Casa de Dinamite

The first 30-40min is very very good. Right into the action, edge of your seat stuff.

Caught myself thinking: "How are they gonna keep this pressure and atmosphere going for 2 hours?" Then BAM! They're not. It's the kind of movie that shows the same event from multiple perspectives. With minor new things adding to the story with each perspective. So past the first perspective, you know what's going to happen. It feels like you're watching the same thing over and over.

It's too bad. The first part is absolutely superb. The acting is on point throughout by people who deserve their star status.

But it completely loses all excitement after the first part.

Watching this film is like being told you've got takeout for dinner, only to end up with casserole.

I'm sure there was some underlying creative thoughts from the director with this story line but it wasn't clever nor smart. They had a great idea right in their palms and they threw it all away.

The ending of this film has to go down in history as one of the most frustrating endings in all of cinema. I've felt unsatisfied and in absolute disbelief. You almost feel cheated as you've become so invested in the story to only be let down right at the end! (and that's an understatement!).

It's worth watching but prepare for heartbreak.

The film unfolds from three different perspectives, with Bigelow experimenting with multiple angles, offering a complex and tense vision of the events. However, as each perspective unfolds, a sense of déjà vu begins to appear, and interest can wane slightly. At times, the repetition of tense moments makes the small details stand out more.

The first act is exceptionally well-crafted - it grabs you, builds tension perfectly, and makes you believe something truly extraordinary is about to happen. Bigelow creates a pressing atmosphere from the very first minutes, with carefully framed shots and a rhythm that keeps you engaged.

But by the second act, everything begins to unravel. The film becomes harder to follow, the initial tension fades, and the experimentation with perspectives and angles starts to feel more tiring than engaging. Overall, it comes across as an experimental film that fails to maintain its initial promise.

Zero Dark Thirty was about the past. The Hurt Locker wasn't about the Iraq War; it was about the protagonist's personal drama. This film, on the other hand, resonates through tension and fear, showing how people live with uncertainty and danger in the present.

It's not just a story about war or the threat of nuclear disaster, but about the emotions and decisions of people under extreme pressure.

PS: Don't rush to criticize it as a total failure - the director's intention and the concept itself are not bad at all. The only problem is that the next two perspectives don't reach the level of the first. Had they managed that, it could have been a 10/10 film.

"House of Dynamite" is a bold film in terms of its structure, which I believe will be the most divisive element among viewers.

The film uses a flower narrative style. Which is a story told through differing perspectives that ideally come together like puzzle pieces to form a complete picture. When done right, this approach creates intrigue and mystery as each segment reveals something new. Unfortunately, that wasn't quite the case with "House of Dynamite."

Each perspective failed to add meaningful depth or new information to the overarching story. Instead, the same dialogue and moments were replayed multiple times, which quickly became repetitive and dull. I understand what the filmmakers were aiming for, but the execution never fully realized the potential of its structure. There were no fresh insights gained from the shifting perspectives just retreads of what we'd already seen.

The dialogue also felt overly on-the-nose and occasionally corny, with line deliveries that leaned too heavily into melodrama.

Where "House of Dynamite" truly shines is in its exploration of the moral and strategic decision making between individuals and departments. Those moments were far more engaging than the story's overall presentation.

In the end, "House of Dynamite" had the foundation of a great film, but its structural choices ultimately held it back from reaching its full potential.

A House of Dynamite presents the scenario of a nuclear strike against the United States better than A Sum of All Fears or any of its predecessors in the genre but, in the end, falls short of its potential.

The story's premise naturally puts forward a certain amount of tension and suspense in and of itself and the director has successfully delivered on these concepts in previous works. However, the narrative structure of the film takes much of the suspense out of its own story. Additionally, this structure cuts down the screen time of a number of characters and good actors ultimately leaving the viewer with a sense of some disappointment.

In the end, this is a decent movie that left a lot on the table.