in vain, to make up for its schlocky  and slim subject matter with a few  sincere touches, of packaging and padding. It is very lavishly mounted and is graphically very colorful.  And, there is a constant effort to make it pulsating - by audio-visual means. But in the absence of compelling content, all of that, sadly, makes only for a lot of sizzle, and very little steak!