Men (2022) User Reviews

Two things to know before seeing Men (2022)

[sgriff22555 · 6/10 · 23 May 2022]

1. If you are a fan of Mother! (2017) you might enjoy this film. If you thought Mother! Was outrageous, over the top, and excessively metaphorical I would definitely pass on this one. This film is not like Garland's previous films. For reference when I bought my ticket the theater employee said that they had been told to warn people that this film was over the top making me think many people were walking out asking for refunds.

2. If you decided to see this film do not go see it during prime time in a packed theater. See it during a weekday matinee. This film is bound to elicit obnoxious comments, laughs, and various verbal reactions from the audience that will make for a miserable theater experience.

So this "review" is more of a warning. Best of luck.

So here's my theory on the crazy ending and movie in General.

[maghesj · 7/10 · 20 May 2022]

So here's my theory on the movie. She was trying to go to her own garden of eden to escape her guilt from James' death. And the reason the same guy played all the males in the village was he was taking many different forms. He was basically the serpent. But instead of tempting harper to sin he was getting her to confront and accept her guilt. And it wasn't until he shed all his skins to reveal James that she finally accepted it.

Simultaneously too much and not enough

[darkreignn · 6/10 · 20 May 2022]

The climax of "Men" has a certain sequence that can only be described as grotesque - it was a real labor of love, if you will (read between the lines, my friend). And seeing this specific scene take up the entire width of the silver screen in extreme closeup was not something I particularly expected, or wanted, to see in theatres. However, in a weird way I admired this film for throwing caution to the wind - "Gosh darn it," this movie seems to say, "You'll watch what I want you to watch, and you'll like it!" And so I didn't mind the initial sequence, until director Alex Garland portrayed it three more times.

"Men" is simultaneously an exercise of too much and yet not enough. Because when Garland goes for it, he really goes for it; throwing everything and the kitchen sink at his audience in terms of visuals and sound design, on one hand this movie satisfies on a purely primal level. Crisp, bright colors permeate this movie, and coupled with the booming and borderline intrusive score, you have something that your eyes and ears will happily soak up. And in fact, from the moment this film started I was immediately in awe of just how good it looked. But on the other hand, all the visuals and sounds in the world can't make up for a poor plot, and "Men" has a poor plot.

Well, let me backtrack. The plot isn't inherently poor - actually, it's pretty interesting. Starring the beautiful Jessie Buckley as Harper, "Men" follows her as she retreats to a vacation home in the English countryside after experiencing a personal tragedy. Things just seem to go from bad to worse for poor Harper, though, as she soon stumbles across a town where the men look strikingly similar. It's an intriguing premise, especially since the film employs a heavy use of emotional dramatic tension to drive the story forward. You'll find yourself invested in the puzzle that's being put together before your eyes, and engaged in Harper's story and the very human drama that comes from it. And with this expert combination of horror and drama, "Men" seems to make you a promise of a satisfying conclusion. And would you be surprised if I told you that "Men" doesn't deliver?

Looking past the striking visuals, euphoric soundtrack, and Oscar-worthy acting from Jessie Buckley, you have yourself a movie that lacks development. Too long on the draw, the movie takes its time in setting up its main character. In doing so, the film becomes, primarily, a character piece with thriller elements to it - in fact, the horror doesn't really kick in until the latter half of the movie. This wouldn't be a bad thing if the movie actually had a satisfying story that tied the drama and horror together in a conclusive way, but it doesn't. Instead, "Men" feels like two separate movies: a study of grief, and a home invasion thriller. And to be honest with you, the purely dramatic sections of this movie were my favorite simply because the horror elements felt like a narrative afterthought.

Sure, you'll get all the suspense and bloodshed you want out of this type of premise; you'll also get a stunning lack of explanation as to why what's happening is happening. Actually, strike that. You will get an explanation, one that you'll find in one of the laziest cop outs for an ending that I've seen in quite some time. With the subtlety of an atom bomb, the ultimate reveal is uncreative to the extreme. Put it this way: I had my suspicions that the movie would go in the route I thought it was going in, and when my suspicions were confirmed, I couldn't help but groan.

"Men" crumbles under its own weight with a unique premise that the filmmakers, clearly, didn't know what to do with. A lack of satisfying narrative development means that "Men" doesn't wholly succeed as either a drama or a horror film. However, it's so well acted, so pretty to look at, and so nice to listen to that I can't outright reject this movie, because I will certainly be watching this again at home one day. My recommendation? Give this a watch solely for its sights and sounds, and temper your expectations in terms of its storyline. Doing so, you may find just enough to like, but not enough to love.

