Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 10:14:26 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Ben Wheatley's Free Fire.

Started by Glebe, September 10, 2016, 02:28:01 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

GeeWhiz

Quote from: KennyMonster on March 15, 2017, 10:37:08 AM
My wife saw it at the London Film Festival and she said it was very disappoiting, just lots of shooting and couldn't tell exactly what was going on most of the time.

She much preferred High Rise.

I liked High Rise and Sightseers and didn't like Wheatly's other films (haven't seen Free Fire though).

Most people on here seemed to not like High Rise.

make of that what you will I guess.

High Rise felt like a really odd series of editorial choices thrown together to a deadline. The same messy, gap-filled storytelling that served its addled purpose in Field in England, here felt like laziness and lack of critical feedback.

At the BFI screening, Reece Shearsmith expressed his surprise at seeing so little of his part reflected on the screen. My guess is the final film very slimly reflected what was shot.

Mostly though, it bugs me that it's one of the rare Ballards that've made it to screen. I would so love to see a Vermilion Sands anthology series, or a psychedelic riff on Unlimited Dream Company. Ho hum.


phantom_power

I enjoyed certain scenes in High Rise but as a whole it lacked cohesion and it was hard to work out anyone's motivations. It did seem like a much longer film cut down to 90-odd minutes.

Just simple things like the reason for the break-down in the society wasn't explained well enough and there wasn't enough setting up of the different levels to clarify as it went along

For me Wheatley is a very talented director who needs a better script to work with

Rolf Lundgren

Quote from: KennyMonster on March 15, 2017, 10:37:08 AM
My wife saw it at the London Film Festival and she said it was very disappoiting, just lots of shooting and couldn't tell exactly what was going on most of the time.

Your wife is right.

It starts off really well but when the shooting happens it all goes to tits. There's no story from that point on and it's a case of waiting to see who will shoot the other first. I was hoping the shooting would end and something new would happen but it wasn't to be. The sound of the shots are annoyingly loud too and you have to prepare yourself for a lot of them. There are humorous moments (Copley's great) and it's not dumb but the shooting should be a second act rather than become a whole half of the film.

As a side note I'd be pissed off if I was Sam Riley or his agent. He's got a pretty big/crucial part in this and yet is bumped off the poster in favour of Jack Reynor who I've never heard of. I presume he's an actor on the way up.

Puce Moment

I think Riley was delighted he essentially got the best part in the film. He even mentioned it at a table read-through and Wheatley told him not to mention it again in case the other actors realised.

Rolf's reaction to the film is VERY common - it is really dividing audiences. As I said above, I am actually quite surprised that critics have been so positive about it, although I thought it was fucking great.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

This was rather disappointing. The plot (or lack of) is fine and the cast is plenty charismatic, but the direction and editing are pants. Maybe the sense of chaos was deliberate, but I found the action impossible to follow. The 180° rule was shot all to pieces.

zomgmouse

I liked that chaos, you couldn't tell who was shooting and who was shot, and I think that was kinda the point - simulating the utter cacophony of bullets that those characters would have been immersed in. The camerawork was pretty stunning I thought, snaking through the action.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

Wheatley has talked of mapping everything out (using Minecraft, oddly enough) but it felt to me like much of the action was just cobbled together from randomly chosen clips of each character firing, with the occasional one of someone getting hit. It sapped any sense of tension out of the film because, with no spatial relationship between the characters, there's no way of knowing who's in danger or who has the upper hand. At one point the IRA blokes appeared to be shooting at each other - was that deliberate? It was a blessed relief when the action shifted to the adjoining rooms and I could get a handle on what was happening for a moment.

Glebe

Went to see it yesterday... hmmm. I agree with the criticism that it kind of goes wonky once the shooting starts, but I still kinda liked it overall. It's a bit like Tarantino with a bit more genuine grit and emotion. The uneasy jazz soundtrack suited the mayhem. That's my pithy review.

Quote from: Pissant on September 13, 2016, 09:47:26 PMHe's making films too fast.

You're not wrong:

Armie Hammer Joins Alicia Vikander In 'Freakshift'.

Puce Moment

He does make films quickly, but that is partly because he chooses projects that are easy to produce. He has a keen eye for affordability and ease which helps him get his films funded and made.

