[Reader advisory: some spoilers included.]

Netflix’s House of Dynamite detonates with a premise that instantly puts viewers on edge: an anonymous missile streaks toward a major US city. Who launched it? Why? The film’s ambiguity is its crucible, forcing audiences—and its characters—into a state of tense uncertainty.

Subscribe now

Some critics, like The New Yorker, argue the film sidesteps the spectacle one might expect from such a disaster scenario, instead unfolding as a “chamber piece” centered on political and personal drama amid existential threat. Where previous Kathryn Bigelow films have leaned into violence and intensity, House of Dynamite restrains itself; the actual devastation stays off-screen, lingering as a constant and unresolved possibility. This creative choice unsettles some viewers and even divides critics, but it’s precisely what makes the film resonate with those who have faced the unpredictable realities of crisis management.

As a former paramedic, tactical medic, and disaster response team commander, the film’s depiction of extreme ambiguity and high-stakes leadership rings true with me. In real emergencies, the clarity of aftermath is rare. Outcomes are tangled, decisions must be made in the dark, and the human toll—both petty and heroic—is invariably exposed.

Structured like a stage play, the narrative of House of Dynamite replays events from multiple perspectives, revealing not only the pettiness and egotism that can surface under pressure, but also extraordinary moments of fortitude among those who quietly shoulder the burden for others, even amidst their own personal dramas. House of Dynamite isn’t about neat answers; it’s about living with uncomfortable uncertainty.

This refusal to provide closure at the end of the movie has proven controversial. The ambiguity isn’t an oversight; it’s the point. As in actual disaster response, there are rarely tidy endings and rarely moments you know for sure were right. The open finale leaves us grappling with questions—an invitation to reflect rather than merely consume. For anyone acquainted with crisis, it feels authentic and honest.

Adding further fuel to the debate, the Pentagon itself issued statements disputing the film’s depiction of US missile defense. In internal memos and public comments, officials underscored that the fictional system’s failure does not match “a vastly different story” in real-world testing, asserting interceptors have achieved a perfect success rate for over a decade. The filmmakers, though, purposely chose not to work directly with Pentagon consultants, preferring independence and employing technical advisers with actual defense experience. This controversy highlights how fiction, even when hyper-realistic, can touch nerves in the halls of power.

Ultimately, House of Dynamite is less about the machinery of war than about people facing the unknown. It’s a film for viewers willing to grapple with ambiguity—and, in its way, a mirror for our own uneasy moment in history.

Share