A House of Dynamite

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.

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.

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.