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)
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)