Movies Men (Alex Garland, A24) - Official Trailer

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

 

[69los]

The sound effects alone gave me the jeebies.

[Firewithin]

a dark tunnel in the middle of nowhere what can go wrong?

 

that looks creepy as hell and im in

[Bloodporne]

1 hour ago, Firewithin said:

a dark tunnel in the middle of nowhere what can go wrong?

 

that looks creepy as hell and im in

I forget what the movie's name was but there was an Indie Horror flick some years back with that 'dark tunnel/overpass' as a focal point as well. I remember it sucking but the concept was cool. 

 

This movie...I think I'm burnt out on the A24 thing completely but I'll give it a shot because I loved Ex Machina.

[TheLeon]

Hell yeah. I generally love Garland’s work, and Jessie Buckley rules. I’m in for… whatever this is. 

[Brick]

Cue the incel/chud rage in 3...2...

[Mercury33]

Is Alex Garland. I’m in. 

[Greatoneshere]

26 minutes ago, Mercury33 said:

Is Alex Garland. I’m in. 

 

Me too.

[Firewithin]

 

[johnny]

On 2/9/2022 at 9:48 AM, Bloodporne said:

I forget what the movie's name was but there was an Indie Horror flick some years back with that 'dark tunnel/overpass' as a focal point as well. I remember it sucking but the concept was cool. 

 

This movie...I think I'm burnt out on the A24 thing completely but I'll give it a shot because I loved Ex Machina.

i think Absentia centered around a tunnel. Old Flanagan flick.

[TheLeon]

 

[Greatoneshere]

It's Alex Garland, no way am I watching a trailer. I'm automatically in. Been following his career since The Beach/28 Days Later/Sunshine.

[Keyser_Soze]

2 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

It's Alex Garland, no way am I watching a trailer. I'm automatically in. Been following his career since The Beach/28 Days Later/Sunshine.

 

Don't worry. I'm sure the trailer won't spoil the ending that ruins the movie.

[Greatoneshere]

28 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Don't worry. I'm sure the trailer won't spoil the ending that ruins the movie.

 

I ain't watching either way.  

[Mercury33]

On IMDB, what’s the difference between a “Screenplay by” and “written by” credit?

[Brick]

20 minutes ago, Mercury33 said:

On IMDB, what’s the difference between a “Screenplay by” and “written by” credit?

 

The story, or at least the general outline of it, is the written by credit, whereas the actual physical/digital screenplay with an the dialogue and direction is the screenplay by credit.

 

So for example I come up with an idea for a story about a woman getting trapped in a small town with creepy men, you think that sounds awesome and turn it into a screenplay with character names, dialogue, etc. I get the story by credit. You get the screenplay by credit. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Brick said:

 

The story, or at least the general outline of it, is the written by credit, whereas the actual physical/digital screenplay with an the dialogue and direction is the screenplay by credit.

 

So for example I come up with an idea for a story about a woman getting trapped in a small town with creepy men, you think that sounds awesome and turn it into a screenplay with character names, dialogue, etc. I get the story by credit. You get the screenplay by credit. 

 

In WGA rules the credits boil down to

“Story by”: the basic narrative 

 

”Screenplay by”: when the screenplay is written by somebody who didn’t develop the original story

“Written by”: when screenplay and the story were written by the same person 

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

 

In WGA rules the credits boil down to

“Story by”: the basic narrative 

 

”Screenplay by”: when the screenplay is written by somebody who didn’t develop the original story

“Written by”: when screenplay and the story were written by the same person 

 

Yep, this.

[Bloodporne]

14 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Don't worry. I'm sure the trailer won't spoil the ending that ruins the movie.

I'm convinced there's an internal A24 conspiracy that every film they release must uphold this law.

[LazyPiranha]

Looks good.

 

Also weird that the trailer says May 20, then ends with “coming soon.”

[Brick]

On 3/24/2022 at 4:23 PM, LazyPiranha said:

Looks good.

 

Also weird that the trailer says May 20, then ends with “coming soon.”

 

You misunderstood that; it wasn't referring to the movie, it was referring to the men 

[TheLeon]

Just saw this. I have no idea what to say about it, other than I have a feeling it’s going to be very decisive.

