Review: Men

Image courtesy of A24.

Not since Darren Aronofsky's "Mother!" (which I loved, by the way) is a movie as sure to rankle audiences as Alex Garland's "Men," a strange folk horror film with some timely and interesting concepts - and an unsettling atmosphere - that ultimately doesn't pay off in the way it's meant to, even if it remains fairly engaging throughout.

Garland's previous directorial work has been unsettling sci-fi dramas - such as the acclaimed "Ex Machina" and the underrated "Annihilation" - and "Men" is his first foray into horror. The film has the type of ending that will likely leave audiences scratching their heads - or, in some reported cases, booing the screen - but will ultimately pay some dividends for those willing to put in the work.

The film opens with a harrowing scenario - a young wife, Harper (Jessie Buckley in a solid performance), is trying to reconcile a tragic situation. She was in the middle of a separation from her husband, James (Paapa Essiedu) when an argument broke out and he struck her. Shocked, she told him to leave and never to return. He threatens to kill himself, and moments later we see them make eye contact as he falls to his death from a balcony above their apartment. Whether he actually committed suicide or - we are told he broke into the apartment above in an attempt to gain entry into Harper's apartment - slipped and fell is unclear.

Harper finds a gorgeous and secluded home in the English countryside where she goes alone for an escape and to clear her mind. Almost from the moment she gets there, something seems amiss. There's the amusingly cheery landlord (Rory Kinnear) and an eerily abandoned train tunnel where Harper first gets a glimpse of a naked man who will continually show up on the lawn of the rental cottage, prompting her to call the police.

Other men in the town - all of whom are played by Kinnear, including a teenager with seemingly intentional shoddy special effects - begin to harass Harper in ways that, at first, appear mild, but later become more frightening.

In most of the cases, the men blame Harper for their own bad behavior - the teenaged version of Kinnear calls her a "bitch" for refusing to play a game with him, a vicar who at first seems sympathetic insinuates it's her fault that her husband died and, in flashback sequences, James consistently tells Harper that she is to be blamed for his behaving the way he does.

So, what exactly is going on here and what is Garland hinting at? In the film's gruesome finale, continual stages of rebirth - I can't describe this any further without giving things away, but trust me when I say you'll know when you've reached this sequence - perhaps suggest that toxic masculinity is passed down from generation to generation, and Harper's character is seen as powerless against the gaslighting male structure in which she is a prisoner, that is, until she realizes that the demands of the apparition haunting her are pretty pathetic. 

So, even if it doesn't completely come together in its finale, there are some interesting concepts at play here, and how the film incorporates the concept of toxic masculinity - especially in how men try to make Harper feel as if their personal failings are her fault - leaves much to think about afterward.

But it's a little unfortunate that the manner in which we reach this conclusion is a bit of a drag. From the moment that the story takes a home invasion turn, it begins to lose a little steam, both visually and story-wise, even if the theme continues to remain interesting. A series of attacks in the cottage that grow increasingly bloody make the film's horrors a little too literal - as opposed to the much more effective creepiness of suggestion throughout the film's first half - and the gory piece de resistance in the finale gets repetitive, although that's probably the whole point. 

"Men" is what I'd call an interesting movie - it doesn't completely work, but I can appreciate a movie that aims to please no one during a movie season that is typically all about fan service. I prefer Garland's other films, but his latest is, if nothing else, not quite like anything else you're likely to see in a theater any time soon.