The ending of House Of Dynamite will upset a lot of people – but it’s the best possible choice

warning: This article will contain Spoilers About “House of Dynamite”.

Kathryn Bigelow’s new movie “A House of Dynamite” is a succinct tale of tense tales all covering the same time frame. The events of the film take place in the morning when an unknown foreign entity launches a nuclear missile from an unknown location. In the time it takes the missile to sail toward the United States, viewers see the White House Situation Room, a remote military base, numerous politicians and experts, and the president himself responding to the crisis. The first 35 minutes or so of the film sees what an emergency looks like in the White House, seen mostly through the eyes of senior staffer Olivia Walker (Rebecca Ferguson). Panic mounts when they realize that the nuclear missile is headed straight for Chicago, and will be very difficult to shoot down. The man in charge of the Alaska Missile Defense Station is Daniel Gonzalez (Anthony Ramos), who starts the day tense.

The second half of the film mostly follows a high-ranking Strategic Command officer (Tracy Letts) and a low-ranking security officer (Gabriel Basso) as they consider the situation tactically. No one knows who launched the missile, nor who will retaliate. Part three follows President (Idris Elba)and he is not ready to make a life-or-death decision on this matter, because it could literally mean the fate of the world.

However, all three parts of the film end only seconds before the missile strikes. Did the missile launch? What will be the consequences? “Dynamite House” leaves the audience in a state of flux, floating freely within the constant tension. Bigelow intentionally doesn’t let the story resolve. Some may find that disturbing, of course, but the unresolved ending reveals the truth about House of Dynamite… and it’s pretty bleak: our processes, no matter how refined, can’t prevent the inevitable mass destruction of the world.

It’s worth noting that “A House of Dynamite” suffers from poor release timing, as the film feels somewhat dated. The Cabinet is prepared for the current presidential administration Critics and podcasts Who seem unqualified. “House of Dynamite,” though a succinct apocalyptic drama, may also be a comforting fantasy about an American government that works the way it’s supposed to work. The film is full of smart, determined, and knowledgeable employees who all want what is best for the world. It is an idealized version of a presidential administration, even if it deals with the end times.

But, even if the people on screen are capable and intelligent, they don’t have anything in their mental arsenal to deal with inevitable global destruction. A missile heading towards Chicago. It is looking more and more likely that it will make its way through our defenses and land in a city of 2.7 million people. No one in the government can confirm whether the missile is Russian, Chinese, Korean or any other country.

The essence of “House of Dynamite” is our helplessness in the face of global devastation. For those who watched Oppenheimer in 2023, we know that humanity, through a lot of hard work, ingenuity, and perseverance, has created a device that can quickly and violently wipe out the world’s population. This movie was filmed in the 1940s. 80 years have gone by so fast, and we only have so many more. Various national powers possess this technology. We don’t attack each other just because revenge will end the Earth. We all, as the title says, live in dynamite houses.

These concepts are not new, of course. Children of the Cuban Missile Crisis likely remember the fog of nuclear death that hung over the country. Likewise, children who grew up in Ronald Reagan’s America may remember the strangely widespread nuclear fears that gripped the nation; It seemed almost inevitable that either the United States or Russia would bomb the other with nuclear weapons. One can see fears parodied in films like “RoboCop” where nuclear fire is turned into a literal board game.

But “House of Dynamite” is also not about specific world powers, nor about their relationship with the United States. The film doesn’t end with a definitive “villain”, and we don’t know how many people died (if any; it’s been suggested that the bomb might be useless). However, the death toll would be brutal in the “House of Dynamite.” Also, blaming a particular world power would have instilled an “us versus them” mentality into Bigelow’s film, reducing the film to partisan politics and an overblown bad guy narrative. If the audience had witnessed an all-out counterattack, it would have been just a modern war movie with no nuance.

Not ending “A House of Dynamite” was a smart, smart choice. Expert Bigelow It makes us, the audience, confront the horror of the nuclear situation without giving us the convenient chauvinism of rooting against the bad guy. In fact, because the strength of the enemy is not specified, the film’s antagonist generally becomes nuclear. The bad guy is the world’s tense, deadly obsession with amassing bombs, and the intense tensions we maintain in keeping them trained on each other. The president cannot be blamed for his hesitation during crises, as there are no right decisions.

“A House of Dynamite” will open in select theaters on October 10, before streaming globally on Netflix on October 24, 2025.