[Emblazon]

On 2/9/2022 at 11:48 AM, Bloodporne said:

I forget what the movie's name was but there was an Indie Horror flick some years back with that 'dark tunnel/overpass' as a focal point as well. I remember it sucking but the concept was cool. 

 

This movie...I think I'm burnt out on the A24 thing completely but I'll give it a shot because I loved Ex Machina.

Absentia?

[SoberChef]

@TheLeon ... ummmm you sure you don't mean divisive?

 

Either way, the first time I saw the trailer I was intrigued. As to whether or not I venture out to see this or wait for it to arrive elsewhere, haven't fully made up my mind yet.

[TheLeon]

3 minutes ago, SoberChef said:

@TheLeon ... ummmm you sure you don't mean divisive?

Nah. I definitely meant decisive. Some people will decide that they love it, others will decide that they hate it. 

[Zeluge]

Alex Garland has officially joined the ranks of Aronofsky and Aster with his submission into the canon of Terrible Films By White Men That Concern Their Relationships Where a Woman is the Focal Point and She Will Suffer a Multitude of Indignities Because Symbolism.

 

This is one of the most thematically flat and obvious things I've seen in a long time, especially at a scale like this. This has exactly ONE thing to say, and that one thing is neither very insightful nor conveyed in a thoughtful manner. An unfortunate example of why some creatives need oversight and boundaries, because that's how self-aggrandizing dross like this comes into existence.

 

Buckley is largely good, but occasionally looks absolutely lost in the movie. Kinnear is having fun, with one role in particular that got some laughs out of me.

 

Really hope this is the low point of Important Horror, because it's gone long past the point of insufferable. You can say something without Saying Something.

[Greatoneshere]

13 hours ago, Zeluge said:

Alex Garland has officially joined the ranks of Aronofsky and Aster with his submission into the canon of Terrible Films By White Men That Concern Their Relationships Where a Woman is the Focal Point and She Will Suffer a Multitude of Indignities Because Symbolism.

 

This is one of the most thematically flat and obvious things I've seen in a long time, especially at a scale like this. This has exactly ONE thing to say, and that one thing is neither very insightful nor conveyed in a thoughtful manner. An unfortunate example of why some creatives need oversight and boundaries, because that's how self-aggrandizing dross like this comes into existence.

 

Buckley is largely good, but occasionally looks absolutely lost in the movie. Kinnear is having fun, with one role in particular that got some laughs out of me.

 

Really hope this is the low point of Important Horror, because it's gone long past the point of insufferable. You can say something without Saying Something.

 

Interesting, my wife and I really enjoyed mother and Midsommar (the director's cut). They're esoteric, abstract, and generally mood/tone pieces than films, but we were absorbed. How do you feel about Garland's pervious work compared to this?

[johnny]

2 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Interesting, my wife and I really enjoyed mother and Midsommar (the director's cut). They're esoteric, abstract, and generally mood/tone pieces than films, but we were absorbed. How do you feel about Garland's pervious work compared to this?

I felt the same way about those movies! Also have liked all of Garland's previous works. 

[Brick]

There's a Director's Cut of Midsommar? Damn I watched it on Prime so I don't think that would have been the version on there. What are the differences? 

[johnny]

7 minutes ago, Brick said:

There's a Director's Cut of Midsommar? Damn I watched it on Prime so I don't think that would have been the version on there. What are the differences? 

It's like an extra 30 minutes that gets to the bottom of their motivations and stuff. I liked the director's cut more than the theatrical release. 

[Greatoneshere]

24 minutes ago, johnny said:

I felt the same way about those movies! Also have liked all of Garland's previous works. 

 

Nice! Always feels good to find someone else who is on the very positive side of artsy, divisive works. I'm an enormous fan of Alex Garland generally as well, ever since The Beach and 28 Days Later. I've already been hearing divisive things from others about Men, so Zeluge's opinion isn't super surprising (the last thing Garland made was the limited series Devs, which was really good to me, but is where Garland has begun to lose audiences) hence my follow up with him. But yeah Garland is usually grade A.

