2016 #123
Ben Wheatley | 119 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | UK & Belgium / English | 15 / R
Ben Wheatley | 119 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | UK & Belgium / English | 15 / R
I was looking forward to this sci-fi-ish ’70s social satire, but, having let it percolate for a few months, I still have no real grasp of what it was about. I mean, it’s obviously about society, but what its point about society is… I have no idea.
I will add it reminded me of Shivers. I didn’t like Shivers.
Technical merits are first rate — it’s magnificently designed, shot, and edited; a visual delight throughout. Plus it finds two fantastic uses for Abba’s S.O.S. But at a full two hours, pleasant aesthetics are slight sustenance.
Not so much disappointing as indecipherable.
100Films.co.uk 
I’m with you on this one. I mean, it didn’t bore me, I was entertained throughout…but I have no idea what actually happened!
– Allie
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know if I’d say I was bored, but I definitely got fed up with it as it went on and it became apparent that it wasn’t going to obviously tie together.
LikeLike
I lost all goodwill with this director with the awful A Field In England. If this is as indecipherable as you say then it looks like more bad storytelling in the guise of arthouse sophistication. God I hate that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would say this isn’t as bad as A Field in England, but it’s somewhere in that spectrum. The early reviews I’ve seen for his next one, Free Fire, sound promising — the biggest criticism I read was that it’s too simple/straightforward!
LikeLike
Unlike ghost I really liked both HIGH RISE and FIELD IN ENGLAND – whether his stuff’s to your taste or not I find something deliciously unsettling, creepy and biting in Wheatley’s work. Each to their own obvs
I think the key to this one lies in when the novel was written, in the mid 1970s, the country going through one of its familiar pre-Thatcher crises over the benefits of state versus private ownership. Ballard imagined the perils of letting the latter take over in HR, the unfettered freedom of no state interference, leading to the chaos of the last act. That’s how I read it anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think I’m somewhere between the two of you! I found parts of Field unsettling for all the right reasons, and other parts just a slog.
I’d wager your reading of High-Rise is on the money, especially as that’s a theme that has no small relevance right now and so would likely inspire Wheatley to make the film. Part of me thinks it still doesn’t explain actions/reactions on a character level, but maybe that’s beside the point — it is about things breaking down, after all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, it’s the relevance to now that makes it so compelling and, to me, what the characters got up to towards the end was supposed to represent everything breaking down, but that’s kind of echoing what you said, and now I’m terrified to go read some official interpretation that rubbishes all I’ve said!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Based on how reticent they were to discuss the meaning(s) of A Field in England, I’m not sure there will be an official interpretation!
I can’t remember if the Blu-ray has a commentary. Maybe I should’ve listened (as I say, if it does). Though, again, I listened to the end of the Field in England one and it (deliberately) illuminated nothing, so…
LikeLike
I’m fairly certain I liked it, but like you, I can’t quite decipher the message it’s trying to tell.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, I definitely liked it… up to a point! I wish I felt like it had all come together more at the end.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wanted to like it but just couldn’t let get of the nonsensical plot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My feelings exactly! I suspect Wheatley would be one of my favourite filmmakers if he produced clearer narratives.
LikeLike
Hmm. You’ve actually made me want to see this even MORE. I find the Shivers comparison quite interesting… : )
LikeLiked by 1 person
A lot of people really like it, so maybe you’ll be one of them! It’s an interesting film, I’ll give it that.
LikeLiked by 1 person