Men

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.

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.

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.

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.