WARNING: This article contains SPOILERS at the end. House full of dynamite.
Netflix just came out House full of dynamiteOscar-winning director’s new film Kathryn Bigelow (On hostile ground). The film looks to be one of the strongest releases on the platform in 2025. And the director returns to the political thriller with a film in which the tension is off the charts. But besides that House full of dynamite It has a very risqué ending that is worth explaining.
Story House full of dynamite Focuses on a team of government officials who must face an unprecedented crisis. A single nuclear missile, the name of which is unknown, has been launched at the United States. The threat is imminent, and the city of Chicago, as well as the future of world peace, is at risk. A race against time ensues to determine who is responsible and how to act to avoid a nuclear disaster.
In the final stage, not yet knowing who is responsible for the rocket launch, the President of the United States (Idris Elba) must make a decision that will change the fate of the world forever. Following the advice of representatives of various defense organizations, he must decide whether to counterattack, which would trigger a nuclear war that could destroy the entire planet, or wait to really find out what happened, giving his mysterious aggressors (and the rest of his enemies) the opportunity to attack him again because he is in a vulnerable situation and thus finally leaving them with no way to react.
End House full of dynamiteexplained
After spending the last 20 or 30 minutes of the film with the President, House full of dynamite Everything that needs to be resolved is coming to an end. It doesn’t matter what advice and opinions you received. The theoretical training he was given upon taking office is irrelevant. Ultimately, the film shows us how the most important decision in human history falls on one person. An imperfect person, like everyone else.
Because this president is charismatic and correct, but the film in no way presents him as an absolute genius, capable of meticulously and mathematically calculating all the consequences. Rather, he will make a decision instinctively, which further increases the tension and danger of what is about to happen. But when you’re about to make a decision, House full of dynamite ends, reaching a disappointing and very open ending with no clear explanation.
The director herself Kathryn Bigelow explained the reason for such an unexpected ending House full of dynamite. In her opinion, failure to communicate the president’s decision shifts responsibility to the public. The viewer must decide. On the one hand, what they think the ruler would do. On the other hand, what would they do if they were in your place. “[Lo hice] to give rise to discussion. Give the audience the opportunity to decide which ending they want. It’s in our hands,” he suggested in a discussion at the New York Film Festival, where the film was presented.
In short, there is no concrete and explained ending and there never will be. House full of dynamitefrom Netflix. The result will be different for each person. This will depend on several factors: your political ideology, your pro-war or pacifist position, your morality, your good or bad vision of a person… Each viewer will have their own opinion and will be able to come up with their own ending, and they will all be valid. It’s obviously a groundbreaking ending, although it’s also true that many will be disappointed that the story doesn’t have closure.
Source: Hiper Textual
