Connect with us

Reviews

A MESSED UP FOLK HORROR FAIRYTALE: ‘Men’ (2022) Review

What results from this synthesis of good filmmaking is a spine-tingling first and second act capped off by a grotesque third; you get blood, body horror, and an ending that can be seen in many ways, but undoubtedly marks a film with excellent cinematography. Go to the theatres immediately and prepare to process the stunning 100 minutes of horror cinema you’re in for.

Published

on

Alex Garland’s second horror film is bone-chilling—but will split audiences with its galvanizing choices.

This film is going to piss a lot of people off. Not me; I loved it.

Why Men Is So Polarizing

If you’re wondering why I feel it’s going to be so divisive, here’s an example of one of the many things in this film that will bother people: depending on your interpretation of the events that go on in Men, there is either one or several deaths throughout this film, and possibly zero deaths that take place outside of a flashback.

A Dense and Creepy Visual Allegory

Men is an incredibly dense movie with its visual language and allegory, and one that will variably please and infuriate people. I found it to be a thoroughly creepy experience that sucked me in entirely and left me thinking as I was headed home, digesting the nightmare that had unfolded.
But I also came out of the screening to the uproarious complaints of more than a dozen people, claiming this was both the weirdest and worst movie they’d seen all year.
So, you win some, and you lose some.

Decoding Men: A Puzzle for Horror Fans

There will undoubtedly be many think pieces trying to “solve” this movie like a puzzle. It will garner much hate from people who call it “pretentious” and “nonsensical,” and even more hate from the “horror isn’t political” crowd, assuming that pack of coyotes cared to see this film. What is a negative to some but a bonus to me is that Men is only as straightforward as you’re willing to make it; I thought of a few solid interpretations as to what exactly went down, and I hope everyone who sees it comes away with even more texturally rich explanations for what they saw. I can’t tell you how to feel about it or how to interpret it without taking away the experience from you, but I can give you a heads up and talk about this movie’s achievements.

Stunning Cinematography and Pastoral Terror

Garland’s directing, supported by three-time collaborator Rob Hardy as director of photography, is as great as ever. With a very green countryside and small, homey set design, they do an excellent job of setting the tone aesthetically for a stunning piece of pastoral terror that follows a woman being stalked by a presence that affects the seemingly identical men in the town she’s on vacation in. It isn’t as flowery as its folk horror counterpart, Midsommar, opting for a muted palette that is occasionally interrupted with sharp red tones.

Evolving Garland’s Horror Style

Men feels like the natural conclusion of Garland’s style evolving from Annihilation with how it frames its characters in cruel, cruel nature. There are a lot of long looming shots that evoke fear in the space around Harper, many moments where you begin to fear the loss of light and others where that fear hits you as everything goes dark. Garland taps into a primal horror of the environment and what comes to mind when you gaze out into the woods in the dead of night.

Rory Kinnear and Jessie Buckley Shine

Outside of camerawork and editing, this film has an impeccable cast. Rory Kinnear’s performance as The Men who torture Harper during her stay in the village is unsettling, if not for his role as a seemingly omnipresent, fairy-like evil, then for his unsettling facial acting and movement onscreen. But by far, the best part of this film performance-wise is Jessie Buckley. I had previously only had the pleasure of watching her in Season 4 of Fargo as antagonist Oraetta Mayflower, but that contrast of going from despicable villain to deeply tragic hero really sold me on her intense range as an actress. Your heart breaks for her when you see Harper trying to dissect and cope with the death of her husband, reconciling her feelings over a flawed and broken marriage she was trapped in and its bloody, bloody end.

