Having enjoyed Dan Gilroy's previous film "Nightcrawlers" I was disappointed with this follow up, that reunites director with Jake Gyllenhaal and Rene Russo, but feels overblown and unsure of what it wants to be.
Zawe Ashton plays Josephina, who discovers a cache of hitherto unknown art created by a reclusive neighbour who has passed away. Along with her boss, gallery owner and dealer Rhodora Haze (Russo) and the art critic Morf Vandewalt (Gyllenhaal) they work to exploit the find for maximum profit. However, as Vandewalt discovers more about the troubled history of the artist, the pictures begin to take on a literal life of their own, and those involved in manipulation of the pieces begin to die.
I like to think of myself as being pretty cinema literate. I'm aware of the idea of subtext. I feel like "Velvet Buzzsaw" thinks it has that, but only from interviews with Gilroy do I understand that, because I'm not sure it's actually there in the plot. Maybe I'd see it more if the "rules" of the film were a little clearer. Logically I feel it should be that the artwork generated by the neighbour should come to life and punish those that are exploiting it, but that's not what happens and people are killed by artworks entirely unrelated to central thrust of the story. But even if we accept that the subtext is there, and I just didn't catch it, I still don't think there's much to appreciate about the film.
It's seems very dismissive of its relatively simple horror concept, so much so that it's unwilling to engage properly with that aspect of the story, it views it like it's a necessary evil to keep the story going. It's far more interested in its wide ranging tale of various artists and dealers and what they're doing. It's a great cast that the film has, add Toni Collette, John Malkovich, Natalia Dyer and Billy Magnussen to the already mentioned talent, but much of their stories (all of it, in some cases) add nothing to the actual plot. I also felt, despite its lengthy run time that bits of the film were "missing". The first time we see Gyllenhaal's character seeing one of the paintings move, he reacts and comments as if this is something that has happened to him already, then immediately the plot jumps to him halfway through a mental breakdown.
Dull and disappointing, Netflix remains a dumping ground for features terrified of the scrutiny of a cinematic release.
Zawe Ashton plays Josephina, who discovers a cache of hitherto unknown art created by a reclusive neighbour who has passed away. Along with her boss, gallery owner and dealer Rhodora Haze (Russo) and the art critic Morf Vandewalt (Gyllenhaal) they work to exploit the find for maximum profit. However, as Vandewalt discovers more about the troubled history of the artist, the pictures begin to take on a literal life of their own, and those involved in manipulation of the pieces begin to die.
I like to think of myself as being pretty cinema literate. I'm aware of the idea of subtext. I feel like "Velvet Buzzsaw" thinks it has that, but only from interviews with Gilroy do I understand that, because I'm not sure it's actually there in the plot. Maybe I'd see it more if the "rules" of the film were a little clearer. Logically I feel it should be that the artwork generated by the neighbour should come to life and punish those that are exploiting it, but that's not what happens and people are killed by artworks entirely unrelated to central thrust of the story. But even if we accept that the subtext is there, and I just didn't catch it, I still don't think there's much to appreciate about the film.
It's seems very dismissive of its relatively simple horror concept, so much so that it's unwilling to engage properly with that aspect of the story, it views it like it's a necessary evil to keep the story going. It's far more interested in its wide ranging tale of various artists and dealers and what they're doing. It's a great cast that the film has, add Toni Collette, John Malkovich, Natalia Dyer and Billy Magnussen to the already mentioned talent, but much of their stories (all of it, in some cases) add nothing to the actual plot. I also felt, despite its lengthy run time that bits of the film were "missing". The first time we see Gyllenhaal's character seeing one of the paintings move, he reacts and comments as if this is something that has happened to him already, then immediately the plot jumps to him halfway through a mental breakdown.
Dull and disappointing, Netflix remains a dumping ground for features terrified of the scrutiny of a cinematic release.