Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Keira Brennan The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

Hayleigh Joseph This is ultimately a movie about the very bad things that can happen when we don't address our unease, when we just try to brush it off, whether that's to fit in or to preserve our self-image.

Wyatt There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Kelvin Lu Ostensibly, the film shows the self-documented experiences of Matthew VanDyck, an American who goes on a motorcycle adventure through the "Arab" countries of Africa and the Middle East and then finds himself fighting in a Libyan War as a rebel soldier. On a deeper level the film explores the personal growth of a man leading a sheltered, coddled, and lonely life with obsessive compulsive disorder that discovers the joys of friendship, understands the value of moral obligation to those friends, and experiences severely challenging and life-changing events from the rare perspective of an American fighting among Muslims.The general arc of the film is that VanDyck went to Africa and the Middle East because he was inspired to create an adventure documentary that would depict his transformation into a "real man" through travels on his motorcycle. The reality was that his transformation into a real man occurred through the relationships and friends he developed, notably his random friendship with a Libyan man named Nuri that shapes much of his personal growth as he develops a close bond with Nuri's Libyan friends that he did not have growing up. At that point in the film, the story could have ended with him returning home to his girlfriend with a bunch of neat travel experiences and a sense of how to take care of himself and others but then the Arab Spring happens and he feels a moral obligation to return to Libya to help his friends achieve their goal of freedom from an authoritarian regime. Obviously, you could belittle his motives here and this is where some of the armchair quarterbacks of the world might feel that his actions were self- centered and reflective of his earlier tendency to document a heroic version of himself but a reasonable understanding of events would assume that no sane person would subject themselves to the horrors of war and risk torture, permanent injury, or death simply to memorialize themselves. This idiotic urge to belittle such actions come from those who have clearly experienced very little outside of their bubble of urban comfort or feel the need to pompously strut their egos out for online self-worth. Here is a guy with OCD, something that typically becomes a crippling problem, going far out of his comfort zone to do what he feels is "right". His friends are in the midst of a violent conflict and he feels obligated to help them.The film structure of a documentary about the experience of VanDyck as documented by himself seems to have jarred some viewers who are accustomed to being deluded or fooled by the illusion of the filmmaker as an invisible storyteller. The false perception of VanDyck as narcissistic could be explained by the belief some hold that documentary films are free of bias and only depict authentic experiences of "true" reality. Scenes where he is shown filming himself riding his motorcycle or where he is asked to shoot and kill someone might come across as narcissistic but if the purpose of his documentation was to tell a story then he needs to record even moments that reflect poorly on his character or the motivations of his actions so they can be remembered with the moral ambiguity or imperfection exactly as it happened and not just some rehearsed version of things.In his own narrative he reveals that he finds frequent conflict over his role as a participant as well as a documentarian and that many of his subjects frequently request staging of their photos so they're memorialized a certain way. VanDyck clearly knows that he doesn't have all the answers and many of his decisions were challenging because of their moral ambiguity. On the one hand he feels guilty for leaving his girlfriend and his mom behind while risking his life and making them worry, but on the other hand he feels obligated to helping his friends achieve their goal of living in a free country and while some might see this as a grandiose sense of self-importance I think it's more the reality of the war starting out as a collection of poorly organized civilians with no military experience doing whatever they could to fight against the violent crackdowns of Gaddafi's government. He felt that he could contribute in a meaningful way and didn't think it was fair to settle down with the comforts of his ordinary life while leaving his friends dying in a violent war. I don't think you can question that if you weren't there making the same choices about people you care about that are dying. This narrative is reasonably well depicted in the film.The unique perspective of the film being about various self-filmed experiences lends it a more genuine self-awareness than other self-filmed things that most people see on YouTube where there's never any questioning of the person's motivations because there is no camera on the camera showing what actually goes into the production of the one "perfect" shot or the editorial decisions made to tell just the right story.Perhaps my review focused too much on defending the film against its critics, but I think that perspective could help future viewers. What I found most compelling about the film was the general narrative of VanDyck's personal growth from a sheltered, OCD kid whose mom and grandma did his laundry and bought his groceries to someone who went on a solo motorcycle adventure in a relatively hazardous part of the world to someone that understood the value of freedom and friendship and chose to participate as a soldier in a violent conflict out of moral obligation and that all of these things existed within the context of ordinary Libyans struggling with problems that most of us take for granted. I appreciate the film's ability to sharpen how I perceive my first world problems in the context of a radically different perspective.