Jessie Buckley’s Heart-Wrenching Performance

She plays a woman drowning in a sadness that is a smothering justified anger, and every time that anger boils over, you feel for her even more. If you were to take away all the supernatural elements of this film, the segments between Harper and her husband James (played by Paapa Essiedu) are still blood-curdling in their uncomfortably realistic depiction of abuse and the mental anguish that comes from it. Whether you’re a fan of the film’s narrative and the meaning you find in it or not, Buckley is undeniably at the top of her game in this.
BOTTOMLINE: What results from this synthesis of good filmmaking is a spine-tingling first and second act capped off by a grotesque third; you get blood, body horror, and an ending that can be seen in many ways, but undoubtedly marks a film with excellent cinematography. Go to the theatres immediately and prepare to process the stunning 100 minutes of horror cinema you’re in for.

Luis Pomales-Diaz is a freelance writer and lover of fantasy, sci-fi, and of course, horror. When he isn't working on a new article or short story, he can usually be found watching schlocky movies and forgotten television shows.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Reviews

Madame Morbid Trolley Tour Review: Is It Worth It?

Published

on

Most people find that stretching their dollar still barely gets them by in today’s economy. I am very particular about what I spend my spare money on regarding extracurriculars. And no one likes to feel like their money is wasted. Madame Morbid Trolley Tours wasn’t an experience I had been familiar with. Maybe that’s because I’m chronically offline for most of my life. So this leads to the perfect question: in today’s turbulent economy, is Madame Morbid Trolley Tours worth the price? The short answer is unquestionably, yes. But it’s more than just a simple yes.

My wife and I arrived at the designated meeting point 15 minutes before the scheduled departure time. A handful of minutes later, a gorgeous, e-candle-lit trolley pulled up to the side of the road. We were greeted by impeccably on-brand Allison Chase, our tour guide, and trolley driver ‘Mad’ Matt Zaller. The wonderfully cheery duo invited us on the trolley, and the tour was set to begin.

400 Years of Death, Destruction, and Infrastructure

After a welcoming video intro from someone who knows a thing or two about busting ghosts, we set off on the inaugural Madame Morbid Trolley Tour in its ninth year of operation. From the Brooklyn Naval Yard all the way to Dumbo, and more, this tour magnificently chronicles 400 years of history, the good and the bad, expertly. No matter how much you think you may know about Brooklyn history, I can bet there will be something new learned within the first 15 minutes of the tour. From the first-ever plane crash to one of the worst theater fires in history, this tour covers tragedies that the greatest horror writers couldn’t conceive.

The Deadly [Charming] Docent

Allison Chase led the fascinating tour in character from the moment we stepped on the trolley until our departure. But Allison’s character was not forced or fake; you could feel Allison’s passion for not just morbid history, but the accuracy of it. Some of the stories we heard were steeped in historical context, and it was not boring for a single second. The Madame Morbid Trolley Tour is not your standard full-talking tour. It’s a mixed-media adventure of some of Brooklyn’s darkest moments.

During “downtime” (the times between locations), we were edutained by mini documentaries (that were quite funny). Some of the “downtime” was filled with traffic trivia (I won a needle pen!). And other times were show-and-tell-like, with objects passed around for us to examine. But there was never a moment of silence that wasn’t purposeful. All in all, Allison’s knowledge and passion shone like the luminosity of a full moon.

Is Madame Morbid Trolley Tours Worth It?

The Madame Morbid Trolley Tour was not just a fun night out for my wife and me, but it was a delightfully dark night of edutainment. It should also be noted that ‘Mad’ Matt’s driving skills were fantastic. There was a time when I had become enamored with how Matt handled the narrow streets of Brooklyn before realizing that I needed to refocus my attention on Allison. The Madame Morbid Trolley Tour is an exceptionally fun evening of horror and history that will make you think twice next time you walk down the streets of Brooklyn. It is worth the money, and then some. There’s no better activity for a cold, dark October night than the Madame Morbid Trolley Tour.

Advertisement

For more information on Madame Morbid Trolley Tours, and to get your tickets, click here!

Continue Reading

Reviews

‘Cujo’ (1983): A First-Time-Watch Review

Published

on

Bee Wallace in Cujo

I don’t know what’s wrong with me. I should have watched the Stephen King adaptation Cujo a million years ago. First of all, I was a voracious King reader in middle school. The other thing I was obsessed with during those years was Friends. You know, the show that hinges a major episode’s subplot on Rachel (Jennifer Aniston) watching Cujo for the first time. Whatever the reason was, I never got around to it, but I’m rectifying that oversight now.

