User Reviews

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Waste of time. The characters are weak. The different points of view on the event fall short and are repetitive and the plot is riddled with false choices.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Well, well, well. Netflix’s finally made something worth wile watching after the first hour since the fourth season of stranger things. For the first time, i came clap at a Netflix production. A strait forward story, something Netflix’s can have some “difficulties” with. This time I think some script writer went into the Netflix studio, the Flixer said “hey there’s something wrong with this script?” And they replied with “yeah, it’s not dumb.”

HEADS UP: NO SATISFYING CONCLUSION ~~~~~ WHY? Why does Hollywood still think that movies with NO RESOLUTION, no satisfying conclusion whatsoever, will be tolerated by the viewing public? Have they learned nothing? When you advertise a movie like this, about an inbound nuclear missile, guess what.... WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS. I agree with the critics that the acting was superb, and the tension was well built. HOWEVER, when your central plot narrative centers around a false assumption (one that could've been easily clarified by anyone who knows >anything< about mutually-assured destruction), you better have a solid, satisfying conclusion. No one gives a flying monkey fart about all of the tension you've built up in the movie, even if your goal was to "make us think". Congratulations - you certainly made me "think" that you burned through a lot of money without bothering to vet out the plot or, god forbid, think about how it would end. Idris Elba, Jared Harris - you are two of my favorite actors. You are really high up on the list, and I mean it. You did a good job with what you were given, but please have someone read the scripts for you so that you can avoid embarrassments like this in the future.

A really enjoyable movie for the first two acts; it runs out of steam toward the end of the third act, but overall, it doesn't do much wrong.

A House of Dynamite is tense, intriguing, but disappointing. The characters are complicated enough, but the pace of the film doesn't really let you care about them. The story is intriguing and interesting, but the ending is just horrible in my opinion, which ruins the whole experience. The dialogues are very sharp though. The cinematography is something I rarely dislike, but I do here. It just looks like a documentary. Not just because of the camera movement, but also because of the lighting. It just wasn't cinematic to me at all. The editing is good, the pacing is fast, but as I said I couldn't care about the characters due to that. The cast is huge and the performances are good. A House of Dynamite isn't bad in its entirety, but that ending ruined it for me.

The acting and actors did a great job in their roles, only let down by the story telling / choice of editing and most certainly the ending… or lack there of!! The movie could have been better arranged and edited, cutting all the aspects into one continuous timeline, as you gain very minimal (and completely useless) additional information from playing out the same timeline multiple times from different mixed viewpoints. The poor choice in story telling technique could be overlooked if not for one frustrating and unexplainable choice in how the movie ends, or should I say, doesn’t end. All the build up and drama, with no conclusion. When I saw the credits roll up with 11 minutes remaining, I thought, that’s weird, to throw that in then cut to the ending, but no, that was the end of the film. Rather than a thumbs down, I’d rather the option to remove your watch from the view count, so it reflected how disappointing the movie was by a low view count.

Starts as a 10, continues as a 6 by the middle and finishes as a 3 in the end. Huge disappointment, not worth it.

So many unrealistic steps (like could the warhead not be nuclear, 2 intercepts sent only, multilateral assured destruction path on totally irrational arguments etc etc). Rewatch Doctor Strangelove instead of this thing. Positive points : production and acting ok.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

6.5/10 It's creative and smart, especially with the way it jumps around the timeline through different perspectives, i found that approach both engaging and creative, i was worried they might rely on that technique too much, but the way it's handled actually works, the film becomes even more powerful thanks to the terrific performances from the entire cast, and Kathryn Bigelow really proves once again that she's an expert at directing this kind of intense, layered story. What disappointed me, though, is the ending, after going through so many tense and gripping moments, the film closes on something that, at least for now, feels underwhelming, maybe with time i'll appreciate the ending more, but at the moment it left me unsatisfied. Another issue is the complexity of the narrative that's quite hard for me to lock in 100%, maybe i was just as confused as the president, but i still wanted to understand everything, even if it required more time, instead, the film cuts to the end without giving me enough clarity about what actually happened. Overall, A House of Dynamite is a clever and compelling concept with great performances, but the flawed ending and the lingering unanswered questions keep it from being truly great as a whole.

