AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
5,7/10
68 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Uma força sobrenatural tem como objetivo se vingar daqueles que se aproveitam da arte e tentam explorar uma série de pinturas de um artista desconhecido.Uma força sobrenatural tem como objetivo se vingar daqueles que se aproveitam da arte e tentam explorar uma série de pinturas de um artista desconhecido.Uma força sobrenatural tem como objetivo se vingar daqueles que se aproveitam da arte e tentam explorar uma série de pinturas de um artista desconhecido.
- Direção
- Roteirista
- Artistas
- Prêmios
- 1 vitória e 3 indicações no total
Avaliações em destaque
The idea in the film is fantastic but didn't seem to dive deep enough into the story and lacks impact. With most of the characters being pretenious, I was overwhelmed with the use of metaphores and foreshadowing, it became expected throughout the film but doesn't hold enough significance. An origin film on Dease would seem more interesting to me after watching this film.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
5.0/10
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesLoosely resembles the life of Henry Darger, who too was a recluse that created a prodigious volume of artistic work which was celebrated posthumously, and who also spent some time in an asylum. Darger is largely known as an outsider artist, much as Dease is in the film.
- Erros de gravaçãoWhen Morf just finishes hearing voices in the soundproof room the other gallery director informs him that the sound wasn't working, that it's not voices but whale sounds from 20,000 feet under the sea. The deepest known whale dive is less than half that depth.
- Citações
Morf Vandewalt: Critique is so limiting and emotionally draining.
- Cenas durante ou pós-créditosDuring the first part of the credits, Piers is creating art in the sand.
- ConexõesFeatured in FoundFlix: Velvet Buzzshaw (2019) Ending Explained (2019)
- Trilhas sonorasFloating Ships
Written by Marc Mifune and Alexandra Stewart
Performed by Les Gordon feat. Aces
Courtesy of Sony Music Entertainment France SAS
By arrangement with Sony Music Entertainment
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Velvet Buzzsaw?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Tempo de duração1 hora 53 minutos
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 1.85 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente