Kathryn Bigelow’s latest film, ‘A House of Dynamite,’ arrives at a critical juncture when the specter of nuclear conflict has faded into the background of global consciousness, often dismissed as a relic of the Cold War era. Yet, with her signature precision, Bigelow compels audiences to confront the unsettling reality of America’s nuclear doctrine and the illusion of control that underpins it. The film’s premise is stark: an unidentified intercontinental ballistic missile is detected mid-flight over the Pacific, with 18 minutes until potential impact on the American mainland. The narrative unfolds as a triptych, presenting the same 18 minutes from three escalating perspectives—the Watch Floor operators, the cabinet-level decision-makers, and finally, the President. This structure serves as a Rashomon-style critique of bureaucratic paralysis, revealing the fragility of systems designed to prevent catastrophe. The ensemble cast, including Idris Elba, Rebecca Ferguson, and Jared Harris, delivers restrained performances, embodying the tension between professional duty and human terror. Ferguson’s portrayal of Captain Olivia Walker, who ultimately cracks under pressure, underscores the vulnerability of American invincibility. Bigelow and screenwriter Noah Oppenheim delve into the inherent instability of deterrence theory, exposing the dangerous illusion that catastrophic power can be rationally managed. The film’s technical realism, captured through Barry Ackroyd’s documentary-style cinematography, immerses viewers in the machinery of response, highlighting the hubris of protocols meant to prevent disaster. Critics have noted the film’s repetitive structure and ambiguous ending, but these elements are central to Bigelow’s message: there is no cathartic resolution in the face of nuclear annihilation. ‘A House of Dynamite’ is the third installment in Bigelow’s informal trilogy on American power, following ‘The Hurt Locker’ and ‘Zero Dark Thirty.’ It zooms out to reveal the architecture of American strategic thinking, exposing its terrifying instability. The film’s chilling metaphor of a ‘house of dynamite’ raises uncomfortable questions about who built this precarious structure and who continues to add to its stockpile. Bigelow dismantles the myth of American exceptionalism, challenging the assumption that the U.S. can be trusted with apocalyptic power. The film’s relevance lies in its critique of deterrence theory, which unravels as the crisis unfolds, leaving only the possibility of mutual extinction. ‘A House of Dynamite’ is a rare political thriller that trusts its audience to grapple with complexity, offering no easy answers or reassuring endings. Its 112-minute runtime is lean and relentless, building to an inevitable catastrophe while continually surprising with new revelations. While the film is unlikely to change policy, it shatters the illusion that someone, somewhere, has nuclear control under control. Ultimately, ‘A House of Dynamite’ is less about nuclear war than about the mythology of American competence—a myth Bigelow exposes with unflinching clarity. The film is now streaming on Netflix.