Excuse me, WTF was that ?
This film won't be for everyone, even those that are Garland fans. For those that do enjoy it, I believe a re-watch will be beneficial.
As always, Jessie Buckley completely knocks it out of the park. Sound design, lighting, and cinematography are all top of its class, ESPECIALLY sound design which serves as its own character.
I'm pretty over Garland and his whole "feminist" shtick. It hasn't sit right with me since Ex Machina, but given that that movie was so well crafted it was harder to pinpoint exactly why..
This movie reveals the shallow analysis he actually has. He centers a female character in a tale of misogyny that somehow leaves her inscrutable and unknowable. He leaves the film with a weird non-ending, and then is circumspect about it in interviews, which feels like a cop out to me.
I learned Buckley wrote the dialogue for the vicar and it makes sense as those scenes with him felt more substantial than any others, even those with her husband.
Whenever a guy puts this much "feminist" content out, I'm just over here with a heavy side eye WAITING for his metoo allegations to start dropping.
Someone on Reddit said it the best: Men is simultaneously the most subtle yet heaviest handed art house film of recent memory. It somehow manages to have multiple layers of depth while being annoyingly simplistic with its message. Much to muse on that might coax a second viewing from me to fully appreciate, but the divisive message and trademark Garland weirdness might be too high a barrier for some entrants.
Woke junk. Stupid finale. An insult to all audiences regardless of gender (ha!)
One of the most ridiculous “no-ending” movie’s I’ve ever seen.
I don't understand whether this film is crap or it is very enigmatic. In my opinion more the first one.
Some shots are beautiful, beautiful setting also and nice soundtrack
5/10
I get that they're trying to make a point, but I feel like instead of making that point they put me through a weird fever dream
What in the jumped up f@#% is this? If I hadn't watched it for free, I would've asked for my money back.
Lead characters - 15/20 - Jessie Buckley was wonderful as Harper. Beautiful, graceful, with a touch of ass-kicker.
Secondary characters - 8/20 - Geoffrey himself was actually a cool cat. But the Rory Kinnear menagerie was god-awful, James was a twat, and Riley was wasted as a strong female secondary.
Story - 5/20 - Those 5 points were for the 1st half suspense building and character development. The last half completely shit the bed.
Dialogue - 10/20 - Conversations between Harper and others helped you understand the lead and her mindset.
Setting - 15/20 - I liked the old house, the woods, everything. Beautiful and yet creepy at times.
43/100
Alex Garland approves his resume with this movie. After Ex Machina and Annihilation I was very excited for Men and it was an experience. This is definitely the most legitimate horror/disturbing thing garland has released to date and I don’t mind it. The third act it where it gets crazy and will lose most of the audience if there not prepared but I’m used to his bizarre third acts and this was the most bizarre. There are definitely deeper meanings and symbolism that needs analyzed but I think this is a great film that does great at making the audience uncomfortable.
I wanted to give Men a higher rating because the first half of the film was off to such a strong start. Near the end of the film that suspense unfortunately dies off and leaves you in a crazy state of confusion. The cast performed very well and the film was filmed beautifully, I just wish it had a stronger ending.
The final ten minutes of squelch don’t justify the snoozefest of the previous ninety minutes, where empty religious metaphors are mixed with pagan folklore in continuous walks in the woods and reiterations of the same themes. The men with the same face gimmick were their only marketing drive, and could have been used in much more exciting ways. The ending also felt like it was left ambiguous just because the writers couldn’t find a decent way to write themselves out of the corner.
There are some visually interesting moments, but definitely not enough for a feature film.
Yes, we get it. You're a sexist and hate men.
Dafuq did I just see.
Alex Garland seems like he’s channeling his inner Lars Von Trier in this one. If you enjoy a good trip through pain and suffering, Men is a great choice.
What did I just watch…
Avoiding spoilers:
Unreliable narrator story
It begins quite effectively as the countryside where Harper stays get weirder and weirder.
It has some truly grotesque moments... but in the end it is deeply unsatisfying and really rather shallow.
Should you watch it? Well, if you're a fan of highly stylised film-making... sure. If you're looking for an intriguing or interesting film... no.
To be honest I flirted with the fast forward button several times.
Lots of silence, lots of tediously slow sequences. Some genuine frights. Style over substance.
I went into another auditorium to watch the ending again to make sure it was as utterly rubbish as I thought it had been the first time.
It was.
Quite the thing!
I'm not exactly sure how to describe 'Men', especially without spoiling anything. All in all, I think I enjoyed it enough. Either way, Jessie Buckley gives a great performance, while Rory Kinnear does well behind Buckley. There are plenty of themes in there, obvs, and it certainly leaves a mental image! It'll (already has, evidently) split opinion, I'm sure.
