movie completely lost all tension when they showed the naked guy hanging out in the garden casually leaning on the wall and peering through the window. The trailer made it out that he was going to be a demon.
Studio realised they gave garland too much creative freedom too late and tried marketing movie as a horror movie. So glad I pirated this steaming piece of shit. >lets cram as many themes and symbols into the film as possible to make people think there is a deeper meaning so that we can say viewers were filtered when they don't get it
I HATE THIS MOVIE, FRICK YOU ALEX GARLAND
I liked this film a lot, but I think it should have been named something else. The title is very provocative and zeitgeisty and it cheapens the rest of the kino.
I also think it was quite limited in scope and unfortunately liberal. Plenty of women IRL reinforce the kinds of patriarchal attitudes depicted in the movie, and it would have been kino to see Rory Kinnear's face on some evil angloid woman.
>lets cram as many themes and symbols into the film as possible to make people think there is a deeper meaning so that we can say viewers were filtered when they don't get it
There weren't that many symbols or themes, the metaphor was pretty obvious.
The only thing even kind of obscure was the naked guy. But he's just a Green Man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Man
It's not huge in pop culture but it's common in history.
The green man being a symbol of rebirth ties into the pregnancy scene at the end, as well as Rory Kinnear's multiple roles.
I think it was just that she couldn't escape her guilt over her husband killing himself over her, so literally every man she runs makes her relive the trauma. The act of interacting with men itself puts her on the defensive, because she thinks she's somehow going to trigger some irrational response out of them too
Pretty much exactly right. Although it's not necessary her own feelings of guilt, but feelings of guilt that society expects her to have. It's one thing for her to wish she had handled things differently or that her husband hadn't punched his clock because as much as he was a piece of shit they were married and she didn't want him to die. But on the other hand she isn't actually responsible for what happened, she shouldn't feel guilt.
yes i agree the film is actually very limited in the scope of its thematic subtext and that isn't necessarily a bad thing since it is primarily character/performance driven and focusses on imagery. inevitably people will view it as an emperor has no clothes scenario since it eschews conventional narrative structure in favour of visceral evocative cinematography and allows the performances of kinnear and buckley to shine. it is a diamond dozen for a film like this to be viewed as empty and pretentious because it doesn't give the audience what they want.
>The only thing even kind of obscure was the naked guy. But he's just a Green Man >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Man >It's not huge in pop culture but it's common in history.
You think because you knew the relatively common thing that was being referenced/behind the story of this film it makes you smarter for picking up on the scattershot hamfisted imagery and symbolism.
It's dishonest at best and totally vapid. The film pretty much has nothing to say, and as you already alluded to is propping itself up with zeitgeist to garner a modicum of interest.
In short it's shit and you're a twit. Do better anon.
There is nothing "kino" about Men. It's just a lot of "hmmm that could have been interesting or entertaining" moments at best.
that anon didn't imply the green man is an obscure concept
>the film pretty much has nothing to say
now who is dishonest and at best totally vapid? what makes you think the purpose of a film is to spoonfeed you a set of themes through a conventional linear narrative structure? i mean holy shit this isn't a great movie but you don't need to be such a disingenuous c**t about it.
>what makes you think the purpose of a film is to spoonfeed you a set of themes through a conventional linear narrative structure
I appreciate a good art movie, but this wasn't that and attempted to mask it's failure to say anything by throwing symbology at the viewers in the hope that at least pseuds may enjoy it.
Personally I'm angry that it was marketed as a horror film that actually looked fairly entertaining and interesting, which was the total opposite of the reality.
Anon you should stop making the argument that it was throwing symbology around to trick the viewer. Everyone with a room temperature IQ understood the symbology.
>he is strongly associated with nature and birth in the movie
so what? She wasn't pregnant as far as we know, she didn't lose a child, the only reference to pregnancy came at the end when we see her friend is pregnant and are expected to drop our jaws to the floor like a basedjak and proclaim "oh em jee what a twist!!" It's fricking lazy and hacky when the film was clearly set up to be about grief and loss of her husband and they couldn't figure out a way to write a convincing ending.
