High Rise

ancapailldorcha

I've not seen a thread on this yet but it looks interesting. Starring Tom Hiddleston, Jeremy Irons & Sienna Miller and directed by Ben Wheatley, the trailer for this reminded me of Snowpiercer which I loved.

From the video's description:

1975. Two miles west of London, Dr. Robert Laing moves into his new apartment seeking soulless anonymity, only to find that the building’s residents have no intention of leaving him alone. Resigned to the complex social dynamics unfolding around him, Laing bites the bullet and becomes neighbourly. As he struggles to establish his position, Laing’s good manners and sanity disintegrate along with the building. The lights go out and the lifts fail but the party goes on. People are the problem. Booze is the currency. Sex is the panacea. Only much later, as he sits on his balcony eating the architect’s dog, does Dr. Robert Laing finally feel at home…..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKPghZ5cc_E

Sad Professor

The trailer makes it seem more narratively digestible than it is. It's very Gilliam-esque with a bit of early Cronenberg thrown in. If Snowpiercer was 12 Monkeys (i.e. one of Gilliam's more commercial films), then High-Rise is Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Looper007

This is going to be one of the most divisive films you are likely to see this year. I can't imagine too many been in the middle about High Rise, some will love it or some will hate it with a passion. I have to say I thought it was amazing just bat**** crazy also very funny.

First off the star of the show is Luke Evans as Richard Wilder, who after starring in a ton of blockbuster films gets to show his acting chops. Imagine a mix of Oliver Reed and Richard Burton that's what Wilder is, I did like

Dario Argento nod with his death scene

. Also Tom Hiddleston as Laing is fantastic. To be fair all the cast give great performances.

The soundtrack by Clint Mansell, and the Portishead cover of Abba's SOS is excellent. The Cinematography by Laurie Rose is also top notch. Ben Wheatley is really turning into one of my favourite directors around from gangster film with Down Terrace, comedy with Sightseers, Horror with Kill List and A Field in England. He's already shot a new film called Free Fall which is going to be his action film set in Boston in 1978 set only in a warehouse with Brie Larson and Cillian Murphy. The man is certainly not slow.

I was expecting a far more violent film but it was more filled with Sex and bad launage then violence. some scenes really stand out

The death of Munrow, the early scenes of inside the High rise are Kubrick like and I loved that someone gets beaten to a pulp by a Bafta

.

I'm sure the film would probably be more lauded if Nicolas Roeg or David Cronenberg directed it in their pomps, but is a well directed and well acted film.

Confucius say

Saw it yesterday. It was mental, I did like the style though and thought it was beautiful to look at.
There's a scene where someone is looking out into the car park, I spotted a clear '77 Meath reg, even though it's set in a fictional 1975, and those EU style reges weren't even thought of yet.
So yeah that ruined the whole film for me, amateurs!

Noise Annoys

I'm sort of in the middle with High Rise. I liked some of it, mostly the first third, and didn't like other parts of it - specifically the heavy handed class war analogy, although I wonder if that is more down to the source material than the director (whose previous films I really like).

The production design was impressive (loved the supermarket) and Hiddlestone was good as the sort of compromised 'middle man' going between the upper and lower floors/classes. But for me

the descent into mayhem happened too fast to be impactful or convincing

and the fact that Ballard wrote the book in the mid-70s came through too obviously at times. Rubbish piled up, electricity failing - it was clearly the 1970s Britain of the three day week, imagined in a microcosm.

The audio of Thatcher at the end reinforced this

Overall it was an admirable failure, IMO.

Confucius say

Yeah the descent into madness wasn't much of a descent. Suddenly everyone was nuts and raping each other. I never got the impression that it was the actual building driving them nuts which is what I believe happens in the book.

Noise Annoys

Confucius say wrote: »

Yeah the descent into madness wasn't much of a descent. Suddenly everyone was nuts and raping each other. I never got the impression that it was the actual building driving them nuts which is what I believe happens in the book.

Good point. I only read about that in reviews after I had seen it. Never occurred to me while I was watching the film.

johnny_ultimate

I'm at the very least cautiously staying close to the fence on this one, even though I think overall I liked the film. There was just something about it that didn't 100% click.

I was very much on board for the first half. Formally and narratively Wheatley managed to capture the precariousness of the characters and locations. The tease that anarchy was imminent was well utilised, and there's a definite sense of playfulness afoot (loved the orchestra playing Abba).

