that was awful
>>68963007
I watched that last night too, ive seen worse.
>>68963007
Sod off, it was pretty good.
How did it compare to the book?
>>68963481
The atmosphere is lighter in comparison to the book. The visuals a pretty good, Some unnecessary plotlines that were not in the book. The idea of Laings character that family thing is present, despite his sister being dead. I feel that the portrayal of Royal was kind of underwhelming. Wilder was pretty good. Evans really sold the character. Aesthetically its close to capturing the feel of the high-rise. The script uses a lot of content from the book which is good. Pacing is not right. I like Wheatly as a director. But I truly believe that High-Rise should have been a miniseries. Because that gradual descent into group madness and moral decay is so rushed in the movie. You don't feel that degradation. Its a polarizing movie. It's not bad as a fan of the book I enjoyed it very much. What I'm trying to say is that it could have been much more. Book adaptations are tricky.
I haven't read the book, is the outside world some sort of dystopian wasteland that makes people flock to high-rise "societies"? Because in the film it seemed that the outside world was pretty normal, the main character went to an ordinary workplace etc
>>68964325
I think it's a pretty big misfire myself. I'm a huge fan of Ballard and I think Wheatley blew it, despite me also being a giant fan of Kill List. The movie is so tonally imbalanced for starters. Some people will suggest that is its point as it is meant to be chaotic but the movie feels completely toned down from the book in that regard. I expected Wheatley's savage violence in Kill List would translate over to High Rise in an interesting manner but I really thought the movie was much more tempered than the book. Wheatley also misinterpreted the book's examination of the class relations in the tower, or if he did understand it then he decided to simplify it and make it less interesting. Also I actually think physicality of the tower itself is incorrect. In the book Ballard emphasizes how extremely mundane the architecture of the high rise is in a way that suggests it is contributing to the deadening of the inhabitants' senses. Wheatley makes the tower look like some monument to modernism with incredibly looking mirrored elevators, not to mention the French garden on top of the high rise which is a far cry from the much more stark top floor in the book.
Anyway, I thought it was a clusterfuck. If you guys want to watch a good movie about this check out Cronenberg's Shivers which tells a remarkably similar story given that it came out the exact same year as Ballard's High Rise.
>>68964442
The outside world is "ordinary." There's a lot of stuff in the book with the characters in the high rise trying to prevent the outside world from knowing about the mayhem that is occurring inside the building. Even the most threatened tenants feel the need to prevent people on the outside from discovering the destruction being wrought within.
>>68964526
Interesting, I just assumed it was hell out there since many dystopian stories rely on there being nowhere to go except for the haven where the story mainly takes place
>>68963007
And out of nowhere, it's Jeremy Irons!
>>68963007
>that left eye at the top
>>68964714
Yeah that is basically the opposite of the case in High Rise. As the garbage starts piling up at the base of the building the tenants get increasingly worried that outsiders are going to realize something is amiss. The atmosphere in Ballard is so foreboding and alienating because of little touches like that where there is no logic in the characters' actions but for some reason it makes sense within the surreal situation that has been established. It's that sense that Wheatley failed to capture I think.
>>68964481
Kind of agree. The architecture was all right I think. Mirrored elevator was for the high level inhabitatants only. There is a couple of glimpses at basic elevator. It looks mundane in comparison. Kill List is brilliant. The setup and the payoff. Really wanted the High-Rise to be that kind of movie. When Wilder played with the tape recorder I was so ready for him to go full beast. And then there is that scene with Laing right after. Completely negates the meaning behind his acts. So yeah a bit of a clusterfuck.
Will check out Shivers. Thanks for recommendation.
>dat assreamed bookfag
>>68963007
High-Rise = Snowpiercer into a vertical position.
>>68963007
agreed, dreadful nonsense
>>68965113
>people who read books are losers!
