The Sound Board

Time for a new film review thread. Legacy thread in ye olde closed part of the forum here - https://thesoundboard.net/viewtopic.php?t=831

House of Dynamite
Netflix



A missile launch from somewhere in the pacific is detected within the US defence system. Time to impact within the continental US - 19 minutes.

That's all I'm gonna say about the story outside spoiler tags. It is directed by Katheryn Bigelow - Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty - so you know it is gonna have muscle and heft. It is shot by Paul Greengrass' cinematographer, so you know it's gonna look like realty a la United 93 and Captain Philips. It is scored by Volker Bertelmann, so you know it's gonna sound like the oppressive impending horror of All Quiet On The Western Front. It is written by Noah Oppenheim so you know it's gonna be fearless like Jackie. It has a hugely impressive cast list, and everyone is uniformly excellent.

I thought it was outstanding, likely film of the year. So why have many reviews and so much audience feedback been negative? I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you.

Or wrap it in spoiler tags. NB - I'm also going to have to touch on politics here, it's unavoidable. Sorry. If you disagree with my take, I still love you.

Been a while since we had some film chat here. Since I pretty much live under a rock inside of a bubble with my head buried deep in the sand, I somehow hadn't heard about this film until I saw it mentioned here. I quickly decided I wanted to see it, and very responsibly avoided reading the spoiler section beforehand.

So I finally got around to seeing it last night. Very much enjoyed it! Well, as far as 'enjoyment' is an appropriate descriptor for a film like this. Elba is very good, isn't he?

Some random comments below. I'll use the spoiler tags as well because, well, there's spoilers and minor political tie-ins, so folks who find that objectionable can just avoid clicking. Sorry about that but it's unavoidable here.

Loved reading the spoiler, scherzo!

I'm very excited, because tonight our little film club is going to watch WarGames. I have always loved that movie, and my enthusiasm for it is undiminished 44 years later. It's so entertaining, so cute, so nostalgic, so fun and actually when you think about it so utterly terrifying.

There is a case to be made that WarGames is the most important movie ever made, the one with the biggest real world impact. The story goes that ex-actor Ronald Reagen saw it when president, and at the next security meeting raved about it to his heads of department. You can see the sideways looks in the room - sheesh. And he asks them "it couldn't really happen, could it?" They humour him, say it's fine but they'll look into it. And they find out that yes, a hack into their nuclear defence system absolutely COULD happen. Right now. And this led to the first cybersecurity bill.

Who knows, if it were not for the likeable charm of Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy, none of us might be here now.

But while hacking may have got infinitely more sophisticated than the early 80s, some of the sillier aspects of the plot seem... well, a lot less silly. There are three key elements to the story of how the world nearly got annihilated:

1. REMOVE HUMANS TO KEEP DECISION MAKING AT THE TOP. All the strategic decision making and military hardware comes down to the fact that, in simulations, some high percentage of guys in the missile silos won't turn the keys when they have to. No amount of training can make those foot soldiers kill millions of people when it comes to it. It's 100% convincing that they want to take these guys out of the loop.

2. A KID WITH A CUTE DOG THINKS HE'S PLAYING A GAME. David thinks he's hacked into Protovision, who have teased a next-gen game. He can't wait, he hacks in and fancies playing Global Thermonuclear War. He and his wannabe girlfriend have great fun.

3. AI TAKES OVER. The genius who wrote the military's war simulation program was teaching the computer how to LEARN. How to THINK. He failed to teach it the lesson of futility- though this is Hollwyood, and in fact 44 YEAR OLD SPOILER! this is exactly what happens via endless repetitions of Tic-tac-toe (noughts and crosses to us Brits). The best and most chilling line in the film is earlier when David realises the routine is still running, and asks the computer "is this a game or is it real", and gets the reply "What's the difference?".

A House of Dynamite flips (1) on its head. Decision-making is indeed at the top, when the pres says GO they GO. How will that work out? UTTERLY TERRIFYING.

(2) is an utterly ingenious plot device, not implausible then but definitely implausible now. But is every part of the system secure from bad actors? WORRYING

(3) AI in the military is now science fact, not science fiction. Autonomous weapons systems are a reality. In Hollywood, the Terminator franchise played most obviously with this idea, and the jury is very much out in terms of where future AI development will lead. But never mind Skynet becoming self-aware, will AI be guiding critical decision-making in situations where our real life leaders have just minutes to make decisions on chaotic or incomplete information that could result in the apocalypse? TERRIFYING.