I'm a big fan of Alex Garland's work, having been hooked in with 28 Days Later and The Beach. This movie, I'd say, is his most experimental and artsy piece so far, which is to say it's not for everyone.
The first two acts are incredibly strong. We see a movie coming to terms with her grief and trauma. We see her battle toxic masculinity. And yet, the final act can't really tie things together. We come to understand that it's not just in her mind - she's battling a physical entity. This is where the experimental bit comes in: what does it mean, what is it, why is it "attacking" her - none of these questions are given a proper answer.
The movie doesn't fail, mind you. It's just not a satisfying end, that's all.
I get it, but it is rather heavy handed. Nonetheless, it succeeded in being creepy, so worth a watch.
This was an artsy garbage
Well, this film is certainly unpredictable! I like the idea of the film, and what it's trying to get across. I don't think it quite nails it. I really enjoy Alex Garland's work, but I don't think it's up to the standard of his previous films. I did love the acting of Jessie Buckley and Rory Kinnear though!
Well that was something. I enjoyed being shocked in parts, but I was also in the dark for a lot of it. I've put together what I can from the themes and motivation of it, and appreciate the artistic vision, but there's a lot missing or just not done in a way I could fully appreciate and that's okay. Reminded me of Mother! as far as the outright "what is happening?" feelings throughout. I would recommend a viewing as it's not one you'll ever see coming in the way it's shot. Buckley is great. 6.4
Now I have that image in my head forever haha thanks very cool :sunglasses:
Alex Garland definitely knows how to create a vibe with his films. And helping him out here are Jessie Buckley and Rory Kinnear giving top notch performances. What's unfortunate, however, is that it feels a bit like Garland is just copying himself with the film's climax. Ex Machina, and especially Annihilation, both have mind-bendy final acts that are very "out there"...which we see manifesting in Men as well. If he's not careful, Garland is going to get a rep as an art-house M. Night. Despite that, the struggles Buckley goes through, somewhat heavy-handedly trying to speak on the patriarchy, are moody and intriguing. I love how Garland creates his stories, even if the climaxes are sometimes a bit goofy.
I expected a weird film but this was far weirder than I thought it would be. The satire is a little heavy handed but it's a creepy little flick all the same.
There is a bravery in Alex Garland's proposal that causes, at least, that the film stirs the emotions. The search for a voice, micro violence, trauma or passive-aggressive behavior unfold a representation of a disturbing environment. And linking it to folk horror and the visualization of the Green Man as a mythological deity that responds to religious beliefs is risky. But the risk can also be successful.
I didnt think it would be that way, but it actually pains me how few people seem to have understood the in-depth meaning of this movie. It had a red thread and clear message from start to finish, never deviated from its view or the message it was trying to convey. I did feel like I didnt fully understand the entire meaning at first, so I watched a "Men explained" video or two and i completely got it. I would strongly recommend to watch it, if you are interested in male toxicity explained and visualised, and the alltogether hurtful patriarchy, for women, as well as for men, depicted in a way I can only call beautifully insightful.
It begins well, as a good environmental/esoteric horror. Then it literally loses itself along the way.
Good performances and a beautiful setting were the 2 main things this movie had going for it. Like many others I did like the first part of the film but the final part is ridiculous. To me it felt more like a ITV short series than a movie.
It's fine. Just too long.
Certainly an acquired taste for this type of suspense/horror movie as it gets very demonic and disturbing at the end. Its a bit slow but if you enjoy a horror/suspense film that builds then this is for you. This film proposes a very interesting plot about a woman who escapes to the country side for a lone vacation after going through trajedy of her late husbands (was going to be ex-husbands) gory death/suicide, only just to come across a town of men who all take under one form of a demonic demon who attacks them man character in many ways to try to signify that woman are the reason for men acting the way they do. However, thats just one explanation I have for this gory eye opening plot. But all in all it was very entertaining and shocking film with good acting.
Is this the new male feminist style. Instead of Joss Whedon, Alex Garland. White men making the most surface level analysis and thinking they’re relevant and deep and an ally. Like god what the most insufferable movie. The attempts at ‘symbolism’. Did you notice the night sky looks like a vagina? The fucking matryoshka doll climax. And the awful CGI. Just. God. The title is apt cause this is a white man after taking his first, most surface level feminism course. Failing to find any of the intricacies abs specificities of the patriarchy and misogyny, resorting to primal ‘original sin’ shit instead of the societal roots, and completely missing the racial politics of the black man existing only as an abuser for the white woman victim. A disastrous film.
