Point Break

Point break (the 2015 remake) is the single worse remake in the history of remakes. The original point break was a solid B rated movie making this remake at best an F. I mean I've seen a lot of remakes and this is the worst movie I've ever seen. In fact I honestly felt relieved when the credits started rolling. Its funny because they want ten lines just to leave a review. While I could see this working on the average movie this doesn't not work for Point Break (2015). The movie is so bad there's few words that can express this. I feel like a teacher is wanting me to write something positive about the end of the world. There is nothing positive about it or this movie. On the plus side I've drug this on to the ten required lines and I can put the movie behind me and pretend I didn't waste part of my life watching it. Its too late for me, but please save yourself and don't watch this movie.

The original Point Break was mostly known for its memorable bromance between Utah and Bodhi and some of its greatest action scenes ever put to film. Either way, this remake doesn't bring enough justice to the cult classic. Its new approach, instead of a simple undercover cop thriller, is now a globe-trotting adventure featuring daredevils who are pulling off a grand stunt show. Though the stunts are impressive at times, it still pales in comparison with the original. The characters are bland, the plot makes no sense and every moment it tries to replicate with the original is just painfully forced for the sake of what they believe it's called "fan service." Therefore, there isn't much reason for Point Break (2015) to exist.

So Point Break is now about the stunts, but just like most action movies today, it also had to strip away personality. So whenever we see the cops, and even the daredevils, interact, it's just not so entertaining. One of the charms of the original, while it had some great action sequences, even the characters are interesting to watch. Even if it's trifle, it's still worth spending your time. Now, it somehow becomes uninteresting filler, especially the love interest. Remember when Utah had to lie about his backstory to earn her trust? Well, now they just easily hook up and nothing else, until some twist happens or something like that. Utah and Bodhi aren't as engaging, either. They're mostly spewing exposition, while Bodhi is basically acting like a parody of someone from a New Age religion. Their intention of becoming Robin Hoods is kind of vague as well, but I guess no one thinks it actually matters.

What's really worth groaning is when it's really trying to replicate the original; not by heart or personality, but by scene. They did the Ex- Presidents, even though one of them is wearing an Obama mask despite of taking place in 2015, but they only did it once, probably because there isn't much room for this fan service. Also the iconic scene involving Utah shooting up the air, which apparently Hot Fuzz did it better. And the epilogue is horrendously shoehorned, like it's nothing more than a tip off the hat, because... it's not Point Break without it, I guess?

However, there are some things to at least like in this film. The action is kind of stunning; the fact that they're visually more realistic to look at than most CG-fest that blockbusters tend to feed us (except for the epilogue which is too obvious.) Maybe the best among them is the rock climbing sequence where it goes from wide shots to dirty hand shots of seeing how much they'd grip. Luke Bracey isn't quite bad as an action hero, but he seriously needs a better material than this. Edgar Ramirez is probably just stuck with a blandly written Bodhi and really stays stick-in-the-mud with whatever he says about nature. Ray Winstone, though a good actor, is just not the memorably delightful Papas that Gary Busey established. And the movie wouldn't be any different if Teresa Palmer's role was written off.

And Point Break (2015) is just another needless remake. There are ideas that could have been utilized more, but it's too burdened by both action movie clichés and the fact that it is being Point Break. It's not a good undercover cop thriller, nor a good bromantic film. And you better off watching an actual stunt show, which at least doesn't make you get through to its drab expositions and the fact that it's more real and not embellished by any special effects. Then again, the effects aren't bad, but that's not the point. You may give it credit for heightening something from the original, but it doesn't do that well either. The fact how unnatural the homages are made for this remake makes it even more frustrating to watch.

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.

Imagine the intense stunts from energy drink commercial or Youtube extreme sport montage while music from Mad Max blares on background. This is where the second coming of Point Break truly excels. When it hits just the right velocity, it's bloody breathtaking. Unfortunately, the narrative is not only poor, it nearly sabotages the movie like a broken parachute.

Story revolves around Utah (Luke Bracey), an FBI trainee as he investigates a series of heists and their connection to a group of athletes led by Bodhi (Édgar Ramírez). As one might expect, it follows the same trail that Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze has placed. The new leads do what they can, although it's better to watch this without comparing, because it certainly doesn't have the same caliber of star or chemistry.

The plot then dives head first into uncharted territory. It's littered with so much "save the planet" preachy acts as the writing struggles to place FBI agent in the hippie nirvana angle. The motivation is just a mess of random vague one-liners, even the on-screen characters are perplexed by it. There's a romance subplot, but this is mainly to show the attractive Teresa Palmer as eye candy for several short scenes.

The movie is actually better when they just show the crazy sequences instead of forcing its lackluster story. It has plethora of impressive feats, from high heaven wingsuit flying, the climb on hazardous urban streets and natural cliffs, to the surfing of gigantic waves. This is the level of stunt choreography xXx and Fast and Furious wish they had.

When camera pans into the right angle and lighting, as the sounds is muffled by throbbing tune of the fast music, Point Break reaches the zenith. It's miles beyond what typical action flick could offer, but sadly it's repeatedly interrupted by the shoddy story, which feels like an excuse to fly across the globe to do random cool tricks.

If viewed only on the grand mix of cinematography and choreography, Point Break is exquisite, this would have been a great documentary of extreme sport. However, as action movie, the story is so pretentious, it simply serves as speed bump to hamper the thrill.

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.