Point Break

Kathryn Bigelow’s 1991 film Point Break is considered a classic by many, and is one of several films that mark the transition in style between 80’s and 90’s action flicks. Now the latest in a string of Hollywood remakes, 2015/16’s Point Break, directed by Ericson Core, promises breathtaking action and a new take on the story. 

Johnny Utah (Luke Bracey) is an extreme-athlete that knows the ins-and-outs of just about every ultimate sport imaginable. After a tragic accident that claimed the life of his friend, Utah retires and trains as an FBI candidate. Utah is brought in to investigate a heist which ended with a parachute escape and soon draws a connection between several of these heists and a man known as Bodhi (Édgar Ramírez). Utah goes undercover and learns that the crime syndicate is composed of thrill-seekers that are attempting the ‘Osaki 8’, a series of ordeals that pit man against nature through extreme situations. 

The very first article I wrote for TOMB was essentially a rant about the ridiculousness of Hollywood remakes, and my opinions are still the same with the new Point Break. Point Break didn’t need a remake, just as much as Memento definitely doesn’t need a remake. This film is undeniably worse than the original – no matter what you may think of it – and this only got made because the various production companies involved understand how to exploit audiences with 3D thrillers and have a thirst for quick cash. Having said that, I have to give them credit for at least bringing in new elements to the story. I actually thought the idea of the Osaki 8 ordeals was quite cool, and visually the film is stunning, with beautiful locations and superbly choreographed stunts. 

The problem with Point Break is that basically every character in the film is an obnoxious wanker; from the FBI chief who always has his “ass on the line” for the mission, to Bodhi who lets the spiritual enlightenment of nature lead him through life, to Johnny Utah who somehow goes from an “extreme athlete” performing motocross stunts – a great opportunity for subliminal advertising from GoPro and Monster Energy drink – to an up and coming FBI agent who is conveniently assigned to a case on a syndicate of extreme athletes. Ray Winstone is totally wasted as Pappas, an agent in the cockney-branch of the FBI who stands around shouting, pumping his shotgun and growing a moustache. Luke Bracey brings little inspiration to Utah – his job is basically to show off his rock-hard abs looking sad – and Teresa Palmer’s Samsara is amazingly bland as Utah’s love interest. Characters died, and I honestly didn’t care. Johnny Utah in particular has severe character development issues. He starts off the film essentially as an extreme sports master and when he unsurprisingly finds himself in the middle of the Osaki trials – feats against nature that would make even Bear Grylls cower in a puddle of his own urine – he is not at all fazed. I mean he literally goes though the trials with a blank, disinterested face. The result is no tension and no risk to the payoff, which defeats the whole purpose of the trials. 

That just leaves Bodhi, who becomes the anti-hero (whatever that really means) of the film. He’s a bit of a Robin Hood type figure, following his own interpretation of Osaki’s teachings, “giving back” by taking from big corporations and distributing to the needy/the Earth, which is where the crime element comes in. Ultimately the real story is whether or not Bodhi will finish the Osaki 8 – which you genuinely hope he does – and whether the spiritual enlightenment gained from this achievement outweighs the crimes he’s committed to get there. I wouldn’t call the character fleshed out exactly, but Bodhi is the best that Point Break offers, and often that’s far from enough. 

Ericson Core also acted as cinematographer on Point Break, and perhaps he focused too much of his attention on camera settings and not enough on direction. The whole purpose of the remake seems like an opportunity to pander to those that live their lives strapping GoPro’s to things and performing sporty selfie-stick moves, a far-cry from the original action piece. However as I said before, they clearly didn’t use GoPro’s here because the film is absolutely stunning. I can’t speak for the 3D and honestly I don’t really care about it, but the 2D experience features jaw-dropping landscapes which once again more than prove the worth of Arri Alexa cameras. Comparisons could be made to last year’s Everest, however where that balanced cinematography with decent character and story, Core has decided that the buck stops with the visuals. 

Point Break is testament to the unimaginative recycle-for-cash nature of the current Studio system. Whilst the new story elements manage to bring something fresh to a fifteen year old film and the visuals are undeniably gorgeous, the shallow, ridiculous and annoying characters more than destroy any hope this film had for success. 

The Gunman

Pierre Morel is the man the brought Taken to the world, so I already knew what to expect when I walked into his latest feature The Gunman. With Sean Penn, Javier Bardem and Idris Elba headlining the film, it can't be that bad right?.....right?

Jim Terrier (Sean Penn) is an ex-soldier working under contract in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. His girlfriend, Annie (Jasmine Trinca) works for the same NGO as he does, in a medical position. Felix (Javier Bardem) works as a contact for Jim and is interested in Annie. As part of his contract, Jim assassinates the mining minister and has to flee the continent. When he returns eight years later, digging wells, he uses some bad-ass moves to foil an attempted assassination on himself and when he begins to investigate, finds his past catching up with him.

