High-Rise (2015) User Reviews (256)

Rises high at first, then quickly falls down and crashes with a thud

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 14 June 2019]

'High Rise' had a lot of promise. An amazing and unique concept, same goes for the source material which is a gripping read and stands out conceptually. Ben Wheatley seemed the right director, as he does have a great style. It had a cast that one really should not go wrong by, the actors all immensely talented. The trailer looked great visually and indicated an intriguing film. Will admit that there were doubts though, as the book is yet another book that is difficult to adapt.

Doubts that sadly proved to be correct on the most part, the reasons have been said frequently here and there is not an awful lot more to add. There are books around that should really have been left alone due to being unadaptable. 'High Rise' is one of them. Other book to film adaptations seen recently that fit under this distinction are 'House of the Spirits' (which would have been much better as a mini-series), 'Naked Lunch', 'Cosmopolis' and 'Crash', just to say that despite singling out three David Cronenberg films he is a director generally held in high regard by me. Coming back to talking about 'High Rise' as a film, it is a case of style over substance and is a difficult to rate film and a case of the trailer being much better than the film. Didn't love it, didn't hate it, am very conflicted really.

It starts off so promisingly. The first half hour, or first act, is very intriguing and easy to follow, drawing one right in. Throughout, 'High Rise' looks fantastic. Actually thought it was one of the best-looking films of the year, the production design alone left me in awe and the cinematography perfectly captures the dystopian nightmarish nature of the story. Clint Mansell's score is both haunting and rousing, adding a lot to what is going on and even enhancing it without over-bearing. Wheatley's direction is very uneven, but he does excel in the visual style which is very imaginative.

The cast are also remarkably great, it is amazing that they did so much with material that they are well above of. Luke Evans especially brings a lot of intensity, charisma and poignancy to the one character the film tries to develop and the one character the viewer feels anything for. Tom Hiddleston carries 'High Rise' with a lot of charm and commands the screen with ease. Jeremy Irons has fun with his role, while also being menacing and providing his distinctive gravitas. Elizabeth Moss is also a standout. The rest of the cast are underused but still make the most of what they have, nobody's bad here.

Such a shame though that 'High Rise' goes downhill rapidly too early in a rather sudden and very violent change of tone and the rest of the film becomes very disjointed. It became increasingly dull with no real momentum, and the middle act especially felt over-stretched and padded. Giving the sense of the film being far too long (by about an hour, the middle half hour could easily have been cut out) and the lack of momentum showing an indication of the story overall being too thin structurally. It is not just dull, it becomes confusing and over-complicated to the point of incoherence. While Wheatley excels on the style aspect of 'High Rise', the substance is messy and too detached, that is what was meant by his direction being uneven. Sad because on paper he seemed the right director.

Felt nothing for the characters, other than Evans' Wilder they are sketchy caricatures kept too much at a distance emotionally. Emotionally, 'High Rise' left me cold, felt very little tension or emotion because there was so much frustration at the lack of momentum in the middle act and the chaotic over-complicated confusion that reached breaking point by the rather abrupt and head-scratching ending. Other frustrations are the vapid and self-indulgent script and a quite interesting moral on paper being executed heavy-handedly.

Overall, very hard to rate and the polarisation in the reviews is understandable. Started off so well and with a lot of great things (especially the visuals and cast) but the rest of the film badly underwhelmed. 5/10

Tom Hiddleston in Kafa-esque nightmare....

[joebloggscity · 6/10 · 30 May 2016]

This isn't one film to take at face value. Very subversive, the film begins with our familiar face of Tom Hiddleston covered in blood in some apartment flat! We then rewind to 3 months back to explain what has happened. Based in some 1970s high-rise block (very 2000AD style), this building was designed as a utopia with the wealthiest settling in the top flats. Instead it turns in a dystopia, as the residents are stuck in some narcissistic and parochial void.

Civil & class war is breaking out and nothing is clear cut. Tom Hiddleston's character though is dressed and fitted as if he is from 20-30 years later, so it's too obvious a way for us to relate to him. Anyhow, he has to survive in this world, but gets sucked in.

This film reminded me of some 'horror' videos from the 1990's, wasn't uncommon in those days (films like 'Society' etc), and it was an interesting change. We have a very surreal look here in this film, and it's clichéd in style & outlook for the 1970's (which reflects the vanity of the residents).

Despite the originality, it didn't work for me. It's probably 30mins too long and that saps the interest out of it as they stretched the film. Too often you can't follow what is going on. You never empathise with anyone in this film as they try to live in their own vacuous worlds.

It's an interesting film but it definitely will only appeal to a minority, as I guess it was always going to looking at the premise. A minor cult film? Possibly. Won't be one I'll revisit.

Amusing series of vignettes that never does come together

[ninako124 · 7/10 · 18 October 2015]

I had the pleasure of viewing High-Rise at a recent film festival. I went in with high expectations, which gave way to boredom and the anticipation of the end of the showing.

The actors absolutely fulfilled all expectations. The performances are all highly nuanced and look natural, rather than put on. Hiddleston goes above and beyond to give one of the arguably best performances of his career. The mise-en-scene of each scene is meticulously crafted and beautifully shot.

So what, exactly, tipped high expectations into boredom?

For one, the film never does come together, never gives off the feeling of a cohesive whole, but rather of a series of vignettes. Each vignette is, of course, beautifully shot, but the disconnect they cause makes it impossible to empathize with any of the characters.