Would have been great without the fucking omnipresent music
>tfw everyone is saying is sucks
pls no, wheatley is kino man
>>68966183
>disliking modernist koyaanisqatsi
>>68966266
As someone who hasn't read the book, I really liked the movie. /tv/ hates everything that isn't capeshit so don't be disheartened.
saw it last night. it was absolutely wonderful. hilarious, frightening, and pretty cool visuals. plus, that Portishead cover of Abba. fuck yeah. i could have done without theThatcher bit at the end,but overall a rewarding experience. Jeremy Irons and Luke Evans, hell, even Hiddleston was great in it. American audiences will have difficulty with British satire, though. that's nearly always been the case.
>>68966462
well you tried but seriously even Nolan has a better understanding of music in cinema than this guy
>>68966634
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and are trying to be a contrarian, which is why you feel the need to bring Nolan into discussion. The way music is used in his movies are completely unrelated to how music was used in this movie.
>>68963007
i find audiences tend to have difficulty with tonal shifts in films and often criticize this narrative technique as awful pacing or confusing. a film like High-Rise used the "tonal imbalance" quite well and fitting with the subject matter. i loved the frequent montages Wheatley uses to convey themes of collapsing social structures and moral decay, which eventually leads to the group madness. I also really liked how the climactic moment of the filmwas shot through a kaleidoscope.it's a great movie that will fail to find an audience, quite like Ben's other films.
>>68966607
>American audiences will have difficulty with British satire, though. that's nearly always been the case.
>Guy goes to the rubbish chute
>"NAPPIES"
>"Hi, my name is...."
>"THATS MY HUSBAND OVER THERE FLIRTING WITH OTHER WOMEN"
Not exactly the pinnacle of British humor is it. This fad of making every character in a movie a quirky faggot or nihlistic fuckwit needs to end.
>>68964325
>>68964481
I haven't read the book so feel free to disregard my opinion but I don't really understand the criticism that the movie is toned down and gradual in it's decent into madness. From the opening scene you are put off balance and there is a subtle undercurrent of madness and PTSD that is consistent and throughout. I keep seeing people saying that the decent into madness was too quick and that it was tonally all over the place but I think that was a very deliberate and effective choice and maybe some of the undercurrents were too subtle at the beginning for a lot of people.
>>68967226
Also I think Wheatley deliberately was playing with the idea of social commentary at the expense of fidelity to the source material.
>>68963007
Your mother was awful but you don't see me making threads about it
>>68966766
Nolan specificaly referenced Glass' work for Koyaanisqatsi in Interstallar, this is why I mentioned him. I know exactly what i'm talking about. The music in High Rise is illustrative, emotion-conditioning on easy mode shit, like it has been plastered at the end of production, like a 2h long trailer
>>68966607
Holy fuck. Brits are deluded.
>>68967379
For an expert on music and movies you seem to have no grasp that the entire soundtrack was making allusions to SOS by ABBA and was a long build up to the emotional centerpiece of the film where a famous band (Portishead) reunited after years to reinterpret a generally dismissed piece of art from 1975 with stark clarity that reflected the themes of the movie in multiple different ways.
>>68967388
care to elaborate on your thoughts about the film? it's okay if you disliked it, i won't shout or call you deluded. i'm not twelve years old, mate.
I haven't read the book but I loved the film.
I can see how it'd be disappointing considering the artistic route the director took, but I still found it to be enjoyable.
>>68967623
bravo, mate. i didn't catch the earlier allusions to the tune. i'll focus on it upon a rewatch in a week or two.
>>68967623
So it's a movie adapted from a book in order to sell a music album ? Back in my days you made a video clip for MTV and that was it. Moreover, a REASON is not an EXCUSE. Plenty of bad choices are made for reasons
>>68963007
>Ben Wheatley is remaking The Wages of Fear
>>68967716
adaptations are tricky things. there will always be a faction who maintain rigorous fidelity to the source material is the only way to proceed, while others don't mind artistic interpretations as long as it elevates the source material. adaptation is the key word, after all.
>>68967756
Delete this worthless post.
>>68967756
No, I was illustrating that there's clearly a level of thought going in to the soundtrack larger than it being "plastered at the end of production, like a 2h long trailer." It really is shitty that people these days think that a soundtrack drawing attention to itself somehow invalidates its effectiveness.
another thing i loved about the film were the Gilliamesque set pieces. i caught whiffs of Brazil, Fear and Loathing, and Munchausen in High-Rise. i wonder if these were deliberate on Ben's part or simply coincidence.