An emerald nightmare

[drownsoda90 · 7/10 · 23 May 2022]

"Men" follows a young woman vacationing in a remote English village after suffering a personal loss. Immediately upon arrival, it appears she is being followed, and she finds herself increasingly unnerved by encounters with various men in the village.

This offering from Alex Garland is a strange, at times intoxicating melange of elements borrowed from supernatural thrillers, slasher films, and even body horror. Does it work? In part, yes. The first hour of "Men" is remarkable, and I found myself utterly lost in the visuals and atmosphere. The lush countryside and its green forests are captured in such a way that both the natural beauty and the stark ominousness of the landscape are on full display. There is a protracted scene in the first act in which Buckley's character takes a stroll through the woods, and it is truly one of the creepiest, most unnerving sequences I have seen in a film. To some extent, the film plays like an emerald green version of Lars von Trier's "Antichrist"; there are even shades of "Let Sleeping Corpses Lie" present, as well as an obvious (and memorable) visual nod to Carol Reed's "The Third Man".

Garland obviously has a taste for the surreal, and it is laid on thick here in a crescendo that builds to the shocking final act. Along the way, we are offered nightmarish sequences in churches, graveyards, and abandoned buildings; symbolism of the Green Man and the Sheela-na-gig are recurring motifs set against the green (and occasionally blood red) color palette, and Rory Kinnear's multiple roles (he portrays each of the male characters featured in the film) only compound the uncanniness. The entire thing truly feels like a very bad dream, and it does it better than any film I can recall seeing in recent memory.

Unfortunately, the film gets clunky in the final act, and the back-and-forth hi jinx start to wear thin. The finale features a repulsive sequence that could be pulled from a number of Brian Yuzna or David Cronenberg features, and, though shocking, I am not sure there is enough metaphoric subtext to support such an outrageous sequence. While there is an underlying theme in which Buckley's character observes pieces of her deceased husband in each of the men she encounters, I felt the over-the-top gross out nature of the ending was somewhat unwarranted. On the bright side, however, the consummate performances from Buckley and Kinnear help maintain some believability here.

Overall, "Men" largely succeeds on the basis of its stellar photography and atmosphere, which envelops the viewer in an emerald nightmare landscape that is both gorgeous and unnerving. The all-out body horror of the final act does feel unearned, but I can say this much: You'll never forget seeing it. 7/10.

Alex Garland's latest creepfest

[ferguson-6 · 7/10 · 20 May 2022]

Greetings again from the darkness. This is only the third feature film directed by Alex Garland, but his creativity and innovative nature in the first two (EX MACHINA, 2014 and ANNIHILATION, 2018) established him as a writer-director to follow. His latest is certainly deserving of those descriptions, yet it's also less assessable while being more open to interpretation and worthy of discussion. Reactions from viewers are sure to be varied.

Jessie Buckley, one of the finest actors working today, takes on the lead role in yet another of her unconventional projects. We absolutely respect and admire her risk-taking, and each project benefits from her presence. Some of her recent work includes THE LOST DAUGHTER (2021), I'M THINKING OF ENDING THINGS (2020), WILD ROSE (2018), and a great arc in the "Fargo" series (Season 4). Here she stars as Harper, a Londoner heading to holiday in the English countryside after the death of her husband. When she arrives at her bucolic Airbnb manor, the serenity is apparent ... right up until she meets Geoffrey, the landlord. He's played by Rory Kinnear (Tanner in the recent James Bond movies, and excellent in the "Penny Dreadful" series and its spinoff). Geoffrey's awkward social skills involve colloquialisms and country charm to ensure that Harper knows she's no longer in London.

The country manor is walking distance to town (which apparently consists of a church and pub), and sits alongside a forest, seemingly perfect for nature hikes. Harper's first walk in the woods has a fascinating scene as she experiments with the echoes of a tunnel by singing notes in harmony with herself. This simple pleasure ends when she notices a nude man apparently stalking her. After calling the local police, she heads to the church where she encounters a rude boy and a vicar who is unsympathetic to her plight. All of these interactions could fit into an interesting story, but filmmaker Garland takes things to another level. Geoffrey, the stalker, the cop, and the vicar are all played by Rory Kinnear ... even the boy! Later, we see that Kinnear even plays the pub's clientele. Since it's obvious to us, and she doesn't seem to notice, we can assume this is a major clue for how we are to interpret what's happening with (and to) Harper.

