I came to "Men" because of my love for previous Alex Garland (director) efforts like Ex Machina & Annihilation. What I found with Men, however, was a largely symbolic and metaphorical film that didn't engage me on either level.
For a very basic overview, Men sees Harper (Jessie Buckley) on a vacation in the English countryside after the death of the husband (played by Paapa Essiedu) she was about to divorce. After being shown around her new manor by landlord Geoffrey (Rory Kinnear), a number of strange things begin happening--not the least of which being a naked man seemingly stalking her.
Men is a "folk horror" piece clearly constructed with health protocols in mind (small cast, open spaces, etc.). The best way I can put it in context is compare it to two other films of similar ilk:
-Men is sort of like Midsommar in that it is filled with metaphors representing events in the main character's past or a struggle she is currently undergoing. But while Midsommar disguises this fact until the final stretch (prolonging the overall mystery), Men makes it pretty clear early on. I preferred the former approach over the latter.
-Men is also closely aligned with "mother!", the Darren Aronofsky film heavily featuring religious and mythological symbolism. I can't say I loved (or even liked) that film all that much either, but at least I understand what was being symbolized. I can't say the same for Men.
I can give Men three stars because its first half has an air of mystery, Buckley is a fine actress, and Kinnear gets to play an extremely unique role in the proceedings. But other than those things, I was pretty much lost from beginning to end in determining just what exactly was supposed to be transpiring or referenced. Even after reading some online explanations, the whole thing still feels extremely underwhelming and not worth digging into (the death knell for any film making its bones in a non-literal realm).
Others who prioritize visual aesthetic and heavy does of symbology will understandably boost Men a bit higher than this, but I found it to be confusing and not worth the effort to even try and understand all that is being unearthed by Garland here. Perhaps my loss--or perhaps just poor execution of plot/theme/characters.
For a very basic overview, Men sees Harper (Jessie Buckley) on a vacation in the English countryside after the death of the husband (played by Paapa Essiedu) she was about to divorce. After being shown around her new manor by landlord Geoffrey (Rory Kinnear), a number of strange things begin happening--not the least of which being a naked man seemingly stalking her.
Men is a "folk horror" piece clearly constructed with health protocols in mind (small cast, open spaces, etc.). The best way I can put it in context is compare it to two other films of similar ilk:
-Men is sort of like Midsommar in that it is filled with metaphors representing events in the main character's past or a struggle she is currently undergoing. But while Midsommar disguises this fact until the final stretch (prolonging the overall mystery), Men makes it pretty clear early on. I preferred the former approach over the latter.
-Men is also closely aligned with "mother!", the Darren Aronofsky film heavily featuring religious and mythological symbolism. I can't say I loved (or even liked) that film all that much either, but at least I understand what was being symbolized. I can't say the same for Men.
I can give Men three stars because its first half has an air of mystery, Buckley is a fine actress, and Kinnear gets to play an extremely unique role in the proceedings. But other than those things, I was pretty much lost from beginning to end in determining just what exactly was supposed to be transpiring or referenced. Even after reading some online explanations, the whole thing still feels extremely underwhelming and not worth digging into (the death knell for any film making its bones in a non-literal realm).
Others who prioritize visual aesthetic and heavy does of symbology will understandably boost Men a bit higher than this, but I found it to be confusing and not worth the effort to even try and understand all that is being unearthed by Garland here. Perhaps my loss--or perhaps just poor execution of plot/theme/characters.