Lifestyle
Every moment pops in the nuclear thriller ‘A House of Dynamite’
Anthony Ramos plays a major at an Alaskan missile outpost in A House of Dynamite.
Eros Hoagland/Netflix
hide caption
toggle caption
Eros Hoagland/Netflix
If you were born after Hiroshima, you’ve spent your whole life seeing — or at least knowing of — movies about the atomic bomb. From the ruthless ’60s satire Dr. Strangelove to the ’80s TV sensation The Day After to 21st Century thrillers like The Sum of All Fears, filmmakers keep imagining the ways that nuclear weapons can lead to cataclysm.
The latest to do so is A House of Dynamite, a white-knuckle Netflix movie that opens first in cinemas and hits the streamer itself on Oct. 24. I encourage you to see it in a theater because it’s directed by Kathryn Bigelow, who’s not merely the first woman to win the best director Oscar — she’s unsurpassed at action and suspense. Although I normally try to avoid clichés, A House of Dynamite literally did have me on the edge of my seat.
The action begins when a military tracking station spots a single nuclear warhead, origin unknown, heading toward the U.S. mainland. If not shot down, it will hit in 20 minutes. For the rest of the movie, we leapfrog among the characters who are trying to stop that missile, figure out who launched it — Putin? Iran? North Korea? China pretending to be North Korea? — and to come up with a response that won’t lead to Armageddon.
If the premise is straightforward, the telling is not. The film loops back and repeats the same 20 minute period three times over, as we watch different people confront the threat. In the first, which is about trying to stop the ICBM, we flit between a major at an Alaskan missile outpost — that’s Anthony Ramos — and the military officer running the White House situation room. She’s played by Rebecca Ferguson, who you’ll know from Mission Impossible.
The second part centers on two tacticians: a deputy national security advisor, played by Gabriel Basso, who’s urging a cautious response, and the general in charge of STRATCOM — that’s Tracy Letts — who fears that caution could lead to America’s destruction. Finally, the third part centers on the secretary of defense, played by Jared Harris, and the president, played by Idris Elba. He’s presented with a menu featuring different levels of retaliatory slaughter and has the agonizing task of deciding who, if anyone, to nuke.
While all the characters are defined by their jobs, Bigelow and screenwriter Noah Oppenheim give each a hint of their human dimension — be it the complacent charisma of Elba’s president, Ferguson fighting back tears then soldiering on, or Harris — an actor of great vulnerability — falling into despair when he grasps the bomb will hit the city where his daughter lives. All are honorable and good at their jobs. Letts’ general is not one of those hair-trigger Strangelovean psychopaths familiar from most thrillers. He’s a rational man — and baseball fan — trying to do the right thing.
Like that ’60s war horse Fail Safe, A House of Dynamite reminds us that America’s nuclear defense is based on elaborate protocols that offer an illusion of control. Yet once that unexplained missile shows up on the radar, the system instantly starts dissolving. The missile defenses don’t work — it’s like trying to hit a bullet with a bullet, as they say here. You can’t get Putin’s guy on the phone, and our North Korea specialist has the day off. Or the encrypted video conference starts breaking up. Endless planning can’t tell you what to do when the choice is between surrender and suicide.
While all of this is unnerving, it’s also thrilling to watch. Bigelow directs with a maestro’s lucid precision, perfectly orchestrating the complicated shifts from person to person, time frame to time frame. We can follow exactly where we are and what’s going on. Every moment pops, from Barry Ackroyd’s alert cinematography, to Kirk Baxter’s jittery-but-controlled editing, to Volker Bertelmann’s score whose shifts keep ratcheting up the tension. While the script’s ending is a tad too oblique for my taste, the movie still packs a wallop.
And rightly. Bigelow is tackling something important, especially now when the world’s nuclear arsenals are increasingly controlled by aggressive nationalists. Yet, it’s unlikely that her warning about all the world’s nukes will have any greater effect on the real world than the scads of cautionary movies that came before. Sad to say, A House of Dynamite is likely to be remembered not for making us any safer but for being so darn exciting.
