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?
videorama-759-859391
I was quite intrigued, about how this film would come across. Yes, it's an original watch and inventively clever, but actually, especially through it's trashy moments, it becomes all too much. Through all it's madness, there is a underlying paper thin/thriller type of plot. An original indeed, but really, a movie with nowhere to go, so for it's near two hours, we have to endure crazier and crazier moments, some that had me on the verge of just turning off, as just finding it reaching the depths of stupidity, like say in Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas. But the film is magnetizing, and addictively a re watch with Hiddleston, the perfect lead. There's really something about this dude. He's a doctor, or so we believe, who we find at the start, living in the trashy depths of this swank British high rise apartment, where you have to earn living status, where we meet a vast selection of oddballs, that inhabit the building, divided into classes of people, from the upper class, ostensibly pompous assholes to the sickly poor. The whole complex is run by an aging, limping, Jeremy Irons. There are moments that will shock, ala: animal cruelty, which I totally abhorred and some moments that'll amuse, but this is one of those films that has to be seen once, while it won't cater to everyone's taste. Sienna Miller was very good as the sexy, seductive room mate, living upstairs from Hiddleston, while Luke Evans really stole the show, captivating, as a loser type/wannabe documentary filmmaker. The young over pregnant girl was cute and sweet. The young kid of high intellect, Mr Peabody and Sherman type with the frames, was the real movie stealer though. Yeah, the film does make it's points, about how there should be equality, but look beyond that, it's just madness, but somewhat addictive. Based on a novel by J.D Ballard who wrote the novel for Cronenberg's '97 cult hit, Crash, I must say I was disappointed for him to write something like this, as the story doesn't have same spark or nous, and wasn't electric, like that unforgotten hit, 20 years back.
tomsview
As I watched "High-Rise" I couldn't help wondering how they got the money for it. That must have been some pitch.I found the film buried deep in Foxtel Australia's Masterpiece Channel, but I'm beginning to think 'Masterpiece' is a destination for films that are impossible to categorise.A brief synopsis doesn't really prepare one for this film.A stressed-out doctor (Tom Hiddleston) buys an apartment in a supposedly state-of-the art, high-rise complex. He becomes embroiled in a warped "Animal Farm" existence with a class structure more or less dependent on what level of the tower block one lives on. Anarchy, and then chaos ensues as everyone parties maniacally while the facilities of the building begin to fall apart.Sound intriguing? Then you probably haven't seen the movie.It's like a mad cross between the films of Terry Gilliam and Peter Greenaway. There were sound pillars on which to construct "High-Rise" including likable actors: Tom Hiddleston with charm to spare as the doctor, and Jeremy Irons exuding gravitas as the architect who designed the building. Gorgeous Sienna Miller is also in it, but she is hard to recognise under dark hair, dirt and dried blood - I could never love a movie that treated her like that.The film has a classy score by Clint Mansell and brilliant special effects, but did J.G. Ballard's prose actually seem all that filmable? Brecht claimed that, "Art is not a mirror to hold up to society, but a hammer with which to shape it". All the hammer does in "High-Rise" is beat your brains out.And the smoking. I haven't seen that much cigarette smoking by actors this side of the millennium - it is truly breathtaking in more ways than one."High-Rise" not only failed to expand my cinematic horizons, but it also committed the cardinal sin for a film - it's tedious. At two hours, it takes a long time to make any point at all.
