Men (2022) (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

Ha, yes it should be gibberish but this is just how things are. If you are making a film where you are not thinking about things like Cinemascore or that you have to follow a formula or fit an algorithm and you know your material is strange, metaphorical, intense, and potentially off-putting, well, your A rating or highest potential rating, really becomes a C. You will have plenty of people that watch your picture and say "Awful, hated it. Terrible!" and so now you start with that calculated in so that your best overall score to set as a goal will be a C. You can only get to that score if a decent portion of the audience loves your picture.

Semi-related, after seeing Men on Thursday, I told a friend that I wanted to stand outside of the screenings and pretend I was with CinemaScore so I could hear nearly everyone angrily give it an F.

 

[JoeStemme]

Coping with the ugly break-up of her marriage in London, Harper (Jessie Buckley), has escaped to a small village in rural English to recoup and re-group. It seems idyllic at first with a bucolic countryside and a cozy 500 year old home to stay in. That is until she takes a wrong turn of sorts, and her surroundings instantly become ominous.

Writer-Director Alex Garland (EX MACHINA, ANNIHILATION) sets up a metaphor for relationships here - the early glow of a coupling turning dark at a moment's notice. Buckley is excellent, as she was as a harried wife in last year's LOST DAUGHTER (indeed, the two characters share a certain kinship; As does her role in Charlie Kaufman's I'M THINKING OF ENDING THINGS in a way). Her performance gives the first section of the movie a real resonance as she carries the burden of her past and the man who brought her to a dark place. Special mention also to the versatile Rory Kinnear.

Signs of the patriarchy abound around Harper, from an imposing husband to the creepily friendly home owner to an uncaring police officer to a less than enlightened vicar. Oh, and there's a naked dude running around the property. The only other women on screen are only briefly seen, which only highlights how alone and isolated the main character is.

Unfortunately, once Garland takes the metaphor into strict horror film territory, it becomes increasingly less interesting. The prosthetics, reminiscent of early Cronenberg, and the CGI are ably done, but the effect becomes more unintentionally comical than dramatically urgent (comparisons have been made to Aronofsky's overwrought Mother!; Call this one “Father!” if you desire). Garland is clearly a talented filmmaker (his other scripts include NEVER LET ME GO and 28 DAYS LATER), but, as with ANNIHILATION, his aim is off. It's never truly scary, just grotesque at times. Genuine suspense is minimal since it's structure is pretty clear. Rob Hardy's digitally manipulated cinematography has a striking palette as does the production design by Mark Digby. The tech specs and basic ideas are there, but, the execution is a bit wanting.

 

[JohnRice]

Yeah, I think the prediction on this was it would get an F so, D+ is probably a good thing. I love Garland, think he is a very talented filmmaker that deserves attention but I understand he is not really making pictures that will have mass appeal. I believe he is already in production on his next picture, Civil War, so this is good. I do think Men is meant to be divisive so really the best possible result in terms of a Cinemascore on it would have realistically been a C. So, if you think about it, D+ is not far off from outstanding.

With all these comparisons, what occurs to me is the strong allegorical aspect and religious overtones remind me of Aronofsky. It also makes me think of Lars von Trier, except if he made it the title would be Women and some hapless dude would be the terrorized one.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Slow, weird, and packed with heavy-handed metaphors.

Tries too hard to be smarter and more meaningful than it actually is.

Garland seems to get more infatuated with his pretensions with every passing movie. "Ex Machina" > "Annihilation" > "Men".

Like "Annihilation", "Men" starts off in a promising manner but then just gets mired in its own sense of self-importance and symbolism as it goes.

Was happy to see it end.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

With all these comparisons, what occurs to me is the strong allegorical aspect and religious overtones remind me of Aronofsky. It also makes me think of Lars von Trier, except if he made it the title would be Women and some hapless dude would be the terrorized one.

I would say it is like a picture like Mother! in that the goal is to intentionally tweak the audience. My thought on that is when you are going to do this it is best to try not to let on to the audience that you are attempting to tweak them. I think when people catch on that they are being tweaked it takes them out of the film a bit. You sit there going "OK, this director is screwing with me." rather than focusing on the story and what is happening in the film.

It's one of the issues I have with Lars von Trier and why his pictures became hit or miss for me. He often hits you with a sledgehammer when he tweaks you. So, not subtle. I did love The House that Jack Built though because it seemed to contain a lot of black humor.