My thoughts on Point Break (2015)

Point Break is a remake of a film released in 1991 with the same name. The original film's purpose was to have an adrenaline filled movie with some big names (Keanu Reeves, Patrick Swayze) and a relatively simple plot to push it all forward. At the time it felt like a great movie to me, in hindsight it seems more B-ish in quality, but the core and soul of the film is still there. The remake has some things to live up to, and to put it bluntly, it doesn't. At all.

It's not an easy thing to recreate the original Point Break. The movie had soul. Reeves and Swayze played their roles really well and they were likable characters. The atmosphere of the movie was great and it had some cool moments that became signatures of the movie. But, one would not expect it to recreate it to the letter. It's an impossible thing to do. You'd expect the film to just take the same themes, the same basic storyline and concept and create something visually stunning in their own way. It just doesn't.

There are some cool moments in Point Break (2015), but they never truly feel unique and they don't really leave a signature. It doesn't help that shots are broken up when they really shouldn't be. The two divers in the above image 'liberated' money from a cargo plane, then proceeded to drop into a hole in the earth and only then activating their parachutes. That sounds like an insane thrill that just isn't captured. It shows a regular skydive with money flying everywhere, then it cuts to poor people seeing money fly, then it cuts to the next scene at the FBI. Only later is the final part of the dive shown where they fall into the crater. Broken up, it meant nothing. If it was one shot, it could've felt like a real rush. That's one of the problems with the film, it just doesn't really feel like the rush it should. Instead it feels rushed.

That's a bad thing. Because that was the one part I expected this movie to get right. The characters look good for their roles, but they honestly just lose in a comparison to the original in terms of likability. The story is 'meh', it's not terrible. It had some interesting ideas. Definitely not executed well, however. It's also missing a lot of the atmosphere. Why does it feel more like an underground party, back ally scene than a bunch of extreme athletes looking for the ultimate rush?

There is some good stuff in here though, the talk of the 'perfect line' is something that is relatable to the types of activities they do for instance, but for every good thing, there are so many bad ideas to wipe them. The film ultimately just doesn't have a signature at all. It feels forgettable, yet tries too hard to be like the original. Signature moments from the 1991 film are just shoved in here for no reason whatsoever. Look at this scene from the 1991 movie:

That moment made it into parodies and spoofs. It's iconic. Now, they put the same moment in this new film, but it just doesn't make any sense. Johnny just doesn't seem to have attached to Bohdi in the newer film like the way he did in the original. There is no reason for him to not pull the trigger. Also, why is he lying down? As you van see, Johnny hurt his leg in the original. There was a reason he was lying down. New Johnny just lies down while he could've gotten up. He's not injured at all, he is completely fine. He could've gotten up, and walked over to Bodhi to take him in. Instead he lies there, lets Bodhi escape, then shoots into the air. Again, for no reason, because he doesn't seem attached to Bodhi and he isn't injured so he can continue the chase.

It's just bad. The movie just has so little to offer of itself and all the winks to the original are out of place. They should have taken the concept and made something new, not trying to recreate it. It feels rushed and there is a lack of adrenaline. The movie is not what it should be. I will say that they did a decent job of mixing up the scenery. It does feel like they went all over the world, sort off. That with some other things made me not regret watching the movie, but once was enough. And even then it wasn't good. I guess the best thing I can say it that it made me want to watch Point Break (1991) again.

2 / 5

Point Break is a classic, Swayze and Reeves at their best. Even Gary Busey is great. Katherine Bigelow shows how to make an action film. The thing about it is that if the original didn't exist this would be great. If they had made this and called it by a different name it would be fine. If they had made this a true sequel with different characters it might work, but re-making Point Break is outright stupid. how do you make a sequel to Point Break? I don't know because I wouldn't try.

You can't make it something else though, because people have heard of point break, it was already greenlit years ago and people liked it. So much easier and safer than coming up with something new.

Same reason they throw in pointless scenes from the original, because reference. Hollywood is so lazy and hacky it's not even funny anymore.

No, it really wouldn't. Even without the Point Break name, this new one is a 'meh' film. The scenery is cool, some nice themes in there, but it doesn't deliver on what it promises. Acting/direction is 'eh', story is 'meh' and not executed well and the entire thing just feels rushed and nonsensical at times.

I'd gave this 2 / 5 based on what it is. If I see the original like I plan to, then compare it to this, I would've given it a 1 / 5.

Yeah I think you are 100% wrong on this movie only being bad because it's a remake. This movie is bad because it's a movie with cool action scenes and that's it. A good action movie needs to tie those scenes together with a story and characters you give at least a little bit of a shit about. The new point break has none of that.

Seems like its a shallow remake with points to hit and no character of its own. Shame. Although my brain will always confuse this with Point Blank. Watch that. It's Lee Marvin battering dudes for 90 minutes.

Lee Marvin's a bad motherfucker.

It's a great series of action sequences put together as a bad movie.

This seemed like a bad idea from the start. Point Break was not technically a "good" movie but it had a lot of charm because of the chemistry between Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze. I'm not against remakes and one of my favorite movies of all times is a remake (John Carpenter's The Thing) but it is a hard sell when you remake a beloved cult classic. Not saying you can't remake a cult classic, as I think Zack Snyder and James Gunn did a decent job putting their own spin on Dawn of the Dead. Add to the fact that the entire Swayze filmography has gotten more attention in the last several years due to his untimely death and you have a recipe for a bomb.

wait, they remade Point Break. WHY!?

