Archive for September, 2014

Point Break

September 6, 2014


Of course I’ve never seen Point Break. What is Point Break?

Here is my review of Point Break:

K Reeves is a beautiful law-droid with a 2-second delay. “You’ve got that kamikaze look in your face again” says L Petty, his hard-bitten love-boglin. Yet the audience must take her word for it, for the nuanced motions of K Reeves’ face are imperceptible to the ordinary viewer. What seems to be a sequence of facial expressions on K Reeves’ face is in fact K Bigelow shooting his impassive flesh-edifice from a number of different angles in quick succession.

P Swayze is a salty old surf-parson with a neat line in lifestyle koans. Like the bone-wielding monkey at the start of 2000: A Space Odyssey, P Swayze is regarded as somewhat of an evolutionary prodigy by his contemporaries, who spend much of the film picking fleas out of their own anuses and gurning while P Swayze does his Hamlet-in-a-wetsuit routine.

Whooosh. P Swayze rides his spicy plank up a hard bank of spume.

Crasssshhh. K Reeves drives his whizz-board down a tight bright tube of brine.

Point Break could have been a profoundly homoerotic film, had the responsible hand of K Bigelow not been at the helm. Whenever the bonhomie between P Swayze and K Reeves gets a little too convivial, the narrative is punctuated with a solemn bout of heteronormative front-bumping, or a ‘Time-Out’ as it was referred to on set.

The film ends with K Reeves and P Swayze grappling ecstatically in a giant vat full of seeds. ‘We’re just angry sperms in the nutsack of Buddha’ shouts P Swayze, confusingly, as the film draws to a close.

I give it four out of ten.



Film Studies. Tutorial 1

September 3, 2014

Have you ever read the Agoraphobic Reviewer and thought ‘Gee, I wish my film criticism was as astute and well-informed as those guys”? Fear not, little buddy. Simply master the following critical vocabulary and you too can talk about films you haven’t seen with confidence and authority:

Rickets Shot: Sometimes cameramen use a special lens with all of the Vitamin D drained out of it. When pointed at the legs of any biped (e.g. Tim Allen), it creates the illusion of bowing in the leg region, as if the biped in question (e.g. John Lithgow) had rickets. The Rickets shot was used to very suggestive effect in The King’s Speech.

Half-Roll: This basically involves the cameraman rotating the camera 180 degrees so that everything turns upside down, and then turning it back again. It allows the viewer to see the world from the perspective of a beginner gymnast who has not yet mastered the forward roll (cf. Richard Attenborough’s Gandhi, in which Gandhi attempts unsuccessfully to forward roll away from his colonial oppressors)

Hem-Haw Effect: Sometimes screenwriters and actors like to create the illusion that their films actually reflect real life, and aren’t just puffed-up lies shat out of their frivolous brains. This is an easy fix. Actors simply say ‘err’ or ‘ummm’ in between words, and the audience is lulled into forgetting that they are watching a film, believing instead that reality itself unfoldeth before their eyes.

Milkshake Theory: This school of thought gained popularity in the 1970s. Its most vocal proponent, Dargle R. Footbook, contended that films are just like milkshakes, insofar as they consist of a lot of different ingredients (e.g. lighting, costume, script) that are ‘all shook up’ by the film-making process and consumed by people. Also (he added), films come in a lot of different flavours, such as horror, action, holocaust drama and so on, just like milkshakes, which also come in a lot of different flavours, such as strawberry, banana, chocolate, vanilla, mint choc chip and raspberry. Milkshake Theory was the dominant paradigm in film studies until the early 1990s, when it was replaced by Tapeworm Theory.