Hurt Locker was one of the best movies i've seen, this one is amidst the worst. Of the worst. The same unbelievable situation with the same lines shown from a handful of participants points of view. No progression, no enlargement, no depth at all. And it doesn't even show the missile hitting (or not), nor the Potus final decision. I'd say the director is an alien ijust landed on our planet who discovered the stupidity of this nuclear balance topic that has been adressed 10k times in the last 50y for us humans.. To be blunt, it's just a dumb movie not doing anything for anybody. Avoid

This movie was a waste of time. Movie ends just before the climax. You never actually get to see the end. F this show.

stupid movie. a waste of time. the climax of the show to resolve what happens is NEVER SHOWN! it just stops right before the climax.

A story told from 3 different perspectives as events unfold. The problem with A House of Dynamite is how unrealistic the premise is, while dealing with a frustratingly ambiguous ending that makes you feel like you wasted 2 hours of your time.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

I mean, it starts ok and has good buildup. It then shows the same thing 2 more times and builds to nothing.

I thought that with Dracula: A Love Tale I had seen the worst movie of the year, but no. The movie starts with a strong premise: a missile that could destroy a country and cause catastrophic consequences. This point is perfectly clear during the first half hour, but the movie stretches it like chewing gum through a pointless montage that only serves to prolong what we already knew from the start. The scenes and dialogues repeat themselves like a loop, changing nothing more than a comma or an accent. It does manage to connect and thread the different parts together well, but you feel like you’re seeing the same thing over and over: the same lines, the same pauses. I wish I could say these narrative loops amplify tension or provide relevant information, but they don’t: they just stretch the filler. The two hours of runtime could have been condensed into half an hour without losing anything, because the rest is unnecessary. The dialogues are excessively redundant, which becomes boring at times and even makes you want to quit the movie. All of this causes the narrative to get stuck. The performances are another weak point, they don’t even bring charisma. Any average movie offers an equal or better level of acting. Rebecca Ferguson, despite who she is and her talent, fails to stand out or leave a mark: you completely forget about her instantly. And just when you think it can’t get any worse… the climax turns out to be the worst thing you could see in a movie. It leaves you stunned and empty. You ask yourself, “Seriously?”. Completely anticlimactic. One of the biggest plot jumps I’ve ever seen in my life. It has a certain parallel with Old. It’s an amazing idea, but with production and staging at the same level as a B-movie project. It could have been a brutal nuclear thriller, but it ends up being monotonous, repetitive, and poorly executed. Spanish: Pensaba que con 'Dracula: a love tale' había visto la peor película del año, pero no. La película empieza con una fuerte premisa: un misil que puede destrozar un país y provocar catastróficas consecuencias. Es un punto que se entiende perfectamente durante la primera media hora, pero que la película estira como un chicle a través de un montaje inútil que solo sirve para alargar lo que ya sabíamos desde el principio. Las escenas y los diálogos se repiten tanto como un bucle, sin cambiar más que una coma o un acento. Sí, consigue cohesionar e hilar bien las distintas partes, pero sientes que ves todo el rato lo mismo: las mismas líneas, las mismas pausas, las mismas comas. Me encantaría decir que estos bucles narrativos amplifican la tensión o aportan información relevante, pero no: solo estiran el relleno. Las dos horas que dura el metraje podrían haberse resumido en media hora sin perder nada, porque el resto sobra. Los diálogos son excesivamente redundantes, lo que llega a aburrir por momentos e incluso te invita a quitar la película. Todo esto provoca que se atasque la narrativa. Las actuaciones son otro punto débil, ni siquiera aportan carisma. Cualquier película promedio ofrece igual o mejor nivel interpretativo. Rebecca Ferguson, pese a ser quien es y pese a su talento, no consigue destacar ni dejar huella: te olvidas por completo de ella enseguida. Y cuando ya piensas que la cosa no puede ir a peor... el momento del clímax resulta lo peor que se puede ver en una película. Te deja seco y vacío por completo. Te preguntas "¿en serio?". Completamente anticlimático. Uno de los saltos de guion más grandes que he visto en mi vida. Cumple cierto paralelismo con 'Old'. Es una idea tremenda, pero con una producción y puesta en escena del mismo nivel que un proyecto de serie B. Podría haber sido un thriller nuclear brutal, pero se queda en algo monótono, repetitivo y mal rematado.

