Kathyrn Bigelow’s return to film detonates itself in its analysis of our current day bureaucracy.
BY DANTE ALVAREZ
OCTOBER 24, 2025 08:10 EST
©Netflix
“A House of Dynamite”
In 2010, Kathyrn Bigelow became the very first female recipient of the Academy Award for directing. Her Oscar-winning work in The Hurt Locker marked the start of what has since been labeled as her “war trilogy" that consists of The Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty, and now, A House of Dynamite. Much like the rest of the trilogy, her newest entry continues to dissect and deconstruct the real world anxieties placed in the United States’ sociopolitical stances. As the film tracks a nuclear detonation shooting for Chicago, we are instructed to sit through the same situation three times in three different perspectives.
We start off with the White House’s Situation Room, then elevate on to a Strategic Command Center, and finally, the President of the United States (Idris Elba) and the Secretary of Defense (Jared Harris). The fascinating structure ends up a bit wasted after the constant repetition of dialogue, character motivations, and that overbearing score. Noah Oppenheim’s script churns out an overtly complex yet underwhelming telling of an incredibly straightforward premise. The importance placed on the dialogue and structure inevitably hurts the most crucial aspect: humanity and characters.
The film itself is even unsure if it wants to create interesting characters when it forgets who exists and who doesn’t. Once the story shifts into a new act, we never hear from a lot of talented actors and other performances are confined to their respective chapters. In its convolution, there isn’t much time to spend in the humanity it wants us to feel for. The great sacrifice never justifies itself either because of the lack of innovation in the premise.
While the wacky and unordinary construction is thrilling at first, the failure to introduce motivation and interest in them is apparent. Each act after the first one adds nothing but a small detail to slowly move through the plot, but with such an abruptly daring ending, its risk becomes cowardly.
©Netflix
“A House of Dynamite”
Bigelow’s Oscar-worthy direction is notably absent throughout most of the film here. The choice for a chaotic mockumentary-style creates many unintentionally awkward moments. The tension never manages to fully grasp an audience when it's more focused on manufactured shaky-cam moments. Most camera movements and title cards are overpolished.
The manufactured style lessens many of the film’s annoyingly overimportant climaxes. By the third time around, you’re basically playing bingo with the dialogue and plot points. Entire opening sequences are riddled with powerpoint-esque movement, which do not help the already laughably bad dialogue. No, you do not need to explain the film’s title with a podcast you listened to once.
In the midst of one of the United States’ most juvenile and controversial moments in history, Bigelow actively wants us to worry about the power placed in human hands. This story, while not new, finds itself as important in many cases. Throughout history, directors such as Stanley Kubrick, Christopher Nolan, and James Cameron have satirized, dramatized, and demonized the story of the nuclear bomb as warning to the dangers to come.
The current attempt to remind us of the ticking clock keeps true to the terror of the story. Nonetheless, the end result insists on its importance by forgetting to properly write, direct, or edit a film for an upsettingly monotonous prioritization.
Add comment
Comments