... not because I think it's a bad film, but because I think it's freaking awesome! It came as a genuine surprise to me that the film is viewed by many as a film so bad it's crossed the border into good. I'm not going to waste letters critiquing other people's critiques, but I will give my own two cents.
I think whenever you talk about a film that is 25+ years old, it's necessary to talk about your own personal context. I believe I was 11 or 12 years old when I saw this on VHS (some of you young'uns may have to google that one). Keanu Reeves at this stage was best known for playing Theodore Logan in the Bill and Ted series, there was no Speed or Matrix movies to go by. I had seen Ghost and I think Roadhouse, but I didn't have any clear memories of Patrick Swayze, apart from thinking he was "da man." Gary Busey was not a part of my life and I honestly had no idea who he was. I had never seen a surfing movie (especially not Big Wednesday, Busey's entry into the genre and well worth a look for being IMO far more deserving of this film's reputation) or a sky diving film, but I found both pastimes quite fascinating (and have indulged in both as I got older).
Point Break is the story of FBI Agent Johnny Utah (Keanu Reeves) who is trying to track down a group of bank robbers. Believing the theory of an older agent, Angelo Pappas (Gary Busey) that the gang of robbers are surfers, Utah decides to go undercover and infiltrates a tight knit group of surfers, headed by serial risk taker Bodhi (Patrick Swayze, awesome). Utah takes a liking to Bodhi and his life philosophy, but eventually learns that Bodhi's gang are the bank robbers he's looking for, and has to fight his feelings of kinship with Bodhi to try and bring the gang down.
As an 11 year old I had never seen anything like this. The great surfing and sky diving action, the brilliantly filmed chase sequences, the bank robbery. Ted Logan in a serious role? Patrick Swayze as a gun toting wise man? This was film making on a different level to any of the movies I'd seen to that point.
Coming back as an adult, I choose not to care about inconsistencies and illogical happenings in the story for a very simple reason: I am entertained by what's happening in front of me. The action sequences in this are breathtaking. Patrick Swayze's sheer presence in this is off the charts. And even in 1991, Reeves has the look and presence of a star. I think as time has gone on we've gotten more and more guilty of breaking a film, or anything for that matter, we are critiquing into various parts and trying to come up with a sum total. But something as experiential as watching a film doesn't lend itself to that. Does Keanu Reeves give, in many ways, a wretched performance? Probably, but does it take me out of the film at all? Gotta say no. Is there some really dopey dialogue at times? Yes, but it's not out of place with the message or flow of the film and again doesn't take me out of it. Do things happen in this that would never and could never happen in the real world? Yes, but I can buy that they are happening in the universe the film exists in. I am willing to give this film a lot in the way of suspending disbelief because I am enjoying the ride.
I don't come to this as some old fogey who thinks "they don't make them like they used to." I love modern cinema. I really enjoyed the Fast and the Furious, which riffs heavily on this film, and its various sequels; I liked the Hunger Games films, hell, I even liked Transformers and do the occasional Harry Potter marathon. But it is baffling to me that this film has become so maligned and the butt of jokes when it is easily the equal of any action film made today.
For its well directed action sequences, for Swayze's presence and for the whole message and feel of the film, it deserves to be remembered as one of the 90s best action flicks. They really should have known better than to try and remake it and we really should know better than to dismiss it so easily.
I think whenever you talk about a film that is 25+ years old, it's necessary to talk about your own personal context. I believe I was 11 or 12 years old when I saw this on VHS (some of you young'uns may have to google that one). Keanu Reeves at this stage was best known for playing Theodore Logan in the Bill and Ted series, there was no Speed or Matrix movies to go by. I had seen Ghost and I think Roadhouse, but I didn't have any clear memories of Patrick Swayze, apart from thinking he was "da man." Gary Busey was not a part of my life and I honestly had no idea who he was. I had never seen a surfing movie (especially not Big Wednesday, Busey's entry into the genre and well worth a look for being IMO far more deserving of this film's reputation) or a sky diving film, but I found both pastimes quite fascinating (and have indulged in both as I got older).
Point Break is the story of FBI Agent Johnny Utah (Keanu Reeves) who is trying to track down a group of bank robbers. Believing the theory of an older agent, Angelo Pappas (Gary Busey) that the gang of robbers are surfers, Utah decides to go undercover and infiltrates a tight knit group of surfers, headed by serial risk taker Bodhi (Patrick Swayze, awesome). Utah takes a liking to Bodhi and his life philosophy, but eventually learns that Bodhi's gang are the bank robbers he's looking for, and has to fight his feelings of kinship with Bodhi to try and bring the gang down.
As an 11 year old I had never seen anything like this. The great surfing and sky diving action, the brilliantly filmed chase sequences, the bank robbery. Ted Logan in a serious role? Patrick Swayze as a gun toting wise man? This was film making on a different level to any of the movies I'd seen to that point.
Coming back as an adult, I choose not to care about inconsistencies and illogical happenings in the story for a very simple reason: I am entertained by what's happening in front of me. The action sequences in this are breathtaking. Patrick Swayze's sheer presence in this is off the charts. And even in 1991, Reeves has the look and presence of a star. I think as time has gone on we've gotten more and more guilty of breaking a film, or anything for that matter, we are critiquing into various parts and trying to come up with a sum total. But something as experiential as watching a film doesn't lend itself to that. Does Keanu Reeves give, in many ways, a wretched performance? Probably, but does it take me out of the film at all? Gotta say no. Is there some really dopey dialogue at times? Yes, but it's not out of place with the message or flow of the film and again doesn't take me out of it. Do things happen in this that would never and could never happen in the real world? Yes, but I can buy that they are happening in the universe the film exists in. I am willing to give this film a lot in the way of suspending disbelief because I am enjoying the ride.
I don't come to this as some old fogey who thinks "they don't make them like they used to." I love modern cinema. I really enjoyed the Fast and the Furious, which riffs heavily on this film, and its various sequels; I liked the Hunger Games films, hell, I even liked Transformers and do the occasional Harry Potter marathon. But it is baffling to me that this film has become so maligned and the butt of jokes when it is easily the equal of any action film made today.
For its well directed action sequences, for Swayze's presence and for the whole message and feel of the film, it deserves to be remembered as one of the 90s best action flicks. They really should have known better than to try and remake it and we really should know better than to dismiss it so easily.