>so what
so the film is about patriarchal attitudes being passed down through the generations. The behaviour that she feared in her husband was present in wider male society and comes with a set of expectations for how she should behave, even though that behaviour would put her safety and happiness at risk.
But I don't know why the friend was pregnant at the end, that was weird to me so maybe I'm an idiot too.
>Although it's not necessary her own feelings of guilt, but feelings of guilt that society expects her to have.
I'd say she was definitely traumatized. she didn't know what to make of it, and honestly what society thinks has little to do with it, because she was good at shunning society.
I'm not even sure the word "guilt" corresponds to her feelings. she fears the opposite gender, her smile at the end when her (female) friend showed up was quite significant.
That's the wording I should've used, her experience with her husband made her afraid of men
>what society thinks has little to do with it
not really. Rory Kinnear's characters were representations of society, the Vicar being the most obvious example.
Now maybe you can say Kinnear's characters weren't real and what we were seeing was her expectation of how society would act towards her. That would be fair, although her friend seeing the trail of blood at the end would be evidence that the events of the movie were real.
Part of her trauma seems to be an insecurity about her actions. She thinks she was justified about what she said towards her husband, but her husband died so it's hard to balance the two. You can think you're right and be insecure about it or expect people to hate you for what you did.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Everyone with a room temperature IQ understood the symbology.
I also understood the symbology though. My point is that it contributed nothing to the meaningless fricking movie with muh shoehorned spectacle of birth at the end. Good symbology and themes are woven into the film and ending, not sprinkled on top to give an air of meaning.
2 years ago
Anonymous
But it wasn't meaningless and it was woven throughout the movie.
The green man ties the other Kinnear characters together. They aren't just individual bad people, but part of a continuum.
That continuum being present in all the Kinnear characters helps add to the protagonists feeling of being in a dangerous area, that the monster is everywhere in a sense.
If you want to argue that the meaning or symbology wasn't deep enough, then I would probably agree with you. But for me I thought the themes suited the character, and were basically just good seasoning for solid horror fundamentals.
This clearly isn't a movie concerned with whether what's happening is "real" or not, which is why the anon sperging about it not being a horror movie is so upset. It's just about a woman getting over a traumatic experience and showing that it's possible to do. She starts out afraid, becomes overwhelmed by her fear, then realizes the true root of it and overcomes it. I think the friend being pregnant is symbolic of life having regained its balance for her. She'd spent the night before confronted with a man giving birth over and over, something completely unnatural, but now it's daylight and the first thing she sees is a pregnant woman, and she knows that life is back to normal. I imagine there's some sort of thought of how the green man is somehow a contradiction of the concept of Mother Nature, making him a threat, but could easily be me projecting. I don't think it's a terrific film, but it's definitely not the pile of shit this other moron is making it out as.
Agreed. The green man being a subversion of nature makes sense.
And yeah when she saw her husband again she did seem to be over it, not even bothering to REEE at him with the axe.
I do think it's a horror film though. The slow reveal of the multiple Kinnear roles was very unsettling, especially when the kid takes off the mask.
And yeah I don't think it's a 10/10 either, but I think a decent low budget horror film like this is a little treat. Watch it and enjoy it, maybe talk about it the next day, then forget it. No harm done.
>Now maybe you can say Kinnear's characters weren't real
I thought she had a moment of clarity when she was talking to her friend and implied the landlord was like a caricature, "he was almost TOO country".
what I think really happened is that those men really said those things, it was the tone in which they were said that was imagined by her. the landlord made casual chauvinistic jokes, but it was just good fun (like the joke about the bar being a 10 minute walk, and a 30 minute walk back).
the priest talked about feelings of guilt, but he wasn't being mean about it. the kid was just a moronic child.
she did find a hobo lurking around, but he was harmless.
the blood could have been hers or the landlord's after being hit by her car.
