MEN REVIEW

Alex Garland’s quizzical horror-thriller is deliberately confounding and quite strange

For his third movie as a director, Alex Garland goes so far off the rails into the world of the weird and quizzical, the comparisons he frequently gets to Kubrick might now include the general critical reaction Kubrick received whenever he released a new movie during his latter career. (Fortunately, all of Kubrick’s films were eventually considered film classics despite them not all receiving raves when first released – for fun, check out this spoiler-filled New York Times review of 2001: A Space Odyssey.)

Jessie Buckley plays Harper, a woman whose husband James (Paapa Essiedu) killed himself after she told him she wanted a divorce. She’s still haunted by the vision of James jumping (or possibly falling) to his death, so she rents out an isolated country house from its rather strange owner Geoffrey (Rory Kinnear) to try to recuperate from the incident. When she goes out for a walk in the woods, she encounters a man who seems to be following her, all the way back to the house. Oh, yeah, and he’s completely naked. Creepy stuff like that keeps happening to Harper as she becomes more familiar with the area and its populace.

Those interested in Men due to Garland’s previous work might need to prepare themselves for the slow-build methodology the film uses to introduce Harper (and us, the viewer) to all sorts of weirdness at the house and the surrounding village while slowly integrating genre elements.

At times, the film seems to be delving into the general creepiness of insular (and often, incest-filled villages, as depicted famously in The Wicker Man or even the horror aspects of Edgar Wright’s Hot Fuzz. The problem is that any humor meant to be inherent in Men delivers laughs that are more uncomfortable than from any meant comedy. But it’s not as simple as Harper just finding herself surrounded by creepy and inappropriate men as the title suggests. There are all sorts of references to biblical and even pagan spiritualism without fully explaining what either has to do with what Harper is experiencing. In a sense, that probably puts Men more within the genre sub-category of Ben Wheatley’s In the Earth or even Ari Aster’s Midsommar where there’s a lot of earth-related juju.

Garland certainly has the finest of collaborators in Buckley, who is able to sell all the weirdness and terror haunting Harper, but also brings more weight to some seriously dramatic moments between her and James that we see in flashback. Having had my share of brushes with depression and suicide, I certainly had my own thoughts on James’ mindset seems to be manipulating Harper with his threats to kill himself, and whether her reaction was warranted or not. I imagine that will be a large part of the conversation surrounding Garland’s latest.

The movie works just as well for Kinnear’s ability to portray a number of different characters using visual effects, hair and makeup to differentiate between them. The only other significant cast member is Gayle Rankin as Harper’s bestie Riley, who is frequently checking in on her via constantly intermittent video chat.

The term “body horror” is almost as overused when talking about genre films as is “elevated horror,” and yet, Men probably is more in the former category than the latter. In fact, it’s very slow in introducing any actual horror elements until the absolutely bonkers third act where a combination of practical and visual special effects are used to create a sequence that’s not likely to be forgotten once it’s seen.

I wish I could tell you honestly that I had any idea what was going on or what Garland was trying to achieve with this movie. It might require another viewing from me, and I do believe that as crazy as things do get, Men will indeed get repeat viewings. I could share my own theories about what happens to Harper, especially at the end, but I would just be adding to a big pile of theories that will rely heavily on who is watching it for any sort of context. Even so, I didn’t get the impression Garland was trying to be a provocateur ala von Trier or Gaspar Noé with Men even if it’s likely to be divisive.

Men does get points for originality and weirdness, but at times, both things detract one from fully enjoying what Garland was trying to achieve, because it just leaves you confused about what exactly you’re watching.

Rating: 7/10

Men opens nationwide on Friday, May 20.