It is highly recommended to watch the film before reading this review.
A House of Dynamite is a political thriller directed by veteran filmmaker Kathryn Bigelow. At 73, Bigelow remains one of the most brilliant female directors working today, known for high-caliber thrillers such as The Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty, and Detroit. The film features an impressive ensemble cast including Idris Elba, Rebecca Ferguson, Gabriel Basso, Jared Harris, Anthony Ramos, Greta Lee, and Jason Clarke. With a 112-minute runtime and released on Netflix just days ago, the question is whether this film can stand alongside the director’s best works.
In the midst of increasingly tense global conditions, a US radar base detects the launch of a ballistic missile from the northwestern Pacific. Chaos immediately erupts across American institutions. Panic rises as the missile is confirmed to be heading toward the densely populated city of Chicago, home to 10 million people. The narrative shifts between the responses of various authorities at different levels: senior field officers, cabinet members, military leadership, aides, and eventually the US President.
Capt. Ramsey: God help you if you’re wrong.
Hunter: If I’m wrong, then we’re at war; God help us all.
(Crimson Tide, 1995)
Stories about global tension and political brinkmanship are hardly new territory for cinema. Big action franchises such as Mission: Impossible and James Bond have tackled similar stakes, while serious political thrillers like Crimson Tide, Thirteen Days, and The Sum of All Fears have delivered deeper examinations of nuclear anxiety. Crimson Tide remains a standout example of how conflict and tension can thrive within a confined submarine setting, testing assumptions of right and wrong as risks escalate. A House of Dynamite explores similar ideas, yet its structure, ensemble execution, and final “resolution” mark clear distinctions from those predecessors.
The plot unfolds through three nonlinear perspectives: the first from ground-level responders, the second from higher-ranking leadership, and the third from the President and his inner circle. Each segment provides the same level of intensity and information. From the opening act, the audience is given enough to form expectations of a satisfying payoff as the story progresses. That payoff never fully comes.
Each segment simply offers reactions from different sides of the power spectrum, with neither more nor less substance than the others. The script smartly withholds key characters in earlier segments, notably the President, whose absence creates a lingering sense of anticipation. The choice not to show the President until the final act signals a major reveal is coming. That expectation turns out to be misplaced.
Despite its familiar premise, A House of Dynamite delivers its narrative with a unique intensity, supported strongly by its ensemble cast. Above all, the film reflects the fragility and volatility of today’s geopolitical climate. That is the film’s most resonant message, even without delivering clear answers within its plot. Who launched the missile? What was the motive? A prank or a serious strike? A testing of US defenses… or something far more sinister? The script raises these questions openly, refusing to offer closure.
Humanity has never confronted a situation this precarious. Decades ago, the world revolved around the United States and the Soviet Union. Today, many nations possess nuclear capabilities. With global conflicts escalating rapidly, anything feels possible. No one wants catastrophe, yet impulsive and irrational human decisions remain a terrifying reality.
A House of Dynamite is not the first or the greatest film to explore this subject matter. It is, however, a sharp reminder of how cinema continues to engage directly with the anxieties of its era.
