Warning: Includes SPOILERS for ‘A House of Dynamite’!
A House of Dynamite is Netflix’s latest political disaster thriller, and the film has evoked strong reactions from both audiences and the US Pentagon. A House of Dynamite’s 77% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes and outcries on social media suggest a range of emotions in response not only to the film’s horrifying concept, but also to its controversial cliffhanger. A House of Dynamite’s ending cuts off at the peak of its drama, leaving audiences wondering whether the bomb will land, and how the various people in power would react to it.
According to Bloomberg, the Pentagon’s issued response suggested that “The fictional interceptors in the movie miss their target, and we understand this is intended to be a compelling part of the drama intended for the entertainment of the audience,” but that, as opposed to the film’s claim of 50% success, modern interceptors “have displayed a 100 percent accuracy rate in testing for more than a decade.” The Pentagon also went on to claim that the film “does not reflect the views or priorities of this administration.”
This refers to the film’s depiction of the Department of Defense, which unsuccessfully attempts to stop the oncoming ICBM by striking it midair. When speaking with The Atlantic about the realism presented in the film, screenwriter Noah Oppenheim stated the following:
“It is true, and I think Tom can probably speak to the technical reasons even better than I can. But there’s a big difference between the kinds of missiles that Iron Dome is shooting down in Israel versus shooting an ICBM down that’s coming from the other side of the world.
And we say in the movie 61 percent—that’s based on data from controlled tests. So, you can imagine, those are under the best of circumstances. A lot of the folks we talked to felt that 61 percent was being very generous when it comes to the system that we have. As we mention in the movie, there are fewer than 50 of these ground-based intercepts in our arsenal, so even if it were working perfectly, there are not a ton of them that we have available to use.
I think it’s always been this false comfort that we could build [an] impenetrable dome over ourselves that would somehow solve this problem. And it turns out, perhaps not surprisingly, that knocking one of these ICBMs out of the sky is a really, really hard physics problem that nobody has quite cracked yet.”
The Pentagon and ‘A House of Dynamite’s Statements Align in One Crucial Way
First, I feel it’s necessary to mention that my analysis of this subject is strictly to connect the real-world context to the film’s themes, and not to make a statement on the reality of the United States’ nuclear war defense strategy. Of that, I have no idea. I don’t know if it’s better to trust in the competence of the Pentagon, given that the DoD surely benefits from telling the public that its tools and strategies are 100% sound, even if it’s not entirely true. That said, Hollywood films aren’t exactly regarded for their realism, heightening the stakes and creating external topic discussion surrounding A House of Dynamite’s release certainly benefits the movie.
A House of Dynamite made for controversy, as not only does it explore a devastating real-world scenario, but it also presents itself as a fairly straightforward disaster genre thriller, then attempts to assert itself with an ambiguous ending, pushing audiences to explore their own thoughts. The entire time, I expected A House of Dynamite to end with President Idris Elba deciding to stand down and trust in peace, leading to a successful, American-led good faith resolution where everyone takes a deep breath and goes on with their lives. I realize now that this was the plot of this year’s Mission: Impossible movie.
One aspect of A House of Dynamite that really succeeds is its depiction of foreign nations. The movie’s level-headed president, who’s evidently in over his head with impossible moral decisions to make, is certainly idealistic, but A House of Dynamite otherwise doesn’t pose the vehemently pro-American stance I expected, painting its rivals as black-and-white villains. For every statement made suggesting a country’s motive to launch an ICBM at the US, another character debunks that possibility with a cohesive argument, explaining why said country would be more interested in upholding peace.
Movies shape our perception of the world, and if an ensemble-led Netflix movie tells people that the Pentagon and POTUS have no idea how to handle a nuclear missile launch, it’s going to catch on. Given that A House of Dynamite doesn’t pose its own resolution, audiences are now left with terror and questions, authentically creating the buzz that handles advertising on Netflix’s behalf. What this all really speaks to is the idea of uncertainty. This is a movie about uncertainty.
The Pentagon can make a statement, Kathryn Bigelow’s script advisory experts can deliver their responses, and every knucklehead on the internet can step in and share their perspective on how nuclear war actually works. Conversations are important to have, but in an era where legitimate information is increasingly challenging to verify, every statement is essentially nullified by the next one. In that sense, A House of Dynamite poses an accurate depiction of these discussions: a range of deeply opinionated hypotheses, each armed with some degree of optimism or cynicism, that strikes the gong of climax repeatedly but ultimately ends up inconclusive.
I certainly believe that this is a compelling thematic idea and that, on paper, using the indecision of the most powerful people in the world as a vessel to represent the entire planet’s uncertainty about nuclear warfare, could make for excellent cinema. It’s almost as if the film is stripping away the pedestals that people of status are placed on and saying, “They’re just like us.” In the movie’s scenario, everything is theoretical. It’s saying there’s no true preparation for a situation that hasn’t happened yet, whether the POTUS is armed with the “black book” or not.
With all of that having been said, A House of Dynamite is a deeply flawed film, but it succeeds in its objective: conversations will be started. To me, nuclear warfare is the outer shell of this movie, and the real analysis is about information and communication.
- Release Date
-
October 3, 2025
- Runtime
-
113 minutes
- Director
-
Kathryn Bigelow
- Producers
-
Brian Bell, Greg Shapiro