Flashbacks are employed so that we are able to piece together the strained relationship between Harper and her husband, James (Paapau Essidieu). Her emotional turmoil plays into what's happening during this rural getaway meant for relaxation, yet often this has a surreal or dreamlike feel, making it challenging to know what is real or what she is imagining. Harper holds the occasional FaceTime with her friend Riley (Gayle Rankin), and the broken signal on these calls may or may not be real ... like so much of what we see. Garland's third act goes a bit bonkers, and includes some icky body horror effects ala Cronenberg. The mythology of Sheela la nig and The Green Man (rebirth) are part of the numerous uses of symbolism throughout.

The film is beautiful to look at thanks to the cinematography of Rob Hardy, and the frequent use of vibrant green jumps off the screen during many scenes. The atmosphere created is primed for something that may or may not pay off by the end, but it's certainly another artsy creep-fest in the A24 universe. Ms. Buckley proves again what a talent she is, and Mr. Kinnear joins Peter Sellers ("Dr. Strangelove"), among others, in mastering multiple roles. Lesley Duncan's spiritual and melancholic "Love Song" is the perfect accompaniment for Harper's drive, and Kinnear's frequently appearing face enhances the myth that men are all the same - a constant threat lurking for women. Folk horror resurgence continues, and viewers will have to decide if they can reconcile the abundance of symbolism.

Exclusively in theaters on May 20, 2022.

A tour-de-force of allegory and symbolism. And just darn good horror.

[JohnDeSando · 1 June 2022]

Men is a home horror brew, imperfect for its load of figurative tropes but pleasing to the metaphoric obsessions of an English major who loves allegory. Auteur Alex Garland has crafted a film so enjoyably horrific and thematically loaded as to please those tired of goody-two shoes super-heroes and limitless CGI.

This intense treatise on the wrong's men do to women uses the standard object of fear, a single woman, Harper (Jessie Buckley), in a secluded English Cotswold cottage mending a heart devastated by the death (or suicide) of her husband, James (Paapa Essiedu). Various men enter her life, not one redeemable and most just downright ugly even when they physical aren't.

The predominantly evil alpha male is a naked middle-aged man with scars to scare, who stalks her in a tunnel on the path and back to her house, even after the police roust him out but have to let him out. Even a seemingly benign local prelate has sexist views about her driving her husband to suicide, so she seems to have no protector except another female on a smart phone 4 hours away. Harper is alone with demented men, a perfect scenario for the horror-flick formula.

Garland has done a yeoman's job larding his tale with symbols right down to when he offers pagan imagery of green men and Sheela-Na-Gigs, which help counter the misanthropy in favor of the men, who are misogynists. In effect, Garland has spent an entire film deriding the men but finds women also with some horrific responsibility.

You're not quite sure what I mean when I characterize Garland as sated with symbols? Consider this obvious allegory: As Harper arrives at the cottage, she spies an apple tree from which she plucks and eats an apple, only to be chided by the owner, Jeff (Rory Kinnear).

As a former English major, I delighted in the figurative gymnastics and multiple themes. However, the final birth scenes are almost too graphic for most women to stomach, much less delicate English major men. But the stuff of hard-core horror the images are.

Anyway, if you're a female, you may enjoy the men in Men as stalking, walking misogynists, and if you're a male, just run and hide, but not in the Cotswolds.

Almost really good, but it goes off the rails a little too much

[Jeremy_Urquhart · 6/10 · 2 July 2022]

Men comes from filmmaker Alex Garland, who previously did Ex Machina and Annihilation. His latest isn't a total failure, but I would say it's not as good as his previous two movies, and by quite a fair margin at that.

It's another instance of "let's combine grief with horror elements," which might be a trend that's starting to wear a little thin. Men pushes the concept further and weirder to inconsistent effects. There are things about it that are sometimes disarming and tense, and then there are other scenes which feel very silly, and like the film is just straining or trying a little too hard.

I hate using that last point as a criticism, and try not to say it often, but Men does really come close to shooting its own foot off multiple times in the final act, to the point I'm surprised it never fully lost me (I came close to laughing out loud at one point, though, and I don't think the gruesome sight on screen was supposed to be funny).

