Men | Official Preview HD | A24 

holy shit i never noticed that, that's so cool!

I always thought the music was synced to her realization of what just happened. But either way it's a horrifying way to open up a movie, and I appreciate movies that leave room for many interpretations.

The Northman was garbage

so more Aster and Eggers film then haha, couldn’t agree more

Northman sucked balls.

Northman is not an A 24 film but its a Robert Eggers film.

@@citizencj3389 The Lighthouse & The Witch were both written and directed by Eggers for A24

There are definitely aspects about this movie that deal with trauma, but I would say it also deals with inter-generational misogyny, and the concern of passing down toxic traits to one's children.

I agree. But some seem to think that the movie is actively anti-male and I didn't get that at all. The film could easily be called WOMEN and show a man being tormented by random women and the message would still be the same.

@@joeyboy1016 Oh, absolutely. There's a lot of very sensitive fellas offended by the mere title of this movie.

@@joeyboy1016 if it were called “WOMEN” I can guarantee it would be hated even more!

wtf smh thats sad yo hear

Do you happen to be a twitter activist that refuses to define what a woman is?

@@jonathansoko1085 Dude. This film is chilling...

@@jonathansoko1085 Twitter activist? Defining a woman? Dude that must have been a crazy dream it's 2022 we're gonna watch the new chilling Alex Garland A24 movie

@Caradoc g nice bait attempt. I said something you dont like so i must be some crazy right winger eh. LOL

I struggled to understand the last 15 minutes it was really strange do you know the meaning?

"God sorry"..."place full of wasps"

Nope. It's fantastic.

I totally agree

yeah exactly! as an experience with friends it was good, but its not a fantastic movie necessarily

I think that’s how most people feel. It was shot to perfection (so gorgeous), good acting, but the story was meh (felt like I reading a required college book). But the experience in theater with friends was still good. It’s definetly a ‘theater’ only movie. Most A24 films are ‘theater’ only films to me

Whenever I've heard laughing in the cinema-and its not a comedy-it's usually awkward laughing that tries to break any tension so well done for ruining others experience of the film.

@@bojkowski we were the only ones in the theater besides another lady who laughed louder.

@@user-hc2tu7ul7j I wouldn’t say that personally. I have re watched several A24 movies out of the theater alone and in a group and had a fun time. I’m never gonna watch this again because it’s not a good movie. It’s a good looking movie. That doesn’t make the movie good

Green man. Explains the shatting.

It's out on digital in 4K but physically it's only releasing to bluray.

It’s a metaphor for a man’s seed, marriage and ownership. That’s why she swallows it and accepts his hand before he grabs her arm and takes control.

@@lloydtxw Not how I see it. There's too many details that don't line up. One possibility is that they had a fight on the balcony and she shoved him off. In the movie we see him falling facing the building. But we see his body facing outward away from the building on the ground with his arm impaled. Interestingly in the same place the arm gets stabbed in the mail slot. Upstairs after the fight (her probable false narrative) we see her having to shut the patio door. There is absolutely no reason for the door to be open as it was shut while she was sitting down asking (well telling) about divorce. We don't hear her reason for the divorce either. So she's sitting down talking about divorce, they fight, he hits her, and she shoves him out the house. The door never gets opened. Also, my thoughts is the hand in the mail slot grabs her arm as if he was holding to prevent himself from falling - the way he grips the arm instead of the hand. The patio door is a glaring continuity error like you find in The Shining. Except by being right at the beginning of the film (brilliantly) we know *it's not* a continuity error. The film is trying to tell us something. It's as if the film is highlighting these continuity errors telling us they're not really errors. It's Harper making things up. I do think she wanted to get a divorce. But Jame's demise made things that much easier. I also don't think he threatened suicide. The expression he has as he's falling is one of complete, unsuspecting, surprise. Another argument for saying that he was somehow pushed and he didn't jump himself. I'm going to have watch the film again to iron the details out, so to speak! Hopefully the screenplay becomes available that would help too.