>>68967856
Since I don't know the book, I think it's an aspect that can't bother me, so I took the movie for what it was.
I thought it was brilliant.
>>68967880
okay maybe the centerpiece was tolerable, if not necessary. But the goddamn classical music, fucking WHY ? We understand that there are rich and poor people in the tower, that it's all about order and majesty and all that shit, can you please let us watch the amazing setting without some fucking elevator music
>but muh elevator is import...
I FUCKING KNOW ! we got it, be goddamned subtle for a minute !
(yes i'm mad, because i want to like this film, i love ballard's work, but the music ruined it for me)
Can't wait to see this. A Field in England is one of my favorite movies
>>68967856
There was an obvious level of meta-commentary going on. I know that term automatically induces retching these days but Wheatley clearly wanted to play with more than simple social class structure commentary.
>>68968017
Why is a movie that literally doesn't make sense one of your favourite movies
>>68968002
>classical music
That was modern music you fucking retard. Stop talking about shit you know nothing about.
>>68967685
You're already perioding passive agressiveness all over the place damn
Or do you need hemorroid cream?
>>68968039
Not him but it's not that obscure. The entire movie is about a mans journey through purgatory.
>>68967957
indeed. i'm in the same boat. i'm aware of Ballard's novel, but i find his prose rather dull and cannot bring myself to read any more of his work. i think anyone who was slightly interested in science fiction as a teen has read some Ballard.that's when i read him, anyhow. i agree with you that the film is rather brilliant and may be moreso on multiple viewings since the visuals are so dense.
>>68968091
Giving it a quick summary doesn't mean it makes sense.
>>68965740
People who think adaptations have to be like the source material to be good are fucking retarded, may or may not be losers.
>>68968124
I understand what you mean, it was somewhat obscure for obscurities sake, which is pretentious in my opinion.
>>68968039
Maybe you're just fucking retarded, and he's not.
>>68968199
Yeah. I was enjoying it until near the end though, where he just throws in some random shit at the last second so people can discuss it online.
>>68963007
Yep. Utter pretentious shit. 8 people (out of only about 40) walked out of the cinema.
>>68968339
>some guy had to take a shit in the middle of the movie so it's bad
>>68968039
the film does not make any sense? while it does revel in occult obscurity, i found it was narratively cohesive and made sense within the paramaters of the film. i suggest rewatching it maybe? much to often we turn away from a negative viewing experience without examining why we failed to appreciate it and then categorize our failure as a viewer to grasp the material as a failure in part of the filmmakers. this reminds me of a famous Faulkner quote from an interview he gave to the Paris Review. when asked what should readers do if they failed to understand his work on third reading, he suggested they read it a fourth time.
>>68968339
It's sadly hilarious that people still think walk outs correlate to quality directly, especially these days.
>>68968441
Actually I briefly followed each of them to make sure they weren't shitting.
>>68968497
>>68968480
Why did only the dense peasant guy come back to life and just run into frame like comedy with no sense of timing?
Why were copies of themselves standing over the hedge when they crossed back over?
"I don't know" will suffice, because nobody knows.
>>68963007
oh! I forgot about this song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J2QdDbelmY
Nice, I will be singing all day
pretty good, liked it for what it was. Haven't read the novel yet, would probably be more appreciative if I've read it.
Squash scene felt like something was cut? Suddenly Irons was on the floor and suddenly bleeding
>>68968687
Didn't the ball hit his head?
>>68964808
Pretty sure they did that on purpose to bait people, just like Kubrick.
>>68968750
All I saw was tom waving his racquet in the air and then suddenly cut to irons on the floor
>>68968626
i think you may have missed several rather obvious narrative cues that provide the answers you seek. a rewatch may do some good to fix that.
but as to the decision of the director to film a certain scene in a particular way, i would say it was to jar the viewer. you found it to be "like comedy with no sense of timing," while others have found it off-putting and with a sense of black comedy unique to Wheatley's films.