The film's decently shot but not quite great. Similarly, some of the unique music works, but like the rest of the movie, sometimes it felt like it was trying too hard to be weird or creepy, and felt silly instead.

Rory Kinnear did alright in an interesting role, but the film's screenplay restricted him in some key areas. Jessie Buckley was consistently great with what the screenplay gave her though, even while that sometimes wasn't much.

The over the top stuff really hurts this film. I don't think it was trying to be camp or funny or silly, but it felt dangerously close to becoming those things unintentionally at times. In blending a drama about grief and a psychological horror film, it's the drama stuff that makes for the film's most compelling moments, and otherwise, Buckley also helps elevate the film to a reasonable extent.

I liked a little more about it than I disliked, but not by much. If there was just a bit more restraint or a more consistent tone, this could have been really good.

Intriguing film totally ruined by the last half hour

[avenuesf · 3/10 · 21 May 2022]

I was really looking forward to seeing "Men" after reading promising reviews but walked out of the theater feeling very disappointed.

The film starts out very promisingly. The main character Harper (beautifully played by Jessie Buckley) witnesses her husband either kill himself or possibly slip from an upstairs apartment after she informs him she wants a divorce. Dealing with immense guilt and grieving his loss, she rents a large house in the English countryside to get away from everything and get respite. The caretaker, Geoffrey (Rory Kinnear), is a peculiar character but she takes it in stride and looks forward to her time alone.

Later while walking in the woods she encounters a naked man who follows her back to the house. She calls the police when he appears to be trying to break into the residence, and they arrest him and take him away. As the film progresses there's an increasing atmosphere of dread as ensuing interactions between Harper and a series of different males become more and more bizarre. Each character seems to turn on her in one way or another, in particular a vicar who suddenly blames her for her husband's suicide. To add to the surreal, almost nightmarish vibe, every male character in the film (including a young boy, whose face disturbingly appears much older than it should be) is played skillfully by the actor Rory Kinnear.

I won't go into any further plot details but suffice to say the suspense continues to build. Then the last twenty or thirty minutes of the film suddenly take a complete turnaround with no logic or explanation of what is actually happening. It becomes a different film altogether and loses all of its creepy subtlety. It's not clear if the character of Harper is fantasizing what follows, if she's lost touch with reality or if these episodes are actually happening. If the remainder of "Men" is supposed to represent manifestations of the main character finally working through her grief and her guilt, it was very poorly imagined. Disconcertingly, "Men" abruptly turns into just another routine horror film relying on one bloody cgi scene after another, none of which are particularly original. After fifteen or twenty minutes I realized not only I had stopped caring about what was happening to the main character but I had totally lost respect for the film.

Like another reviewer here has written, I've also become really tired of watching films that directors explain away by claiming they "leave the meaning of the film up to the viewer." It's become a very lazy and self-indulgent way to avoid taking responsibility toward creating any real plot structure or logic to a film's storyline. In this case it almost looks like Alex Garland really didn't know how to conclude "Men" and just decided to rely on making some kind of an impression using the same old horror movie cgi effects we've seen so many times before. For me, it completely ruined what could have been a very good film.

Guess I'm the odd one out

[rachaelperson · 8/10 · 20 September 2022]

Maybe it's just me, but I really connected with this one. Don't get me wrong, I can totally see why it's gotten such a mixed reaction: it's definitely not for everyone. But I still think that, even if you end up hating it, you should give this one a shot.

First of all, the acting is brilliant from everyone involved. It's also Garland's best looking movie by a long shot - there are tons of really poetic, haunting shots, and the shallow depth of field is really suited to this kind of story.

What it comes down to is whether you're okay with a movie not being grounded. This is a very non-literal story, and no explanation is given for any of the events that take place.

I think there is some misinformation being perpetuated about the movie as well. I did not get the message of "Men are bad" from this movie. It's a lot more nuanced than that, at least for me.

If you're going to watch this, be prepared for some uncomfortable and disturbing imagery, and be ready to not fully understand every last thing that happens. If neither of these things bothers you, this might just be for you.

Hard to rate properly

[laserburn · 7/10 · 4 August 2022]

From the purely technical standpoint, this movie is an absolute masterpiece. The camera is just amazing. Framing, the use of colors, angles, all amazing. Soundtrack is very good, sound effects are top notch, visual effects are also at high level. The actors are performing well.

