I've Taken Your Vantage Point

Is it just me or is it impossible to tell if Dennis Quaid is phoning it in or just plain can't act? His decades-long Harrison Ford impersonation inspires just barely enough confidence to keep watching his bland handsomeness. He's like a wide receiver who runs a 4.3 40 yard dash, but can't catch the ball consistently or run routes accurately - we keep cheering because of his likability, but keep needing to look away because of the actual performance.


This description of Dennis Quaid also applies to his movie Vantage Point. We want to like the movie - interesting concept, likable cast (Matthew Fox, Forrest Whitaker, etc.), potential for cool political intrigue - but the film is thinner than Mischa Barton on a coke bender. We see the same stretch of time from different points of view, each angle revealing new information and dimensions to our story. It's cool in concept, but the problem with that is twofold: 1) it's repetitive seeing some of the same footage several times and 2) we really only end up with about 20 minutes of story. The run time is 90 minutes, but it feels shorter than that.

With this approach, there is little in the way of character development, so we don't care about the good guys or understand/fear the bad guys. The movie isn't nearly as smart as it thinks it is, sort of the film version of Kanye West. Perhaps the most entertaining part of the DVD is hearing Sigourney Weaver (who has what amounts to a cameo role) in the extras sing the praises of director Pete Travis again and again.*

Taken is a similarly short movie, but is less complicated, has fewer characters, and has few special effects. Why is it so much more effective? First, Liam Neeson is awesome. Somewhere around the Bourne movies, many in Hollywood figured out "Why not have our lead actor in our action movies be somebody who can actually act rather than someone who just looks the part?" This tradition is carried on in the recent Batman movies, James Bond movies, etc. Neeson first showed us his action chops in Batman Begins (since we all agree the Star Wars prequels didn't happen) and not only is credible, but makes us feel his plight. The movie takes the time to establish his relationship with his daughter and even his ex-wife as well as laying out what in his professional background would enable him to be such a world-savvy badass. They're simple scenes with little drama, but they help create the emotional resonance for the rest of the story. When we see Liam fly off to Europe and bash faces in, we understand who he is, what his daughter means to him, what the bad guys want, and why we should care about any of it.

That is not to say that Taken doesn't have some weak components to it, but those elements center around the daughter. Kim is played by Maggie Grace who is supposed to be 17, but considering she was playing 20 on Lost six years ago, it's a big stretch. Add to that she and her friend were covering up the fact that the band they were going to chase around Europe was U2, a band for fogies and behind-the-times Soviet Bloc countries, is fairly dumb. The subplot of Kim's aspirations to be a famous singer is completely forgettable and actually a waste of time in a movie which doesn't waste time.

To summarize, while both movies are short and action-packed, Vantage Point is more in love with its concept than it is telling a story with characters we care about is while Taken uses nearly every minute to its maximum economy and doesn't pretend to be more of a story than it actually is. Lessons to be learned: actually take the time to let us form an opinion about the characters so the story has some meaning; it's better to hire people who can actually act and leave the pretty but dumb prom dates at home.


*Fake Sigourney quote: "Pete Travis is at the apex of all artists. Spielberg, Scorcese and the rest buckle in his presence because of their unworthiness."