About 15 minutes in I said to myself, now this is a f@#%ing film! Fans of ZD30 and Hurt Locker will enjoy the fast paced nature of the storytelling with suspense from the very beginning. A few points docked for some dodgy camerawork and writing here and there but overall a very solid film. If people mark it down due to the ending, don’t listen, just know that it’s done to make you go away and think, which after the initial shock, really enjoyed.

nice half of a movie but mediocre acting; almost no plot, just a good premise; too many POV, without collision, interaction; characters are weak, they have low time on screen to develop and final result is a sense of weakness, impotence and unreadyness; banal representation of military forces and potus seems a bit sissy, spineless at least; the final is an ideological scam

Well made and acted thriller has one big flaw: no clear resolution. Meant to be a statement of some sort but ends up deflating the whole film. Still, worth a watch.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

What happened? This is a total miss. It's all computer screens, phone calls and whips left and right with the camera. Nothing new here, nothing innovative, nothing remotely suspenseful, just an overly dramatic story told the same time over and over, made with very broad brushstrokes and zero characters I cared about and no nuance what so ever. Go watch West Wing, 24 or House of Cards instead. This one is a total dud.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Everything was good up until the end. I liked the different perspectives but it was just buying time to make the movie long. Wasted almost 2 hours of my life for a terrible ending. I had to literally go on 4 different platforms to leave this negative review so they nevermake a movie like this again. This was a high school kid who forgot to finish his project before its due date tomorrow and added a bunch of garbage with no finishing piece. A bunch of perspectives of the same situation and all these professional emotional and not realistic, who can’t even decide how to finish the movie. I mean come on!!! lazy writing, terrible writing, horrible acting. CONPLETE WASTE OF MY TIME.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Nuclear conflict is one of those subjects that’s almost too big to think about despite the possibility of its occurrence being something we can’t and shouldn’t ignore. Unfortunately, then, it’s frustrating when a film comes along that might help to shed some light on the subject but that leaves viewers not entirely clear what to make of it. Such is the case with this clumsily constructed offering from Oscar-winning director Kathryn Bigelow. The picture, told from different perspectives in three overlapping chapters, follows the developments associated with a single mysteriously launched nuclear missile headed for the US mainland and the efforts to determine who fired it and how it might be contained. The first chapter primarily chronicles the efforts of the military and the staff in the White House Situation Room. The second looks at the event from the perspective of Strategic Command. And the third follows the impossible decision-making process left in the hands of the President (Idris Elba). Over the course of these interlocking segments, viewers are introduced to the gut-wrenching issues thrust upon the Secretary of Defense (Jared Harris), the head of Strategic Command (Tracy Letts), the Deputy National Security Advisor (Gabriel Basso) and the Situation Room chief (Jason Clarke) as they attempt to sort out what to do, determinations that are fundamentally greater than any of them are capable of addressing realistically, let alone satisfactorily. It’s a frightening scenario, to be sure, as the missile comes ever closer to striking its target, Chicago, a calamity projected at killing upwards of 10 million. Regrettably, though, the format chosen to tell this story does little to clarify matters for audiences. Given the many characters and diverse locations involved in the narrative, as well as the pervasive jargon, numerous shorthand acronyms and underexplained policy options that pepper the needlessly complicated screenplay, one practically needs a scorecard or flow chart to keep everything straight, making the film more of a chore to watch than a vehicle designed to offer insight and enlightenment. Sadly, there are no winners in circumstances like this, and the picture, to its credit, makes that point abundantly clear. However, when it comes to leaving a hard-hitting, truly meaningful, scared-down-to-your-socks impact on those who watch this release, the goal is not achieved nearly as well as in any number of other offerings, such as “Fail Safe” (1964), “Dr. Strangelove” (1964), “WarGames” (1983), “The Day After” (1983) or “Threads” (1984), all of which make clearer, better defined viewing choices than this film. In the end, when it comes to the feasibility of engaging in nuclear gamesmanship, one can’t help but be enlightened by the astute observation presented in “WarGames,” the notion that “the only winning move is not to play,” a message that “A House of Dynamite” attempts to echo. It’s just unfortunate that it doesn’t do so nearly as well as its predecessor, particularly given the stakes involved.