Additionally, suspension of disbelief is near impossible. Why do the characters make the choices they do? What drives them to this madness?

Overall, I would recommend this piece to very loyal fans of any of the actors or to cinephiles with a high degree of patience.

6.5/10

Too incoherent to convey a clear message

[rubenm · 4/10 · 10 July 2016]

Is High-Rise an anti-capitalist manifesto, meant to show the evil of inequality? Is it an attack on the British class society? Is it meant to show how modern architecture alienates people from each other? Or is it just a succession of weird scenes, giving the director the opportunity to show off? There's something to say for all of the above, but I'm inclined towards the last. The film really is too incoherent to convey a clear message or idea. The metaphor of a huge high-rise building to symbolize society at large is interesting, but could have been better expressed. As it is now, the metaphor gets mostly lost in an avalanche of weird, decadent or shocking scenes. As a viewer, you keep waiting for the story to become clear, but it never really happens.

This is even more annoying because the film is much too long, and already from the start it's clear how it ends because the whole story is one large flash back. The result is zero suspense and maximum weariness.

High-Rise's allegory of class divide gets lost in a dull montage of blood, sweat and blue paint

[kinoreview · 17 April 2016]

Ben Wheatley is one of the most exciting British directors working today. His two best films are Kill List, a deeply disturbing horror/thriller about a tormented contract killer, and Sightseers, a black comedy about a troubled couple on their parochial, psychopathic honeymoon.

Key to these films' success are strong characters with interesting dynamics. Kill List begins almost like a domestic kitchen-sink drama centred on the failing relationship between Jay (Neil Maskell) and Shel (MyAnna Burning), but it subsequently evolves, or rather devolves, into something dark, dank and horrible in a most unpredictable manner. Sightseers may be most commonly remembered for its scenes of outlandish violence, such as when Chris (Steve Oram) deliberately runs over a litterer in a fit of righteous anger. However, underneath the comic outbursts of gore is the poignant relationship between Chris and Tina (Alice Lowe), an oddball pair with a past of loneliness and insecurity.

Having proved himself as a director of visceral horror and emotional substance, Ben Wheatley is the natural choice to direct J. G. Ballard's High-Rise, a Goldingesque tale of violent class war exploding within a brutalist tower block. The fragility of civilisation, and the primitive savagery that lurks beneath it, is a darkly fascinating subject that has made for excellent films and books, such as Threads, a devastating vision of post- apocalyptic Britain, and William Golding's Lord of the Flies, which needs no introduction.

High-Rise does not brush shoulders with such works, for its allegory of class divide gets lost in a dull montage of blood, sweat and blue paint. Oh, and dancing air hostesses, for reasons that are, to put it politely, enigmatic.

The focal characters - Robert Laing (Tom Hiddleston), a measured, middle class doctor; Charlotte Melville (Sienna Miller), a sultry woman who serves as Laing's gateway in to upper floors' high culture; Richard Wilder (Luke Evans), a pugnaciously aspirational documentary maker; and Anthony Royal (Jeremy Irons), the patrician architect who designed the building - are introduced well enough, but ultimately do not receive sufficient development.

As the lead and perhaps most relatable character, we are in the body of Laing when he traverses the tower's social scene, which he admits to 'not being very good at'. Some may find him steely, but Laing has an affable reserve and high emotional intelligence. He isn't particularly interested in the petty one-upmanship that comes with climbing the social ladder, but he manages to deftly negotiate it anyway through his insouciant reserve that maintains peoples' interest and disarms any potential enemies. Hiddleston, one of Britain's hottest exports, is well cast here, he delivers the best performance of the film.

However, after a competent introduction to society in the high rise, Laing and the others get lost in an incoherent narrative that favours aesthetics and absurdity over credible character interplay. It begins three months ahead of the main events, showing a blood spattered Laing roasting a dog's leg over a fire surrounded by dirt and detritus. After the introductory period of around thirty minutes, the film then charts what led to this repellent spectacle with a disjointed series of set pieces that give little sense of progression.

Electrical problems are plaguing the building and resentment is brewing between the upper and lower floors, but the descent into nihilism just happens. Dogs are being drowned, Laing's painting his apartment (and himself) like a total madman and the whole building becomes a rubbish-strewn nightmare - but there's no tension, no crescendo, no credibility and, curiously, no one who considers leaving! The worsening relations should have been more gradual and given much greater depth and meaning by the characters, their dialogue and their relationships. Instead, the main character covers himself in paint to communicate his increasingly aberrant state of mind, which appears to be an obvious metaphor for tribal decorations.

High-Rise fails as a film about primal savagery and particularly as a film about class. In Woody Allen's Blue Jasmine, I cringed as Jasmine and her husband Hal, arrogant members of New York high society, barely contained their raging superiority complexes as they awkwardly condescended to Ginger (Jasmine's sister) and Augie, a decidedly blue collar couple who wonder at Hal and Jasmine's luxurious home. No such realist interplay is to be found in High-Rise, because its characters are thinly drawn and it isn't rooted in reality, which is very much to its detriment.

Towards the film's end, there are moments in which Royal and his minions discuss the politics and future of the tower, with Royal remarking that the lower floors should be 'Balkanised', meaning that they should be fragmented and pitted against each other in a manner reminiscent of the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s. I liked the use of that phrase, there should have been a lot more of this in the script, more overt political manoeuvring rather than surrealist claptrap and brutalist 70s chic.

