free counter with statistics Vantage Point | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

vantage2.jpg

Pete and Repeat Went Up a Hill. Pete Fell Down. Who Is Left?

Vantage Point / Dustin Rowles

Film Reviews | February 22, 2008 | Comments (76)


The conceit in director Pete Travis’ Vantage Point is a relatively novel one (if you don’t count Rashamon, though I can’t for the life of the figure why you’d want to since it’s about approximately 4,132,657 times better than this movie, if you’re counting at home): The same set of scenes is told from the viewpoint of several different characters, though each viewpoint veers slightly off into new territory after the main action, resulting mostly in a five-minute exposition being obnoxiously, irritatingly, painfully repeated several times. Set in an outside venue in Spain, the first viewpoint is from inside a news van set up near the location of an anti-terrorist summit, where the President of the United States (William Hurt) is meeting with other heads of state.

The conceit in director Pete Travis’ Vantage Point is a relatively novel one: The same set of scenes is told from the viewpoint of several different characters, though each viewpoint veers slightly off into new territory after the main action, resulting mostly in a five-minute exposition being obnoxiously repeated several times. Set in an outside venue in Spain, the first viewpoint is from inside a news van set up near the location of an anti-terrorist summit, where the President of the United States (William Hurt) is meeting with other heads of state. The second viewpoint is from a psychologically-damaged Secret Service Agent (Dennis Quaid), who is back on the President’s detail for the first time since he took a bullet for him six months prior. He is standing near the president when the POTUS is shot twice.

The conceit in director Pete Travis’ Vantage Point is a relatively novel one: The same set of scenes is told from the viewpoint of several different characters, though each viewpoint veers slightly off into new territory after the main action, resulting mostly in a five-minute exposition being obnoxiously repeated several times. Set in an outside venue in Spain, the first viewpoint is from inside a news van set up near the location of an anti-terrorist summit, where the President of the United States (William Hurt) is meeting with other heads of state. The second viewpoint is from a psychologically-damaged Secret Service Agent (Dennis Quaid), who is back on the President’s detail for the first time since he took a bullet for him six months prior. He is standing near the president when the POTUS is shot twice. The third viewpoint is from a goofy American tourist (Forest Whitaker), carrying around a video camera, who happens to catch a glimpse what appears to the shooter; Quaid’s secret service agent quickly confiscates the video camera and discovers that there’s a bomb beneath the podium mere seconds before it detonates, killing and maiming a large number of spectators and leaving a cute little girl in the care of Forest Whitaker’s character.

The conceit in director Pete Travis’ Vantage Point is a relatively novel one: The same set of scenes is told from the viewpoint of several different characters, though each viewpoint veers slightly off into new territory after the main action, resulting mostly in a five-minute exposition being obnoxiously repeated several times. Set in an outside venue in Spain, the first viewpoint is from inside a news van set up near the location of an anti-terrorist summit, where the President of the United States (William Hurt) is meeting with other heads of state. The second viewpoint is from a psychologically-damaged Secret Service Agent (Dennis Quaid), who is back on the President’s detail for the first time since he took a bullet for him six months prior. He is standing near the president when the POTUS is shot twice. The third viewpoint is from a goofy American tourist (Forest Whitaker), carrying around a video camera, who happens to catch a glimpse what appears to the shooter; Quaid’s secret service agent quickly confiscates the video camera and discovers that there’s a bomb beneath the podium mere seconds before it detonates, killing and maiming a large number of spectators and leaving a cute little girl in the care of Forest Whitaker’s character. The fourth viewpoint is from the President himself, who actually witnesses the assassination of his body double from a hotel nearby, before a man with a gun barges into his room and shoots everyone in sight.

