'A House of Dynamite' Writer Explains the Nuclear Panic Thriller's Ending Actorsvaultpro

The following article contains heavy spoilers for A House of Dynamite.Netflix subscribers had the chance to see one of the best movies of 2025 last weekend courtesy of A House of Dynamite, a new addition to the streamer’s catalog that offers viewers a different take on the nuclear panic subgenre. The thought-provoking movie by Kathryn Bigelow keeps the audience on edge throughout its 112-minute runtime, capped off with an unconventional ending. In fact, some will surely complain that the film doesn’t actually have an ending. To keep the discourse active, the film’s writer, Noah Oppenheim, has explained why A House of Dynamite ends that way, and whether there are answers to the questions left looming in viewers’ minds.

Oppenheim spoke to Decider recently, and offered some insight into the movie’s controversial ending. A House of Dynamite follows the country’s leaders dealing with the launch of a nuclear warhead that will hit Chicago if they don’t do something about it. Following a Rashomon-like narrative, the film shows the different POVs of those involved in the events, including that of the president, played by Idris Elba. Shortly before the credits roll, the suspense builds, but the movie doesn’t reveal whether the bomb hits Chicago and detonates, or if the U.S. president formally retaliates.

When asked if there are alternate endings that actually reveal the events after the credits roll, Oppenheim said simply, “No.” He and Bigelow always intended the movie to end that way, and they always wanted to leave things open to the imagination. Oppenheim he has the answers, but he has no intention of sharing them, as he believes the movie works without further explanation:

“There are two questions: Does the incoming ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] detonate and does POTUS respond? I do have answers in my head to both, but it’s not relevant to the issues we’re trying to raise.

“The first [issue] being—should one person have the power to decide the fate of all mankind, with little preparation and only minutes to decide, while simultaneously running for his (or her) life? That should already be terrifying enough, regardless of what happens next.”

Would ‘A House of Dynamite’ Work Better Without an Open Ending?

Netflix

As the film maintains its “close to real-time” pace, and some viewers see the progress bar near its end, they’ll begin to understand that A House of Dynamite won’t include a conventional conclusion. There could still be a big bang, but the movie makes it clear that Bigelow’s approach offers an experience unlike anything else in the nuclear panic subgenre. When the credits roll, heartbeats are frantic enough to conclude that the film has served its purpose.

Many will argue that A House of Dynamite needed some closure. It’s the way modern cinema mostly works, with audiences being served with traditional endings that don’t require much thinking or further conversation. Whether you think A House of Dynamite needed a more explicit ending depends on what you actually got from the movie.

Although Oppenheim refrained from any further explanation, he did reveal his intention with the movie. It all has to do with the real fear that these kinds of devices are still there in the background, waiting to be launched:

“It’s a call to attention and an invitation to a conversation. No matter what final outcome you imagine, you’ve already seen a horror unfold. And in the real world, these weapons and all the processes you’ve just seen are still lurking in the background of our lives. Are we comfortable with that reality or should we do something about it?”