A House of Dynamite (4/5 Stars)

This tense thriller takes place in less than twenty minutes and is told three times, from different viewpoints.

In the first act, the action takes place in the White House Situation room, Captain Olivia Walker (played by Rebecca Ferguson) presiding, and an army base in Alaska, Major Daniel Gonzalez (played by Anthony Ramos), presiding. A missile launch somewhere in the Far East is picked up by a satellite. Within a few minutes it is ascertained that the missile has gone suborbital and is heading toward the United States. Within a few more minutes, it is ascertained that the missile is going to hit Chicago. The operators in the first act are the first and only line of defense in what appears to be a preemptive nuclear strike. Although they have trained for their task many times, they fail to stop the missile.

In the second act, the action takes place mainly in STRATCOM, General Anthony Brady (played by Tracy Letts) presiding, and the White House’s Deputy National Security Advisor Jake Bearington’s (played by Gabriel Basso) breathless race to get to work on time and engage foreign leaders to find out what is happening abroad. STRATCOM is located in the Rocky Mountains and commands the nuclear arsenal of the United States. General Anthony Brady acts like he has been preparing for this moment for his entire life. Jake Baerington scrambles around to consult an expert on the North Koreans and the diplomat from Russia, but ultimately cannot provide the President with advice that is conclusive.

In the third act, the action follows the President of the United States (played by Idris Elba) and his belated interactions with Lieutenant Commander Robert Reeves (played by Jonah Hauer-King), the man in charge of the “football”, that briefcase which contains the nuclear codes and follows the President around everywhere he goes just for this kind of scenario. The President’s schedule has him attending a fundraiser with a WNBA star for girls’ sports. Then he is whisked away to make a decision as to whether to commit to an all-out nuclear counterstrike on the USA’s enemies. Each act ends with the President about to decide what to do.

This movie is directed by Kathryn Bigelow, a very capable director who excels at relatively realistic war movies (2008’s The Hurt Locker, 2012’s Zero Dark Thirty) and who, inexplicably, hasn’t made a movie since 2017. Somehow, she hasn’t lost her step. “A House of Dynamite” is a taut thriller that moves along briskly, introduces mainly characters and locations, and explains various procedures. Still, it keeps a clear focus and is, more or less, understandable. Above all, it is an interesting (and maybe plausible) take on a somewhat realistic scenario, which more than anything else, impresses upon the viewer not just the outward stakes in terms of human lives at issue but also the lack of time involved in the decisions that need to be made. Apparently, it would take an intercontinental nuclear strike only twenty minutes to get from somewhere near North Korea to Chicago. And apparently, the United States is so ready and prepared for that scenario, that it could initiate a world-wide counterstrike of apocalyptic proportions on all of our enemies at the same time before the first missile actually landed.

That is kind of amazing when you think about it. I vaguely knew that a man with the Football briefcase followed the President around everywhere just for that eventuality, but I never saw a movie in which that guy opens the briefcase, pulls out the armageddon menu, and ask the President whether he wants to initiate the “rare”, “medium”, or “well-done” plan. This is the type of movie where the subject matter elevates the material. The details in the plot are inherently dramatic. And the more the movie understates its delivery, the more it makes the movie feel real, which underlines that you are seeing a relatively realistic end-of-the-world scenario.

The point of this movie is to impress upon the viewer the importance of nuclear arms proliferation and an urgency for world leaders to once again enter treaties limiting their arsenals. As of next year, I believe there won’t be any of those treaties left. I believe another point the movie is trying to make is that this particular decision is in the hands of one man, the President, who may not be as prepared for this sort of thing as we may all like. In this movie, Idris Elba remarks that he received “one briefing” on this subject. This contrasts with the thousands of rehearsals that the Alaska army base and STRATCOM mention that they have had. Why is the least prepared character person in this movie in charge of the most important decision?