The conceit in director Pete Travis’ Vantage Point is a relatively novel one: The same set of scenes is told from the viewpoint of several different characters, though each viewpoint veers slightly off into new territory after the main action, resulting mostly in a five-minute exposition being obnoxiously repeated several times. Set in an outside venue in Spain, the first viewpoint is from inside a news van set up near the location of an anti-terrorist summit, where the President of the United States (William Hurt) is meeting with other heads of state. The second viewpoint is from a psychologically-damaged Secret Service Agent (Dennis Quaid), who is back on the President’s detail for the first time since he took a bullet for him six months prior. He is standing near the president when the POTUS is shot twice. The third viewpoint is from a goofy American tourist (Forest Whitaker), carrying around a video camera, who happens to catch a glimpse what appears to the shooter; Quaid’s secret service agent quickly confiscates the video camera and discovers that there’s a bomb beneath the podium mere seconds before it detonates, killing and maiming a large number of spectators and leaving a cute little girl in the care of Forest Whitaker’s character. The fourth viewpoint is from the President himself, who actually witnesses the assassination of his body double from a hotel nearby, before a man with a gun barges into his room and shoots everyone in sight. Finally, the fifth viewpoint is from the mastermind behind the entire terrorist plot, though I won’t deign to ruin it for you, if you’ve managed to stick with the review this far.

Indeed, if you bothered to read as far as this, you have a fair idea of just how painful it is to suffer through Vantage Point, the Groundhog Day of bad action flicks. The biggest fault with Vantage Point, however, is not its poorly executed gimmick, but the needlessness of it. If you walked into the film an hour in and simply sat through the final POV and watched it completely play out, you wouldn’t miss a thing; in fact, you’d have a much better experience (though, much like the experience of reading this review, it’d still annoy the holy living hell out of you). There is nothing you can learn from the first four viewpoints that isn’t revealed again in the fifth. Indeed, the only purpose the gimmickry serves is to create the cinematic equivalent to extremely bad sex that’s nevertheless repeatedly and frustratingly interrupted seconds before climax, forcing you to start all over from scratch. And by the time you finally get to empty your gun, so to speak, you’re so bored with the whole production that your cinematic spasm is more of a relief than a delight, because it finally means you can fall asleep. And that, dear readers, is your cue to do the same.

Dustin Rowles is the publisher of Pajiba. He lives with his wife and son in Ithaca, New York. You may email him, or leave a comment below.


Pajiba Love 02/22/08 | 2008 Spirit Awards



Comments

You had me for a second there.

Fucking brilliant review, as always.

Posted by: Riles at February 22, 2008 3:07 PM

Does Matthew Fox take his shirt off in this movie or doesn't he? Honestly, that's all I need to know.

He does not, Kolby. He doesn't take his shirt off five times. -- DR

Posted by: Kolby at February 22, 2008 3:08 PM

Hahaha. Great.
There is no way I will be seeing this.

Posted by: Andy at February 22, 2008 3:08 PM

Dustin-

you are again the master...

you are again the master of...

you are again the master of illustrating...

you are again the master of illustrating how poopy movies are...

thanks for the laughs.

Posted by: Justin at February 22, 2008 3:09 PM

Ahahaha!! I thought I had been hittin' the bottle too hard at first and was seeing things. Another one I think I can skip.

Personally, one of my favorite multi-vantage experiments was X-Files' Jose Chung's from Outer Space. Great, great stuff.

Posted by: llism at February 22, 2008 3:10 PM

I do believe I'll just watch Groundhog Day again. And perhaps Netflix Rashomon for a second viewing.

Posted by: TK at February 22, 2008 3:11 PM

Brilliantly constructed, Dustin. Thanks for the great laugh.

Posted by: Terry Heaton at February 22, 2008 3:12 PM

Famous Fake President: Jeb Bartlett.
Famous Actor: William Hurt.

Nice catch. A brain scramble corrected. Four times. -- DR

Posted by: coveredinbees at February 22, 2008 3:12 PM

Christ, I though I'd lost my noodle for a second there... Kick ass review. My wallet thanks you. I've got a few folks who were planning on seeing this tonight - now I've got an excuse to politely tell them to "suck it" and stay home in my underwear.

Repeat, Repeat, Repeat movies generally make me ill, anyhoow.

Posted by: Skittimus Maximus at February 22, 2008 3:13 PM

Hee! I love it, Dustin.

