In the event of a nuclear attack on a major city in the United States, who will be sacrificed? And who will be saved?
“A House of Dynamite” (2025), directed by Kathryn Bigelow, is set in a post-post-Cold War era where world powers have reneged on their commitments to nuclear non-proliferation. After an intercontinental ballistic missile is launched from across the Pacific Ocean, several government agencies must coordinate their response, and what begins as an ordinary day transforms into a series of high-wire decisions.
I was drawn to “A House of Dynamite” for its star-studded cast, despite feeling skeptical at the prospect of a political thriller from Bigelow. Her previous films include “Zero Dark Thirty” (2012) and “The Hurt Locker” (2009), with the latter film earning her Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Director. Although Bigelow has been lauded for her slice-of-life approach to war and foreign policy, movies that depict America as a global peacekeeper require too much suspension of disbelief for me. The U.S. has been an instigator in many conflicts, and the best storytelling acknowledges this complex reality. Fortunately, though America is under siege in “A House of Dynamite,” the film largely avoids jingoism, excelling when it zeroes in on how power operates among the powerful.
The story begins with minimal exposition. The action moves quickly through the alphabet soup of operational security agencies and the ensemble members who first notice the unidentified object hurtling across the Pacific Ocean — a pace which helps establish the vastness of the security apparatus. Captain Olivia Walker (Rebecca Ferguson) tasks her husband with tending to their son’s fever while she heads into work at the White House Situation Room, seamlessly swapping her sensible sneakers for nude pumps as she goes through security. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) worker Cathy Rogers (Moses Ingram) attends to a personal matter involving a divorce attorney during her commute. Meanwhile, Major Gonzalez (Anthony Ramos) marches into the command center in Fort Greely, Alaska and chides a colleague for eating in a restricted area. The most levelheaded taskmasters begin to falter as the DEFCON level drops. Once it becomes clear the unidentified object is a weapon, the available avenues of response hardly seem ideal. According to the Deputy National Security Advisor (Gabriel Basso), the U.S. might have to hit a bullet with a bullet. But will the destruction of the weapon cause more collateral damage than it prevents?
At the core of Bigelow’s work is power — how it functions and who benefits from it. Beyond the insignia on the various military branch uniforms, authority is displayed in subtle and interesting ways. The Deputy National Security Advisor takes an Uber to work to serve the president, who is chauffeured from various locales and walks through doors that are opened for him. Individuals such as General Brady (Tracy Letts) stride into rooms where everyone stands at “Attention!” until given permission to sit. When the top brass is around, the comfort level of their subordinates is subject to their desires.
Though military service is often heralded as a selfless act, most of the powerbrokers in this universe make life or death decisions knowing their families won’t be collateral.
However, a title alone doesn’t guarantee safety.
In Bigelow’s universe, the POTUS (Idris Elba) and the First Lady (Renée Elise Goldsberry) are Black, and people of color are extremely well-represented at the different echelons of government. Despite this, it isn’t Elba’s character who’s portrayed as knowledgeable but the coterie of his white advisors. The adage “diverse faces in high places won’t save anyone” becomes salient, as it is primarily white men who are identified as designated evacuees and whisked safely out of command rooms. “A House of Dynamite” puts people of color in positions of power, only to undermine their authority and humanity, which is not helped by the film’s failure to provide these characters with fully realized emotional arcs.
This film’s screenplay was written by NBC News president Noah Oppenheim, who is no stranger to dystopian and political work, having penned films such as “Jackie” (2016) and “The Maze Runner” (2014). Here, Oppenheim’s writing is effective, if somewhat redundant. “A House of Dynamite” shifts between characters’ perspectives, painting a picture filled in by different points of view. Though this initially enables the viewer to share in the characters’ confusion, the film loses its initial nail-biting momentum by Act Three as the film traces over the same lines rather than adding detail. Establishing shots and subtitles contextualize each location before Bigelow’s immersive handheld camerawork takes over, but keeping viewers informed of their whereabouts doesn’t provide a purpose for being there.
Yet the film has its moments. Interludes of stillness are well-earned, and the moment when intelligence expert Ana Park (Greta Lee) is looped into the decision-making process is particularly arresting. In the scene, Ana has taken her son to the 162nd reenactment of the Battle of Gettysburg. As she discusses the likelihood that the threat originated from North Korea, the sound of bullets and cannons echo in the background, a blunt force commentary on our nation’s tendency to worry about external threats while ignoring internal ones.
It is sometimes a shame that so many details from our world are used in this alternate universe, as certain elements stretch the bounds of incredulity. Captain Holt is asked to provide a list of names and social security numbers in the event this escalates to war. Surely, a nation that operates one of the most advanced surveillance apparatuses isn’t in need of a document that would be incinerated by a nuclear warhead? When POTUS looks for his gold code card, he retrieves it from his pocket along with a few stray bills. “Does the president carry cash?” is the first thing I searched after I left the theater.
“A House of Dynamite” is a Netflix film. It was given a limited theatrical release before being made available on the streaming service, presumably to ensure it qualifies for awards consideration. However, it would not surprise me if this film is overlooked in the major award categories, as it poses difficult questions about the ethical implications of using citizens as collateral damage. It is not the kind of narrative that earns accolades, but it does provide a heartpounding viewing experience.