By Grace Campagna, Newswire Intern

Fully immersing the viewer into a high-stakes, stressful environment, “A House of Dynamite” builds an atmosphere of uncertainty from the start until its ambiguous ending.

“A House of Dynamite,” released in theaters on Oct. 10 and to Netflix on Oct. 24, follows various U.S. governmental agencies and the president, played by Idris Elba, as an unattributed nuclear missile launches towards Chicago. The political thriller, directed by Kathryn Bigelow and written by Noah Oppenheim, depicts the “what-if” of a crisis amidst a race to discover who released the missile and how to respond. 

From the start, the viewer is drawn in by the on-edge nature of the film. “A House of Dynamite” is not in chronological order and follows the events through various perspectives split between three sections. While U.S. leaders strategize over a conference call, the time counts down to when a major city will inevitably be destroyed, effectively creating a tense and suspenseful mood.

Most importantly, there is an overall feeling of uncertainty in that there is not an explicit “right” or “wrong” answer. Of course, the leaders each have different perspectives on how to address the situation, if they believe they should respond at all. The chaos ensuing from the lack of a clear solution results in disagreements over each advisory decision, with the viewer also feeling the pressure of the decision.

I appreciate how the film follows different perspectives, but I felt that in order to take that route, more should have been revealed in the differing points of view presented. At times it felt repetitive, as the same decision was explored through various lenses. Regardless, I like how each person’s emotions are explored in greater depth, which further adds to the complicated scene.

The film effectively cultivates a nerve-racking environment in its representation of international relations and U.S. governmental operations. It is made clear that no matter how the U.S. responds, their choice carries immense consequences.

The ambiguous ending felt abrupt and was not what I expected given the changes in points of view. The movie overall begins with a compellingly uneasy atmosphere and ends with the same question that is proposed at the start: who launched the missile, and how will the U.S. respond? 

In spite of its unsatisfying ending, I would still recommend this film for its creation of a captivatingly stressful situation, leaving the viewer wondering what became of this crisis.