What is Cujo About?

Cujo tells a relatively simple story. Donna Trenton’s (Dee Wallace) a housewife who’s cheating on her husband Vic (Daniel Hugh-Kelly) with local handyman Steve (Christopher Stone). There’s no accounting for taste, because Vic is 10 times hotter and Steve doesn’t own a bed frame. Look, Donna. I know Vic has that awful David Hasselhoff hair, but I promise the 1980s will end sooner or later. It’ll be OK.

Donna’s attempted termination of this affair ultimately leads to its discovery. Amid this drama, her car breaks down at a mechanic’s isolated farmhouse, trapping her and her son, Tad (Danny Pintauro). You see, the mechanic’s dog, Cujo, freshly christened with rabies, is patrolling the area and attacking everything in sight.

Dee Wallace Is Cujo’s Not-So-Secret Weapon

It would be impossible to start a worthwhile review of Cujo without praising Dee Wallace. The woman is a genre icon, naturally. Think about this: She had only appeared in seven theatrical movies before starring in Cujo. Four of those movies are The Stepford Wives, The Hills Have Eyes, E.T., and The Howling. But this woman didn’t become an icon simply by accidentally stumbling into some iconic titles. She is simply terrific as Donna, using her darting eyes and taut expression to deliver oodles of subtext. You instantly get the sense of how trapped she feels by marriage and motherhood without her uttering a single word.

A good performance is vital, here. Because there’s a hell of a lot of drama to get through before she’s trapped in that damn car. But Wallace instantly shoves you into Donna’s perspective, whether you like it or not. This makes it all the more potent when she is menaced by Cujo. Her desperate attempts for survival, also impeccably performed, have true weight because she seems like a real person. She is also given an incredible scene partner in Danny Pintauro. The future Who’s the Boss? star, who was only six when shooting Cujo, has a perfect everychild quality. His innocence heightens the peril. But so does that fact that he is just as irritating as every six-year-old you’ve ever met.

Advertisement

This movie truly captures how annoying it must be to be stuck in a life-and-death situation with a child. This is a compliment, I swear! Donna is worn down by every aspect of the situation, including her own son’s inability to cope with it. And this ratchets up the tension even further, to an almost unbearable degree.

Cujo Is a Mixed Bag, But Worthwhile Overall

The movie doesn’t work if Cujo himself doesn’t work, and at first I was real worried that he wouldn’t. In the first half, the St. Bernards that play Cujo onscreen are often shown to be wagging their tails in delight. Which kind of undercuts the reality of the situation, I’d say. But the editing and the special effects step in to fix what animal training couldn’t. The attack scenes in the second half are constructed with quick cuts that never let you get too much purchase. It’s a good approach for keeping viewers off-kilter.

Also, Cujo becomes less and less recognizable as a cuddly canine the further the movie gets. It’s a simple trick, really. He ends up getting coated with more and more slime. Saliva, pus, blood, and what have you. This is good for making him feel like a true movie monster. Plus, it’s a good mirror for the sliminess inside the car as it gets covered in sweat, blood, and grime.

The second half of the movie ultimately works like gangbusters. It’s a shame that Cujo is too cowardly to get Donna and Tad in the car before the halfway point. This decision is somewhat faithful to the book’s structure as I remember it. However, it diminishes the weight of the long days that they spend in the car. We really need to feel that crushing stretch of time, and we don’t. When Tad is suffering from dehydration, it’s not a gut punch. Honestly, I just found myself asking, “Already?” It’s good that they gave the movie a happier ending, because the classic grimdark Stephen King finale wouldn’t have landed.

Is Cujo Worth Watching in 2026?

At the end of the day, Cujo is a solid movie and I’m glad I finally watched it. However, it’s not such a stone-cold classic that I’m not at least a little intrigued by that upcoming Netflix remake

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria