Una giovane donna va in vacanza da sola nella campagna inglese dopo la morte dell'ex marito.Una giovane donna va in vacanza da sola nella campagna inglese dopo la morte dell'ex marito.Una giovane donna va in vacanza da sola nella campagna inglese dopo la morte dell'ex marito.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 2 vittorie e 36 candidature totali
Recensioni in evidenza
Of what I've read from other reviewers, almost all are horribly misinterpreting this film. In it, Alex Garland returns to his British roots and goes for a supernatural body-horror with spins from both ancient mythologies and modern woke-ism. Reviewers condemn the movie for its use of anti-manliness, pro-womanhood, and fear of masculinity. Do any of them know what the film is actually about? It's about The Green Man, from ancient Pagan mythology (Wikipedia: Green_Man). He was a pre-historic god of fertility and rebirth, as showcased in the last scenes of the movie. In the movie, he is portrayed as at first a mischievous, then threatening, then moral-ground-testing supernatural being. Most reviewers interpret his presence completely wrong and see the film as though the main protagonist (a woman) is being attacked by the men in the world who surround her. Her husband's outrage is almost relatable until he hits her, and the men she runs into are mysteriously sinister, but not violent. Only when she has to defend herself does the movie become about physical violence. In reality, The Green Man is mimicking the bodies of the men in her life and manifesting them for her judgment. Alex Garland's Annihilation was great, and Civil War was outstanding, but this is an often overlooked and misunderstood movie in his catalog. I, personally, took off some points from my score because of how it was bogged down by interpretations of the men in the movie, as well because I prefer more blood in my body-horrors. But it was a pretty good movie, nonetheless.
In the same vein as the trippy 'Mother', it has elements of religious symbolism, portrayals of toxic masculinity and themes of nature, rebirth and body horror.
There's a lot of suspense built up at the start before it dives headlong into the crazy which somewhat ruins the movie.
Reminded me of a Ben Wheatley movie (not necessarily a good thing). And the CGI face of Rory Kinnear on the youth is laughable.
There's a lot of suspense built up at the start before it dives headlong into the crazy which somewhat ruins the movie.
Reminded me of a Ben Wheatley movie (not necessarily a good thing). And the CGI face of Rory Kinnear on the youth is laughable.
"Men" follows a young woman vacationing in a remote English village after suffering a personal loss. Immediately upon arrival, it appears she is being followed, and she finds herself increasingly unnerved by encounters with various men in the village.
This offering from Alex Garland is a strange, at times intoxicating melange of elements borrowed from supernatural thrillers, slasher films, and even body horror. Does it work? In part, yes. The first hour of "Men" is remarkable, and I found myself utterly lost in the visuals and atmosphere. The lush countryside and its green forests are captured in such a way that both the natural beauty and the stark ominousness of the landscape are on full display. There is a protracted scene in the first act in which Buckley's character takes a stroll through the woods, and it is truly one of the creepiest, most unnerving sequences I have seen in a film. To some extent, the film plays like an emerald green version of Lars von Trier's "Antichrist"; there are even shades of "Let Sleeping Corpses Lie" present, as well as an obvious (and memorable) visual nod to Carol Reed's "The Third Man".
Garland obviously has a taste for the surreal, and it is laid on thick here in a crescendo that builds to the shocking final act. Along the way, we are offered nightmarish sequences in churches, graveyards, and abandoned buildings; symbolism of the Green Man and the Sheela-na-gig are recurring motifs set against the green (and occasionally blood red) color palette, and Rory Kinnear's multiple roles (he portrays each of the male characters featured in the film) only compound the uncanniness. The entire thing truly feels like a very bad dream, and it does it better than any film I can recall seeing in recent memory.
Unfortunately, the film gets clunky in the final act, and the back-and-forth hi jinx start to wear thin. The finale features a repulsive sequence that could be pulled from a number of Brian Yuzna or David Cronenberg features, and, though shocking, I am not sure there is enough metaphoric subtext to support such an outrageous sequence. While there is an underlying theme in which Buckley's character observes pieces of her deceased husband in each of the men she encounters, I felt the over-the-top gross out nature of the ending was somewhat unwarranted. On the bright side, however, the consummate performances from Buckley and Kinnear help maintain some believability here.
Overall, "Men" largely succeeds on the basis of its stellar photography and atmosphere, which envelops the viewer in an emerald nightmare landscape that is both gorgeous and unnerving. The all-out body horror of the final act does feel unearned, but I can say this much: You'll never forget seeing it. 7/10.
