Movie: Destination Wedding

Name: Destination Wedding
Year: 2018
Director: Victor Levins
Cast: Keanu Reeves, Winona Ryder
Genres: Comedy, Drama, Romance
Language: English
Country: USA
Time: 90

Outline of the movie:
       The story of two miserable and unpleasant wedding guests, Lindsay and Frank, who develop a mutual affection despite themselves.
My thoughts: 
      Let me tell you this movie was a shock for me. First of all, I LOVE Keanu Reeves, and this was one of the most disgusting characters he's ever played. Secondly, I was thinking it was going to be the romcom type of movies, and it was totally not.
      I cannot even rate it as, on the one hand, it was terrible, and I understand all the negative reviews about it, on the other hand, it was close to 5 stars for its audacity and idea. And cannot come to the middle rating as it does not give the movie justice.
      First of all, we meet these two miserable characters, socially handicap, with unpleasant habits, mental issues and sardonic views on life. Two absolutely different types of people: he never believed in good nature, feelings and justice in life; she pathologically obsessed with her former fiancee, prompt to self-hating and self-destruction. None of them have any tolerance for others opinion and possess the subtlety of a T-Rex on a hunt. And those two people were thrown together on a wedding where they hardly know anyone and deeply suffer that they need to take part in this "farce" called wedding. Their dialogues were just horrible, not structurally, but by the amount of poison and condescending attitude towards each other and others, but at the same time incredibly witty. And let me tell you the sex scene in the movie...it was undeniably the most horrible sex I have EVER seen on the screen.

 But...

         It was a great movie if you just think about it without emotions. The only people talking are our two main central figures. You can see the others, but their character and life stories are told by two cynics. It is like watching a Shakespeare play on a big screen, and it adds some fascination to the story. I believe it is very difficult to involve a spectator when he has such a limited point of view, and  it was done very well. And secondly, imagine romcom without any sugarcoating: pure, true emotions and awkwardness of two people who are thrown together by destiny and do not know how to manage it. So, the movie is really true and sincere about life and I can easily imagine the awkwardness of a first encounter, first kiss and first sex with a person you barely know. We are so used to nice kisses on a sunset beach with soft music and candle in the wind, that any diversion from the canon seems like a violation of our romantic souls. But who can boast of the ideal romantic one-night stand if no alcohol was involved.
         And lastly, I liked the way how the characters were changing thought the movie. In the first episodes, when we meet our central figures, Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder look so old, worn out, in one word, horrible. I was kind of shocked how bad they looked. But in the end of the movie, when we see them again in the same plane they look completely different, shining from inside, younger and more radiant. That was such a drastic change nicely captured by the director.
        Taking every details into consideration, I was still not sure, how I feel about the movie, thought half a year passed, but it stuck with me and I was thinking a lot about it for no particular reason. So I guess it was a good movie, though the rating is so low.

Rating: 

    0/o 

About a Boy by Nick Hornby

Author: Nick Hornby
Original title: About a Boy
Pages:  320
Edition Language: Russian
Series: no
Genres: Contemporary, Comedy, Drama,
Goodreads


Name: About a Boy
Year: 2002
Director: Chris Weitz, Paul Weitz
Cast: Hugh Grant, Nicholas Hoult, Toni Collette
Genres: Comedy, Drama, Romance
Language: English
Country: UK, USA, France, Germany
Time: 101 min


Blurb:    
Too cool! At thirty-six, he’s as hip as a teenager. He’s single, child-free, goes to the right clubs and knows which trainers to wear. He’s also found a great way to score with women: attend single parents’ groups full of available (and grateful) mothers, all hoping to meet a Nice Guy.
Which is how Will meets Marcus, the oldest twelve-year-old on the planet. Marcus is a bit strange: he listens to Joni Mitchell and Mozart, looks after his mum and has never owned a pair of trainers. But Marcus latches on to Will – and won’t let go. Can Will teach Marcus how to grow up cool? And can Marcus help Will just to grow up?

