Entertainment
Sponsored by

*** A HOUSE OF DYNAMITE *** (Idris Elba, Rebecca Ferguson, dir. Kathryn Bigelow)

15,659 Views | 147 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by Jock 07
TriAg2010
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah, underwhelmed. It's fundamentally a retread of so many Cold War / nuclear war tropes: the single inexplicable launch, the general demanding massive retaliation, the unprepared and confused leadership. We've seen this a dozen times. It's kinda neat to see it updated for modern day (like the "Zoom" call) but the world design (like the Situation Room) aren't believable. The only notable plot twist for me was Lane Pryce killing himself again, that legitimately surprised me and fit into the story well.

I think we can easily conclude from the evacuation continuing at the end of the missile does indeed hit. We were mere minutes away from impact when we last saw the FEMA gal and this would surely be 10s of minutes later. It always struck me as remarkably obvious what a President should do in a scenario like the movie. Like obviously you ride out the single missile no matter how devastating and choose your retaliation options once you have more facts. Survivability and second-strike capabilities have been part of our nuclear doctrine forever. The tension of films like this rely on an unbelievable level of irrationality.
AgDC83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This feels like a 3 part Netflix series that was cancelled after first season and ended with a "cliffhanger". Only they did it on purpose.
lunchbox
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Couple of weird things..."Have a Nice Day" appeared on the screen 3 times during the first few minutes of the movie.

Also, during the first part, they panned across the Situation Room, Obama and Susan Rice were on the screen for a split-second. Not sure why, but it wasn't like they were panning across a picture on the wall. It made me think he was the President in this until I remembered about Elba.
Ag_07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Watched this last night and echo everyone's sentiment.

Great movie until the end.

After the first 15 mins I had to take a break and catch my breath. They did an incredible job of building tension and really capturing how stressful some of those jobs are especially in a SHTF situation. It's was great until it just stopped (not really an ending) abruptly.

Also pretty F-ed up because I feel the credits popped up with like 11 mins left so the whole time due to the time left I was expecting a real ending.
TriAg2010
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
lunchbox said:

Couple of weird things..."Have a Nice Day" appeared on the screen 3 times during the first few minutes of the movie.


I assume the payoff for this bit was left on the cutting room floor with God knows what else.

I did find it darkly humorous that the Sec Def is neglecting his duties in a second-by-second crisis to warn his daughter and when he finally gets through she starts talking about her therapist and he's like, you know what, forget it.
98Ag99Grad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A couple of my favorite characters:

The admiral who was originally in the white house situation room but got moved to the bunker with the asst national security advisor. He was really calm and thoughtful. That's exactly who I hope is running things in that situation.

Also liked the main general. Again, the type of guy I want in his position. No nonsense, military type who is mission focused
lunchbox
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TriAg2010 said:

lunchbox said:

Couple of weird things..."Have a Nice Day" appeared on the screen 3 times during the first few minutes of the movie.


I assume the payoff for this bit was left on the cutting room floor with God knows what else.


Thinking back on it, it was either accidental or it was once for each movie segment.
The Dog Lord
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
**** this director. It baffles me how they could be satisfied with this.
Gig-Em2003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Netflix write-up on the movie:


Enviroag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I literally said out loud "I effing hated that movie" when the credits rolled.
98Ag99Grad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Went back and watched The Day After and Threads. Just put me at ground zero if this ever happens. No winners in a nuclear exchange.
K2-HMFIC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fantastic film and fantastic ending.

Leaving the ending ambiguous is the perfect way to communicate the subject and service the story.

I didn't like the trope of STRATCOM CC being aggressive…it feels overplayed…

The lack of CIA/State in the discussion is irritating…

But in the end it did a damn good job of building tension, talking about the challenge of understanding what's happening, the stupid comms issues.

She got the details largely right.
Faustus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gateman said:

Just watched. Disappointed when credits appeared on screen. Wife is out of country on a business trip and will not have time to watch it until she gets home later this weekend. I think I will tell her "WOW, just wait for the ending, you won't believe it".


So was the President's in the flick!
Hogties
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I agree with this take. I enjoyed the movie and the ending was on target for me. The movie is a fantastic dramatization of the first 20 minutes of a nuclear war from three different focus points.

