High-Rise (2015)

Harley gives the film a positive verdict, despite its wobbly plot. He praises its singular style, dark wit, and striking production design.

Kohn finds the film messy and incohesive but anarchically entertaining, with a vivid class-war premise. He especially praises its colorful production design and rock soundtrack.

Pierce finds the adaptation bold, troubling and visually dazzling, though its story can become monotonous. He especially praises Wheatley and cinematographer Laurie Rose’s restless, arresting imagery.

Chang praises the film’s unruly excess as fitting its ambition, despite its incoherent storytelling. He singles out the tower’s striking design and the increasingly beautiful spectacle of its destruction.

The accessible page does not reveal the critic’s verdict or any specific praise or complaint. It identifies Ben Wheatley’s 2015 film as the subject of a review.

The review is critical of the film’s shift into chaos, finding it too sudden. It singles out that abrupt turn as a key weakness.

Wheatley’s adaptation is beautifully crafted and retro, but difficult to connect with. Its craftsmanship is praised, while the very literal approach to Ballard’s satire is suggested as a weakness.

Bowen finds the adaptation bombastic and reductive, stripping the source novel of its subtle social critique. He praises the striking mirrored elevators but says the film’s conspicuous style undermines its themes.

Barnes finds the film a less interesting, increasingly grating take on Ballard’s story. He praises Tom Hiddleston’s ease amid the confusion, while criticizing the unclear class divisions.

Jenkins finds the film alienating and formless despite its dazzling individual sequences. He particularly praises the production design, editing, performances and writing, while faulting the lack of cohesion holding them together.

Sexton finds the film tedious and lacking dramatic impulse, despite its striking imagery. He singles out the source novel’s hypnotic prose as better suited to the vision.

The critic finds the adaptation stiff and ultimately unsuccessful. They fault Wheatley for privileging symbolism and degradation over telling a compelling story.

Debruge finds the adaptation flashy and frequently incoherent, concluding that its chaotic approach largely fails. He praises the arresting visuals but faults the film for letting its class allegory and narrative logic break down.

The critic calls High-Rise a polarizing but brilliant modern masterpiece. He singles out its ravishing visuals and praises Ben Wheatley for making the building feel like a living participant.

The critic praises the film as a perceptive and faithful adaptation of Ballard’s novel. They single out its sharp portrayal of class divisions and society’s fragility.

Kurchak finds the film an original, daring, and audacious success overall, despite uneven pacing and an overly explicit ending. She praises its playfully demented takedown of civilization and its distinctive, twisted style.

Crump finds the film a sly, observational take on class conflict, though its rapid escalation and pointed political message can feel overly obvious. He praises Wheatley’s heightened craft and gallows humor, especially the film’s sharp social observations.

The review is strongly positive overall, though it feels the film runs at least 20 minutes too long. It praises the eclectic cast’s performances and the psychedelic photography.

The critic finds Wheatley’s adaptation hypnotizing and unnerving, with a bleak vision of social collapse. They single out Tom Hiddleston’s icy yet ultimately empathetic performance for praise.

The critic finds High-Rise energetic but lurching and ultimately confused. They praise its colour and energy while faulting its handling of the film’s political commentary and disorder.

The critic finds the film stylish but lacking in substance, with its thematic ambiguity and lengthy runtime making it hard to engage. He praises the cinematography, especially its visual distinctions between classes and memorable use of color.

Goldberg finds the film poorly constructed and incomprehensible, with its class commentary reduced to broad, blunt statements. He singles out Wheatley’s pitch-black comedy as an occasional glimpse of a more effective film.

Wilkinson finds the film visually impressive but ultimately too detached and scattered to give its class-war story sufficient force. She praises Luke Evans’s Wilder as its most compelling element, while criticizing the central montage and the weakly grounded political references.