‘Point Break’ Review

Director: Ericson Core

Writers: Kurt Wimmer

Cast: Luke Bracey, Edgar Ramirez, Teresa Palmer, Clemens Schick, Matias Varela, Tobias Santelmann, Nikolai Kinski, Max Thieriot, Ray Winstone and Delroy Lindo

Synopsis: A young FBI agent infiltrates an extraordinary team of extreme sports athletes he suspects of masterminding a string of unprecedented, sophisticated corporate heists.

 

*Reviewer Note:  This will be a spoiler free review.*

 

I’m sure I have posted this in the past: I don’t mind remakes/reboots/reimagining’s. It’s bound to happen people, get over it. Hollywood has been redoing stuff for years, but even I’ll agree that it is happening more than usual, and even more noticeable because of the internet. That’s one reason I don’t get upset or throw a hissing fit when a remake is announced. The other reason is that I always give movies the benefit of the doubt. I don’t mind remakes/reboots/reimagining’s if the team behind it does something that makes that movie worthwhile and makes the movie its own thing, and that I can respect. However, some of those movies don’t follow that logic, which is why most remakes suck. That can be said for Point Break.

Point Break takes most of the core story of the original 1991 Point Break in that it follows Johnny Utah – although Utah is a nickname this time around – who is a former extreme sports athlete who has left that world and is now trying to work his way up the FBI. When we meet him, he and the FBI find out that a group of thieves are using extreme sports-like qualities as their getaways, which leads Utah to believe they are indeed extreme sports athletes. This finding eventually lead him to tell FBI Instructor Hall (Lindo) that he thinks they are trying complete The Ozaki Eight, a fictional series of eight ordeals that intend to honor the forces of nature and give back to the world, of course the group’s way of giving back to the world is targeting big banks and giving the money to the poor. Hall, after some convincing, sends Utah to track them down and use his former extreme sports skills to weave his way in and take them down.

One of the biggest difference between this and the original is that the remake is much more of a globe-trotting film with bigger stunts and bigger set-pieces. Some of which are okay, but don’t really move the story forward, they’re just there for the sake of having an extreme sports scene, like snowboarding down a dangerous mountain, or surfing a massive wave. The group of thieves, lead by the charismatic and dangerous Bodhi (Ramirez), are also much more than surfers this time around, which sort of adds, well, is supposed to add an extra layer of depth, but the group is interchangeable and none of them really standout. The only ones that really ever get significant screen time is Clemens Schick’s Roach and Mathias Varela’s Grommet, and while the actors do just fine, Bodhi is the one that gets the more meaty scenes.

Clemens Schick’s Roach (left) and Mathias Varela’s Grommet (right)

The only real standout to the cast is Edgar Ramirez. He’s always reliable in everything he does really, and he does the best he can with what he’s given. Luke Bracey is rather blah, he has moments, but for the most part, he’s not that great of a lead. Teresa Palmer’s Samsara, the only woman in the core cast doesn’t really do too much and the brief love story feels a bit forced and doesn’t really carry any real weight to it. It’s kind of shame really because Palmer is a great actress and is wasted here. Ray Winstone pops u as Pappas, who also has his moments and alongside Ramirez, Winstone is a standout too.

Point Break also feels a bit longer than it really is. The whole middle of the film is rather slow and nothing really happens aside from the really pointless big stunts. In fact, when Utah enters the group, they don’t steal anything! They sit around talking and bond, but the bonding has no real effect like the original did. Utah’s struggle to betray the group after he’s gotten to know them, doesn’t really exists, and whatever is there passes over fairly quick.

What the movie also fails to do is really capitalize on what the original did. The iconic moments, like the presidents masks, which only appears once in security cameras, and the other two big moments from the original do appear, but they feel a bit forced and corny. Those moments make the remake feel shallower than it already is.

All in all, Point Break doesn’t bring anything really new or good to the table. The cast is serviceable with the expectation of Edgar Ramirez, who is the real highlight of the film. The big stunts and bigger set-pieces do nothing for the sake of story and are just there to make the film probably feel more “extreme.” Despite my slight optimism for the film – and for remakes in general – Point Break fails for the most part on all spectrums.

 

Point Break

2.5 out of 5

‘The Gunman’ Review

Dir: Pierre Morel

Writer(s): Don MacPherson, Pete Travis (screenwriter), Jean-Patrick Manchette (novel)

Cast: Sean Penn, Jasmine Trinca, Mark Rylance, Ray Winstone, Javier Bardem and Idris Elba

Synopsis: A sniper on a mercenary assassination team kills the minister of mines of the Congo. Terrier’s successful kill shot forces him into hiding Returning to the Congo years later, he becomes the target of a hit squad himself.

