Triple Frontier: Stunned!!!
Former Special Forces operatives reunite to plan a heist in a sparsely populated multi-border zone of South America. For the first time in their prestigious careers, these unsung heroes undertake this dangerous mission for themselves instead of the country. But when events take an unexpected turn and threaten to spiral out of control, their skills, their loyalties, and their morals are pushed to a breaking point in an epic battle for survival.
Netflix had everything going to make this movie into a great hit. The movie had amazing concept( cliché, but capable of being spun in a variety of ways), the movie had great cast, story was well created and the storytelling was inspired to say the least and the conflict was beautifully laid out to culminate in one of the most nerve-racking finale for a movie. Sadly, the movie's final ratings do not meet up to expectations and here is why;
Let's start with the concept itself. The concept is quite brilliant, and even though we quite agree that the storyline is cliché, we can agree that the concept or premise upon which the movie was based offered quite a little bit of creativity and unsurprisingly, Netflix chose to be creative with the content rather than spin the tale in the normal fashion. Quite unfortunately, this is one of the few times when keeping the content development simple would have paid Netflix more than being creative with the output. If Netflix had resolved to create a conflict that stemmed from the acts the protagonists, then perhaps Netflix would have presented it's audience with a Stellar action movie. However,the creative team decided to create a conflict that stemmed not from the repercussions of their acts, but rather from the decision to break moral codes. In the end, Netflix presented a movie that tilted towards a modern day moral drama rather than an shoot 'em up action movie. This decision totally scrambled the expectations of the viewing audience, as what the paying customer went into the movie hoping to see was totally different from what Netflix offered, and for the first time, it was not different in a positive way.
That being said, let us take a look at what Netflix got spot on.
The storytelling technique was good. As we have previously stated and do reiterate here, having characters build around a conflict element is what makes a movie or tv series tick. Netflix achieved that in the first 45mins of the movie, before things began to spiral out of control. We feel the script writers had control of the narrative only to a certain extent, and then totally lost the reigns. The decision to switch from an action movie to a moral drama midway into the movie shows a lack of control and a little bit of creative difference and indecision by the producers. On a personal note, I felt that the producers were conflicted and could not decide what the movie was for and thus settled for a 50-50 representation; half way action and half way moral drama.
Location for the movie is also another absolute positive for Netflix. The settings for the movie had that realism to it. The locations team sourced for and found a very good setting within which majority of the movie took place. Having this made it quite easy for the producers to not have to rely on Visual Effects to create realism or portray believability.
Dialogues, monologues and scripting generally was good. The actors cast to play each individual character worked with the script presented to the best of their ability, and within the first 45mins of the movie, characters were easily related to. This is what a good script writer does for character creation and development. That having been said, we can rate scripting above average, and character performance as a solid A. Netflix once again found the right cast to bring it's ideas to the screens. Charlie Hunnam was especially brilliant, and Pedro Pascal slotted into his role quite seamlessly.
However, regardless of all the positives the movie had, it failed in the one aspect that truly mattered; Conflict Management. Netflix succeed with having a good concept, told a good story, derived an intriguing conflict and totally destroyed what they created. The management of the conflict was poor, the decision to make the team capitulate due to internal forces or idiosyncrasies rather than external forces hurt the feel of the movie and made the audience tune out of it. I on a personal note was hurt by the acts of the one character who was supposed to be the guiding light, but who acted contrary to principles and ultimately cost them the mission.
Viewers never really wanted to see the protagonists having to fight against morality and lose to it. Viewers wanted classic old school physical conflict and not a moral conflict, and that explains why there is an anti-climactic ending to the movie.
The sad note upon which it ended can only be remedied by the end credits, which we feel is Netflix's way of atoning for its crimes against humanity.
