Die Kunst des toten Mannes

The styling of this film is interesting, offering a perspective on the shallow but at the same time ruthless and cut throat world of high end art. This is blended with what could be described as a horror morality tale, where greed is repaid with bloody interest.

Regrettably, this film is ultimately a buzz kill. Its story feels incomplete, like a half finished work of art. You can see the sketched outline of what its trying to achieve but its never completes the picture.

This is most notable in the story which seems to me at least to be truncated. Perhaps, the original idea would have taken too long? Its a shame the extra time was not taken, as this actually did look like it was going somewhere intriguing. As a result characters inexplicably go from one state of mind and action to another, without any real segue.

The result is a film I 'sort of" liked but at the same time felt dissatisfied with. It has its clever moments but another twenty or so minutes I feel would have made all the difference. 5/10 from me.

I'm all for weird and obscure films. David Lynch has put together some epically strange films and television seasons, so a horror/thriller based around an art heist? Sure, why not. The result? A visually fascinating, sometimes horrifically obscure (especially if viewing at night) but ultimately a hollow narrative that thinks it is much better and more clever than it actually is. I won't pretend I'm smart enough to say the movie is really some sort of metaphor or satire, but I do typically know when a movie is well put together. Velvet Buzzsaw is certainly not one of those.

5.0/10

Dan Gilroys newest picture, and most importantly second collaboration with the fantastic Jake Gyllenhaal, "Velvet Buzzsaw" is every much as unsatisfying and confused as it appears to be shiny and unique.

The satirical pieces, which take extremely long to set up, never work with the upcoming horror events - and the scenes of terror never seem to fully work under the context of the satirical bits. We're left with a movie that pretends to be clever, intellectual and satirical on art, but displays nothing but a lack of every aspect mentioned above. There are quite some parallels between this and Inarritus "Birdman" (2014), in which the movie is neither convincing nor impressing to justify the flashy and dazzling tone and sense of narrative. It misses substance, thought and precision to back up its ambition.

For the most part though, Gyllenhaal is great, as one would easily expect. And I can not fully degrade the supporting cast who don't seem to be doing anything terribly wrong. It's just as if all the characters have no real purpose besides their bizarre looks and the way they speak. No character has a serious arc, which is sad in this type of movie where it could have easily be portrayed throughout a leitmotif and theme of art. Everything just flows and flows into nearly two hours of badly paced dialogue, horror scenes and stylish art.

I must admit that some of the paintings and visual art looked really nice. The cinematography, and the editing (which was also done by director Gilroy) is not bad too. There is actually one shot that I remembered liking quite a bit. We are thrown into a family watching TV, until the camera moves top to reveal they are actually mannequins in a studio. The problem ultimately is that it's half style, no substance. The style does not tell its own story, neither do the characters. The plot is never explained and essentially only exists by coincidence and chance. "Velvet Buzzsaw" never feels forced, because it simply hasn't got any constitution for the premise. That's in a certain way even worse than feeling forced.

Netflix hit out another pretentious, unconvincing, flashy and "empty" movie, whose only saving graces are Jake Gyllenhaal and the editing.

4/10

After Nightcrawler Dan Gilroy is a figure that I will permanently be interested in. Then came along Roman J Israel which was a frustrating experience. There was a lot of good in it but it seemed to relish being slow and unnecessarily wordy. Now we have Velvet Buzzsaw. A movie so plain, I had absolutely no response to. There is barely enough here to be upset about and nearly nothing to be wowed by. It's just so...bland. You'd think Jake gyllenhaal would be the main character but he isn't. In fact, no one is. It's Totally confused, strangely muddled, and tonally messy. It was almost as if the film was passing through my head as soon as it went in.

Writer-director Dan Gilroy (Nightcrawler) re-teams with co-stars Jake Gyllenhaal and Rene Russo on this uneven blend of art-world satire and supernatural horror. When a lowly art gallery worker (Zawe Ashton) discovers her upstairs neighbor dead, she also finds a horde of paintings that the reclusive tenant had been working on for years. Instead of destroying them as the deceased had wished, she steals them and brings them to her gallery boss (Russo), as well as to a highly-influential critic (Gyllenhaal), casuing an uproar in the art world and the declaration of a newly-discovered master. However, those in proximity of the dead man's works start experiencing hallucinations, and soon much, much worse.

The milieu of the high-end modern art world is ripe for skewering, and thus has been the target of derision in many books, shows, and films in the past. This film doesn't bring anything new to that tradition, merely highlighting the pretensions, backstabbing, and crass commercialism that even one as far removed from that world as myself has seen many times. The performances are appropriate for the material, with a few (Gyllenhaal, Collette) pitched to the back row for effect.

The horror aspects are also a bit old-hat, although they are handled professionally enough. They come perhaps a bit too few and far between for hardcore horror fans, though. There's a barely-contained streak of black humor throughout which undermines the more menacing tones of the fright stuff. It's also hard to get too concerned about the well-being of such an unlikable group of snobs, twits and sycophants.