Yeah, the landlord was like Paul Whitehouse character. Like the other anon said, I don't think it matters either way how real that stuff was.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Now maybe you can say Kinnear's characters weren't real
I thought she had a moment of clarity when she was talking to her friend and implied the landlord was like a caricature, "he was almost TOO country".
what I think really happened is that those men really said those things, it was the tone in which they were said that was imagined by her. the landlord made casual chauvinistic jokes, but it was just good fun (like the joke about the bar being a 10 minute walk, and a 30 minute walk back).
the priest talked about feelings of guilt, but he wasn't being mean about it. the kid was just a moronic child.
she did find a hobo lurking around, but he was harmless.
the blood could have been hers or the landlord's after being hit by her car.
Putting more thought into it than the writer no wonder movies are shit these days when normies can't understand a lack of talent and just fill in the gaps for you. It's a movie with a production team and studio behind it, it couldn't possibly just be bad
2 years ago
Anonymous
I didn't think it was bad though. I enjoyed watching it.
I do usually think about what's happening on screen and I don't enjoy being spoon fed to last drop like you, so I guess that explains why we had a different opinion.
2 years ago
Anonymous
honestly, I didn't think it was good, and still don't. but it wasn't bad either. the good visuals and Jessie's performance make it worth your while.
When I finished watching it I thought I couldn't relate because I'm not a woman. but neither is Garland, so maybe he doesn't know what the frick he's talking about.
Only a woman will be able to tell us if he's capturing a real feeling there or just being a hack.
2 years ago
Anonymous
the thing is you're presuming it's without redeeming qualities and that anyone who says otherwise is performing some kind of mental gymnastics, but you are the one flip flopping. it isn't a great movie but it isn't bad.
2 years ago
Anonymous
This clearly isn't a movie concerned with whether what's happening is "real" or not, which is why the anon sperging about it not being a horror movie is so upset. It's just about a woman getting over a traumatic experience and showing that it's possible to do. She starts out afraid, becomes overwhelmed by her fear, then realizes the true root of it and overcomes it. I think the friend being pregnant is symbolic of life having regained its balance for her. She'd spent the night before confronted with a man giving birth over and over, something completely unnatural, but now it's daylight and the first thing she sees is a pregnant woman, and she knows that life is back to normal. I imagine there's some sort of thought of how the green man is somehow a contradiction of the concept of Mother Nature, making him a threat, but could easily be me projecting. I don't think it's a terrific film, but it's definitely not the pile of shit this other moron is making it out as.
2 years ago
Anonymous
your film sucks alex
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Now maybe you can say Kinnear's characters weren't real
I thought she had a moment of clarity when she was talking to her friend and implied the landlord was like a caricature, "he was almost TOO country".
what I think really happened is that those men really said those things, it was the tone in which they were said that was imagined by her. the landlord made casual chauvinistic jokes, but it was just good fun (like the joke about the bar being a 10 minute walk, and a 30 minute walk back).
the priest talked about feelings of guilt, but he wasn't being mean about it. the kid was just a moronic child.
she did find a hobo lurking around, but he was harmless.
the blood could have been hers or the landlord's after being hit by her car.
I think it's fine to not know about the green man, but I think it could be pretty easy to infer the meaning behind him considering he is strongly associated with nature and birth in the movie. It's not like knowing about this symbol is the secret key to unlocking the meaning of the film. It's just accident that I know about the Green Man, it's not like I just used my innate intelligence to figure out that such a symbol must exist and then went looking for it, I just happened upon it.
I don't think the imagery is at all scattershot, I think it's too highly focused.
The metaphor is really obvious. I don't think it makes me smart to understand it, I think it makes you stupid that you have issues understanding it.
Despite the metaphor being too obvious, I think the film has really solid horror fundamentals and good performances from Rory Kinnear. It's a good low budget horror.
