Avis des utilisateurs

Grab your specimen jar and a bag of popcorn, because you're in for one heck of a ride. Does it make sense? Well, no. Is it slow moving and tedious. Yeah, but it.has it's moments. Would I recommend it. Sure knock yourself out! It's like a one night stand that you'll live to regret, but seemed a good idea at the time. There may be some hidden messages, so try to stay awake! Is there hidden esoteric messaging? Or is it just a cautionary tale about blue balls? Well, you're just going to have to muster up the courage to take a leap of faith right into.a black hole. It'll be well worth the two hours you'll never get back. Thank me later <3.

A science fiction thriller from Claire Denis? The uncompromising darling of French art house cinema, adored by critics and met with general puzzlement by audiences? And it's in English? And it stars the guy from Twilight: Chapitre 1 - Fascination (2008)? You have to be making this up.

Not at all. However, as intriguing as that may sound, it's a deceptive overview. Yes, it is Denis's first English-language film, and yes, it is set in space, but it's a science fiction film in name only, and has more in common with 2001 : L'Odyssée de l'espace (1968) and Solaris (1972) than with anything in the Star Trek or Star Wars franchises. And just for the record, the guy from Twilight has developed one of the most eclectic recent CVs of any actor in Hollywood. The long and short of it is that Denis has not sold out, and High Life is as multiplex-friendly as anything in her oeuvre (which is to say, not in the slightest), covering several of her more familiar themes - the darker aspects of desire; the notion of being an outcast; parenthood; the inescapability of death; the beauty of the human body; the relationship between violence and sexuality. The presence of Robert Pattinson will probably draw in a lot of unsuspecting folks, who will have no idea what to make of Denis's slowly paced existential musings, resulting in a slew of "worst film ever" reviews. But although it's not Denis's best (that remains either Beau Travail (1999) or Les salauds (2013)), it's a fascinatingly poetic and original film that is utterly uncategorisable - a space thriller about a mission collapsing in on itself; an ecological allegory positing that we don't have a huge amount of time left to save the planet; an analysis of the psychological ramifications of long-term incarceration; an erotic skin flick obsessed with bodily fluids; a metaphor for the perils of imperialism; a fable on the subject of paternity; a story about loneliness and grief; a literalisation of the premise that no amount of evolution, philosophy, or esotericism can ever change the fact that we're biological organisms controlled by our sexual yearnings and impulse to procreate - desire will always trump the social contract; we can place as much artificial limitation on our carnality as we want, but ultimately, desire will betray us.

Like I say, very multiplex-friendly.

Deep space. On an unnamed ship marked only with the number #7, Monte (Pattinson) lives alone with his baby daughter Willow (Scarlett Lindsey). However, this wasn't always the case, and as the film begins, Monte is releasing the bodies of his deceased crewmates into the void of space. How this situation came to pass is revealed via an achronological flashback narrative structure. A group of death row were offered a pardon if they undertook a mission to investigate the viability of the "Penrose Process" - a theory developed by Sir Roger Penrose whereby energy could be extracted from the area close to a black hole. However, the groups' de facto leader, Dr. Dibs (an ethereal Juliette Binoche oozing uninhibited sexuality from every pore), a criminal herself, is using the journey to conduct biological experiments on the crew; harvesting the men's semen and attempting to artificially inseminate the women. Monte, however, refuses to comply, arguing that his chastity gives him strength. His obstinacy fascinates Dibs, who determines to get a sample from him by any means necessary.

High Life, written in French by Denis and her regular writing partner Jean-Pol Fargeau in 2013 and translated into English by Geoff Cox, begins with pseudo-Edenic shots of lush vegetation, before slowly revealing we're seeing a garden on a spaceship, surrounded by and subservient to technology. We then hear a baby crying. This opening, mixing vegetation, technology, and biology, signals both the film's tone and demonstrates the economy of Denis's visual language, telling us much of what we need to know about the upcoming film. Denis and director of photography Yorick Le Saux employ similarly precise storytelling tools in shooting everything on the spaceship on HD video, whereas the few scenes on Earth are shot on 16mm - this gives the space scenes a sleek polished sheen, whilst the Earth material looks grainy and gritty, more lived in, setting up an instant visual contrast.

Thematically, rather unexpectedly, the film has a lot in common with Sur le chemin de la rédemption (2017) ; both deal with the looming end of existence; both examine the possibility of finding hope amidst the oncoming cataclysm; both see the human race as essentially not worth saving; both focus on a spiritual character facing a crisis of faith - in First Reformed, that crisis concerns Fr. Toller's Catholicism, whereas in High Life it's Monte's belief in the importance of self-discipline and chastity.

