Should Triple Frontier Get A Sequel? Let's Talk This Out

Should Triple Frontier Get A Sequel? Let's Talk This Out

Warning: spoilers for Netflix's Triple Frontier are present. If you haven't seen the film yet, bookmark this page and come back once you've done so.

At the end of J.C. Chandor's Triple Frontier, the events that transpired during the film are brought to a seemingly tidy end. But during that ending, there are a couple of key pieces of information that stand out as potential threads for a sequel. While any film can leave the door open for another installment of adventure, it's not always the best course of action to follow up with another escapade.

It's a complicated matter, because while Triple Frontier doesn't seem like the type of film to get a sequel, there's enough left hanging that would make for an intriguing follow up if it was done correctly. With that in mind, it's time to start delving into whether or not this action-drama should continue, or if stolen cash is best left where it lies. Let's start things off by discussing the ending of the film.

What Happens At The End Of Triple Frontier

After the heist that Oscar Isaac's Santiago, and the rest of his Triple Frontier team have undertaken, the film puts them through the ringer. A series of troubles and tribulations pressures the team into some bad decisions involving an overloaded helicopter, a farming community in the Andes, and a trek through a treacherous mountain range that leads to the ultimate run for the coast. In the end, only one member of the team is killed – Ben Affleck's Tom.

As a result, the surviving teammates donate their shares of the remaining money that didn't get lost in the Andes to Tom's family. Feeling guilty for his death, and wanting to provide for his family, each man tears up his paperwork to deposit their shares, and allows their banker to deposit it all into the same account. After which, everyone goes their separate ways, saying a somber but heartfelt goodbye.

Just as the film is ready to let Isaac and Charlie Hunnam's William ride off into their respective sunsets, with Santiago ready to reunite with his girlfriend / intel source Yovanna in Australia, William slips him a piece of paper with important information. That info happens to be the GPS co-ordinates to a spot where the team dumped a ton of cash in order to lighten their load. As Santiago walks into the crowd on a warm, tropical day, the film fades to black.

The Case For A Sequel

The continued adventures of the Triple Frontier team have two key components on their side: the fact that Santiago was given the co-ordinates with the express purpose of possibly recovering the money, and his intended reunion with Yovanna after the heist went sideways. So, with a potential second act in the saga that J.C. Chandor co-wrote and directed, there's already enough components here to make for a basic sequel.

What makes a second excursion to the Triple Frontier even more exciting is something that Yovanna said to Santiago as they parted mid-way through the film. After stealing the money from the infamous drug dealer that they were robbing, she tells Santiago that it's not just that particular dealer's money in their hands. There are others who threw their funds in with his, and they're going to come looking for every penny missing.

Keeping all of this in mind, there's one of two ways this could go. One scenario is that the Triple Frontier survivors could recover the money for their own needs, as it's tucked away in a nice and secret spot for them to make a lovely retirement fund out of. The other, more probable scenario, would see those other drug dealers coming back to demand their money be returned; leaving the crew to figure out how to score the remaining $5 million that was donated to Tom's family. Both sound good, but are they enough to go forward? Let's look at the other side of the coin.

The Case Against A Sequel

While there's two good concepts for a Triple Frontier followup, there's still a solid case for not going ahead with any sort of return trips to the danger visited upon its protagonists. And that case comes from the fact that after all of the action that Santiago and his team had seen in Triple Frontier, it's not very likely that they would want to live through that sort of thing again. It all comes down to the approach to the original film, and how well it would mesh with any potential sequel.

Honestly, the grounded approach that J.C. Chandor and co-writer Mark Boal took in telling the story of Triple Frontier feels like it'd be at home with the ambiguity in the film's final reel. It's a movie that doesn't absolutely need to prolong itself beyond where it's already been, because the overriding lesson seems to be that if these soldiers hadn't pushed their luck as far as they had, they'd all be alive and richer than their wildest dreams.

In service of that message, another round of Triple Frontier action would seem like a slap in the face of that first round's overarching message. And as any fan of '80s action dramas will tell you, not every series has the luck that Rambo did; and even if it did, there's always the chance that things will devolve into mindless propaganda before all is said and done.

Where We Stand

Triple Frontier is a film that could very easily lend itself to a sequel, and that sequel could be really good. There's room for improvement with the foundation of the original, and the hooks are clear enough to bring the series into a reasonable future. But, even with the ideas presented, there's a risk that such a sequel would be a really bad idea. The result of this whole exercise is a pro sequel outcome, so long as those involved keep their heads on straight during development. In fact, bringing in J.C. Chandor and Mark Boal would be required at this point, as Chandor knows the characters and Boal knows how to bring the action.

