Skip to main content

I feel like I know this place.


Triangle
(2009)

(SPOILERS of Triangle and Time Crimes) I've not seen Chris Smith's Severance, mainly because Danny Dyer's in it. On the evidence of this film, however, he's got talent to spare as a director, although I'm not so sure the several years he spent on the script have paid off.

Melissa George and her yachting companions encounter strange weather conditions and then come across an apparently deserted ship. Exploring it, things start to get weird. And then a whole lot weirder.

Whilst the "What is it about?" is evident by the time the credits roll, a glance at IMDB's Boards indicates how much debate the different possible permutations of the plotting have provoked. I actually prefer the looseness of possible interpretations (in comparison with the too rote for me Time Crimes for example, with which this shares certain structural similarities even if its conceptually very different) but there's a sense that getting to caught up in analysing every detail will end in disappointment, reading in levels and tangents that were not intended.

Melissa George is outstanding, some of the CGI is ropey, and there's a shot reveal just after an hour in that is just jaw-dropping.

Time Crimes stopped working for me when the protagonist decided to wrap the bandages round his head. Then, without reflection or (apparent) flaw in his actions, he went through the motions of repeating himself as the antagonist he’d encountered earlier, in order to complete the loop. How, aware of the situation, was he able to repeat his actions and why did he make the assumptions he made and decisions he did, which were pretty grim ones? I just didn't buy into the character’s choices. And more than that, the action of playing out the earlier events to the tee did not engage me or seem remotely plausible.

Likewise, in Triangle I began to get uneasy when George seemed to be blundering into forced repetitions. Then - joy - she became aware of her ability to change the outcome, which culminates in the shocking scene of all the dead copies of the female character she sees on the deck (and a nice touch that many of them have the cardigan she then puts on the dying character). So other versions had that self-awareness.

But then, after this flash of insight, she seems to revert to type, repeating the actions in order to fulfill the narrative demands (as far as I could tell). Which seems to involve the same kind of precise repetition of events we see in Time Crimes. Even though they require different definitions of what the loops "constitute", they are played out in similar language. It left me disappointed as, from that point until she reaches shore, I found the film all-too predictable again.

I can see some of the arguments that others have presented; that she would ultimately succumb to her violent nature and so, despite a flash of awareness, reverts to type. And, the compulsion to get back to her child operating as an overriding impulse. But, as at least one version of her (the one who was beaten to death on deck by herself) hadn't taken that course, I'd have liked to see more variations of it play out differently. There's a point in the film where the giddy potential (the bodies on deck) falls into a more routine line; there could have been any number of variations on the theme presented or versions of herself on different courses aboard the ship. The course chosen might serve the purgatory/damnation theme more fittingly, but it fails to satisfy in terms of character logic.

There are still other aspects of Triangle that require protective logic to explain, like the "gods" rules for what on the ships stays and what goes with each loop. The mirror sequence is probably the most under discussed moment in the film in terms of symbolic importance; is there supposed to be a "switch" then, where full realisation of what George must do takes place and she becomes the ruthless killer version of herself?

Ultimately, I was left dissatisfied as the film was neither as rich or layered as I hoped it would be; partly because the use of certain elements felt over familiar, but mainly because the characters become slaves to the where Smith wants to take the plot and so cease to hold integrity.

***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who’s got the Figgy Port?

Loki (2021) (SPOILERS) Can something be of redeemable value and shot through with woke? The two attributes certainly sound essentially irreconcilable, and Loki ’s tendencies – obviously, with new improved super-progressive Kevin Feige touting Disney’s uber-agenda – undeniably get in the way of what might have been a top-tier MCU entry from realising its full potential. But there are nevertheless solid bursts of highly engaging storytelling in the mix here, for all its less cherishable motivations. It also boasts an effortlessly commanding lead performance from Tom Hiddleston; that alone puts Loki head and shoulders above the other limited series thus far.

Here’s Bloody Justice for you.

Laughter in Paradise (1951) (SPOILERS) The beginning of a comedic run for director-producer Mario Zampa that spanned much of the 1950s, invariably aided by writers Michael Pertwee and Jack Davies (the latter went on to pen a spate of Norman Wisdom pictures including The Early Bird , and also comedy rally classic Monte Carlo or Bust! ) As usual with these Pertwee jaunts, Laughter in Paradise boasts a sparky premise – renowned practical joker bequeaths a fortune to four relatives, on condition they complete selected tasks that tickle him – and more than enough resultant situational humour.

Damn prairie dog burrow!

Tremors (1990) (SPOILERS) I suspect the reason the horror comedy – or the sci-fi comedy, come to that – doesn’t tend to be the slam-dunk goldmine many assume it must be, is because it takes a certain sensibility to do it right. Everyone isn’t a Joe Dante or Sam Raimi, or a John Landis, John Carpenter, Edgar Wright, Christopher Landon or even a Peter Jackson or Tim Burton, and the genre is littered with financial failures, some of them very good failures (and a good number of them from the names mentioned). Tremors was one, only proving a hit on video (hence six sequels at last count). It also failed to make Ron Underwood a directing legend.

