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.