My thoughts:
     This is the first book by Nick Hornby that I have read. I have heard so much about the author from the very beginning of his carrier, he is also one of the most favorite author of my best friend. So eventually I have no choice but to read his books one day. About a Boy is a good start as the book has positive reviews and has a movie adaptation. Frankly speaking the book did not rock my world, it was a funny, cozy read, sometimes thought provoking, but most of the time just satisfying. The book is read quite quickly and leave a nice aftertaste. I like how Hornby puts serious topics in a funny form. The book might seem easy and almost fluffy at the same time it is quite problematic and reveals some contemporary issues. I just loved the child's perspective on a family: rational and mathematical:

Suddenly I realized - two people isn't enough. You need backup. If you're only two people, and someone drops off the edge, then you're on your own. Two isn't a large enough number. You need three at least.

     The movie has left the same impression as the book: nice, cozy and funny. I did not like the ending where the boy singing a song on the stage: it was really painful and did not invest much in Marcus's character change as the book's critical point connected with Kurt Cobain's suicide. But altogether it is a good and thorough adaptation.

Rating: 

    3,5/5 

North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell

Author: Elizabeth Gaskell
Original title: North and South
Pages: 521
Edition Language: Russian
Series: no 
Format: e-book
Genres: Classics, Romance, Drama
Goodreads

Name: North and South
Year: 2004
Director: Brian Percival 
Cast:  Daniela Denby-Ashe, Richard Armitage, Tim Pigott-Smith, Sinéad Cusack
Genres: Classics, Drama, Romance
Language: English
Country: UK
Time: 235 min (4 parts) 

    Blurb:     
     When her father leaves the Church in a crisis of conscience, Margaret Hale is uprooted from her comfortable home in Hampshire to move with her family to the north of England. Initially repulsed by the ugliness of her new surroundings in the industrial town of Milton, Margaret becomes aware of the poverty and suffering of the local mill workers and develops a passionate sense of social justice. This is intensified by her tempestuous relationship with the mill-owner and self-made man, John Thornton, as their fierce opposition over his treatment of his employees masks a deeper attraction.
My thoughts:
      I really liked the book: its slow pace and detailed scenery and characters description. The main character Margaret Hale is not my favorite and did not agree with her judgements on many points, but she is quite likable and worthy of our sympathies. Sometimes I was really irritated by her and had a wish to stop reading but in the end I continued and am very glad I discovered such a writer as Elizabeth Gaskell. I am looking forward to read more novels by her.
     I absolutely loved the movie and though I did not find the first acquaintance of Margaret Hale and John Thornton to my tasting, the rest of the movie was great! The portrait of John Thornton in a movie is a bit harsh in comparison to the book, I imagined his manners a bit different, but altogether Richard Armitage was an excellent choice for this role. I did not quite like Daniela Denby-Ashe performance, I did not picture Margaret so shy and putting her gaze all the time down. I found it hard to put together her appearances with her actions and state of mind. I would prefer her less shy and more dignified, as she seemed sort of ashamed all the time in a movie. Sinéad Cusack's role as Mrs Thornton was astonishing, she was truly inspiring.

Rating:

    4,5/5 

Movie: The Girl on the Train| The Bucket List

Name: The Girl on the Train 
Year: 2016
Director: Tate Taylor
Cast:  Emily Blunt, Haley Bennett, Rebecca Ferguson
Genres: Crime, Drama, Mystery
Language: English
Country: USA
Time: 112 min

Outline of the movie:
     A divorcee becomes entangled in a missing persons investigation that promises to send shock waves throughout her life.

My thoughts: 
      I deliberately gave this movie some time before I watched it: not to mix my impressions from the book. I must confess that I quite enjoyed the book and was not hoping for any successful adaptation. I was right: the movie was much weaker than the book. This is I believe due to the incapability to show on the screen the inner confusion and disability to cope with the reality of the main character. Emily Blunt is a very talented actress and she gave this unreliable and confused heroin a very distinct voice, but I still think the book creates a better premises and atmosphere for those events.
      Altogether, I enjoyed the movie, even though I was aware of the ending. It is a nicely adapted story with a lot of suspense, hopelessness and desperation, but anyway, it lacked the creepy atmosphere I felt while reading a book.

Rating: 

    4/5 

Name: The Bucket List
Year: 2007
Director: Rob Reiner
Cast: Jack Nicholson, Morgan Freeman, Sean Hayes
Genres: Comedy, Drama Language: English
Country: USA
Time: 97 min

Outline of the movie:
      Corporate billionaire Edward Cole and working class mechanic Carter Chambers have nothing in common except for their terminal illnesses. While sharing a hospital room together, they decide to leave it and do all the things they have ever wanted to do before they die according to their bucket list. 

My thoughts:
     There was a time I truly enjoyed those motivating movies. I like how the energy they provide makes you believe in better times and does not allow to give up to circumstances. But at the same time, they make me think that yes, we are all equal in the face of death and there is no discrimination against race, gender and position in life, but still some people can make their ending more interesting if they have the means. Yes, this will not make them happy, but it might bring some sort of comfort, while less fortunate people will have less opportunists to make the rest of their life brighter.
      In this picture, the ideal balance was reached Morgan Freeman gave Nicholson the great feeling of belonging and friendship support, while Nicholson gave the opportunity for the crazy ideas from Freeman's Bucket list.
      It is a good, kind movie with a philosophical view on death and great and talented cast, but I cannot say I was taken away by it. For me the best movie with such topic remains Knocking on Heavens Door.

Rating: 

    3/5 

 

Movie: Allied, Ghost is the Shell, Assassin's Creed

Name: Ghost in the Shell
Year: 2017
Director: Rupert Sanders
Cast: Scarlett Johansson, Michael Pitt, Juliette Binoche
Genres: Action, Drama, Sci-Fi
Language: English
Country: USA
Time: 120

Outline of the movie:
       In the near future, Major is the first of her kind: A human saved from a terrible crash, who is cyber-enhanced to be a perfect soldier devoted to stopping the world's most dangerous criminals.
My thoughts: 
      I do not know anything about original anime series or manga, so I am judging only the movie itself. And I did not like it. I found no solid plot, no believable character development, no proper actors' performance and some bits and bobs of action loosely connected to each other. So maybe others who are familiar with manga have deeper knowledge of the background and might like it, but I found it a lame action movie with zero substance. It earns some points for action scenes, but that was not enough to enjoy the movie..

Rating: 

    2/5 

Name: Allied
Year: 2016
Director: Robert Zemeckis
Cast: Brad Pitt, Marion Cotillard, Jared Harris
Genres: Drama, Romance, Thriller, War
Language: English
Country: USA/UK
Time: 124 min

Outline of the movie:
      In 1942, an intelligence officer in North Africa encounters a female French Resistance fighter on a deadly mission behind enemy lines. When they reunite in London, their relationship is tested by the pressures of war.
My thoughts: 
      I found this movie very nicely done. What is quite interesting about this movie for me is that it's not primarily a war film, it did provide a very elegant look at what life during war was like for people. This was a time when people partied like the world was ending. Drinks, drugs, sex. It's a fascinating way of portraying the war, and the people living through it.
      The movie went beyond the war theme:  By the end, there are a few clear themes: putting what's best for those you love above your own needs, and trying your hardest to believe/trust those closest to you. Even if it means you have to break some rules, or even put your own life on the line.
      The ending, which was over-sentimental and predictable, worked for me. It showed the lengths people go to protect their family.
      Overall, Allied is absolutely a mix of everything. You can find all kinds of attractions in it: espionage, war, parties, assassinations, beautiful costumes and scenery, family, romantic moments, a mystery to be solved. And some of these pieces are done magnificently, some are well-enough. But all of them harmonically united without any obvious weak point. So if you like movies with a solid plot, linear storytelling, believable characters, difficult choices, great costumes and soundtrack, then you should like this.

Rating: 

    4/5 

 Name: Assassin's Creed
Year: 2016
Director: Justin Kurzel
Cast: Marion Cotillard, Michael Fassbender, Essie Davis 
Genres: Action, Adventure, Fantasy
Language: English, Spanish
Country: UK, France, Hong Kong, USA
Time: 115 min

Outline of the movie:
       When Callum Lynch explores the memories of his ancestor Aguilar and gains the skills of a Master Assassin, he discovers he is a descendant of the secret Assassins society.

My thoughts: 
    I do not want to waste time and write in details what I did not like about the movie - it will  take ages and bring none of the pleasure.
To summarize the impression:
1. Bad choice of a hero - I cannot ship for a murderer, however noble his destiny can be.
2. Pointless dialogues. Actually you can easily cut around 2 thirds of the talking as it does no make any sense at all, it is not connected to the plot, not logical and leaves you only in a blind spot.
3. Bad performance (not a fault of the actors, since the movie does not contain any deeper level there is no room for acting)
4. Plot development and ending (sorry by the plot holes are so huge that I can see the back  my TV through them)
5. even action scenes (I believe that was what the produces counted on) were so lame and illogical, that it was painful to watch.
     Everything indicates that there is going to be a sequel to this movie, but I am definitely not going to watch it.