Alas, Wheatley's High-Rise is more concerned with aesthetics and the 1970s, which means there's more in the way of shag-pile carpets, dodgy hair and the colour brown than developed characters, coherent narrative structure and sociopolitical substance.

High-Rise

[abouhelier-r · 6/10 · 10 April 2016]

Life for the residents of a tower begins to run out of control.

High-Rise is the adaptation of J.G. Ballard's 1975 novel, directed by Ben Wheatley and starring Tom Hiddleston as Dr. Robert Laing. I didn't really know what to expect from this movie, as I did not read the book, so I came at it from a fresh perspective. This film is a quasi-period piece, which is not completely irrelevant to a Britain in which buy-to-let apartment block exist. It is a blank, affectless world with a certain type of sci-fi and satirical Englishness. This tale is quite a bizarre, sleek, seedy and mad spectacle.

If Jeremy Iron's roles in Dead Ringer and M.Butterfly provide a roundabout link to Cronenberg, so does a med-school scene where the skin of a cadaver's head is peeled away in a kind of metaphor for society's thin surface. That and his wife parading around like some postmodern Marie Antoinette, on a horse. In fact, the core cast is brilliant. Tom Hiddleston is terrifically nonchalant, giving a great performance as the lead character: dry and self-possessed. A charming and charismatic performance with a hint of internal sadness. Plus, Miller makes bright work of Charlotte.

Mark Tildesley's lavish production design ranges from mouldering fruit bowls to posh parties decadent enough to cause a French Revolution. Decadence, despair and violence are all around, in a kind of ongoing erotic catastrophe. The screenwriters played out this scenario as a retro-futuristic sci-fi allegory - Ballard was writing the near-future in the mid-70s: Wheatley and Jump smartly stick with a period they know well. I loved the film's refusal of "normal" storytelling, bold visual style with these gorgeous shots and vibrant colours. Combined with the editing, shots have a dream- like surreal quality, a colourful beginning contrasted by the end with a dark shadow feeling.

The soundtrack was great, there is two scenes especially where there's this string quartet playing an ABBA song and later on it gets remix, it was probably one of my favourite scenes - as well as this very interesting naked scene on the balcony that might also be of some interest to some of you. Finally, for some High-Rise could be frustrating and the specific references to Margaret Thatcher era doesn't quite work as a whole.

Overall, High-Rise has a vibe of "you want to look away but you really can't". This film is an excellent allegory for society, it lingers in the mind with some strong visuals, good soundtrack and more than decent acting.

Pretentious rubbish

[nando1301-1 · 1/10 · 10 April 2016]

A nice idea gone awfully wrong. The first 20 minutes are actually quite good: the art design is worthy of all the prizes you could award it, and the director builds a growing tension that keeps you interested, although you already know, from the first five minutes, that the likely outcome is that everything will fall apart, since "the building" is clearly a metaphor for "modern" society.

However, even predictable plots can be interesting, and initially this seems to be the case.

Then, the film loses its grip and very quickly becomes an endless repetition of chaos. By the 30min mark the director has made his point: society sucks and if things continue as they are, we will all descend into primitive behaviour and act like barbarians. Nothing wrong with that message per se, but the film gets stuck on it like a broken record and treats the audience to an endless stream of pointless violence, mindless sex orgies, rapes, more violence, looting, social chaos, still more violence. It's like beating a dead horse and then continuing to beat it until you are beating the skeleton of a dead horse (and you continue beating it).

It seems that the writer and director were so in love with the core message that they could not quite get around to developing it and finishing it properly.

I saw this at a cinema in London; some people left half-way into it (most seats were empty anyway). I managed to sit through the whole thing, hoping that the movie would redeem itself towards the end; it only got worse. This might be at the top of my "worst films of all time" list.

The acting is not bad, the cast is good, and the art design is still deserving awards; but the overall result is just appalling. It would have made a great short film, if they stopped it at 30 minutes. The way it was released, at 119 minutes, it is 90 minutes too long.

Highly stylised and bold adaption of a seminal novel

[Red-Barracuda · 7/10 · 25 March 2016]

High-Rise is the latest film adaption of a J.G. Ballard novel. The previously most prominent one was David Cronenberg's controversial Crash (1996). Similar to that one, High-Rise is a pretty faithful adaption of the material. Having read both of those books, I felt that High-Rise was definitely the superior of the two. It was a perfect example of the peculiar kind of sci-fi Ballard is known for, i.e. it's nihilistic, critical of society and the set-up is very familiar but with some slight changes, which gives off the feeling that the events are set five minutes in the future. This film adaption is a little different to this in that the stylistic decision has been made that the world in which events take place would resemble the one envisaged by Ballard back in 1975 when he wrote the novel, i.e. it's a view of the future mid-70's style in all its beige and concrete glory. The upshot of this is that the look is of the retro-future variety and this may be the single best thing about the film overall. The photography and set-design are both excellent, while the various montages and dream-like segments are all very well executed. To top this off is a very well chosen soundtrack, which often has a sound which fits the sterile surroundings very well, as well as two very different and interesting versions of the ABBA song S.O.S., a song which also came out the same year this novel was released.

