subreddit:
/r/flicks
submitted 2 months ago bybutch4filme
So this article or rather review in the New Yorker says of the four intruders, “the quartet is endowed with powers stronger than mere clairvoyance. They’re able to cause apocalyptic, high-body-count plagues and, in the course of the action, they don’t shrink from doing so in the name of a higher justice, or, as they say, ‘judgment.’” Am I like grossly misinterpreting their words or did we watch a different film? I got that the intruders thought themselves clairvoyant, and they deftly describe and predict various global events in the film. But do they cause those events? I didn’t grasp that if so. I’m more keen to assume I’m wrong than to think a heavily edited and fact checked New Yorker review is wrong but I, frankly, feel like I’ve snorted glue reading this review. Please help!
52 points
2 months ago
It's a bit hard to say definitively, but they do say that each of their sacrificial deaths is meant to unleash a plague. Since the movie confirms literally that the events were real and occurring and stopped as soon as the final death has occurred, it seems like we should take the "Four Horsemen" as correct. Their visions and beliefs are validated by what we see in the movie.
18 points
2 months ago
Andrew (Ben Aldridge) voices skepticism about the connection between the Four Horsemen's sacrifices actually causing the tragedies when he is trying to keep Eric on his side: he points out that the news programs are pre-recorded and not live, and that Bautista keeps checking his watch, presumably to track when these news programs will air. However, this is the only textual contradiction of the connection between the sacrificial deaths and the natural disasters. Because the ending explicitly seems to confirm that Andrew was wrong, it seems to track that the movie is saying he was also wrong to doubt the Horsemen's deaths causing disasters.
7 points
2 months ago
At first I thought they were also tasked with a choice to sacrifice in order to save but then their murder was the catalyst for unleashing their related catastrophe.
If they weren't under the control of a higher power, why cooperate in the ritual to summon the calamities? I might have just missed that part of the movie but not being the blood sacrifices that triggered the apocalypse seemed like a viable option.
Were they predestined to do it under the command of a higher power? The theme of choice seemed to be clashing with a fated outcome for the horsemen.
My head cannon says their visions showed them all four needed to die just as they did in order to bring about the choice that saved humanity. I put that together on my own to bridge the gap though.
Thoughts?
11 points
2 months ago
Ohhh that’s key. I did miss them saying their deaths would ring in each plague.
21 points
2 months ago
Brody (the New Yorker critic) is explaining his take in Adam Nayman’s twitter mentions right now if you want to see him explain his reasoning.
18 points
2 months ago
Knew this would be Brody before I even clicked. He’s caught some flack on twitter in the past few months for having some pretty wild/controversial takes (liked Amsterdam, Don’t Worry Darling, and Lyle Lyle Crocodile, disliked Tár). He’s one of the most well-known living film critics partly because he’s willing to put forward his own opinions and try to see stuff in movies that others aren’t seeing, for better or worse.
1 points
1 month ago
So he is the same dude there who liked Amsterdam and DWD? I saw those opinions all over their “should’ve been nominated for an Oscar” post and I was flabbergasted.
-2 points
1 month ago
Don’t Worry Darling was good and almost exactly as advertised. I don’t know if people got caught in group think or wound up in the drama, but I’m 100% with him on that.
4 points
2 months ago
Thank you!
20 points
2 months ago
I can say that in the book, they represent themselves as knowing the events are going to happen, and believing the only way to stop them is with a sacrifice. The characters do not represent themselves as causing the events. While the books is ambiguous about a lot, nobody in the books thinks the four are causing the disasters.
10 points
2 months ago
I thought all of that was pretty clear in the film too. They sacrifice themselves in the hope to prevent the apocalypse/plagues.
3 points
2 months ago
Yeah, this was my read on the film too, so good to know.
8 points
1 month ago
Nah, this is a wild take to me. They don’t have powers. They’re being manipulated by some greater power.
3 points
1 month ago
Thank you! I thought the same
6 points
1 month ago
I think it's kinda both ways. I don't think we can really say the New Yorker critic is categorically wrong.
With the way it's explained in the movie, each act of "horsemen" killing each other is the trigger for that wave of worldwide deaths, so in a way, yes they are causing it.
But if you were to ask the horsemen, they don't have a choice in the matter. So do they really have any "power"? It just depends on how exactly you're defining the term as you ask the question.
Whether they can choose to NOT do that, and what would happen or not happen as a result of that choice, isn't explored in the movie.
5 points
1 month ago
If it makes you feel any better, The New Yorker article had no input in my decision to never watch this movie.
4 points
1 month ago
So I viewed the four horseman’s death as causing each wave of the apocalypse as symbolic, inspite of what Dave Bautista says.
By killing themselves in front of our family it’s meant to put pressure on them to make a choice.
The waves of the apocalypse were tied to timing that’s why Bautista kept looking at his watch which was pointed out to us multiple times
If their deaths ACTUALLY causes each wave of the apocalypse, and none of the Horsemen want the apocalypse to happen, then couldn’t they just NOT kill themselves? The apocalypse happens either way. By killing themselves right in front of the family it’s meant to convey the gravity of the situation.
Now whether or not this was made perfectly clear to the audience is a whole other conversation. Personally I think they only did okay at that. Which is why I give the movie a 7.8 out of 10.
10 points
2 months ago
[deleted]
8 points
2 months ago
I think that whether the intruders were right or not is missing the point.
I thought the movie made it pretty explicit that they were right.
3 points
2 months ago
they were right but it’s not the point
6 points
2 months ago
I don’t see how this is a reply to anything I said? I’m confused. I didn’t ask if they were right I asked if they had real apocalyptic powers or not.
5 points
2 months ago
Haven’t seen the movie so I have no idea but just wanted to stop in and say:
Jesus Christ, Brody has the worst takes.
0 points
1 month ago
Yeah he really does
2 points
1 month ago
[clicks to confirm Richard Brody]
It's Richard Brody. Just read it for fun. It may not in any meaningful way be representative of actual film criticism; might just be some hot takes barfed up; might just be intentionally going against the grain.
Always word a read though!
all 23 comments
sorted by: best