The day begins as usual for various White House and military personnel. Captain Olivia Walker (Rebecca Ferguson) tends to her sick toddler before heading off to work in the Situation Room at 4:30 a.m. Major Daniel Gonzalez (Anthony Ramos) argues with his girlfriend over the phone before returning to his post as the commander of the Fort Greely Army base in Alaska. Characters exchange pleasantries, drink coffee and settle in for the workday.
Suddenly, the unthinkable happens — a single intercontinental ballistic missile is detected somewhere in the Pacific. Coming from an unknown origin, the missile’s trajectory flattens which puts it on a direct collision course with the continental United States. Apprehension turns to panic as dozens of senior officials attempt to shoot down the missile and plan a strategic response.
“A House of Dynamite” is directed by Kathryn Bigelow, known for her modern military thrillers “The Hurt Locker” and “Zero Dark Thirty.” Unlike those films, her new Netflix original eschews on-the-ground action and focuses on people in rooms on conference calls as they frantically run through emergency protocols and privately attempt to warn their loved ones.
The film is shot documentary-style with handheld cameras zooming, shaking and lingering on characters like they might in an episode of “Succession.” Bigelow’s energetic direction makes the nightmarish scenario feel as frighteningly plausible as it really is. The film’s appropriately ominous tagline warns, “Not if. When.” It is a reality more disturbing than any horror movie monster that billions of lives depend on the quick decisions of a handful of leaders over a few crucial minutes.
After a riveting first act building up to a climactic moment, the film cuts to black and rewinds the clock. The same events play out three times with each chapter presenting a slightly different perspective, a technique used in films like “The Last Duel” and this year’s “Weapons.” This narrative structure sets the film apart from other nuclear thrillers and allows for some clever moments as the audience gains additional snippets of information and gets to see the people on the other end of conference calls they’ve already listened to.
Unfortunately, there simply isn’t enough difference between the chapters to justify building the narrative non-linearly. Each third is weaker and less tense than the one preceding it, leading to a deeply unsatisfying conclusion. The final act shifts to the perspective of the president, played by British actor Idris Elba with a confoundingly bad American accent.
In this act, the president is forced to decide whether or not to authorize retaliatory preemptive strikes against other nuclear-armed nations. His advisors imply he must make this decision before the ICBM even arrives, despite not knowing who launched it or why. The tension of this climactic decision feels illogical and contrived, and the suggestion to launch an all-out attack against the rest of the world strains believability.
It is evident that “A House of Dynamite” is most interested in probing the systemic reaction to its premise rather than tying up its character and plot threads. There are dozens of characters, many of whom end up failing to justify their inclusion in the screenplay. For instance, a Federal Emergency Management Agency official (Moses Ingram), a CNN reporter (Willa Fitzgerald) and an NSA analyst (Greta Lee) are all featured in their own subplots before being dropped from the story unceremoniously. The suspense of the first chapter’s conclusion is never quite recaptured, and the third act’s climax suffers in comparison.
These specific weaknesses stand out primarily because the film is still expertly crafted and thrilling to watch. The mobilization and launch of ground-based interceptor missiles — depicted almost entirely offscreen, unfolding through phone calls and a digital display — is as exciting as any action scene this year. The film also succeeds in conveying the sobering reality that key decision-makers are uninformed, unprepared and painfully human. With authentic dialogue and a well-researched portrayal of the US intelligence apparatus, it works well as a convincing, plausibly detailed “what-if” scenario.
There is perhaps an even better, more focused version of “A House of Dynamite” that might have been made using a more traditional narrative structure, axing extraneous plot lines and building to a more effective dramatic climax. Still, the film on hand is an uncommonly intelligent and gripping reminder that the world order rests on a delicate balance just one false move away from armageddon.