But gee WarGames is such fun. Can't say the same for Threads...

- F1 -

briefly, this is numero uno on my short list of the worst films of 2025. It's full of Aramco and Heineken ads, with Saudi desert bandits in the finish, meaningless music from Hans Zimmer, and all in all the same fucking Hollywood crap as in the 80s and 90s.

GR Baumann wrote: ↑Dec 14, 2025 2:23 pm - F1 -

briefly, this is numero uno on my short list of the worst films of 2025. It's full of Aramco and Heineken ads, with Saudi desert bandits in the finish, meaningless music from Hans Zimmer, and all in all the same fucking Hollywood crap as in the 80s and 90s.

Is it done as seamlessly as Chile's famous Star Wars beer advertising? This is genuine I understand - knowing audiences don't like seeing commercials mid-film, the country's broadcaster came up with an innovative solution.

That's amazing. Such seamlessness! Almost as good as the Special Edition CGI additions. Now I'm really craving a beer ripped out of the steaming insides of a tauntaun...

Also, hey now, don't be dissing 80s/90s Hollywood crap - a lot of that stuff might have been garbage, but it was quite entertaining! More so than much of what is churned out today at least

Guy Rowland wrote: ↑Nov 08, 2025 5:52 am I'm very excited, because tonight our little film club is going to watch WarGames. I have always loved that movie, and my enthusiasm for it is undiminished 44 years later. It's so entertaining, so cute, so nostalgic, so fun and actually when you think about it so utterly terrifying.

There is a case to be made that WarGames is the most important movie ever made, the one with the biggest real world impact. The story goes that ex-actor Ronald Reagen saw it when president, and at the next security meeting raved about it to his heads of department. You can see the sideways looks in the room - sheesh. And he asks them "it couldn't really happen, could it?" They humour him, say it's fine but they'll look into it. And they find out that yes, a hack into their nuclear defence system absolutely COULD happen. Right now. And this led to the first cybersecurity bill.

Circling back to the happy topic of nuclear annihilation... I was gonna reply but somehow forgot about this thread. Sorry 'bout that! I'm amazingly scatterbrained these days.

I really do need to revisit Wargames again. I have seen it but long ago and can hardly remember anything, and I suspect it would feel very different today. Such an iconic film, and I'm always a sucker for 80s nostalgia in any form. Love the anecdote about Reagan too - it's one of those film stories that sounds too good to be true but, as far as I'm aware, is in fact true.

My other personal hot pick on this particular topic matter is By Dawn's Early Light (starring The Voice of Darth Vader among others). It does have a few goofy moments, mostly as a consequence of having been made for cable TV circa 1990, but overall it's a very good drama/thriller.

The spoiler-free setup is: a combination of rogue bad actors and a series of mistakes and misreadings cause the superpowers to suddenly and accidentally stumble into an ever-worsening spiral of nuclear escalation. Somewhat similar to A House of Dynamite, the drama then revolves around the efforts of the reasonable few to de-escalate the situation or at least prevent a disaster from becoming an even bigger disaster - and the hawks who want to seize upon the opportunity to destroy their strategic adversaries once and for all. And, of course, the actual trigger-pullers on the ground (or in the air rather) who have to grapple with whether to actually follow through on the insane order if it comes. Doesn't have a lot of action per se - it's mostly people talking - but the tension runs thick, man.

By Dawn's Early Light wrote:"We need your authority for the codes, Mr President."
"No, General - this is my responsibility, and I will not act precipitously on the basis of some goddamned computer!"
"The goddamned computer will be destroyed in 21 minutes, Sir. Along with everyone here."

It's one of those films that I accidentally caught on TV at a very young age, and it really scared the piss out of me at the time. Even though this was the Happy 90s, the Cold War had just ended and the general sentiment was quite optimistic - the Big Bad Thing didn't happen and now we're all safe. Of course it all hits very differently now against the backdrop of contemporary world politics.

