A House of Dynamite

Had high hopes for this one, seen a few critics giving it a high rating.

It starts out great with good tension, keeps you on the edge of your seat, and deliveres great acting from the cast.

Then at a nerve-wrecking moment it shifts to another perspective, and that really dragged down the tension. I think this would have been better with a linear storyline. Switching between perspectives instead of dividing them into sections would have kept the tension higher throughout, bad call from the director..

The ending (without any spoilers) really ruined it for me. Could have been the movie of the year, but bad calls from the director drags it down to a 6.

Watching this film is like being told you've got takeout for dinner, only to end up with casserole.

I'm sure there was some underlying creative thoughts from the director with this story line but it wasn't clever nor smart. They had a great idea right in their palms and they threw it all away.

The ending of this film has to go down in history as one of the most frustrating endings in all of cinema. I've felt unsatisfied and in absolute disbelief. You almost feel cheated as you've become so invested in the story to only be let down right at the end! (and that's an understatement!).

It's worth watching but prepare for heartbreak.

A House of Dynamite was directed by Kathryn Bigelow, the mind behind Zero Dark Thirty and Detroit. Unlike the latter two movies, however, the former fails to deliver.

What another review calls a "flower narrative style" is not one of the ways that I care for a story to be told in film, but I do acknowledge that it has become somewhat fashionable in recent years. Additionally, the ending of the picture was as abrupt as it was deeply unsatisfying. I will not encourage anyone to watch it.

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.

"House of Dynamite" is a bold film in terms of its structure, which I believe will be the most divisive element among viewers.

The film uses a flower narrative style. Which is a story told through differing perspectives that ideally come together like puzzle pieces to form a complete picture. When done right, this approach creates intrigue and mystery as each segment reveals something new. Unfortunately, that wasn't quite the case with "House of Dynamite."

Each perspective failed to add meaningful depth or new information to the overarching story. Instead, the same dialogue and moments were replayed multiple times, which quickly became repetitive and dull. I understand what the filmmakers were aiming for, but the execution never fully realized the potential of its structure. There were no fresh insights gained from the shifting perspectives just retreads of what we'd already seen.

The dialogue also felt overly on-the-nose and occasionally corny, with line deliveries that leaned too heavily into melodrama.

Where "House of Dynamite" truly shines is in its exploration of the moral and strategic decision making between individuals and departments. Those moments were far more engaging than the story's overall presentation.

In the end, "House of Dynamite" had the foundation of a great film, but its structural choices ultimately held it back from reaching its full potential.