There’s One Major Downside To House Of Dynamite Streaming On Netflix

When’s the last time you could say that the newest Netflix original was a perfect showcase for the importance of the theatrical experience? The streaming giant’s usual strategy has been to acquire or develop as many pieces of valuable IP as humanly possible, all for the express purpose of feeding their algorithmic machine. With the exception of a Greta Gerwig here or a Guillermo del Toro there, whose respective movies “The Chronicles of Narnia” and “Frankenstein” will receive a token release on the big screen before making their debuts on the platform, Netflix has remained adamantly committed to The Living Room Experience™ at all costs. But perhaps the best counterpart to this approach has come courtesy of, well, their most recent release. Awkward.

That might very well end up being many a viewer’s takeaway from “A House of Dynamite,” which is set to hit a limited number of theaters. This isn’t to say that director Kathryn Bigelow’s long-awaited return to directing after 2017’s “Detroit” is a spectacle on the level of “Oppenheimer,” mind you. The thriller obviously boasts one hell of a cast, led by the likes of Idris Elba, Rebecca Ferguson, Greta Lee, Jason Clarke, and plenty more. And the apocalyptic premise of the U.S. government scrambling to respond to an imminent nuclear strike couldn’t feel more relevant. Otherwise, however, this unassuming (and anxiety-inducing) drama doesn’t quite scream, “See this on the largest screen you can!”

Except that’s exactly what it does anyway. By backing this specific project, Netflix has inadvertently reminded us that nothing can quite live up to the way movies have always been meant to be seen. As tempting as it may be to wait until “A House of Dynamite” is available to watch for “free” at home, we’re here to tell you that it’s advisable — if not vital — to catch this in theaters if you can.

Read more: 12 Plot Holes That Completely Ruined Movies

A House of Dynamite hits harder in theaters than at home

Without spoiling anything for those intending to watch this film in the near future, let’s just say that “A House of Dynamite” couldn’t be a better PSA for the theater industry if it tried. Those of us obsessed with preserving the ideal presentation for new movies know full well that it simply hits different when projected on a canvas larger than one’s flat screen TV. There’s the effect of seeing literally larger-than-life situations unfolding on a format that forces us to drink in every little detail of an actor’s face or an immaculately designed set, of course. More than that, however, the entire concept of sitting in a dark room (hopefully) devoid of distractions and without the ability to hit the pause button turns this particular story into a unique pressure-cooker situation.

“A House of Dynamite” can certainly be enjoyed from the comforts of home, but there’s no getting around the fact that it’s hardly the best way to go about it. In a movie specifically designed to ramp up the intensity and tension of impending doom with every passing second, courtesy of a wayward nuclear missile aimed directly at the continental United States, the feeling of being caught in a situation you can’t control is the entire point. The vast majority of audiences who’ll inevitably end up watching this in between folding laundry or washing dishes, or answering phone calls and texts, will miss out on what makes this worth watching in the first place — and that’s not the fault of audiences, but of the medium.

Even more than most movies, “A House of Dynamite” benefits the most from the feeling of being “trapped” in a theater while the characters are stuck in the most extreme scenario imaginable.

A House of Dynamite is fighting an uphill battle

I know what you’re probably thinking: It’s easy for some snooty critic in Los Angeles or New York (guilty!) to wax poetic about supporting theaters while living in a region with countless options to do so. And that’s undeniably true. Far too many viewers will have no choice but to watch “A House of Dynamite” the only way they can — on Netflix. That doesn’t necessarily make anyone a #FakeFan or strip them of their film cred card, no matter how insufferable Film Twitter and other insular communities can get with this sort of thing. (Believe me, I know.) Historically speaking, no amount of guilting or shaming audiences has ever actually helped theaters in dire straits, especially after a weekend where only a superhero like Taylor Swift saved the box office weekend from total disaster.

All we hope to convey here is that “A House of Dynamite” is a must-see for anyone who loves movies … but doubly so when experienced the way it was obviously intended to be. While the cast and crew will undoubtedly play nice on the press tour, praising Netflix for believing in the production and providing an avenue to release this at all, deep down, we’d hazard a guess that their true feelings might be somewhat different. Like any of Bigelow’s previous work (to say nothing of the ensemble cast), the action and drama naturally lend themselves to the big screen. After all, even Netflix is tacitly admitting as much by playing the awards season game and allowing a limited theatrical release in the first place.

At the end of the day, this will likely be yet another Netflix film destined to be consumed primarily on streaming. All we can hope is that as many moviegoers as possible take these words to heart. Check your local listings for theaters currently playing “A House of Dynamite.”

If you’re looking for the easiest way to keep up with all the major movie and TV news, why not sign up to our free newsletter?

Read the original article on SlashFilm.