It (and House of Dynamite) work well for me because the scenario feels so plausible, and it doesn't really have clear-cut good guys vs. bad guys in the traditional sense - it's rather the logic of the situation itself that forces people to make impossible decisions that steer everyone towards disaster. Which does suggest something rather ominous about our predicament in the real world as well because so much of the logic of deterrence hinges on everyone behaving rationally, having access to good information and not making stupid mistakes. Well, that's a lot of ifs, isn't it? And given that we've already had a couple close calls over the years that had happy endings mostly because of on-the-spot decisions by key figures, often acting against protocol and doctrine, one can't help but wonder how many more times we can afford to roll the dice on that.

There's more one could say on that (and autonomous systems, AI and other things), but I'll try not to veer off into troublesome BWW territory. I did want to mention one last thing though, which is hopefully okay because it ties directly into film talk. You might be interested in checking out the last episode of the Arms Control Wonk podcast (episode title: A Pod Of Dynamite) where two, well, policy wonks working in arms control review Bigelow's movie. One of them liked it, the other hated it. Both had some technical nitpicks regarding how things are portrayed in the movie. I thought it was an interesting conversation, partly because I find the topic itself interesting, but I'm also just fascinated by how movie reality differs from actual reality especially with regards to things I don't encounter often in everyday life. Although I will offer a word of caution in that some of their critiques kinda do call into question the film's central premise - didn't take away from my enjoyment of the film, but I don't know how sensitive you are to that type of spoiler. The good part is their take on how this would play out in real life though is actually slightly more optimistic than what the film suggests, so there's that.

https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive ... -dynamite/

Presumably also available wherever podcasts are available.

(Whoopsie... I made another wall of text )

scherzo wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2025 7:18 am Also, hey now, don't be dissing 80s/90s Hollywood crap - a lot of that stuff might have been garbage, but it was quite entertaining! More so than much of what is churned out today at least

True, but in this case, it is basically Top Gun on wheels.

Bloody Hell, while typing here, I just wanted to know who produced and directed, and look at that... you couldn't make it up.

Development of the film began in December 2021 with Pitt, Kosinski, Kruger, and producer Jerry Bruckheimer attached to the project; the latter three had previously collaborated on Top Gun: Maverick (2022).

Hah! That sounds great though, because I actually love Top Gun A two-hour recruitment ad stylized as 'music video meets aviation porn' with the most ridiculous over-the-top 1980s-ness imaginable. What's not to love!? It's the perfect embodiment of entertaining garbage! It... takes my breath away

Of course, I'll watch just about any rubbish if it has airplanes in it. Real ones, I mean, not CGI blobs. I was never really into race cars though (nor desert bandits for that matter), so I'll probably still skip F1... although you have me slightly tempted now

God, I have such terrible taste...

GR Baumann wrote: ↑Dec 14, 2025 2:23 pm - F1 -

briefly, this is numero uno on my short list of the worst films of 2025. It's full of Aramco and Heineken ads, with Saudi desert bandits in the finish, meaningless music from Hans Zimmer, and all in all the same fucking Hollywood crap as in the 80s and 90s.

And yet, my wife and I enjoyed it, even though what you say is true.

Reminds me of when Rocky IV came out. Roger Ebert gave it a scathing review. But then Gene Siskel responded: "Roger, everything you just said it true. But for an hour and a half I ate popcorn , watched it and enjoyed it, and dammit, I wanted Rocky to beat the Russian !!!"

I thought it was a yawn-filled cliche, but I don’t hate all racing movies.

I thought “Ford vs Ferrari” was a MUCH better film, one I truly enjoyed. Plenty of cliches but better writing, better race scenes, and Christian Bale improves ANY film.

Mmm… I won’t follow you with that déclaration d’amour for Christian Bale, Larry ;-))

Here’s my own crush : Emma Stone, of course. Just watched Battle of the sexes and, oh my, I cried in every scene involving the woman’s love affaire. and the tennis scenes were really a thing ! I mean, at least when you do NOT see Steve Carrell actual playing, because you cannot believe he’s ever played. But Emma’s is perfect. They had the good idea to use real players shot (pun!) from afar, same angle from the usual ones. It was a really lovely film, though one’s have to enjoy Carrell’s voice - my mum did not. Some beautiful frames and scenes, great photography.