Posted by: Julie at February 22, 2008 3:15 PM

Very clever, Dustin. For a moment, I thought I had been at work too long and was losing my mind.

Is Sigourney Weaver's role so minor that she doesn't warrant a mention? Or is just awful? Say it ain't so!

Posted by: Brie at February 22, 2008 3:16 PM

Holy hell! I got angry just reading this recap, I can't imagine actually having to go through that in the theater...I might be passing on this one.

Posted by: lyricalcatt at February 22, 2008 3:16 PM

Brilliant meta-review.

Posted by: BWeaves at February 22, 2008 3:17 PM

And to think they could have saved so much money by just setting their cameras up in Belgrade for a few days.

Posted by: PaddyDog at February 22, 2008 3:19 PM

I will also add that I thought that the beginning of this review was a typo. I was all ready to call shenanigans, but in the end I decided to keep reading.
Eh,it's not even worth Matthew Fox shirtless. I can watch him quite happily in Lost where he is often like that. And Lost is way better (and slower) with the mystery reveal.

Posted by: lyricalcatt at February 22, 2008 3:21 PM

p.s. Snerk.

Posted by: coveredinbees at February 22, 2008 3:25 PM

Calling it the Groundhog day of (etc) is an insult to Bill Murray and all he's worked for.

Love the review, though.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at February 22, 2008 3:26 PM

I suspect watching this movie would be a lot like when a four-year-old tells you a joke. They keep messing up and starting over, and when they finally get near the end they've gotta pee really badly and they're doing that hoppy dance and their blood sugar is dropping and they're totally distracted by something shiny so it just sort of ends...and you realise that even if it had made a lick of sense in the first place, it still wouldn't have been funny and all you're left with is a hypoglycemic kid who's about to wet their pants.

Posted by: Sarina at February 22, 2008 3:27 PM

Five times the non-shirt-takeoffery, you say?
Rubbish. Times five.

Posted by: Rachel at February 22, 2008 3:28 PM

There's a reason this movie has languished in a vault somewhere for years before being dumped on the wastelands of February against the Oscar telecast.

Too many good actors can apparently make one crappy movie.

Posted by: BFFredo at February 22, 2008 3:28 PM

Is Sigourney Weaver's role so minor that she doesn't warrant a mention? Or is just awful? Say it ain't so!

Brie, Sigourney Weaver is best sticking to what she does best...walking around in skimpy white panties, screaming at refridgerator-dwelling demon cats, and fucking Kevin Kline at key parties. :)

Posted by: Julie at February 22, 2008 3:30 PM

I'm just curious. Is Forest Whitaker's viewpoint slightly off angle and focused inexplicably to the right?

Posted by: insertclevernamehere at February 22, 2008 3:32 PM

This reminds me of The Simpsons:
Marge: "Homer, you'll love Japan. You liked Rashamon!"
Homer: "That's not how I remember it!"

Though reviewing a movie that repeats itself must be easy. Thank god for copy and paste.
Oops, I gave away the techniques of the Vantage Point screenplay!

Posted by: Kamakaze Feminist at February 22, 2008 3:33 PM

hahahahahaha

that just made my very snowy day

anybody else in the northeast starting to wonder what the weather forecasters were drinking/smoking/whatever when they only predected 1" on snow?

Posted by: Bethany at February 22, 2008 3:34 PM

The other night, I made reference to key parties, and a friend had never heard of them. Three of us simultaneously asked why he had never seen the Ice Storm.

Posted by: coveredinbees at February 22, 2008 3:36 PM

Clever, but the NY Times already used that review conceit this morning...

Is it really possible that the Secret Service would allow the president to speak on an open platform in a foreign country with that many unsecured windows surrounding it? My West Wing nerd alert went off the first time I saw the trailer for this one.

Posted by: Cait at February 22, 2008 3:37 PM

The only thing worse than trudging through the phrase, "Set in a outside venue in Spain," is doing it FIVE TIMES. Kudos for twisting the knife.