The story in a nutshell has a doctor move into a modern high-rise building which has been fitted with all mod cons, meaning that life can be lived within its confines without the need to leave the building. The skyscraper has an in-built social order, where the higher your apartment is, the higher you are in the caste system. This leads to resentment from the people in the lower floors who feel they are getting a bad deal out of the system. This leads to a violent class war, where the residents are reduced to savagery in an alarmingly short space of time.

The high-rise itself serves as a microcosm of human capitalist society as a whole. The events and character actions that occur are of course highly exaggerated and severe, even if they do touch upon definite truths. But this is a very blackly satirical story and so realism is not a priority here. To this end the events are often wilfully surreal and absurd. This approach does mean, however, that this is not always a fully engaging experience, with many vignettes going off at tangents and the abundant humour sometimes meaning it is hard to take things altogether seriously some of the time. It's a quite fragmented film overall, with a not entirely linear story-line and the full-on nature of the visual presentation – while extremely good – can sometimes overcome the content. Still, I found a lot to like in this one and admired the boldness of approach. Director Ben Wheatley has to be given appropriate credit for bringing this to the screen in such an uncompromising manner, he is certainly putting together one of the most interesting bodies of work in cinema right now. Ultimately, High-Rise is certainly a film that will understandably be very divisive, but I thought, on the whole, it was a very good adaption of an excellent subversive novel.

Mish Mash

[steven-drew · 4/10 · 1 May 2016]

You look at the cast . 10/10 You see the story line 09/10 You see the cinematography 09/10

We settle down , C,mon movie "entertain us" we cry.

1 hour later we just cry.

The morning after watching we are still "none the wiser" which is a great shame.

Very well made with a cast of most of my favourite Brit actors but what the hell is it all about ???? I still haven't got a clue.

Pretentious , Brit film Noir? my biggest regret is we wasted a Saturday night watching it.

My wife kept saying , "turn it off if you don't like it" but we kept thinking it would either 1) get better 2) we would eventually Get It or 3) We watched it this far so there is no point switching it off now.

S.O.S. - yuppie style

[pyrocitor · 6/10 · 8 October 2015]

Before Fonzi notoriously 'jumped the shark', the go-to, classical-standards-be-damned punchline for subversive '70s comedy was, apparently, 'kill the dog'. National Lampoon magazine drew some coveted notoriety from a magazine cover flaunting the gleeful threat of moral violation. And then there's J.G. Ballard's High-Rise, here cinematically adapted by A Field in England oddball Ben Wheatley, which not only has its cake, but eats it too. If cake were a dog. Um.

About as confusing, misguided, and distasteful a metaphor as you can imagine? Probably – but it fits Wheatley's film especially well, then. High-Rise's incisive satire about social performativity, conformity, and the social class discrepancies left to descend from hyperbolic madness into bloody chaos still plays well, with a snide undercurrent critiquing the retro- trendiness of hipster culture, even if the obnoxiously yuppie culture of high-rise inhabitants likely felt a bit more topical when the novel was written 40 years ago. The first half of Wheatley's film is sharper and more cutting, but the second act descends into mess, violent mayhem, and inevitable cannibalism too quickly for it to not feel somewhat aimless and unmotivated. Sure, there are key structuring moments – a series of extensive power outrages, where shoddy apartment construction is mistaken for exploitation of the bourgeoisie – here represented as the inhabitants of the 'lower floors' – some yuppie parties of escalating ferocity, and one of the most gruesome pool parties in cinematic history, but, for the most part, the descent into chaos is coded as ambiguously 'just because'.

This Lord of the Flies approach is, conceptually, viciously funny, but Wheatley's direction, playing it all as surrealist art cinema, results in a sluggish, plodding pace, leaving audiences fidgety, so that even the apocalyptic chaos of the latter half is unnecessarily snoozy. Why do the inhabitants not simply leave the high-rise, instead of sliding into rape, murder, and feudal mess, living off bonfires and purloined supermarket goods? Aye, there's the satirical rub, but it wears thin with insufficient clever lines substantiating the inhabitants' self- imposed stagnation (surely there's some sort of "hard to get a flat in London, innit?" gag to be made?). By the time we conclude with a Thatcher voice-over, so forced it actually drew groans from our audience, there's an indisputable feeling of things being taken too far, the metaphor trod to death, and the point moot.

This is not to say all is lost. Some moments of artful insanity work better than others – a string quartet cover of ABBA's S.O.S. accompanying a prissy Elizabethan-era costume party is particularly gleefully inspired (Clint Mansell's musical score is eerily apropos throughout), while an initially triumphant chant of "Swimming pool! Swimming pool! Swimming pool!" becomes a memorably gruesome dirge retroactively. Wheatley has a keen eye for beautifully weird imagery, refracting hundreds of sombre Tom Hiddlestons in a bismuth crystalline elevator, while the stark, chic modernism of the high rise complex shot in atmospheric long shot over a seemingly endless parking lot transforms into an increasingly apocalyptic monolith as the film progresses. Still – its an odd feeling to be in the midst dog-and-people- eat-dog anarchic revolt and lament the loss of more focused, buttoned-up snark of the film's early days.