Also this week : Frances Ha, from Noah Baumbach (directing and writing) and Greta Gerwig (writing and acting). Well, I can now say I’m a fan of both (have seen many films from the former and it was the 1st from the latter as I stopped Barbie before the end). Watching it I came thinking, it’s Woody Allenesque and, Bingo ! One of the main claimed influence. Everyone is perfect, at least to my liking as far as acting is concerned. Gerwig’s character’s joie de vivre is infectious. Many goosebumps. I was kinda proud to spot the reference to Leo’s Carax Mauvais Sang, when Denis Lavant is running in the street on Bowie- Rodgers’ Modern Love. I wished it never stopped, this running dance from Gerta. Splendid.

Watched the Phoenician Scheme as well. Mmm… Don’t know what to think of it. I mean, it’s Anderson’s to the core but at times too, what, mannered ? A caricature of a film maker I much admire otherwise. Plot was falsely convoluted. I did enjoy it though, some very good and funny moments, some beautiful ones too. But the 1h37 mn seemed like 2 hours.

Oh, and I’m 8 episodes into Pluribus. One last to go and it’s out today. I don’t have Apple TV, watched this 1st season at a friend’s.
Well, I’m unsure about it all.
I mostly do not like the actress performance - reminds me of Claire Danes, too theatrical, too much hands and stuttering if that means anything. I’m a sucker for dark comedy (and dramady), huge fan of Severence, here - well, Brit Lower in this role would be heartbreaking - so I’m quite into it, with lotsa of caveat. Must say here I haven’t seen Breaking Bad, from the same author.
I’m afraid, with just one episode to go, that the plot won’t be resolved in this season. And I hate that. That’s always too many screening hours for a basic story. And this is my main grip with TVseries. I’m a film guy, me think.

Erik - I really liked Battle Of The Sexes too, that film deserves a bigger audience. For some reason I've always avoided Frances Ha but I don't know why cos I like Noah Baumbach and Greta Gerwig (now a couple)

As for Wes Anderson, I've tipped over the edge. I just can't do it any more.

Huge, huge Pluribus (and Rhea Seehorn) fan but I've droned on enough about that in the TV thread! Finale tonight. As if Christmas Eve isn't exciting enough...

I liked Battle of the Sexes very much.

Wes Anderson made “Moonrise Kingdom” which was picture perfect for me. None of his other films has resonated in the same way, though I admire the players and the production values.

In “Pluribus”, I’m already tired of waiting for two extremely stubborn people to save the world.

Lawrence wrote: ↑Dec 24, 2025 9:33 am I liked Battle of the Sexes very much.

Wes Anderson made “Moonrise Kingdom” which was picture perfect for me. None of his other films has resonated in the same way, though I admire the players and the production values.

In “Pluribus”, I’m already tired of waiting for two extremely stubborn people to save the world.
people to save the world.

Agree on “Moonrise Kingdom”, also agree on Anderson. I just haven’t enjoyed many of his films.

Come to think of it, Moonlight Kingdom is my favorite too.

I have to go read that TV thread, now !

I Swear
This a rare beast, a film that is deeply touching, funny and heart-warming whilst simultaneously being a wrenching and difficult watch. It's the true story of a Scottish boy who, at the age of 14, develops Tourette's syndrome - in the 1980s, neither he nor anyone around him have the first clue what is happening to him.

I thought I new the basics about the syndrome - swearing and facial tics that are involuntary - but this was quite the education. Because the physical tics can be far more dramatic that that, lashing out at anyone and anything in arm's reach. When you think about that and the consequences, you realise this isn't something where you can easily adjust. Life is relentlessly, almost impossibly, difficult. And the film is made empathetically - when disaster can occur at any moment, even the good times are anxiety-inducing.

And yet, without sugar coating or going Hollywood, this IS a humanist, beautiful and life affirming story, one that others have rightly said has the ability to change lives. The humour is often awkward, never forced but embraced, occasionally REALLY funny. It's an exceptionally well judged film and cast impeccably - full plaudits for John Aramayo's central performance.

I usually write something about the score in these little reviews, but I honestly I was totally unaware of it. That in itself says something on how absorbing the film is, and I can only deduce that Stephen Rennicks did a superb job.