Lifestyle
How does the Kennedy Center board make decisions? This legal filing sheds some light
The Kennedy Center, the facade of which remains covered with a tarp, is seen in Washington, DC, on June 28, 2026. A US federal judge asked on June 24 for an explanation for why a tarpaulin continues to cover the facade of the Kennedy Center where President Donald Trump’s name was recently removed. District Judge Christopher Cooper gave the board of trustees of the performing arts venue until the end of July to explain “the purpose for and status of the tarp and scaffolding that Defendants have erected on the front portico of the Center.”
ALEX WROBLEWSKI/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
ALEX WROBLEWSKI/AFP via Getty Images
More than two weeks ago, President Trump’s name was removed from the Kennedy Center facade though it is still covered by a tarp and the legal battle continues.
On Monday, a U.S. Department of Justice filing on behalf of the Kennedy Center included some surprises. The document was submitted in response to issues raised by lawyers for ex-officio board member Rep. Joyce Beatty of Ohio who is suing to remove President Trump’s name from the center and stop its closure for renovations.
Among the revelations, the Kennedy Center admitted that, during a board meeting on December 18, 2025, Beatty had been “muted and prevented from speaking.” It was at that meeting that the board voted to add President Trump’s name to the center. The filing later acknowledges the congresswoman was “prevented from voicing her opposition.”
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is a living memorial to its namesake. The guidelines for how the theatre complex spends federal dollars are very specific. Among other rules, it states that “no additional memorials or plaques shall be designated or installed.” Beatty argues adding Trump’s name runs afoul of those rules and that any change requires approval from Congress.
According to one of Beatty’s filings, “There was no advance notice in the agenda that the Board would be considering a name change,” a statement the Kennedy Center now does not deny. The center admits that, prior to voting, there was “no discussion about potential risks or downsides of the vote to adopt a secondary name for the Center.” Nor was there a board discussion “about any potential conflict of interest that might result from the vote.”
The center’s lawyers previously contended that if Trump’s name were to be removed, it would “lose money from donors who support” him and “impede the Center’s fundraising efforts.”
Closing for renovations
Earlier this year, Trump announced on social media that the Kennedy Center would close for two years for renovations. He wrote that he made the decision after “a one year review” with “Contractors, Musical Experts, Art Institutions, and other Advisors and Consultants.”
But, according to the center’s lawyers, Trump’s announcement “was made without presenting any plans, analyses, timelines, or funding information to his cotrustees and without any Board vote.”
The Kennedy Center has long denied reporting by The Washington Post that ticket sales plummeted after President Trump became the Center’s board chair. In Monday’s legal filing, the Center admits that, by October 2025, “nearly half of the Center’s tickets were going unsold.”
Lifestyle
ICICLE: Capturing Interest in Chinese Brands
Lifestyle
‘Dead but Dreaming of Electric Sheep’ is full of beautifully written grotesqueries
Paul Tremblay has made a career of pushing the horror genre – and the novel format – in strange and exciting new directions.
In his latest, Dead but Dreaming of Electric Sheep, the author offers an amalgamation of genre elements that can be best described as psychological-dystopian-science-fiction horror. It’s a mouthful, but the narrative does all of that and more in a way that defies categorization.
Julia Flang is a former semiprofessional gamer working two mediocre jobs she dislikes and living in a modest ranch house in a San Fernando Valley suburb with her retired uncle, whom she calls Uncle Fun. Julia likes movies and gaming but there’s little else going on in her life, so when her estranged mother, the CFO of a large tech company, contacts her with a possible job offer – a “once-in-a-lifetime thing” that pays handsomely just for doing the interview – she hesitantly agrees.

