The movie consists of a series of loose elements unrelated to a convincing plot, resulting in an inevitable conclusion, - like that of a syllogism -, which is logically implied by its premises. Syllogisms, as fascinating they may be, are not related with any kind of pathos: these are the premises, that is the conclusion. Automatically. What I just called a "convincing plot", in my opinion, is precisely one in which something unexpected happens: that not being the case for "The Cruel Tower", the film ends up as being a story devoid of any suspense or driving force. Even the action shots on top of the tower are not particularly entertaining.
Some sub-plots, or secondary roles, of the film, are even more unrelated to the central topic: they could be present or not, they can be substituted by any other thing, the whole wouldn't change a bit. See the character of Joss Jossman, in the film, and his totally random psychological delineation, for example.
In conclusion: watchable, if you can spare a little more than 1 hour. And if you can't find nothing better for the moment. If that is the case let me suggest you to turn off your screens and to revert to the written pages of good old Aristotle, quite more thrilling than "The Cruel Tower".
I don't give any rating for the film because, (at today), it is exactly the same as the average rating of IMDb. Pastime with good company.