Rating: 

    1/5 

Movie: The Passengers

Name: The Passengers
Year: 2016
Director: Morten Tyldum
Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Chris Pratt, Michael Sheen
Genres: Adventure, Drama, Romance
Language: English
Country: USA
Time: 116 min

Outline of the movie:
The spaceship, Starship Avalon, in its 120-year voyage to a distant colony planet known as the "Homestead Colony" and transporting about 5 thousand people has a malfunction in one of its sleep chambers. As a result one hibernation pod opens prematurely and the one person that awakes, Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) is stranded on the spaceship, still 90 years from his destination.
 
My thoughts: 
     Loved. Loved. Loved! I know there is so many technical and plot misfits. I guess any person with a strong knowledge of mathematics and physics will tear this movie apart, but I just loved it due to its originality, style, good development pace and characters. This movie had everything - love, drama, philosophical/existential questions, and incredibly suspenseful moments. The acting was great (I was pretty skeptical about Jennifer Lawrence), the pacing was good, and the visuals were amazing as well. Also the trailer didn't spoil the movie at all, which was nice; it actually provided misleading information and finding out a quite unique plot twist was a small and pleasant surprise.
     I adored the moral part of the movie: the person is to decide if he dares condemn another human being to the slow and almost isolate death in order to save yourself from insanity and loneliness. I guess it is even more difficult to live with the consequences of the murder since the victim is living by your side.
      My only gripe would be about the ending, which was still acceptable. But I have so many options to finish the movie, unfortunately I cannot write them down here as it will be a huge spoiler, but oh my! how many development paths it can be!

Rating: 

    5/5 

Movie: John Wick: Chapter 2| Moana

Name: John Wick: Chapter 2
Year: 2017
Director: Chad Stahelski
Cast: Keanu Reeves, Riccardo Scamarcio, Ian McShane
Genres: Action, Crime, Thriller
Language: English
Country: USA
Time: 122

Outline of the movie:
After returning to the criminal underworld to repay a debt, John Wick discovers that a large bounty has been put on his life.

My thoughts:
            I do not have much to say about the movie… unfortunately. It was much weaker than the first chapter and was lacking common logic. First of all, I am so sick of actors not being able to say a single phrase in a foreign language. When the budget of the movie is $40,000,000 could you please, please find a native speaking person, who at least will tell you if what you are mumbling does not make sense at all! This looks so unprofessional. If your actors are so dumb and not able to articulate 2 words in Italian or Russian, just cut their voices and make the phrase up on the computer! In today's era of technology I am spending 2 minutes in the movie trying to put the random sounds coming from the character's mouth in a sensible sentence!
          But on the whole I cannot complain; the movie delivers everything it promises: beautiful settings, style and a lot of killing. Two scenes I really appreciate: one with the sommelier and the other with the tailor, nice dialogues in addition to the endless row of killings. On the other hand, I totally did not understand and not appreciate Laurence Fishburne's character in the movie: such a great actor in such a meaningless scene.

Rating: 

    3/5 

 Name: Moana
Year: 2016
Director:  Ron Clements, Don Hall
Cast: Auli'i Cravalho, Dwayne Johnson, Rachel House
Genres: Animation, Adventure, Comedy
Language: English
Country: USA
Time: 10 

Outline of the movie:
    Moana Waialiki is a sea voyaging enthusiast and the only daughter of a chief in a long line of navigators. When her island's fishermen can't catch any fish and the crops fail, she learns that the demigod Maui caused the blight by stealing the heart of the goddess, Te Fiti. The only way to heal the island is to persuade Maui to return Te Fiti's heart.

My thoughts:

      What a nice movie! The visuals in this movie are so gorgeous! But, besides the visuals there is such a heart and imagination and creativity to it. Moana is such a likable, smart, and relatable person. The voice work for Moana is so sweet and so good. The chemistry between Moana and Maui is so great and so natural, and I appreciate that there is no romance in it. The songs in this movie were too much for me, but some were charming, catchy and fun, especially "You are Welcome".
       I liked the novelty of the settings and plot. The film is based on stories from Polynesian mythology, which is quite interesting to get to know even in the format of the animated movie.

