******SILOS OF SPOILERS!******

Oscar-winning director Kathryn Bigelow (“The Hurt Locker”) first came onto my radar with a rural Romeo & Juliet vampire film. No, not the “Twilight” movies; the good one, “Near Dark,” from 1987. Since then, her reputation has grown tremendously, with action films such as “Point Break” (1991), before her Best Director Oscar win for 2008’s “The Hurt Locker.” Now comes her latest film, “A House of Dynamite” (2025), written by journalist Noah Oppenheim. The movie was released theatrically and streaming via Netflix, under its production banner.

“A House of Dynamite” Short Synopsis

The story is very simple, yet told in a complex way. A rogue nuclear missile is launched from an indeterminate point somewhere in the South Pacific. Various government forces in the US are quickly mobilized, and anti-missile defenses are soon launched to intercept the target in flight. But they fail. As the missile continues unimpeded, we learn its target is Chicago. Over the movie’s 112 minute runtime, we see a single act told three times from multiple perspectives; from soldiers on the ground to government officials in bunkers to the president himself. The three acts are titled “Inclination is Flattening,” “Hitting a Bullet with a Bullet,” and “A House Filled with Dynamite.” Each of these “Roshomon”-style perspectives offer abbreviated insights into their stressed focal characters, and each act ends just as the missile impacts–which is never seen.

Summing It Up

Kathryn Bigelow is a talented filmmaker; something I’ve been aware of since renting “Near Dark” 30-odd years ago. She knows how to draw tension from a scene, and the characters in “A House of Dynamite” are well-acted, if somewhat underserved by the repetitive screenplay. In fact, we barely get to know these characters before they’re plunged into the worst–and possibly last–day of their lives. That issue might lie with ironically-named journalist Noah Oppenheim‘s script, which doesn’t draw characters so much as scribble quick sketches.

The movie floods viewers with lots of titles and acronyms (which are conveniently spelled out for us) as well as multiple, frenzied shots of various perspiring VIPs as a possible nuclear nightmare is about to be unleashed on the United States. These characters, however well-acted, aren’t given much room to breathe, let alone allow us to really invest in them. As a result, we’re watching shots of doomed cyphers rather than three-dimensional human beings. There are some moments, such as Rebecca Ferguson saying goodbye to her character’s sick child, or Anthony Ramos’ army major breaking up with his unseen girlfriend/wife, or Idris Elba as a showboating president playing charity basketball, but those moments are fleeting at best.

Far more effective nuclear nightmare movies, such as Nicholas Meyer’s landmark 1983 TV movie “The Day After” allowed us to know its main characters a little better as human beings before letting slip the radioactive dogs of war. “The Day After” had the courage to go many steps further and show us what an atomic-bombed Lawrence, Kansas might actually look like; chronicling the day-to-day misery of life in a post-nuclear holocaust. The real cost is measured in what happens after impact; something we’re denied with this film. Within this narrative, we never experience the true horror of a nuclear attack. We’re just given two hours of stress. All of that stress without an ending makes the movie an exhausting exercise rather than a story.

The exceptional British film “Threads” (1984) also detailed a post-atomic holocaust by showing the gradual erosion of society over months and years, as survivors soon revert to animalistic behaviors in a savage nuclear winter; even language degrades, as the ‘ingenious’ weapons of humankind cause a rapid reversion to our Stone Age state. But there is no such depth or insight with “A House of Dynamite,” as its only real message is delivered in both the title of the movie and its third act, and is repeated yet a third time in dialogue (“It’s like we’ve built a house of dynamite”). Nuclear weapons, which we’ve precariously lived with for eighty years as a species, are really really bad.

Another issue I had that with the movie is that it doesn’t really jibe with the current political climate in the United States. The movie’s electronic/security protocols all seem very up to date, yet we see an Obama-like president (Idris Elba) who is much too humble and restrained, despite his obvious vanity. Even the most ardent hawk of this fictional administration, General Brady (Tracy Letts), feels like he might’ve just returned from Operation Desert Storm. This movie was in production from October-December of 2024, so perhaps the oppressive weight of a second Trump term was not yet fully felt (despite its previous fiascos). Personally, I can’t imagine Trump hesitating to nuke as many countries as he could in a reason-deaf rage. “A House of Dynamite” feels more attuned to “The West Wing” than our current moribund democracy.

In addition to movie’s other issues, its cinéma vérité-adjacent style makes it look a very special episode of “24,” and the musical score by Volker Bertelmann sounds like a bad case of stomach cramps. These hyperconscious elements don’t make the tension of imminent nuclear destruction any more palpable, either. That tension is destroyed for good after the admittedly excellent first act, after when we see that its second and third acts will hit the reset button back to starting positions. All respect to screenwriter Oppenheim, but that first act is not so rich that we needed to see it repeated three times. Instead of unflinchingly revealing what happens to Chicago after the missile’s presumed impact in Act 1, the movie hides behind an artsy gimmick.

While I was clearly frustrated with “A House of Dynamite,” I was not at all disappointed with its top-drawer cast. Rebecca Ferguson, Anthony Ramos, Tracy Letts, Jason Clarke and Idris Elba all deliver typically excellent performances. Jared Harris (“Mad Men,” “The Expanse,” “Chernobyl”) in particular delivers the movie’s most tragic moment as Secretary of Defense Baker (a far cry from toxic, trigger-happy lunatic Pete Hegseth). Baker is desperate to reconnect with his estranged daughter before the possible end of our world. After a phone call where he becomes uncharacteristically curious about the details of her love life, she hangs up on him. This soon prompts him to unceremoniously walk off of a roof during an evacuation.

Note: If any reader experiences suicidal thoughts or desires, call or text 9-8-8 in the US immediately, or check online for the suicide prevention hotlines in your country. Please take care.

In the classic nuclear drama “Fail Safe” (1964) to which “A House of Dynamite” owes a huge debt, we don’t actually witness the climactic destruction of New York City, either. Instead, we hear the haunting siren wails and we see a furious montage of the many things about to be lost as NYC is nuked. There is a clear and definitive end to that film. Writer Oppenheim and director Bigelow attempt the same trick here, but instead of a linear chronology, precious runtime is wasted. All the information seen in “Inclination is Flattening” (Act 1), “Hitting a Bullet with a Bullet” (Act 2), and “A House Filled with Dynamite” (Act 3) could’ve been told in chronological order by simply cutting between shots of characters talking to each other from various locations instead of reversing perspectives in repeating, pace-killing acts. Then again, telling the story in chronological order might’ve also whittled the film down to 85 minutes instead of 112.

With its strong cast (Jared Harris, Rebecca Ferguson, Idris Elba) there was much potential to make a powerfully affirming statement on the uncorked horror of nuclear weapons. Instead, “A House of Dynamite” mires itself in a labored gimmick that underuses a lot of heavy-hitting talent.

Where to Watch

“House of Dynamite” is available to stream on Netflix and in limited theatrical release.