Critical response On the
review aggregator website
Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 94% based on 159 critic reviews, with an average rating of 7.8/10. The site's critics consensus reads, "An explosive adaptation of Andreas Malm's treatise,
How to Blow Up a Pipeline delivers a high-stakes eco-thriller ignited by riveting and complex antiheroes."
Metacritic assigned the film a score of 76 out of 100 based on 29 reviews indicating "generally favorable" reviews.
TheWrap lauded Goldhaber's directorial approach, likening it to
Steven Soderbergh's style, and praised the ensemble cast and the film's ability to ignite a sense of urgency in activism.
Vulture characterized the film as unapologetically confrontational, wearing its intentions boldly and employing an authentic approach, while
Variety commended the film but acknowledged that it may face criticism from climate change deniers. In a review for
The New York Times, Peter C. Baker called the film a "cultural landmark" for its uniquely sympathetic portrayal of
eco-terrorism. In another review for the newspaper, Ben Kenigsberg wrote that the film had "a degree of suspense and efficiency that are becoming all too rare in the mainstream." However, he criticized it for packaging itself as having a deeper message while avoiding grappling with the characters' ideologies. He also questioned the placement of flashbacks, which he noted seem to serve primarily as plot twists. In his review for
RogerEbert.com,
Matt Zoller Seitz gave the film 3.5 out of 4 stars, praising it as "one of the most original American thrillers in years." Seitz commended the film for its thought-provoking nature and its exploration of the moral and psychological challenges faced by individuals involved in underground activist movements. He highlighted the film's ability to connect various systemic problems and lauded its approach to shedding light on these issues. He also commended the performances of the cast, particularly Jayme Lawson and Forrest Goodluck. In another review for RogerEbert.com, film critic Brian Tallerico praised
How to Blow Up a Pipeline as a unique and intense film that breaks away from the polished mainstream. He highlighted the personal passion of director Daniel Goldhaber, and noted that the film effectively transforms the concept of climate change into a thrilling heist narrative, which he believed would resonate with younger viewers. The
Washington City Paper noted that the film is not an instruction manual but "a way to illuminate genuine moral objections", and described its cast as "a much more intense, combustible version of
The Breakfast Club." A pair of reviews by Wendy Ide in
The Observer and
Peter Bradshaw in
The Guardian each gave the film four out of five stars; Ide wrote that the film functions as both a "nervy
thriller" and "a lightning rod for the mounting anger of climate-conscious audiences", while Bradshaw praised it as a "fiercely watchable thriller" and drew comparisons with
Quentin Tarantino's
Reservoir Dogs. He also noted the film's departure from traditional
heist films, where the pipeline destroyers are portrayed as the "good guys", which he found to be an intriguing genre twist. Some writers and critics, including Jesse Kline of the right wing newspaper
The National Post, offered less favorable reviews of the film and its underlying message. Kline specifically criticized the film's perceived attempt to normalize terrorism. He questioned the positive reception given by critics and raised the potential controversy if a similar approach were applied to justifying the actions of Islamist terrorists in a film titled "How to Fly Planes Into a Building." While acknowledging the film's entertainment value in terms of its plot and tension, Kline critiqued its heavy emphasis on what he calls "environmental propaganda" and its promotion of a morally objectionable message that supports vigilante violence and the destruction of private property in the name of the collective good. In his review for
National Review,
Armond White also criticized the film for promoting violence and terrorism under the guise of "diversity of tactics," viewing it as a cold-blooded portrayal rather than a cautionary tale. White argued that the generally positive reception to the film reflected a self-hatred within Western media. Author Andreas Malm, whose book inspired the film, stated that the film would be able to reach a broader audience than his work, and hoped it would begin a conversation, rather than directly inspiring imitations of the film's plot.
Concerns raised by authorities The film raised concerns among federal and provincial agencies in North America, fearing it may inspire climate activists to resort to sabotage. A "Take Action" section on the film's official website includes a detailed map of pipeline locations in the United States and Canada. Upon the film's release in the United States, 23 federal and state entities issued a total of 35 warnings.
FBI documents obtained by
Rolling Stone revealed concerns about the potential for the film to inspire terrorist attacks on energy targets. The alerts mentioned the possibility of attacks or disruptions on critical infrastructure, leading to increased security measures. Law enforcement agencies were advised to monitor individuals attempting to access facilities for photography or video recording. The
Alberta Energy Regulator warned that the film should not be taken lightly, urging increased surveillance and security measures by pipeline operators and licensees. The
RCMP acknowledged the film's concerning subject in an email with
The Globe and Mail, but noted that they determined enforcement actions based on evidence and intelligence.
Themes The film supports the book's argument that the climate threat justifies sabotage as self-defense against powerful energy interests. Through the protagonists' perspective, the film raises questions about the validity of extreme actions in addressing the urgent climate crisis, as well as the label of terrorism. The film also explores the theme of property damage and sabotage as legitimate activist tactics, particularly in the context of climate change and the destruction of fossil fuel infrastructure. The film challenges the narrative of individual responsibility for climate change and instead focuses on the systemic nature of the issue. The film's setting in West Texas serves as a symbolic reference to
Westerns and their depiction of wide-open Americana. By incorporating Western tropes and themes, such as heists and the concept of outsiders reclaiming agency, the movie connects itself to a narrative of resistance in American culture. The film also seeks to represent diverse voices and communities affected by the climate change crisis, highlighting the need for broad access points and different tactics in addressing the issue. It also touches on topics such as the
health consequences of living in a toxic environment, property rights violations,
indigenous land rights, and the impact of disruptive actions on ordinary citizens. Peter C. Baker of
The New York Times highlighted the film's examination of uncertainty and the question of how future generations will judge present actions. He noted the sympathetic treatment of the protagonists and the deliberate creation of a historical feel. Baker underscored the film's emphasis on the moral stakes of decision-making and the unpredictable nature of the future. == See also ==