The United States is on nuclear alert in a thriller that is more conventional than it seems.

The premise of Kathryn Bigelow's new film is very clear: how would the United States react to an imminent nuclear attack? In a post-Cold War context, the tension of a war conflict is not fought on the battlefield but in the centers of military and government operations. The first part ofA house full of dynamite It takes place mostly in a White House control room, when a nuclear missile is detected heading toward US territory and there are barely twenty minutes left to respond to this impending apocalypse. Both subsequent segments review the same events from complementary perspectives. But the film does not unfold as a blockbuster Armageddon. With a script by Noah Oppenheim, the approach is reminiscent of the prestigious series of twenty years ago, such as 24 and The West Wing of the White House, since it follows the functioning of the system through various characters and through the processes, protocols and discussions before this conflict, deployed with the tension typical of a thriller in real time and against the clock.

Bigelow has a broken hand in this area and, as in In hostile land and The darkest night, revises the war genre in its own way. The deviation ofA house full of dynamite compared to so many others thrillers The similarities lie in how a country armed to the teeth—this house full of dynamite of the title—faces its powerlessness in the face of a nuclear attack. And yet, the film leaves an unsatisfying aftertaste. Because this counterintuitive message is delivered through a very conventional portrayal of the characters, all ordinary people bound by a primary affection (a sick child, a pregnant partner, a dating ad...), and with a structure that is less original than it seems, which, far from adding complexity, weakens the accumulated pressure.