Hollywood proves once more with “Vantage Point” that it has understood nothing of Asian cinematography and even less so of Akira Kurosawa’s masterpieces.

Tributary to the point of obedience to the renowned Akira Kurosawa’s “Rashomon,” “Vantage Point” attempts to apply the Japanese filmmaker’s recipe to one of contemporary society’s issues of urgency: international terrorism.

Kurosawa’s movie told the story of a rape from five different perspectives and wished to prove that the concept of objective witness is as relative as any other. “Vantage Point” disposes of all philosophical and/or esthetic considerations and aims to be an action-packed some-kind of thriller.

Monotonous ad nauseam, “Vantage Point” does not even astound through its plot. The assassination/kidnapping/sequestering the president outset has been approached in so many movies that there is little chance for anyone to flock to a theater to see such a story.

Peter Travis rolled up his sleeves though and set to work without any qualms and unfortunately without any pretensions. Based on a script as abundant in “holes” as a Swiss cheese, the film obsessively repeats the 23 minutes during which U. S. President Ashton (William Hurt) prepares to hold a speech in Salamanca, Spain on terrorism and ways to combat it.

He is nevertheless unremorsefully and fatally shot before the very eyes of special agents Thomas Barnes (Dennis Quaid) and Kent Taylor (Matthew Fox, of “Lost” fame). Within minutes of the accident, a bomb explodes in the plaza where the event was taking place and the action rolls on from here.

But going forward with the action is the biggest problem of the movie. Let’s see, how many times are you willing to watch the same 23 minute of some random people’s life? Once; twice; four times at most. I agree, this is after all an attempt at assassinating the President of the United States of America but what wrong have we, the moviegoers, done?

We are not part of the Secret Service nor of the team of legal experts that come in search of the terrorists – so what fault do we have to pay for that we are forced to watch the same scenes eight times?

“Vantage Point” is not “Rashomon,” where every new segment came with new and contradicting information and where, in the final count, there were only 4 witnesses and one victim. True to Hollywood tradition, “Vantage Point” shoots for bigger, better, and obviously faster.

Every time the story is replayed, we will see the scene from a different perspective. And there are another six people, besides the President and the secret agents.

First we have Rex Brooks (Sigourney Weaver), the news producer who is in charge of covering the news and American tourist Howard Lewis (Oscar winner Forest Whitaker).

Same as “Rashomon,” Travis’ film tries to present the story through the eyes of the bad guys as well, Javier (Edgar Ramirez), a Special Forces soldier blackmailed into assisting the terrorists, and Veronica (Ayelet Zurer), a Terrorist masquerading as a local paramedic.

There are more characters in the story, but let’s not spoil all the fun, if you will have any.

Unlike its Japanese inspiration, “Vantage Point” does not pose questions and does not provide us with doubt; we watch the 23 minutes of the president’s death eight times, each time through another character’s eyes. It does want to add new perspectives but Travis is in such a rush to get to the part where there are bullets, car chases and spectacular twists of the plot that the eight replays seem forced on us by the screenwriter.

The script is actually the film’s weakest point; not even the good and very good performances from the cast manage to save the movie from mediocrity. There are so many gaucheries in the script that it would take a separate review to discuss them alone.

One example: Quaid’s character, Barnes, is an agent who is back on the field after having been shot six months before in the line of duty. This is just one of the absurdities that we are supposed to accept.

Sigourney Weaver unfortunately has too little screen time, while Forest Whitaker has to play a part that does not fit him. If you start from the premise that “Vantage Point” is nothing more than an action movie and you watch it with no expectations for the story’s elements to blend among themselves or with some sort of reality, then it’s worth the trip to the theater.

Despite being coldly received by the critics, “Vantage Point” is not a failure and will quite probably be a box office hit.

It’s just an honest action/thriller movie, without any elements to be remembered or praised. It’s fun to watch, but remember to not ask yourself too many questions and be prepared to spend some time watching the same scenes over and over again!

In case you’ve missed it, you can watch the “Vantage Point” trailer here.