It pretty well dramatizes the first 20 minutes of the book, "Nuclear War A Scenario" by Annie Jacobsen.

That book was an amazingly tense listen as an audio book. Palm sweating tense. That book had an ending. That ending is with a full scale exchange and "the living envying the dead". About as depressing as it comes.

The ambiguous ending of House of Dynamite at least gives hope that the President didn't trigger an extinction event for humanity. Even though he likely would if faced with that scenario (as vividly described in Annie Jacobsen's book).

And the military pushing for weapons release seems to be exactly what they would do and are trained to do according to Jacobsen's extensively researched book. You don't become commander of the US nuclear forces if you would waver in that situation.
Faustus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hogties said:

I agree with this take. I enjoyed the movie and the ending was on target for me. The movie is a fantastic dramatization of the first 20 minutes of a nuclear war from three different focus points.

It pretty well dramatizes the first 20 minutes of the book, "Nuclear War A Scenario" by Annie Jacobsen.

That book was an amazingly tense listen as an audio book. Palm sweating tense. That book had an ending. That ending is with a full scale exchange and "the living envying the dead". About as depressing as it comes.

The ambiguous ending of House of Dynamite at least gives hope that the President didn't trigger an extinction event for humanity. Even though he likely would if faced with that scenario (as vividly described in Annie Jacobsen's book).

And the military pushing for weapons release seems to be exactly what they would do and are trained to do according to Jacobsen's extensively researched book. You don't become commander of the US nuclear forces if you would waver in that situation.


We've been solid on that front on the big screen at least as far back as Gen. Buck Turgidson and Brigadier Gen. Jack D. Ripper in '64.
fig96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I haven't totally decided if I liked it yet or not. Great performances and really well done overall, and the Defense Secretary was a shocker.

I both understand why and am annoyed by the ending.
Ol_Ag_02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Kathryn Bigelow rick rolling audiences for ****s and giggles.

Houston Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The premise of the movie was off.

1-There was only 1 missile. They kept acting like the President would lose any chance to respond if he did not counter attack BEFORE the Missile made impact.

2-They didnt know for sure who launched the missile. Who are you going to counter-attack?

3-Waiting for impact would let you know if there was a detonation. Absorb the one nuke and then you can do some investigation and communication with the world to figure out who actually fired it. Then you can strike back with all vigor.

4-If a second missile or second wave was launched after the first impact, we would be ready and watching. No way they get off more launches without us knowing who launched. Then you for sure counter-attack with everything we got.

5-There is no way our side has not war-gamed this exact scenario of just one missile being launched with no clear idea of who launched it. There would already be a clear list of potential actions to take and there would not be such a cluster of nobody knowing what to do.
javajaws
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah the lack of an ending really killed it for me. Even discounting that major issue I still think the movie was flawed. While it did a good job with pacing and ratcheting up the tension I think some of the smaller parts of the writing were cliche and lazy.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I wouldn't say it's not worth watching, but the cat's definitely out of the bag…

TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The more I've thought on it, the more I agree with this. I think it's propulsive and worth checking out overall (save for the lack of an ending), but man the writing is so damn vanilla at times.
Muy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Just finished and ran straight here to see if there was a thread about it. All I can say is as soon as "A House of Dynamite" came on the screen my immediate thought was "please tell me this is just the final transition before the last scene". But nooooooo, the credits start rolling, and I said out loud "what the hell?!!"
bigtruckguy3500
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TriAg2010 said:

It always struck me as remarkably obvious what a President should do in a scenario like the movie. Like obviously you ride out the single missile no matter how devastating and choose your retaliation options once you have more facts. Survivability and second-strike capabilities have been part of our nuclear doctrine forever. The tension of films like this rely on an unbelievable level of irrationality.

Yeah, I agree. Like it's not "suicide or surrender" as they said in the movie. One missile, devastating. But all things considered, we lose no capacity to retaliate and launch counter attacks with the loss of Chicago (except for losing Navy bootcamp - and thus ability to replace sailors should a war break out).