Of course, on a more prosaic level, the film is obsessed with sexuality. Fluids are a recurring motif throughout, whether the blood that several characters shed, the sperm with which Dibs is obsessed, the oil that keeps the ship's systems running, the water that nourishes the garden and that keep the crew alive. Speaking of fluid, perhaps the film's most haunting image is a shot of one character lactating; her body producing nourishment for a baby she can't feed, as Dibs has taken it from her, the milk running down her body going to waste. Interestingly enough, at the film's world première in Toronto, this scene sparked a considerable number of walkouts, almost every single one of which was male. Make of that what you will.

The subject of fluids is introduced from the onset. One of the first things we hear Monte saying is telling Willow that even if it is recycled, one should never eat one's own faeces or drink one's own urine, as such behaviour is "taboo". If we accept that the ship's garden is Eden, then Monte and Willow are our Adam and Eve, and, as we all know, what comes next in Genesis is temptation and desire. Thus Monte's emphasis on taboo in this opening scene becomes ironic given that later in the film, he will come face to face with an even more controversial taboo.

In terms of problems, the film will be far too abstruse for some. Denis obviously intended for High Life to be esoteric, and she's unconcerned with CGI spectacle or any of the tropes we've seen rehashed a million times in other sci-fi movies. For some, however, the film will cross the line from esotericism to impenetrability, with Denis allowing the socio-political themes overwhelm the film's identity as popular entertainment, refusing to explicitly reveal its fundamental meaning. And for those more used to films that openly reveal themselves without the audience having to put in much effort, High Life will prove too abstract.

In this sense, Denis's litany of themes does come across as a little haphazard, as she jumps around fairly randomly between them. This results in something of a thematic pile-up, which, by definition, can feel like a bit of a dead-end. I don't agree with people who say the film "has no point", but I can certainly see from where such criticism could arise, as Denis leaves several ideas frustratingly incomplete. Another issue is that the journey of #7 is never presented in any way urgently, meaning there's rarely tension, as life on ship moves along at its own lethargic pace. And I have to admit, at times my attention began to wander.

Nevertheless, High Life is a fascinating film that fits right into Denis's oeuvre. Although it recalls the clinical detachment of 2001 and the psychological intensity of Solaris, High Life is very much its own animal. Asking questions about our inability to recognise the oncoming extinction, it offers a savage and pessimistic corrective to the idealism of films such as Interstellar (2014) and Seul sur Mars (2015). Positing that mankind is a monster driven by its desires isn't going to earn Denis legions of new fans, but for those of us who were already on board, there's much to be relished here.

I've heard of Claire Denis but shamefully have never seen any of her work. I liked the trailer for this film. It seemed like a high concept space thriller, which as you know is something that is in my wheelhouse. I also have faith in everything A24 produces so I had to see this as soon as it came out. Having watched it the film is certainly visually arresting and quite disturbing. I'm not sure it fully meets what I was hoping for but Denis's film is thought provoking and asks questions of what humans in loneliness would do when on the brink of madness.

The film is about a space crew consisting of criminals and their mission of going towards a black hole to find a new energy source. The space crew soon realize that the doctor on the ship has some alternative ideas that include invasive sexual procedures meant to create life. I'm still not exactly certain on the solidity of that plot but this is the general gist. Robert Pattinson and Juliette Binoche lead with supporting performances from Andre 3000 and the always lovely Mia Goth.

There's talent on display in High Life. Pattinson is a very solid actor as could be seen from his other A24 feature, Good Time. The film looks like an authentic look into a space ship and I thought the film possessed some brilliant cinematography and camera handling. I especially liked the look of the black hole and the actions that occurred when approaching the black hole. I like when science fiction films (space ones namely) maintain the integrity of science and that seemed to be the case here.

The film borders on being very out there almost drifting off in plot like the bodies in space. What we see though is a fairly disturbing sexually charged mission in space with characters descending into utter madness and chaos. The film is definitely reminiscent of other space films before it but Denis strives to set it apart. I think its an impressively made film though it doesn't always work for me. It may require another watch to fully grasp and comprehend what Denis tried to go for.

6.5/10

I always read the one star reviews first. This movie has attracted some of the best samples. Quite a polarizing one ! Indeed if one is looking for a typical space flick, frustration must loom early on the horizon. High Life requires you to switch to brain waves that are hardly ever solicited in Hollywood. Some will find it boring and slow. For those who want, get ready for a mesmerizing and unsettling trip in your own deep space. It is an experience you will remember long after the end.

