Directed by:
Alex GarlandScreenplay:
Alex GarlandCinematography:
Rob HardyCast:
Jessie Buckley, Rory Kinnear, Paapa Essiedu, Gayle Rankin, Sonoya Mizuno, Sarah Twomey, Zak Rothera-OxleyVOD (6)
Plots(1)
In the aftermath of a personal tragedy, Harper (Jessie Buckley) retreats alone to the beautiful English countryside, hoping to have found a place to heal. But someone or something from the surrounding woods appears to be stalking her. What begins as simmering dread becomes a fully-formed nightmare, inhabited by her darkest memories and fears... (VVS Films)
(more)Videos (2)
Reviews (8)
Alex Garland (Ex-Machina, Annihilation) tries his hand at folk Horror under the A24 banner and it's properly controversial and only for a fringe audience, but those who like his directorial style might find it to their liking. The story focuses on Jessie Buckley who, after the death of her husband, arrives in a remote village to come up with new ideas, but the magical surroundings and a naked man stalking her from afar give her more nightmares. Garland delivers quite an original mystery oddity full of metaphors, symbols, interesting dialogue, beautiful scenery and unconventional horror. Rory Kinnear is excellent, playing all the male characters in the film and being a proper weirdo and sleazeball (I can't remember a film where one actor played 20 different roles in one film), making Garland stand out again. The first hour is a lot of slow building but once Garland switches into horror mode he conjures up some interesting stunts (the hand ripped in half by a knife is impressive!). The atmosphere is cramped and at times uncomfortable and the final body horror sequence is downright glorious, one that even Cronenberg would not be ashamed of. I immediately thought of The Fly, Alien and the famous Zygote all rolled into one. Garland built the film on the mythology surrounding the Green Man and it's quite similar to the recent Gaia from Africa. Story 4/5. Action 2/5, Humor 0/5, Violence 3/5, Fun 3/5 Music 4/5, Visuals 4/5, Atmosphere 4/5, Suspense 3/5, Emotion 2/5, Actors 4/5. 7/10.
()
The first half had me excited as perhaps no other recent film has. The mysterious atmosphere, supported by the perfectly chosen music and the sound and image tricks completely fascinated me and I was looking forward to what Garland would surprise me with next. Unfortunately, from the scene in the church it's just a solo for the main character and one actor in wig changes, and it becomes a very weird thing that goes nowhere. It's just Harper watching various body-horror scenes, and occasionally the parson, who I think us the weakest component of the film, utters some pearl of wisdom, and you get a sense of bewilderment and would-be art that wants so much to tempt your own interpretation, but without anything to grasp on. Alex, you’ve tried to get me drunk with a bun, but I prefer a proper black Guinness. Probably the weakest of the three films Garland has directed so far.
()
I tried and I tried, I guess I missed the point in the end, but that doesn't mean I'm not satisfied. On the contrary, Men is one of those films that doesn't tell you everything, but doesn't annoy you with it and lets you think for yourself. Wonderfully immersive atmosphere, an excellent Jessie Buckley and a superb Rory Kinnear (I don't know him much, so I admit I had no idea how many roles he actually played until the end). I will gladly watch it again some day.
()
I went for the horror film of the year, came away rather disappointed with a nicely made oddity. I can't come up with any meaningful or thought-provoking interpretation, and the ones I can think of feel banal. And without any supporting ideas, Men is left with a few creepy scenes and one delicious body horror sequence, though in terms of scares, however, the film is not intense enough for this alone to satisfy me. Judging by the final half hour, when the narrative, still relatively anchored in reality, falls apart, Men obviously wants to be first and foremost a parable, not narrative horror that will thrill and frighten the viewer. And, at least after the first screening, I simply can’t figure out what it wants to say (or rather, I want to believe that it wants to say more than what I actually see in it), and at the same time it didn’t engage me enough to enjoy thinking about it. Definitely the weakest Garland so far, I’m even thinking of knocking it down to two stars.
()
If this had been made twelve years ago, I would have taken it as an entry in a contest where Lars von Trier and Alex Garland are competing to see who is the greater cinematic edgelord. At the same time, both films have plenty of reading options, and both are at their best when you ditch the reading and approach them as feverish horror films. At the same time, though, the comparison would come out clearly in favor of Trier, whose contribution is the credible work of a sophisticated person. Garland's got the paintings, he pretty much doesn’t mess around (even if it all feels safely artificial), but I'm a little worried that, for how bizarre it seems, deep down it’s really as banal as I think it is. Plus, that's how I was able to tolerate the hideously high perspective taken by the film's narrative. It would be absolutely ideal if Men turned out to be a prequel to the fourth series of True Detective, returning to the themes and characters from the first series.
()
Ads