Breaking from our usual look at action figures and character tropes, I wanted to examine three recent films and the success or failures of each.

Oh. My. God. My wife is out of town and my son is at a sleepover. You know what that means… It’s time to go crazy!!!!!!

And by crazy, I mean sit on the couch and catch up on some recent streaming movies.

Ahem, so let’s get to it…

Spoiler Warning: The three films in question are Eddington, A House of Dynamite, and Weapons. If you don’t want the plots of these films spoiled, don’t read ahead.

Curious Figures is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

A House of Dynamite

The latest film by Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty, and of course, Point Break), this feels like a modern version of 1983’s nuclear thriller, The Day After. What if nuclear war actually took place? How would that play out in a realistic scenario?

Spoilers ahoy, but A House of Dynamite is very much, but only, concerned with the 20-minute window of a singular nuclear missile attack on America from launch detection to just before strike.

Told from various perspectives, we see these 20 minutes play out first from the POV of various ground personnel (largely at the White House and an Alaska Army base). We then rewind and follow the same events from the POV of higher level diplomats (U.S. Strategic Command and Secretary of Defense). And finally, a second rewind to mainly follow the POV of President Idris Elba (I don’t believe we ever get his actually name).

All of which is extremely well told and seemingly precise in playing out a what-if scenario for these 20 minutes. How might various elements of the U.S. government actually respond? What contingencies planning is already set, and needs to unfold?

But… what happens next?

And therein is the very sudden, very disappointing ending of the film. At least for me. Cut to black, Sopranos finale-style (which I also hated, for the record). Leading things to the edge of the cliff, only to end on an unresolved cliffhanger, I don’t consider daring storytelling. I consider it the epitome of lazy storytelling.

Don’t get me wrong; not every films needs to find a pat or even happy ending; in fact, the more troubling or complicated endings land all the harder (see China Town), nor does everything need to be nearly resolved in the ending, either (see Inception). But the story needs to be resolved in some fashion, or you haven’t done your job telling a true and complete story.

You’ve set the stage, but haven’t finished the play. And however well you may have set it—establishing the premise and introducing the players… if you just abandon them, not caring to conclude their story, then why should we care about them or their story either? To put it another way, if you can’t commit to making decisions for your story (in the case of A House of Dynamite, who fired the missile, what happens when it strikes, and what actions are taken in response), then we’re not likely to commit to your story at all as an audience.

Ultimately, A House of Dynamite is entirely about the lit fuse. Let’s watch how it burns along, not caring about the explosion at the end.

But I care.

I care about the explosion, as do our next two films, one of which “explodes” satisfactorily, while the other one doesn’t.

Verdict: 2.5 stars

Eddington

The latest film by Ari Aster (whose name I constantly confuse with the rather excellent Ad Astra), I’ve been fascinated with his work after Hereditary and Midsommar. Both incredible films, and as someone who has absolutely no stomach (or courage) for horror films, found very satisfying and watchable (even if I had to steady myself against the rising tension and jump scares by silencing my iPad during certain scenes).

Beau is Afraid I took a pass on, and probably should have done so here as well.

To use the fuse and dynamite analogy, the first half of Eddington is a verrrrry slow burn. We meet the characters, with yet another phenomenal performance by Joaquin Phoenix. And we explore the utterly confusing, conflicting days of May 2020 COVID lockdown, taking place in small town New Mexico. This includes, and intersects with, Black Lives Matter protests taking place during this time (which, albeit meant to take place in a small town during lockdown, felt far too artificial to have much believability for me on film).

Shortly after the second half, the fuses start to set off the dynamite at least. My issue with the storytelling here is how much is going off at once. If A House of Dynamite follows the mold of The Day After, Eddington feels a bit like 1993’s Falling Down; an already high-strung character pushed past his limits starts taking extraordinary actions.

Spoilers ahead, but Phoenix’s character falls down himself, into a rabbit hole of crime but also seeming paranoid delusion. One murder is followed by another, followed by an unraveling cover-up… followed by a takeover of the entire town by fictitious or imaginary terrorists?

The lesson here seems that if you light a fuse, you’re looking for something of a controlled detonation (see The Pentagon Wars). Not that scene at the end of Boogie Nights, with that one kid throwing firecrackers around non-stop.

A controlled detonation can still have multiple explosions to it (I will always love the end of Blues Brothers, the action scenes in Raising Arizona, and the construction within Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels), but it all still has to feel meaningful to the story in some way. If everything starts falling apart all at once, it can also feel like the story itself is losing cohesion.

Verdict: 1.5 stars

Weapons

Wait, didn’t I watch anything that I liked?

Oh hell yeah, I did!

As much as a started following Ari Aster, I also followed Zach Cregger after his film, Barbarian. Again, not a horror guy. I was petrified in that film of what might be there down in the basement, but the setup hooked me, and the reveal surprised (and disturbed me) in all the right ways as a viewer.

Now, while I did not feel the climax of Barbarian landed particularly well, I was excited to try Weapons. Even if it took me a few false starts (apparently I cannot view explore dark houses or watch ring cam footage by myself at night; I’m too creeped out). But again, the setup hooked me—all but one kid in an elementary school class run off in the middle of the night, never to be seen again…

As with A House of Dynamite, we follow the narrative from different POVs, with some overlap along the way. However, once the fuse is lit, it burns along at a pretty steady clip, and when we finally do get to the detonation (spoiler—it’s a delightfully freaky Ronald McDonald-looking witch), the final act unfolds in a satisfying way both in terms of bringing the story to a conclusion, and also bringing the witch to hers.

In an odd way, I found this one somewhat in the spirit of It. In so far as, however terrifying the monster, they lose their power when dragged into the light and ridiculed—and by god did that final chase scene do wonders to kill the witch with laughter.

Verdict: 4 stars1

In Summation

Want to watch 3 good episodes of an 8-part series abruptly cancelled mid-season? A House of Dynamite might be for you. How about reliving all the arguments and paranoia of 2020? Try Eddington!

Or, if you’re looking for a good, solid horror/mystery to watch this Halloween? I’d vote Weapons, streaming now on Netflix.

Next time (which was supposed to be this time): A thing in a jar! It’s a thing in a jar!!

Thanks for reading Curious Figures! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

Ahem. I told you I had another ghost story for Halloween. Oh wait, this is actually just a haunted burrito.1

Out of how many? I dunno, more than 4. Let’s say 5?