Film Review: High-Rise

Review written by Tom Newsom

The most incredible thing about the film High-Rise is that I ever managed to see it in the cinema at all. I had been looking forward to it for months, the project catching my attention back when it was being filmed. But I wasn’t able to pin down a trip to a cinema miles away when it was released back in March. A delayed, limited release at my local cinema has meant I was able to finally go. But not before more than one friend had seen it, and both independently had hated it, with one declaring it “the worst film I have ever seen”.

So of course, that meant I had to go and see it for myself. And I noted afterwards, in the small screening I was in, two people walked out halfway through. Not me though, I loved it, more than I should have done.

I’ve seen Ben Wheatley’s previous two films Sightseers and A Field in England - of which this film feels a piece with - in addition to this work on Doctor Who in 2014. (I’m not itching to see previous film Kill List, I have to say, as it’s meant to be terrifically scary). He has set himself out as a new breed of auteur - or auteurs, working in partnership with screenwriter and co-editor Amy Jump, who has also written, and somehow adapted, High-Rise.

It may have bigger visuals, and a bigger cast and budget than his previous, but it definitely feels like a Ben Wheatley film - a particular strain of darkness, immediately apparent in the first few minutes of the film. It’s blackly comic, often quite funny, with shocks that should hopefully fill you with awe, rather than disgust, and a bold explanation of thematic territory.

It’s adapted from a novel by JG Ballard, an author whose style feels like a perfect fit. It’s dystopian, a sort of science fiction, linking together the darker sides of human nature with the bright new tower block accommodations. The masterstroke with this film was setting it not in a shiny, non-specific future, but in the mid 1970s. It resonates in every aspect of the finished film - it’s incredibly stylish, decadent; the architecture is perfectly bleak and brutalist, and the residents’ trip into barbarism is recognisably, comfortably signposted by the excesses of history - the sexism and hyper masculinity, the flowing alcohol and dissatisfied workers. And, of course, the British class system, which is at the core of the plot: upper class at the top of the skyscraper, lower class down below, arguments and snobbery in the contained space leads to chaos. Setting it in the past makes it less overtly political and easier to swallow, allowing the high style and increasing absurdity.

There is so much in this film to love. The visuals stand out - they usually do for me - not just the style of the design, or Laurie Rose’s high art cinematography, but also the outstanding practical and visual FX on the film, some of the best I’ve seen (the menacing tower itself, the soon to be infamous shot of a head getting dissected). The cast list is amazing, led by Tom Hiddleston’s composed maniac everyman, but a real ensemble. The direction is spot on tonally; the production is quite something considering the scope of the film. The editing is sometimes ambitious in its rhythmic cutting between scenes, but is often invisible. The music felt sparser but vital. It’s a film world to lose yourself in.

As the characters delve deep into the mad, the narrative appears to lose its way also. The ending lacks the focus it needs to be truly satisfying. It’s as if there’s glimpses of a strong plot in there, but it’s buried under the opaque, time (and geography) shifting editing. I could see why some people would come away thinking the film was terrible - for those who didn’t enjoy it, who didn’t get sucked into the film’s hypnotic spell, a more descriptive word would be nonsensical, perhaps even pointless. And that’s aside from the sex and language and increasing violence.

This disconnect is well expressed for me by a sequence which acts as the turning point of the chaos, a frenzied montage of shots, bridging the descent into madness of the central characters. It repeats images from before, whilst leaping forward to the point in time where the residents’ savagery has escalated to even more creative levels. At this stage, the film will either convince or it will leave you way, way behind - as it bridges the huge leap of disbelief suspending required. Have all these people stopped going to their day jobs? Why hasn’t everyone just left? From this point, I found it best to forget the logic.

Even if the film isn’t totally successful, it’s definitely highly memorable - quotable, visual, faintly shocking too. I’ve got no clue how successful an afterlife this film will have - critics’ reviews have been mixed but generally praiseworthy - but it’s definitely a film you should seek out and experience.

Kroagnon Awards 2016: Day Two - Film

Welcome to the Kroagnon Awards 2016! All this week, we'll be announcing all our favourite things of 2015, ranging from the broad to the niche. As well as being voted on by editors Dave, Matt and Tom, several categories have been decided by you, our readers, and industry experts.

2015 was full of smash-hit blockbusters but Jurassic World was among the best-loved. It continued the popular Jurassic Park series and starred Chris Pratt in his highest-profile role yet. The film currently stands as the third highest-grossing of all time, with total takings standing at $1.52 billion. This was a very difficult category to decide and Jurassic World only just edged out the fantastic Birdman.