If nothing else, the film's cast all excel, unearthing treasure troves of character and charisma amidst the somewhat bland archetypes the script leaves them with. Tom Hiddleston, in a rare but welcome starring role, is unquestionably the show's strongest asset. He's frequently shirtless and dances, so the film comes with a built-in Tumblr audience from the get-go, but it's worth checking out for his nuanced and subtle performance as well, hiding the right reservoirs of pain and madness under a veneer of immaculate calm about to crack. Luke Evans is also spectacular, in full-on voracious, nearly feral scene-stealing mode as a wannabe documentarian turned anarchic piledriver behind the revolution. Sienna Miller and Elisabeth Moss each impress as apartment residents negotiating different strands of the social infrastructure as the mad parties descend into pure madness, while Jeremy Irons is a great comedic foil as the building's architect, fussily oblivious as the pretentious world he has constructed crumbles around him.

Wheatley's film has often been compared to Fawlty Towers as directed by David Lynch (while also owing a lot to Jean-Luc Godard's similarly nihilistic social class satire Weekend), but there was far more method to Cleese's madness than is on display here. In terms of dystopic class allegories about societal revolt and occasional cannibalism, 2013's Snowpiercer flips the entire tale horizontally onto a train, and does a better job to boot. As it stands, High-Rise is, like its residents, fun and classy at first, but it's important to get out while the going is good before it all goes to hell - in more than one way.

-6.5/10

If you are watching this film on a plane and the plane begins to crash - trust me; your day has just dramatically improved.

[alexanderbarratt · 1/10 · 17 July 2017]

The most frustrating thing of all about this film is that it starts out with quite a bit of promise. Visually stimulating: interesting and tantalisingly bizarre story and characters - "where will this rabbit hole lead?" you wonder. Well my wife wanted to go to sleep and I was intrigued enough to keep her up on a Sunday night to watch more. As a result I've just been screamed at, I'm apparently spending the night on the sofa and I have specifically registered with IMDb to warn you away from this bubbling pustule of a film. Frankly I'm lucky to be on the sofa - after that decision I'm fortunate not to be face down in a foot-deep bath. It would be more than I deserve.

As I mentioned, after about twenty minutes or so the director seems to give up entirely and simply throw this film into the pinball machine of art-house cliché, and what a score he achieves. In particular; slow motion violence coupled with classical music. I have more than a sneaking suspicion that the director is a big fan of "A Clockwork Orange" and especially the scenes of shockingly base violence coupled with classical music. If your favourite thing in the whole world is the sight of violence in slow motion backed by classical music then this is your lucky day - you are going to be in ecstacy watching this film. Sadly no-one ever seems to have explained to the director that watching violence is like watching porn; thrilling for the first ten minutes, boring for the next five minutes, before settling in to a depressing soul-crushing grind for all time thereafter.

Every character is eminently unlikeable (whichever "side" you pick, both display shocking cruelty to animals, which for me is a massive red line), the story is exceptionally weak - the premise on which society "breaks down" is utterly pathetic. The whole trick of art- house film is to be able to create surreal metaphors which are cleverly interpreted observations on real life; this film can add itself to the list of wannabe art-house, simply scattering meaningless surreal imagery around with apparently no meaning or significance whatsoever. If you ever find yourself talking to the director and he mentions that he is planning on making another film, please do us all a favour and suggest that he find the nearest 40- storey high-rise block and throw himself off of the top of it.

Style, performances, cinematography, and observations.

[zupapazupap · 8/10 · 17 July 2016]

There is some intense hatred for High-Rise, which I think comes from people expecting something very different to what they found. So I'm going to try and tell you what to expect without any spoilers.

A lot of people will find this movie hard to relate to because it has anti-heroes and is driven by concept rather than character - its pacing is guided more by the ideas it wishes you to consider than the emotions it wants you to experience. Another swathe of viewers will be put off because it offends their politics, and sociology and politics are at the core of this movie. Ballard made some observations about human nature, the which Jump and Wheatley relate to the politics of their own generation. The majority of High-Rise's observations are pessimistic to say the least; those overly sensitive to the observations' bleakness, or who can't relate to their context may not find much here.

But if you can immerse yourself into the film's style, enjoy the outstanding performances and cinematography, and enjoy decrypting J.G.Ballard's metaphors through Ben Wheatley and Amy Jump's lens, there is a lot here for you.

My only gripes are 1) that it didn't show at any cinemas within a reasonable distance from me, and 2) having Abba stuck in my head (although vastly reinvented versions appear in the movie, it is the original song which burrows into my ear like a parasitic worm).

Not so bad.

[danielkarlsson-59736 · 6/10 · 1 February 2024]

I found this filme to be interesting and enjoyable.

The plot isn't particularly complex but does give some insight into how a society can deteriorate even on a comparatively small level. It also shows how at least temporary isolation can happen in the midst of a modern metropolis.

The mood is similar to A Clockwork Orange, not in the least thanks to the bleak, even misanthropic, view of human nature.

It as been stated, with good cause, to be somewhat pretentious and unfocused. However, I found myself willing to bear it thanks to the fine acting and the evocative setting.

Although I have full understanding how this is not an appealing film to a lot of people, I just happened to enjoy it.

Paradise Towers

[Prismark10 · 5/10 · 16 June 2016]

JG Ballard's dystopian science fiction novels have long been regarded as being unfilmable. Ironically it was Steven Spielberg who first made a film of one of his books, the autobiographical Empire of the Sun which was also more conventional.

In High Rise the building clad in some kind of neo 1970s decor is really the star as it represents the social strata. A society in decay. The film opens where there has been a total nihilistic breakdown amongst the occupants where we see a man roasting a dog's leg before we jump back three months earlier.