But the story is just too thin, bare bones with very little meat on them. The characters are unsatisfyingly developed and the story gives no resolution. I believe I understand the point the director wanted to make about this being men's world, but the movie is simply lacking in substance.

In short, the movie doesn't have much to say, but says it masterfully.

Could've been great, but is completely incomplete

[nicolasroop · 4/10 · 20 May 2022]

First off, let me say, that was the strangest ending to a film I think I have ever seen. How this movie got an R rating is beyond me because it is graphic! Secondly, what the hell did I just watch??? The movie was going so well for the first hour or so, beautiful cinematography, a sweeping sound mix and some very brilliant acting and writing all around. But then things start to get... weird. It completely loses it's footing and the film turns into what I can only describe as the worst allegory for depravity and misogyny I think ever put to film. It just didn't make any sense and the more I think about it, the less sense it makes. There is no outright conclusion, only a bunch of nonsense thrown at you in hopes that you'll think it's cool, but it comes off as pretentious and pandering. I would've loved to know what happened afterwards, but alas the movie is unfinished. If you do go to see this one, be prepared for an ending that will either leave you gagging or wanting. It really leaves nothing to the imagination and everything to your imagination at the same time. I only recommend it for the strong acting and beautiful camera work, but other than that, the film falls flat on it's face in the last half hour. 2.5 birthings out of 5.

A Psychological Purge Through Rebirth

[makelcon · 8/10 · 8 October 2022]

Watch with an open mind without taking the final scenes literally, or many others, for that matter.

This is not about the men. It's about the woman and what her partner has represented to her before and after his death.

She is working through all the emotions she feels and these emotions are personified through the various "men" ( same actor).

The emotions she feels are birthed in her mind (and by the various male characters) one after the other, and by the end, purged.

She's well on her way to freedom (a rebirth of sorts) and making peace with the decision she made that may have contributed to her partner's death.

That's it in a nutshell.

Shocked but not necessarily in a good way

[bellasings-47917 · 6/10 · 25 May 2022]

The first three quarters of men had my attention, but unfortunately the last act left me feeling like I missed something. The slow, eerie cinematography in the beginning was breathtakingly beautiful. Perhaps the symbolism & folklore underlying the final events were lost on me, but I think that's giving the film too much credit.

I love body horror, but it felt more comical than anything. The end left something to be desired, the whole "rebirth" concept could've worked better if it relied on less shock value & carried more substance. Maybe it was just me, but I knew what it was leading up to long before it was "revealed" which made the ending fall flat. I'm not sure how the viewer was supposed to feel afterwards, but it don't think it had the desired effect.

Overall, it fell flat of its potential. Excellent performances for a dull movie I will remember for all the wrong reasons.

Challenging to rate this as a whole

[janstue · 4/10 · 21 January 2023]

I decided to watch the movie despite the low ranking on Amazon, so I was prepared for a potential let down. Going into the movie I was actually completely sucked into the atmosphere. Good music, a terrific landscape, relatable characters. Moving on, it kept getting better and better: When the woman went for a walk, the relieving atmosphere slowly turned into a haunted, mysterious one. I felt the woman's fear turning into panic and I was gripped myself. It was beautifully done and very scary.

Turning point: I think at was at that moment when a man completely disappeared in front of her in a matter of a second when the light cut off for that the movie broke down for me. That could not happen in reality and in my head it was clear to me from then on that either it's all in her head or the movie just decided to become incoherent and 'artsy'. From that moment, it went on and on with the implausible elements and the house, which was the woman's - as well as the viewer's - safe place, was not safe anymore. The logic broke down and with it the reason for me to hope that the woman locked the back door, the windows etc. The evil don't need to find a way in, for it can just appear wherever it wants.

That being said. I could split the movie into two pieces, the first and the second half, and rate the first half 9 stars and the second half 2 stars. That would be a rather shallow approach because the 2 stars result in me not having adopted to the new environment of the movie's second half. I believe it's not failing to keep up with the structure of the first half of the movie, but instead it switches from an external point of view to an internal, phenomenological/experiential point of view. Everything we see is the purely subjective experience of the protagonist. It's a psychological journey, therefore it is by necessity incoherent and symbolic. The three men who continuously give birth to one another portray a symbolic process of a mind trying to process (traumatic) significant experiences and eventually integrate them.

This is probably my longest review, yet. After having slept a night over it, I felt drawn to express it in some detail instead of simply giving a high or low ranking in this case. I guess, I needed to reflect on and integrate this experience for myself throughout this review. Trust your gut whether to watch this. Enjoy your watch!

