A House of Dynamite

A House of Dynamite presents the scenario of a nuclear strike against the United States better than A Sum of All Fears or any of its predecessors in the genre but, in the end, falls short of its potential.

The story's premise naturally puts forward a certain amount of tension and suspense in and of itself and the director has successfully delivered on these concepts in previous works. However, the narrative structure of the film takes much of the suspense out of its own story. Additionally, this structure cuts down the screen time of a number of characters and good actors ultimately leaving the viewer with a sense of some disappointment.

In the end, this is a decent movie that left a lot on the table.

Imagine telling a story at a party. You start off by stating how crazy the event is because it's about how the world almost ended. Then, the rest of the two hour story stays there with no real details or conclusion. Are you bored yet?

Now the story holes. The military is able to detect a missile launch but cannot see where it sourced from or what it actually is. We also watch it snail across the sky and we are unable to shoot it down.

Maybe the higher rankings for the originality of the story are justified. In my humble opinion entertainment isn't supposed to be a bunch on unknowns with a defined ending. I would like my two hours back on this one.

The first 30-40min is very very good. Right into the action, edge of your seat stuff.

Caught myself thinking: "How are they gonna keep this pressure and atmosphere going for 2 hours?" Then BAM! They're not. It's the kind of movie that shows the same event from multiple perspectives. With minor new things adding to the story with each perspective. So past the first perspective, you know what's going to happen. It feels like you're watching the same thing over and over.

It's too bad. The first part is absolutely superb. The acting is on point throughout by people who deserve their star status.

But it completely loses all excitement after the first part.

The continual repetition of the original 20 min storyline took far too many Christopher Nolan-esque References for my liking.

The performances were all good, but knowing that this film isn't going to progress once you realise the ending in the first act left me feeling a little conned tbh. It's a shame because I think the drama up till then held my attention.

The film unfolds from three different perspectives, with Bigelow experimenting with multiple angles, offering a complex and tense vision of the events. However, as each perspective unfolds, a sense of déjà vu begins to appear, and interest can wane slightly. At times, the repetition of tense moments makes the small details stand out more.

The first act is exceptionally well-crafted - it grabs you, builds tension perfectly, and makes you believe something truly extraordinary is about to happen. Bigelow creates a pressing atmosphere from the very first minutes, with carefully framed shots and a rhythm that keeps you engaged.

But by the second act, everything begins to unravel. The film becomes harder to follow, the initial tension fades, and the experimentation with perspectives and angles starts to feel more tiring than engaging. Overall, it comes across as an experimental film that fails to maintain its initial promise.

Zero Dark Thirty was about the past. The Hurt Locker wasn't about the Iraq War; it was about the protagonist's personal drama. This film, on the other hand, resonates through tension and fear, showing how people live with uncertainty and danger in the present.

It's not just a story about war or the threat of nuclear disaster, but about the emotions and decisions of people under extreme pressure.

PS: Don't rush to criticize it as a total failure - the director's intention and the concept itself are not bad at all. The only problem is that the next two perspectives don't reach the level of the first. Had they managed that, it could have been a 10/10 film.