Being a celebrated filmmaker is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it offers a shield: critics who admire a director’s work may feel compelled to defend even their weakest films, arguing that a flawed effort from a master is still superior to the best work of a lesser talent. On the other hand, such acclaim can box a creator in, limiting them to seeking only “worthy” projects and amplifying the sting of failure when a film falls flat. A prime example is Kathryn Bigelow’s latest, A House of Dynamite, now on Netflix. Judging by reactions from film enthusiasts, it’s likely to earn just one award this season: Biggest Letdown.
To understand why the film disappoints, we need to look back at Bigelow’s career. She made her name with bold, flexible genre films like the biker movie The Loveless, the vampire tale Near Dark, the cop thriller Blue Steel, and the enduring action hit Point Break. Her direction became clearer with 1995’s overlooked Strange Days, a gripping near-future thriller inspired by the Rodney King case that warned against escaping reality for virtual worlds. (Bigelow seemed more aware of this risk than her ex-husband and screenwriter James Cameron, who is now preparing Avatar 3.) After 2001, as her reputation grew, Bigelow—like America itself—turned to defense. The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty tackled the country’s Middle East conflicts, while Detroit, released during the Charlottesville unrest, confronted its long history of racism.
It’s easy to see why Bigelow would be drawn to Dynamite‘s script by Noah Oppenheim, former NBC News head and writer of Netflix’s Zero Day, and why the streamer would back a nuclear thriller after Oppenheimer‘s Oscar success. (The pitch: “What if Oppenheimer, but now?”) The film starts strong, depicting in real time the 19 minutes from when a missile launched in the Pacific is detected by a U.S. base in Alaska to when it’s confirmed headed for downtown Chicago. In this opening, Bigelow and Oppenheim skillfully raise the stakes while playing with time, leaving us to wonder where the story can go once the countdown ends.
The answer—and where the letdowns start—is back to the beginning. The film shifts between perspectives of officials like Tracy Letts’ general, Jared Harris as defense secretary, and Idris Elba as president, whom we only glimpsed in the prologue. Structurally, the film stalls: it’s a two-hour movie with less than 20 minutes of plot, forcing Oppenheim to rehash the opening multiple times, adding procedural details as everyone inches toward the inevitable explosion. Bigelow’s earlier films, especially The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty, were tightly wound cause-and-effect machines, all about consequences. Here, the inciting incident is the climax; the drama peaks just as the screen goes black. The characters are left asking, “Is that it?” So are we, for different reasons.
As the plot loops in shrinking circles, like a bleak Groundhog Day, we have plenty of time to ponder the negative effects…The influence of Netflix’s financial model is now visible in the aesthetic of American cinema, even on the big screen. “Dynamite” felt visually uninspired, with Barry Ackroyd’s hasty handheld camerawork reminiscent of shows like “24” or “The West Wing,” or recent Netflix productions that reuse the same settings, as seen in “Zero Day.” Not only does Kathryn Bigelow’s reputation as a visual filmmaker fade here, but so does her standing as a feminist filmmaker. Rebecca Ferguson, introduced early on as another of the director’s resilient professional women, exits the story prematurely, leaving a group of grim-faced men to once again save the world. The energy that defined Bigelow’s earlier, more daring films is absent; perhaps after the commercial disappointment of “Detroit,” she felt compelled to play it safe, but such a dialogue-heavy script needed some visual fireworks to balance it out.
Ultimately, the most palpable fear “A House of Dynamite” stirs isn’t nuclear destruction, but a director’s dread of being deemed irrelevant. The film grows increasingly stiff and dated as it progresses, making it unsurprising that real-world events have since overshadowed it. The screenplay operates on the assumption that those in charge would be skilled experts, deeply responsible, and that the greatest danger to Chicago in late 2025 would originate outside the White House. While Bigelow’s earlier works felt like urgent commentaries on their times, “Dynamite”—her first recent effort to land in the gray area between an afterthought, a diversion, and outright insignificance—wastes two sluggish hours chasing a narrative that’s already obsolete. It lacks tension for a reason: even before the rogue missile appears on radar, the America depicted in Bigelow’s film has already shattered beyond repair.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about Mike McCahills review of A House of Dynamite framed in a natural conversational tone
General Beginner Questions
1 What is A House of Dynamite
A House of Dynamite is a film that reviewer Mike McCahill describes as a political fantasy This means its a movie that uses fictional or fantastical elements to explore realworld political ideas
2 Who is Mike McCahill
Mike McCahill is a film critic whose reviews are published in various outlets including The Guardian He is known for his insightful and often detailed analysis of movies
3 What was Mike McCahills overall opinion of the movie
He was ultimately disappointed While he found its political fantasy concept interesting he felt the movie didnt live up to its potential and falls short of expectations
4 What does political fantasy mean in this context
It means the film isnt a straightforward drama or documentary It likely uses allegory satire or fictional scenarios to comment on or critique real political systems power structures or social issues
5 So did he like anything about the film
Yes the very fact that he identifies it as a political fantasy suggests he found the core idea or ambition commendable He seems to appreciate what the film was trying to do even if he didnt think it succeeded
Deeper Advanced Questions
6 What specific aspects did McCahill think fell short
While the review summary doesnt list specifics common reasons a film might fall short include a confusing plot underdeveloped characters a message that feels heavyhanded or a failure to effectively blend its fantasy elements with its political commentary
7 Is this a common criticism for political films
Yes its a frequent challenge Films with a strong political message can sometimes prioritize their message over storytelling making them feel more like a lecture than an engaging movie McCahill seems to be suggesting A House of Dynamite fell into this trap
8 Should I avoid watching the movie based on this review
Not necessarily A review is one persons opinion If the concept of a political fantasy intrigues you you might still find it thoughtprovoking McCahills
