Lesson: "Jack Shephard" does not a good movie make

Do you remember the days when you could go see a movie with whatever actor you thought hottest at the moment, and think that movie was spectacular.
It happened to me with Justin Timberlake in Model Behavior.
And Leonardo DiCaprio in Titanic.-- except now he's become a really reputable actor.
And I thought it would happen with Matthew Fox in Vantage Point.
I've fallen in love with Jack Shephard on Lost because.... well, alright, he's sexy.
So, imagine my intrigue and excitement when I found out that my beloved Matthew Fox plays a major part in Columbia Picture's latest movie, Vantage Point.
Tonight I went to the theater with my parents expecting a well put-together action thriller that was intriguing from start to finish.
That didn't happen.
The storyline was amazing:
At the beginning of a Summit on Terror in Spain, there is an obvious threat on the PotUS (President of the United States). So a PotUS double fills in for the highly public and highly publicized event. Despite the high anxiety of previously shot secret serviceman, disaster strikes: The PotUS double is shot and injured, an explosion happens at a prestigious hotel, and the Plaza Mayor (where the summit even takes place) is blown up.
The story is told in flashbacks of several people who were there or central to the unfolding of all the events.
The makings of a truly amazing book.
A lot of the camera work was very bumpy-- to give the intense illusion of disaster and chaos. Instead, it just created nausea and a headache of a movie to watch.
I also understand that the flashbacks were an integral part of the movie, but I don't think it was necessary to show most of the actions that you just saw happen in reverse to give the idea of a flashback.
The purpose was to give the feeling of rewinding time. Instead, it just caused impatience. It would have been simpler and less headache-inducing had they done it a simpler way.

Reasons to love it:
The car chase: it was unrealistic like any good chase scene. Definitely fast, definitely intense.
Smoldering Matthew Fox playing a surprising role. He's not the hero that everyone is used to seeing him play on Lost.

Reasons to hate it:
Everything else. The camera work fails to do what it intends. The good plot line is terribly portrayed on film. Oh and quite a bit of predictability.
But I guess you can't expect a movie to actually show the U.S. in a losing position, so of course all bad guys die in the end.