This offering from Alex Garland is a strange, at times intoxicating melange of elements borrowed from supernatural thrillers, slasher films, and even body horror. Does it work? In part, yes. The first hour of "Men" is remarkable, and I found myself utterly lost in the visuals and atmosphere. The lush countryside and its green forests are captured in such a way that both the natural beauty and the stark ominousness of the landscape are on full display. There is a protracted scene in the first act in which Buckley's character takes a stroll through the woods, and it is truly one of the creepiest, most unnerving sequences I have seen in a film. To some extent, the film plays like an emerald green version of Lars von Trier's "Antichrist"; there are even shades of "Let Sleeping Corpses Lie" present, as well as an obvious (and memorable) visual nod to Carol Reed's "The Third Man".
Garland obviously has a taste for the surreal, and it is laid on thick here in a crescendo that builds to the shocking final act. Along the way, we are offered nightmarish sequences in churches, graveyards, and abandoned buildings; symbolism of the Green Man and the Sheela-na-gig are recurring motifs set against the green (and occasionally blood red) color palette, and Rory Kinnear's multiple roles (he portrays each of the male characters featured in the film) only compound the uncanniness. The entire thing truly feels like a very bad dream, and it does it better than any film I can recall seeing in recent memory.
Unfortunately, the film gets clunky in the final act, and the back-and-forth hi jinx start to wear thin. The finale features a repulsive sequence that could be pulled from a number of Brian Yuzna or David Cronenberg features, and, though shocking, I am not sure there is enough metaphoric subtext to support such an outrageous sequence. While there is an underlying theme in which Buckley's character observes pieces of her deceased husband in each of the men she encounters, I felt the over-the-top gross out nature of the ending was somewhat unwarranted. On the bright side, however, the consummate performances from Buckley and Kinnear help maintain some believability here.
Overall, "Men" largely succeeds on the basis of its stellar photography and atmosphere, which envelops the viewer in an emerald nightmare landscape that is both gorgeous and unnerving. The all-out body horror of the final act does feel unearned, but I can say this much: You'll never forget seeing it. 7/10.
1. If you are a fan of Mother! (2017) you might enjoy this film. If you thought Mother! Was outrageous, over the top, and excessively metaphorical I would definitely pass on this one. This film is not like Garland's previous films. For reference when I bought my ticket the theater employee said that they had been told to warn people that this film was over the top making me think many people were walking out asking for refunds.
2. If you decided to see this film do not go see it during prime time in a packed theater. See it during a weekday matinee. This film is bound to elicit obnoxious comments, laughs, and various verbal reactions from the audience that will make for a miserable theater experience.
So this "review" is more of a warning. Best of luck.
2. If you decided to see this film do not go see it during prime time in a packed theater. See it during a weekday matinee. This film is bound to elicit obnoxious comments, laughs, and various verbal reactions from the audience that will make for a miserable theater experience.
So this "review" is more of a warning. Best of luck.
Generally, I'm not a fan of cinema as metaphor (got halfway through the mess that was 'Mother!', spotted the metaphor and switched off), but this was so well done that I couldn't look away.
Which says a lot considering there's a couple of scenes in there that ain't for the squeamish. I'd recommend this not just for the deep sense of unease it stirs up (again and again) and the disturbing shots scattered throughout, but also the setting, the effective use of music, the performances and the metaphor itself. Visceral, affecting and deeply unsettling.
Anyone looking for run-of-the-mill horror might do better to avoid this one, but if you're in the mood for something with a little more substance beneath the surface give it a watch. At the least you'll be entertained.
Which says a lot considering there's a couple of scenes in there that ain't for the squeamish. I'd recommend this not just for the deep sense of unease it stirs up (again and again) and the disturbing shots scattered throughout, but also the setting, the effective use of music, the performances and the metaphor itself. Visceral, affecting and deeply unsettling.
Anyone looking for run-of-the-mill horror might do better to avoid this one, but if you're in the mood for something with a little more substance beneath the surface give it a watch. At the least you'll be entertained.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizMen (2022) was filmed in the United Kingdom, specifically St Katharine Docks, London, and parts of Gloucestershire, including Withington, standing in for Cotson; and a tunnel in The Forest of Dean.
- BlooperOn around 28 minutes in, the phone Harper uses to take the picture and the phone she uses to see it in the bath are different.
- Colonne sonoreLove Song
Written by Lesley Duncan
Performed by Lesley Duncan
Courtesy of 1971 Sony Music Entertainment UK Limited
Licensed by Sony Music Entertainment UK Limited
Published by Concord Music Publishing LLC
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Men?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Siti ufficiali
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Men: Terror en las sombras
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Withington, Gloucestershire, Inghilterra, Regno Unito(village of Cotson)
- Azienda produttrice
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 7.587.853 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 3.293.030 USD
- 22 mag 2022
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 11.151.120 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 40min(100 min)
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti