<\/p>\n
Contains spoilers for “A House of Dynamite”<\/strong><\/p>\n Kathryn Bigelow’s movies over the past two decades have mostly been reflections on war and politics. This includes “The Hurt Locker,” which earned her the best director Oscar, and “Zero Dark Thirty,” both of which are among the\u00a0best female-directed films of all time<\/a>. Her latest work definitely falls into that camp with its nuclear-tinged thriller vibes. If you missed\u00a0Looper’s “A House of Dynamite” rundown,<\/a>\u00a0it sees American officials respond to a rogue nuke heading toward Chicago. They try to knock it out of the sky with a Ground-Based Interceptor, and things turn murky when people begin to discuss the chances of a GBI actually being successful.<\/p>\n In the film, it’s stated that the GBI only has a 61% chance of hitting the nuke and saving Chicago. This is driven home when Secretary of Defense Reid Baker (Jared Harris)\u00a0exclaims, “It’s a f***ing coin toss?\u00a0This is what $50 billion buys us?” Of course, 61% is slightly better than a coin toss. Regardless, this statistic clashes with the running theme of the movie’s second chapter, which is titled “A Bullet Hitting a Bullet.”\u00a0This invokes the image of two moving bullets somehow colliding with one another, which has a nearly 0% chance of happening. So, which is it?\u00a0Are the odds of the United States’ defense system knocking out a nuke 61% or 0%?\u00a061% doesn’t exactly help you sleep at night, but it’s far preferable to the other option. The muddling of this plot point makes the stakes a little unclear.<\/p>\n