A House of Dynamite comes out of nowhere to slap us in the face with a story that is powerful, but that should leave us all on either edge: love or hate, like or dislike. It plays a bold move, and the pay off is entirely personnal. The story follow one eventful day where the US Defense System detects a nuclear missile heading inbound. What starts as seemingly an error quickly turns into a stressful situation when it proves to be real and unprecedented. How to react, how to respond? The way the story unfolds is superb. You get the narrative from different perspectives on the same event, the characters reactions and decisions all leading to what seems to be the inevitable moment. As the film progresses, you are as stressed as them, and you want to find out the ultimate revelation: what is going to happen, how will US respond to this. Now, this is one of those movies that one can't go further without major spoilers, so I will keep myself to being shady and grey. The point I want to make is that the overall storyline is great to watch, that is until the ending, one that watchers will either totally appreciate or dislike completely. Kathryn Bigelow, assisted by writer Noah Oppenheim, plays a bold move with this piece, one that will either get her some awards or just leave this movie for oblivion. Now, you might be asking: but Dear Reviewer, did you like it? Well, the score itself might already be a good indication of what I think, but he is in writing. I think the movie is good, I would definitely recommend it even for casuals on the premise that they will either love or hate it. That said, I think you should watch this and see for yourself. Truth be told, I believe most people won't like the ending, but, as a writer and a **** for stories, I like what the Director and the Writer did here. A House of Dynamite is a hypothetical movie, a thesis on an assumption, on a very edgy, very worrying _if_ scenario.

The film maintains suspense from beginning to end. There is a consistently captivating, oppressive atmosphere. Somewhat unfortunate were the characters' occasionally illogical/uncoordinated actions. The last third was even disappointing because there was a lot of repetition. And the ending is left unresolved.

10/10 acting, casting, screenwriting, pace. Now I can't tell y'all if all this procedure is fact or fiction. But it was food for thought.

Open end movie with huge DEI casting and the typical annoying phrases. Logical mistakes and incompetence everywhere. Didn’t stop the movie cause I fell asleep.

Kathryn Bigelow delivers another detailed exploration of our military and political body at work. As always, her depiction of personalities and procedure are faithful to a mesmerizing degree, and the plot is a real nailbiter.

After a good start, everything points to a very enjoyable thriller... Which is not, unfortunately. The same story told by 3 different views. The tension is there, building up, but in the end there is no resolution, no ending, no explanation, no answers. What's the point? Such a missed opportunity. A shame.

This is a great movie! It shows the challenge and terror of facing the end of the world. It does not offer jingoistic answers about nuclear war. Instead, it leaves you hanging with the question of `what would you do? Personally, I would vote against **** leaders who are in control of weapons of mass destruction.

Kathryn Bigelow knows her craft and has created an excellent and exciting thriller that also reflects on an unfortunately newly emerging political zeitgeist. Since the current American president's announcement that he wants to carry out nuclear weapons tests again because "others are doing it too", it has been shown that this film is not just pure fiction. The film is not about what the world will look like after a nuclear strike, but only about how the American administration deals with it when the threat suddenly becomes real. Kathryn Bigelow questions two things: First, whether the model of nuclear deterrence even works. And secondly, whether a country is really able to adequately protect its population despite all the billions invested in technology, weapons and surveillance systems. Even if the question remains whether the sequences and processes shown are even realistic in such a case, Kathryn Bigelow has created an intelligent and very well-directed film that makes you think.