Dr Robert Laing (Tom Hiddleston) is a middle class doctor, almost an every-man who is at ease both going up and down the social classes in the tower block. He is helped by Charlotte Melville (Sienna Miller) a sexy neighbour who helps Laing get to the upper floors where tastes are more refined. Better parties, music, swimming pool and restaurants for example.

Richard Wilder (Luke Evans whose get up reminds me a lot of actor Stanley Baker) is a truculent documentary maker who lives near the ground floor with his wife and children amongst the rest of the block's poorer tenants. Wilder is aware and resentful of the inequality that exists in building. He has to put up with electricity outages, lifts not working properly, inferior restaurants, shops, parties. Wilder wants to expose the building's architect Anthony Royal (Jeremy Irons) who lives on the top floor and he also happens to be Laing's occasional squash partner.

As we head towards hedonism, one-upmanship, sex fuelled violence the narrative structure of the film breaks down. The descent into madness is too rapid as Laing suddenly starts to paint his room and himself. The film becomes disjointed although we see some of the upper floor residents who wish to Balkanise the lower floors and re-organise the place more to their benefit.

It is as the novel was just too big and intricate to just chew off and director Ben Wheatley did not have the budget and resources to do it justice.

The film ends with the words of Mrs Margaret Thatcher former Prime Minister of Britain who did so much to ramp up the divisions between rich and poor in the 1980s.

A pointless and confusing mess

[Gordon-11 · 23 May 2016]

This film tells the life of the residents in a high rise apartment block in the UK, where the hierarchy and the corresponding rights of the residents are highly rigid.

"High-Rise" is certainly trying to be a metaphor for a dysfunctional society, but exactly what it is trying to mirror, I don't know. The plot is very confusing, and basically the lives of the residents and also the plot itself descend into chaos. Maybe it's trying to tell the relationship between the oppressors and the oppressed? Or is it trying to highlight the importance of elitism, and that the masses should not have power? The central theme of the film is so unclear, that I could not get into the story at all. I find it a pointless and confusing mess.

The key flaw is it's missing anything resembling human behavior.

[athies · 2/10 · 18 November 2016]

What is this weird upstairs dynamic.

Creepy janitor? Is this half a swinger party? Degenerates! What's this douche's problem? This guy takes. Lot of showers.

Jeremy Irons is a warning sign for extreme oddity.

That game turned abruptly.

Nipple circles.

This film repeatedly hates dogs. They've topped their rating at 2 right there.

Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Utter nonsense. This movie is a pile of garbage salted with nuts.

Over-Indulgent but Artistically Impressive Wallow in Dehumanization

[LeonLouisRicci · 7/10 · 11 September 2016]

From the Scathing and Satirical Social Commentary Novel (1975) by J.G. Ballard, this is rather close to the Source Material, for Better or Worse. Some Say that the Novel is Unfilmable.

Enter British Cutting Edge and Artsy Director Ben Wheatley. Drawing from Ballard's Literary Prose and the Cinema of Lynch, Kubrick, and Cronenberg, Wheatley is on Hallowed Ground. The Homages range from Subtle to Overt.

Breakdown and Chaos are here in Abundance and In Your Face to a Fault. The Second Half Wallows with Unnerving Images and Over the Top Displays of Filth, both of the Mind and Place. The Artistic Design is Striking.

Excessive to the Point of Disgusting Heavy-Handedness the Film makes its Points by Pulverizing the Audience into Submission. The Confusing Elements Pile Up like the Trash and the Bodies and the Message is Drowned in Decadence for Art's Sake and Loses some of the Powerful Prognostications of its Subject.

Not for Everyone, this Potential Cult Film is a Sight to Behold. What it Lacks in Coherence it makes up for with Outrageous Optics. The Cast all seem to be Invested in this Vision and the Movie is Impressive more for its Displays than Insights. The Building is a Figurative and Symbolic Metaphor for the Caste System that Surrounds and Entraps with its Ugly Dehumanizing Persuasion and this Film does the Same.

Disappointing

[nataliyushka · 2/10 · 23 April 2016]

The trailer of the movie is more interesting than the movie itself. The idea might look intriguing at the beginning, but the more you watch it, the more confused you get. I was thinking of leaving the cinema half way, but managed to watch it to the end just in case if the end will give a clue to all the chaos. No use. The end was as disappointing as the whole movie. The idea of total degradation transforming people into violent animals and then making survivors one ill family is beyond my understanding. Ill movie about insane people. It makes you feel that everyone is bad and dealing with a rotten society you can get influenced by it too. Bitter aftertaste. I wish I didn't watch it at all.

We get it! They have sex and kill each other! What else you got?

[CinePendejo · 6/10 · 30 April 2016]

I'll be honest, I got a little hesitant after hearing about a new adaptation of an old dystopian classic. In an age where people, me especially, get infuriated or exhausted for every HUNGER GAMES knock-off gets released, it is a shame where even movies with the pitch "based on the classic novel" gets more derivative today than in their peak. Seriously, do you realize how successful THE GIVER and ENDERS GAME would've been before THE HUNGER GAMES? Sad as it may seem, it comes as no surprise; after all, there is so much angles you can cover in these movies that has not been recycled elsewhere.

