What does /tv/ think of High-Rise?
It was too short, it should have been a mini-series.
>>68943614
A mess that reduces a great novel to something superficial and tawdry.
Also the biggest disappointment of the year so far. Actually that may have been Knight of Cups.
Thought it was gonna be snowpiercer in a building but luckily it had a little more substance than that
>>68943614
I saw it last night, pretty good but it's a long story compressed into movie length bit of time, so they cut out a lot of bits that made it seem a little disjointed.
It's a good movie, but it would have been a lot better if they took the time needed.
>>68943757
>"A netflix mini series where I can yolo and chill and hashtag tweet after binge marathoning all 50 series while being forcefed globalist propaganda xD!!!!1111"
kill yourself
>>68943757
Haven't read the book but honestly I thought the film was about the right length tbqh
Far better than Snowpiercer.
>>68943900
I'm not sure what that anon is talking about.
The book is a pretty slim 200 pages.
I thought the movie was shit though. The book on the other hand is genuinely amazing.
>>68943936
What are the major differences? Or is it just a matter of execution?
A great show, but it lost a lot of meaning in the translation.
>>68943976
Mostly a matter of execution but Wheatley did change things up a bit. I think he misinterpreted the class relations of the book. In the book the upper class at the top of the building are not depicted as being villainous and discussing the ways in which they'll play the lower floors against one another. I think that was the worst change about the movie. In the book all of the characters, regardless of the floor they live on and their wealthy status, feel as though they are in the biggest position of risk and instability. Then you have things like the kid that Wheatley added which I thought stuck out as a terribly on-the-nose attempt at symbolism, especially when he's listening to a Thatcher speech. There's a lot more time spent with the Jeremy Irons figure too. He's more of an enigma in the book, at least until the closing section anyway.
I read the book last year so I can't be more specific but I was pretty disappointed by the movie.
>>68944031
>Show
This is a /film/ thread, please leave televisionpleb
>>68944555
>NOUN
>a spectacle or display of something, typically an impressive one:
>"spectacular shows of bluebells"
Read a book for once in your fucking life
>>68943614
Watched it last night - great production design and poor execution. Haven't read the book but the movie is shit.
>>68943614
Is not only Rich people get crazy and shit?
>it's a pregnant Peggy scene
>>68944628
Film is superior to literature in every conceivable way, reading is for plebs
>>68945890
please be bait
I wish it was was more gradual. Suddenly after one montage everyone is fucking mental
just shite. who funds this?
>>68943898
That's not quite what he said anon
>>68943614
So so bad. Worst Ben Wheatley film by a loooooong shot. He has completely lost his style. Hopefully he brings it back with 'Free Fire'
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4158096/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_1
I still haven't seen it as I missed the Melbourne Film Festival and it's not out here yet as per usual.
I've read the novel and between the trailers and Kermode's review (http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/mar/20/high-rise-review-ben-wheatley-jg-ballard-tom-hiddleston) - I am intrigued but as with all adaptations...we shall see.
>>68943614
can't find any book copy of that expect the tie-in ones. Fuck. Same with Revenant, too.
>>68943614
Ruined by all those terrible montages.
>>68949499
>movies where the trailer was far superior
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdTSfLOeo-E
>>68949499
/film/ when
Terrible. Why does /tv/ latch onto all these shit movies?
>>68949670
The reactions in this thread are mixed at best, fuck off with your failed attempt at contrarianism
style over substance: the movie
if you're fine with that it's worth watching
>>68950076
thanks for the input mate
Liked it for the most part.
