High-Rise (2016) Review!!!

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

My Take – Based on the 1975 novel of the same name by J.G. Ballard, this film is easily one of the more bizarre films I have ever seen. Here, director Ben Wheatley (Kill List) creates a perfect blend of out-there characters and devilish humor mixed in a retro mid-70s vibe with their modernistic ideas for the time. It does run the risk of being far too on-the-nose, contrived and repetitious, which may directly affect the general movie goers but Wheatley‘s spark for surprises never leaves his grasp, justifying it with the heightened tone. It’s blood-soaked, alcohol-fueled and nicotine- injected mayhem that doesn’t hold back. With an array of characters, some compelling and some not, it still gets you invested in them and their impending doom in spite of how much they gleefully indulge in their primal survival instincts. The story follows Dr Robert Laing (Tom Hiddleston) in London, 1975. A young doctor seduced by the lifestyle in a high-rise building, created by the architect Anthony Royal (Jeremy Irons) as an isolated community cut off from the rest of society. Laing meets many of the high-rise’s residents and soon realizes that normality isn’t something easy to find on any of the floors. One of the residents, Richard Wilder (Luke Evans), who works as a documentary filmmaker, takes it upon himself to expose the class injustices that come as a way of life in the high-rise, causing a dangerous social situation to arise and social groups breaking up into violent tribes. I know the film sounds a lot like 2013’s Snowpiercer, an underrated masterpiece, which was a bit more direct and slickly executed interpretations of the theme with science fiction elements.

This is a film about the social class system and hierarchy within a tower block and how it all comes crumpling down despite no one actually wanting that. This could well be a microcosm of today’s society or that of the 70’s to which it was written. But that’s just my interpretation. The main character of the film is the building itself, the whole movie set/shot within its walls barring the brief commute to Laing’s office. The Architect’s 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 building 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 willfully 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 humor 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. 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 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 middle class – 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’. Although the film is visually intriguing, the same cannot be said for the films plot and it’s progression.

This film does manage to keep you firmly in your seat, but not on a balancing edge as one might expect it to. The films script was rather uninteresting, as your mind may easily wonder from the events taking place. I have read that this is an adaptation that stays true to the source material, so this may be more of a critique of the book to which the film is based of, rather than Amy Jump’s screenplay adaptation. Still, I admired the boldness of approach by director Ben Wheatley, who has to be given appropriate credit for bringing this to the screen in such an uncompromising manner. 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. 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. Despite the flaws, the performances here play a massive part in making it an engrossing watch. Each and every one of the actors delves right into the psyche of their respective character and look like they’re having an absolute blast taking them on such a downward spiral. Tom Hiddleston gives one of his best performances I’ve seen so far. He’s not stealing scenes like Loki, but instead showing this relate able hollowness with his half-hearted conformity. He’s well measured in how much to express, most often breaking down in isolation. Sienna Miller and Elisabeth Moss are tender highlights of the supporting cast while Jeremy Irons brings his reliable theatrics when necessary. However, the real scene-stealer here is Luke Evans, an abusive misogynistic character you love to hate at first but his determination for a more respectable quest slowly grows on you. He’s got the most developed and complex contradictions of the ensemble – a fighter and an artist, and a violator and a lover. On the whole, ‘High Rise’ is a darkly humorous ugly unsettling film which is still undoubtedly entertaining. 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.