Horror Insight Into Relationships

[stevendbeard · 6/10 · 21 May 2022]

I saw Men, starring Jessie Buckley-The Lost Daughter, Fargo_tv; Rory Kinnear-the Bond movies, Penny Dreadful_tv; Paapa Essiedu-Gangs of London_tv, Murder on the Orient Express_2017 and Gayle Rankin-Glow_tv, The Greatest Showman.

This is a horror movie insight into relationships between men and women. Jessie and Paapa are a married couple having problems. She wants a divorce because he is insanely jealous and possessive of everything she does. When she tells him to get out he tells her that he will kill himself-the old guilt trip-and when that doesn't work, he hits her. He leaves and then she sees him falling to his death-did he jump or maybe he slipped and fell trying to get back into the apartment? After talking to her best friend Gayle, Jessie decides to rent a countryside cottage to get away for a while. Rory is the cottage owner. This is where it gets a little strange. Jessie has encounters with a nude man-who follows her back to her cottage-and a priest that puts the blame on her, after she confesses her husbands' death to him. The strange part is Rory plays these guys too-in disguise but you can tell it's him. Jessie uses a knife to cut the left hand of the nude stalker and the wound shows up on the other characters' hand too. There is a scene near the end that will blow your mind, showing the connection between all the male characters played by Rory. I'm sure it's some kind of statement about how men have treated women over the years but I wasn't very good at symbolism back when I was in school-a long time ago-so it went way over my head.

It's rated "R" for violence, grisly images, language and sexual content-including nudity-and has a running time of 1 hour & 40 minutes.

It's an interesting movie but I don't know if I would buy it on DVD. It would be alright as a rental.

I didn't fully get it

[alexsthomas-29075 · 6/10 · 15 September 2022]

Another review said if you enjoyed Mother! You will enjoy this, and yes, i think I had the same reaction.

I loved all men being one man, of not knowing which men you were safe with, of feeling safe with the vicar then not. I felt like it got the feeling across of any man could be someone who could hurt you really well. I loved that the main character recognised she was in an abusive relationship and left, then refused to take responsibility for her husband suicide.

The end ... I just didn't get it. I understood what I saw, I think I just need to be told what to think about it. 3/4 of this film was great i'm just confused now. If you like that sort of thing then go for it.

MENtal

[danchilton-71955 · 7/10 · 16 June 2022]

He may have swapped his usual Sci fi trappings for the folklore of rural England but this might be Alex Garlands most Alex Garland film yet.

The visual quality you have come to expect after Ex Machina and Annihilation is present, even if the surroundings are very different, as is the melancholy tone. What is less is expected is just how far down the horror well the film goes with some genuinely creepy moments and pretty out there body horror.

The film revolves around two excellent performances. Rory Kinnear plays every male character in the village and manages to make every one of them unsettling in a different way but it is Jessie Buckley who holds the movie together. She hits the right balance of anxiety and anger to render main character Harper completely believable, giving the viewer an anchor when the film gets out there. And it gets waaay out there by end. Is it style of substance? Possibly, but when it's this much fun who cares.

Arthouse folk horror. If that sentence doesn't turn you on.... avoid!!

[stevelivesey67 · 5/10 · 1 July 2022]

In the same vein as the trippy 'Mother', it has elements of religious symbolism, portrayals of toxic masculinity and themes of nature, rebirth and body horror.

There's a lot of suspense built up at the start before it dives headlong into the crazy which somewhat ruins the movie.

Reminded me of a Ben Wheatley movie (not necessarily a good thing). And the CGI face of Rory Kinnear on the youth is laughable.

Brace yourself, this one is off the walls

[jtindahouse · 8/10 · 16 June 2022]

I've seen some out there films in my time, believe me. But 'Men' is very close to taking the cake. I actually found myself in a mild sense of shock after the film. An usher asked me how it was and I didn't know what to say. I was genuinely lost for words. This movie is a ride.

I love a film that is willing to push boundaries. I love even more a film that simply has no boundaries. That's what this was. By the end there was nothing that could come on screen that would've surprised me. It may have shocked me, but it wouldn't have surprised me.

I get the general metaphor the film was going for. I tried not to overthink it because I don't think that's the wise thing to do. It makes sense though, at least on a base level. Not everyone may agree with it, but that's the beautiful thing about a perspective, you can't be wrong.

