Spoilers A House of Dynamite

[WarpFactorZ]

I'm a bit surprised there's no thread for this film so far! Not science fiction, per se, but a science fact warning. A critical warning about the immutable, uncertain, and unstable infrastructure of authorizing a nuclear launch. What was true in the 1980s is still true today. And in many respects, is more dangerous today than ever before. This is actually a very good complement to the recent book "Nuclear War: A Scenario" by Annie Jacobsen.

Would love to hear thoughts and comments about this timely film.

 

[The Salt Umpire]

I'm a bit surprised there's no thread for this film so far! Not science fiction, per se, but a science fact warning. A critical warning about the immutable, uncertain, and unstable infrastructure of authorizing a nuclear launch. What was true in the 1980s is still true today. And in many respects, is more dangerous today than ever before. This is actually a very good complement to the recent book "Nuclear War: A Scenario" by Annie Jacobsen.

Would love to hear thoughts and comments about this timely film.

Which service shows it?

 

[Tosk]

Kathryn Bigelow is a great director, so I'll always be bummed out that she moved away from making the kinds of films I'm interested in.

Which service shows it?

Netflix.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Was rather unimpressed and underwhelmed by it as with many Netflix movies. I posted about it in the What are you Watching thread:

Watched the Netflix movie A House of Dynamite. More like A House of Meh. I think the scenario of a nuclear attack can be fascinating to explore, but the way it was executed made it a chore to watch. It starts well enough and grips you. It's when you find out where the missile is headed that it starts to fall apart. The movie uses a narrative from 3 different points of view, repeating the 20 mins until the strike with each of them. The effect is that it prolongues the scenario for the entire length of the movie, and then... no conclusion. That's it, it's the entire movie. You don't even see anything happen, no aftermath.

Essentially the movie pads out a 20-min scenario by showing 3 different viewpoints, then before you get a satisfying conclusion, ie Presidential decision and any aftermath, it calls it quits. The best part was in the beginning by far, and is one of the most gripping things I've seen in a long time, but then it just fizzles.

 

[FPAlpha]

Was rather unimpressed and underwhelmed by it as with many Netflix movies. I posted about it in the What are you Watching thread:



Essentially the movie pads out a 20-min scenario by showing 3 different viewpoints, then before you get a satisfying conclusion, ie Presidential decision and any aftermath, it calls it quits. The best part was in the beginning by far, and is one of the most gripping things I've seen in a long time, but then it just fizzles.

Agree. The concept is good, i.e. show what happens when the US is under nuclear attack, the defense fails and the repercussions of it in a very tight timeframe but once the initial story is told with the first act i asked myself what the benefit was showing the same thing just from a different angle? It didn't add anything new, we didn't have much time to get to know the characters too well in that particular act ( or any act for that matter) and the tension was gone.

It may have been an artistic choice not to resolve the movie with a definite answer and i usually like ambiguos endings but this one kind of bothered me.