Vantage Point vs In The Line Of Fire

It’s not often that I’m embarrassed for a movie. Embarrassed by a movie, or to have seen certain movies, sure. But actually embarrassed for the movie? Watching Vantage Point was a bit like watching a friend drink too much and make an ass of himself at karaoke. Sure, he’s having fun now, when he sees the pictures tomorrow, he’s gonna feel pretty stupid. Vantage Point is one of those movies in which you’ll hear it has a first-time director, and your only choice of response is a muttered, “Yeah, no shit.” Vantage Point has two things going for it: a fresh concept and a good cast. The concept, you’ll notice quickly, is there instead of a plot or a script. The cast, you’ll see soon after, is wasted. By the time Vantage Point had rewound its initial fifteen minutes a third time, I started to feel bad for it. Vantage Point thinks it’s edgy and now, and like, full-throttle or whatever, but seriously, Vantage Point, pull your pants up. People are watching.

The President (William Hurt. I’d be embarrassed for him, but he looks embarrassed enough for himself) is in Spain , making an appearance in favor of an anti-terror agreement. His speech is to take place in the center of a plaza that’s the intersection of what appears to be ten streets and a maze of sidewalks, not to mention hotels and apartments towering overhead. Sound like the kind of place you’d want to hold a speech on terrorism? Me either. And if you’ve seen the trailer, you know THE PRESIDENT’S BEEN SHOT! Oh, and if you’ve seen the trailer, you also know NEVER MIND, IT WASN’T THE PRESIDENT! Why would they do that? Why would they spoil the movie in the trailer? Oh, and why would they do that? Why would they spoil the movie with a “look-a-like double for the President” plot twist? And haven’t we moved on from movies that have “plot twists” anyway? Can’t we see movies with stories? I’m all for a surprise ending, but the way Vantage Point earns its surprises is by almost showing us what happens, then rewinding (literally, ugh), and showing the same events over and over and over (you’ll need six “overs” to finish that sentence) from every conceivable perspective. At least three of them don’t tell us anything new, and none of them satisfy.

Dennis Quaid plays a Secret Service agent who got shot last year protecting the President. Everyone regards him as a failure, and he’s all sheepish about coming back to the job, but let me ask this: If you’re a Secret Service agent, and you got shot so the President wouldn’t…you did good, right? Quaid isn’t asked to do much besides run and scowl, but he mostly looks uncomfortable. Fairing a little better is Sigourney Weaver, as a CNN-style producer, having to contend with apparently being the smartest person in Spain at that very moment, as well as dealing with a trailer full of colleagues that were cast oddly young for the job. She’s only rewound once, but makes a bigger impact than any of her more played costars by keeping things as subtle as possible, given the format.

Oh, and that format. Let’s talk about Vantage Point’s concept for a bit, shall we? Every fifteen minutes or so, the film flips back and starts over from a different character’s point of view, which would be fine, riveting even, in a better movie. In Vantage Point, though, several of the do-overs contain the exact same shots. How can everybody’s point-of-view have included Dennis Quaid tackling the cop? Little Ana Ice Cream Cone stepping into traffic? (Ah, don’t get me started on Little Ana Ice Cream Cone, her unnecessary, manipulative subplot, or the crazy, blinking, panting, over-acted performance she inspires in Forrest Whitaker, whose Best Actor Oscar is barely a year old. Ouch.)

A movie like this can still be fun, though, right? Yeah, I suppose, and at times, Vantage Point is fun. It’s got a few good chases, and the first time that bomb goes off, it’s a shocker (the sixth time, for the same bomb? People started laughing.) But everything’s filmed with the slickness of a car commercial. At one point, the movie’s “surprise” villain looks into his rearview mirror, and makes eye contact with the person chasing him, as if the person in the car behind were actually in the back seat. And there’s a confusing tactic at hand, in which American characters speak subtitled Spanish to Spanish characters, but Spanish characters speak English to each other. Whatever, Vantage Point, whatever.

I get it. 24 won’t be back on the air for a year. You miss your pop politics and intrigue. Dude, skip Vantage Point, and just rent In the Line of Fire again already. It’s what you want and you just won’t come out and say it. That’s what I’m here for.

In the Line of Fire has a similar plot to Vantage Point, but the acting is note-perfect, the villain (as opposed to the nameless, faceless, personality-minus crew we get in Vantage Point) is John M.F. Malkovich, and, best of all, you only have to watch it once.

In the Line of Fire stars Clint Eastwood as a grizzled Secret Service agent, back on the job and weary, not just from the world in general, but because he botched his job back in the 1960s, and got President Kennedy shot. Oops. He’s got a dangerous detail coming up, a spunky new partner (Rene Russo. She played this part how many times in the 1990s? A hundred? And then disappeared? I bet she checks her imdb page sometimes and says, “Awesome, awesome, awesome, kick ass, kick ass, awesome, yes, yes, awesome…WTF?”), and one of the best screen villains of the past twenty years in John Malkovich. Malkovich plays Mitch Leary, a mild-mannered assassin with a plastic gun, out to kill the President. Do we even need to discuss this? Malkovich is monumental in In the Line of Fire. When you’re done reading this, or what the hell, right now, go watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XSKPBef37c

In the Line of Fire was one of those movies that I had kind of written off as too mainstream, as more of an action movie than as serious drama. But then I saw Vantage Point, which takes itself so seriously, and tries so hard to Be Important, that it forgets to tell a story and entertain me. In the Line of Fire starts at entertainment, building a smart script first and layering in those great actors (Eastwood is great too, rarely better.) I just watched those scenes again for the second time in about fifteen minutes. I couldn’t wait for Vantage Point to be over, and here I am, at home, watching In the Line of Fire from a whole new you-know-what. I recommend you do the same.

Vantage Point: D

In the Line of Fire: A