House of Dynamite

[Rafferty]

Has anyone else watched this yet? I watched this over the weekend and overall I thought it was a good movie. I have some opinions on parts of this, but I'd like to see what other people have to say.

At the very least, it shows why you need a multi-layer missile defense system.

[Poohbah]

Has anyone else watched this yet? I watched this over the weekend and overall I thought it was a good movie. I have some opinions on parts of this, but I'd like to see what other people have to say.

At the very least, it shows why you need a multi-layer missile defense system.

It covered a lot of territory, and it got a little unfocused. But it did show the dilemmas that decision makers would face.

[brovane]

Has anyone else watched this yet? I watched this over the weekend and overall I thought it was a good movie. I have some opinions on parts of this, but I'd like to see what other people have to say.

At the very least, it shows why you need a multi-layer missile defense system.

Overall I also thought it was a good movie. Showed the friction in decision making and during a critical time, key personnel might be out of place. Also the movie did a good job of showing the time pressure for decision making during a nuclear conflict and you have minutes to make decisions. The time that it takes to move people to more secure locations while you are you are trying to make important decisions in less than 20 minutes. Also the pressure those same people feel to reach out to loved ones.


There was to me multiple issues with how certain things are portrayed.

For Example - Why is POTUS boarding a helicopter at Andrews with just the Military aide? He would be taking off on Air Force one not a helicopter with just the military aide.

If you know you only have one chance for launch with the GBI Interceptors I would think it would be more than just launching two considering the 60% intercept rate. It would probably be 3-4 for a single ICBM like that. However the inbound ICBM had plot armor so it needed to not be intercepted.

Yes it does show clearly the need for a multi-layer defense. I think the US should strongly look at building Ashore Aegis systems in critical locations around the US.

[Rafferty]

Has anyone else watched this yet? I watched this over the weekend and overall I thought it was a good movie. I have some opinions on parts of this, but I'd like to see what other people have to say.

At the very least, it shows why you need a multi-layer missile defense system.

Overall I also thought it was a good movie. Showed the friction in decision making and during a critical time, key personnel might be out of place. Also the movie did a good job of showing the time pressure for decision making during a nuclear conflict and you have minutes to make decisions. The time that it takes to move people to more secure locations while you are you are trying to make important decisions in less than 20 minutes. Also the pressure those same people feel to reach out to loved ones.


There was to me multiple issues with how certain things are portrayed.

For Example - Why is POTUS boarding a helicopter at Andrews with just the Military aide? He would be taking off on Air Force one not a helicopter with just the military aide.

If you know you only have one chance for launch with the GBI Interceptors I would think it would be more than just launching two considering the 60% intercept rate. It would probably be 3-4 for a single ICBM like that. However the inbound ICBM had plot armor so it needed to not be intercepted.

Yes it does show clearly the need for a multi-layer defense. I think the US should strongly look at building Ashore Aegis systems in critical locations around the US.

I agree with these concerns. I didn't understand why he wasn't going on Air Force 1. It's not like they didn't have some time to get the plane ready and there was only one missile incoming, which wasn't targeting DC. I think it was a narrative convention to force more stress on POUTS.

I know they mentioned they only had 50 interceptors and they would need them if another attack was incoming. At the same time, they don't even know who launched this and there was no real indication a follow-on attack was coming. It's not like this was a counterforce attack. Make sure this missile is shot down, figure out who launched it, punish accordingly. That was also a concern I had: they were really concerned about attacking back, even though they didn't know who launched it. I get the drama, but that stretched credibility for me. Also the Pentagon came out and said GBI is getting near 100% interception rate, though they acknowledged it couldn't intercept due to plot needs.

Overall I enjoyed the look at people dealing with a crisis. Some rose to the occasion like the Deputy NSA and some didn't, like the Secretary of Defense. I'm not upset I watched it and it was a well-acted and shot movie.

[Nick Sumner]

My issue with it was that it didn't earn its ending.

Spoiler!

Or, more accurately, lack of a a satisfying one.

The comparisons with Fail Safe are obvious and both films were suitably tense. Rebecca Ferguson was excellent. Fail Safe is a better film IMHO.

[warshipadmin]

The Guardian didn't like it. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

[Micael]

I’ve watched it now and I enjoyed it. Yes, there were certainly a dew oddities but overall it did a good job of portraying a realistic response to a nuclear challenge in a modern setting. The old movies we got in the past are good but they are dated in a lot of ways, and it helps with immersion to get a modern take like this.

Judging from online comments the movie appears to be a ”love it or hate it” kind of deal. A lot of people are furious about the ending, but I can appreciate it.

[Bernard Woolley]

I watched it on Saturday and enjoyed it. Will post a few random thought later on.