 

 

*Reviewer Note:  This will be a spoiler free review.*

 

 

Based off the novel “The Prone Gunman” by Jean-Patrick Manchette, director Pierre Morel, who arguably, rejuvenated Liam Neeson’s career with Taken tries to do same here with Sean Penn. The Gunman takes some of the same elements from Taken but fails a little short of getting to Taken’s level.

 

While in Congo, a group of humanitarians try to do the best they can during a mining crises, little do some of them know, there are a few of them like Jim Terrier (Penn), Felix (Bardem) and Cox (Rylance) that have their own mission. Jim ends up killing a top official and, per orders, is told to leave the continent leaving his life behind and the love of his life Annie (Trinca) without a word. Jump to eight years later, Jim is back in Congo to do real good and build wells for the villages, until three men come to kill him specifically. Jim jumps into action, kills the men and then leaves looking for answers.

 

It’s interesting how the film is structured. If you walked in not seeing any of the ads you would think you are going to watch a political thriller/drama with the way the film opens with news broadcasts telling us what the Congo is going through. Not that it really matters, the film is not a commentary or trying to give us a message, in fact the Congo stuff is an overall problem for Jim, but we only spend the first twenty minutes of the film in it. Not that it really matters anyway right? You’re probably watching the film for the action.

 

Speaking of the action, excluding Jim taking on the three assassins at the beginning, it takes a while for the action to pick up. In fact, after Jim finds out why he’s being targeted – and when the film starts picking up steam – the action scenes come more often, and some of them don’t disappoint. A house shootout and a fight between Jim and one of the baddies are the highlights of the action scenes in the film.

 

So you’re probably wondering if Sean Penn could pull off being the aging Hollywood star/action star. Well the quick answer is, yes, yes he can. Penn nails a ruthless demeanor and brings the sense that this character knows his stuff and is someone you do not want to piss off. Penn even beefed up for the role, to the point that I think he demanded shirtless scenes or shots that showed up his physic, because holy cow was he buff. I will admit though, after the third shirtless scene, it got a little distracting.

 

The supporting cast is okay at best. The film does belong to Penn, but it is kind of a shame that the supporting cast is either underutilized or just bland, which is a shame because they are great talents. Trinca playing Annie doesn’t do much for the story expect being Jim’s way of having a better life, constantly needed to be protected or saved. Also, for a film being rated R, they never actually show her naked. I don’t want that to sound pervy, but there are moments where Annie is shirtless or is about to put clothing on and any other film would have shown the actress’s breasts, but Morel doesn’t, which I do tip my hat to him for it, but it is very noticeable in where it looks like the camera tilts up right away, another distraction.

 

Bardem’s Felix is a bit odd, I won’t spoil it obviously, but you can clearly tell his character is a bit slimly. Ray Winstone plays the only friend to Jim, Stanley, which against is heavily underused. Finally Idris Elba pops up as a mystery character, which is easily the most underused, although he does have a great scene with Penn before the last act of the film.

 

All in all, The Gunman has a strong lead with Penn who delivers some descent actions scenes and scenes that really suck you in. However, it does take a bit to really find its footing and even stumbles at times. Nonetheless, The Gunman will be sure to you entertain you in some way.

The Gunman

3.5 out of 5

‘Noah’ Review

Dir: Darren Aronofsky
Cast: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Ray Winstone, Emma Watson, Logan Lerman, Douglas Booth, and Anthony Hopkins
Synopsis: A man is chosen by God to undertake a momentous mission of rescue before an apocalyptic flood destroys the world.

 
*Reviewer Note: This will be a spoiler free review of this interruption of the biblical tale.*

 
Whatever your faith or how much you believe or don’t believe in the story itself, the tale of Noah is inherently a tough one – this is a story involving just about all of humanity wiped out, all at once. And this film doesn’t shy away from that at all, both in the grand scale of those killed by the floods and also in smaller, more intimate and, arguably, more disturbing ways. There is one scene in particular where Noah makes a choice that is frankly shocking to see. Director Darren Aronofsky and Russell Crowe walk a delicate line here with audience sympathy, yet manage to convey that this is a man doing what he truly believes must be done, no matter how difficult it is to comprehend at face value. According to Aronofsky, and something I come to see as well, Noah is person that suffers from the ultimate survivor’s guilt. This movie touches on that but also asks another question, what happens when you give a man an extremely life changing mission?