But, of course, we'd like to know what you, the audience, think about this proposition. Using the poll below, and the comments section as well, let us know if you'd want another round of Triple Frontier in your Netflix queue. And, if you're looking for another movie to scratch that action itch, take a look at 2019's release schedule and see what's on the horizon!

Read More

Julianne Moore Was Fired From Can You Ever Forgive Me And It's Still 'Painful'

Julianne Moore Was Fired From Can You Ever Forgive Me And It's Still 'Painful'

Oh, sweet rejection! We’ve all faced it at one point in our lives, and actors are certainly no stranger to it in the cutthroat business of Hollywood. Even with the status and acclaim Oscar winner Julianne Moore has achieved in her over 30 years as an actress, she is not untouchable to it either.

During a recent visit to What Happens Live with Andy Cohen, Julianne Moore was asked why she left the film Can You Ever Forgive Me? which was a buzzy award season title. Here’s her blunt response:

I didn’t leave that movie, I was fired. Yeah, yeah, Nicole [Holofcener] fired me. ... I think she didn’t like what I was doing. We hadn't [started filming yet], we'd just been rehearsing and pre-production and stuff. And I think that her idea of where the character was was different than my idea of where the character was, and so she fired me. I haven't [seen the movie] yet, because it's still kind of painful. I love Melissa McCarthy, I worship her, I think she's fantastic, so I'm sure she's great.

Wow! It’s hard to wrap our heads around such a phenomenal actress being fired from a role. However, every director has a vision, and if the way Julianne Moore played the part didn’t match up with that, it certainly happens! Melissa McCarthy was later cast instead in the true story of best-selling biographer Lee Israel, who decides to forge letters from famous deceased authors and playwrights.

Julianne Moore admitted that she took the firing pretty hard, continuing with these words:

The only other time I was fired was when I was working at a yogurt stand when I was 15. So, yeah it felt bad.

The 58-year-old actress has been enjoying over 40 years without career rejection (after already nabbing a role anyway), so her pain surrounding the situation is understandable. That’s without mentioning the high praise the movie received throughout award season.

Can You Ever Forgive Me? also earned three nominations at the Oscars, including a Best Actress nod for Melissa McCarthy (in Moore’s former role), Richard E. Grant for Best Supporting Actor, and a nod for Best Adapted Screenplay.

Julianne Moore signed on to the project back in 2015 when the screenplay writer, Nicole Holofcener, was also going to direct the film as well. Soon after Moore was fired, Marielle Heller took Holofcener’s place as director and Melissa McCarthy was cast. Chris O’Dowd was also previously attached to play Richard E. Grant’s role of Jack Hook; here’s what O'Dowd told the BBC in February about it:

What a heartbreak… We were ready to go, it was myself and Julianne Moore, and we had moved to New York, and maybe two days before we started filming, there was some creative differences that I wasn't really involved in. I was surprised, that the film wasn't going ahead at the last minute.

At the end of the day, Chris O’Dowd feels like it was meant to be for Richard E. Grant, and thought he did a wonderful job, but does note “I would've preferred if it was me!” The actors above all else seemed bummed because it was a project they were excited to be a part of. McCarthy and Grant delivered some incredible performances and Moore and O’Dowd will certainly have more chances to dazzle on screen.

Read More

Why Dumbo Should Have Been A Sequel Instead Of A Remake

Why Dumbo Should Have Been A Sequel Instead Of A Remake

The following contains SPOILERS for the new live action Dumbo.

Dumbo won the box office this past weekend, but it did so with less than impressive numbers. The movie performed similarly with critics. The film has received slightly more negative reviews than positive ones, but critics are split almost in half. Either way, most positive reviews aren't glowing and most negative ones aren't too damning. As one of those who had a slightly positive view of Dumbo, I liked so many aspects of it that I wish it was better, and I think it could have been if it had followed its true calling and just been a straight sequel rather than a remake.

If you've seen Dumbo, then you know that most of the movie is essentially a sequel already. The events that cover the story of the original animated Dumbo get dispensed with in less than 30 minutes. Considering that the original movie did it in only slightly more than double that time, it makes sense not to waste too much time with it. Once Dumbo is discovered to be a flying elephant, the animated film ends, but that's just the end of Act I for the new movie.

The stuff that's worthy of praise in Dumbo almost exclusively comes from the latter two-thirds of the movie. You get the utterly insane "Evil Walt Disney" villain played by Michael Keaton. You get Eva Green, who is awesome because she's Eva Green. You get Tim Burton's take on "Pink Elephants on Parade," which is a thing I didn't even know I cared about. You get Colin Farrell being "adorable dad," which is his perfect position in Disney movies.