A small critique I had, and this will sound strange, but when the film is at its most shocking near the end, it is in a way at its least shocking too. Because before this the absurdity was at least kind of plausible (in a movie universe at least). However once the movie goes completely off the walls it's kind of easy to sit back and just say accept the ride, knowing that nothing is realistic any longer. Hopefully that made sense.

I really enjoyed this film, but not everyone will - I have never been more certain of that. There were a couple of women in the row in front of me who I expected to get up and leave at any moment. They stuck it out though and good for them. If you're up for it, I recommend this one. 8/10.

This is an absolutely must see movie that I would strongly recommend; but unfortunately, falls flat of its potential

[kevin_robbins · 7/10 · 21 May 2022]

Men (2022) is a movie the wife and I caught in theatres last night. The storyline follows a young lady who recently suffered an unfortunate circumstance and has rented a house in the country to reset her mindset. One day she takes a walk along the railroad tracks close to the house and sees and experiences some amazing things until she is seen by a strange, naked man. A series of events is unlocked where it seems no matter where she goes a strange man appears, sometimes the same strange man and sometimes a new one...

This movie is directed by Alex Garland (Annihilation) and stars Jessie Buckley (I'm Thinking of Ending Things), Rory Kinnear (Penny Dreadful), Paapa Essiedu (I May Destroy You) and Gayle Rankin (Glow).

This movie has a lot going for it and one shortcoming... The cinematography, use of colors and lights, settings, backstory and circumstances are all magnificent. The intensity is very well done from beginning to end. The special effects are top notch and there's an outstanding scene with a knife and a peep hole that's worth the price of admission. The cast delivers perfect performances. Unfortunately, when this was over I felt the same exact way about this film that I felt about Annihilation- the first 80% of the movie is an A...and the end is a D. There's aspects about the end I loved, outside of the knife scene the crow, the arm and the ankle were brilliant. But where they went for clever to pull it all together didn't work for me.

Overall this is an absolutely must see movie that I would strongly recommend; but unfortunately, falls flat of its potential. I would score this a 6.5-7/10 and strongly recommend it.

Lars Von Trier's unwanted child

[willy-37592 · 3/10 · 13 June 2022]

I will watch anything that A24 puts out, they are revitalizing cinema in a time where its existence is being threatened. Hereditary will go down as one of the most flawless movies ever and everything they pump out is worth watching.

But with Men, we're taken down a dark corridor where we're creepily asked to come along for the ride. We oblige. I trust Alex Garland as Ex Machina was pretty good and Annihilation was frickin' amazing.

I was with this movie most of the way and willing to go with all the analogies, be open to the unending symbolism, and believe that it will all be worth it.

But after many unanswered horrors, we come to the 3rd disgusting birth through what can only be described as a mangina, I'm out. Then you shove your ex-husband allegory down our throats and expect us to sort through your tattered mess of an ending. I'm not cleaning this up, I'm not going to become a movie mathematician and decipher your cryptic codes because it's not worth the effort.

Sure he's a demon or Satan, sure it's the manifestation of her guilt, sure she ate an apple so she's Eve and full of sin or whatever. Men have many faces and play many roles, quite often completely unsavory ones. I get it buuuut ...finish your damn movie. You think we would have learnt by now. Listen, we love experimental movies, that's why we're here, but you still need to respect us. Give us enough to chew on besides the bones.

Oh ya and the cinematography was beautiful.

Mental Anguish Personified...

[Xstal · 8/10 · 20 July 2022]

Immerse yourself in a not uncommon story of a woman fighting her demons after aggressive and confrontational encounters from her partner resulting in tragedy and guilt. An outstanding performance from Jessie Buckley through a piece of cinema that leaves you feeling constantly uncomfortable, and under no illusion of how abuse perpetuates through the ages, in many guises, and is ultimately so difficult to contain.

Another Excellent Garland Movie/Surprised About These Negative Reviews

[isaacmhunsinger · 7/10 · 21 May 2022]

I was surprised to find all these reviews panning the movie, and Garland fans especially disliking it. It seems like many of you are thinking that it's preachy or maybe "Woke", but I didn't think so.