The job is relatively simple and perfect for someone with gaming skills: using a controller built into a phone to get a man, who is stuck in a vegetative state, from California to the East Coast. It will require her to learn how to control his body – walking, moving, sitting, standing, using his arms – so she can maneuver him out of the facility where he is located and into cars and planes and through crowded airports. A fan of movies, Julia decides to call the man Bernie – after the movie Weekend at Bernie’s. When the ethics of the job start to bother her, Julia realizes it’s too late and she must go through with it. However, she’s soon contacted by people interested in sabotaging the whole thing, people who, like her, don’t align with the shady interests of conglomerates and those set to make “gobs of money” from this new, somewhat inhuman technology.
As with every Tremblay novel, any synopsis barely scratches the surface. The novel’s chapters alternate between Julia and you (yes, you). Julia’s chapters are “normal” in the sense that they obey a chronological order and have action, basic descriptions of movement and places, and dialogue. The chapters in second person are like fever dreams from a shadow world; the desperate experiences of a man trapped inside his own body with no control of it, no clue what’s happening to him, and only a few fragmented memories of his life. Also, Tremblay uses a similarly fragmented style of storytelling (including words and sentences trapped in boxes and/or “moving” on the page) to keep things interesting but also confusing and creepy.
This novel operates on several different levels and – planes of existence? Bernie has a head full of AI that controls his body, but his consciousness is still there and struggling to regain control, struggling to remember things. There are monsters, leeches, mysterious rabbits, and eerie shadows in his world, but the true horror comes from the lack of control, from being moved around against his will and having no clue what comes next. Bernie is the embodiment of losing control to AI, and when taken together with the commentary of creativity and AI and the meta interludes in which the author takes a wrecking ball to the fourth wall and addresses readers, this is the best anti-Generative AI story horror has produced so far.
Despite the horror of it, this is a very funny novel. Julia is sarcastic and struggles to keep her comebacks in line, but the conversations she has and messages she writes are always entertaining. However, the humor is far from the crown jewel here. That title belongs to a plethora of big ideas Tremblay juggles. The nature of life, death, and consciousness, the evils of conglomerates, inhuman practices in the name of capitalism, and AI, and even what it means to be human are all explored here: “Is Bernie alive? Is he feeling pain? Is he experiencing everything as a prisoner looking through the bars of his body? Has his consciousness been winnowed to a metaphysical keyhole? Where does consciousness begin or end?” There are no definite answers here, but the way Tremblay infuses humanity, love, the importance of relationships, and humor throughout the narrative provides the kind of answers that can’t and don’t need to be spelled out.
A genre-bender full of big ideas that constantly switches between a world full of real or uncomfortably plausible nightmares and a bizarre hellscape in which loss of self, memory, and autonomy are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg, Dead but Dreaming of Electric Sheep is a horrific and terrifyingly disorienting novel that invites readers to consider a future that already started. Tremblay has always been an innovator, but this beautifully written collection of real and imagined grotesqueries cements him not only as one of the most original and exciting voices in horror but also as one of the smartest, most engaging authors in contemporary fiction.
Gabino Iglesias is an author, book reviewer and professor living in Austin, Texas. Find him on X, formerly Twitter, at @Gabino_Iglesias.

-
Texas6 minutes agoPhoenix Merchant Partners and Texas Capital Alternative Asset Management Form Strategic Relationship
-
Utah9 minutes agoTherapy dogs offer a welcome break for firefighters battling Utah’s Iron, Cherry fires
-
Vermont14 minutes agoShe moved from Paris to Vermont and found her ‘dream job’ opening a bakery – The Boston Globe
-
Virginia21 minutes agoReopening date set for Virginia Creeper Trail after months of work
-
Washington24 minutes agoColorado Democrats punish Washington ties in primaries
-
Wisconsin29 minutes agoMissing Wisconsin teen Joniah Walker found safe 4 years after disappearing from home
-
West Virginia36 minutes agoTransmission line proposals raise ratepayer cost concerns in West Virginia
-
Wyoming39 minutes agoWyoming Department of Health warns of scam callers using official phone number