So it's a fucking coin toss? This is what we get for fifty billion dollars?
Continuing my trip up Empire's top 20 films of 2025
#17 : A House Of Dynamite
Kathryn Bigelow made her long-awaited return this year with a razor sharp, race-against-the-clock real-time thriller that boldly imagines the desperate final minutes before a nuclear strike. Split into a triptych of interweaving perspectives, each climaxing moments before disaster strikes, Bigelow's movie — penned by Noah Oppenheim (Jackie, Zero Day) — is a breathless, almost unbearably intense affair driven by a constellation of heavyweight stars (Rebecca Ferguson! Jared Harris! Tracy Letts! Greta Lee!). It's a remarkable line-up, who all excel themselves playing out the minute-to-minute decisions and deliberations of a nation under unknown hostile attack right before our eyes. As explosive as The Hurt Locker without ever actually dropping its literal ticking time-bomb, A House Of Dynamite is a Bigelow banger.
I enjoyed Zero Dark Thirty and The Hurt Locker and this felt to be in a similar wheelhouse, so I was looking forward to this - so much so, that I watched it when it came out (one of only three I've already watched on the list). And it's fair to say it had an impact on me...
At the highest level, it's quite a good idea - someone (and they initially have no idea who) has launched a missile strike on the US and various people working in various departments have to work out how to respond, which gives the opportunity for some interesting interactions, some of which are properly tense. And, as Empire tells us above, they really have got a constellation of heavyweight stars involved - so there's a lot of proper acting involved with Rebecca Ferguson and Jared Harris standing out for me (and Idris Elba, who somehow managed to land the US president gig). However, considering all the acting that goes on this, slightly surprisingly that's all I've really got to say on the matter - it's all very competent without being stellar.
But...
...actually, it's an interesting "but" because Empire describes it in a sentence above - "split into a triptych of interweaving perspectives, each climaxing moments before disaster strikes". They seem to be saying this is a good thing, but I'm afraid I have to disagree. What it basically means is that each third of the film has the same start point, which I've got no huge issues with. Used well, different perspectives can expand the viewer's knowledge giving some nice "aha!" moments - they get a few in here, but I feel they could have done better. However, each section also ends at the same point which means that the timeframe never moves forward and so you never find out WHAT BLOODY HAPPENS. And I was quite annoyed the first time it happened, so you can only imagine what I was like when it happened the third time and the film just ended. Gaaaaahhhhh!
The only thing that I can remember properly enjoying about this film was the thing that Jared Harris's character did completely out of the blue (and it really did come out of nowhere) - I'd love to discuss it more, but it would be a massive spoiler (although if you've seen it, you'll know why I feel a bit bad saying I enjoyed it). But my overriding feeling about this film is frustration - yes, it's nice if you tell a story stylishly but for a film like this you need to tell a story. You must not tell 90% (and that's generous) of a story three times - I just can't understand what they were thinking!
However, I have to report that the critics and audience numbers on rottentomatoes.com tells me I'm wrong with approval ratings at around 75% for both groups so I guess some people like to be left hanging. But, whilst I am perfectly happy with ambiguity when it's appropriate, in my opinion this is not one of those times.
Comments
Post a Comment