>he is strongly associated with nature and birth in the movie
so what? She wasn't pregnant as far as we know, she didn't lose a child, the only reference to pregnancy came at the end when we see her friend is pregnant and are expected to drop our jaws to the floor like a basedjak and proclaim "oh em jee what a twist!!" It's fricking lazy and hacky when the film was clearly set up to be about grief and loss of her husband and they couldn't figure out a way to write a convincing ending.
>when we see her friend is pregnant and are expected to drop our jaws to the floor like a basedjak and proclaim "oh em jee what a twist!!
I still don't know what are we supposed to make of her friend being pregnant. what's the twist again?
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's my point. It's an incredibly lazy way to make people think there is meaning where there isn't. They purposefully went for muh ambiguous ending in order to try and give meaning to all the fertility and sex symbology blasted at the viewer earlier in the film.
It couldn't decide if it wanted to be about fertility and the relationship betweeen the two sexes or if it wanted to be about her grief and guilt over her husband. And then was marketed as a (potentially psychological) horror on top of it all. It's a piece of shit film.
2 years ago
Anonymous
here I was thinking she was a troon the entire movie
she got some real man features, and one of the craziest jawlines since Kate Fleetwood
>Although it's not necessary her own feelings of guilt, but feelings of guilt that society expects her to have.
I'd say she was definitely traumatized. she didn't know what to make of it, and honestly what society thinks has little to do with it, because she was good at shunning society.
I'm not even sure the word "guilt" corresponds to her feelings. she fears the opposite gender, her smile at the end when her (female) friend showed up was quite significant.
that's what I thougth it was gonna be but seems some random other shit
I saw some liberal on imdb saying the end sequence was showing misogyny being passed down from generation to generation which makes sense. Shame they went all moronic and gay at end some quite good scenes before that.
>I saw some liberal on imdb saying the end sequence was showing misogyny being passed down from generation to generation
lmao that sounds kind of forced
I saw some liberal on imdb saying the end sequence was showing misogyny being passed down from generation to generation which makes sense. Shame they went all moronic and gay at end some quite good scenes before that.
It's a dishonest film called "Men"... seriously what do you think it is about??
I typically love Garland but it's been a slippery slope with him the last few years, with each project slightly degraded from the last. He's genuinely starting to act like a pseud and I'm not sure if it's because he's got nothing left in the tank, or because I've grown up a bit, or simply because he's not as smart as he thinks he is... But from Annihilation to Devs to this.. it's not a great trajectory.
I think it was just that she couldn't escape her guilt over her husband killing himself over her, so literally every man she runs makes her relive the trauma. The act of interacting with men itself puts her on the defensive, because she thinks she's somehow going to trigger some irrational response out of them too
it's about trauma, I guess. she couldn't overcome what happened to her. even when she tries to isolate herself, she still must make contact with some men, but she just can't function normally around men. not a good movie, but with some very good shots and Jessie Buckley bossing again.
This movie was a perfect example of right wing christian conservativism on the country side, moat women moved away from the village inti the cities leaving all the incel inbreds, so when a liberal woman show up they start seething and coping
your mom
movie completely lost all tension when they showed the naked guy hanging out in the garden casually leaning on the wall and peering through the window. The trailer made it out that he was going to be a demon.
Studio realised they gave garland too much creative freedom too late and tried marketing movie as a horror movie. So glad I pirated this steaming piece of shit.
>lets cram as many themes and symbols into the film as possible to make people think there is a deeper meaning so that we can say viewers were filtered when they don't get it
I HATE THIS MOVIE, FRICK YOU ALEX GARLAND
But what was is about?
Black personFEET
Any webms of this scene? This was one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen.
It's mine and your moms sextape homosexual
>going to be a demon
Wait he wasn't? I realize the character is more of a metaphor than real, but he did turn into some forest spirit at the end there
I liked this film a lot, but I think it should have been named something else. The title is very provocative and zeitgeisty and it cheapens the rest of the kino.
