When viewing films of this type, the viewer automatically must accept a certain amount of "mumbo-jumbo". Given that this program is entitled "The Triangle", the normally skeptical viewer must be willing to suspend a great deal of disbelief. Not a problem. But the great weakness of this film is asking the viewer to basically take their disbelief and not only suspend it but throw if off the top of the highest peak in the Rocky Mountain Range.
A few examples of "reasonable" suspensions of said beliefs:
1. The Bermuda Triangle is really a place where ships and planes disappear.(Not true but I'm okay assuming this for the sake of an interesting film)
2. The reason for the triangle has something to do with wormholes and "exotic material". (A hokey but acceptable science fiction premise)
3. The disruptions in the triangle result in shifts in universe that are unexpected. (One of the more interesting aspects of the film. Okay with me!)
Then we have some of the less reasonable suspensions:
1. A multi-millionaire selects a team of four individuals (a journalist, a psychic, a meteorologist and an oceanographer) to solve the mystery of the Triangle. Oh, and they can't use any outside people. Oh, and they'll each get $5 million dollars if they're successful. AND they have to start right away. (My suspensometer is now starting to go "sproing!")
2. Each individual has some tragic or sad backstory that manifests itself. (Does anyone have a normal life in these movies?)
3. The meteorologist is a gung-ho professor who lives in an academic world where he can chuck all of his research and classes for an undetermined amount of time by having graduate students and undergraduates students "cover" for him. (You have got to be kidding!)
4. The psychic and journalist frequently engage in tepid debates about empirical vs.supernatural evidence. (Will these films EVER bother to actually have an interesting debate about this issue? It's worth discussing but, geez, do we have to trot out the old "there are things that science just can't understand because it's too close-minded to." Sorry it just burns me up that that is the level of sophistication that screenwriters can muster.)
That's not to say that there aren't some scenes that are fairly interesting and even poignant. Catherine Bell's interaction with her birth mother in the alternate universe is quite affecting as is Lou Diamond Phillips' reactions to constant shifts in his family makeup. And yes, I must confess to finding a tear in my jaded eye when, at the end, Phillips turns over in his bed to see his youngest son lying next to him asleep. (However, what was the deal with Phillips' shower? What? In some alternate universe, the plumbing goes bad?)
Then the big eye roller, they find out that the reason for the problem is related to "The Philadelphia Experiment" (Brother!) and a secret government project run by the Navy (What? The CIA too busy?) for forty years. (Which is, of course, why we've had a federal deficit!)
Bottom line: A few good thing don't really add up to a terrific film. But it's an okay time waster.
A few examples of "reasonable" suspensions of said beliefs:
1. The Bermuda Triangle is really a place where ships and planes disappear.(Not true but I'm okay assuming this for the sake of an interesting film)
2. The reason for the triangle has something to do with wormholes and "exotic material". (A hokey but acceptable science fiction premise)
3. The disruptions in the triangle result in shifts in universe that are unexpected. (One of the more interesting aspects of the film. Okay with me!)
Then we have some of the less reasonable suspensions:
1. A multi-millionaire selects a team of four individuals (a journalist, a psychic, a meteorologist and an oceanographer) to solve the mystery of the Triangle. Oh, and they can't use any outside people. Oh, and they'll each get $5 million dollars if they're successful. AND they have to start right away. (My suspensometer is now starting to go "sproing!")
2. Each individual has some tragic or sad backstory that manifests itself. (Does anyone have a normal life in these movies?)
3. The meteorologist is a gung-ho professor who lives in an academic world where he can chuck all of his research and classes for an undetermined amount of time by having graduate students and undergraduates students "cover" for him. (You have got to be kidding!)
4. The psychic and journalist frequently engage in tepid debates about empirical vs.supernatural evidence. (Will these films EVER bother to actually have an interesting debate about this issue? It's worth discussing but, geez, do we have to trot out the old "there are things that science just can't understand because it's too close-minded to." Sorry it just burns me up that that is the level of sophistication that screenwriters can muster.)
That's not to say that there aren't some scenes that are fairly interesting and even poignant. Catherine Bell's interaction with her birth mother in the alternate universe is quite affecting as is Lou Diamond Phillips' reactions to constant shifts in his family makeup. And yes, I must confess to finding a tear in my jaded eye when, at the end, Phillips turns over in his bed to see his youngest son lying next to him asleep. (However, what was the deal with Phillips' shower? What? In some alternate universe, the plumbing goes bad?)
Then the big eye roller, they find out that the reason for the problem is related to "The Philadelphia Experiment" (Brother!) and a secret government project run by the Navy (What? The CIA too busy?) for forty years. (Which is, of course, why we've had a federal deficit!)
Bottom line: A few good thing don't really add up to a terrific film. But it's an okay time waster.