Written by Noah Oppenheim and directed by Kathryn Bigelow, A House of Dynamite is a politically fueled thriller where uncertainty lingers. It is also one of those films that gambles with political affiliations and tactics. Throughout the film, there are weaving moments between different political sectors which bring up questions as the audience flows through the journey of it’s intense scenario. Bigelow knows how to keep the volume turned up with A House of Dynamite.

The film has an all-star cast including Idris Elba (as POTUS), Rebecca Ferguson (as Captain Olivia Walker), Gabrial Basso (as Jake Baerington), and Tracy Letts (as General Anthony Brady). All of these characters serve a purpose in A House of Dynamite. They are the heroes who stand on the front lines and make calls about how to handle an attack. At the same time though, the risks and politics come into play for interference. This is where the writing and directing of this screenplay takes the cake to new levels of suspense.

The film begins with an unidentified intercontinental ballistic missile flying in the sky. Many believe that it is a test, but the reality is quite clear. Olivia Walker comes in to monitor the threats. It is recognized as an ICBM launch.  More high-ranking officials come into play. POTUS is the president, General Anthony Brady is a senior military officer at United States Strategic Command, and Jake Baerinton is the Deputy of National Security and together, they must communicate to figure out what calls to make in terms of standing by or engaging in an attack. At the same time though, political feuds only add fuel to the fire. A House of Dynamite is a film where gambling is about truly getting the numbers right before making a decision.

The film has writing that jumps between different countries and political components with a lot of play with Asia, Russia, and Korea. These are places where resources tend to overlap and have political aggravations. Throughout the film the ones on the frontline continue to negotiate, but at the same time, the safety of people becomes more limited as choices begin to have delays. The options of how to protect are complicated to analyze. Bigelow brings all the political factors that topple each other vividly to burn up the screen with hierarchy that serves a bigger purpose. I respect her for this though, because she paints a portrait of how some real problems of the world truly do not get resolved.

This is a powerhouse with political rollercoaster ride moments that continue the intensity. So much in A House of Dynamite is filled with precious moments at risk which create the foundation of how far hierarchies will go in the name of a call. I was hooked on the film. A lot of it was not only about the politics, but also by how the demographics come into the picture. To clarify, the fingers get pointed at countries such as North Korea or Russia—that is the portion of the film where the disagreements create the landscape to make the timing of the essence.

The performances of Ferguson, Baerington, and Elba I felt gave the most meaning to A House of Dynamite. Their calls and sensitivity levels present the humanistic value of fear whichweaves in and out of the scenario in fragments. There in lies a worldwide phenomenon of concern. A House of Dynamite soars with success. Realism has a clear portrait of unidentified solutions and many questions that continue to search for answers. Three-and-a-half out of four stars for A House of Dynamite.