I also think it was quite limited in scope and unfortunately liberal. Plenty of women IRL reinforce the kinds of patriarchal attitudes depicted in the movie, and it would have been kino to see Rory Kinnear's face on some evil angloid woman.
>lets cram as many themes and symbols into the film as possible to make people think there is a deeper meaning so that we can say viewers were filtered when they don't get it
There weren't that many symbols or themes, the metaphor was pretty obvious.
The only thing even kind of obscure was the naked guy. But he's just a Green Man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Man
It's not huge in pop culture but it's common in history.
The green man being a symbol of rebirth ties into the pregnancy scene at the end, as well as Rory Kinnear's multiple roles.
Pretty much exactly right. Although it's not necessary her own feelings of guilt, but feelings of guilt that society expects her to have. It's one thing for her to wish she had handled things differently or that her husband hadn't punched his clock because as much as he was a piece of shit they were married and she didn't want him to die. But on the other hand she isn't actually responsible for what happened, she shouldn't feel guilt.
yes i agree the film is actually very limited in the scope of its thematic subtext and that isn't necessarily a bad thing since it is primarily character/performance driven and focusses on imagery. inevitably people will view it as an emperor has no clothes scenario since it eschews conventional narrative structure in favour of visceral evocative cinematography and allows the performances of kinnear and buckley to shine. it is a diamond dozen for a film like this to be viewed as empty and pretentious because it doesn't give the audience what they want.
Do not use that greentext on me when I'm pointing out the obvious.
FRICK
I MEANT PASTA
FRICK FRICK
FRICK
>The only thing even kind of obscure was the naked guy. But he's just a Green Man
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Man
>It's not huge in pop culture but it's common in history.
You think because you knew the relatively common thing that was being referenced/behind the story of this film it makes you smarter for picking up on the scattershot hamfisted imagery and symbolism.
It's dishonest at best and totally vapid. The film pretty much has nothing to say, and as you already alluded to is propping itself up with zeitgeist to garner a modicum of interest.
In short it's shit and you're a twit. Do better anon.
There is nothing "kino" about Men. It's just a lot of "hmmm that could have been interesting or entertaining" moments at best.
that anon didn't imply the green man is an obscure concept
>the film pretty much has nothing to say
now who is dishonest and at best totally vapid? what makes you think the purpose of a film is to spoonfeed you a set of themes through a conventional linear narrative structure? i mean holy shit this isn't a great movie but you don't need to be such a disingenuous c**t about it.
reddit spacing go back
disregard entire post and spew vapid meme go back to kindergarten
>what makes you think the purpose of a film is to spoonfeed you a set of themes through a conventional linear narrative structure
I appreciate a good art movie, but this wasn't that and attempted to mask it's failure to say anything by throwing symbology at the viewers in the hope that at least pseuds may enjoy it.
Personally I'm angry that it was marketed as a horror film that actually looked fairly entertaining and interesting, which was the total opposite of the reality.
Anon you should stop making the argument that it was throwing symbology around to trick the viewer. Everyone with a room temperature IQ understood the symbology.
>so what
so the film is about patriarchal attitudes being passed down through the generations. The behaviour that she feared in her husband was present in wider male society and comes with a set of expectations for how she should behave, even though that behaviour would put her safety and happiness at risk.
But I don't know why the friend was pregnant at the end, that was weird to me so maybe I'm an idiot too.
>what society thinks has little to do with it
not really. Rory Kinnear's characters were representations of society, the Vicar being the most obvious example.
Now maybe you can say Kinnear's characters weren't real and what we were seeing was her expectation of how society would act towards her. That would be fair, although her friend seeing the trail of blood at the end would be evidence that the events of the movie were real.
