High Life (2018) Reviews

• No fun at all

  ghykal-343-9033502019-04-09

  I see a lot of movies. Way too many movies. So I've obviously seen some horrible stuff. This isn't the worst, but it's pretty close. There's no rhyme or reason to the entire movie. The lead (Pattinson's Monte) is an unlikeable character that lacks credibility as an actual person that could exist anywhere. His redeeming trait is that he doesn't want anything from anyone. He mostly mutters to the audience and punches other characters in the face when he's not caring for a baby. The lead antagonist is an even more convoluted character. She's a criminal? scientist? Sex freak? In charge of the mission? She collects sperm and is for some never explained reason trying to make a radiation proof baby. I think they tried to make her sexy, but it just comes off as disgusting. If you're looking for a super slow flick with a wailing baby and a muddled story line with no payoff at the end, then you should give the High Life a watch. Otherwise, you're better off drinking a High Life and playing on your phone.

• High Life: when you've taken acid all your life and write a screenplay about your delusional fantasies

  TheTopDawgCritic2019-04-18

  WOW, one of the worst films I have ever seen. As I invested my time from the start of this film, I concluded this will either be a brilliant film, or a massive flop, and sadly, it was the latter. All these positive critic reviews calling this an artistic film? This was a severely failed attempt of a pretentious experiment in shock and horror cinema for the wannabe artsy-fartsy crowd. And calling this a sci-fi? Please. Putting people in a padded box and surrounding them with imagery of space and a black hole does not make this film a sci-fi. Some reviewers saying this film is a metaphor... yes, for a terrible writing. The screenplay was clearly written by someone who took too many drugs at a young age, is sexually frustrated (sperm troughs and a masturbation room lol?), and is clearly still on a wild hallucinating trip. The plot had more issues than National Geographic. How does the first shuttle quickly go into the back hole, then fast forward to a teenager's age, and they do it again, all whilst the long mission from the beginning is to reach the black hole. And what genius launches another space ship filled with only dogs - and the smallest and cutest one survives? Let's also throw in some dumb sex scenes that would make Law and Order SVU cringe. Artistic? No, pathetic. A kindergartener could have written a better script. 95% of this film has mind-baffling plot issues of this scale. The props, sets and costumes (e.g space suit) seemed to have cost the budget a mere $5k, and were all circa 1970 art department quality. Let's throw some old fish tank filters in a few rooms with padded walls and we'll call it a space ship set. Oh, and an air vent that needs a good punch to run, apparently with technology that can take a crew to a black hole. LOL. The casting was a waste of talent, and I'd avoid this film on their resume, as their bland and pointless characters were far from artistic - or even necessary. As a parent, I ended up cringing every time the baby cried. Artistic? No, annoying - and unnecessary. The almost 2 hour length felt like I lost an entire day. The pacing was ridiculously slow and anyone with A.D.D. will be looking for something shiny on the floor. The only redeeming qualities were the amazing score throughout the entire film, the cinematography, and the stunning visuals - the rare times when shown. This will be a forgettable film that I hate myself for watching until the end. A very generous 2/10 from me.

• The perfect metaphor

  lluisgh282019-02-11

  The movie works only as a metaphor of the universe: empty and meaningless.

• I'd Rather jump in a black hole

  dynamiteheaddy-433872019-04-22

  The movie is weird and confusing with a terrible ending. It feels like whole scenes were cut as certain parts made little sense with bad editing and I even had to read Wikipedia to fill in the gaps at times. The acting is the strongest point but the set looks cheap, the story is strange and it's as pointless as the mission they are on.

• Boring

  jacobnunnally2019-04-08

  Saw this at the Angelika with a good movie buddy. He said critics were really into this movie so I thought yeah, let's go! This is an ugly, boring, convoluted movie without a single milligram of charm. The leading actor is Robert Pattinson - a handsome, young, dynamic actor. It would not have mattered who played the leading role because all he did was stare at people in a melancholy way and had very few lines. I myself could have done as well. What I'm saying is the movie didn't play to the actor's strengths. The movie was ugly and claustrophobic. Everything is inside, in a grey, boring motif. Gross. That gets pretty old after a while. No variety, no color, no exploration, nothing interesting or captivating. Also here we've got the laziest ending I can say that I've ever seen -- the movie just ends. Since there isn't really a plot, I guess that's fine, but it just seemed like the producers said "OK guys we ran out of money so let's just wrap it up here, we're done." Unbelievable. Also, this film is pretentious beyond belief -- it thinks really, really highly of itself as a philosophical masterpiece but is just rehashed garbage from previous sci fi movies. Big deal. I am not exaggerating when I write that this is the worst movie I've seen in several years. It was breathtakingly awful, with no plot or character development to speak of. It was lazy, pointless, ugly, and stupid. I think giving it a 2 out of 10 is being charitable. Save your money and watch grass grow for an hour and a half.