I'm not sure what scares me more: this movie, or the people that enjoy this pretentious crap. Regrettably similar to Mother! (2017). Only watch this when cringey "symbolisms" give you a hard-on.
wow that was something different. i cant rate it yet because i dont understand it yet. but i will watch it again. looks beautiful, feels frightening and sounds amazing.
for everyone who liked this movie, maybe give Lucky (2020) - https://trakt.tv/movies/lucky-2020-08-23 - a chance. of course its not the same, but i liked the approach of both movies .
I enjoyed this, very different and trippy. The colors were very nice. I kind of wanted it to be longer, I feel like it had more than what it offered
Became a fan of garland after annihilation.
This movie is like all his movies a piece of art.
More like this please!
This movie is certainly not going to be for everyone. If you’ve seen the artsy fartsy A24, you have an idea. If you’ve seen Midsommar, you have an idea. If you’ve seen Alex Garland films, you have an idea. Now put that all into a blender, and out comes Men. I’m not one for the crazy artsy stuff, but this one hit an appropriate level of symbolic images that really made it work for me. It’s weird man. There are scenes that will stick with you. For better and worse, I won’t easily forget about this movie. And to me, that makes it a recommendable movie.
Rating: 4/5 - 8.5/10 - Would Recommend
It figures that most viewers think this movie is about men.
They tried really hard to make this about men interacting poorly with women, and it gets really heavy handed. Yet it's not lost on me that all the really great supporting roles went to the same guy. Kinnear is great, especially at the pub, but some things just got too Cloud Atlas-y for me to take seriously as a concept anymore.
But at least the final scenes are just wtf crazy enjoyable. I miss the really weird early Garland stuff.
This is a horror movie about gender.
This movie intensely scared and disturbed me. I struggle to recommend it to anyone, because they might also feel that disturbed and then maybe they'd judge me. :sweat_smile:
Throughout my real life, I have witnessed and read countless examples of men's entitlement to women's love, the lengths men go to convince themselves that their words and actions are OK, and the excuses men make for other men's behavior. This movie takes those behaviors and paints them beautifully as horrors. And this movie is truly beautiful - watch it on a big screen in 4K.
As an AMAB person who now identifies as nonbinary, there have been times throughout my gender journey where I wanted to actively distance myself from "being a man". Similarly, I watched part of this movie through my fingers, trying to physically distance myself from the action on screen.
Maybe one man watching this will reflect on a time in their lives when they tried to comfort a woman in a way that disregarded her lived experiences.
At the very end of the movie:
When Harper is sitting on the couch with James, Harper asks "what do you want?" James replies: "Your love." EWWWWW. Bro. You and all of the previous versions of you that birthed you are stuck in this disgusting, fucked up cycle. The movie says "look at how gross you are".
It was suspenseful and has some pretty good body horror moments. Overall, I enjoyed it.
As a statement piece, this movie is an eye roll, but as a tense suspense horror with some striking and disturbing imagery, it’s honestly pretty great. Would have rated higher if it got rid of some of the bloat/runtime.
Not sure why it’s as hated as it is. I guess people really don’t like the attempt at commentary. I don’t think it was successful or really that interesting from that angle, but it definitely had some impact in simple horror.
Rory Kinnear: the hardest-working man in showbiz! [trumpet fanfare]
The unsettling setting hits the nail in this one, not gonna lie. But the overall movie (again) falls into the "surreal shit that has an open interpretation" cathegory. You can get a "common ground" on what most things mean, but the unclear development from mid movie to the end, makes me loose it. I love Rory Kinnear and his acting, and this movie is no exception. Jessie Buckley is a pretty decent actress (i only saw her in I'm Thinking of Ending Things), but the movie doesn't click with me. And the last 15 minutes must have been the most horrifying scenes i have seen in a movie for a while. I don't know, i guess is not my kind of film. Still better than Buster's Mal Heart that i saw yesterday. A 5 over 10 for me
If you're seeking a deliberately-paced horror film, this might cater to your preferences. With an abundance of symbolism and a notable emphasis on misandry, it caters to those who appreciate such elements.
Critiques targeting men have been prevalent in contemporary discussions, and this film continues that trend. It perpetuates the notion that all men are inherently evil, contributing to a larger societal narrative influenced by the MeToo movement.
As a decent man who has never inflicted harm on others, this movie left me frustrated. While it could have been a thought-provoking piece of art, its overtly obnoxious and tedious execution hindered its potential.
I would rate this film 3/10 due to its commendable acting and technical craftsmanship.
Personally viewed this from the perspective of Harper, and that all the entities she encountered were the aspects and lies that she experienced from her abusive ex-husband.
Crap, garbage, waste and all sorts of negative things. Don't waste your time watching this "artistic" shit.
But what is this? Adam and Eve revisited?
I’m a big fan of Alex Garlands writing and directing. The major theme of male toxicity is pretty easy to recognize, and the rolling birth scene - male toxicity gives birth to more toxicity since time immortal, finally returning to her husband - is pure genius.
