Film Review: A House of Dynamite

Very Average Joe
Oct 29
4 min read

Title: A House of Dynamite

Director(s): Kathryn Bigelow

Screenwriter(s): Noah Oppenheim

Studio: First Light Pictures, Kingsgate Films & Prologue Entertainment

Released: 2025

Runtime: 1h 52m

Starring: Rebecca Ferguson, Anthony Ramos, Gabriel Basso, Jared Harris, Tracy Letts, Jason Clarke, Idris Elba

The film opens with Captain Olivia Walker (Rebecca Ferguson) who works at the White House Situation Room and Major Daniel Gonzalez (Anthony Ramos) of the 49th Missile Defense Battalion at Fort Greely, Alaska. US early-warning systems detect a single ICBM in the air from the Pacific, initially having missed the launch.

The plot initially follows Walker’s point of view as the US verifies that it is actually a missile. As it is “unattributed”, they struggle to identify who is behind the launch. North Korea is a suspect but so is China and, although less likely, Russia.

With a missile travel time of about 30 minutes, one wonders how a film of nearly two hours will cover the events. Thankfully, it does not drag out the 30-minute period to two hours.

The narrative is more-or-less in real time and is split into three segments that cover the same period. The segments are connected by a conference call between the characters as they try to work things out. One can simplistically consider each segment to be mostly from the perspectives of two characters, one primary and one secondary:

“Inclination Is Flattening” is mostly from Walker’s and Gonzalez’s.
“Hitting a Bullet with a Bullet” is mostly from Deputy National Security Advisor Jake Baerington’s (Gabriel Basso) and STRATCOM General Anthony Brady’s (Tracy Letts).
“A House Filled with Dynamite” is mostly from POTUS’s (Idris Elba) and SecDef Reid Baker’s (Jared Harris).

The premise of a single unattributed missile is intriguing, especially given the US’s second-strike capability.

By following various characters, including minor ones, the film avoids over-saturation and manages to keep things fresh even though it is repeating the same 30-minute time period. It is nowhere near as complex as the action-thriller Vantage Point (2008), nor is it meant to be, but it is interesting enough. It is meant to be the quieter suspense-thriller.

Captain Olivia Walker (Rebecca Ferguson)

Visually, it is nicely shot and edited. By using the handheld and tight shots to good dramatic effect, it helps draw the audience in and contributes to the intensity.

However, despite the decent pacing that maintains the tension, at least a few aspects try too hard to be dramatic.

I have not worked in the military, but one expects that the reaction would be more procedural, human and computer. The characters seem to panic over things that should be a matter of protocol.
With only a single missile in the air heading towards a city (as opposed to a swarm aimed at one’s military installations), is it that urgent to launch before impact? The detonation, if there is one, and the aftereffects will give clues as to its origins.
General Brady just comes across as the stereotypical stubborn general one too often sees in films whilst SecDef Baker seems to be ignorant of even the most simple matters.
Why is the STRATCOM control room initially empty? Granted, it may not be the only one but it’s trying too hard to look dramatic by having people walk into a dark, empty room.

There are other little things that make one wonder about the filmmakers’ intentions. Is it intended to reflect reality or to be comical or to convey some other message?

For example: Elba does a cool enough job as POTUS but a black president played by an actor born outside of the US is… well, interesting; Deputy National Security Advisor Baerington vaguely looks like Eric Swalwell (LOL); the missile is heading towards Chicago (predictive programming? false flag?); and Angel Reese has a cameo because POTUS has some b-ball event run by her (ok, whatever).

Despite the problems, it is initially captivating and mostly holds one’s attention. The pacing is decent and tension is maintained throughout. However, the weakness is that the ending is inadequate and I will elaborate below but it is a spoiler.

When one sees a film or reads a novel, regardless of the medium, one is led on a journey by the writer in which the destination is often hinted. There are two types of endings that are generally an abhorrence: 1. It was a dream (unless the writer is Philip K. Dick); 2. the ending is open or ambiguous, and there are different ways to be ambiguous.

[Spoiler] A House of Dynamite utilizes a form of the latter. As expected, “Inclination Is Flattening” cuts off just before impact. This is fine in itself but the subsequent segments do not reveal enough. Such an ambiguous ending is not artistic, it is not cool, it’s just cheap and dissatisfying. To be consistent to the above image, it is comparable to being dropped off away from the destination and left there.

This is an example that a work can be good in most respects but is totally ruined by a cheap ending.

Be sure to subscribe to our mailing list so you get each new Opinyun that comes out!