This is one of those movies that once you watch, you wish you hadn't and if you only knew what it was, they couldn't pay you to watch. An utter waste of time and life that makes little sense.
Reading this post was a waste of my time and life.
shareI agree. It was pretty bad. I didn't even make it all the way to the end yet... it was a real struggle.
http://www.youtube.com/user/alphazoom
https://soundcloud.com/#carjet-penhorn
Are you talking about the post or the movie because I agree with you if you're talking about the post
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Unfortunately with this post you have revealed to the entire world that you likely have low intelligence and p!ss-poor taste. If I were you I would delete it and pretend it never happened, Irvintang...
The only person with piss-poor taste is the person who dares to defend this trash movie.
Everyone involved should be ashamed.
Dear Film Makers, GET OFF THE DRUGS and stop wasting huge amounts of money on your perverted trashy drug induced thoughts.
It's not "artistic".
It's not "thought-provoking"
It's Producers laughing at the audience and giving them the middle finger for 2 hours.
Pathetic.
Congratulations cast, I will no longer be seeing any movies staring you guys.
Shame about Tom.
"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"
Worst of all, it isn't even "entertaining". This isn't one of those movies that are so "bad" that it's "good" and becomes a cult classic....this movie is just "bad" period.
shareObviously you are American if you are ending a sentence with 'period'.
Jeez, you know nothing about this film, the history, nothing.
Ridiculous and utterly ignorant.
well i just wasted my life watching this movie and am BRITSH and that person is right its bad...PERIOD!
shareFull stop.
shareObviously you are American if you are ending a sentence with 'period'.
Obviously you aren't very educated if you think only Americans use "period".
Jeez, you know nothing PERIOD.
Wow, talk about ignorant!
It is about British culture in the 80s, politics, Thatcherism, social housing, post-modernism, neo-liberalism.
I can imagine if you have no idea what went on between 1979 - 1990s that you'd find this perplexing and frustrating.
If you don't get it, just say you don't get it! Maybe try reading the book or learning a thing or two about the era this is set in.
You can understand something and still not like it. Just because someone thinks this movie is *beep* doesn't mean they dont understand what it was trying to accomplish.
shareI just find people's reasons for not liking it to be a little strange and it appears that a lot of people just switched off before giving it a chance or understanding the histoical, political and social context of it.
shareYeah, talk about ignorant!!. The book was first published in 1975... 4 years before Thatcherism, and several years before the 1980's and 90's! It's actually set in the 70's as is quiet apparent by the clothing and cars ect... So clearly you have no idea what "went on".
What a self righteous fool you turned out to be. Maybe try reading a book or learning a thing or two about the era this is set in.
Ben Wheatley tapped into Thatcherism for his version High Rise, he placed the film in the late 70's using the growing effect that Thatcher's politics as conservative leader was having on the country. Britain in late 70's was struggling under a labour government and the unions. Margaret Thatcher offered a utopia which got her 'unfortuntely' voted in 1979.
It was that political sphere that Ben was tapping into for his version of High Rise.
High Rise ended the film with quote of Margaret Thatcher followed by the image of a bubble bursting.
Do not forget Wrongviw that everybody is entitled to their opinion and it is wrong to start your reply by using insulting quotes in your response. Why do you think that the respondent has low intelligence and poor taste? Because you think that you have a higher level of intelligence and good taste? Well if that is the case then good for you. I really wanted to like this film but unfortunately i came away from the cinema completely disappointed and like a small amount of my life had been wasted watching a complete mess of a film.
shareIt's a film you will either love or hate depending on tastes. You need a very specific audience to find it and appreciate it, because it is not designed for a mass audience opinion. It reminds me of oldschool David Cronenberg movies- Dead Ringers, Crash (same author) Shivers, ect. Cronenberg knew exactly what buttons to push to evoke responses from the audience and it seems Wheatley will be the next director to follow that route in his own way.
~~~~~
"This is my party. My guests. I should decide if someone gets lobotomized"
This film is shallow and only scratches the surface of different philosophies. it only makes you think for possibly 5 minutes. it is meant for people who want to be original and free-thinking but are too afraid of what other people might think. a paradox. its a joke. This film is absolutely for the masses. if you actually think about it. the entire film as a whole is a paradox. the film creates an illusion of substance through its use of atmospherics and filter. The film really is giving you a big middle finger for an entirety of 2 hours, and people are eating it up, reveling in its glory, and its illusion (class structure of reality). it is jargon. look at films made in the 40s ranging to the 90s. what they called sci-fi back then is now reality. the film brings no new plot, idea or question, just gives us a film in color.
Honestly reminds me of Jim Jarmusch - Only lovers left alive. also stars Tom Hiddelsten.
all atmospherics, no substance. it is a film of art in a sense of looking pretty. it does not spark a creative idea, thought or question.
cult classic for the majority, failure for the minority.
