A doctor (Tom Hiddleston) moves into a London skyscraper where rising tensions and class warfare lead to anarchy.
Here's your disclaimer: haven't read the book. That is often a big no-no as it is important when taking into consideration whether the film is faithful to the source material. There is also the flip-side of that debate. Once you know the source material, it is harder to honestly judge a film on its own merits. It's easy to subconsciously fill in the gaps for backstory or plot when you already know what is meant to be portrayed on screen. What I do know is that the book was released in 1975, and is set in an alternative dystopian timeline.
The film is quite irregular. If you try to explain the plot with broad strokes, it seems very straightforward, and yet if you look at actual dialogue and actions of the characters or the progression of the narrative, then everything becomes quite the convoluted mess.
Metaphorically, High-Rise raises many questions. The whole film revolves around this skyscraper that has distinct class differentiation, the higher your floor, the higher your status. Considering the main protagonist is a doctor and only lives in the mid 20's floor of a 40-floor building, you can imagine the elitism that is prevalent on the upper echelon, and the contempt and derision that the lower level hold towards them. One thing the film does really well is to show off the extravagance and luxuries that the upper floors have at their fingertips.
As a self-contained unit that includes schools, gyms, and supermarkets, the dangers of isolation are also an exacerbating factor in the rise of anarchy. What is ultimately surprising about this part of the story, is how relevant it is today. Despite the source material being written in the 1970s, the harmful effects of isolation from the outside world are a perfect allegory to the increasing use of social networks and "smart" devices.
High-Rise has a star-studded cast including Tom Hiddleston, Luke Evans, Jeremy Irons, and Sienna Miller, and yet the film failed to keep my interest. Perhaps due to the eclectic narrative that seemed to forget who the primary protagonist was meant to be, and just ignored Hiddleston for a reasonable chunk of the film. Or it could be the distorted, tangled web of storylines that were bandied about with little care for cohesiveness. It could be the fact that Hiddleston is more of a spectator in the film that he stars in rather than an active participant. But the biggest issue is the lack of direction and the fact that the film is comprised of unlikeable characters.
From a visual standpoint, there was a great set design with a fair amount of attention to detail given to the environments. It created some gorgeous cinematography, but you often found it would slow the pace of the film down as each scene had an incredibly long establishing shot, no matter how often we had been to the location. There was also a real lack of wide shots, which prevents the audience from properly being able to understand the layout of the building, and how the different locations are connected.
The film just didn't sit well with me. The plot was convoluted, the characters unlikeable, and while certainly comedic at times, High-Rise left you feeling unsettled more often than not. The film is just shy of two hours, and you can certainly feel that length. Without a strong narrative and direction for the film, there is little to appeal to the usual movie-goer. High-Rise will appeal more to those that wish to discuss it; to look at the degradation and distortion of social norms when placed into isolation, or the rapid descent into anarchy when wealth inequality reaches the breaking point. Or simply how little value we place on human life.
Thematically, there are some areas of interest, but they were not put forward in a way that convinced me. This is not a film I will be recommending.