Written by Sam Clark
Certificate: 15
Running time: 112 minutes
Director: Kathryn Bigelow
Films like A House of Dynamite, a thriller that explores how mankind would react to an imminent nuclear disaster, do not come along often. Whilst horror can always riddle you with fear, nothing can compare to what the likes of A House of Dynamite does, says and represents which is far is always far more terrifying; reality. There are certain genres in which you trust only a handful of filmmakers to pull off, and when it comes to nerve shredding military thrillers, there is no other director alive better than Kathryn Bigelow when it comes to this. Here, however, the stakes are raised more so than ever before, not only in terms of concept, but also in execution and delivery. It is the latter that seems to have sparked discussion; both for better and for worse.
Bigelow, the first woman to have won the Oscar for Best Director for The Hurt Locker, joins forces with writer Noah Oppenheim who penned the 2018 Jackie Kennedy Biopic Jackie starring Natalie Portman. A House of Dynamite is claustrophobic, contained story about an unknown missile that is launched towards United States, and will impact in 15 minutes. The film is then told from different perspectives, all focusing on the same 15 minute event, from U.S government officials who try to find and uncover it's origin, but more importantly how to prevent it's impact before it's too late. The main players include Rebecca Ferguson as Captain Olivia Walker, Jared Harris as the Secretary of Defense Reid Baker and Idris Elba as the President. As the clock counts down, the film then explores the panic and paranoia of what the global repercussions would be if the missile reaches it's target, a predicament none of the characters want to face; or know how to. This is all about nuclear anxiety and urgently and desperately attempting to de-escalate a situation that is seconds away from going wrong.
Not only is A House of Dynamite a rare breed of film, it is the cinematic equivalent of pulling the pin on a grenade, throwing it towards a crowd of people, and then running away from the explosion. We, the audience, are said crowd, and it is the conversation and debate the film will ignite that is crucial here. From a cinematic perspective, Bigelow has already proven she is the best equipped at handling military cinema with the likes of Zero Dark Thirty and The Hurt Locker. I have yet to see anyone else able to execute it the way she can. Despite being the case, the idea of a global wipeout is uncharted territory for her, but an avenue I am intrigued to see someone like her take given her previous work and one I trust she is able to handle. Anything regarding military procedure, she can do. Paul Greengrass is the only other name I'd say who shares similar aesthetic traits.
Both excel in the ''docudrama'' genre which is one of my favourite to watch, and the closest Hollywood gets to documentaries without doing documentaries. Despite both being remarkable directors in their own right, it is cinematographer Barry Ackroyd who brings everything to striking visual life, and who Bigelow has worked with again here. You want something to look as real, genuine and authentic as possible? He's your guy. He matches with Kathryn Bigelow's vision perfectly and makes everything look as stressful and chaotic as it should here, and is half the reason the film works.
It is here in which we arrive at the heart of the conversation as A House of Dynamite will get and leave people talking long after the credits roll, especially with the current climate and how the film chooses to do things. The film's tagline simply reads: ''Not if, when''. Three small words that represent so much. I avoided all of the trailers as a result of the rave reviews and had no idea how the film would play out. It was therefore to my surprise not only how quickly the film kickstarts proceedings (and how off to the races it seemed), but that the reviews were as good as they were. I think this is strong work, but not her best. Whereas other films would showcase worldwide devastation, A House of Dynamite is all about the reflection of reality and what would really happen in this kind of event. The scariest element the film boils down to is the mental burden and choices characters are forced to face when no outcome of the situation is good, making the toll far worse.
I found myself thinking about unrelenting viewing experiences I have had in the past, such as Benny and Josh Safdie's Uncut Gems, and how very few films are as excruciatingly nerve-racking as that was. This is nowhere as energetic, but is not a million miles away. As of writing this, the film has more than proven to divide audiences, with some viewers event hating it. The Pentagon themself have disagreed over the film's accuracy (I'd recommend researching this), as well as some news outlets diving into why the film has not worked for some which I again recommend you read. I've come away from the film having both liked it but also understanding it's criticisms (I won't even bring up how the film ends). It does not poke or kick the bear per say, but certainly adds fuel to the fire and kickstarts debates. We just have to wait and see what comes of it all.
A House of Dynamite is on Netflix now