Rating: 

    5/5 

On Her Majesty's Secret Service| Diamonds Are Forever

Name: On Her Majesty's Secret Service
Year: 1969
Director: Peter R. Hunt
Cast: George Lazenby, Diana Rigg, Telly Savalas
Genres: Action, Adventure, Spy Thriller
Language:  English, German, French
Country: UK
Time: 142

Blurb:
George Lazenby steps into the role of James Bond and is sent on his first mission. For help with Draco, he must become very close friends with his daughter, Tracy, and heads off to hunt down Ernst Stavro Blofeld one more time. This takes him to Switzerland, where he must pose as Sir Hilary Bray to find out the secret plan of Blofeld. The facility is covered with Blofeld's guards as well as his hench-woman, Irma Bunt.

My Thoughts: 
      I must confess this is the best and the worst Bond movie of the 70s.
      First of all, the plot is quite logical. There is a step by step development in Bond’s investigation and I would not say it is too absurd, as most of the Bond movies are. Secondly, I like the introduction of bigger amount of action scenes: the skiing chase is awesome and the car race as well, and despite of the lack of technology and computer tricks those action scenes look organic and well balanced. Another strong side of this movie is the romantic part. Definitely it is not that romantic, but I liked this couple: a spoiled only child of a mob boss, with a huge weakness for extreme sports and provoking behavior and Bond, a man with no strings attached, ready for any adventure and risk. I believe this is the only long lasting relationship Bond ever had throughout all movies, apart from the Casino Royal film. So this movie is a kind of mixture of Bond romantic adventures and action story without many plot holes.
        The weakest part for me was the Bond himself. Play by George Lazenby this was not the Bond I am used to. I cannot find any fault with the actor: he has a perfect body, nice face featured, good articulation and voice, but this is not enough! He just did not work out for me and I had that weird impression of something going wrong in the movie. Another absolutely irritating scene for me was the Bond's behavior in the hotel in Switzerland. I mean, you are on a mission, you are engaged, and you are actually attractive enough to have sex any time you wish, why then put everything at a risk just for a couple of nights with some attractive ladies? This is what happening to the Bond every time, so why not to pull yourself together for 3 or 4 days to complete the mission? Do not get it. So I find this behavior in the hotel one of the biggest minuses of the story - it is just absurd and pointless.
     Altogether, I was not impressed by the movie and was longing for Sean Connery to come back, but luckily I saw Diamonds Are Forever a week later and realized that On Her Majesty's Secret Service was not bad at all, which drives me to appreciate the film more.

Rating:  

    3/5 

Name: Diamonds Are Forever 
Year: 1971
Director: Guy Hamilton
Cast:  Sean Connery, Jill St. John, Charles Gray
Genres: Action, Adventure, Spy Thriller
Language: English, German
Country: UK, USA
Time: 120 

Blurb:
      James Bond's mission is to find out who has been smuggling diamonds, which are not re-appearing. He adopts another identity in the form of Peter Franks. He joins up with Tiffany Case, and acts as if he is smuggling the diamonds, but everyone is hungry for these diamonds.

My thoughts:
         Here it comes: this is the worst Bond movie I have seen so far. And if the first movies were stylish and sometimes funny due to technological underdevelopment, this book adaptation caused only irritation.
         First of all, they completely butchered the book plot, which, I must say, is not bad at all. Yes book's plot does not fit in the Bond-save-the-world and spy-that-hunts-only-big-fish concepts, but it is quite a good spy fiction novel without political conspiracy involved. In the book we just follow how Bond fights the diamond smuggler mob and that is enough. It was obviously not enough for a movie.
       Everything starts with the clumsy introduction of a gay killer couple Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd in the beginning, leading to even more clumsy scenes of smuggling the diamonds by Bond and posing himself as a smuggler. The cherry on the top was, however, the revealing of the rich business tycoon identity, who is actually Bond's sworn enemy Blofelds, and his plans for global nuclear supremacy. That was really pathetic. Blofeld's plot is to create a laser satellite using the diamonds, which by now has already been sent into orbit. With the satellite, Blofeld destroys nuclear weapons in China, the Soviet Union and the United States, and thus holds the world as a hostage. Not a bad idea, but poorly executed. So the filmmakers actually tried to put in one movie the full book and 2 additional sub topics: Bond-Blofeld confrontation and nuclear conspiracy. Together with spectacular fights, casino actions, car chases, love scenes the movie is so packed, that it looks ridiculous and not entertaining anymore. As a proof I take one of the last scenes where Bond tries to eliminate Blofeld on an oil platform by changing the cassette containing the satellite control codes. That fails and the problem is solved by destroying the platform with all the bad guys on it. Why not to do it in the first place, if that was the end plan altogether?
         Frankly, I was disappointed and even Sean Connery could not do much to improve the impression; he was like a puppet jumping from scene to scene without much logic and character development.

