Writer’s note: The second paragraph of this article (just below the first image) contains a basic outline of the film’s premise. There are no spoilers that weren’t already inferred in the film’s own trailer. However, if you want to completely avoid potential spoilers, skip over the second paragraph.
During the Cold War, everyone on Earth lived with a fear of nuclear war. At the conclusion of WWII and throughout the 20th century, the world’s strongest countries worked to arm themselves with atomic weaponry, the ultimate deterrent against their enemies. If Russia or the United States were to launch their bombs, the other’s warning system would detect the threat, allowing them to enact a retaliatory response before the missiles reached their target. This was known as ‘mutually assured destruction’, meaning that if one attacked the other, they would also be condemning themselves to death. This kept people constantly afraid that the end of the world was near, but oddly enough, that fear also kept governments from starting World War III. Since the 21st century began, people seem to have forgotten that fear of nuclear destruction. However, many don’t realise it’s still very real, and Kathryn Bigelow wants to bring that fear to the forefront with A House of Dynamite (2025).
On an ordinary morning in Washington DC, various government and intelligence workers begin their day as if all is normal. Captain Olivia Walker (Rebecca Ferguson) operates the White House Situation Room, Jake Baerington (Gabriel Basso) works as The Deputy National Security Advisor, Reid Baker (Jared Harris) has a packed schedule as the Secretary of Defence, and The President of the United States (Idris Elba) is busy with the usual rounds of social engagements. All of a sudden, Fort Greely’s Major Daniel Gonzalez (Anthony Ramos) detects an unidentified ICBM launch, on track to strike somewhere in The United States within the next half hour. All of the characters must now scrabble to find out which country fired the bomb, figure out where it’s going to hit, and how best to respond to this unknown enemy.
From beginning to end, A House of Dynamite’s entire narrative takes place over roughly 30 minutes. The total runtime is of course feature length, but is broken up into three separate chapters, each one chronicling a different side of the crisis in real-time. The first act follows the actions of the White House Situation Room and Fort Greely, the second follows The United States Strategic Command Centre, and the third follows the President himself. Very much like the earlier political thriller Vantage Point (2008), A House of Dynamite borrows the multi-perspective story structure from Akira Kurosawa’s Rashomon (1950). Unlike the embarrassingly silly Vantage Point, Bigelow has delivered an interesting, detailed and smart analysis of the intelligence community.
Known for her procedural and realistic approach to war, law enforcement and governmental stories, Bigelow is very much in her wheelhouse with A House of Dynamite. Similar to her previous work in The Hurt Locker (2009), Zero Dark Thirty (2013) and Detroit (2017), Bigelow shines a light on the subtleties, nuances and tension found in these high powered, high stakes roles. It’s one thing to experience these world changing events through a pure fantasy films like James Bond, but a whole other thing to actually see how intelligence services actually try to stave off armageddon. Instead of shootouts and punch-ups, we are given quietly intense phone conversations of two opposing countries navigating their trust (or lack thereof) of the other. Bigelow once again proves her mastery of cinematic tension, as these phone exchanges and video calls are just as nail-biting as anything you’d see in Jason Bourne.
That being said, House of Dynamite’s best and most tense moments are all in the first act, as things start to feel repetitive in acts two and three. Despite seeing three different perspectives, the events are still the same each time, meaning there are not many surprises to be found once the first story ends. In the first 30 minutes, we find out where the missile is heading, how the government wants to respond, and what the death toll will be if they fail. Act two and three hit these same exact beats, so you simply find yourself just waiting for the story to show what happened after the final cut to black. Revealing the results isn’t on Bigelow’s agenda, as we never actually see what happens after that 30 minute countdown ends. Given how exciting that first act is, the viewer is dying to know what occurred next. Sure, it’s usually good to leave your audience wanting more, but it’s not satisfying in this case.
What makes act two and three still worthwhile is down to what they offer thematically. A House of Dynamite may not show you the ‘what’, but it is intent on showing you the ‘how’ and the ‘why’. Across these three perspectives, we are given a window into what this doomsday scenario means for each character on a personal level, making it clear that Bigelow intends to make the viewer feel the despair of nuclear armageddon. Additionally, there’s something quite chilling about seeing these high-powered people know about global threats, only to reveal that information when it’s already too late. The goal is to make you think about actual world changing events, and how much governments know before either preventing them, or letting them happen.
With all this in mind, it’s fair to say that Bigelow hasn’t lost her touch for producing thought provoking political drama, but there’s still something missing. Unlike her previous work, A House of Dynamite struggles to let the viewer truly connect with the characters on screen. The performances of Rebecca Ferguson, Idris Elba, Jared Harris, Tracey Letts, Anthony Ramos, Greta Lee, Gabriel Basso and many more are all top notch, but there’s too many faces, and not enough time. There are many moments dedicated to establishing characters’ emotions, but it’s never enough to shift us from being a casual viewer, to being genuinely empathetic. Thus, while the events and ideas are thought provoking, they don’t feel as powerful as they should, because we haven’t connected with the people on screen. Despite the stakes being as high as humanly possible in A House of Dynamite, Bigelow’s own The Hurt Locker, a simple character study about a single bomb technician, feels far more powerful.
Given A House of Dynamite’s shortcomings, does it succeed in capturing modern fear of nuclear war? Sadly, it falls short of the mark, failing to connect on an emotional level. That being said, Bigelow is still a highly skilled filmmaker, and has delivered a film which is still interesting and well constructed.
6.5/10
Best way to watch it: While scrolling The News.
