A House of Dynamite (2025) is directed by Kathryn Bigelow and written by Noah Oppenheim. It stars Rebecca Ferguson, Idris Elba, Gabriel Basso, Jared Harris, Tracy Letts, Anthony Ramos, Moses Ingram, Jonah Hauer-King, Greta Lee, Jason Clarke, Malachi Beasley, Brian Tee, Brittany O’Grady, Gbenga Akinnagbe, Willa Fitzgerald, Renee Elise Goldsberry, Kyle Allen, and Kaitlyn Dever. The film follows US soldiers, politicians, government employees, and even the President (Elba) after Chicago is targeted with an unidentified nuclear missile. Despite stringent protocols and rigorous training, they find themselves unprepared for the devastating possibilities of full-on atomic war.

Despite the lack of a clear lead character, the film’s shifting perspectives ultimately work because of the various strong performances. There’s constantly a feeling that, although these are the professionals we rely on to keep the country safe, they’re still flawed, emotional people just like everyone else. The script never forgets that although these are supposed to be the best people for the position, there’s no way to be certain. This situation can’t actually be simulated, so there’s no way to test these people truly; It’s all just a guess. We want to see these people as infallible defense robots, but that’s simply not the reality. For example, the films show us how even the most capable, moral people can crumble once the stakes of leadership become personal. The script also does a great job of establishing these characters as believable humans by giving them distinct personalities, quirks, and motivations that have nothing to do with their work. It helps highlight the idea that if something like this were to occur, it would be impartial to our day-to-day lives. It doesn’t matter if you’re getting a divorce, broke, or just swamped at work—that bomb’s going to drop and make your day a lot worse.

My only real issue with these more ‘human’ portrayals is that they sometimes go too far, making these so-called professionals come across as immature teens. For example, when one low-level employee is evacuated due to them being on an essential workers list, her co-worker gets upset and bone-headedly asks (right in front of her, may I add), “Why does SHE get to be rescued?” Hey, idiot! Your boss just explained why. Also, shouldn’t you know that already? Also, is it even surprising? ALSO, how’d this jackass even get this job? On top of this, certain lines of dialogue generally just feel unnatural/forced. For example, when one character learns over Zoom that Chicago is being targeted, he leans over and whispers to himself, “My daughter lives in Chicago,” then hangs up. He tells everyone outright that the stakes are highly personal, and not ONE PERSON questions his emotional state. When this inevitably leads to tragedy, all a person can do is throw their hands up in frustration. 

The jumping perspective helps maintain a kinetic pace, but hinders us from genuinely caring about the characters. Maybe this is for the better, considering that certain ‘leads’ even disappear completely at points. This feels fitting for the film’s realistic approach, but there’s no denying that the emotional elements would be more effective if we actually cared whether each individual would survive. Thankfully, the film generates most of its tension by highlighting the multiple impossible choices these characters are forced to make. One 50/50 choice is bad enough when the stakes involve human lives, but the script makes it clear that a situation like this would require a lot more than one of these decisions. One choice just leads to another one, which at a certain point makes you realize that this can’t be a winning scenario for anyone, even those who shot the missile. No matter how our government reacts, there’s a strong possibility that they’ll only inflame the situation. It’s as if any response is futile, like we’re trying to keep dominoes upright after they’ve already begun to fall.

As expected, the film lacks spectacle in the traditional sense, but still maintains as much tension as any conventional action blockbuster. The constant threat of nuclear devastation effortlessly provides an umbrella of creeping tragedy, naturally pressing the viewer to the edge of their seat until the credits roll. The film ends abruptly, leaving the viewer without a sense of resolution, mirroring the state of the real world. It doesn’t predict how this would play out, a choice that intelligently maintains the film’s authenticity and leaves you feeling uneasy, which is precisely the intention. This lack of resolution is the point, but it’s still inherently frustrating. The best way to describe it is that it’s more meaningful than entertaining and/or satisfying, but great endings tend to be both. When a writer sacrifices one to achieve the other, it always feels disappointing and thus makes us less receptive to its message, even if it’s meaningful and/or original. 

Overall, this is a grounded “what if?” nuclear war story featuring strong performances, intense direction, and a handful of compelling ideas about the reality of atomic conflict. That being said, it’s ultimately disappointing in the sense that its authenticity and complex ideas often come at the expense of strong characters and traditional entertainment value. It’s not for everyone, and its inconsistency is sometimes frustrating, but it’s more proof that Kathryn Bigelow knows how to direct the hell out of these kinds of grounded military stories. For my money, she’s easily the most proven and exciting female director in Hollywood. Even with a lesser script, she’s able to create films that linger in one’s memory, even when they aren’t exactly a fun experience. For Idris Elba’s titular ‘House of Dynamite’ monologue alone, I have to recommend the film. B