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.

 

[Owain Taggart]

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.

It actually took me until the 2nd act that I realized what they were doing with the narrative structure, and by the time the 3rd one came around, I was feeling very much like they should have gotten to the point. By that point, the movie is already at its last quarter and we're just hearing the same threads again and it was as if the movie was stalling for time. The closer it got to the end, it dawned on me that maybe it would never end up showing anything. And that's exactly what happened. So, in short, I don't feel the narrative structure worked for it, rather instead I feel it weighed it down and stretched the scenario to a point where it lost any tension. Worse yet, I don't feel like the movie took any particular position and ended up not saying anything as a result. It ends up feeling like it lacks the courage to say something.

It was frustrating because at times it was really good, but other times it felt like so much bureaucratic red tape behind the decisions that never amounted to anything on screen. As a scenario, it deserved much better. Maybe would have been better for the first half to be with the government orgs reacting to the threat, followed by a disaster-movie type of scenario of the target location in full panic mode.

 

[FPAlpha]

It actually took me until the 2nd act that I realized what they were doing with the narrative structure, and by the time the 3rd one came around, I was feeling very much like they should have gotten to the point. By that point, the movie is already at its last quarter and we're just hearing the same threads again and it was as if the movie was stalling for time. The closer it got to the end, it dawned on me that maybe it would never end up showing anything. And that's exactly what happened. So, in short, I don't feel the narrative structure worked for it, rather instead I feel it weighed it down and stretched the scenario to a point where it lost any tension. Worse yet, I don't feel like the movie took any particular position and ended up not saying anything as a result. It ends up feeling like it lacks the courage to say something.

It was frustrating because at times it was really good, but other times it felt like so much bureaucratic red tape behind the decisions that never amounted to anything on screen. As a scenario, it deserved much better. Maybe would have been better for the first half to be with the government orgs reacting to the threat, followed by a disaster-movie type of scenario of the target location in full panic mode.

The movie would have worked if they split it in two halves - one before and one after impact, maybe with the nuke going off or maybe it was a dud as they mentioned several times. The first act showing the process of detection, the failure to intercept and people realizing there's nothing they can do now but watch in horror as the minutes tick down and the aftermath what the government does after such a catastrophe ( either impact outcome). Finding out who actually fired it ( read in the IMDB details that it's actually easy to determine whose nuke it is by the exhaust of the ICBM itself), what to do and how to react to avoid a worldwide nuclear war ( i actually liked the part with the deputy NSA guy talking to the Russians and both sides desperately trying to find common ground to avoid going nuclear on each other).

It would have been a more generic story structure but it would have at least worked well enough to give the audience a fictional representation of the government in action.

 

[Unicron]

I feel much the same way, and that's been the consistent complaint in many of the reviews. The setup is potentially good, but it never evolves in the proper ways to really live up to its premise or to give the cast better material to work from. In contrast, some elements reminded me of the film Crimson Tide, which handled the problem (IMO) much better despite some aspects being a tad silly. But having Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington as leads more than makes up for it.

And part of the reason it works is that, to some extent, both of their characters are simultaneously right and wrong when it comes to how they want to proceed with the crisis. Do they follow the existing orders to launch a preemptive strike and potentially avoid letting missiles get launched at the U.S. and its allies (the captain's view)? Or, with the sub having taken damage and lost communications, do they delay their action long enough to determine if their orders have changed or been retracted (the executive officer's view)? They both have a serious lack of time and potential lack of loyalty from the crew, yet they both want to do the right thing in their own ways.

 

[Owain Taggart]

The movie would have worked if they split it in two halves - one before and one after impact, maybe with the nuke going off or maybe it was a dud as they mentioned several times.

Yeah, exactly. That's what I was thinking. As it is, they spent way more time than necessary on the trajectory without any conflict resolution. And how many times do we really need to hear about the failed intercept? Usually in a structure like this, a production would avoid repeating the unnecessary. Because honestly, at first it just confused me before I realized they were repeating the same scenario and I thought they'd launched another intercept that also failed. That might just be me, but I also feel it's down to how it was conveyed.

The second half I would have focused on the target location and its preparations such as putting people in bunkers, and its impending doom followed by the aftermath. I do agree that a more conventional linear scructure would work better.

I'm disappointed yet again by a Netflix movie. It had tons of potential and failed to deliver on its premise.