You are right on! I've not seen that, but I was telling my daughter the other day that I'm noticing more and more movies with such a flat ending. They never used to do that. I don't like that at all. It does leave one frustrated. I hope they don't continue these type movies. You watch the thing all the way through and then you're so let down and I hate that. To me, it feels more like a generic movie.
CaliCanadianAngela · 41-45, F
@LadyGrace yea and that’s what was frustrating is that it was actually quite good up until the end and then it’s just over - no payoff nothing
Not big on AI and might not make you feel any better but this is their reasoning:
Why does A House of Dynamite have no ending?
The movie A House of Dynamite has no ending because the director, Kathryn Bigelow, and screenwriter Noah Oppenheim made the deliberate choice to leave the outcome of the nuclear crisis unresolved, forcing the audience to contemplate the consequences. The film stops just as the President is about to make a decision on retaliation, with the goal of provoking thought and discussion about nuclear warfare rather than providing a satisfying conclusion.
Intentionally ambiguous: The ending is not a cliffhanger in the traditional sense, but a deliberate choice to avoid providing answers. The film cuts to black, leaving the audience to ponder what happens next and to question what they would do in the President's situation.
Focus on the dilemma: The point of the film is not to show the result of the crisis, but to highlight the impossible position of a leader who must make a life-or-death decision in minutes, a choice Oppenheim stated is "insane".
Encourages audience participation: By not providing a resolution, the filmmakers wanted to prevent the audience from feeling a neat, conclusive ending and instead wanted to encourage them to engage with the real-world implications of nuclear weapons.
Refuses to let the audience "off the hook": The creators believed that any other ending would have provided a sense of closure that would allow viewers to return to their normal lives, which would undermine the film's central message about the constant threat of nuclear war.
Why does A House of Dynamite have no ending?
The movie A House of Dynamite has no ending because the director, Kathryn Bigelow, and screenwriter Noah Oppenheim made the deliberate choice to leave the outcome of the nuclear crisis unresolved, forcing the audience to contemplate the consequences. The film stops just as the President is about to make a decision on retaliation, with the goal of provoking thought and discussion about nuclear warfare rather than providing a satisfying conclusion.
Intentionally ambiguous: The ending is not a cliffhanger in the traditional sense, but a deliberate choice to avoid providing answers. The film cuts to black, leaving the audience to ponder what happens next and to question what they would do in the President's situation.
Focus on the dilemma: The point of the film is not to show the result of the crisis, but to highlight the impossible position of a leader who must make a life-or-death decision in minutes, a choice Oppenheim stated is "insane".
Encourages audience participation: By not providing a resolution, the filmmakers wanted to prevent the audience from feeling a neat, conclusive ending and instead wanted to encourage them to engage with the real-world implications of nuclear weapons.
Refuses to let the audience "off the hook": The creators believed that any other ending would have provided a sense of closure that would allow viewers to return to their normal lives, which would undermine the film's central message about the constant threat of nuclear war.
Adeptlinguist · M
I agree 100%
BridgeOvertroubledWaters · 61-69, M
I'll look it up
SomeMichGuy · M
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment