Like It or Not, A House of Dynamite Had to End That Way

"After cycling back through the same 20-minute crisis three times from different corners of the American national-security apparatus, the film cuts away at the crucial moment, just before the president (Idris Elba) orders his response to a mysterious nuclear missile that has slipped through the country's defenses and will soon destroy Chicago. We don't see the projectile's impact, nor the U.S.'s retaliation, nor the world's reaction to that retaliation. Whether the situation escalates into global annihilation or cools into a détente is left ambiguous."

"For those who resonate with the film's frequency, it'll yield something like, Yeah, that makes sense or more likely unsettled silence. Those who don't will probably view it as a cop-out - which is understandable! But the ending is consistent with the film's larger design. Bigelow, long drawn to systems on the brink and the people within them, turns her gaze here toward the largely invisible architectures meant to keep the United States (and, by some extension, the world) safe from nuclear catastrophe."

A House of Dynamite revisits a single 20-minute nuclear crisis repeatedly from multiple corners of the American national-security apparatus, then cuts away just before the president orders a response to a missile headed for Chicago. The film withholds the projectile's impact, any retaliation, and global reaction, leaving the outcome ambiguous while showing designated survivors boarding a self-sufficient bunker. Reactions to the film are polarized, with strong early praise and cooler later responses. The director focuses on largely invisible architectures that aim to prevent nuclear catastrophe and on the long-repressed American dread of nuclear collapse.

Read at Vulture