• September 6, 2025
  • Live Match Score
  • 0


Kathryn Bigelow has revisited familiar terrain with her new venture, A House of Dynamite, a gripping nuclear thriller that opened this week at the Venice Film Festival.

Author of her Oscar-winning The Hurt Locker and the intense Zero Dark Thirty, Bigelow again demonstrates her skill at building agonizing suspense while being militarily and politically realistic. The new film arrives on Netflix in October and is being touted as “riveting” and “more frightening than most horror movies.”

The setup is basic but chilling: a nuclear missile has been fired at the United States. No one knows who launched it, or how many more there might be, but one thing looms over the White House, if they aren’t shot down, an American city will be destroyed in 20 minutes. Unlike classical Hollywood disaster movies that rely on a heroic protagonist to rescue the day, Bigelow anchors her tale in realism, presenting the scenario through several different viewpoints, all playing out in near real time.

Split Into Three Perspectives

Directed by Noah Oppenheim, the movie is divided into three acts, each returning to the crisis from a different perspective. The first takes place in the White House Situation Room, where Rebecca Ferguson features as a senior duty officer and Jason Clarke as a senior director. On the other side of the nation, Anthony Ramos acts as a military commander who has to try an interception from Alaska. The tense, caffeine-sodden environment establishes the tone, reconciling political procedure with the ticking clock of catastrophic defeat.

The second act turns to two security advisers, played by Gabriel Basso and Greta Lee, who are charged with offering predictions that might inform the actions of the highest officials. Last comes the story’s turn to the top levels of power, where Idris Elba takes the role of the U.S. President and Jared Harris becomes the Secretary of Defense. Elba’s character, a fairly recent commander-in-chief, is confronted with the most fateful decisions in human history, whether to escalate military action or put faith in diplomatic assurances.

More Realism Than Satire

The movie elicits unavoidable comparisons with Stanley Kubrick’s classic satirical work Dr. Strangelove, but Bigelow’s thriller lacks humor. There are no caricatures or buffoonish mistakes here, only efficient, logical professionals facing impossible demands. The movie does insert a darkly comedic scene when Elba’s president thumb-throughs retaliatory measures like the menu at a diner, but otherwise the tone is deadly serious.

The lack of hyperbolic theatrics is actually beneficial to the film. Rather than flashy action, the plot dwells on how uncertainty prevails in such crises. All the characters are only partially privy to the events, and ironically, the president could be the least well-informed one of all. Bigelow’s method underscores the vulnerability of even the most meticulously crafted emergency measures, leaving viewers unsettled about what would actually happen if indeed such a nightmare scenario were to occur.

A Riveting New Thriller

Supported by a talented cast with Ferguson, Harris, Ramos, Clarke, Lee, and Basso, A House of Dynamite holds the viewer’s attention through its realism and framework. The real-time format, with the closed-in settings of situation rooms, bases, and safe bunkers, creates an inescapable feeling of urgency. Bigelow eschews melodrama, keeping the movie both believable and frightening.

Ultimately, A House of Dynamite is more of an examination of the political and psychological burden of nuclear decision-making than a conventional action thriller. It’s a reminder that, presented with such deadly stakes, rationality and competence might not be enough. Bigelow’s film is unnerving, exhaustively researched, and unflinchingly taut, an experience which lingers long after the credits have run.

Jamie Wells
Latest posts by Jamie Wells (see all)




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *