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.

The climax of "Men" has a certain sequence that can only be described as grotesque - it was a real labor of love, if you will (read between the lines, my friend). And seeing this specific scene take up the entire width of the silver screen in extreme closeup was not something I particularly expected, or wanted, to see in theatres. However, in a weird way I admired this film for throwing caution to the wind - "Gosh darn it," this movie seems to say, "You'll watch what I want you to watch, and you'll like it!" And so I didn't mind the initial sequence, until director Alex Garland portrayed it three more times.

"Men" is simultaneously an exercise of too much and yet not enough. Because when Garland goes for it, he really goes for it; throwing everything and the kitchen sink at his audience in terms of visuals and sound design, on one hand this movie satisfies on a purely primal level. Crisp, bright colors permeate this movie, and coupled with the booming and borderline intrusive score, you have something that your eyes and ears will happily soak up. And in fact, from the moment this film started I was immediately in awe of just how good it looked. But on the other hand, all the visuals and sounds in the world can't make up for a poor plot, and "Men" has a poor plot.

Well, let me backtrack. The plot isn't inherently poor - actually, it's pretty interesting. Starring the beautiful Jessie Buckley as Harper, "Men" follows her as she retreats to a vacation home in the English countryside after experiencing a personal tragedy. Things just seem to go from bad to worse for poor Harper, though, as she soon stumbles across a town where the men look strikingly similar. It's an intriguing premise, especially since the film employs a heavy use of emotional dramatic tension to drive the story forward. You'll find yourself invested in the puzzle that's being put together before your eyes, and engaged in Harper's story and the very human drama that comes from it. And with this expert combination of horror and drama, "Men" seems to make you a promise of a satisfying conclusion. And would you be surprised if I told you that "Men" doesn't deliver?

Looking past the striking visuals, euphoric soundtrack, and Oscar-worthy acting from Jessie Buckley, you have yourself a movie that lacks development. Too long on the draw, the movie takes its time in setting up its main character. In doing so, the film becomes, primarily, a character piece with thriller elements to it - in fact, the horror doesn't really kick in until the latter half of the movie. This wouldn't be a bad thing if the movie actually had a satisfying story that tied the drama and horror together in a conclusive way, but it doesn't. Instead, "Men" feels like two separate movies: a study of grief, and a home invasion thriller. And to be honest with you, the purely dramatic sections of this movie were my favorite simply because the horror elements felt like a narrative afterthought.

Sure, you'll get all the suspense and bloodshed you want out of this type of premise; you'll also get a stunning lack of explanation as to why what's happening is happening. Actually, strike that. You will get an explanation, one that you'll find in one of the laziest cop outs for an ending that I've seen in quite some time. With the subtlety of an atom bomb, the ultimate reveal is uncreative to the extreme. Put it this way: I had my suspicions that the movie would go in the route I thought it was going in, and when my suspicions were confirmed, I couldn't help but groan.

"Men" crumbles under its own weight with a unique premise that the filmmakers, clearly, didn't know what to do with. A lack of satisfying narrative development means that "Men" doesn't wholly succeed as either a drama or a horror film. However, it's so well acted, so pretty to look at, and so nice to listen to that I can't outright reject this movie, because I will certainly be watching this again at home one day. My recommendation? Give this a watch solely for its sights and sounds, and temper your expectations in terms of its storyline. Doing so, you may find just enough to like, but not enough to love.

I'm a fan of Alex Garland's previous films; I liked Ex Machina and I loved Annihilation. With Men, he lost me.

The film has a monstrously effective first 30 minutes. The characters are introduced with airtight exposition and riveting dialogue. The atmosphere is developed with gorgeous, haunting cinematography that envelopes each scene in dread.

After this near-perfect first act, the film falls flat on its stupid face.

The artistic presentation remains technically gorgeous throughout, but any sense of narrative cohesion or character consistency is thrown out the window in favor of the simple rote routine of throwing strange metaphorical imagery at the screen and having our protagonist run away from it while avoiding doing something rational...

Over...

And over...

And over again...for about the entire second half of the movie.

The story reaches its thematic heights about halfway through and then Garland has nothing else to say, so he keeps hammering in the exact same overly simplified message of "misogyny being passed down via cultural acceptance through generations" with increasingly bizarre imagery that deflates any sort of tension or sense of true danger.

To top off the insult to the audience's intelligence, the movie ends with a line of dialogue that gives us the exact same message we got in one of the film's first scenes.

This is a movie that is almost an hour longer than it needs to be. It's so convinced of its own intelligence, yet so shallow and stupid, lacking any sense of nuance whatsoever.

Do you, like 99.9% of western people, believe that hitting women and emotionally manipulating people is bad?

Congratulations. You're smarter than Alex Garland thinks you are, and I saved you 100 minutes.