@@metatechnologist I think your take reinforces the entire theme of the film. You’re blaming the woman and writing her off as crazy. Saying things that happened didn’t happen, she made them up. That’s textbook misogyny. You’re also quibbling about details that are symbols, they aren’t literal. None of the movie is literal. His injuries are the same as the Men creature because it’s a symbol of the injuries or pain men inflict on themselves, unwittingly or on purpose, and then blame women for. Her husband literally says he’s going to take his life and she will be to blame. Blaming women for the worlds pain is misogyny. Eating the forbidden fruit, ruining paradise. A man giving birth to himself over and over in a cycle that perpetuates generational misogyny and patriarchal dominance. The green man and sheela na gig in a church carved on the same object followed by the green man giving birth with an exaggerated vaginal canal. The symbols are so heavy handed, I’m not sure how you think the things that happen have some kind of literal, concrete motivation. They don’t. She’s being haunted, pointed out by the vicar, just like her husband wanted. She inflicts the injuries on the creature that her husband inflicted on himself, representing her guilt, which she then lets go of when he says he wants her love, she knows his feelings of entitlement are not her fault, men have felt entitled to women, used to marry women to own them (and still do in some cultures), have treated women as property for centuries. The inclusion of the pagan symbols is about the transition from pagan ideals of matriarchy and female power in fertility and birth to Christian ideals of women as the source of all pain, the destroyers of paradise/perfection, objects of desire and subjugation. It’s about cycles of abuse and trauma being a product of patriarchal control of women, dismissing their fears (the cop) blaming them for mens sexual desires and transgressions (the vicar), blaming them for mens feelings of rejection that are caused by their own behavior (the schoolboy), blaming them for not accepting mens “help” by letting them pay and carry the bags, things themselves that are symbols of taking away a woman’s agency, not allowing her to decide for herself, which is what her husband was doing with his emotional blackmail and Geoffrey was doing with his “polite” insistence. The entire movie is symbolic and metaphorical. The flashbacks are an abusive scenario many women have faced and the corrupted paradise of her healing getaway is an echo of her trauma. She creates an actual echo that goes from a diegetic device in the narrative that calls or awakens the masculine menace at other end of the tunnel to a non-diegetic element of the score, echoing her trauma back to us throughout the film as music. They’re all contrived dramatic devices and symbols. The subtext is text, don’t take the film so literally.

@@lloydtxw The problem with your analysis is you're wanting to take bits and pieces here and there and say the movie is just all symbolic. The problem with that is we can agree upon certain things. She had a husband who somehow fell out of the building. She has a friend Riley. She went to vacation at Geoffrey's all solid facts we can agree upon. They aren't particularly symbolic they are facts to the events about Harper. Now. At the end of the movie we see the front of the car wrecked. Another fact. We see a trail of blood going into the house. Another fact. The question is how did those things happen exactly?? Was there really a monster that chased her in the night?? Then you would be saying yes, the monster is real. I'm saying no, the monster does not really exist. The trail of blood into the house happened another way. It's not Harper's own blood because we see she's fine when her friend comes. Ergo, Harper somehow precipitated the events that brought the trail of blood into the house. It's not about her gender though *you're the one* making it out to be about her gender. So from my perspective all your references to symbolism fall flat because we (well me) know that while the story does use metaphors, they are metaphors trying to explain the facts (or lies) describing the events and facts about and surrounding Harper.

@@metatechnologist your inability to think abstractly or critically implies that this would be a pointless discussion. You keep referring to “facts”. How about the “fact” that not a single other person exists in the city or the town? The “fact” that all the men are the same person. The “fact” that real echoes don’t echo for minutes at a time. I’m not taking bits and pieces, I’m talking about the entire film. It’s a contrived scenario with the purpose of relaying a message. If you don’t think a movie called Men is about gender, you’re the man Alex Garland is calling out. If you’re so triggered by such blunt and obvious symbolism that you have to dismiss the ideas posited as a woman’s false narrative, you are the misogynist depicted in the film. Watch it again. Take your medicine.

Crazy shit lol

I have a cousin who was held at gun point by a man, it was very traumatic for her, now she can't help but be afraid whenever she sees a black guy in public.

@@lancewalker2595 she needs to heal from that then b4 her trauma turns to racist instinct. Bad 4 both parties

@@kenyascorner I mistaken, he was a white man, and she doesn't like white men. So pretty much, that makes her a progressive.

Such is life

Exactly

I agree he’s an Extremely overrated director.

...said a Man.

@@bojkowski so? Is this movie only for women? The point of the movie doesn’t go over my head; I love the trauma-focus of it, the other aspect is absurd. The critique of the “all men are bad generalization is ironically completely apt. In the end, equating societal misogyny to that of an abuse survivor with PTSD is devaluing the latter and exaggerating the former. These are real issues which are both completely butchered and misconstrued in this movie, which doesn’t benefit anyone other than those with an extremist narrative. If this was a horror movie first and foremost, then exaggeration would be fine, but this is absolutely a commentary before anything else.

If you’re triggered by heavy handed symbolic misogyny, you are the “men” Alex Garland is talking about. The patriarchy is still a thing.

@@bojkowski wow good counter argument

Vale la pena verlo

Ijole..

No me gustó, arrancas fuerte y después se vuelve tediosa, no se entiende nada.

Of what? Weakness?

She's a strong and powerful woman. Probably strong enough to shove one off a balcony.

Wow.