@monkeyman04: The same reason why they remade Robocop and Total Recall. Misguided attempt to cash-in on a cult classic without fully understanding what made them so beloved in the first place. Or it is some elaborate The Producers-esque Hollywood accounting scheme involving tax loopholes and screwing people out of residuals.

@bartok: You didn't like RoboCop? I thought it was pretty good. Definitely better than I expected.

@amafi: Another factor why we are getting so many "safe" movies: the people that green light the movies want an excuse if it doesn't work out. "I had every reason to believe the audience would see it since they saw the last one..!".

If they green light something wholly original its more difficult to excuse, and they could look like they just have bad judgement. If you have to greenlight, say 10 movies, and your performance is judged based on how many hits and misses you have i can see that promote this behavior.

The "rewards" for green lighting a successful original movie doesn't outweigh the risk.

Its a pretty sad state of affairs and probably not gonna change. Games will become more like this for the same reasons.

@shindig: Point Blank has probably one of the best trailers ever made.

Yup. Outstanding.

The problem is the original RoboCop is a deceptively smart movie hidden behind a silly idea and loads of over the top violence. There is a reason Paul Verhoeven's RoboCop is part of the Criterion Collection.

The droid stuff should have been explored more also there was a great chance to satirize the sanitized violence of the current PG-13 movie rating that was just wasted but would have fit with the themes of the movie. You know how you can kill 100s of guys but God forbid you show what the real consequences of a person getting shot. The reboot also lacked the levity of the original that was used to such great effect. God forbid our silly cyborg cop remake not be another by the book "gritty" reboot. It just felt like a soulless cash-in that came about because some Hollywood executive realized they still owned the property. I will say the casting was great and I'm always down for Michael Keaton getting a paycheck. Maybe the Robocop remake wasn't terrible but it was a wasted opportunity that played it too safe.

@bartok: I'll disagree with you there. No remake is a true remake, as it cannot remake the original film. If you put the thought of it being a remake out of your head, I think RoboCop is a pretty damn good movie. If I compare this to this new Point Break, it adds up to that. This Point Break shamelessly copies events and signature moments of the original Point Break, except they are completely out of place (see the comment I made in my OP about that lying on the ground and shooting in the air move). They feel lifted and inserted, for no reason. The new RoboCop had none of that as I can recall. If something was there, it still served a purpose for the film other than trying to bounce on nostalgia.

Similarly, the new Point Break is a pretty 'meh' movie even if it had no ties to the original. RoboCop was a pretty good movie even if it had no ties to the original. It's just a different ballpark. I can go and watch RoboCop again and have a pretty good time. In fact, I might suggest watching it with a friend and we'll have a good one. No such thing can be done with Point Break, unless the purpose is to talk over it about other life stuff.

Those pictures look like forum-thread Photoshops. I assume it looks better in motion?

I saw the remake over my holiday break, and I've had scones that were more exciting than the film. If I had to say something positive about it, it looks like the camera teams actually tried. The editing kinda kills a lot of the stuntwork, as you've mentioned, and the CG era of stunts manage to defang possibly real stunts, as we just assume it was a bunker full of computers rendering.

Rock dumb, barely related to the original film. Here, something they'd think is Subtle is having a character wear an Icebreaker pullover, with a wrinkle tactically placed over the logo to make it look like BREAKER, as the character talks about taking things to...the breaking point.

I'm not familiar with the original film. What is it about, without spoiling too much? Why was it remade?

If a film isn't that old, hasn't become outdated, and is still good, over a decade later, why remake it at all? I can see remaking a film that was good the first time if it's about politics or technology, and the issues discussed are still relevant, even if names need to be updated or changed.

Point Break is a bad movie. I'm talking about both the original and the remake. Bad does not necessarily mean not entertaining. The thing with the remake is that the people involved were starting from the premise that the original Point Break was good. It wasn't. If they went more for the vibe and atmosphere I think they could have executed on the remake waaay better. This just feels like a movie that was made to go after older audiences nostalgia. After seeing the remake I decided to re-watch the older one and while it doesn't hold up I still enjoyed watching it.

@medacris: It had more or less the same plot. It's about Johnny 'Utah' who was an extreme sports athlete and joined the FBI. A series of heists and crimes are happening, by extreme sports athletes. Johnny is tasked to infiltrate a group and gather evidence. As such, the film goes into some light philosophy of life and a whole lot of extreme sports and partying. It was B-movie, but it had some big names and was acted really well. It made it a very enjoyable watch, especially if you're into the subject matter.

This thread just keeps reminding me that I should watch that new Robocop, because everyone seems to say it's not bad.

It's surprisingly pretty good and I enjoyed it more than I would have expected. I'm probably one of the few people who liked the Total Recall remake but thought the entire time this shouldn't even be called Total Recall. That remake with a different title would have done that movie justice. However from my understanding it's closer to the original story than the Schwarzenegger movie was.

As for Point Break I haven't seen it yet. In my dreams they would have had casted Keanu to play Chief Utah who mentors the new guy and tells the legend of Bodhi. The new extreme sport junky is the son of Bodhi and then we've come full circle. This movie seems much more of a nightmare but I'll watch it once I'm able to stream off of Amazon or Netflix.