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.

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 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.

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.

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.