When he was doing previews of High Rise he was already doing sound dubs for Free Fire.

garbed_attic

My friend who's a J.G. Ballard academic wrote a paper on Wheatley and Jump's High Rise adaptation, arguing that it's a pretty near perfect rendering of the book. For all you haters, here's the link. I didn't much like the film either, but it's a great article:
https://www.academia.edu/30611709/This_hanging_palace_self-seeding_its_destruction_Ben_Wheatley_and_Amy_Jump_s_rendition_of_High-Rise

Puce Moment

Quote from: gout_pony on April 04, 2017, 01:40:32 PM
My friend who's a J.G. Ballard academic wrote a paper on Wheatley and Jump's High Rise adaptation, arguing that it's a pretty near perfect rendering of the book. For all you haters, here's the link. I didn't much like the film either, but it's a great article:
https://www.academia.edu/30611709/This_hanging_palace_self-seeding_its_destruction_Ben_Wheatley_and_Amy_Jump_s_rendition_of_High-Rise

Yes, good article. I don't think it quite does what you suggest - no adaptation is going to be a 'perfect rendering', but it does a good job of demonstrating how brilliant Wheatley and Jump's vision is for bringing the book to the screen. Many Ballardians hated it, naturally, but also a surprising amount thought it was such an odd film that doesn't try too hard to be faithful, that it managed to disarm their assumptions, and have been positive.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

Does the book also go from order to chaos without much explanation? I liked High Rise, but that transition made little sense to me.

Puce Moment

Quote from: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on April 04, 2017, 01:48:41 PMDoes the book also go from order to chaos without much explanation? I liked High Rise, but that transition made little sense to me.

It is explained but not in ways that would make rational sense. In fact, the book is very good at showing how people go out to live their normal working lives and returning to the high-rise after the chaos starts. The film does this a little bit, but perhaps by avoiding the surreal aspects of the novel, it opens itself up to more criticism regarding credibility and believability.

Serge

I've just got back from seeing this and absolutely loved it. Spoilers ahead, for those who haven't seen it.

It's basically a 90 minute live-action Warner Bros cartoon with guns. Although there are plenty of bullets flying around, the most wince-making scenes don't usually involve them - Frank getting a needle in his hand, Stevo's grisly ending - and Vern almost ends up as a real-life Road Runner with a procession of nasty accidents coming his way (a character endlessly getting hurt in increasingly bizarre ways is something I love in movies - see Steve Buscemi in 'Fargo' or Dennis Farina in 'Get Shorty'.)

Everyone was fantastic in this - I agree that Sam Riley probably has the best part in the film (and after this and 'SS-GB', he's gone right up in my estimation), and Sharlto Copley gets most of the best laughs. I liked the endless needling between Michael Smiley and Armie Hammer. And why do I never recognise Enzo Cilenti in anything? He's always great, but it's only when the credits go up that I usually realise who he played. Tom Davis is doing well this year, having been in this and 'Prevenge'.

Although it was sometimes difficult to follow exactly what was going on (and that's one of the reasons why I'll be giving it a rewatch as soon as I can), I agree that this adds to the general feeling of confusion that the characters in the movie were going through. The Geoff Barrow soundtrack was good, though the best piece seemed to be deeply in hock to King Crimson (yeah, I know, what are the chances of something Geoff Barrow did [cough] 'borrowing' heavily from someone else?), though of course I now have fucking 'Annie's Song' in my head.

Fantastic.

chocky909

Couldn't keep track of what was going on or make out much of the dialogue but the energy was excellent. I think this could really improve with repeated viewing. I preferred High Rise but that may be because of low expectations for it and higher for this.

Wasn't very stylised was it?

Sebastian Cobb

I thought high rise looked great, but had I not read the book fairly recently before it, I doubt if have had a clue what was going on.

I quite enjoyed High Rise. That Brie Larson is quite good isn't she?

ASFTSN

Quote from: gout_pony on April 04, 2017, 01:40:32 PM
My friend who's a J.G. Ballard academic wrote a paper on Wheatley and Jump's High Rise adaptation, arguing that it's a pretty near perfect rendering of the book.

For me that was partly the problem.  Probably expecting too much from Wheatley (who I do like) but I think it should have been set now.

Puce Moment

Quote from: ASFTSN on April 20, 2017, 11:20:28 AMFor me that was partly the problem.  Probably expecting too much from Wheatley (who I do like) but I think it should have been set now.

The Vincenzo Natali script for High-Rise (that obviously never got made) was set pretty much now (or 5mins into the future) but I like the weird retrofuturist feel of Wheatley's film.

Small Man Big Horse

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on April 19, 2017, 08:45:05 PM
I quite enjoyed High Rise. That Brie Larson is quite good isn't she?

I'm very fond of her, and have been ever since her role in the greatly underrated The United States of Tara: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHTb_pMMQ94 - I know that very cleavage-y clip looks cheesy but it does make sense within the context of the show.

Norton Canes

Saw Free Fire the other night, really liked it. Preferred the fact that the majority of it was just a grisly cartoon shot-out - I don't think the plot really needed to be taken any further.

It would have been interesting to take the whole of the first reel - up to the point that the shooting starts in earnest - and move it to the end of the film.

Puce Moment

Quote from: Norton Canes on April 24, 2017, 12:57:05 PM
Saw Free Fire the other night, really liked it. Preferred the fact that the majority of it was just a grisly cartoon shot-out - I don't think the plot really needed to be taken any further.