The Gunman's plot is in a league of it's own, somehow managing to be endlessly clichéd and at the same time, frustratingly convoluted. It often feels like they're specifically adding unnecessary detail and opening up new story arcs to mask the plot holes. Just for example, early on, there's an attempted assassination on Jim, where the gunmen have vials of some 'no-frills' poison. Jim takes the vials, then somehow gets them past customs to show to his mates in London; that might seem nit-picky but it's just the tip of the iceberg. The characters seem to just spew endless jargon, followed by a "we need to go to (insert exotic location)" which seems like a good excuse to consume more of the $40 million budget, an enormous amount of money for an action thriller that really only has a couple of action sequences.

The denouement significantly improves on the hum-drum storyline, but it covers way too much ground, revealing erroneous details and trying to tie up loose-ends with about as much success as a Llama with a ball of string. The Gunman ultimately takes the path most followed, with a story that's both dull and unoriginal. The opening act set in the Congo only serves as a brief, unnecessary establishing point, and to me, using another nation's crisis as a central story arc, then abandoning it in favour of  the regular girl/villain/revenge story is not just a cop-out, it's an insult to those that are actually suffering.

The characters are no better. Javier Bardem is completely underused and has a very insignificant role, especially given his prominence on the poster. Bardem is a very talent actor, but here he's just playing an under-developed douchebag, and there's no acting around that. Idris Elba is only in the film for about the last twenty minutes, and Sean Penn joins the ranks of middle-aged stars playing bland characters who somehow punch louder than a clap of thunder but deliver lines with the dramatic force of a gerbil. Ray Winstone brings some much needed cockney relief but is unfortunately very-much a secondary character. The two strongest performances come Trinca and Mark Rylance, who I haven't actually seen in anything til now.

Given that Morel is also a cinematographer, it should come as no surprise that the visuals are really this film's only saving grace (though the actual DP on The Gunman was Flavio Martinez Labiano). The gritty look is in no way innovative, especially for the action/thriller genre, but along with some decent sound design, it does manage to build the tension. The fight scenes also seem to be extremely well choreographed, though they cut away so much that it's difficult to actually enjoy them. The most enjoyable element of The Gunman was listening to the elderly couple behind me discussing how ripped Sean Penn is.

If you're the sort of person that cherishes the Taken franchise, then you'll probably enjoy this, though then again there's not that much mindless action here either. Not even the strong cast could save this from being a terrible movie.

Noah

Epics about biblical characters have been around as long as there has been cinema. And the list of actors who have played them is long, Charlton Heston as Moses, Willem Defoe as Jesus, Graham Chapman as Brian(?) Now to that list we can add Russell Crowe, a man who has long sought to corner the market on historical epics.

I'm going to keep my explanation of the plot to a minimum, partly because the story is so epic and partly because the story of Noah is so well known. After Man has become corrupt and evil from the power it has gained from fallen angels, called Watchers, God (known as the Creator) decides to punish everyone by sending a flood that will destroy all humanity. The Creator picks Noah (Russell Crowe) to build an ark that will carry all the animals of Earth, which the Creator deems to be innocent. Noah travels with his family to his grandfather Methuselah (Anthony Hopkins) who helps him in his task along with the Watchers. King of Men Tubal-cain (Ray Winstone) discover what Noah is doing and rallies Man to stop him.

Surprisingly for a movie based on a religious story, you'll find very little preaching going on. It is an interpretation of what is in the book of Genesis and I can only imagine a fair bit of creative licence. There is a sequence that I thoroughly enjoyed where Crowe narrates the story of Creation and a montage that includes the Big Bang and evolution is played. I thought this was a great merging of religion and science.

One aspect of this film that really appealed to the filmmaker in me was that up until the flood occurs, most of the special effects are done in a practical way and not computer generated images, well I think they were and if they weren't, it certainly fooled me. An example of this are the Watchers. These are huge rock monsters, reminiscent of the Rock Biter in The NeverEnding Story. To me, they looked like they were made with very advanced claymation techniques. Again, I could be wrong.

My feelings toward Russell Crowe have always been a bit tenuous. Everyone loves him for his roles in films like Gladiator and Romper Stomper, but I've never been able to get behind him. However, with this film I think I might have taken a turn. His gruffness turned to softness at parts and he wasn't putting on an affected accent that he does with all his other films.

Emma Watson has really been proving herself the last couple of years outside of the Harry Potter franchise, appearing in films like The Perks of Being a Wallflower and The Bling Ring. Here she plays Noah's adopted daughter Ila and really showcases her emotional talents in the films more pressing scenes. Ray Winstone always is able to throw himself into his roles. He is a perfect pick for the earthy and somewhat demonic Tubal-cain.

Throw in some good performances from Jennifer Connelly, who must like being in Darren Aronofsky's films, and a berry-obsessed and humourous role from Anthony Hopkins.

Verdict: A good biblical epic that doesn't preach too much about the story's original message.