The unthinkable comes to life in Kathryn Bigelow’s tensely calibrated ‘A House of Dynamite’

by

With so much already causing stress, the new thriller “A House of Dynamite,” directed by Kathryn Bigelow, introduces another fear: the possibility of a nuclear disaster.

Many of us grew up fearing nuclear war. A new film by Bigelow, her first in eight years, brings that fear back, reminding us that nuclear weapons still exist. And with global instability increasing, the film suggests the danger they present is now even more serious.

Unimaginable, you say. “A House of Dynamite” asks us to imagine it.

The film presents a scenario where we repeatedly see the same event unfold across three interconnected storylines. These stories follow different groups of people reacting to the launch of a mysterious nuclear missile in the Pacific Ocean, which is on course to hit the American Midwest, likely Chicago. They have just 18 minutes to prevent the missile from hitting, or around 10 million people will perish.

The story quickly shifts between two locations: an Alaskan missile defense center, where Major David Gonzalez and his team spot an incoming missile and prepare to intercept it, and the chaotic White House Situation Room. As time runs out – impact is only minutes away – senior duty officer Olivia Walker and her superior, Admiral Mark Miller, race to understand the situation and respond.

Movies

This fall, movie fans can anticipate exciting releases like a Bruce Springsteen biopic, the film adaptation of Stephen King’s ‘The Running Man,’ and the continuation of ‘Wicked.’

As the movie shifts into its second part, flashing back to the beginning of the crisis, we see events unfold through the lens of a potential military response. A tough general (Tracy Letts) argues with a security advisor (Gabriel Basso) about who launched the missile – could it be North Korea acting alone? Russia attempting to create confusion? Or perhaps a joint attack planned by multiple enemies?

Preventing the launch would buy us time to collect more information, but we’ve discovered there’s only a 61% chance of successfully stopping it. Someone compared it to trying to hit one bullet with another, highlighting that a perfect ‘nuclear defense’ is unrealistic.

The Secretary of Defense, clearly shocked, asks if everything simply comes down to chance. He questions whether $50 billion was really worth it if that’s all it accomplished.

I have to say, watching Harris and the others on that video call was intense – definitely a meeting I wouldn’t want to be a part of! It was really interesting how the President, played by Idris Elba, was mostly just a voice for a long time – we didn’t actually *see* him until later in the movie. He seems new to the job, and it’s clear he hasn’t been fully briefed on everything, even something as crucial as the nuclear protocols. He actually asked the aide carrying the briefcase to explain the retaliation options! And the way he described them – “rare, medium, and well-done” – was… unsettling, to say the least. It felt like something you’d hear at a steakhouse, not when discussing global security!

Military experts feel the president needs to commit to one option or risk appearing weak. While he’s hesitant, he doesn’t have time to consider other possibilities. This difficult situation builds suspense right up to the end of the movie.

World & Nation

Even a limited nuclear war, using less than 3% of the world’s nuclear weapons, could result in the deaths of one-third of the global population in just two years, according to new research.

It might seem unusual for director Kathryn Bigelow, known for her action films, to make a movie largely consisting of people talking in rooms. However, “A House of Dynamite” is a surprisingly gripping and intense film. It’s made even better by strong contributions from her team, including the dynamic handheld camerawork of Barry Ackroyd, the skillful editing by Kirk Baxter, and the unsettling music by Volker Bertelmann, all of which create a feeling of claustrophobia.

Noah Oppenheim’s script cleverly revisits key lines of dialogue, but from different characters’ viewpoints, which both clarifies the story and builds suspense. While we get glimpses into the main characters’ personal lives – often through quick phone calls – these moments are brief, ensuring the story’s urgent pace isn’t disrupted.

One of the most notable choices the filmmaker makes is portraying all the important characters as capable and intelligent. There are no foolish or attention-seeking individuals. This focus on skill draws attention to the weapons themselves, suggesting that the person in charge is almost irrelevant once a missile is launched—and there are simply too many missiles. However, this also gives the film a strangely outdated feel. While “A House of Dynamite” is set in the present day, the competent and functional government it depicts feels like something from a bygone era, which ultimately makes the movie even more unsettling.

Okay, so the film immediately throws you into a pretty stark reality. It opens with a statement about how, after the Cold War, everyone generally agreed we’d be safer with fewer nuclear weapons. Then, after a beat of dramatic silence, it hits you: those days are gone. The implication is clear – we’re entering a new, and frankly terrifying, era where that consensus has completely broken down. It’s a bold opening, and it immediately sets a very serious, unsettling tone.

As a total film buff, I always hope movies can actually *do* something – spark real change, or at least get people talking. “A House of Dynamite” definitely seems to be aiming for that, and honestly, the thought that cinema *can’t* have that power? That’s just depressing.

Read More

2025-10-09 13:37