'A House Of Dynamite' review: Kathryn Bigelow's political thriller threatens to explode

Netflix

Let's see if this one blows up overnight. Director Kathryn Bigelow returns from hibernation with A House Of Dynamite, a political thriller with deadly stakes. Broken into three parts, we begin by following Olivia Walker (Rebecca Ferguson), a captain and an official working at the titular house which is White House, as she makes her way to work one morning that will become the most diabolical morning of her career. This is because the intelligence and security department detects a nuclear missile headed towards the United States. There's also one itty bitty problem: no one knows who fired it. Walker and her cohorts have about 18 minutes to deal with the situation, and things get even more complicated when intercepting the missile fails, ensuring that impact is unavoidable.

In addition to Walker, we also follow events from the points-of-view of deputy security advisor Jake Baerington (Gabriel Basso); the Pentagon and defence secretary Reid Baker (Jared Harris); major Daniel Gonzalez (Anthony Ramos) situated in Alaska; as well as the country's president (Idris Elba) as he has the final say on what a possible response to the attack would look like. Others starring in the film include Greta Lee (as intelligence expert Ana Park), Jason Clarke (admiral Mark Miller), Jonah Hauer-King (lieutenant commander Robert Reeves), Moses Ingram (FEMA employee Cathy Rogers) and Tracy Letts (general Anthony Brady).

The film gets off to a pretty fantastic start as the first section introduces Walker and the process part of her work rather effectively, before getting to the ticking bomb, which really sets things in motion. This is also the part that is most efficient in terms of getting characters in and out and there's a real sense of momentum in every single scene. Cinematographer Barry Ackroyd's camera movement, zooms and constant compositional readjustments remind you more of a style you typically see in TV shows, but editor Kirk Baxter keeps the rhythm tight and the pressure high, all while making sure the film focuses on its strongest performer—that being Ferguson—and her great face acting. As a high-stakes thriller, it is very captivating, and Bigelow's staging of this uncertain situation, that challenges the U.S. government's ego, threatens to bite into the officials' flesh like a venomous snake.

Unfortunately, writer Noah Oppenheim's script defangs the piece after the focus shifts and the movie reveals its structure, which essentially turns back the clock and tells everything again with new players on the field. It's just too bad that it's diminishing returns and mistakes secondary details for depth. The main problem is that Oppenheim's work never pushes past the question of "Aren't nuclear weapons bad?" and ends up becoming a self-serious version of the "I would have voted for Obama for a third term"-meme. Hence, the politics aren't interesting in the slightest and that's even before timing enters the (motion) picture. What if the country currently supplying and funding the bombs for inhumane annihilation in real life was at risk? Such a wild concept. Usually you'd see this sort of material on network TV.

Poor characterisation isn't helping the cause either. The writing seems to think that a nuclear strike somehow isn't meaty enough; instead, there are cringeworthy throwaway moments that inform us that these people have spouses, sons and daughters who despise them. Surely these tidbits will flesh everything out, right? Well, no. Not one character in this entire film feels substantial or, god forbid, relatable or recognisable. Perhaps describing A House Of Dynamite as political is giving it too much credit because the characters' personal politics are also indecipherable. Quite often it is just a semi-boring, sort-of-centrist fever dream.

Actors like Basso, Harris and Elba aren't delivering the type of performances that would elevate the material either, especially Basso who is pretty much a black hole as far as charisma is concerned. Cast members with less screen time don't have the material to stand out. The situation begins to feel less urgent. The movie starts to lose control over its tempo. The tension continues to evaporate. One can't help but ask if Bigelow and co. had committed to the 18-minute time bomb instead of stretching out those bits to 30-minute sections, would we instead have a tight pressure cooker and not an overlong hotchpotch, which makes us notice all the problems mentioned above. Maybe.

It's also clear that the ending will be rather divisive. Personally, I'm less troubled by it because the screenplay clearly isn't interested in the aftermath because it's dead set on its mission to loudly declare its extremely lukewarm take, which is nuclear weapons=bad. The movie is admittedly watchable because the vivacity is there, but lukewarm themes and hollow characters earn nothing but a lukewarm response and a shrug. The fuse was lit at some point but the explosive was a child's toy and not something that will actually make an impact.

Smileys: Editing

Frowneys: Screenplay, characterisation

Does a Baerington crap in the White House?

2.5/5

Where to watch:

This article may contain affiliate links, which means that we may earn a commission if you make a purchase through these links. Thank you for the support!