Key Highlights
- Kathryn Bigelow’s “A House of Dynamite” is a post-Cold War nuclear thriller that failed to live up to its electrifying premise.
- The film’s structure, split into three parts from different perspectives, was intended to add depth but ultimately hindered the tension and pacing.
- Despite impressive performances and an initially effective atmosphere, the screenplay undercuts the film with overearnest moments and groan-inducing exchanges.
- The film’s conclusion is described as insultingly abrupt, leaving a less-than-satisfactory impression despite its potential to be a chilling insider procedural.
A Nuclear Thriller Misfire
Kathryn Bigelow, the acclaimed director of “The Hurt Locker” and “Zero Dark Thirty,” returns with “A House of Dynamite,” a post-Cold War nuclear thriller that premiered at this year’s Venice Film Festival. The film, which is now streaming on Netflix, attempts to tackle the pressing issue of nuclear annihilation through an ensemble cast, but ultimately fails to deliver as expected.
Structure and Tension: A Segmented Approach
The narrative of “A House of Dynamite” is divided into three parts, each focusing on a different perspective. The first part, titled “Inclination is flattening,” sets the stage with an intense and detailed portrayal of the situation through the lens of Captain Olivia Walker (Rebecca Ferguson). This section successfully builds tension and fear, thanks to its real-time response in the White House Situation Room.
However, this promising start quickly devolves into a frustrating experience.
The second part, “Hitting a bullet with a bullet,” shifts focus to General Brady (Tracy Letts), who is portrayed as less manic than his 1964 counterpart from “Dr. Strangelove.” Despite the attempt to humanize key characters, these segments fail to maintain the urgency and suspense established in the first act.
Performance and Script: A Mixed Bag
The ensemble cast delivers strong performances. Anthony Ramos as Major Daniel Gonzalez and Jason Clarke as Admiral Mark Miller contribute significantly to the film’s dramatic intensity. Nevertheless, the screenplay by Noah Oppenheim is criticized for its gimmicky timeline rewinds and overearnest moments that detract from the overall atmosphere.
For instance, cutaways of children going to school, soldiers throwing up out of panic, and even a dinosaur toy reminder all feel misplaced in a film aiming for high stakes and realism. These elements not only fail to add depth but also diminish the sense of impending doom that Bigelow masterfully builds at the beginning.
Conclusion
A Promising Idea Misexecuted
“A House of Dynamite” has potential, as evidenced by its premise and initial setup. However, it ultimately falls short due to a flawed structure and subpar script. While it remains a broadly effective thriller, it does not live up to the excitement promised at the start.
Bigelow’s previous works in this genre, such as “K-19: The Widowmaker,” demonstrate her capability of handling complex narratives with precision.
In “A House of Dynamite,” she seems to have taken a step back from her usual form, resulting in a film that is enjoyable but not without its flaws.
For those interested in nuclear thrillers and Bigelow’s work, “A House of Dynamite” offers a compelling premise marred by execution issues. It serves as a reminder of the importance of strong writing when dealing with such high-stakes themes.