comicman117 Marshall Curry's Point and Shoot is a documentary detailing the story of Matthew VanDyke, a man from the states, who on a motorbike set out to find his own adventure and his own manhood. His journey took him through various places, such as Africa, Arab, Afghanistan, and eventually, what turns out to be what the bulk of the film, leads to his involvement with the Libyan revolution of 2011. Point and Shoot is a very well made documentary, about a very unusual character, Matthew VanDyke. Like most good documentaries, it works because the main character is fascinating to learn about. Matthew VanDyke suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and often washes his hands because he has an obsession with being clean. He also has a fear of really harming people. When we first meet him at the beginning of the film, he's talking about the equipment he brought on his journey. Afterwards, we cut to clips of his childhood, nicely intercut with interviews of him. We discover he had a very odd and not so pleasant childhood. Raised by his mother, after his parents divorced when he was 3 years old, Matthew became a bit of a weirdo, a loner having no real friends in school, and continued to live with his mother well into his twenties. The reason why Matthew decided to leave the country and set out on his journey was to make his own path, and become an adult, not just to his mother, but also to his girlfriend, Laura Fischer, whose relationship with him is a big part of the film. Not only did Matt accomplish his goals and grow-up, but he also discovered much more about himself then he really expected. According to Matthew himself, the greatest thing he encountered on his journey was a spiritual hippie named Nouri, who ends up becoming his best friend. There are some nice directing choices in Point and Shoot. For example, there's a well done montage when Matthew is traveling from place to place, where we see him exploring the various cities and countries. Another good shot is when we see Matthew driving through various grasslands on his motorcycle. The way the scene is cut and paced is perfectly done. Another interesting and well done set of scenes are when Matthew is being taken prisoner. These scenes are done in a stylized sort of animation with the camera being very grainy, perhaps done by the director in an attempt to show things from Matthew's point of view. Despite my praises for this documentary, there is one major problem I had with the film. It really falls apart in the final act when Matthew is finally freed from prison. What would seem like a logical place to end the film, it instead dragged on as we see Matthew continue to work in Libya. While I understand the filmmakers intent, and the documentary itself isn't very long (running around 83 minutes in length including credits, it felt somewhat tacked on and unnecessary. Aside from that, the film itself, while not perfect, is a very good and interesting watch. Point and Shoot is well made, and shows us the story of a very fascinating character. Matthew VanDyke, who was a loner in his own country, but in his journey to Libya he found a place where he was accepted and made friends. His story is one of true courage, and the documentary does a good job of showing that. While I can't recommend the film for everyone, especially since the subject matter is very violent, but I can say that the film, as a whole, had me very fascinated and it was very entertaining to watch.

Leofwine_draca What could have been a gripping documentary on the Libyan uprising and overthrow of Gadaffi turns out to be a distinctly uninteresting effort thanks to the focus on the character of Matthew Vandyke, a man who decides to discover himself by driving a motorbike through the Middle East. Vandyke turns out to be a narcissistic nobody who fancies himself as some kind of 'white saviour' figure, leaving the viewer with a bad taste in the mouth throughout.The only genuinely interesting part of the production is the footage shot from the rebel lines in Libya; the rest is exposition and character-building, but you just don't care about the guy. There are lots of long-winded interviews with both Vandyke himself and his girlfriend in the kitchen and they don't add anything to the experience. Instead they detract from it, making this dull in the extreme except when it focuses on the good stuff. It made me long for a Ross Kemp documentary, where the presenter knows well enough to take a back seat to the real story.

jstrick1985 This movie contains two different stories, jammed together in a tight 83-minute runtime. The one story, showing remarkable footage of the Libyan civil war, is an unusually privileged window into the Arab Spring.The other story, the story of Matt Van Dyke himself, is a tendentious and even tedious tale of a privileged American thrill-seeker.You can sum up Van Dyke's story in three sentences. A bored 27-year-old, with no job and few friends, decides to go on a motorcycle trip across the Middle East and record his adventures. Eventually he joins his new Libyan motorcycle buddies in their war against Qaddafi, although he doesn't accomplish very much other than getting thrown in prison. After he miraculously survives, Van Dyke takes his footage back to America and begins his new egotistical adventure: trying to become the man he always dreamed of being.The film is a mix of VanDyke's original footage from the Middle East and an interview he did after returning to America. To his credit, he is handsome. But his constant vanity and posing for the camera is tiresome and immature. Van Dyke is especially obsessed with how the media portrays him.And "Point and Shoot" has some serious problems. Although VanDyke's soliloquy is occasionally interrupted by the director, Marshall Curry, his narrative goes unquestioned and unchecked. For example, Van Dyke is thrown into Libyan prison for months, and says that he spent the time regretting how his actions have hurt his loved ones back in Baltimore, who are worrying over him. But as soon as Van Dyke is freed, he ignores everyone's advice to return to America, and instead decides to stay and fight, further troubling his mom and girlfriend.Not having anyone push Van Dyke made this movie less a documentary and more of a vanity project. We were left with many, many questions after seeing the film. Van Dyke didn't have a job, so who paid for his long motorcycle trips overseas? How much time elapsed between different trips? Quick Googling revealed some of the holes in how VanDyke's story is presented, too. The film never mentions this, but Van Dyke annoyed many journalists with his decision to stay in Libya and fight. See the story "VanDyke's deception increases risks for journalists." That seemed like a pretty big news event to gloss over.Having seen "Street Fight," I was excited to watch more of Marshall Curry's work. But while that movie focused on someone trying to make a real difference, activist Cory Booker, this movie only appears interested in making a difference for Matt Van Dyke's fragile ego.