Rating:  

    1/5      

The Equalizer, Point Break, Carrie

Name: The Equalizer
Year: 2014
Director: Antoine Fuqua
Cast:  Denzel Washington, Marton Csokas, Chloë Grace Moretz
Genres: Action, Crime, Thriller
Rating: R
Language:  English, Russian, Spanish
Country: USA
Time: 132m

Blurb:
A man believes he has put his mysterious past behind him and has dedicated himself to beginning a new, quiet life. But when he meets a young girl under the control of ultra-violent Russian gangsters, he can't stand idly by - he has to help her. 

My thoughts: 
     Mostly atmosphere, zero story.
     At the end of it all, I found this movie very boring. The story is old as dirt. The plot is so obvious that as soon as characters appear on screen one can identify what it is going to happen in the film. Denzel's character is likable. He's always friendly, always in a good mood, always smiling. Sorry Denzel, but not even your amazing talent could save this simple-minded, patronizing movie. Yet again a movie is about a lone (American) man that saves the day and kills all the (foreign) bad guys. Hollywood all over again.
       The movie is fast pace and most of it is very tense, and keeps you hanging on to each scene, waiting to see what happens next. But ultimately, we all know Denzel will kick ass.On the other hand, it felt very long. There's just no surprises here. We have seen those types of movie 100 times. Back in the days it was still cool, but now just not interesting any more.

Rating:  

    3/5 

 

Name: Carrie
Year: 2013
Director: Kimberly Peirce
Cast:  Chloë Grace Moretz, Julianne Moore, Gabriella Wilde
Genres: Drama, Horror
Rating: R
Language: English
Country: USA
Time: 100m

Blurb:
      A reimagining of the classic horror tale about Carrie White, a shy girl outcast by her peers and sheltered by her deeply religious mother, who unleashes telekinetic terror on her small town after being pushed too far at her senior prom. 

My thoughts: 
     Firstly, let me start out by saying this isn't a terrible movie, but I can't help but feel disappointed from the 2013 version of Carrie. This movie does not really add anything new to the mix. It's basically a copy of the original 1976 film, just with a modern setting. I found myself bored throughout a lot of the movie. I've already seen the original, so why do I need to see the exact movie again? And I am not even talking about the book here. The main themes of the Stephen King's novel: the destructiveness of social isolation, religious fanaticism, bullying  were in no way conveyed effectively in this movie. There is a lack of connection in Moretz's performance and  she is unconvincing as a socially deprived and awkward girl. Even her rage is not believable, she seems soft in her frenzy. Julianna Moore as always delivers a competent performance.
      Overall, this wasn't a terrible film, but cannot even remotely compare to the original. Those that haven't seen the first film might very well enjoy it, but for those who have, you most likely feel disappointed. This remake was completely unnecessary.

Rating:  

    3/5 

Name: Point Break 
Year: 2015
Director: Ericson Core
Cast: Edgar Ramírez, Luke Bracey, Ray Winstone
Genres: Action, Crime, Sport
Rating: PG-13
Language: French, Spanish, English
Country: China, Germany, USA
Time: 104m

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

My thoughts:
        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). Hardly surprisingly, it follows the same trail that Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze has placed. The new leads do what they can, although it's better not to compare, because it certainly doesn't have the same level of chemistry.
         If you like those 3 or 5 minutes 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 those moments were pretty cool to watch and very well done. But! I appreciate the stunts and stunt people for their quality work involved, but stunts don't make a movie. A good story, with quality characters with emotions and plots that pull the viewer into the characters' world is what makes a memorable film.The characters are bland, the plot makes no sense  I'll stick with the original "Point Break".

Rating:  

    2/5