hcf-72795 It as an almost minimalistic setup where in a skyscraper artists in different states of their carreers try to find a way to cohabitate. As in real life this "togetherness" relies on the submission of some by others. Above all the intrigues of the daily life is the "administrator" of this social enterprise. It gets caotic when the submitters lose their power and the submitted refuse to fulfill their duties. Very interesting perspective with a touch of nonesense.

cesiraurzi JG Ballard's book High Rise is a dystopian masterpiece. It is a small book, less than 200 pages, in which words are used sparingly, and yet manages to paint vivid pictures in your head. It starts with Laing eating a dog, as if that was the natural conclusion of all the events that preceded it, and then takes you on that journey during which all human of all decency is replaced by tribal, basic survival instincts. Ben Wheatley's film is well acted and atmospheric. It is also wonderfully photographed and choreographed, but it ultimately fails to convince the audience about the inevitability of its ending. The pace is wrong. The audience is not shown the importance of the supermarket or the car incidents, and the tenants' behaviour spirals out of control too quickly to be believable. Everything happens in the first 45 minutes, so the remaining hour becomes dull and boring. The book was a dark portrayal of human nature. It convinces us that we are only a few bad incidents away from cold blooded murders and incest. The film is perhaps too faithful to the book to convey the same meaning. To me, it feels as though Wheatley respected the source material so much he failed to change it where necessary to accommodate a different medium. It's similar to what Linklater did with a scanner darkly (which I loved, but not as much as the book... of course), for which he seemed to take full scenes from the book without providing a meaningful synthesis. As someone who read the book and appreciated all the details, I still enjoyed watching the movie, and I am sure I will watch it again, but with a different mindset, considering it as a piece of art. But I can see why people who were not familiar with the material could not appreciate it, and I find it a real shame.

bowmanblue Ever since Tom Hiddleston became an evil Norse god he can do no wrong in many people's eyes (that's a nod to 'Thor' in case you have no idea what I mean by that). In any case, besides – allegedly – dating Taylor Swift for about five minutes, he's pretty popular right about now. Therefore, a high concept arty piece, brimming with social commentary and with him taking centre stage must be worth a watch, right? Sorry Tom.Now, I like to think that I'm no stranger to the slightly more 'abstract' films. I don't just want to see endless car chases or Transformers movies. I loved 'A Clockwork Orange' and David Lynch's work. However, I just couldn't really get into this. It's based on a book of the same name that's apparently had a script associated with it that's been kicking around various productions companies for years. Now, it's only just been made, despite everything about it screaming that it's set in the seventies.As the title suggests, it's all based in and around a high rise block of flats. The opening scene shows that some sort of catastrophe has befallen the building and those left are living almost in feral conditions. Then we're flung a little further back in time and the film begins proper with us seeing the events which lead up to this social decay.And, Tom Hiddleston shows that he's not just a meanie with a horned helmet, he can also hold his own as a leading man. He does carry the film as the well-to-do tenant of one of the apartments. He's slightly aloof and disdainful of much of what goes on around him – almost carrying himself a little like Patrick Bateman from 'American Psycho,' but never without sinking into quite such a chainsaw-wielding maniac. However, just because he's not trying to feed stray cats to cash machines, doesn't mean there isn't a healthy (or rather Unhealthy!) helping of s3x and violence. In fact… that's really all the film is.It's clear that the film has something to say about society and the way we lived. But it seems to get stuck in a bit of a senseless loop where gratuitous violence is all that's on offer. And, once you've seen one stylised fist fight (or worse!) then you probably don't want to see one in the very next scene as well. Perhaps if this film had been released in the seventies when such sights were a novelty in cinema and would therefore generate enough 'shock' with the public to make it stand out then it might have got a greater following. However, despite the decadent setting and the stylish way it's all filmed, there's not really an awful lot here to see. Yes, fans of Tom himself should enjoy it more than most, but it still feels like an empty Clockwork Orange clone that's been lost in time all these years and has missed its window where it would have been popular.I really wanted to like this and stuck with it hoping that it would finally change pace and pick itself up. However, it just repeats the same cycle over and over again and whatever message it thought it was trying to say gets lost along the way. Probably would have worked better as an art house piece that ran for between 20-30 minutes. It looks nice, but feels hollow. Wait… is that what it's trying to say about life?

andrewd750 Watched this directors other films, not really impressed with how he blatantly rips off other movies and somehow is hailed as amazing. His films just look good, but don't actually deliver anything new. Formulaic and boring. Waiting for it to finish so I could write this. Style over substance, ben wheatley is selling snake oil. Don't buy the hype.