When the anarchy broke out, though, it became more of a mixed bag for me, certainly after the excellently realised impromptu pool party. There was still plenty to admire - things like the camera radically shifting on its axis were lovely ways of visualising Laing's frame of mind. But the pacing felt more plodding than the twitchy tension that had driven the film in its earlier stages, and some of the later conversations - and indeed the overt Thatcher reference and literal bubble pop in the final scene - felt like they overstated things that were better left as subtext. The film's broadness is occasionally an asset, but at times a liability - not quite sure whether it wanted to commit to some of the wilder aspects of the tale. It all felt overly familiar too, the collapse inevitable and predictable - and not realised quite as fully as something like Playtime (the ultimate cinematic parody of mid-late 20th century society) or Brazil.

I do feel Wheatley relies on outbreaks of violence to finish his films. The mounting body count in the final act just came across as going through the motions IMO,

and while some of the characters ended up in intriguing places, other confrontations and destinations just didn't work as well for me

(eg the inevitable meeting between Wilder and Royal).

None of this is to rag on the film too much. I vastly preferred it to Sightseers (which was IMO a comedy sketch stretched unconvincingly to feature length), and even in its weaker second half there's enough visual imagination, strong performances and playfulness to keep things ticking along nicely. And part of the film's unevenness and chaotic nature is part of the film's structure - one could even suggest the inevitability of the final act is built into the very concept and theme of the piece. But there was overall something about High Rise that IMO left it as an uneven but fascinating film as opposed to a great one.

Banjaxed82

While I admire the ambition and many aspects of both High-rise and The Witch, I have a greater appreciation for the existence of Fast & Furious movies.

Having watched both these in the space of 2 days, I feel a pallet cleanser is in order.

Confucius say

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

While I admire the ambition and many aspects of both High-rise and The Witch, I have a greater appreciation for the existence of Fast & Furious movies.

Having watched both these in the space of 2 days, I feel a pallet cleanser is in order.

Cloverfield is the bomb. Except I saw that on Friday and then High Rise on Sunday so head is a bit melted still.

MisterAnarchy

A mess ,a horrible mess of a film.

It started off with potential but then into degenerated into a disjointed mess.
I almost fell asleep near the end it was so bad.

homerun_homer

I forgot to give feedback on this film after I saw it. I enjoyed it to a point, it was never as cool as the style and impression the trailer gave me. When it all went crazy I got very bored. It dragged out and I just couldn't wait for it to end. I wouldn't say I hated it but it just didn't do anything for me.

Confucius say

homerun_homer wrote: »

I forgot to give feedback on this film after I saw it. I enjoyed it to a point, it was never as cool as the style and impression the trailer gave me. When it all went crazy I got very bored. It dragged out and I just couldn't wait for it to end. I wouldn't say I hated it but it just didn't do anything for me.

Same here, I was dying to leave. A lot of people did leave in the last 30 mins or so.

MisterAnarchy

homerun_homer wrote: »

When it all went crazy I got very bored. It dragged out and I just couldn't wait for it to end. I wouldn't say I hated it but it just didn't do anything for me.

Everyone turns completely insane in a matter of ONE MONTAGE, that's just a few minutes long, there's nothing gradual about it.
The tenants descended into madness too quickly for it to be believable. All it takes is for the power to be cut off and the elevators not to work and then boom! they are all rapidly degenerating into an animal state.

The rest of the film was just dedicated to grandiose scenes of the characters just being crazy.

Sad Professor

I think the fact that there's no gradual descent is the point. They are already egging to go at each other. The power outage is just the excuse everyone has been waiting for. I don't really see the film as being about class warfare. More about people reverting to a Hobbesian state of nature. I'd attribute the rapidness in which everything flies apart to the Thatcher-esque atmosphere of individualism which encourages people to only act in their own interest anyway.

This is what I mean when I compare the film to Gilliam. You never really see any gradual deterioration in his films either. The characters are already crazy. Kubrick too. Stephen King didn't like that Jack started off crazy in The Shining, but that was crucial for Kubrick, who always blamed the man rather than his society (or his haunted hotel).

TerrorFirmer

Watched this last night, and not entirely sure what to make of it. I liked it overall, it looks great and the acting is superb, which in hindsight is probably what saves it more than the confusing, muddled narrative which touches on moments of clarity for me quite frequently but frustratingly never quite gets over the hump, if that makes sense - the result is a lot of confusion and questions beginning with the words what, who, where and why.

Knew absolutely nothing about it going into it - which was fine for me, but I'd imagine it disappointed a huge amount of people. A good watch overall for the brilliant performances and design but definitely a divisive one.

The best part? We were originally watching 'The Neon Demon' which I quite liked but my company wanted to switch to a more..... conventional movie, and 'High Rise' was chosen.