Counterintuitively, I think the people who should really be frightened after seeing this movie are all our would-be nuclear enemies. Although the Americans are shown to be realistically emotional about the situation, they are very competent and have plans in place to deal with it, not only in their attempts to thwart the strike before it happens, but also how to deal with the aftermath locally, and how to seek revenge immediately and on an apocalyptic scale. Consider this movie from the viewpoint of our enemies: one rogue missile is launched and before that missile even touches down 20 minutes later, it shows the American President in the process of confirming launch codes for an immediate and massive counterstrike. Meanwhile, a general impending nuclear armageddon playbook is automatically being implemented with all the functions of government being presently and immediately shuttled to a secure underground bunker in Raven Rock, Pennsylvania.

People are focused on the “House of Dynamite” quote. I think the better quote is the one preceding it, in which the President posits: “I always thought having you follow me around with that book of plans for weapons like that, just being ready is the point, right? Keeps people in check. Keeps the world straight. If they see how prepared we are, no one starts a nuclear war, right?” Hopefully, our enemies see this movie and are reminded of what the United States is capable of.

Current geopolitics affects the screenplay of this movie and also the plausibility of the United States response to the threat. Perhaps because it would be too provocative to actually name the source of the ICBM, the movie provides an excuse for the characters to not know. So there are three possibilities: North Korea, Russia, or China. Out of those three, Russia is the least likely and that is the only country the United States is able to get on the phone to talk about the threat. Not surprisingly, the Russians don’t know or won’t admit to anything. But really, if this was either Russia or China, there wouldn’t only be one missile, there would be at least fifty. It doesn’t really make sense for Russia or China to send over one nuke to wipe out Chicago just to test how the United States would react.

But really, regardless of who has lobbed this missile (and especially if it was North Korea), it doesn’t make sense to present the President with the options that he is presented with. All three options “rare”, “medium” and “well done” are for scenarios in which many nuclear warheads are moving our way, not just one, and certainly not just one from an isolated pariah state. If it is just one, then the most obvious response would be to lob one-and-only-one missile back at a similar target. Tit-for-tat. This shows that the United States will respond, but not in such a way that will necessarily provoke everyone else in shooting off all of their missiles at the same time. It might provoke that response, but not necessarily. If you ever watched “Dr. Strangelove”, you will notice a similar dynamic to “House of Dynamite”. In that movie, a rogue American military officer goes on the loose with the effect of only one nuclear missile being dropped on Russia. The obvious Russian “Tit-for-Tat” response is neutered by its new technology, the “Doomsday Device” which automatically triggers an all out nuclear response regardless of how many missiles have been sent first. Both of these movies present a worst case scenario by involving plot points that prevent the obvious game theory strategy from being implemented. I’m fairly certain our generals at STRATCOM have a basic understanding of game theory.

Finally, this decision is probably best in the hands of the President. The alternative would be to put it in the hands of Congress, which will not have the ability to act with deterrent speed, or the generals, who, let’s face it, have been training their whole lives for this moment. You want Idris Elba, who would rather be at a WNBA fundraiser, making this call, not Tracy Letts, who is unelected and sees every problem as a nail to hit with his nuclear hammer. At the end of the day, the President is a people person and cares about his legacy. He is the one going to try to avoid a nuclear war.

Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One

 

For those counting, Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One is the first part of the seventh Mission: Impossible movie. They stopped numbering them after Mission: Impossible III in 2006. The franchise is notable in that it has been around for almost thirty years, but has only picked up speed recently, the last four movies being released since 2011. Not that the first movie wasn’t successful, or that Tom Cruise was not a bankable action star. The opposite actually. No, it was just that in the 1990s when the first two movies came out, Tom Cruise had other things to do than action sequences. He was far more of a dramatic actor. He routinely starred in movies that won or were nominated for Oscars (Rain Man, Born on the Fourth of July, Jerry Maguire) or had an element of romance in them. In the late 1990s/early 2000s, he starred in some straight up avant garde movies (Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia, Vanilla Sky). Unfortunately, the days of Tom Cruise taking risks in roles are over. Now all the risks are purely physical. Since 2011, he has done nothing but action blockbusters. 