Posted by: shagearedvillain at February 22, 2008 3:38 PM

Spoiler Alert I guess:

Mr. Rowles you did a fine job of a subtle spoiler, I thought it was Fox when I saw the preview. Sorry you had to think it five times.

Posted by: The Stew at February 22, 2008 3:46 PM

I'm just curious. Is Forest Whitaker's viewpoint slightly off angle and focused inexplicably to the right?

Heeeeeee.

Three of us simultaneously asked why he had never seen the Ice Storm.

Excellent-that is SUCH a good movie.

Posted by: Julie at February 22, 2008 3:57 PM

I can't wait for the porno version. 5 different stars in 5 different positions from 5 different vantages! Woohoo! Or maybe not...

Posted by: ScarletKnight at February 22, 2008 4:11 PM

Excellent.

Posted by: twig at February 22, 2008 4:34 PM

I actually had some hope for this one. I thought it looked like a smarter, less craptacular "Snake Eyes". Apparently I was very wrong on that one. Funny review though, well done!

Posted by: Rob at February 22, 2008 4:59 PM

"I suspect watching this movie would be a lot like when a four-year-old tells you a joke. They keep messing up and starting over, and when they finally get near the end they've gotta pee really badly and they're doing that hoppy dance and their blood sugar is dropping and they're totally distracted by something shiny so it just sort of ends...and you realise that even if it had made a lick of sense in the first place, it still wouldn't have been funny and all you're left with is a hypoglycemic kid who's about to wet their pants."

Having recently seen this as well, I feel I can say with absolute certainty: Yes, Sarina. It is exactly like that.

Posted by: ShinyKate at February 22, 2008 5:01 PM

Best?

Best Picture?

Best Picture Review?

Best Picture Review Ever?

(I think so)

Posted by: Barry Seetoo-Ronk at February 22, 2008 5:02 PM

You know, this review kicks so much ass I'm gonna try to repeat it verbatim so I can acurately explain to people why I won't be seeing this in the theaters. As an added bonus/feat of skill, I will perform the above-mentioned hoppy dance and when all's said and done I will wet my pants and bow.

Shit, people should pay ME nine bucks to see that...

Posted by: Skittimus Maximus at February 22, 2008 5:14 PM

Even when she's screaming at demon cats, Sigourney still kicks ass, Julie. I mean, she was Ellen Ripley. Hell, I even liked her in Heartbreakers. :)

Posted by: Brie at February 22, 2008 5:38 PM

Great review! Worst "serious" movie of the year so far.

I summarize the movie this way: Foolish Foreigners, Don't You Know Every American is an Action Hero?

Really, all the "name" Americans survive while all non-Americans die.

Oh and I think they were having the protest rally in the movie because the Spanish representative (only a mayor? The nerve!) was forced to speak in English.

Posted by: JS at February 22, 2008 5:48 PM

Oh, sorry I didn't say it before, but excellent review Dustin. You made me relive the pain I felt watching the film, and for that I hate you a little. But mostly respect and admire you.

I have to second Brie on the Sigourney Weaver love. Especially for Ellen Ripley.

"Get away from her, you bitch!"

Posted by: ShinyKate at February 22, 2008 6:08 PM

DANG! I was kinda looking forward to this one!

(Great great great great great review review review review review!)

Posted by: Bev M. at February 22, 2008 6:33 PM

Ha, nice one. You guys come up with a new gimmick like this every week. I wonder why?

Posted by: the_Wakeful at February 22, 2008 7:04 PM

I don't know which is funnier: this review or the comments. Especially insertclevernamehere... so wrong yet so right on so many levels.

Posted by: Ciji at February 22, 2008 7:38 PM

This review was phenomenal. You captured the exact tedious, grating nature of the gimmick perfectly. I feel exceedingly fortunate that a good friend of mine got me into an advance screening of this last night for free. I almost felt like I paid too much, in the end.

We did, however, over beer and pizza after, decide that this idea could pan out into a decent television series. Honestly, the idea is clever, but the execution is just horrendous.