 

20 minutes ago, Brick said:

There's a Director's Cut of Midsommar? Damn I watched it on Prime so I don't think that would have been the version on there. What are the differences? 

 

Yeah, the director's cut is 23 minutes longer and I feel is moodier, more tense, and better paced. It does also help explain more of an already very weird, strange, unexplainable film.

[Kal-El814]

There’s a weird subset of people who watch Midsommar and seems to think it’s some kind of women empowerment movie based on the end, which is a wild fucking take. I also didn’t know there was a director’s cut, but I don’t feel that the movie needed to explain anything beyond what was in the original cut. Hmm.

[Greatoneshere]

26 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

There’s a weird subset of people who watch Midsommar and seems to think it’s some kind of women empowerment movie based on the end, which is a wild fucking take. I also didn’t know there was a director’s cut, but I don’t feel that the movie needed to explain anything beyond what was in the original cut. Hmm.

 

I never read it as a woman empowerment movie myself, but there's definitely a subset that reads it that way. Maybe more like a woman escaping abuse at best movie. I mean, there's a lot going on in the film, and either way it's tense and unsettling. The cliff cult scene comes to mind.

[Zeluge]

5 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

How do you feel about Garland's pervious work compared to this?

 

Indifferent to Ex Machina. Perfectly fine, handsome-looking chamber drama with sci-fi dressings.

 

Annihilation is another beautiful whatsit, but completely uninvolving with no sense of mystery or wonder beyond its pretty images.

 

Tend to prefer his collaborations with Boyle, even though their pairing gave Boyle the lingering impression that he whiffs third acts (not entirely untrue.) 

 

And I'll note that I went with a friend who is a big Garland fan and he walked out disappointed. His complaints were more with the logic all tying together however, and he was with it for most of the runtime.

 

5 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

They're esoteric, abstract, and generally mood/tone pieces than films ...

 

See, I can't get on board with labelling these movies like this. Those descriptors bring to mind people like Malick, Denis, and to a slightly lesser extent, Lynch -- filmmakers who aim to create a feeling or sense of what's going on and what the characters are experiencing and prioritize that over plot. Getting to the end of their films, I typically can't explain much of what happened, but I can describe what the characters went through and how I felt.

 

Meanwhile, these movies have a pretty clear sequence of incident that drive them along, and the lasting impression is more on the "shocking" moments. They're very literal, and don't leave much up to interpretation.

 

In thinking about it, it brings to mind Lars von Trier and how he can (sometimes) successfully pull this off. Dogville in particular shares some very surface-level qualities with these movies, but it's both stylistically and ideologically committed and has a lot more on its mind.

[Greatoneshere]

19 minutes ago, Zeluge said:

 

Indifferent to Ex Machina. Perfectly fine, handsome-looking chamber drama with sci-fi dressings.

 

Annihilation is another beautiful whatsit, but completely uninvolving with no sense of mystery or wonder beyond its pretty images.

 

Tend to prefer his collaborations with Boyle, even though their pairing gave Boyle the lingering impression that he whiffs third acts (not entirely untrue.) 

 

And I'll note that I went with a friend who is a big Garland fan and he walked out disappointed. His complaints were more with the logic all tying together however, and he was with it for most of the runtime.

 

See, I can't get on board with labelling these movies like this. Those descriptors bring to mind people like Malick, Denis, and to a slightly lesser extent, Lynch -- filmmakers who aim to create a feeling or sense of what's going on and what the characters are experiencing and prioritize that over plot. Getting to the end of their films, I typically can't explain much of what happened, but I can describe what the characters went through and how I felt.

 

Meanwhile, these movies have a pretty clear sequence of incident that drive them along, and the lasting impression is more on the "shocking" moments. They're very literal, and don't leave much up to interpretation.

 

In thinking about it, it brings to mind Lars von Trier and how he can (sometimes) successfully pull this off. Dogville in particular shares some very surface-level qualities with these movies, but it's both stylistically and ideologically committed and has a lot more on its mind.

 

I mean, I'd say they're Malick or Lynch-adjacent. They don't play or feel entirely straightforward, not to me at least, of course everyone's mileage may vary. I think Trier is a good comparison as well like you mentioned. And that helped explain things a lot!