Part of her trauma seems to be an insecurity about her actions. She thinks she was justified about what she said towards her husband, but her husband died so it's hard to balance the two. You can think you're right and be insecure about it or expect people to hate you for what you did.
>Everyone with a room temperature IQ understood the symbology.
I also understood the symbology though. My point is that it contributed nothing to the meaningless fricking movie with muh shoehorned spectacle of birth at the end. Good symbology and themes are woven into the film and ending, not sprinkled on top to give an air of meaning.
But it wasn't meaningless and it was woven throughout the movie.
The green man ties the other Kinnear characters together. They aren't just individual bad people, but part of a continuum.
That continuum being present in all the Kinnear characters helps add to the protagonists feeling of being in a dangerous area, that the monster is everywhere in a sense.
If you want to argue that the meaning or symbology wasn't deep enough, then I would probably agree with you. But for me I thought the themes suited the character, and were basically just good seasoning for solid horror fundamentals.
Agreed. The green man being a subversion of nature makes sense.
And yeah when she saw her husband again she did seem to be over it, not even bothering to REEE at him with the axe.
I do think it's a horror film though. The slow reveal of the multiple Kinnear roles was very unsettling, especially when the kid takes off the mask.
And yeah I don't think it's a 10/10 either, but I think a decent low budget horror film like this is a little treat. Watch it and enjoy it, maybe talk about it the next day, then forget it. No harm done.
Yeah, the landlord was like Paul Whitehouse character. Like the other anon said, I don't think it matters either way how real that stuff was.
Putting more thought into it than the writer no wonder movies are shit these days when normies can't understand a lack of talent and just fill in the gaps for you. It's a movie with a production team and studio behind it, it couldn't possibly just be bad
I didn't think it was bad though. I enjoyed watching it.
I do usually think about what's happening on screen and I don't enjoy being spoon fed to last drop like you, so I guess that explains why we had a different opinion.
honestly, I didn't think it was good, and still don't. but it wasn't bad either. the good visuals and Jessie's performance make it worth your while.
When I finished watching it I thought I couldn't relate because I'm not a woman. but neither is Garland, so maybe he doesn't know what the frick he's talking about.
Only a woman will be able to tell us if he's capturing a real feeling there or just being a hack.
the thing is you're presuming it's without redeeming qualities and that anyone who says otherwise is performing some kind of mental gymnastics, but you are the one flip flopping. it isn't a great movie but it isn't bad.
This clearly isn't a movie concerned with whether what's happening is "real" or not, which is why the anon sperging about it not being a horror movie is so upset. It's just about a woman getting over a traumatic experience and showing that it's possible to do. She starts out afraid, becomes overwhelmed by her fear, then realizes the true root of it and overcomes it. I think the friend being pregnant is symbolic of life having regained its balance for her. She'd spent the night before confronted with a man giving birth over and over, something completely unnatural, but now it's daylight and the first thing she sees is a pregnant woman, and she knows that life is back to normal. I imagine there's some sort of thought of how the green man is somehow a contradiction of the concept of Mother Nature, making him a threat, but could easily be me projecting. I don't think it's a terrific film, but it's definitely not the pile of shit this other moron is making it out as.
your film sucks alex
>Now maybe you can say Kinnear's characters weren't real
I thought she had a moment of clarity when she was talking to her friend and implied the landlord was like a caricature, "he was almost TOO country".
what I think really happened is that those men really said those things, it was the tone in which they were said that was imagined by her. the landlord made casual chauvinistic jokes, but it was just good fun (like the joke about the bar being a 10 minute walk, and a 30 minute walk back).
the priest talked about feelings of guilt, but he wasn't being mean about it. the kid was just a moronic child.
she did find a hobo lurking around, but he was harmless.
the blood could have been hers or the landlord's after being hit by her car.
I think it's fine to not know about the green man, but I think it could be pretty easy to infer the meaning behind him considering he is strongly associated with nature and birth in the movie. It's not like knowing about this symbol is the secret key to unlocking the meaning of the film. It's just accident that I know about the Green Man, it's not like I just used my innate intelligence to figure out that such a symbol must exist and then went looking for it, I just happened upon it.
