When I first heard about A House of Dynamite, I was immediately impressed by the cast. Then I saw it was directed by Kathryn Bigelow, who has done Zero Dark Thirty, The Hurt Locker, and Detroit. She’s a highly praised director, she’s won Oscars, and I was excited to see her return with a political thriller backed by such a strong ensemble. The film has already been buzzing at early festival screenings as a potential Netflix awards contender. I was curious what the takeaway would be for general audiences because, while this floored me in many ways, it also let me down in one significant way.
The story kicks off when an unattributed missile is launched at the U.S. The government scrambles to figure out who is responsible and how to respond before disaster strikes. The narrative unfolds over a compressed timeframe through multiple perspectives, including the president, military officials, and policy advisers as tensions escalate and impossible decisions loom.
From the opening moments, this movie had me hooked. Bigelow builds a suffocating sense of tension through sharp editing, strong dialogue, and gripping performances. The narrative is broken into three chapters that each replay the same critical events but from the perspectives of different characters. At first, I worried this would drag the film down, but instead it raised the stakes and deepened the tension. Each shift in perspective added new context and urgency, keeping me glued to the screen.
As someone who has anxiety, I felt it rising as I watched. Even though we never see the missile directly—just countdowns on screens, maps, and tense debates between leaders—the film felt relentless. Each chapter crescendos before cutting to black and shifting to the next perspective. It’s a bold narrative structure that could have easily failed, but here it works thanks to incredible writing, razor-sharp editing, and a powerhouse cast.
This film feels like a true cautionary tale. The idea of a nuclear warhead headed toward U.S. soil without knowing who launched it is terrifying. The uncertainty—who to trust, who not to trust, how to avoid igniting global war—drives the drama. The performances elevate everything, with Rebecca Ferguson, Jason Clarke, Anthony Ramos, Idris Elba, and others all delivering strong work. Combined with immersive sound design, sharp cinematography, and claustrophobic staging, the film is as anxiety-inducing as it is compelling.
For almost its entire runtime, I thought A House of Dynamite might be one of the best films of the year. But then came the ending. Without spoiling anything, I can say it’s going to divide audiences. For me, it was a huge letdown. The story builds immense suspense only to undercut it with a finale that felt more like an artistic shrug than a satisfying conclusion. At the press screening I attended, the reaction was unanimous—people raised their hands, shook their heads, and muttered, “Really? That’s it?”
It’s frustrating, because Bigelow directs the hell out of this movie. The cast is incredible. The screenplay, cinematography, sound design—all top tier. But the ending just didn’t land for me. Instead of feeling like a bold, thought-provoking finale, it felt like the rug was pulled out from under us. It turned what could have been one of my favorites of the year into a film I doubt I’ll revisit.
Still, there’s no denying the craft. A House of Dynamite shows why Kathryn Bigelow remains one of the best directors working today. It’s a gripping, anxiety-fueled political thriller with incredible performances and a smart narrative structure. I only wish the final moments had given the story the resolution it deserved. For me, the film was so good—right up until it wasn’t.
Rating: 7/10