>>68968062
>retard
It uses traditional accoustic european instrument to produce sounds in an orderly fashion that can be written : it's fucking classical according to Pierre Schaeffer and most musique concrete people who did actual modern and contemporary music. The kind of music that would have been both nice and thematic in this movie instead of "hurr violins"
And because you finally insulted me : Fuck you back to /mu/ you pathetic little artsy hipster hospital douchesac, it's been nice having an argument, it's now over, since you lowered yourself to this level. Have a nice life
>>68968903
>it has european string instruments in it so it's classical
>this one guy totally said so!
You fucking imbecile.
>>68968875
You can rewatch it all you want, the answers aren't in the movie. They're inside Ben Wheatley's fat head, if that.
>>68969072
seems you're more interested in maintaining a negative view of the film than actually examining the aspects you could not comprehend upon first viewing. if so, good day to you, mate.
>>68969236
>Endlessly watch something until you make up an answer for it
>The real treasure was inside you all along
Yeah, thanks. Like I said, "I don't know" will do.
>>68968002
I'm not sure what you're arguing. Are you against non-diegetic music?
>>68969358
you realize your greentext are examples of maintaining an obstinate ignorance in light of source material ready at hand? with each subsequent comment, you're cementing my point, mate.
so for those who actually care to discuss the film, do you guys (and gals) think the boy, Hiddleston, and Irons represent the same individual/archetype at different stages or phases of his life? the boy represents innocent curiosity, the man the struggle to understand, and the architect an attempt to finally control his surroundings/environment.
>>68969912
Nah Lang was definitely more of a product of his environment than the other two characters.
>haven't read the book
>loved Kill List
Thought it was all over the fucking place. Starts off American Psycho, turns into Snowpiercer, then into Eyes Wide Shut, then whodunit, then Alien, then a lot of other shit. It doesn't ingratiate itself to the viewer via theme, much less via plot. Manifold threads left dangling, some pointless, some pretending to be of importance, most of the requiring a good amount of legwork out of the viewer. Never justifies itself and its world, never establishes motivations, never lets you know how serious or how mad/delusional it/its tenants are. Scenes are too short, too numerous, too hectically edited. One hour of film feels like two. Handful of great performances, especially Luke Evans. Good amount of laughs out of nowhere.
First film I've seen in a while where I'm left feeling I missed something. I don't particularly resent it for that but I can see why half the people who saw it would hate it. I'll want to watch it a second time but not for a long long while, because at times it certainly felt like a chore.
>>68970049
The disorientation was deliberate and clearly effective.
>>68970025
indeed. okay, maybe the three stages of a man's life or man's folly? first curiosity, then conformity, and finally control?
>>68970049
funny, the reasons you cite for disliking the film are some of the reasons i enjoyed it - the hectic editing, the comedy, etc. as i wrote here >>68967110 , tonal shifting really does jar some viewers from appreciating the work as a whole.
>>68963007
I really liked 'Kill List'. this piece of shit was a massive disappointment.
>>68963007
favorite film i've seen so far this year. anyone have recommendations for any other great films released in the first quarter of 2016? i heard good things about Embrace the Serpent.
>>68971154
Rabin, The Last Day
Though it's late 2015 in some places.
>>68970519
Understand, I'm not criticizing the editing itself. I've no problem with a fast paced scene, or a sequence of quick cuts in itself. What I didn't like (and I reckon the major culprit is the sheer number of scenes for a 2 hour movie) is that it comes across as longer than it actually is. Maybe it's deliberate like >>68970229 suggests but it's damn exhausting. Especially when you're attempting to assemble these bits and pieces the movie keeps giving you thinking they build up to something other than a vague parallel of class tensions in the late 60s/70s.
It may come off sounding like I'm entirely dismissive of it when I'm not. I just don't love it. Like I said, though, it warrants a 2nd viewing.
>>68971545
i hear you, mate. even if you do find the film underwhelming again on second viewing, it's refreshing to read sound reasons why you found it so.
>>68971368
thanks, i'll definitely keep an eye out for it. i also heard good things about Louder than Bombs.
>>68971545
A major theme is the slippery slope from tight control over your domain to insanity.
>>68963007
Worst movie I've seen in my life.
