A House of Dynamite Review

Kathryn Bigelow's Urgent Warning of Nuclear Disaster is a Flawed but Undeniably Tense Thriller

By: Marc Kozak

A House of Dynamite

Kathryn Bigelow's Urgent Warning of Nuclear Disaster is a Flawed but Undeniably Tense Thriller

By: Marc Kozak

Ever since the first atomic bombs were dropped 1945, it's been one of humanity's biggest fears that they would be used again. According to the 2024 results of a study performed annually by Chapman University, more than half of American respondents expressed fears about Russia, North Korea and Iran using nuclear weapons, and there's no doubt that people living in other countries have a similar (if not greater) fear of the America using nuclear weapons against them. What makes these fears even greater is the fact that these terrifying weapons are under the complete control of a precious few at the highest levels of government, humanity's fate forever tied to an incredibly small number of people who hold world-shattering power in their hands.

In Kathryn Bigelow's first film since 2017's "Detroit," the acclaimed director of "Zero Dark Thirty" and "The Hurt Locker" imagines what would happen if a nuclear missile was launched at the United States without any warning and without any idea where it came from. It's an unbearably tense, teeth-grinding confrontation of our collective greatest fear, and an urgent warning to address the threat of the world's tremendous nuclear stockpile. The movie's narrative structure and the overall detachment from the reality of America's current political system present a few flaws that are worth pointing out, but there's no denying the movie's awesome ability to shake you into a state of high alert.

Written by Noah Oppenheim, the former president of NBC News, the movie attempts to portray a realistic scramble of the various departments within American government that would need to respond to such a crisis situation. But the situation itself is pretty short: the time from launch detection to the missile's arrival at its target is only 18 minutes. In order to present the perspective of multiple government figures (and ensure the movie is longer than 18 minutes), Bigelow and Oppenheim break the story into three equal chunks of about 25 minutes, repeating the same time period three different times, with characters and dialogue often overlapping in each. It's an interesting puzzle-piece approach that becomes less interesting with each repetition, even though the script is clever enough to try and conceal certain details on the first go-around so they can be discovered from a different viewpoint the next time.

" It's an unbearably tense, teeth-grinding confrontation of our collective greatest fear, and an urgent warning to address the threat of the world's tremendous nuclear stockpile. "

There is also a concentrated effort to show all of these officials as human beings, as if to remind the viewer that politicians are people too. Parents worry about the safety of their children and break protocol to try and contact them. A few people break down into a panic, unable to move, needing to be soothed and/or yelled at to snap back into action. Two computer techs gab about inconsequential matters, the Secretary of Defense repeatedly asks people about last night's baseball game, and others fret about the minutia of their dating lives. Some people might balk at these details, as there are too many characters to really care about any one of them -- and also, who REALLY cares given the doomsday scenario playing out at the same time -- but the added humanity strikes me as a realistic touch. You can easily imagine these kinds of conversations going on during a crisis, as people are naturally reluctant to believe anything serious is really happening at first, which makes the shift from disbelief into panic even more impactful.

This brings us to what will undoubtedly be the two main talking points about the movie. First, everyone depicted is entirely competent. Not only that, but the words "Republican" or "Democrat" are never uttered. The movie is solely interested in exploring the actions of rational people who are experts at their jobs. It's sad that this strikes such a false note due to the reality of American politics, but it does. We live during an administration where the people in charge are grifters, podcasters, and sexual deviants. It's next to impossible to imagine the events of this movie playing out the way it does, because in real life, these people wouldn't have anywhere near the composure or logical thinking required to take intelligent action. It's probably a wise move that Bigelow chose to depict things the way she did, because otherwise it would turn into a parody and a farce, which would distract from what the movie wants to accomplish. However, its apolitical nature is a distraction of a different kind, even if it's not exactly the filmmakers' fault.

The second, and largest issue, has to do with the ending. ***SPOILERS FOR THIS PARAGRAPH ONLY*** It's hard to know exactly what a satisfying ending would have looked like here, so Bigelow and Oppenheim decide not to have one at all; we simply end all three sections with the missile seconds away from striking. Does it actually detonate, or is it a dud, a possibility spoken aloud more than once? Does Chicago get destroyed? As a Chicago resident who watched this in a theater in downtown Chicago, our audience was particularly displeased to not know if we were still alive or not. Would scenes of devastation (or at least an acknowledgement of impact) made the ending more effective? Would it have been more of a relief if the bomb didn't detonate? Sure, the ultimate fate of Chicago and the potentially world-ending fallout that would ensue "isn't the point," but it's supremely frustrating to build all of that tension and then not give it an outlet either way.

Most people's perception of the entire movie will likely be irreparably harmed due to the ending (and it's hard to blame them), but you have to admit, it's only so upsetting because the rest of the movie keeps you in such a tight grip. Bigelow and editor Kirk Baxter exhibit a masterful sense of pacing and control, effortlessly balancing a multitude of characters and locations. We never feel lost or have trouble following what's going on, even accounting for cinematographer Barry Ackroyd's camerawork, which often shakes as if you're right there in the middle of the action. The only formal element that really fell flat was Volker Bertelmann's score, which was clearly either a remix or a leftover scrap from his work on last year's "Conclave," consisting only of a single, already-familiar theme that repeats itself for almost the entire duration of the movie.

There are a ton of familiar actors on display who each have limited screentime to make a mark, but a few still manage to stand out. First and foremost is Tracy Letts, who plays the senior military officer at United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM), a classic military general, gruff and ready for a fight. He is constantly encouraging the President (in a surprisingly cool and rational tone) to take proactive measures and attack military targets before the bomb even hits (even though they don't even know who launched it), because it's either that or "look weak." The President is played by Idris Elba, who is only heard but not seen until the final section, in which he is removed from a media opp (similar to Bush being rushed from a school during 9/11) and forced to make world-changing decisions from a phone in a limo. His President is cool and friendly, clearly an Obama type, and hesitant to make any huge decisions without the proper intel, which just isn't available in such a time crunch. Rebecca Ferguson's character is similarly a capable, friendly person doing their best, trying to keep herself and a panicked White House Situation Room together while her thoughts can't help but drift to her family. Greta Lee makes the most of her short appearance as the NSA's North Korea expert, comically flustered as she casually answers the phone while enjoying a day off, totally unprepared to be connected with the President and his staff in the middle of a shitstorm. There are so many more recognizable faces who only appear for moments, including Gabriel Basso, Jared Harris, Anthony Ramos, Moses Ingram, Jason Clarke, and Kaitlyn Dever, speaking to either excellent casting or the allure of a project with an important message helmed by a big-name director.

The world has lived with the threat of a nuclear apocalypse in the back of our minds for so long that a movie like this almost seems like old news, or a retread of ground already well-covered by other movies. But this threat hasn't gone away; if anything, it seems like more of an urgent topic than ever. It's understandable to not want to think about frightening things like this that are completely out of our control, especially when we are watching movies for entertainment, but perhaps it's the continual confrontation of this fear that will inspire change, even if ever so slightly, or will encourage us to carefully re-evaluate who we choose as our leaders, in a world where just one person can have their hands on the biggest trigger there is.