High Life does not make you feel good, it is a reminder of who we are at both macro and micro levels : we won't ever escape from our planet, nor from our inner selves. We are all prisoners. Birth is the entrance, death is the exit, our best hope is poetry.

My wife and I watched this at home on DVD from our public library. We had high hopes based on some DVD box comments but in the end we were disappointed. It wasn't a total loss but we got so little for the time invested.

As is explained in the DVD extras the writer/director does not like to spell everything out, she wants the viewers to extrapolate and interpret. As a result the movie is rather deliberate and not everything makes sense.

It is a space mission outside our Solar system, presumably to study reproduction during space travel and also to travel to the vicinity of a black hole to see if its energy can be harvested for Earth use. But to get there they have to travel for years at 99% the speed of light, communications with Earth no longer possible, and even if they were successful with the black hole how would the energy be transported?

So the science and physics is very shaky, however only there for a setting for the story, most of which is how a bunch of criminals would interact on a long, secluded journey if all their survivals depended on it?

The movie has some interesting elements but overall we found it to be a big miss, not worthy of the almost 2 hours to view it.

"High Life" is obsessed with sex in space, or the lack thereof. A bunch of convicts find themselves in a new sort of prison in a spaceship far from Earth. A mother and wife who murdered her family becomes a mad doctor obsessed with procreation and mating with another man. Actually, nobody has consensual sex, which seems to be banned for whatever reason, aboard the craft. Instead, they masturbate a lot, including for the doctor's collection of sperm in her ongoing in vitro fertilization experiments. Otherwise, there's celibacy and rape. There's a room onboard specifically designated for onanism, with one scene featuring the doctor straddling a dildo chair.

Images of space stand in as symbolic of a womb. There's a focus on fluids--semen, blood, water and such. Plus, there's the fertility of the garden. The picture begins with the reminder of the result of sex by way of scenes of an infant and her father. The backstory is filled in non-linearly later on, including that the rocketship is accelerating towards a black hole. There's no need to explain what the metaphor of that is. Hardly a need for the movie in general, either, which doesn't seem as interesting to me as it apparently does to some critics. The slow pacing and emptiness of space here merely seems to suggest a lack of anything compelling to move towards or to fill it with.

And the seemingly-random images transmitted from Earth remain baffling to me, including the early clip from "In the Land of the Head Hunters" (1914), although I don't recall any horses being in that film, which is why I first thought it was from some Thomas H. Ince silent Western. Regardless, at least, that offered some brief, as they say, "mental masturbation."

Simply scrolling through reviews will make it clear that this is a polarising film, one that poses a risk to anyone unsure about watching. My advice: take the plunge.

Claire Denis is a director who's always proven herself a genius with the critics, but unlike other art filmmakers, has had little luck hitting it off with casual moviegoers. One thing worth considering before watching is that High Life is never one thing. It waltzes the line between a deeply psychological cosmic horror and an erotic, abstract poem. Think Lovecraft meets Coleridge.

Robert Pattinson is worth the short runtime also, he gives a flawless performance and conceals his character in mystery that were thankfully never satisfied away from. High Life isn't supposed to satisfy the audience as much as guide them through a strange and uncomfortable episode of madness and psychological terror in deep space.

I'd actually go further to admit this is, in my opinion, the only true and great piece of cosmic horror to grace cinema screens in twenty years. A love of Soviet filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky is also prevalent throughout, who often used long takes to the extent of claiming filmmaking to be "sculpting in time". With this interpretation of filmmaking, High Life becomes a masterpiece. Critical viewers, it's a definite film to add to your watch list. Casual viewe's, if you've made it this far reading my review then give it a watch, it's short and even if you don't like it, I can guarantee it'll teach you a little about human nature as all great films do. Thank you!

Very disappointing to me: what's going on? What are we waiting for? Some guy was snoring a few seats away. Just loved the song that run through the credits (may was just happy that it was over)

Hey, I love thought-provoking, atmospheric, thematically rich, slow-burn, non-linear science fiction as much as anyone. But High Life is none of those things. It is two hours of ponderous silence and random, unexplained behavior. Two hours of incomprehensible whisper-mumbling. So little of an already-thin story is ever explained. It's a deliberately opaque style masquerading as complexity.

