Netflix has been pouring more and more resources into its film production and, after the success of Roma at the Academy Awards, the company does not seem to be slowing down anytime soon, especially with its most recent film, Triple Frontier. This film is being heavily promoted by its all-star cast, including Ben Affleck, Oscar Isaac, and Charlie Hunnan, to name a few. Its main question or selling-phrase, is intriguing: What happens if US soldiers go criminal?
The story of the film asks the audience a question, that when questioned further, actually makes a lot of sense: what is preventing US soldiers from using valuable survival and combat skills they acquired for free (not considering the time of service) for their own good? The answer the film provides seems to be a mix of providing vigilante justice while also benefiting the soldiers themselves.
The story starts with Santiago (Oscar Isaac) pursuing the henchmen of a drug lord with local authorities in Columbia. The scene ends with Santiago questioning one of his informants, who tells him that they know where the drug lord is hiding and where he keeps all of his money. Santiago, not trusting that local authorities will be able to pull off such a mission, comes back to the United States to reunite his old special forces team (who are all trying to stay afloat in modern society) and eliminate the drug lord while keeping the money for themselves. What starts out as a mission that will be beneficial for both the local authorities and the retired special forces team turns out to be the manifestation of man’s greed and aggression once the escape plan of the team goes sideways, resulting in them trying to survive in the wilderness.
The cinematography and camerawork of the film are probably where it shines the brightest. Even though the cinematography is slightly desaturated to give a rough, muddied look that reflects the harsh realities of military life, the color palette varies with the luscious greens of the forest, the light blues and whites of the mountain ranges as well as the dark blues and blacks of night time. This allows the film to distinguish each section of the movie as the squad moves further into the wilderness, running away for their lives. The camerawork, with its close-ups during tense moments of the film as well as its tight cinematography, amplifies the tension and sense of caution within the film, placing the audience in the position of Redfly (Ben Affleck) or any other member of the group. There are several specific shots where depth-of-field is utilized to isolate members of the group from their surroundings, showing the mental transformation they are going through as they shatter their moral code.
Even though the cinematography and camerawork allow the audience to empathize with the characters, the film lacks important character development. The script does not work hard enough to present the characters as relatable and does not provide enough of a backstory for some members of the group to give a reason as to why they are taking part on this mission and taking on this risk. Besides Ben Affleck’s character, Redfly, the movie does not provide any backstory on what the other characters are doing. Even if it does, it is only brushed away in a line as to what they were doing before they took on the mission. This lack of characterization rears its ugly head as the movie progresses, with the characters becoming more and more aggressive after all the unfortunate things start happening one after another. It is at this point when the audience starts to disconnect from the film since the characters were barely represented as likable or relatable characters, and now they are becoming more and more like the stereotypes that filmmakers wanted to eliminate. What message does the movie send when the supposed good guys (and there is no reference point to what made them “good” in the first place) are swayed by evil?
This issue with characterization leads to the next largest issue with the film, which is its message or question the film seeks to address. One would expect that a group of people who embark on such an impossible mission would either suffer heavy losses or go through such a difficult process to succeed that their character is permanently altered. However, this does not seem to be the case with Triple Frontier. One would imagine that running away from a leaderless cartel and surviving through the wilderness would cause members of the group to live their lives differently and be changed mentally, yet the ending of the movie seems to hint at a much different state, simply stating: man is man, and men will always continue to pursue their own interests, regardless of what it costs them.
The problem with making such a philosophical statement is that the film now has no arc. The message was the same at the end of the movie as it was at the beginning, which is the reason why the whole chain of events had begun and why there was no character development. The audience is forced to question whether their wasted their time or not. One might retaliate by stating that an action movie should not be judged on its character development. However, the mental and physical changes that the characters go through give meaning to the action itself. Otherwise, it’s just mindless action, which is where this film seems to be headed towards.
Triple Frontier is not a terrible film — in fact, the action scenes throughout the film were impressive, the acting was decent and the set pieces were gorgeous. However, if you think that Triple Frontier is the action movie that is philosophical, thoughtful or anything that the marketing for it advertised it to be, I’m sorry to inform you that that is a frontier which Netflix still seems to be exploring. •