The biggest problem that Dumbo has is that it has trouble letting all of these ideas breathe because it has to dedicate a significant portion of its run time to the original story of Dumbo.

This is pretty much unnecessary and could have been overcome quite easily. The fact is that while Dumbo is certainly a story we all know, unless you've seen the film recently, odds are all you really remember about it is, "There's an elephant that can fly." That's actually all you need to know. If you do remember more, you certainly don't need to see it again.

Imagine if the new Dumbo opened exactly as it did, with Colin Farrell's Holt Farrier coming back from war, only this time, instead of Danny DeVito's Max Medici putting him in charge of the elephants before Dumbo is born, Medici tells Farrier that he's really happy Farrier is back, because the circus has a new star that needs to be taken care of, and Farrier is just the man to trust with the job. Dumbo flew for the crowd for the first time last night and word has already begun to spread. That's all we really need to know. Any additional info can be conveyed through dialogue with the other circus performers.

We didn't need to see anything of the original plot in this movie. I have no particular love for the original Dumbo, but there isn't anything I think the new version did better. The "Baby Mine" sequence is an emotional moment in the animated film, but it felt like it was being included in the remake simply because it was the sort of things fan expected. It was tacked on.

Now the movie can jump straight into the new material. The 20 minutes we just saved can be used to dig a little deeper into the rest of the story. We could get to know some of these characters a little better, as that was one of the big things missing from this new version of the story. Farrier's kids are important parts of Dumbo's life, but beyond, "Milly likes science," what do we really know about them?

I had a similar problem back when I first saw Disney's Maleficent. The film surprised the hell out of me by turning the story of the mistress of all evil into a rape revenge story. Needless to say, I did not see that coming. I found both the beginning and end of the movie to be quite good, but in the middle the story of Maleficent took a back seat because we had to tell the story of Sleeping Beauty, because clearly the feeling was it needed to happen. This slowed the movie to a crawl.

The idea behind these remakes is that people love these classic Disney stories, and the live-action versions allow fans to experience them in new ways that honestly weren't possible until recently. While that may be true, what if we looked at it from another angle? Because these stories are so well loved, we don't need to see them again since we know them incredibly well. However, that doesn't mean we don't need to want to see the characters again.

Because we don't need to see these movies again, but we love the characters all the same, sequels are the way to go. Take the animated original as a given, and then come up with a live action sequel that will give us something fresh and new. It won't work with every Disney property, of course. A live-action sequel to Aladdin rather than the remake we're getting would have to include somebody trying to recreate Robin Williams version of that character, and nobody wants that. But if even just a few of these movies went the sequel route, it would at least change things up a bit and let the remakes feel a bit fresher when they did happen.

Of all the live-action fairy tale movies that Disney is releasing this year, I'm actually looking forward to Maleficent: Mistress of Evil above them all. Because the film is a sequel to a movie that never had a Disney animated sequel, the story will almost certainly be entirely original. It's not going to feel like it owes anybody anything and won't need to include scenes that fans want to see new versions of, but will instead just get to tell its own story. i can only hope it's willing to take some of the same risks the previous film did.

Dumbo would have benefited greatly by simply committing to being the sequel it largely was anyway. Trying to be both things in order to make fans happy only prevented the film from being its own thing and flying on its own.

Read More

Rotten Tomatoes May Be Making Even More Changes To Combat Trolls

Rotten Tomatoes May Be Making Even More Changes To Combat Trolls

Rotten Tomatoes recently made changes to its users reviews after a deluge of trolls opted to give Captain Marvel some negative nods before the movie had even opened in theaters. The review aggregate service said the changes were not made to accommodate Captain Marvel specifically and will continue to be a part of Rotten Tomatoes moving forward. However, now it looks as if the site may not stop at changing the windows in which users are allowed to review.

A new report indicates that Rotten Tomatoes is looking at “additional measures” in terms of user reviews. Per THR those measures will likely include adding an additional layer of security so that users have to verify they’ve seen a movie before they can review it on Rotten Tomatoes.

This move hasn’t been made by the aggregate site yet, so it’s hard to tell exactly what that would like for regular users who leave reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. It’s possible that if the additional layer of security is kind of a pain in the rear, it could deter both avid users and trolls.

Still, the whole Captain Marvel brouhaha led to a really low audience score for the new Marvel movie early on. At one point it was running at just 33% with over 58,000 reviews.