But yeah, did a great job of building tension but the lack of a conclusion did annoy me. Hate movies like that. But also, I think they did a pretty good job of realism in regards to how a lot of this would work. Personally I think it would be a little more chaotic. And if I was a bad guy I would have probably launched at 3am DC time. But we don't know who the bad guy is and what their intention was either.

Good entertainment for about an hour and a half, I suppose.
Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What an absolute waste of time.

First, the obvious false and absurd sense of urgency to immediately retaliate against *checks notes* "all of our enemies". Lol wtf? How did the writers think this was a reasonable scenario?

Second, why only use two GBIs out of 50 when failure of said GBIs will lead to mutually assured destruction? Especially when the reported success rate was 50% for each (I know the success rate is reportedly higher in reality)? What kind of logic is that? Either you conserve them because you need time to determine the source of the ICBM, and need additional GBIs for defense while you determine your options, or you use a lot more than two to assure success because the alternative is the end of the world.

Third, I'm not sure what the point of the three POVs were when soooo much was retreaded information. It was all so redundant. The audience would have still been able to determine the message with a more linear story line, and probably would have cut a lot of the bloat to allow for a more satisfying conclusion. Each successive POV was worse due to redundancy.

Fourth, what were the points of including the FEMA woman and the odd allusion to a conspiracy in the 1st POV with the cable guy, the guy working under Ferguson's character, and the guy he slipped something to via a handshake?

Fifth, the ending or lack of one.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Faustus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm beginning to suspect Bigelow didn't intend for us to have a blast while watching the flick.
Head Ninja In Charge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Just finished the watch. Man, this **** was terrible.
El Gallo Blanco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
K2-HMFIC said:

Fantastic film and fantastic ending.

Leaving the ending ambiguous is the perfect way to communicate the subject and service the story.

I didn't like the trope of STRATCOM CC being aggressive…it feels overplayed…

The lack of CIA/State in the discussion is irritating…


But in the end it did a damn good job of building tension, talking about the challenge of understanding what's happening, the stupid comms issues.

She got the details largely right.

If the president in the movie was a democrat, maybe they were focusing most of their rescources on the real domestic threats...concerned conservative PTA parents and the like. Kathryn Bigelow is known for her realism in movies.
BigTimeAlum
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I understand the concept of the non-ending, but it was horrifically executed. Waste of two hours.

The general was such a bad troupe. A complete liberal Hollywood fantasy at what a career solider would be like in that situation. Many have said it on this thread, but nobody would be pushing for an all out counter strike in that situation. In fact, if I was the President there, I would have had him removed. You don't push for the end of the human race when you don't have any information on the attacker.

1) Mobilize the National Guard to every American City (Protect against looting and unrest).
2) Mobilize all military assets to the South Pacific (shut down all movement land, see, and air)
3) Inform Russia and China that any interference with American assets will be considered a declaration of War
4) Full conventional war with the perpetrator (Israeli style) once identified

The rest of the movie was entertaining. So much was left hanging though it ruined it.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jawn Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TCTTS said:



It would be a very short movie if the GBI had a 100% success rate.
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It felt like an 80's tv movie
TexAgBolter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Also, we have more layers to our missile defense than just GBIs.

Proposition Joe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One scene at the end could have saved this movie:

LeonardSkinner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think we're missing a subtle, but salient point.

The president had just spent part of the day at Angel Reese's basketball camp. What if he was worried that: if he fired a missile, it would miss badly, bounce off something, and it would come right back at him?

If it had been a Steph Curry or Caitlin Clark camp, he would've been dropping bombs all day.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I read the first few posts of this thread and realized, going into it, that the ending was going to be disappointing. I figured out after the 2nd point of view started that the bad ending was going to be them just ending the movie without a real resolution. And once my expectations were lowered for that, I thought the movie was decent.

However as the brother of a former nuclear bomber, I doubt all of those military people would have been doing all of that crying and self reflection. During Desert Storm, there was a joke in those circles about how you can tell if you have the right target (answer: it's surrounded by human shields). Apparently the Air Force has plans for a prolonged nuclear war. Weeks of us trying to stop their nukes, and us trying to nuke their most important targets. It wouldn't be a one time event like everybody seems to think.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.