Allegorical tale about the complicated relationship between man and woman that leads to toxic masculinity and physical and psychological violence towards women.
The setting of the English countryside is ecstatic as the setting of a fairy tale but like every fairy tale there are monsters here too.
In this film the monsters are all men, all with the same face, all with the same hostile and sexist behavior towards Harper.
The "nice guy" landholder who always expects something in return, the adolescent who threatens and offends, the sexually repressed priest who blames women for all human suffering, the psychopathic stalker.
They are nothing more than the mirror of Harper's husband who committed suicide and layed the blame on her because she asked the divorce.
They all represent the same type of toxic, possessive, and narcissistic male.
The final sequence shows in pure body horror style the self-referentiality, the narcissism, the petticism and the weakness of the typical man of the patriarchal society. Deep down he is a deeply insecure man who desperately wants to be loved by women unconditionally.
It is a good film that could have been even better if the metaphors had not been so explicit (and often cheap) and if they had outlined the protagonist better. The photography is splendid and the ending is also memorable in its rawness.
Bluray Quote:
"James, what is it that you want from me?"
"Your love"
Review by Saint PaulyBlockedParentSpoilers2022-06-08T21:47:15Z
Like gravedigging, you have to dig deep if you want to get the payoff.
Alex Garland's film about the abuse of women succeeds thanks to its rich tapestry of jarring images. While fans of traditional horror may feel disappointed by its lack of jump scares, those who appreciate the more cerebral psychology of neo-horror (à la Hereditary) will find what they are looking for here.
The film is largely a success thanks to its strong cast and rampant symbolism, though Garland's choice to focus more on the women as victims rather than the titular men as aggressors means the movie misses its mark when it comes to demanding receipts.
My interpretation of the symbolism:
:rotating_light::construction::octagonal_sign::warning:MAJOR SPOILERS FROM HERE ON OUT:warning::octagonal_sign::construction::rotating_light:
The film, obviously, is on a mission to portray women (or at least one woman) as a victim to the male gender. That the director wants to paint all men with this broad stroke is evident in the choice to have the same actor (Rory Kinnear) play all of the aggressors, saying, in essence, that deep down all men are the same man: a being that's driven to hurt women.
Of course, her abusive husband, James, isn’t played by Rory Kinnear. Does this mean he’s somehow different than the other men who appear later in the film? Absolutely not, and proof of that is Jame’s injuries. After he falls / jumps from the building, we see that a gate post splits his right arm from his elbow to his hand, and that his left ankle is broken. Later on in the film, all of the men in the town who besiege Harper are shown to share these exact same injuries, illustrating that they are the same man as the abusive estranged husband.
This point is also reinforced by the presence of 'the naked man'. 'The naked man' is the personification of "The Green Man" (who is also symbolized in the stone carving on the church altar). According to Wikipedia, “The Green Man is a legendary being primarily interpreted as a symbol of rebirth, representing the cycle of new growth that occurs every spring,” which indicates that, as violence breeds violence, the cycle of violent men will continue with no end in sight. This is also what’s meant by the endless cycle of men birthing men that we witness in the film’s climax.
A quick glance at the film’s characters shows us several types of abusers that exist in society.
First, her husband, who starts off emotionally abusing his wife -- “If you leave me, I’ll kill myself” -- before graduating to physical abuse.
Then there’s Geoffrey, the man who rents her the mansion. He represents the “nice guy” who imposes his generosity on women and, when he’s later rebuffed, hurls insults at the women who aren’t interested in him.
The priest represents the patriarchy of religion and the structure put in place to perpetuate male domination and abuse.
Samuel is the young man 'frat bro' who feels he’s entitled to his ‘bit of fun’ and rebukes women who dare refuse him what he considers to be his due.
The police officer represents authority because, when he arrives at Harper’s rental property the night of the home invasion, he stands in her front yard yet neither says nor does anything. He’s as useless and impotent as the police and other authorities women might turn to when they seek assistance.
All of this is not to say that Jessie doesn’t have her allies. There is her best friend Riley (Gayle Rankin) who provides moral support throughout the film, and the kind policewoman who speaks with Harper when the police initially arrest the naked man. Garland’s point here is that the best place for a woman to get the support and assistance she needs is with other women.
This concept is driven home by the second figure etched into the altar (on the opposite face of The Green Man), that of the sheela na gig. The sheela na gig is a carving of a woman with an exaggerated vulva and is used to symbolize fertility and protection against evil.
That’s a brief rundown of the symbolism in Men, and also serves to illustrate what I appreciate about the film: it’s not because it’s horror that I have to turn off my brain. [/spoiler]