I can't believe you didn't have any commentary about the totally homoerotic sequence between Hurt and Quaid in the ambulance. I felt like they should've just made out and got it over with. "Don't worry Mr. President" (heavy breathing, long look of affection) "...I've got you." In bed.

If you just must waste $9 this weekend, don't waste it on this.

Posted by: Adam at February 22, 2008 8:04 PM

I think I'm bleeding from my nose...

Posted by: kimmb at February 22, 2008 8:22 PM

Funny. I actually liked this movie. I thought the repetitions were a bit annoying, but I liked all the twists and gradual revalations. I admit the hokey parts set me off a bit, but overall I liked it. And I love what's-her-name, the hot female terrorist.


My primary question (even before Did We Really Need A Little Girl In Danger and Damn, Forrest Whattaker Can Run For No Good Reason, Can't He) was:

Man. how well do the Spanish Special Forces TRAIN their guys, anyway, if ONE of them with no advance knowledge can cut through like nine levels of high-end alerted security?

Posted by: karstark at February 22, 2008 8:26 PM

Y'know... every time someone writes a review for a movie that so perfectly illustrates why I would never want to actually... you know... sit through the damn thing I discover that they actually have no intention of actually telling me what the obligatory payoff twist is other than to tell me that, yes, it exists.

Those reviewers? Yes, them; I want to strangle them.

No offense...

Posted by: Spike at February 22, 2008 8:33 PM

I don't understand, for some reason this review is written from several different vantage points, making it endlessly repetitive.

oh wait.

Posted by: Simon Owens at February 22, 2008 8:38 PM

Spike: Go to themoviespoiler.com. It's like after you've sufficiently teased yourself here, you can go there to get some relief.

Posted by: Brianne at February 22, 2008 8:42 PM

Wait, Sigourney Weaver's in this too? She's getting around this week, and I didn't like her other role. I also ran into Forest Whitaker this week as well, finally watching "Battlefield Earth" last night with the cushion of Rifftrax, two friends and three pints of Guinness by that point. What a stunning experience, and even when drunk I'm saying "what, do they have Marine Harriers?.....Hey, Harriers can't do that! You know, on British aircraft carriers they use a ski slope because vertical takeoff uses a lot of fuel........did he just say 'craplousy'?!"

Posted by: Jay at February 22, 2008 10:02 PM

Why do you continue to get involved with these punk motherfuckers Ghost Dog?

Posted by: Pookie at February 22, 2008 10:46 PM

Meh. I'll just go rewatch 'An Echolls Family Christmas.' Same concept, plus my girl Veronica. Oh, and Logan in just his boxers. Good times...

Posted by: Mimi at February 22, 2008 11:30 PM

NO. SHIT. POOKIE.

Ghost Dog was the muthafuckin' bidness!

Respect. Much respect for recognizing this sambatch of a motherfucking awesome piece of work.

Walk softly, Ghost Dog... (and if you're seen walking lonely by the side of the road, the MurderTank will fo'shizzle pick yer ass up).

Posted by: Skittimus Maximus at February 22, 2008 11:41 PM

Meh. I'll just go rewatch 'An Echolls Family Christmas.' Same concept, plus my girl Veronica. Oh, and Logan in just his boxers. Good times...

Good times indeed, Mimi. And lets not forget Logan and Duncan wearing the same pair of holiday reindeer briefs :)

Posted by: Julie at February 23, 2008 12:08 AM

I almost forgot about Ghost Dog, Pookie. While it's not one of my faves, the soundtrack alone makes it worth watching. And Forest Whitaker does scare the hell out of me with that sword. Pretty fucking badass. I loved the ending; it kind of reminded me of Kill Bill.

Posted by: Brie at February 23, 2008 12:30 AM

Dustin:

You win.

Now I hate February releases and reading.

Posted by: Jaspert at February 23, 2008 12:56 AM

Hee.
Read the title of the review, said "repeat" in my head, laughed to myself, said it again. I probably need to go to bed, but now I can't stop thinking about Pete and Pete and how much I covet those DVDs.

Posted by: hbomb at February 23, 2008 2:44 AM

Dear Dustin,

Do you remember when you would review movies and
be funny without some sort of gimmick? I do, I miss
those days.

Posted by: SB at February 23, 2008 3:38 AM

Great review Dustin. Perfectly captured the subtle nuances and character development of the film...

This movie was too much to handle. As in "I can't believe I'm watching this crap." Even my student discount didn't ease the buyer's remorse.

Always trust your gut instinct: I realized that if watching the trailer annoyed me to no end, the movie itself was going to be ten times worse. I was right.

Adam, true that. I was thinking that this would make a great HBO mini-series. Besides, everything sounds so much better when "in bed" is added at the end...

Posted by: jeccagold at February 23, 2008 3:54 AM

I wasted my $11.50 last night on this movie, and fell asleep after 20 minutes. When I woke up after half-an-hour, I thought they had started the movie all over again. And yes, I was almost tempted to think it was going to be an American remake of "Rashomon." And when it mercifully ended, I let go a sigh of relief that it was not.

Posted by: Emran at February 23, 2008 9:43 AM

hbomb!!! Holy McGoogededooglefuck!!!! "The Adventures of Pete & Pete" FUCK YES!

In all honesty Dustin, I am BEGGING for you to do a reviw of this show. PUL-LEEZ?

It seems (at least to me) tht a vast majority of contributors (eloquents) would benefit from the ball-out reminicesmentsnt (yeah, my spelling sucks)...

Think about it. That's all I can ask.... Thorw me a bone here...

Is it even on DVD? Anyone?

Posted by: skittimus Maximus at February 23, 2008 11:43 AM

Seasons 1 and 2 were released a few years ago. The third still hasn't and was delayed and apparently no one's heard anything for a while.

Posted by: Jay at February 23, 2008 12:00 PM

I just came back from this movie and boy was it rough. What the hell was up with that dialogue? I mean, seriously, did anyone else notice that seen where they repeated the word "shit" about 10 times? And wow, Dennis Quaid, can do miraculous things especially for a guy his age. Not to mention that his little bubble car managed to plow through the streets of Spain without any moderate damage. Ugh, I need to watch something half-assed before I lose it.

Posted by: maria at February 23, 2008 2:25 PM

yeah i never need to see this movie.

Posted by: jordan at February 23, 2008 4:24 PM

I still have a nagging bug to see this movie and I think that's mostly due to my man-crush on Dr. Shepard up there. Although, I've done a good job of steering clear of We Are Marshall and Party of Five so maybe I'll just re-watch some Lost.

Posted by: chris w at February 23, 2008 4:30 PM

skittimus: Hell yeah it's on DVD! Apparently they released that and other shows like "Clarissa Explains it All" under some "Nickelodeon Rewind" umbrella for those of us who get all mushy thinking about the 90's.
Unfortunately I do not own them. Someday...
I still get misty thinking about the episode where Pete starts the band and tries to play this song that he heard and has been stuck in his head. Or something like that.

Posted by: hbomb at February 23, 2008 5:40 PM

Long time Pajiba reader here... and I must say, I often find the reviews spot on. Dustin, especially, often sees things as I do.

In my opinion, this review is terribly off base. I think Dustin desired so much to add the repetition gimmick into the review that he drastically oversimplified the film. I'm not saying it's the best movie ever, not even really a great movie that i'll remember next year. In fact, many films tackling views of the same timeline have done it better.

That said, however, the film was not repetitive. When it was rehashing dialog already spoken, you were able to feel that it was in different context. You knew more was being shown to you. And to say that you only need to watch the last POV is irresponsible. Granted, you can get the "story" from the last POV... but you miss a whole lot of the experience of the narrative unfolding. There's a fine line between gimmick and skillful storytelling, to be sure. But I think this film stays just on the right side of the line.

I think Dustin has missed the boat on this one... opting for the "short-attention-span-theatre" version of this rather than the "sit-down-and-experience-it" version.

For those of you that don't "have" to follow the sometimes uptight viewpoints of this site, I still recommend this film.