I could be wrong, but here's what I thought about the movie and why I don't think that it was preachy. (Spoilers Below)

I thought that that Harper seeing the same man (Rory Kinnear's Geoffrey) everywhere, as she tries to get over, not the loss of her husband exactly, but the relationship itself, in particular his toxicity and gaslighting, was mostly, if not completely, psychological. She is seeing all men as toxic and manifesting the same toxic traits as her dead ex-husband. All different facets of toxic masculinity (disgusted, as I am, to write those two words together) : the caretaker (Geoffrey) is chauvinistic; the boy is kind of youthfully, spitefully misogynistic; the preacher guilts her about her role in her ex-husbands death; the cop doesn't seem to take the threat of the nude/Adam one seriously.

Something else I noticed before seeing the movie is that, the two main characters Harper and Geoffrey/Men, have very similar faces/facial structure. And I was actually semi-worried that this movie would be something preachy about the Trans movement because of it. But I think that because the men, look like they could be (albeit usually older) male versions of Harper is evidence that that she is superimposing projections onto all the males she encounters on her getaway/vacation. And the climax of the movie is her is all the toxic traits of the men birthing each other, ending with her ex-husband who, when Harper asks, tells her the core/heart of his toxicity, the need to be loved and terrible things such a understandable vulnerability can lead you to do in a relationship, especially a doomed one. A trait which in my mind isn't inherently masculine, and can be found equally in "Toxic Masculinity" and "Toxic Femininity" In my mind, this movie could have been just functional, called "WOMEN" and had the roles completely gender swapped, and still told a similar story, even if some of the inherent danger and terror could be lost.

Anyway... I don't claim to understand everything about this movie, or that any one person, save Alex himself, has the "correct" or complete interpretation of the movie, as Garland himself says he wants people to read into the movie, and put some of themselves into their interpretation.

But I felt the need to stick up for this movie, because I think it's being misunderstood in the light of the zeitgeist of "wokeness" that taints our current view of nearly all movies. Alex has said that the script for this movie has been in his drawer for about 15 years, being dusted off and revised every now and again until he got the chance to make it. So I would be careful to judge it be the standards of today. I don't think that it is demonizing of Men or masculinity, I think that it is a psychological journey for a woman to overcome the extreme toxicity and gaslighting guilt of her dead significant other. It's worth the price of the ticket, and worth a rewatch, just like all of Garland's work. 8/10 for my first viewing. Willing to revise, probably upward with further viewings, again like all of Garland's work so far.

Stretches The Bounds Of Even Symbolism/Metaphor Credulity

[zkonedog · 3/10 · 5 September 2022]

I came to "Men" because of my love for previous Alex Garland (director) efforts like Ex Machina & Annihilation. What I found with Men, however, was a largely symbolic and metaphorical film that didn't engage me on either level.

For a very basic overview, Men sees Harper (Jessie Buckley) on a vacation in the English countryside after the death of the husband (played by Paapa Essiedu) she was about to divorce. After being shown around her new manor by landlord Geoffrey (Rory Kinnear), a number of strange things begin happening--not the least of which being a naked man seemingly stalking her.

Men is a "folk horror" piece clearly constructed with health protocols in mind (small cast, open spaces, etc.). The best way I can put it in context is compare it to two other films of similar ilk:

-Men is sort of like Midsommar in that it is filled with metaphors representing events in the main character's past or a struggle she is currently undergoing. But while Midsommar disguises this fact until the final stretch (prolonging the overall mystery), Men makes it pretty clear early on. I preferred the former approach over the latter.

-Men is also closely aligned with "mother!", the Darren Aronofsky film heavily featuring religious and mythological symbolism. I can't say I loved (or even liked) that film all that much either, but at least I understand what was being symbolized. I can't say the same for Men.

I can give Men three stars because its first half has an air of mystery, Buckley is a fine actress, and Kinnear gets to play an extremely unique role in the proceedings. But other than those things, I was pretty much lost from beginning to end in determining just what exactly was supposed to be transpiring or referenced. Even after reading some online explanations, the whole thing still feels extremely underwhelming and not worth digging into (the death knell for any film making its bones in a non-literal realm).

Others who prioritize visual aesthetic and heavy does of symbology will understandably boost Men a bit higher than this, but I found it to be confusing and not worth the effort to even try and understand all that is being unearthed by Garland here. Perhaps my loss--or perhaps just poor execution of plot/theme/characters.

Just more arthouse BS

[madlogic2000 · 28 June 2022]

Trying (and failing) to be deep is no substitute for an actual story.

The only plus is now I know not to watch anything else by this "writer/director. "