Many reviews missed the point
A House of Dynamite easily joins the list of highly original and frightening movies about the the nuclear weapons era, alongside Testament, Threads, and maybe The Day After. Kathryn Bigelow and writer Noah Oppenheim (I had to double take the name as my eyes originally read it as Oppenheimer) created a thoughtful thriller, where the audience watches the same events unfold from three different perspectives. It is a storytelling approach employed by other directors like Stanley Kubrick, Quinten Tarantino, and Steven Soderbergh, and it is very effective for this movie.
A nuclear missile is launched from somewhere in Asia. The exact location is not known. All efforts to bring the missile down fail. The missile is scheduled to strike the city of Chicago in 20 minutes. That's the plot. But the film depicts the events first from the perspective of a military base in Alaska, where the missiles are launched to intercept and attempt to destroy the incoming missile (like a bullet finding and hitting another bullet, as one character explains) and the White House situation room; the second perspective from the Deputy National Security Advisor and other members of the President's military staff, who discuss the situation on various conference calls with the President; and then from the perspective of the President himself.
Imagine the predicament the characters find themselves in--the missile is launched and they have 20 minutes to try to intercept it and destroy it, determine the country from where the missile was launched, contemplate counter strikes, and figure out how, or even if, they should alert the citizens of Chicago. As a character explains, what could they possibly do to prepare for a strike in five minutes? This this is the most difficult position any U. S. President could find themselves in. And it takes a President with control and discipline not to immediately launch every missile and basically wipe out the planet.
And then there are two other possibilities: The missile turns out to be a dud and does not detonate after impact, or it's a hoax, or a "war game," to invoke the popular 1983 "what if" film.
Other reviewers who gave them film 1 star apparently craved to see the CGI-created destruction of a major U. S. city. There are plenty of other films that should satisfy that craving--pick any Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich film. Viewers familiar with the more controlled filmmaking style of Bigelow know better than to expect CGI. There is much ambiguity in the film, including the final shot. We are asked to fill in the blanks.
The cast is excellent. The highlights are Rebecca Ferguson, as the duty officer who's in charge of the White House situation room during the attack; her facial expressions convey the level of stress, confusion, and anguish while she tries to remain calm during the events. Gabriel Basso plays the Deputy National Security Advisor, suddenly called into the crisis management as the Senior advisor is having surgery. Basso's character attempts to maintain composure while explaining the options through his mobile phone, even while trying to get through the security gate at the White House. Idris Elba plays the President faced with the decision on how to handle the fate of the country and the planet. For the first two segments of the film, the President (who is not given a name in the film) is heard but not seen; the monitor in the Situation Room is blacked out, which is explained in the third segment.
This is a film not easily forgotten, unless you have expectations for something that it is not. Other reviewers even attacked the idea that the President's image was not seen on the monitor as the Secretary of Defense and others were. The nation was suddenly under attack. The President was making a high school appearance in a gym when the missile was launched. He was forced to communicate with others via a secured walkie talkie. Did other reviewers think he could magically beam himself back to the Oval Office or Mount Weather?
The final analysis: This is a realistic piece, not an explosive doomsday movie. It comes two years after Oppenheimer, the film about the man behind the bomb and who, at the end of that film, pondered the fate of humankind after realizing what he had created. This film depicts that outcome.
A nuclear missile is launched from somewhere in Asia. The exact location is not known. All efforts to bring the missile down fail. The missile is scheduled to strike the city of Chicago in 20 minutes. That's the plot. But the film depicts the events first from the perspective of a military base in Alaska, where the missiles are launched to intercept and attempt to destroy the incoming missile (like a bullet finding and hitting another bullet, as one character explains) and the White House situation room; the second perspective from the Deputy National Security Advisor and other members of the President's military staff, who discuss the situation on various conference calls with the President; and then from the perspective of the President himself.
Imagine the predicament the characters find themselves in--the missile is launched and they have 20 minutes to try to intercept it and destroy it, determine the country from where the missile was launched, contemplate counter strikes, and figure out how, or even if, they should alert the citizens of Chicago. As a character explains, what could they possibly do to prepare for a strike in five minutes? This this is the most difficult position any U. S. President could find themselves in. And it takes a President with control and discipline not to immediately launch every missile and basically wipe out the planet.
And then there are two other possibilities: The missile turns out to be a dud and does not detonate after impact, or it's a hoax, or a "war game," to invoke the popular 1983 "what if" film.
Other reviewers who gave them film 1 star apparently craved to see the CGI-created destruction of a major U. S. city. There are plenty of other films that should satisfy that craving--pick any Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich film. Viewers familiar with the more controlled filmmaking style of Bigelow know better than to expect CGI. There is much ambiguity in the film, including the final shot. We are asked to fill in the blanks.
The cast is excellent. The highlights are Rebecca Ferguson, as the duty officer who's in charge of the White House situation room during the attack; her facial expressions convey the level of stress, confusion, and anguish while she tries to remain calm during the events. Gabriel Basso plays the Deputy National Security Advisor, suddenly called into the crisis management as the Senior advisor is having surgery. Basso's character attempts to maintain composure while explaining the options through his mobile phone, even while trying to get through the security gate at the White House. Idris Elba plays the President faced with the decision on how to handle the fate of the country and the planet. For the first two segments of the film, the President (who is not given a name in the film) is heard but not seen; the monitor in the Situation Room is blacked out, which is explained in the third segment.
This is a film not easily forgotten, unless you have expectations for something that it is not. Other reviewers even attacked the idea that the President's image was not seen on the monitor as the Secretary of Defense and others were. The nation was suddenly under attack. The President was making a high school appearance in a gym when the missile was launched. He was forced to communicate with others via a secured walkie talkie. Did other reviewers think he could magically beam himself back to the Oval Office or Mount Weather?
The final analysis: This is a realistic piece, not an explosive doomsday movie. It comes two years after Oppenheimer, the film about the man behind the bomb and who, at the end of that film, pondered the fate of humankind after realizing what he had created. This film depicts that outcome.
- Katz5
- 25 नव॰ 2025