It would have been interesting to take the whole of the first reel - up to the point that the shooting starts in earnest - and move it to the end of the film.

I think if Wheatley had fucked with the linearity of the story in any way at all he would have opened himself up even more to accusations of ripping off Tarantino.

Lord Mandrake

Hot damn did I love this! Really refreshing, visceral, subversive - I think it's my favourite Wheatley and I've at least appreciated everything he's done thus far. Just reading some critic reviews and realising how misunderstood he is. Comparisons to Tarantino and even Guy Ritchie! No way, his films are all substance and to hell with style or cool, he seems to studiously avoid tropes/cliches, convention. As with High Rise narrative cohesion goes right out the fucking window too because it just doesn't matter, a lot of negative reviews cite lack of empathy with any of the characters - well, no their not the most likeable bunch but they are so well drawn, even those who barely utter a few sentences - that if you don't care what happens to them, that's fine but how does it happen is what's fascinating here. The shootout is like chess except every piece is a pawn and motives are fluid, interchangeable. All the acting is top notch, nuanced - Babou Ceesay conveys so much with body language and that's before he becomes some-kind of zombie terminator. Likewise Sam Riley really shines as Steveo who by the end is a possessed, demon Dick Dastardly running on scag fumes and hate. The warehouse, a labyrinthine deathtrap slowly becomes a character in of itself, devouring all who enter. Just watched it - hyped, fuck it post.       

Custard

Yeah, I really enjoyed this too

Though I can see why it wouldn't be for everyone. Repetitive loud shooting, visceral violence and blood, and not much of a plot beyond a gun deal gone wrong.

But I really enjoyed the characters, the set-up, the setting, the period it exists in, the costumes, the consistently funny dialogue.

I wouldn't put it in Wheatley's top three, but it comes pretty bloody close. It's a very fun, exciting, gripping little film

Phil_A

Finally got around to watching this on TV last week. It was...okay, not brilliant. I felt like it didn't quite succeed at what it was aiming(no pun intended) to be, which was basically a Martin McDonagh film. McDonagh has a facility with dialogue that this film was sorely lacking, although there were a couple of funny lines, the script just wasn't sharp or witty enough to carry the action.

One thing I did like was the realism of characters getting shot being left crawling on the floor in agony, no-one getting up and walking around normally five minutes after taking a bullet.

Howj Begg

I loved this, and I have to say, I do not get the problems people have with Ben Wheatley's/Amy Jump's films. They're one of the few [British] directing teams out there doing interesting stuff, however imperfect High Rise is, or whatever. I don't know, I do feel like, what more do people want from them?

Wet Blanket

I've hated everything they've done apart from this and A Field in England, both of which I thought were first class, so fair play to 'em. Apparently Ben Wheatley dropped out of directing a Reeves and Mortimer film however, losing them the funding. So clearly he's a bastard.

Phil_A

Quote from: Wet Blanket on July 18, 2018, 06:28:43 PM
I've hated everything they've done apart from this and A Field in England, both of which I thought were first class, so fair play to 'em. Apparently Ben Wheatley dropped out of directing a Reeves and Mortimer film however, losing them the funding. So clearly he's a bastard.

Taken the Disney-Marvel dollar hasn't he, the bloody sell-out!

I would like to know what film he's actually working on though.

Mister Six

Quote from: Howj Begg on July 18, 2018, 06:23:33 PM
I loved this, and I have to say, I do not get the problems people have with Ben Wheatley's/Amy Jump's films. They're one of the few [British] directing teams out there doing interesting stuff, however imperfect High Rise is, or whatever. I don't know, I do feel like, what more do people want from them?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've left every Wheatley film I've seen (which is all of them except this and High-Rise, I think) feeling as though it should have been better. Every film has a great concept but never quite delivers, and the impression I get is of someone who knows they're gifted and so never really pushes themselves to excel - especially given the largely positive press they're likely to get anyway. That's probably very unfair but that's how I see it.

FAKE EDIT: Actually, I really liked Sightseers.

mothman

I've seen Free Fire and High Rise both quite recently, and the feeling I went away with was one of... incoherency. Not total incoherency, the overall storylines were clear, but in the detail I was often left feeling I didn't really know what was going on at any given minute. Both were very immersive, there was almost too much detail to get lost in.

Free Fire especially felt like the concept had been stretched just a bit too far. And was it meant to be funny? Because it was, very, but not in a satisfying way. We'd not learnt enough about the characters to care about them or feel bad that they were getting gradually shot to pieces.

Howj Begg

Fair enough fellers. For me, these are a series of mini masterpieces:

Kill List
Sightseers
High Rise
Down Terrace
Free Fire
A Field In England


I'd be happy to watch any of those any night of the week.