The explanation for this lies entirely with Tom Cruise. He gets to pick the movies that he is in. I’m going to hazard any entirely speculative guess though. I bet it has something to do with Scientology. I read a book about this once, and it basically concluded that Tom Cruise was near the top, if not at the top of this “religion” (religion is in quotes mainly because Scientologists believe that it is only a religion for tax purposes. The actual tenets consider the beliefs to be scientific fact, hence the name). Tom Cruise was and is the most famous of Scientology's disciples and its most potent poster child. After all, Scientologists believe that once a person attains a certain level in their process, that, in turn, prevents them from getting sick or aging. The ageless Tom Cruise is in this ideology, almost a deity. That sort of deified status is bound to have effects on a man’s character. In Tom Cruise, it would appear to manifest itself in a sort of manic seriousness. I have a feeling that Tom Cruise is doing all of these action blockbusters, one after another, for the money. I think Scientology has lost a lot of goodwill in the past two decades, probably has a much harder time of winning new recruits than ever before, and Tom Cruise is essentially bankrolling the place. And the best way for Tom Cruise to make a lot of money is to strip away everything about himself that could be controversial and present himself as the ideal mass market product: action-oriented, moral, enough of a sense of humor, and sex appeal (but no actual sex). In other words, a well-produced Mission: Impossible movie, like this one.

Christopher McQuarrie returns as Tom Cruise’s ideal action movie partner. McQuarrie has directed the last three Mission: Impossible movies. He has also written seven of Tom Cruise’s last ten movies, all action blockbusters. The two make a consistent and productive team. I am going to bypass talking about the plot for the moment. What you want to know is if the stunts are still very good. Yes, they are. There isn't a set piece as great as the Burg Khalifa sequence in Ghost Protocal or a fistfight that packs as mean a punch as the bathroom brawl in Fallout, but it all still pretty good. The main set piece is a well-publicized stunt of Tom Cruise racing a motorcycle off a mountain and spending many seconds in a freefall (while speaking dialogue). We know that this is the real thing, but how does it show up in the movie? Well, there is a shot in which Tom Cruise pulls the ripcord for his parachute and is dramatically sucked out of frame. I don’t believe the computers can do that yet. Another very good sequence is a comic car chase with Tom Cruise driving a tiny Fiat with one hand through the streets of Rome. Tom Cruise is becoming known for his chase sequences that have camera angles and backgrounds that so very clearly show that this is the actor driving this vehicle going that fast in this place (see Top Gun: Maverick). 

The plot is yet another world endangering conspiracy. I cannot say I quite grasped it except to understand that the bad guy is not a person at all, but some sentient artificial intelligence. I’m not sure if I should have picked up on what this sentient artificial intelligence wants. Perhaps that will be explained in the sequel. Having said that, it is very dangerous. It is particularly adept at pretending to be human and thereby tricking the other humans so that they think they are interacting with other humans. At the bottom of everything though, it appears that the corrupt national security apparatus of the United States Government may be behind it. A corrupt national security apparatus (dare I say, a deep state) seems to be what Ethan Hunt has been fighting this entire franchise. He starts off on some mission given to him by the United States government only to find out that the U.S. Government is the actual bad guy and that he has been set up. As I've mentioned before, this a trope found in a lot of movies. I wonder if it helps sell tickets overseas. After all, if you vilified a foreign government, those people might be offended. Here, in America, we all take turns vilifying the government with every transition of political power.

The core gang is back together. There is Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, Ving Rhames as Luther Stickell and Simon Pegg as Benji Dunn. Gone are Jeremy Renner and all other previous love interests. Tom Cruise’s agelessness is exceptional, true, but it can be noted that Ving Rhames and Simon Pegg are aging like normal people. They are all actually pretty old now. Ving Rhamses is 65. Tom Cruise is 61. Simon Pegg is already 53. (You would think he would be much younger than Tom Cruise because his stardom came of age twenty years after Cruise was an established star). The new girl, Hayley Atwell is invited to join the club. Although she is not young at the age of 41, she is still in an entirely different generation. I wonder what the movie would feel like if Tom Cruise, while still remaining in shape and doing all the same stunts, stopped dying his hair and let his face naturally age. Would it be hilarious? Maybe. My favorite new addition is Pom Klementieff, who plays a femme fatale. I had to look her up in order to realize I had seen her a bunch of times in Marvel movies. She plays Mantis, a member of the Guardians of the Galaxy. This is a more interesting/intense role for her and she has, hands down, the best makeup of everyone. Vanessa Kirby and Rebecca Ferguson round out the other female action stars. All the women are between twenty to thirty years younger than our main star, but perhaps this can't be helped. After all, what actress in their 60s do you think could physically keep up. I am blanking here.