I can accept your point on High Rise, but oh...you did not go there with Only Lovers Left Alive! That movie has profound messages that can keep people thinking long about it after its over- Its life on a wheel that's spun too long. The longer they live, the more they notice the patterns of human life cycles, and the more they think they're above them. They are so removed from the world around them that they (mostly Adam) don't realize that they also fall victim to a cycle themselves by the end and even create two new ones on their axis-making their commentary about humans quite ironic. The whole movie can be seen as a metaphor for heroin addiction and its effects on artists in the music industry as well as social commentary on hipsterdom. There is a lot to take from that movie.
High Rise basically is a paradox with interwoven satirical themes and character development (Laing and Wilder), but its meant to be that way. In OLLA its only the characters themselves who're paradoxical.
~~~~~
"This is my party. My guests. I should decide if someone gets lobotomized"
Did that guy really say High-Rise is for the masses???
shareI studied film studies and I honestly do not understand anything that you took from High Rise.
You say it's a paradox, what of? You say it is interwoven with satirical themes and character development, yes but it's a lot more specific than throwing these terms around. It depicts the bright, inspiration that post-modernism brought, a new era, privatisation, neo-liberalism, allowing people to purchase their own housing, allowing people to become more independent (the fact there was no order at all, no police until the end). And it spiralled out of control, just like it did in the 1980s. The introduction of tower blocks and pedestrianised communities, away from busy streets was meant to foster a sense of community away from the state, reliance on govt agencies etc. Instead you got chaos, crime, social deprivation everything that you see at the end of the film.
These are the themes, British culture under a right wing Thatcher govt, on acid, hence the overly exaggerated anarchic end result. In the end it didn't matter whether you lived on the top floor (sense of higher status) or the bottom (lower class status), everyone suffered the same.
I got that feeling, but the sad thing Is, It's not even close to any of those. This movie sucks. Period.
shareLike I've said in previous comments, it isn't too different to what Judge Dredd is all about, which was also written as a critique of Margaret Thatcher's reign and neoliberalism 80s politics etc.
This movie just seems to be written on a shoestring budget and it's all very condensed and claustrophobic, which I can see could bore people. I just like how it starts off almost too optimistically, arguably idealistic (much like the political rhetoric at the time) and descends into chaos very quickly, aka reality.
I guess you either like it or you don't. Fair enough.
Is no one going to mention that it is strictly about British culture? People don't get it because they don't get the context of the film. It was funded by channel 4 and it was not expected to find an audience beyond the shores of Britain.
It's why probably very few people found Sightseers (2012) funny, while those who've visited Britain and know about British culture, found it hilariously dark.
Exactly. It totally reminded me of Shivers, Rabid or Videodrome. And those and other Cronenberg movies are generally ones people either love or hate. I like them a lot, and I enjoyed watching this. I can totally see why people would be on the complete opposite ends of the spectrum.
shareYou should be slapped for being so ignorant.
shareThe movie had potential, but ended up as a music video.
I even liked it (in some abstract trippy sense), but I still want to see the actual coherent, narrative movie.
Haven't had the pleasure (or displeasure?) of seeing this yet. But I liked Cronenberg's "Crash", which got a reaction surprisingly similar to this years ago.
My question is this. Why can't some people simply not like a movie without feeling that they ALSO must create a negative stereotype of everybody who DOES like it? I get tired of hearing how this movie or that movie is only for "pretentious hipsters". That's pretty piss-poor film criticism. It's more just an ad homenin attack on the some manufactured stereotype of the supposed audience of a movie. Stick to criticizing the movie itself.
Oh yeah, and maybe try to say something a wee bit more insightful than "boring", "waste of time", "makes no sense", etc.
"Let be be finale of seem/ The only emperor is the Emperor of Ice Cream"
[deleted]
nods head approvingly
shareOh yeah, and maybe try to say something a wee bit more insightful than "boring", "waste of time", "makes no sense", etc.
Agree completely. Apart from the slightly entertaining absurdity, there's really nothing else redeeming. I'm 2/3 of the way through and just gonna give up and delete It.
shareWow, talk about someone NOT GETTING IT!
Do you even understand the political and social backdrop of the plot? It's Margaret Thatcher and the 80s! The post-modernism in housing.
This film has people going bonkers because they were sold an idea that living in a council estate/tower block was a thing of luxery, that the higher you were, the more prestige and higher status you had! In reality, crime soured, social problems ran a muck, class divides just stretched further apart. It did nothing to bring people together.
I had no idea what this film was about when I began watching it, but I couldn't help but love all the exaggerated characters and the mini battles taking place between residents, the anarchy, the different portrayals pictured at the beginning compared to the end.
Judge Dredd was born out of a hatred for Margaret Thatcher and the neo-conservatism rife in the 80s, this just happens to be a week in the life of a council estate on acid, rather than set in a dystopian sci-fi world.
Yeah, talk about someone NOT GETTING IT! Where on earth do you get the idea that's it's about the 80's?
Is it the flares and wing collar shirts? Or the abba music? Did the writer have s crystal ball? Speaking of balls...