It’s a bit strange to me that Alex Garland, who started out as a novelist before becoming a scriptwriter before becoming a film director, has created a film that is more successful on a cinematic level than are its narrative and themes. Not only does he have a distinct visual style very much in evidence across works like Ex Machina, Annihilation, and Devs; but he is also working a lot with sound design (especially in Devs), yet another formal element that is distinct from the literary. Is there anything this guy can’t do?! A complete aesthete.
The first act of Men is a very competent psychological suspense/thriller film, with only a few moments of horror that break through the atmosphere. The themes of toxic masculinity are fairly clear through the second act…but eventually, the film tries to make connections between its one-dimensional men and the folk horror elements that recur in abstract montages…but the script does not actually connect these elements in a successful manner. It’s not simply a matter of ambiguity: the idea that toxic masculinity is a perpetual cycle springing from some pagan root, and that it reduces all specificity (different men) to the universal (toxic man) is evident enough. Neither is the problem a lack of exposition, like “what sort of creature” is the Kinnear character. The problem is that these connections are half-assed, and such an interpretation is essentially generous: there is no evident justification for why the pagan elements are included, or why they are relevant to the Buckley character’s narrative.
I thought narrative was supposed to be Garland’s strong suit?! Practical effects might make him a “real” “film maker,” but unfortunately this bonafide comes at the expense of being a real “writer.” Still gets the heart because I’m being unnecessarily harsh in this review, and it’s still a pretty decent movie.
EDIT: I shouldn’t be surprised by this, but after skimming the film’s “reception history” (reviews on Letterboxd), it seems like the general interpretation of the film is extremely uncharitable. “I’m one of the good ones.” I think that the final act makes it clear that Garland is trying to do something more complex than simply virtue signal. I obviously cannot speak to what motivated him to want to do that from the outset, but in my opinion the cycle of wet birth and rebirth that we witness, as well as the recurring Pagan images, are critical of “toxic masculinity” as well as the counter-masculine discourse. There is a clear connection being made between something primordial within the species, and the male characters present in the film. My point of critique of this film is that it doesn’t come together—the double-edged critique really needs to be gleaned—but regardless, I don’t think this film lends itself to reductive “all men, just not me” dismissal.