Dune (5/5 Stars)

 

Frank Herbert’s epic novel “Dune” has long been the white whale of movie adaptations. After its popular publication in 1965, several filmmakers have attempted an adaptation only for their efforts to more or less fail. Jodorowky had great ambitions but lacked funding. This became the subject of a 2013 documentary. In 1984, director David Lynch successfully produced a feature film of the book, an absolute mess of confusing exposition and fast forward plot which stood as an expensive warning to the impossibility of a coherent adaptation for over three decades. I tried to watch that movie and did not venture past the first twenty minutes. The overarching problem, once solved, is Dune’s greatest strength. Dune is a fascinating, exotic and dangerous world, but in order to tell a story of anything that occurs there, much world-building needs to occur. The 1984 version attempted to accomplish this through voiceover, a tedious succession of name dropping that succeeded in explaining thousands of years of fiction, but not why the viewer should care. Like I said, I lasted twenty minutes.

It is then with considerable acclamation that I report that this Dune, directed by Denis Villenueve, is a coherent and dramatic work of art. Yes, I understood what was going on and the exposition was paced in such a way that it did not bore me. That is not an easy feat to accomplish. I am not about to try to explain the plot in depth here. Like I said, that is a near impossible task, but I can attempt the briefest of outlines: “Dune” is a story about power, a struggle between an emperor which we do not meet, several of his vassal states, a mystical sect, and an indigenous tribe of a desert world that holds the galaxy’s most valuable resource. The emperor sets his vassals against each other to weaken them, and fight and weaken each other they do.

The vassals connive and maneuver against each other in elegant architecture, dressed in impressive fashion and surrounded by distinctive cinematography. There are also very ugly bad guys and gigantic sand worms. The look and feel of “Dune” is an artistic achievement. Denis Villeneuve, I’m sure, is a great part of that process having already made several of the best looking films of the past decade with the great cinematography Roger Deakins: “Prisoners”, “Sicario”, and “Blade Runner 2049”. I half-expected Roger Deakins to be present here, but he is not. The cinematographer is instead Greig Fraser, who I did not know on a name basis before, but whose work I have admired in “Zero Dark Thirty” “Foxcatcher” and “Lion” (He also did this thing I’ve heard of “The Mandalorian” but which I have not seen).

As striking as the architecture, fashion, and cinematography, is the excellent cast which is filled with interesting actors like Oscar Isaac, Josh Brolin, Jason Momoa, Stellan Skarskgard, Javier Bardem, Zendaya, David Dastmalchian and Timothee Chalamet (presently having his breakout moment). It is a truth acknowledged in movies that the best way to procure a great cast is to make each character a main character in the scene that they find themselves in. This is usually done in one of two ways: have an episodic story in which the main characters in each part are not the same actors, or to have a character’s arc begin and completely end within the movie. I don’t necessarily mean kill the character, but good actors that have many different plans and options for work I believe will be more willing to take a bit part in a larger story if they know they don’t have to stick around for the entirety of the production. With the risk of making this paragraph even more of a spoiler than I’ve already made it, I will only say further that I believe it will be difficult for Dune Part Two to have as good a cast as Part One.

As I said, I will not bother trying to explain the plot. I will merely state that Dune mainly concerns itself with power. There are not democracies or republics present. Just empires, feudal lords, religious cults and native tribes. Frank Herbert seemed to understand the dynamics present quite well. We are somewhat removed from the contours of this world and the behaviors that inhabit it, but part of what makes science fiction fun, is that you can set up your own rules and see how people act within the made up system. Sometimes this is as pretentious as you think it would be and the science fiction element seems to just be a disguise for a straw man argument (say Star Trek or The Twilight Zone). Other times, you get something like Dune, which is so different, it hardly seems to be a commentary on anything on Earth. Earth details may have inspired it, but it is its own thing, content to have its message stay on its desert planet. It has nothing to do with anything else. It is pure escapism, which brings with its own type of pleasure.