Let's start with the concept itself. The concept is quite brilliant, and even though we quite agree that the storyline is cliché, we can agree that the concept or premise upon which the movie was based offered quite a little bit of creativity and unsurprisingly, Netflix chose to be creative with the content rather than spin the tale in the normal fashion. Quite unfortunately, this is one of the few times when keeping the content development simple would have paid Netflix more than being creative with the output. If Netflix had resolved to create a conflict that stemmed from the acts the protagonists, then perhaps Netflix would have presented it's audience with a Stellar action movie. However,the creative team decided to create a conflict that stemmed not from the repercussions of their acts, but rather from the decision to break moral codes. In the end, Netflix presented a movie that tilted towards a modern day moral drama rather than an shoot 'em up action movie. This decision totally scrambled the expectations of the viewing audience, as what the paying customer went into the movie hoping to see was totally different from what Netflix offered, and for the first time, it was not different in a positive way.
That being said, let us take a look at what Netflix got spot on.
The storytelling technique was good. As we have previously stated and do reiterate here, having characters build around a conflict element is what makes a movie or tv series tick. Netflix achieved that in the first 45mins of the movie, before things began to spiral out of control. We feel the script writers had control of the narrative only to a certain extent, and then totally lost the reigns. The decision to switch from an action movie to a moral drama midway into the movie shows a lack of control and a little bit of creative difference and indecision by the producers. On a personal note, I felt that the producers were conflicted and could not decide what the movie was for and thus settled for a 50-50 representation; half way action and half way moral drama.
Location for the movie is also another absolute positive for Netflix. The settings for the movie had that realism to it. The locations team sourced for and found a very good setting within which majority of the movie took place. Having this made it quite easy for the producers to not have to rely on Visual Effects to create realism or portray believability.
Dialogues, monologues and scripting generally was good. The actors cast to play each individual character worked with the script presented to the best of their ability, and within the first 45mins of the movie, characters were easily related to. This is what a good script writer does for character creation and development. That having been said, we can rate scripting above average, and character performance as a solid A. Netflix once again found the right cast to bring it's ideas to the screens. Charlie Hunnam was especially brilliant, and Pedro Pascal slotted into his role quite seamlessly.
However, regardless of all the positives the movie had, it failed in the one aspect that truly mattered; Conflict Management. Netflix succeed with having a good concept, told a good story, derived an intriguing conflict and totally destroyed what they created. The management of the conflict was poor, the decision to make the team capitulate due to internal forces or idiosyncrasies rather than external forces hurt the feel of the movie and made the audience tune out of it. I on a personal note was hurt by the acts of the one character who was supposed to be the guiding light, but who acted contrary to principles and ultimately cost them the mission.
The sad note upon which it ended can only be remedied by the end credits, which we feel is Netflix's way of atoning for its crimes against humanity.
All of that aside, it's a good movie we can say for sure. It may not be a great movie, but it certainly is not a poor movie. It's just a movie that never really hit the highs expected of it. A good attempt from Netflix, but as with all of the Netflix 2019 original movies, it has failed to deliver on its promise also.
Directed by: J. C. Chandor
Produced by: Charles Roven, Alex Gartner, Andy Horwitz, Neal Dodson
Screenplay by: Mark Boal, J. C. Chandor
Story by: Mark Boal
Starring:
Ben Affleck
Oscar Isaac
Charlie Hunnam
Garrett Hedlund
Pedro Pascal
Music by: Disasterpeace
Cinematography: Roman Vasyanov
Edited by: Ron Patane
Production company: Atlas Entertainment
Distributed by: Netflix
Produced by: Charles Roven, Alex Gartner, Andy Horwitz, Neal Dodson
Screenplay by: Mark Boal, J. C. Chandor
Story by: Mark Boal
Starring:
Ben Affleck
Oscar Isaac
Charlie Hunnam
Garrett Hedlund
Pedro Pascal
Music by: Disasterpeace
Cinematography: Roman Vasyanov
Edited by: Ron Patane
Production company: Atlas Entertainment
Distributed by: Netflix
FCA's AppR: 7/10
No comments:
Post a Comment