Point Break

I already didn't have a high opinion of the movie before even starting watching it and that's because I don't really like remakes unless they are much better. But after watching it I was surprised it wasn't actually a complete copy of the 1991 Point Break. The story is different in many points but unfortunately it isn't better. The good thing about the movie are the stunts and the nature shots. But it was just not enough to make it a good movie. It's an average movie with special effects that could have been much better when you see the budget they had. The acting was just okay without being great. It's just the story that was lousy written. And that's the most important thing for any movie. If you don't have a good script you don't get a good movie. That's a fact.

The original was a great movie with classic actors. Sure it's dated today, but still carries it's own weight. This movie while containing some visually stunning cinematography, some how manages to just drag and drag. As others have commented it comes of like a commercial. The special affects don't seem that special. It's like you are watching a commercial with snowboarding and sky diving designed to sell Redbull. While I should be in awe at what they are doing on screen, i find myself yawning and wondering when is it all just going to end. There is no real tension building, no sense of fear that Utah will be discovered, unlike the original, where his cover was about to be blown with each scene. I highly recommend passing on this one, it's a borefest.

Either you make a sequel or a remake it is inevitable to compare it with the original. All too often a remake has nothing to do with the original except maybe the names of the characters involved.

Pretty much this is the case of Point Break (2015).

The "original" Point Break was a multilayer action movie. The romantic element was stronger, its purpose more clear, the fine line a deep undercover agent could cross and lose himself more evident and, because that matters the most in this cases, more fun.

In the "contemporary" version you are going to see some wild landscapes, including Angel Falls in Venezuela, Caineville in Utah and the Swiss Alps missing in the original. Yet the greenish over-sharped image, chosen by Ericson Core who serves both as the director and as cinematographer, dilutes their majestic natural appearance and makes them look artificial.

The movie also talks, in the beginning, about nirvana and spiritual enlightenment but in the end fails to emit such feelings towards the viewers.

So is it bad? Well no I wouldn't say that. it us a totally different beast. More raw, even more dramatic but with far less wit and charisma.

The cast isn't stellar. I wouldn't compare Ray Winstone with the ...shadow of the tongue-in-chic Pappas (Gary Busey) of the first installment. Neither Teresa Palmer is the smart-mouthed Lori Petty. All the characters are pretty much wooden and one dimensional.

Overall: I would say to check it out for the impressive stunts and landscapes, but the sharp and green cinematography ruined that for me. No real substance in the fun department or the performances either.

It's pretty stupid.

Basically it's a bunch of pretty awesome extreme sports stunts with some poorly acted scenes that try to move along a super weak story.

The ADR is especially bad too.

If you like those 3 or 5 minute GoPro or Red Bull videos of people doing extreme sports then you will certainly like most of the movie as a lot of it is exactly that - and to be sure, those moments were pretty cool to watch and very well done.

Unfortunately, in between all of those moments is a pretty boring plot line with characters that you never really care about.

If you like mindless action (nothing wrong with that) then you will probably like this movie - although most of the "action" is extreme sports, not really guns.

Apparently I have to write at least ten lines of text, but honestly there isn't much more to say about the movie!