Don’t let A House of Dynamite keep you up at night

Kathryn Bigelow’s newest film, A House of Dynamite, envisions how the United States government might respond to a nuclear warhead barreling towards Chicago from some unknown country. As the logline says, “a race begins to determine who is responsible and how to respond.” That race is never completed, though, because the movie ends as abruptly as it starts. 

A House of Dynamite’s most glaring problem is its structure: the film covers the same 20-minute timespan within three different chapters. That would be repetitive to begin with, but because many of the characters are in national intelligence conference calls with each other, there’s an awful lot of overlapping dialogue. As a thriller, the film’s expected “go-go-go” pace paired with two story resets is certainly a subversive choice, but mainly a poor one. 

The audience got many character-driven moments, like a general’s (Tracy Letts) enthusiasm about the MLB All-Star Game or a Situation Room official’s (Rebecca Ferguson) devotion to her family. Because of the film’s structure, these moments come and go with little impact. Any sparks in the impressive ensemble’s performances are ultimately left hanging out to dry.

These short chapters could leave plenty of time to showcase the fate of Chicago and, subsequently, an entire world now likely engulfed in nuclear war. But no, as the final moments of the film present a U.S. president (Idris Elba) plagued with the decision to retaliate or not, and an “epilogue” of characters entering a fallout shelter.

The film’s whole point is seemingly Bigelow’s wraparound structure and its non-ending plot, but it leaves a bad taste in viewers’ mouths. Any ounce of closure—or entertainment—in their annual self-important Netflix “thriller” overpowers any cultural awareness that the movie was going for. When the credits rolled and I was supposed to be basking in the importance of the director’s grandiose statement, all I could do was laugh and wonder, How can that be it?

Another problem with this political “statement” is how it’s meant to be received. Text shown in the film’s early moments gives the historical context for the narrative’s nuclear urgency, and Bigelow said in press for the film that she “felt it was so important to get that information out there, so we could start a conversation.” 

From the 1964 classic, Dr. Strangelove, to the 2024 Best Picture winner, Oppenheimer, this anti-nuclear movie is not new by any means. A House of Dynamite feels like it should have been released during the Cold War, considering that it preys on the widespread fear of sudden, unprovoked nuclear strikes hitting American soil. Bigelow’s previous two military-industrial films, The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty, take place during the war on terror; her turn from that big 21st-century anxiety to depicting an even bigger 20th-century anxiety is a baffling and ineffective one. 

A House of Dynamite also carries an ugly privilege in its nuclear woes. Since it invented and became the first and only country to use atomic weapons, the United States of America has remained comfortable at the top of the nuclear food chain. The notion that America, more specifically the American government, could abruptly become a helpless victim to a contextless, belligerent nuclear attack is almost ludicrous. When the most expensive military in the world is portrayed as ultimately powerless, the victim card on display here is heavy-handed and almost propaganda-like. 

Even if the gravity of the movie’s message was more credible, if anything, I’m now more afraid to process A House of Dynamite than relieved to have seen it. The competent Department of Defense and level-headed president shown in this film are a far cry from the reality of the current American government. The kind of horror felt by the characters in this film would probably be a walk in the park for us when considering just how quickly World War III would start if this story were to actually play out. A House of Dynamite wants to provide awareness. But because of its sociopolitical timing, any education done by the film is immediately replaced by harsh, sad fear. 

Despite the star power this film has on both sides of the camera, it just cannot stick the landing – actually, it barely even gets off the ground. A House of Dynamite comes across as weak, unnecessary and in poor taste. Its message might’ve hit home at some point in history, but the methods it chooses to convey that message strip it of any real meaning.