Is the Ending of Netflix Doomsday Thriller A House of Dynamite Brilliant or a Cop-Out?

by

Imagine the U.S. government has under 20 minutes to react to a nuclear missile attack with no clear source. What decision would they make to protect everyone?

This question introduces the plot of A House of Dynamite, a new thriller directed by Kathryn Bigelow (known for The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty), now available on Netflix. The film has received positive reviews since its debut at the Venice Film Festival. The nearly two-hour movie primarily focuses on a single, critical 18-minute period, which is shown three times from the viewpoints of various military and political figures.

The movie A House of Dynamite begins with Captain Olivia Walker (Rebecca Ferguson), a White House official, starting what she thinks will be a normal workday. Everything changes when she learns a missile has been launched and she must quickly try to stop it. At the same time, in Alaska at Fort Greely, Major Daniel Gonzalez (Anthony Ramos) and his team are tasked with launching interceptor missiles to destroy the warhead, which is heading toward Chicago. Despite their efforts, they miss, a result that has a surprisingly high chance of happening – almost 50/50, as Defense Secretary Reid Baker (Jared Harris) bluntly puts it.

The second part of the movie highlights the differing advice given to the President (Idris Elba) by two key figures: General Brady (Tracy Letts), who urges an immediate, full-scale attack on any country suspected of having nuclear weapons, and Jake Baerington (Gabriel Basso), who argues for a more cautious approach and doing nothing. The movie then shifts focus between Baker, who is preoccupied with reaching his daughter in Chicago (Kaitlyn Dever) and offering little advice, and the President, who ultimately decides how the country will respond.

The film deliberately avoids revealing who carried out the attack. Screenwriter Noah Oppenheim (known for The Maze Runner and Jackie) explained this choice was to prevent viewers from unfairly blaming a single person or group. He told Deadline that the world has created a dangerous system with nine nuclear powers and thousands of weapons, any of which could be used due to a reckless leader or simple error. The filmmakers wanted to highlight the flaws of this system, rather than focus on a specific ‘villain’.

How does A House of Dynamite end?

Immediately after being quickly escorted from a charity basketball game, the President receives the “Black Book,” which contains options for responding to a nuclear attack. Lieutenant Commander Robert Reeves explains the choices. The President, portrayed as calm and caring in the series A House of Dynamite, appears unable to offer much reassurance given the terrifying situation.

Oppenheimer explained to Deadline that their intention was to highlight how even a highly capable president—one who is careful, well-informed, and takes time to consider things—would be put in an impossible situation. Asking anyone to decide the future of humanity within minutes while also facing immediate danger is, frankly, unreasonable.

Right when the President is about to reveal his decision, the movie abruptly ends and the credits start, leaving the audience wondering what happens next. This open ending encourages viewers to consider how they think the government should handle such a terrible situation. However, after building up so much anticipation, the sudden and underwhelming conclusion also feels like an easy way out for the filmmakers.

Simply as entertainment, these past two hours have been incredibly tense. But unlike most disaster movies, it doesn’t offer a satisfying resolution – no neat endings and no dramatic, explosive finale. We’re used to seeing at least some of the heroes survive, even if things are still messy. But this film, A House of Dynamite, offers no such relief, and it doesn’t even have a clear hero to root for.

Impactful restraint, or frustrating lack of resolution?

The film A House of Dynamite explores how easily a system based on the threat of nuclear retaliation could fail, especially with current global tensions. While it doesn’t offer specific political solutions, it suggests leaders aren’t ready for a real nuclear crisis and that such an event would be catastrophic. It’s good that the film encourages us to think about the constant threat of war, but it leaves you wondering if we, the audience, should be responsible for worrying about how those in power might cause our destruction.

According to Bigelow, the film’s unresolved ending is meant to inspire viewers to take action. She explained in an interview that she wanted the fact the bomb didn’t explode to spark discussion. Her hope is that people will choose to reject a dangerous and unstable world, and then actively contact their elected officials to work towards positive change and build a movement.

Read More

2025-10-24 22:09