Men: Faces do Medo

First off, let me say, that was the strangest ending to a film I think I have ever seen. How this movie got an R rating is beyond me because it is graphic! Secondly, what the hell did I just watch??? The movie was going so well for the first hour or so, beautiful cinematography, a sweeping sound mix and some very brilliant acting and writing all around. But then things start to get... weird. It completely loses it's footing and the film turns into what I can only describe as the worst allegory for depravity and misogyny I think ever put to film. It just didn't make any sense and the more I think about it, the less sense it makes. There is no outright conclusion, only a bunch of nonsense thrown at you in hopes that you'll think it's cool, but it comes off as pretentious and pandering. I would've loved to know what happened afterwards, but alas the movie is unfinished. If you do go to see this one, be prepared for an ending that will either leave you gagging or wanting. It really leaves nothing to the imagination and everything to your imagination at the same time. I only recommend it for the strong acting and beautiful camera work, but other than that, the film falls flat on it's face in the last half hour. 2.5 birthings out of 5.

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.

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.

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.

I've seen some out there films in my time, believe me. But 'Men' is very close to taking the cake. I actually found myself in a mild sense of shock after the film. An usher asked me how it was and I didn't know what to say. I was genuinely lost for words. This movie is a ride.

I love a film that is willing to push boundaries. I love even more a film that simply has no boundaries. That's what this was. By the end there was nothing that could come on screen that would've surprised me. It may have shocked me, but it wouldn't have surprised me.

I get the general metaphor the film was going for. I tried not to overthink it because I don't think that's the wise thing to do. It makes sense though, at least on a base level. Not everyone may agree with it, but that's the beautiful thing about a perspective, you can't be wrong.

A small critique I had, and this will sound strange, but when the film is at its most shocking near the end, it is in a way at its least shocking too. Because before this the absurdity was at least kind of plausible (in a movie universe at least). However once the movie goes completely off the walls it's kind of easy to sit back and just say accept the ride, knowing that nothing is realistic any longer. Hopefully that made sense.

I really enjoyed this film, but not everyone will - I have never been more certain of that. There were a couple of women in the row in front of me who I expected to get up and leave at any moment. They stuck it out though and good for them. If you're up for it, I recommend this one. 8/10.