Sticking with Jurassic World, Chris Pratt is named our Best Actor in a Film of 2015 for his role as Owen. It's been announced that he will return to the role for a 2018 Jurassic World follow-up so look out for his name on this list in another three years. Last year he also appeared in the widely-panned Jem and the Holograms in film and on television appearing once more as the much-loved Andy in the sublime Parks and Recreation. Michael Keaton was also nominated for his leading role in Birdman.

Although it was released in 2014 in most places, Birdman actually came out in 2015 here in the UK, so Emma Stone's award for Best Supporting Actor in a Film still counts in our book. She was fantastic as Michael Keaton's daughter and fought off tough competition in the form of Star Wars: The Force Awakens' Oscar Isaac to win this award. Stone also appeared in Irrational Man and Aloha last year - and look out for her later this year in La La Land.

For his work on SPECTRE, his second James Bond film, Sam Mendes is named our Best Director of 2015. He also helmed Skyfall, the franchise's fiftieth anniversary special, to great acclaim, but has sadly said he doesn't want to return to Bond any time soon. Mendes also served as Executive Producer on Penny Dreadful last year.

For his stunning cinematographic direction on Birdman, Emmanuel Lubezki easily sweeps the gong for Best Director of Photography for 2015. For those that don't know, there are no discernible cuts in the entire film - in other words, it looks continuous. But beyond that, the footage is remarkably beautiful and each frame really is like a photograph. We were also fans of Hoyte van Hoytema's contribution to SPECTRE.

John Williams is named our Best Composer this year for his work on Star Wars: The Force Awakens, the eagerly-awaited seventh episode of the series. Despite only being released in December, the film has already broken all kinds of records and Williams is once again receiving broad recognition for his musical talents. A well-deserved award. Also nominated was Thomas Newman for his soundtrack to SPECTRE.

Our readers' favourite film of last year was the summer blockbuster Avengers: Age of Ultron, which saw all kinds of famous actors get together for another instalment in the Avengers film series. The Avengers will all return in 2018 and 2019's two-part budget-busting action-fest Infinity War but there are plenty of related films coming out before then, such as this year's Captain America: Civil War and Doctor Strange.

The film we're looking forward to most in 2016 is Ghostbusters, the reboot of the much-loved film series. Starring Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon, the film has been directed by Paul Feig and is due out on 15 July in the UK. We look forward to it making the shortlist for our awards next year.

That's it for today! Join us tomorrow when we'll be naming all our favourite

Books, Music and Live Events of 2015!

FILM: Inside Out

review by Ryan Wigley

Pixar are back! Yes, after a two year wait, the universally-acclaimed Pixar have made a blistering return to the silver screen with their latest instalment, Inside Out. I think it’s safe to say that, whilst still enjoyable and generally positively received, Pixar’s releases of the past few years have been underwhelming by the studios phenomenally high standards. 2011’s Cars 2 was met with a mixed reception, 2012’s Brave was Pixar’s stamp at making their own Disney Princess-esque character and 2013’s Monsters University, despite being positively received, was merely a prequel to their acclaimed 2001 classic - and my personal favourite - Monsters, Inc. So yes, three films that would do any other animation studio proud, but underwhelming by the standards of Pixar - a studio renowned for its originality with fresh and exciting concepts.

Fast forward to 2015 and here we are with Inside Out. Pixar are back at their best here by crafting yet another glorious, bold and stupendously feel-good cinematic masterpiece. It’s a simple concept when you think about it; our bodies being controlled by emotions inside our head that take on the form of tiny people. We’ve all thought about it, haven’t we? With Inside Out Pixar take this concept and build on it by presenting a perfectly conceived world that we spend the 94-minute running time just getting sucked into.

The main character is an 11-year-old girl, Riley, who has been forced to move from Minnesota to San Francisco and it’s the job of the emotion manifestations - Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Anger (Lewis Black), Fear (Bill Hader) and Disgust (Mindy Kaling) - to guide her through life and specifically through this change. The emotions live inside Riley’s head, aptly nicknamed Headquarters, where they monitor and control the actions and memories of Riley through a control console and screen. Any memories she makes are then produced in the form of orbs, which are appropriately coloured to match the relevant emotion. Anger is red, for example. The most important memories - which are the core memories we all have and cherish - are stored in the hub of Headquarters and are then used to power the five islands that all reflect the personality of Riley.

To try and keep spoilers to a minimum, Joy is basically the most dominant of the five emotions, with the obvious job of trying to keep Riley as happy as possible. Anger, Fear and Disgust help where required, but Sadness is an emotion / character that the rest don’t quite understand, mainly because, at the age of 11, Riley has yet to experience it fully. After the move to San Francisco, the previously quiet Sadness starts to touch the various orbs in Headquarters, which then alters them accordingly. This is reflected in Riley’s personality, which creates a core memory of sadness, which in turn causes Headquarters to go wobbly. This is where Joy and Sadness embark on their adventure to try and recover the previously happy core memories and prevent the islands from shutting down as a result of Riley’s personality change.

As I have said, I have the intention of keeping spoilers to a minimum, so I won’t give the rest of the film away. Rest assured, the film showcases Pixar’s talents for storytelling and character work, not to mention the visuals of the film. The entire thing is stunning throughout, from the labyrinth of orbs to a very amusing sequence where Joy and Sadness find themselves taking a shortcut that turns them into abstract pieces of art, which is reflected through a few different art styles!

It’s all very fun and feel-good, but Inside Out does have quite an adult meaning to it and I am not entirely sure what kids will get out of it apart from the odd piece of slapstick and the vibrant, trippy animation. This isn’t a criticism of the film, I’m sure kids will enjoy it greatly, but I suspect very few will rank it amongst their favourite Pixar films. Adults, well teenagers and above, are likely to, however, with its more complicated storytelling that will resonate with the older audience. Personally, I think much of it is down to us associating Riley’s experiences with that of our own growing up, something that younger audiences will have yet to experience.

My only real criticism with the film is that it goes at a slightly slow pace. I think 10 or 15 minutes of it could have been cut with ease, bringing it at about 80 to 85 minutes - which isn’t unusual for Pixar, particularly their earlier films -  and nothing would be lost from the piece. That isn’t to say the film is particularly boring in places, it’s still as fun and funny as ever, but I think pacing is key and that’s where Inside Out slightly slips up for me.

Inside Out is fresh, exciting and innovative with some powerful moments and utterly gorgeous animation. All of these and brilliant performances from the cast allow it to stand proud in the acclaimed Pixar filmography. Roll on The Good Dinosaur in December, I say!

FILM: Mad Max: Fury Road

review by Rob Manns

30 years after “Mad” Max Rockatansky battled his way beyond Thunderdome, he’s back with a new face and variable accent. Mad Max : Fury Road is a triumphant return to the big screen for the most iconic of Australian cinematic heroes.

Acclaimed director George Miller, now hitting his 70s, shows that age certainly hasn’t wearied him or dulled his talent. Fury Road is every bit as exciting, brutal and bleak as the original trilogy he brought us between 1979 and 1985. This time though, it’s also incredibly beautiful to look at. Ridley Scott once said that his aim was that you could pause his movies at almost any point and see a gorgeous, artistic photograph. Miller has achieved this goal with the help of fellow Queenslander, cinematographer John Seale. The gold of the desert sands and vivid blue of the skies create a unique canvas for the chaos to play out on. It is as beautiful as it is barren. I’m confident the Academy will agree come Oscar time.

Staying with Miller for a moment, the action scenes in this movie really need to be seen - on a big screen! - to be believed. Featuring the bare minimum of CGI enhancement, the spectacular stunts, human and vehicular alike, play out like a mesmerising ballet of chaos and destruction. Unlike most action directors these days, Miller lets you see everything that is going on. No epileptic editing and shaky cam here. This is how you do it right!

It’s not just the stunts though, it’s also the wild and weird characters the series is famous for.

Standouts here are the freaky War Boys and their monstrous leader, Immortan Joe - played by Hugh Keays-Byrne who also played lead villain The Toecutter in the original Mad Max. They are repulsive but you can’t look away. Like the landscape they inhabit, they are beautiful and terrible at the same time. Everybody’s favourite is the blinded guy who lays down some major heavy metal riffs on a flamethrowing guitar while tethered by a bungee rope to the top of a truck that also sports an enormous stack of speakers and a team of drummers. If that sentence doesn’t bring a smile to your face, you are dead inside. Dead!

And then there’s our leads. Tom Hardy is more than a worthy replacement for Mel Gibson. Bringing the same brooding intensity and toughness as well as the vulnerability. My only criticism is his seeming inability to settle on a single voice. His accent shifts around, a shame as he actually does a decent Strayan accent in the opening monologue, and Bane even creeps in here and there. The film, however, belongs to Charlize Theron as Imperator Furiosa, and her group of women she liberated from Immortan Joe. Furiosa deserves to become as revered as Ellen Ripley as a strong female role model. She kicks ass! All the main women in this film do, including the Many Mothers we meet late in the film. The most wonderful side effect of these characters  is watching MRAs having a big, manly sook about it.

How dare they put strong, competent female characters in a film about an icon of manliness, they say. But then, the whinger who started all of it also referred to the very Australian Mad Max series as a tentpole of American culture, so take from that what you will.

That’s all well and good, you say, but, what about the story? Story? You want all that and a story too? Have you ever seen one of these films? The plot is wafer thin but, where that is normally a weakness, it’s just another of this film's strengths. It really doesn’t need anything beyond a framing device for all the madness. Honestly, it gives you enough to allow the characters a motivation to get from point A to point B and that’s all you need or could want. Fury Road is best described as a 2 hour chase sequence punctuated by occasional moments of stillness to allow you to exhale.

Before I conclude this review, it would be remiss of me not to give a shout out to the incredible soundtrack by Junkie XL. It is just as important and impactful as the landscape and the amazing vehicles and punctuates the visuals perfectly with a mix of electronica, heavy rock and sweeping orchestral moments. Sure, there’s no Tina Turner power ballad but we can’t be greedy now.

So go see this movie on a big screen. See it now! All the gushing reviews you’ve read, this one included, are right. This is an unforgettable cinema experience. It’s the reason we have cinema in the first place and it’s brought to you by a true master of the art form. It’ll never replace Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior in my affections but it is probably the superior film, all things considered.

thanks very much to Rob Manns

FILM: Focus

review by Ryan Wigley (Twitter)

Blimey! In my very first piece for Artron Reviews, I've been thrown in the deep end somewhat by being the first to review a film! I was very fortunate enough to attend a preview screening of the upcoming romantic comedy-drama, Focus, last night at my local Cineworld. The new Will Smith flick that is, not the 2001 Meat Loaf film!

Focus begins with us seeing character Nicky Spurgeon, well played by Smith, a seasoned conman dining at a restaurant. It isn’t long before Margot Robbie’s character, Jess Barrett, is introduced and it takes even less time for them to become romantically involved. From here, Nicky quickly introduces Jess to the various tricks and trade of the confidence scam business, and that's where the story begins to unfold.

The weekend of a major football event has arrived and it is time for Nicky, Jess and their group to grab and hustle their way around the airport, casino and stadium where fans would be attending through a variety of different tricks. Directors Glenn Fiacarra and John Requa do a great job of capturing each con effectively and allowing us, as viewers, to see how the characters have gone about obtaining watches, wallets, credit cards and the like. It is especially rewarding given that we see Nicky going to great lengths showing Jess the ropes prior to the weekend of hustling.

Without going into spoiler territory, I will say that there’s a brilliant, lengthy scene during the match involving Smith, Robbie and BD Wong as billionaire Liyuan with an insane amount of money at stake. The end result makes for a tense and intelligent pay-off that you’d expect from any decent hustle and con film.

Leaving the football final a great deal richer, Nicky has decided that Jess is getting far too close to him for comfort, so promptly breaks their relationship off, citing that she had done the job and done it well. This is where my criticisms of the film begin to creep in…

Three years later, we find Nicky reunited with Jess once again in Buenos Aires during a large scale scam involving a billionaire international race car owner. As I noted above, I believe this is where the film starts to fall down as it begins to tail downhill somewhat. Focus goes from being a hustle flick to a full-on romance film without any sort of transition. It is a bizarre change of tone and direction, with the only consistency being the comedic elements and even those are few and far between. On a brighter note, this does introduce us to the  blunt, dry-witted and, despite his loathing of the term, sarcastic Ownes, played impressively by Gerald McRaney. The way McRaney plays Ownes is reminiscent of Mike from smash hit series Breaking Bad, and is a welcome addition to the film.

Focus then undergoes yet another tone change for its final act, becoming rather serious and gritty before transforming unpredictably into a plain old comedy. As with the earlier hustle to romance transition, it comes out of the blue and just makes for an inconsistent film. Jess really comes into her own in this final act, however, and Margot Robbie is brilliant throughout. I will be the first to admit that the trailer and early parts of the film gave off the impression that Robbie just plays Naomi, her character from the excellent The Wolf of Wall Street but fortunately Robbie brings a different take to the role and the script provides Jess with a satisfying closure of the character by staging a con of her own, thus throwing Nicky off his game.

The film as a whole is smart, slick and I cannot fault it for entertainment value. Smith and Robbie are great throughout and are aided by a strong supporting cast. Focus marks the first collaboration between the two leads, but not the last; they are due to appear together in DC’s Suicide Squad sometime in 2017.

Unfortunately, Focus' shifting tone and emphasis means the film doesn't really go anywhere and comes off as a series of scenes without much of a link. The hustle and romance sections of the film are good, and the former is certainly the highlight, but I would have appreciated some consistency, rather than three distinct acts, jumping from one tone to another.

Focus is entertaining enough, but ultimately, and please do forgive the pun, suffers from a lack of focus.