If you want a really good explanation for the scenario in this movie, you want to read Annie Jacobson’s “Nuclear War: A Scenario”. I don’t know if Jacobson is credit for this in the film or if this is “inspiration”, but either way, the scenario is possible and extremely frightening. If you want a great horror movie, this is it! My only complaint with this movie is the plethora of British and Irish actors. This scenario as presented would be more believable if the characters were more believably American. Perhaps this is on purpose, to mollify the audience. Because this scenario is possible and could happen at any time. Your precious life on this planet could be 15 minutes from changing forever. There is no camp in this film. These are hard truths handled seriously by British and Irish actors who are trying to speak with an American accent. All in all, I highly recommend this film if only to open up the reality of the world we actually live in. Fair warning, this is not a feel good movie.

This is a very gripping movie. Every second of it is tense and engaging. Superb acting all around. Masterful directing. One of the best movies in the last few years.

This movie is more suited to 1995 than 2025. The threat of nuclear war has been real and well explored by film and TV for most of my lifetime. For some reason the director hopes to facilitate conversation about the risks of nuclear weapons now...with everything else that is going on in the U.S. Really? Further, who has not already had that conversation? Maybe no one had it with President Trump as he directed the military to resume nuclear testing after a 30 year hiatus, literally yesterday. The film wants the viewer to be shocked and horrified that a missile could hit a population center and that the government might not have all the answers in that scenario, but that is the reality we have been living in for decades. The other leap of faith the film asks of the viewer is to see the U.S. government as capable and well intentioned when that ship has sailed circa 2016. To top it all off, the film makes you watch the events unfold, three (3) separate times, and then doesn't give an ending in the vain attempt at sparking debate in a country that no longer debates anything. I would have liked to see the director take a stand and say where the missile came from instead of ducking the issue as well. For the director to condescendingly assume the viewer has not already thought out these events is insulting and the timing of the film makes the topic fall flat. The edgy ending was the ultimate slap in the face.

An interesting premise, but watching the events play out from three different perspectives and still not getting any sort resolution just makes for a frustrating watch.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

It takes a special talent to make a nuclear strike movie feel boring, but here we are. It works really hard to reuse every cliche available, and perhaps you can watch it while doing laundry but I guarantee you will mess it up in frustration at the dumb non-ending.

A movie that tells the same story from three different character point of view without adding new perspectives, resulting in redundant boring story telling. Story telling which, while exploring some interesting more aspects, falls completely flat and ends with a huge anti climax on top of that. Also, the 'retaliation' plot thread feels forced and completely far fetched. Way too on the nose. What a waste of time. Go watch The Diplomat instead for a similar feel, but executed expertly.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Imagining an incoming nuclear missile attack in the U.S.A, ‘A House of Dynamite’ has a lot in common with Alex Garland’s ‘Warfare’: reactionary films that use hyperrealism as a pretext to pepetuate a warmongering and neoliberal narrative. Kathryn Bigelow delivers a piece of propaganda supported by Netflix at the worst possible geopolitical moment. As if that were not enough, its ‘Rashomon’ style structure does nothing but reiterate and kill the tension. What a way to waste a great cast as well. Curiously, the film is reminiscent of Prime Video's ‘The War of the Worlds’ with its constant scenes involving phone calls and Zoom meetings, but at least that one was unintentionally funny and aware of its almost parodic nature. This one simply takes its role of representing the United States as a victim very seriously. Oh, and it doesn’t even have an ending!

Don't get drawn by action movie addicts. Ppl annoyed with the third act are basically missing the point made by the storytelling, which is not about what happens next but how it happens and how frail we are, in preventing it happening. A great movie that tells it's message brilliantly (although i agree with ppl joking about this movie setting up a tv show that will never happen, unfortunately :))

Pensa num filme ruim, é esse, mais uma bomba da netflix. É impressionante a quantidade de filmes vagabundos que estão sendo lançados nos ultimos anos, a maioria claro feito por streaming.

Like watching a recorded meeting 3 times in a row, which always breaks 15 minutes early. The military seems to hire nothing but borderline idiotic teenagers. No, this is not clever or surprising. It's tedious trash most people will have forgotten about next week. What a waste of the cast.

It's very good film of Kathryn Bigelow. Maneja muy la tensión asi como su direccion con camara en mano como si fuera un documental. Tiene muy buenas direcciones de actores; asi como interpretaciones y actores muy conocidos