High-Rise: La rivolta

There is some intense hatred for High-Rise, which I think comes from people expecting something very different to what they found. So I'm going to try and tell you what to expect without any spoilers.

A lot of people will find this movie hard to relate to because it has anti-heroes and is driven by concept rather than character - its pacing is guided more by the ideas it wishes you to consider than the emotions it wants you to experience. Another swathe of viewers will be put off because it offends their politics, and sociology and politics are at the core of this movie. Ballard made some observations about human nature, the which Jump and Wheatley relate to the politics of their own generation. The majority of High-Rise's observations are pessimistic to say the least; those overly sensitive to the observations' bleakness, or who can't relate to their context may not find much here.

But if you can immerse yourself into the film's style, enjoy the outstanding performances and cinematography, and enjoy decrypting J.G.Ballard's metaphors through Ben Wheatley and Amy Jump's lens, there is a lot here for you.

My only gripes are 1) that it didn't show at any cinemas within a reasonable distance from me, and 2) having Abba stuck in my head (although vastly reinvented versions appear in the movie, it is the original song which burrows into my ear like a parasitic worm).

You look at the cast . 10/10 You see the story line 09/10 You see the cinematography 09/10

We settle down , C,mon movie "entertain us" we cry.

1 hour later we just cry.

The morning after watching we are still "none the wiser" which is a great shame.

Very well made with a cast of most of my favourite Brit actors but what the hell is it all about ???? I still haven't got a clue.

Pretentious , Brit film Noir? my biggest regret is we wasted a Saturday night watching it.

My wife kept saying , "turn it off if you don't like it" but we kept thinking it would either 1) get better 2) we would eventually Get It or 3) We watched it this far so there is no point switching it off now.

JG Ballard's dystopian science fiction novels have long been regarded as being unfilmable. Ironically it was Steven Spielberg who first made a film of one of his books, the autobiographical Empire of the Sun which was also more conventional.

In High Rise the building clad in some kind of neo 1970s decor is really the star as it represents the social strata. A society in decay. The film opens where there has been a total nihilistic breakdown amongst the occupants where we see a man roasting a dog's leg before we jump back three months earlier.

Dr Robert Laing (Tom Hiddleston) is a middle class doctor, almost an every-man who is at ease both going up and down the social classes in the tower block. He is helped by Charlotte Melville (Sienna Miller) a sexy neighbour who helps Laing get to the upper floors where tastes are more refined. Better parties, music, swimming pool and restaurants for example.

Richard Wilder (Luke Evans whose get up reminds me a lot of actor Stanley Baker) is a truculent documentary maker who lives near the ground floor with his wife and children amongst the rest of the block's poorer tenants. Wilder is aware and resentful of the inequality that exists in building. He has to put up with electricity outages, lifts not working properly, inferior restaurants, shops, parties. Wilder wants to expose the building's architect Anthony Royal (Jeremy Irons) who lives on the top floor and he also happens to be Laing's occasional squash partner.

As we head towards hedonism, one-upmanship, sex fuelled violence the narrative structure of the film breaks down. The descent into madness is too rapid as Laing suddenly starts to paint his room and himself. The film becomes disjointed although we see some of the upper floor residents who wish to Balkanise the lower floors and re-organise the place more to their benefit.

It is as the novel was just too big and intricate to just chew off and director Ben Wheatley did not have the budget and resources to do it justice.

The film ends with the words of Mrs Margaret Thatcher former Prime Minister of Britain who did so much to ramp up the divisions between rich and poor in the 1980s.

This film tells the life of the residents in a high rise apartment block in the UK, where the hierarchy and the corresponding rights of the residents are highly rigid.

"High-Rise" is certainly trying to be a metaphor for a dysfunctional society, but exactly what it is trying to mirror, I don't know. The plot is very confusing, and basically the lives of the residents and also the plot itself descend into chaos. Maybe it's trying to tell the relationship between the oppressors and the oppressed? Or is it trying to highlight the importance of elitism, and that the masses should not have power? The central theme of the film is so unclear, that I could not get into the story at all. I find it a pointless and confusing mess.

Is High-Rise an anti-capitalist manifesto, meant to show the evil of inequality? Is it an attack on the British class society? Is it meant to show how modern architecture alienates people from each other? Or is it just a succession of weird scenes, giving the director the opportunity to show off? There's something to say for all of the above, but I'm inclined towards the last. The film really is too incoherent to convey a clear message or idea. The metaphor of a huge high-rise building to symbolize society at large is interesting, but could have been better expressed. As it is now, the metaphor gets mostly lost in an avalanche of weird, decadent or shocking scenes. As a viewer, you keep waiting for the story to become clear, but it never really happens.

This is even more annoying because the film is much too long, and already from the start it's clear how it ends because the whole story is one large flash back. The result is zero suspense and maximum weariness.