 

The opening (including some text onscreen that, essentially, gives you the grand scale of things with some cool Aronosfky visuals) establishes that God, here called “The Creator”, is certainly believed in by everyone, but also has gone so long that it’s assumed he long abandoned or moved on from the people he put on the Earth. The exception to this, of course, is Noah (Crowe) who begins to have visions sent to him by the Creator, warning that thanks to humanity’s misdeeds, the end is coming, in the form of a great flood.

 

With the aid of his grandfather, Methuselah (Hopkins, although he is only referred to as Grandfather by everyone in Noah’s family and Noah himself), Noah realizes he is meant to build a massive Ark, which will hold animals and Noah’s own family, all of whom will be the key to re-starting society all over again. Although Noah takes pride in his task at the outset, he starts to doubt if anyone, including his family, is worthy of being saved

 

Noah is assisted by his family from the start, including his wife, Naameh (Connelly) and his sons, the oldest Shem (Booth), the middle child Ham (Lerman) and the youngest Japheth (McHugh Carroll). And then there’s Ila (Watson), who they saved as a little girl and raise among their family – where she and Shem are romantically involved.

 

This version of Noah is obviously a different interpretation told than before. Besides Noah’s family, Noah is helped by others in the form of the Watchers, angels that are envisioned as giant rock creatures trapped in their current form as a punishment by the Creator. The Watchers have an angelic light inside them that makes their eyes and mouth glow, making them feel like something out of Lord of the Rings. The design is interesting as they’re so massive they kind of just lunge around but when its time to take action and protect the Ark, they become one of the highlights of the film, even though we never really get to know their names expect for Og (voiced by Frank Langella) and Samyaza (voiced by Nick Nolte).

 

The cast for the most part really works. Crowe can convey toughness and determination and is, for this interpretation, the right guy to play someone as focused as Noah is, who will not let anything get in his way. He also gets to show some other pretty intense emotions as the film continues and Noah begins to believe that perhaps the Creator’s intentions are even more difficult than it seemed, on a personal level. He’s also a bit of a badass. We see Noah early on defend himself from three attackers and when the Ark is under attack from Tubal-cain (the always reliable Ray Winestone) and his army, he does what he has to do to complete his mission.

 

As for the other men in the film, Lerman who plays Ham is the most conflicted amongst Noah’s sons, and has some understandable concerns and jealousies. Ham’s conflict brings him into the growing struggle between Noah and Tubal-cain, a villain who also has a unique position in the film. He does do awful things but he says things in such away you almost feel wrong agreeing with him. Douglas Booth’s Shem, the oldest son, isn’t given a lot to do but protect Watson’s Ila. Finally, Anthony Hopkins for the short amount of screen time he has does his usual best

 

But beside Crowe and Winstone, the women really do take center stage here. More specifically Emma Watson as Ila. Thanks to being attacked as a child she is unable to have children – something that is a concern to her given that she is the future of mankind. Watson holds her own with Crowe and have some great chemistry together, especially near the end. But, Watson is excellent at conveying Ila feelings as she looks at her place in this family. Jennifer Connelly’s Naameh, doesn’t have much to do at first, but Connelly stands out in one particular scene near the end as Naameh stands up to Noah; for the first time believing her husband, who she has supported for so long, is the wrong about a decision he’s making.

 

Not shockingly, Aronofsky’s visuals are gorgeous, highlighted by a sequence in which we see the Creation Story play out in a dynamic, thrilling manner, that expertly mixes time-lapse photography with special effects.

 

There are some iffy CGI at points (mostly with the animals but considering the scale of this project it’s kind of okay) and, despite its huge scale, Noah does have some moments where it hits some bumps. As I mentioned earlier, the promotional material surprisingly hasn’t given away much. We actually see and spend a good chuck of time in the Ark. Here is where the movie slows down a bit, but with great acting scenes and the dilemmas the characters, mostly Noah, have to make it adds some tense and emotional sequences that make the time in the Ark worth while.

 

All in all, Noah will, obviously, play very differently depending on how you interpret the Bible or even care about religion. Some will probably find it boring or uninteresting, which is fine, but given the bold approach that Aronofsky takes I hope people appreciate the movie just for what it is (I know, that’s asking a lot).

 

Noah
4 out of 5