Which is why I am almost glad that director Ben Wheatley manages to show a near unique approach for HIGH-RISE, a movie based on the classic JG Ballard novel. It takes a familiar premise (what if in SNOWPIERCER, they used a giant apartment tower instead of a train to separate the middle, poor, and wealthy class) and brings exploitation level edge to the movie; an elegant, GREAT GATSBY-style commentary on the class system at first, but then transcends to edgy and haphazard mayhem in the film's final stretch. And while I admire this experiment as much as Wheatley's directing skills to go with it, the movie, however, turns up into a huge mess. Despite what it accomplishes (acting, directing, music, novel style) HIGH-RISE ultimately comes off as a stumbling and weirdly unsettling.

But first, our premise. In the near future, classes of society are now inhabiting a giant apartment complex led by an architect played by Jeremy Irons. Despite a divide between the working class, the poor, and the wealthy, the building provides all of society's amenities like gyms, supermarkets, parties, and state- of-the-art life systems. Tom Hiddleston plays a middle-grade doctor who moves in to the High Rise and is lovely greeted by the other wealthy individuals, played by Luke Evans and Sienna Miller. But once a power-outage hits the tower, all the lower class bursts out and cause mayhem all throughout the place, while the upper class engulf into the madness themselves.

Right off the bat, this is a very different intention when it comes to the genre. Instead of issuing a warning of economic crisis via exaggeration in a dystopian society, HIGH-RISE pretty much just commentates on it, that the whole class system benefits from one another and any sort of major issue would cause massive outbreak. It's an accessible perspective, but the execution is all over the place once the first act flies by. The characters never transcend beyond tedious metaphors, the plot clearly trudges through its thin second half, and the supposed edgy depictions of immorality looks silly and drawn- out. Hell, despite Hiddleston's charismatic performance, there is ultimately no point or clear thematic meaning to his character outside of the film constantly making reference to his sister's tragic death. Luke Evans character comes close to being almost interesting, as a former documentary filmmaker who decides to film the deterioration of the tower.

Speaking of which, the movie clearly doesn't explore much of its concept as much as it thinks it is. How are the poor people dealing with the life on the lower floors of the building? Does it comment about how we treat about minorities? Are women in this building anything more other than sex toys and/or vile tools for male masculinity? These barely get any attention, as the film too often keeps the perspective on the middle to high floors and explores their emotional delirium rather repetitively. Yes, they party too roughly and almost kill themselves. Yes, they have sex almost constantly. Yes, the women are treated so vilely that we should feel bad for them despite their thinly etched characters. Is that really all you can show? Most of this would've at least look intriguing instead of either getting stale or never transcend beyond the dull standard portrayal of rape, murder and drugs. I get that Ben Wheatley tries to bring an uneasiness to his films to explore emotional psyche, but it seems too random and without much point. I mean c'mon, I have yet to find someone who actually classifies "A FIELD IN ENGLAND" something other than "random BS". The worst part about this movie is how much saving graces this movie has to almost recommend for. The acting is top-notch, the cinematography is great, the classic music is elegant and lovely, and the message, however sloppy and played-out at this point, gives more to think about. But once digging below the surface, I would not be surprised if anyone would be put off (or even just get confused) by its tedium. See it and judge for yourself.

Rating: 6/10 (OKAY)

Half the audience left, film failed to grip

[Scudpipes · 2/10 · 1 April 2016]

Eight people - about half the audience - walked out of this; usually I think, big deal, let them leave, some people have no taste. For example, fans of Tom Cruise disappointed by Eyes Wide Shut. Here, I guess you could say these were Hiddleston fans who wanted a bit more of him with his top off... but to be honest, I think they were just bored. I was. I should have walked too. As another reviewer here has written, JG Ballard can't be adapted for the screen. He's about right. That's the main problem - the script is a mess, both pretentious and trite, also very pleased with itself. Performances are uneven, and nothing much happens - for example, there is talk of a lobotomy, but that's about it. It's cobblers. Never has anarchic behaviour seemed to tedious and naff. Well worth avoiding, despite a couple of promising moments - the costume party, for example, and the thug who says 'You won't be needing that' - both of which director Wheatley fails to capitalise on. Oh, and it features an annoying intelligent kid, which is a big no no.

interesting concept

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 1 October 2016]

It's around the 70's London. Dr. Robert Laing (Tom Hiddleston) moves into a modern brutal-concrete high-rise designed by architect Anthony Royal (Jeremy Irons). He is nude sunbathing when Charlotte (Sienna Miller) from a balcony above invites him to her party. At that party, he befriends couple Helen (Elisabeth Moss) and Richard Wilder (Luke Evans) who live with the other poorer families on the lower levels. Later, Royal's wife Ann (Keeley Hawes) invites him to a party but it's an 18th century aristocratic costume party. There are little problems with the building and distrust among the different levels of the complex.

