Men

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.

"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.

Of what I've read from other reviewers, almost all are horribly misinterpreting this film. In it, Alex Garland returns to his British roots and goes for a supernatural body-horror with spins from both ancient mythologies and modern woke-ism. Reviewers condemn the movie for its use of anti-manliness, pro-womanhood, and fear of masculinity. Do any of them know what the film is actually about? It's about The Green Man, from ancient Pagan mythology (Wikipedia: Green_Man). He was a pre-historic god of fertility and rebirth, as showcased in the last scenes of the movie. In the movie, he is portrayed as at first a mischievous, then threatening, then moral-ground-testing supernatural being. Most reviewers interpret his presence completely wrong and see the film as though the main protagonist (a woman) is being attacked by the men in the world who surround her. Her husband's outrage is almost relatable until he hits her, and the men she runs into are mysteriously sinister, but not violent. Only when she has to defend herself does the movie become about physical violence. In reality, The Green Man is mimicking the bodies of the men in her life and manifesting them for her judgment. Alex Garland's Annihilation was great, and Civil War was outstanding, but this is an often overlooked and misunderstood movie in his catalog. I, personally, took off some points from my score because of how it was bogged down by interpretations of the men in the movie, as well because I prefer more blood in my body-horrors. But it was a pretty good movie, nonetheless.

Generally, I'm not a fan of cinema as metaphor (got halfway through the mess that was 'Mother!', spotted the metaphor and switched off), but this was so well done that I couldn't look away.

Which says a lot considering there's a couple of scenes in there that ain't for the squeamish. I'd recommend this not just for the deep sense of unease it stirs up (again and again) and the disturbing shots scattered throughout, but also the setting, the effective use of music, the performances and the metaphor itself. Visceral, affecting and deeply unsettling.

Anyone looking for run-of-the-mill horror might do better to avoid this one, but if you're in the mood for something with a little more substance beneath the surface give it a watch. At the least you'll be entertained.

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.