Velvet Buzzsaw

It's a bit ironic, this film that wants to explore the vapid shallowness of the fine art world in a stylish horror movie setting... ends up inviting the very same criticisms that the finely dressed tastemakers in the film fling about.

Ok. Buzzwords aside. I did enjoy this film more than I disliked it. But in all earnestnest, it was by a hair. Knowing this came from the same guy who made the excellent psochological thriller Nightcrawler. This is like asketchbook of ideas for a giallo-inspired slasher. Each individually awesome. But there's no real throughline to keep us going. People pop up until they die gruesome deaths. It feels kind of slapped together haphazardly.

I expected more from Gilroy

While the first third of this movie isn't a perfect movie (or a great one) it is a decent look at the modern high art world and the vapid people who inhabit them. The characters are underdeveloped and the script underwritten, but it is somewhat gripping and you are ready to invest in these vain monsters.

The first "scare" comes at the halfway mark, and this is where the movie really goes downhill. Although the art in question is admittedly gorgeous and the premise seems intriguing, it just doesn't work. It's tedious and boring, neither working as a modern trashy jump scare flick or a more thought provoking atmosphere piece, and you are left running down the clock on this clunker.

The music is invasive, often intruding and standing out too much. The cuts are strange, cutting too fast and consequently using way too many cuts. The dialogue is pretty unnatural & feels overly theatrical.

Missed as anything but a pointed take down of the art world, and even then it's not great. Some memorable "horror" visuals, art pieces & turns (such as John Malkovich expectedly playing John Malkovich) are certainly present, but getting there might be a doozy.

4.5

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

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.

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.