At the time of this writing, following Rotten Tomatoes’ user score change led by parent company Fandango, Captain Marvel is running at 62% with 64,385 reviews. If that math doesn’t totally add up, it should be noted that number only happened after Rotten Tomatoes literally went through and purged reviews that had been written and kept on the site even after the policy change last week.

Originally, users were able to reveal their excitement or lack thereof in a project ahead of its release, but a couple of weeks ago, Rotten Tomatoes said it would be changing its pre-release function and that comments would be disabled until a movie was released. For Captain Marvel this was a hassle and eventually some reviews had to be dropped from the site because people had been allowed to review prior to the rule change; presumably, this would not be an issue for future movies.

In fact, Rotten Tomatoes' decision has also had a bit of a chain effect, as YouTube also mentioned changes to its platform to combat trolls related to the same Marvel flick.

All in all, none of the trolls really had a huge effect on Captain Marvel fans. The movie nabbed an A CinemaScore and has gone on to already make $500 million worldwide, which is an incredibly quick period of time to achieve that number. That's the good news. However, what will be most interesting to see will be if Rotten Tomatoes complicates its user review process if it will have an effect on the engagement and user reviews people are willing to put on the site.

If you’ve left a review on Rotten Tomatoes before, is the process already a hassle? Would adding another step make you more or less likely to leave a user review? Let us know, and in the meantime, be sure to check out Clark Gregg calling Marvel trolls "butthurt."

Read More

See The Best Look At Pepper Potts’ Avengers: Endgame Transformation

See The Best Look At Pepper Potts’ Avengers: Endgame Transformation

Spoilers ahead for Avengers: Endgame

It's been two weeks since Avengers: Endgame hit theaters, and the events of the massive blockbuster are still being felt by moviegoers. The Russo Brothers exceeded all expectations, and put together a narrative that was deeply connected to the first 21 movies of the shared universe. Tons of characters were serviced throughout the course of the movie, especially during the final battle against Thanos and his forces.

When all seemed bleak and Captain America was getting beat down by Thanos, the fallen characters and various other Avengers allies appeared in the rubble of the facility, and turned the tides against the Mad Titan's army. This includes Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts, who made her debut in the very first MCU movie. Pepper suited up in her own armor for the battle, taking on the comic book mantle of Rescue. And now we can see our clearest look at the armor itself, thanks to Endgame concept art. Check it out.

I mean, how cool is that? Pepper's ascension to Rescue has been a long time coming, as she's previously worn Tony's Iron Man suit, and has engaged in a few battles throughout her tenure in the MCU. And that journey really paid off in Avengers: Endgame, as Pepper's time as an official combatant was truly epic.

Pepper Potts has a supporting role in Avengers: Endgame, popping up early in the film's runtime, watching in awe as Captain Marvel arrives on Earth with Tony and Nebula in tow. Throughout the film, she mostly stays at Tony's side, helping him get healthy in the Avengers Facility and eventually becoming a mother after the time jump.

The Rescue armor was teased shortly after the blockbuster's time jump, which introduced Tony and Pepper's daughter Morgan. Upon finding his daughter in a tent outside their new home, and she wearing the Rescue helmet. Tony jokes that Pepper never wears anything he gets her, an exchange that not-so-subtly set up Pepper's eventual fate during Endgame's third act.

Pepper Potts did some great work as Rescue in the final Avengers: Endgame battle, serving as both an attacker and protector of her fellow good guys. She also participated in the epic all-female moment, which saw the MCU's femme fatales team up to battle Thanos' forces. Pepper had already killed two Iron Man villains, so watching her become a genuine hero was massively satisfying.

Related: The 25 Most Emotional Moments In Avengers: Endgame

In addition to her work as Rescue, Pepper Potts helped to move Tony Stark's narrative forward a few times throughout the course of Avengers: Endgame's runtime. For instance, she helped change Tony's mind about time travel. And most heartbreakingly, she mourned her husband in front of our eyes after he sacrificed his life to snap his fingers and destroy Thanos forever. While Gwyneth Paltrow has been part-time in the MCU in recent years, it was great to see her get so much screen time in Endgame.

Avengers: Endgame is in theaters now. Be sure to check out our 2019 release list to plan your next trip to the movies.

Read More

How Much Godzilla: King of the Monsters Could Make In Its Opening Weekend

How Much Godzilla: King of the Monsters Could Make In Its Opening Weekend

The summer movie season is basically here. With Avengers: Endgame arriving in just a couple weeks the box office will begin to heat up as the studios all bring out major tentpole releases during this competitive season. One movie looking to make a huge impact when it arrives in a little over a month is Godzilla: King of the Monsters, and early tracking has the film looking at an opening weekend between $40 and $60 million.

