“A house of dynamite”, the movie that sent shivers down the spines of moviegoers and set the Pentagon on fire. “I felt like crying”

“I wanted to cry, I swallowed hard, my skin shriveled up and I got shivers”, writes a Romanian journalist about “A House of dynamite”. The film, which explores a scenario where a nuclear attack on the US escapes defense systems, has sparked heated debate.

“A house of dynamite” sparked heated debates. PHOTO: Netflix

The film “A House of Dynamite”, signed by director Kathryn Bigelow, caused a heated international debate between the military, film critics and ethics experts. The film — a nuclear thriller streaming on Netflix — has been accused by the Pentagon of misrepresenting the effectiveness of the United States' missile defenses.

The Pentagon criticizes the film: “It fundamentally misrepresents the real capabilities of the American system”

“A House of Dynamite” imagines a surprise nuclear attack on the US that escapes defense systems, triggering a chain reaction. Although the film was praised for its tense realism and the way it raises ethical questions, it drew strong reactions from American officials.

According to Esquire magazine, the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) stated that the film “it fundamentally misrepresents the actual capabilities of the American system”, adding that “in the tests, the success rate is 100%, not 60% as suggested in the script“. The script of the film shows that after the American defense system fails to intercept a nuclear missile from an unknown source, it heads towards the city of Chicago, and is about to wipe it off the face of the earth. The US military launches two interceptor missiles, but both miss their target, so the nuclear missile would explode on American territory in a few minutes. The film also shows the process of preparation by the US authorities of a response nuclear attack.

What the filmmakers say

In response to the Pentagon's statements, screenwriter Noah Oppenheim responded in an interview with The Guardian:

“I respect the Pentagon's position, but our film is not a technical documentary. It is a fiction about human decisions, about fear and responsibility at a time of global crisis.”

Director Kathryn Bigelow, known for films like The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty, claimed she wanted a moral exploration, not a military demonstration:

“I wanted to show how, even with all the technology in the world, human vulnerability remains the greatest threat.”

International reactions

In Norway, the Aftenposten daily reported that local security experts “have come to the film's defense”, saying that while it is not realistic, “raises absolutely legitimate questions about the stability of the global nuclear balance.”

The Norwegian tabloid VG also described the film as fair “an allegory of the end of the world” and noted that “Bigelow doesn't provide answers, only questions—exactly what art should do.”

In the US, the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs published an extensive analysis in its Ethics on Film series, using “A House of Dynamite” as a starting point for discussions of the moral dilemmas of nuclear war and executive decisions made under pressure.

“The film is less about rockets and more about people. About how fragile reason is when time is measured in seconds,” writes the institution in the review.

The ambiguity of the ending – a source of frustration and fascination

The film's ending, considered by many to be enigmatic, further fueled online conversations. “We don't know if the missile was intercepted or not. It's intentional. It's a mirror to our world, where we never know how close we are to disaster.”Bigelow said in a Q&A session on Netflix.

The Independent publication noted that this ending “divided the public between those who demand clarity and those who appreciate mystery.”

Regardless of the official positions, one thing is certain: “A House of Dynamite” has achieved what few films with a geopolitical theme manage – to spark a global conversation about power, technology and human vulnerability.

“We are one decision away from the end of the world”

The film also aroused comments among Romanian moviegoers.

“We're one decision away from the end of the world. That's the reality that hit me on a Sunday night in November. I saw A House of Dynamite, too, and I felt like crying, gulping, skin crawling, and shivers running down my spine every time, in the three big parts of the movie, that the phrase: 'Interception failed. Target is on track'“- wrote journalist Marco Badea on Facebook.

He admits that the international press is full of critics, such as “it is a political fantasy” and “a big disappointment” or “a major failure”, “but this movie, which keeps you still until the end, is a great awakening to reality, especially in the current geopolitical context, when Vladimir Putin and the madman in Pyongyang are using nuclear tests as blackmail tools. In addition, these days Donald Trump ordered the resumption of US nuclear tests, after decades in which they were suspended, a sign that we are in a new reality, in which a possible nuclear war is no longer a distant hypothesis.”

If you watch this film and have your head on your shoulders, you can't help but wonder, seeing the turmoil in the middle of the crisis, how Trump and Hegseth would react to such a situation – says the journalist.

“Netflix has made a film that, beyond the artifice of the script, masterfully captures the essence of the loneliness of the decision. Because when you are at the top of the chain of command, every choice is a weight that you carry alone, even when there are many advisers and generals around you explaining to you what you should do based on the resources and data available to the country you lead”he concludes.