A HOUSE OF DYNAMITE | Official Trailer | Netflix
- Thread starter osu1991
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 8
- Views 358
Register to hide this ad
I very much enjoyed the premise and the cast.
The ending, or the lack of a resolution to 3 highly overlapping and repetitive tales of the same 30 minutes of time, is going to make or break how people enjoyed this movie. It's basically blue balls the movie for anyone who enjoys this stuff - I came for the premise, and wanted to see the outcome - and instead got 3 prologues to the movie I wanted to see. Afterwards I felt like I needed to go watch something like Sum of All Fears just to see some follow-through / consequences or something.
I'd sum this movie up as a great cast away from being random SyFy slop from a decade or so ago. It's well executed and well acted for what it is.
I'd sum this movie up as a great cast away from being random SyFy slop from a decade or so ago. It's well executed and well acted for what it is.
Couldn't agree more.
I wonder if there will be a A HOUSE OF DYNAMITE 2 to give us a conclusion.
Nothing announced or even teased in their press tours / interviews that I've seen. The conclusion is designed to illicit a specific reaction as a self-contained story rather than neatly wrap everything up or start a series / franchise of movies. The fears / risks inherent in the subject matter are ultimately the point, not the outcomes or what happens after.
Kathyrn Bigelow's style of filmmaking also tends to lean into powerful one-shots rather than serialized storytelling.
I hated typing any of that. I want more.
fandomwire.com
Kathyrn Bigelow's style of filmmaking also tends to lean into powerful one-shots rather than serialized storytelling.
I hated typing any of that. I want more.
A House of Dynamite 2: Did Kathryn Bigelow Set Up a Sequel With the Ending?
Kathryn Bigelow’s open ending for A House of Dynamite left fans questioning Chicago’s fate, the President’s decision, and a possible sequel.
fandomwire.com
Oppenheim said there are two key questions: does the incoming missile explode, and does the President respond? While he has answers in his head, he's not going to tell, because he believes revealing them would take away from the movie's true message. According to him, the movie is less about what happens next and more about what it means.
The screenwriter said the real issue is whether one person should have the power to decide the fate of millions, with only minutes to think. He also shared that the film is meant to be a "call to attention" about how nuclear weapons and political decisions are not just movie fiction, but part of our world. So, the ending was made to make us think, not to give closure.
Meh, seems a bit lazy to me. This is the world we have been living in for decades. That said, I did enjoy it anyway.
One thing that did bother me, How could we not know where the missile was launched from?
They eluded to that, iirc they said it was either a technical deficiency or signs of a could have been a larger scale operation to deliberately blind the the tech / satellite system(s) used to monitor for it. Something that would have taken longer to determine so they didn't go too far into it. Just fed into the uncertainty of it all, once it's been out for a bit I'll be interested in the 'experts watch' teardowns of some of the tech and systems in the movie.