While that's a perfectly respectable number for most summer movies, many are wondering if it might be a little low. 2014's Godzilla saw a domestic opening weekend of over $90 million, and so a drop to less than half that for the sequel would be a huge hit. However, it's possible that the movie to look at isn't the previous Godzilla but actually Kong: Skull Island. That film, from which King of the Monsters also follows, came out more recently and managed a $60 million opening, which could indicate people are becoming less interested in giant monster movies.

Part of the issue, of course, is competition. Godzilla had basically none. The biggest movie to open against it was Disney's Million Dollar Arm, which barely grossed $10 million in its opening weekend. The comedy hit Neighbors was number two at the box office that weekend in its second week. The only big tentpole release in competition was The Amazing Spider-Man 2, which was in its third week, and had underperformed from the beginning.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters biggest opening weekend competition is the Elton John biopic Rocketman, which isn't expected to set the world on fire, but is looking at a $25 million opening weekend, far better than what the previous Godzilla's opening weekend competition was able to muster.

In addition, there will likely be significant hold over business from the Memorial Day Weekend releases from the week before, including Disney's live-action Aladdin.

BoxOfficePro simply suggests that the Godzilla/Kong franchise is losing steam. If that's the case, it's not great news for Godzilla Vs. Kong. The movie recently wrapped its Australian production with an eye toward a release next year. Getting it in front of the cameras so soon after Godzilla: King of the Monsters was clearly an attempt to strike while the iron was still hot, but it may have cooled too much already.

Of course, these numbers are still incredibly early and subject to change. As we get closer to release many who might be lukewarm on the film may realize they're actually much more interested in it. At this point, it's probably tough to judge the public's feelings toward any movie that isn't called Avengers: Endgame. Perhaps, by the time we get to the end of May Godzilla will be a true king once again and bring in a massive opening weekend.,

Read More

Linda Hamilton Confirms James Cameron Convinced Her To Return For Terminator: Dark Fate

Linda Hamilton Confirms James Cameron Convinced Her To Return For Terminator: Dark Fate

A full 35 years after she first played the role of Sarah Connor, actor Linda Hamilton is still the textbook definition of what that character represents. Going from a typical female target of a robotic killing machine in The Terminator to a badassed hero in Terminator 2: Judgement Day, her performance is a lynchpin to what fans expect from the series. So the news that she was indeed returning in Terminator: Dark Fate to play the part she made famous was something that made fans actually happy to see yet another film taking place in this famous franchise; and we all have James Cameron to thank for that.

While James Cameron previously told the world the story about that fateful phone call he made to bring Linda Hamilton back to the fold for Terminator 6, she explained the scenario that drew her back in with the following details:

You know, it was basically a phone call from James Cameron. Well, he had to call me three times for me to call him back… But once he told me the idea and I actually sat and thought about it for six weeks... Did I want to go there again? But once I'm in, I'm in.

The exact idea that captured both Linda Hamilton and James Cameron’s imaginations isn’t totally revealed just yet, but knowing that Terminator: Dark Fate is supposed to wipe the slate clean back to the end of Terminator 2: Judgement Day, we can kind of see what brought her back into the fold. Most importantly, the fact that Sarah Connor’s alleged death after a battle of cancer, as noted in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, is now erased.

Last seen, or rather heard, in Terminator: Salvation, Linda Hamilton hasn’t appeared on camera as the key figure in humanity’s defeat of Skynet since the last time James Cameron actually directed a Terminator film. Though Deadpool director Tim Miller is the helmer behind Terminator: Dark Fate, Cameron is the most hands-on he’s been with the film as a producer and shaper of the story that marks the sixth film in the series. And as Hamilton confirmed with ET Online at CinemaCon, he was the person to really win her over on coming back.

Part of me is excited that Terminator: Dark Fate will see Sarah Connor suiting up again, but there’s a nagging feeling that part of James Cameron’s pitch involves delivering Sarah to the Grim Reaper himself, as the torch is apparently being passed to the younger generation of this series. That usually means those who built the foundations find themselves iced, so as to prove that the situation is truly serious.

Ultimately, whether Sarah Connor lives or dies, if Linda Hamilton thinks that Terminator: Dark Fate has such a good idea that she has to be a part of it, that should excite the fans awaiting her return. When a character as formidable as Sarah Connor gets a proper end, with full approval by the person who brought them to life in the first place, there’s no better fate than that very scenario.

Terminator: Dark Fate unveils what Sarah Connor’s been up to all these years on November 1. But should you want to determine your box office fate sooner than that release date will allow, you’ll want to take a look at the 2019 release schedule. You’ll be back to the theaters in no time!

Read More