Pssst! Come closer, and let's talk missiles: not the kind in your summer blockbuster, but the type that might just come up at your next trivia night. Or, more specifically, the ones presented in Netflix's feature film "A House of Dynamite." According to a government memo acquired by Bloomberg, the movie's thrilling plot exposes a "vastly different story" about America’s ability to thwart a nuclear attack than the encouraging results shown in real-world testing.

Directed by Kathryn Bigelow of “The Hurt Locker” acclaim and penned by former NBC News president Noah Oppenheim, creator of “Jackie,” "A House of Dynamite" explores a hypothetical scenario of a nuclear ballistic missile headed for Chicago and the U.S. government's response. The on-screen secretary of defense is serving a huge slice of "What!?" when he realizes that the $50 billion missile defense system aligns with the metaphorical coin-flip trope, with only a 50% chance to halt the incoming terror. Just in case you were hoping for a feel-good ending, (spoiler alert!) the system ultimately strikes out in the film.

Contrarily, a memo generated by the Missile Defense Agency, dated Oct. 16, begs to differ, claiming current interception technology can proudly show off a report card with multiple gold stars, boasting a perfect 100% success rate in testing for over a decade. This memo was whipped up to straighten things out, restoring the facts and creating a clear view of the current system. The objective here is to prevent agency leadership’s water-cooler talk about this dramatic interpretation from sounding overly improvised.

Cudos to the memo's author, however, for recognizing the essence of the cinematic universe, stating, “the fictional interceptors in the movie miss their target, and we understand this is intended to be a captivating segment of the drama intended for the audience's amusement." The memo staunchly maintains though, actual testing reiterates a "vastly different story" than what unfurls on Netflix's reels.

Netflix, Bigelow, and representatives of Uncle Sam's military remained cipher when it came to providing comments straightaway. Nevertheless, during an Oct. 12 interview on “CBS Sunday Morning”, Bigelow mentioned that their choice to conduct the filming sans military input was a deliberate effort to maintain creative freedom. “However, we weren’t sailing unaccompanied; we had several tech advisors who are Pentagon veterans, and they were by my side throughout the shoot,” she added.

When interrogated about the memo on MSNBC on Oct. 26, Oppenheim volleyed back, asserting that the moviemakers “respectfully disagree” with the Pentagon’s critique of “A House of Dynamite.”

“I wouldn’t call myself a missile defense connoisseur, but in our research phase, I surely had chats with many such experts who gave us a wealth of information,” said Oppenheim. “The screenplay emerged from numerous detailed discussions with top dogs from the White House to the Pentagon. If the Pentagon fancies a talk about refining our missile defense systems or brainstorming steps to ensure national safety, we’re all ears. But the on-screen narrative in our film is a verified reflection of reality.”

At the star-studded LA premiere of “House of Dynamite” in early October, Bigelow disclosed her aspiration for the movie to ignite public discourse about nuclear threats. "Our world is a tinderbox, and I'm just hoping to light the fuse on public awareness," she mused. "The world ought to traverse toward nuclear disarmament and a reduction in stockpiling these fatal arms. I understand it's a tall order, but I'm optimistic." Just a pinch of Hollywood’s magic can indeed jumpstart the conversation. Thanks to Marc Malkin for snippets of the story.