I don't think the imagery is at all scattershot, I think it's too highly focused.
The metaphor is really obvious. I don't think it makes me smart to understand it, I think it makes you stupid that you have issues understanding it.
Despite the metaphor being too obvious, I think the film has really solid horror fundamentals and good performances from Rory Kinnear. It's a good low budget horror.
>he is strongly associated with nature and birth in the movie
so what? She wasn't pregnant as far as we know, she didn't lose a child, the only reference to pregnancy came at the end when we see her friend is pregnant and are expected to drop our jaws to the floor like a basedjak and proclaim "oh em jee what a twist!!" It's fricking lazy and hacky when the film was clearly set up to be about grief and loss of her husband and they couldn't figure out a way to write a convincing ending.
>when we see her friend is pregnant and are expected to drop our jaws to the floor like a basedjak and proclaim "oh em jee what a twist!!
I still don't know what are we supposed to make of her friend being pregnant. what's the twist again?
That's my point. It's an incredibly lazy way to make people think there is meaning where there isn't. They purposefully went for muh ambiguous ending in order to try and give meaning to all the fertility and sex symbology blasted at the viewer earlier in the film.
It couldn't decide if it wanted to be about fertility and the relationship betweeen the two sexes or if it wanted to be about her grief and guilt over her husband. And then was marketed as a (potentially psychological) horror on top of it all. It's a piece of shit film.
here I was thinking she was a troon the entire movie
she got some real man features, and one of the craziest jawlines since Kate Fleetwood
>Although it's not necessary her own feelings of guilt, but feelings of guilt that society expects her to have.
I'd say she was definitely traumatized. she didn't know what to make of it, and honestly what society thinks has little to do with it, because she was good at shunning society.
I'm not even sure the word "guilt" corresponds to her feelings. she fears the opposite gender, her smile at the end when her (female) friend showed up was quite significant.
That's the wording I should've used, her experience with her husband made her afraid of men
anti-male propaganda
that's what I thougth it was gonna be but seems some random other shit
>I saw some liberal on imdb saying the end sequence was showing misogyny being passed down from generation to generation
lmao that sounds kind of forced
I saw some liberal on imdb saying the end sequence was showing misogyny being passed down from generation to generation which makes sense. Shame they went all moronic and gay at end some quite good scenes before that.
It's a dishonest film called "Men"... seriously what do you think it is about??
I typically love Garland but it's been a slippery slope with him the last few years, with each project slightly degraded from the last. He's genuinely starting to act like a pseud and I'm not sure if it's because he's got nothing left in the tank, or because I've grown up a bit, or simply because he's not as smart as he thinks he is... But from Annihilation to Devs to this.. it's not a great trajectory.
I think it was just that she couldn't escape her guilt over her husband killing himself over her, so literally every man she runs makes her relive the trauma. The act of interacting with men itself puts her on the defensive, because she thinks she's somehow going to trigger some irrational response out of them too
Propaganda
>haven't watched the movie
It isn't preachy at all, just a shit movie
it's about trauma, I guess. she couldn't overcome what happened to her. even when she tries to isolate herself, she still must make contact with some men, but she just can't function normally around men. not a good movie, but with some very good shots and Jessie Buckley bossing again.
Is that supposed to be a woman, looks like a dude in a dress.
Your troony obsession has rotted your brain, polturd.
i liked it more than Annihilation and Devs, but that isn't saying much. was Ex Machina a fluke?
Dredd, The Beach... I dunno seems he's either just a mixed bag or needs to be rained in.
This movie was a perfect example of right wing christian conservativism on the country side, moat women moved away from the village inti the cities leaving all the incel inbreds, so when a liberal woman show up they start seething and coping
Moids are EVIL, sisters!