The concept is interesting. There is something distancing about keeping this in the past. It doesn't connect the audience to the present and isn't as compelling. It's a rant against the class system without going into race or many of the other modern divisions. It follows a few too many characters which scatters the intensity. It's still an interesting high-concept movie but it doesn't really captivate me.

it's like ravings of a madman

[Anna_Korol · 1/10 · 15 April 2016]

to be honest the idea seemed good and interesting, the humour in few moments was pretty good, but... 1) Why i must believe in degradation of human beings in a closed territory if: no one from the start seemed normal and everybody had problems with morality; the territory wasn't close! It's just a building, not an isolated island or snowpiercer (which was a really great movie). These people went out for a work, they could simply move anywhere else if they didn't like this skyscraper. They could went out anytime they wanted, nobody kept them there by force, they could call police at least, but instead they decided to stay there with unworking electricity and lots of other problems. It's just unlogic thing! 2) Why i must believe that the character who was Neither fish nor flesh (except a few moments) somehow got all the power in the end of the story (or women just choose him to comfort them, why?) 3) some characters talked about this building as if it was a living being, well, if it was really supposed that skyscraper is the main character of this movie then it should be shown somehow. Talks of madmen will never convince me to believe in them. i didn't feel the power of the building (if it really had it). Whole movie is a mess. The idea was good but it's realization is nothing but a pretentious chaos. I wasn't shocked by cruel scenes, i've seen worse and i bet out too. so i don't understand people who told me that it has some special scary atmosphere. and my friend forgot this movie just after we left the cinema. She was absolutely indifferent to everything that happened on the screen and i know why: neither plot nor characters were intriguing.

Stylish and darkly humorous, at times ugly and unsettling!

[RaoulGonzo · 8/10 · 25 March 2016]

High-Rise is director Ben Wheatley's 5th full length feature (Down Terrace, Kill List, Sightseers, A Field in England) his biggest budget and his most ambitious. An adaptation of J.G. Ballards novel of the same name, although I haven't read the book I do hear that it's a pretty faithful telling. The film is full of stunning imagery and crammed with dreamlike (and at times nightmarish) moments. It seems to be one big metaphor on social status and class systems.

Neurologist Dr. Laing (Tom Hiddleston) moves into a futuristic looking tower block in the 1970's. Only to see the new society crumble into age old violence.

The main character of the film is the High-Rise itself, the whole movie set/shot within its walls barring the brief commute to Laing's office. The Architect (Jeremy Irons) goal was for a seemingly self sustaining society with everything needed to survive and thrive having its own supermarket and gym etc. It's also mentioned at one point that one of the tenants hasn't left the building in years. Although still dealing with "teething" problems with regular power outages and chute blockages (A catalyst for the violence that arise between the levels). The question can be asked as to why the inhabitants don't just leave the complex once the chaos starts? As the doors are always open but it's clear these people seem to be wholly dependent on it. Trapped on their levels of society and unable to move any further up.

The performances are great all round with nice turn-outs from Seinna Miller and Elisabeth Moss but for me Luke Evans as the (in the end) savage Richard Wilder steals the show a seemingly natural leader for the lower levels who becomes devoted to exposing the violence and mayhem that's descending within the buildings walls, and the creator himself Jeremy Irons is fantastic as usual giving a slightly ethereal feel to the proceedings. Tom Hiddleston is our centerpiece and our eye amongst the chaos being able to shift between classes. Excellent in the role (and between this and the BBC drama John Le Carre's The Night Manager) it's clear to see why he has become the icon/sex symbol he is.

The main strength of the film is not the at times over convoluted plot or the loose narrative but the visual flair and bravura showmanship that Ben Wheatley and his crew deliver. Some of the Slow-Motion shots are breathtaking (Similar to the technique he showed in the minute budget for A Field In England) I feel he has only enhanced his reputation where some directors who have made good films with low budgets fail given the much larger scale to work with. The editing is tight and add to that Clint Mansell's brilliant score which elevates what is happening on screen building tension and atmosphere where there should be none. There is also a great cover of Abba's SOS which works ever so well.

High-Rise is certainly not without its flaws the plot is all over the place at times to which certainly in the last third the plot kind of becomes irrelevant a next to non-existent narrative making it hard to follow. All that in turn makes it suffer with a lack of empathy with many of the characters and once the mayhem and unpleasantness is in full swing the violence can feel monotonous, making the third act tension free and meaningless. The performances and the arresting cinematography keeps your eyes peeled even if your attention to the plot is wavering.

Darkly humorous and at time ugly and unsettling certainly flawed but undoubtedly entertaining/repulsive. A bold picture that's definitely not for everyone but for me it's exciting to see what Ben Wheatley and co come up with next.

Going up?

[thatpunkadam · 6/10 · 1 November 2015]

While 'High Rise' articulates its thoughts regarding class structure, control, and savagery with ease amidst particularly detailed sets, wonderful performances, and plenty of gorgeous frames – the narrative is regrettably tedious and disengaging, due in large part to an overindulgence of montages and fixation on humor. The outcome is a frustrating severance from a plot that is at its strongest during the few scenes in which it invests wholly into the dark aspects of the remote Armageddon. The usual suspect of needlessly excessive comedy is partially to blame, but not more so than a superfluous use of montages, which seem more concerned with putting 'High Rise' into art-house discussions than engaging us into subject matter we yearn to invest into from a more fathomable perspective.

A dizzying mess

[adamonIMDb · 1/10 · 24 November 2016]

What the hell was this supposed to be? I could barely make any sense of it all. I see most of the positive reviews have acknowledged that this film is 'strange'. I can tolerate strange, but this was just incoherent madness.

Large parts of the film are just back to back scenes of pointless chaos, partying and bizarre events that make absolutely no sense. How many times do we need to see Mr Laing shower? And how many women do we need to see Mr Laing have sex with? Was I supposed to be following some sort of plot here?

'High-Rise' is a dizzying mess of a film, and even those who can get their head around the 'story' the film is supposed to be telling will struggle to stay interested.