Why don't we go on a picnic, up the hill?

Invaders from Mars (1986) (SPOILERS) One can wax thematical over the number of remakes of ’50s movies in the ’80s – and ’50s SF movies in particular – and of how they represent ever-present Cold War and nuclear threats, and steadily increasing social and familial paranoias and disintegrating values. Really, though, it’s mostly down to the nostalgia of filmmakers for whom such pictures were formative influences (and studios hoping to make an easy buck on a library property). Tobe Hooper’s version of nostalgia, however, is not so readily discernible as a John Carpenter or a David Cronenberg (not that Cronenberg could foment such vibes, any more than a trip to the dental hygienist). Because his directorial qualities are not so readily discernible. Tobe Hooper movies tend to be a bit shit. Which makes it unsurprising that Invaders from Mars is a bit shit.

I’m just glad Will Smith isn’t alive to see this.

The Tomorrow War (2021) (SPOILERS). Not so much tomorrow as yesterday. There’s a strong sense of déjà vu watching The Tomorrow War , so doggedly derivative is it of every time-travel/alien war/apocalyptic sci-fi movie of the past forty years. Not helping it stand out from the pack are doughy lead Chris Pratt, damned to look forever on the beefy side no matter how ripped he is and lacking the chops or gravitas for straight roles, and debut live-action director Chris McKay, who manages to deliver the goods in a serviceably anonymous fashion.

You nicknamed my daughter after the Loch Ness Monster?

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (2012) The final finale of the Twilight saga, in which pig-boy Jacob tells Bella that, “No, it's not like that at all!” after she accuses him of being a paedo. But then she comes around to his viewpoint, doubtless displaying the kind of denial many parents did who let their kids spend time with Jimmy Savile or Gary Glitter during the ‘70s. It's lucky little Renesmee will be an adult by the age of seven, right? Right... Jacob even jokes that he should start calling Edward, “Dad”. And all the while they smile and smile.

I'm offering you a half-share in the universe.

Doctor Who Season 8 – Worst to Best I’m not sure I’d watched Season Eight chronologically before. While I have no hesitation in placing it as the second-best Pertwee season, based on its stories, I’m not sure it pays the same dividends watched as a unit. Simply, there’s too much Master, even as Roger Delgado never gets boring to watch and the stories themselves offer sufficient variety. His presence, turning up like clockwork, is inevitably repetitive. There were no particular revelatory reassessments resulting from this visit, then, except that, taken together – and as The Directing Route extra on the Blu-ray set highlights – it’s often much more visually inventive than what would follow. And that Michael Ferguson should probably have been on permanent attachment throughout this era.

I hate natural causes!

Body Bags (1993) (SPOILERS) I’m not surprised Showtime didn’t pick this up for an anthology series. Perhaps, if John Carpenter had made Coming Home in a Body Bag (the popular Nam movie series referenced in the same year’s True Romance ), we’d have something to talk about. Tho’ probably not, if Carpenter had retained his by this point firmly glued to his side DP Gary Kibbe, ensuring the proceedings are as flat, lifeless and unatmospheric as possible. Carpenter directed two of the segments here, Tobe Hooper the other one. It may sound absurd, given the quality of Hooper’s career, but by this point, even he was calling the shots better than Carpenter.

Call me crazy, but I don’t see America coming out in droves to see you puke.

The Hard Way (1991) (SPOILERS) It would probably be fair to suggest that Michael J Fox’s comic talents never quite earned the respect they deserved. Sure, he was the lead in two incredibly popular TV shows, but aside from one phenomenally successful movie franchise, he never quite made himself a home on the big screen. Part of that might have been down to attempts in the late ’80s to carve himself out a niche in more serious roles – Light of Day , Bright Lights, Big City , Casualties of War – roles none of his fanbase had any interest in seeing him essaying. Which makes the part of Nick Lang, in which Fox is at his comic best, rather perfect. After all, as his character, movie star Nick Lang, opines, after smashing in his TV with his People’s Choice Award – the kind of award reserved for those who fail to garner serious critical adoration – “ I’m the only one who wants me to grow up! ”

What's a movie star need a rocket for anyway?

The Rocketeer (1991) (SPOILERS) The Rocketeer has a fantastic poster. One of the best of the last thirty years (and while that may seem like faint praise, what with poster design being a dying art – I’m looking at you Marvel, or Amazon and the recent The Tomorrow War – it isn’t meant to be). The movie itself, however, tends towards stodge. Unremarkable pictures with a wide/cult fanbase, conditioned by childhood nostalgia, are ten-a-penny – Willow for example – and in this case, there was also a reasonably warm critical reception. But such an embrace can’t alter that Joe Johnston makes an inveterately bland, tepid movie director. His “feel” for period here got him The First Avenger: Captain America gig, a bland, tepid movie tending towards stodge. So at least he’s consistent.