There's also a difference between good non-linear storytelling and disjointed, incompetent storytelling. A good non-linear structure adds additional layers of meaning, engaging the viewer to ponder how it all fits together, how the past informs the future and how the future reflects/echoes the past. With a poorly done version, the viewer spends much of his/her time thinking "WTF am I looking at?? WTF is happening?? Where am I? When am I?"

The 10-star reviews argue this film explores meaningful subjects like mortality, redemption, despair, and solitude. No it doesn't. It unsuccessfully *attempts* to discuss such subjects. And I say "discuss" generously. The film simply tosses in thematic bits of dialogue & behavior with little context or motivation. The characters don't feel like actual people, but rather mouthpieces for whatever the filmmaker wishes to "discuss" at the moment. You can feel the thematic checkboxes being ticked off as the film progresses. That's not dramatic or engaging; it's didactic. It's two hours of the filmmaker talking AT you.

What a waste of Pattinson's talent, truly pointless. Don't be dragged in by the people stating metaphor this and thought provoking that. It's bloody boring and up its own arse like the director.

This film is very quiet, subdued, and atmospheric. Not much goes on in the story. This movie seems to be going for a psychological approach to the characters. You are meant to explore the silences and time distortion as if you are being thrown around their memories.

What is the ending of this film, what does it mean? I don't think it truly matters. What matters is that they reached their destination together. Their destination is up for us to decide.

I will definitely give this another viewing in the future but as of now:

this film is a light 8/10.

I found this movie engaging and bold. It took a lot of risks with the subject matter and the director managed to make a real gem of a sci fi film.

It's definitely better than average. Sitting for me somewhere between a 6 and a 7 but I'll go ahead and give it a 7. It stays with you long after you left the theater.

It also does the science really well and as you're watching it the feeling of isolation that you share with the characters on the screen is palpable. The director used the environment to create an unsettling tone, and I think the ship is practically its own character as well.

While it's perhaps not a perfect movie, some of the character choices are questionable and there are a lot of fluids being flung around, semen, blood, goo, whatever. I dunno.

It was fresh and memorable to say the least. Definitely worth a watch, especially if you like Robert Pattinson.

The movie works only as a metaphor of the universe: empty and meaningless.

I really enjoyed this film, but I cannot imagine the average moviegoer would care too much for it. If you enjoy arthouse films, then you should probably give this a shot- it has some wonderfully meditative themes, some great performances, and a completely original story. But if you only go to the movies to see the latest Marvel flick, I can almost guarantee you'll think this movie weird and probably a little messed up.

Denis was under a lot of pressure, dealing with her own family matters during the film's production, but many highly criticized this film. In some regards, this film deals with isolation and death within in its jarring storytelling.

Casting could have been off and why it brought criticism. I feel though many viewers may get turn off due of the nudity and suggested sexual violence. I mean it's not 2001: A Space Odessy but it doesn't need to be. Denis was working with interesting topics from reproductive technologies to life imprisonment.

What was some reveals such the what the main reasons for placing these space coaches, and what's up with the abandoned dogs? Visually there was some erotica and obviously body fluids was a theme being explored conceptually.

Imagery of a black hole was done in a provocative manner. Denis in a recent interview stated that this film explores "sexuality" and not sex.

The movie is weird and confusing with a terrible ending. It feels like whole scenes were cut as certain parts made little sense with bad editing and I even had to read Wikipedia to fill in the gaps at times. The acting is the strongest point but the set looks cheap, the story is strange and it's as pointless as the mission they are on.

I had to sit with this one for a few days after watching, and I just have to say that when a movie refuses to leave your mind it did something right, that's all you can really hope for when watching a movie. I'm a big fan of sci fi and outer space movies especially when it is blended with Drama. Ironically, if you over analyze this you'll pick up on little nitpicks that are beyond the scope of what you should really focus on which is that there is no point. Humans are trash and we're all headed towards an impending doom. Not every movie needs to entertain you (albeit this is for a very niched crowd of art films). I think A24 is ballsy for even continuing to green light abstract projects like this. These filmmakers know they're being polarizing and that refusal to compromise is admirable to me. With that said, I loved it. I might be the only one (in the galaxy).

What High Life lacked in continuity it more than made up for visually. The slow pace let you get a feel for the monotony of these characters experience, and for me, the moments our main character spends alone with his baby harken to the very real isolation new parents face, and the hyper focus on the daily tasks was lovely and humbling. The attention to detail and subtle shifts in the cinematography were gorgeous, but nothing about this movie was SPACE MOVIE. It is a slow human drama, and if you have the patience it more than pays off.