Men

It should be no surprise that director Alex Garland can pretty much get my butt in a theater for anything he makes at this point. 

His previous efforts, Ex Machina and Annihilation, have both stuck with me a long time since viewing and are some of my favorite sci-fi horror films I've ever seen (not to mention, probably high ranking on an overall films list too). Devs, his TV series from a couple years back, was also great, even if a tad lesser than his two starting films. 

Given how much I loved his past efforts, Men was easily one of my more anticipated films of the front half of 2022, even if it was just recently announced. Interested enough to just watch a single trailer, I was surprised to find something more horror-based, with less of the science fiction elements I'm used to from him. 

Men - written and directed by Garland, per usual - is his take on a more traditional arthouse horror film. Traditional is a tricky word to use there, as Garland's unique weirdness comes out in spades, but it leans more into the "horror" side of things this time around. 

Garland isn't out to please many mainstream audiences, as I think was evidenced with Annihilation's lukewarm reception. Men is no different thanks to its slow-burn style (a staple of A24 art-house horror anymore) and intense weirdness near the end. For me, it's the "lesser" of the 3 things I've seen from Garland thus far (2 movies, 1 show) by quite a margin. There's a lot to like and, in particular, it always feels like it's going to stick the landing. 

But then the ending comes and Garland lost me. 

Given my fandom for his writing and directing, I chalk it up less as a misstep for the director (though there will be some that see this film as such) and more of a disagreement between me as a viewer and him as a director. By no means was Men ruined by its ending (but again, many will say it is), but it just didn't connect with me nearly in the fashion that all his previous efforts did. 

Most prominent is that I flat out didn't understand the bulk of what was happening past a certain point. At times, that can be a fun element in a film, and at others, it can be frustrating. Men likes straddling that line with heavy metaphors and imagery that, by the end, dumped me on the side of "frustrated". In that same vein, its ending feels overly elongated and too weird, almost like its trying too hard. I'm sure many held that sentiment with Annihilation where, for me, the ending was one of my very favorite parts. Not so, with Men where the ending all but confirms this is a Garland feature I wouldn't need to watch again.

There's gotta be some metaphorical imagery here somewhere...

"I'm not creepy at all! I swear!"

Beyond my issues with where it eventually went, Men is an effective slow-burn that absolutely nails its eerie tone, which is unsurprising given who's in the director's chair. From the get-go, we're introduced to Harper (Jessie Buckley), the victim of an abusive relationship, taking a vacation in the countryside. Her renter, Geoffrey (Rory Kinnear) is one of the first persons we meet in this town that feels...off. From there, her vacation unfolds as something much more stressful than she intended, thanks to a stalker and other weird misgivings from the men in town. Before we get to our more aggressive aforementioned ending, there are a collection of scenes that elicit dread and punctuate Harper's inner demons about how her previous relationship ended. In particular, a sequence of Harper exploring the nearby woods and a tunnel are some of Garland's best, most unsettling work yet, even if you're not quite sure why while you watch it. 

Much of the film's success can be attributed to the performances at its core. Buckley gives a tormented core performance, but not overly so. It feels real, even while everything else around her doesn't. Kinnear is excellent too, conveying multiple angles of creepiness from all the variations of men he plays. He does just enough without going overboard and ensuring the creep factor is there, but you can't quite put a finger on it. Throw in some stunning cinematography of the countryside, editing that really lets scenes breathe, and likely one of the year's best/most effective original scores and you've got a lethal combination for the first 2/3rds of the film that are hard to ignore, regardless if you connect with the ending or not. 

Men may be my least favorite Garland feature yet, but I also have respect for it because it's a director I adore experimenting, and I'm sure certain moviegoers will love it just as much as I loved Ex Machina and Annihilation. Personally, this one didn't totally land, and if you're opposed to Garland's weirdness already, this won't win you over. 

CONS

• End sequence feels overly elongated
• Final imagery/weirdness both i) went over my head and ii) felt like it was trying too hard
• Perfectly fine concluding ambiguity, but the overall movie left me feeling confused as to what exactly was happening

PROS

• Garland's ability to nail the tone he wants is unmatched and this is no different. Sufficiently eerie for the majority of its runtime
• Central performances by Buckley and Kinnear are subtle, but very effective
• The original score may be the most haunting element of this whole thing
• Solid editing and pacing. This is a quick movie at just 110 minutes
• Cinematography that is both gorgeous and haunting

Rath's Review Score | 7/10