Posted by: ty at February 23, 2008 6:14 PM

ty- that's pretty much what I thought the movie would be, based on the direction, I didn't think it would be anything huge, or new, but it still looks at least like a movie I'd watch and would hate myself for paying for.

Then again, I'm only speculating my supposed reaction. I just usually opt to give movies that use this style, or 'gimmick,' credit right away.

Posted by: MAx at February 23, 2008 8:29 PM

Dustin, that was painful. Given that that was the whole point of this, then bravo, you made my brain bleed through sheer frustration.

Posted by: KatyBelle at February 23, 2008 10:40 PM

There was a bomb under a president at a speech/rally.

Weak.

Sarina - you're describing my 5 year old boy and 2 year old daughter to a tee:

Son: 'okay, mom, knock knock, there's an orange...um..wait, start over'
Daughter: 'banana who, banana, ba-na-naaaa, who is it mom?'

That IS pretty funny - but maybe only when they are your own.

Posted by: Replica at February 23, 2008 11:58 PM

Y'all, this WAS a TV show already! I can't believe no one here ever saw Boomtown! "One crime. Seen from every point of view." Really? No one? It was a gimmick, but they used it well. It wasn't super hokey either. And it lasted only 1 season, and then was cancelled, and apparently I was the only person to ever have seen it.
You need to watch this, people.
"I didn't do it."
"I know."
"But what if I had?"
"You didn't."
"But what if I had?"
"You wouldn't."
"But what if I had?"
"I brought a shovel."

I have to go watch it again right now.

Oh yeah, and great review, Dustin.

Posted by: isabelle at February 24, 2008 11:08 AM

HA! Yeh, I quit halfway.

Must say, this is the 1st movie review I have ever read that helped get me ready for Passover

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Gadia
Keep reading the text, you'll undertand

Maybe I'll DVD it.

TK - if you're listening, Gone, Baby Gone was better than 3:10 to Yuma, but they were both a great watch. Finally watched Marathon Man. You'ld think he would know better than to see a Nazi dentist. And I thought mine was a little rough.

Posted by: Brian at February 24, 2008 4:08 PM

I have the flu and am hopped up on codiene cough syrup. For a few minutes, I thought I seriously needed to lie down. Then I realized Dustin is fucking with us... again. ;)

Posted by: superEdna at February 24, 2008 5:29 PM

I've seen more previews and ads for this movie than any movie that has come out recently. And everytime I say that someone looks at me like I'm an idiot. Maybe I've just been going to the wrong movies. Maybe there's some stupid kind of plot about it.

Either way, I couldn't remember the name of it until about the 15th time I saw the preview - if that says anything about its merit and worth...

Posted by: Kash at February 24, 2008 6:05 PM

I read this just before going to sleep and I was half dozing when I realized that you were going to sleep and I was half dozing when I realized that I read this just before going to sleep and I was dozing when I realized that it wasn't a bad review at all.

*thud*

Posted by: jvon at February 25, 2008 4:46 AM

Reportedly, he has been invited to online talk show this weekend on a big site called http://MillMatch.com or something else. Some of his fans have gotten together there with waiting for him. Who knows his screen name on that site?

Posted by: angle at February 26, 2008 3:23 AM

Clever review, but I agree with ty that you oversimplify it a bit. It's nothing brilliant, but I thought it was a decent bit of Hollywood action even if it had the usual requirement to turn the intellect down for 2 hours. I don't have a particular problem with that.

Also, the commenter who mentioned the man-love scene between Quaid and the President in the ambulance was spot on. That scene didn't come off quite right.

I also liked the little bit with the news at the very end, where they report that the lone assassin has been caught and killed. Easy, but fun little shot at the media and how we don't really know what happens in the world.

Posted by: Joe at March 2, 2008 12:35 PM

Well shitballs, I didn't read the review before going. And MAN it sucked.
The car chase did it for me. It was so bad that it made Gone in 60 Seconds look realistic.
If you want to see a really good, really long car chase, FORGET this movie and go take in Blues Bros.

Posted by: Toronto Pam at March 3, 2008 8:53 AM