Velvet Buzzsaw (2019) User Reviews

A lot of ideas. No real cohesion.

[jmalmsten · 6/10 · 4 February 2019]

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

Ambitious, But Underwhelming

[kjproulx · 6/10 · 1 February 2019]

Ever since the release of Nightcrawler back in 2014, Dan Gilroy is a director that I've wanted to keep a sharp eye on. I'll admit I wasn't a big fan of his film Roman J. Israel Esq., but I was still impressed by his talent, enough to continue watching his future projects. Velvet Buzzsaw is his latest work that he both wrote and directed and while I did enjoy some of it, this director only has one home run in my book, which still remains to be Nightcrawler. Some viewers may find this film to be pretentious and others may find it elegant, which will stir up a great conversation, but I personally found that it fell somewhere in the middle. If you're a fan of a unique premises, you may want to check this one out.

There isn't really a main character here, but it could be argued that the central focus of the film is on Jake Gyllenhaal's Morf. After the passing of an elderly man, his paintings are discovered and put on display for all to see. To their surprise, these paintings have minds of their own and they begin to seek revenge against those who study them in the wrong ways. Personally, the concept of this film intrigued me upon first glance, but after watching the film unfold, it felt like more of a way of finding viewers for the movie as a whole. The bizarre turn this film takes didn't feel earned by the time the film concludes. With a strong first act and a weird second act, this movie lost all potential throughout the third.

I must admit that this is one of the better assembled casts I've seen in a long time. From powerhouses like Jake Gyllenhaal and Toni Collette to the always outstanding performances given by both John Malkovich and Rene Russo, down to stellar newcomers like Natalia Dyer and Daveed Diggs, I found myself engaged no matter what was happening throughout an uninteresting scene, due to the fact that they're clearly all devoted. If for nothing else, this cast believed they were making something terrific and it really shows in each and every one of their performances.

Sadly, as I mentioned, this film as a very weak third act that went in many ways that felt easy for the movie to go. Aside from some very cool visuals and great cinematography throughout the entire film, the story, in retrospect, kind of went nowhere. I could see where director Dan Gilroy was trying to go and the final scene of the film definitely showcases an interesting future for the story, but I wasn't engaged in the story enough to care all that much. The characters invested me from the very beginning and the twist pulled me in even more, but the movie unravels in a way that frankly bored me.

In the end, Velvet Buzzsaw is an ambitious film in terms of the notions that it tries to explore and wow its audience with, but I was underwhelmed by it as a whole. I definitely commend the technical aspects of it and the set-up was very well done, so I can recommend it to film buffs, but I truly don't believe this film will find a home outside of that circle. I could be wrong, but I feel this movie is for a very niche audience. Velvet Buzzsaw is an impressively ambitious film that feels a little wasted by the end.

It had great potential but fell short

[jeffreycarephotography · 6/10 · 2 February 2019]

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.

The horror aspects are old hat

[AlsExGal · 6/10 · 31 December 2022]

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.

An interesting art-world satire with horror overtones and a stellar cast.

[Top_Dawg_Critic · 7/10 · 2 February 2019]

An interesting art-world satire with horror overtones and a stellar cast that performed great.

The directing was exceptionally good, with fantastic imagery and creative camera shots.

The concept of the story was well done, as were the S/VFX, but the writing was a little all over the place, choppy and too ambitious with its 113 min run time, although the pacing was decent.

A unique film with excellent performances. Would I recommend it? If you're the artsy type and enjoy horror film. Would I see it again? No.

It's a 7/10 from me.

Velvet Buzzkill.....

[s3276169 · 5/10 · 22 September 2019]

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.

Off the wall, but enjoyable.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 7/10 · 14 February 2019]

There is something so original about this film, which is basically a group of pretentious art experts being done to death by art.

I'll applaud it for imagination, for being unique, and for featuring some incredibly good scenes, in particular the demise of Josephina, but the real winner here has to be the acting. The cast are incredibly good, when you have Jake Gyllenhaal and Toni Collette in a film together you know it'll be pretty good. Gyllenhaal is absolutely terrific, and steals the show.

I really did enjoy the concept, it's one of those films I liked, but wouldn't particularly rush to watch again, I think once you have seen the surprises once, it kind of doesn't have much else in terms of content.

Interesting Premise, Uninteresting Movie

[fpcholcomb · 3/10 · 3 February 2019]

Simply put Velvet Buzzsaw is a mess. It lacks any genuine horror, comedy, or drama and feels cheap and schlocky, and not in the good b-movie horror way.

This one stung because when I first heard of this film I thought it was right up my alley. The faux intellectualism and aggressive monetization that surrounds the high art world is something worthy of parody, but this movie gets so lost in its message and meanders around several poorly written characters, essentially wasting its interesting premise on a below average, generically shot bit of schlock. It brings nothing to the table and fails to live up to the standards set by its contemporaries and even the directors past work.

The characters presented here are lacking in about every respect. One of the things that really excited me about this movie was the massive amount of talent it employed, but even a lively performance from the likes of Gyllenhaal could not mask the fact that the writing was just not up to snuff. What exposition and backstory we get on this miserable bunch of narcissistic artistes is sparse and told rather than shown through slow interactions within art galleries and avant garde offices. Perhaps it was an artistic choice to paint these characters who leech of the creative works of others as banal but it prevented me from ever getting invested in them. Thus, not only were the inevitable horror scenes that followed the character introductions were completely void of any proper scares or interesting creatures, but they also lacked any proper victims.

Moreover, the editing was choppy and scenes did not always flow logically from one to the other. There was a surprising lack of interesting camera angles or dark and brooding shots that could have been used to cultivate horror in the viewer (with the exception of a scene involving a gas station and monkeys). Velvet Buzzsaw's presentation lacked a certain definitiveness and style that the directors earlier work had possessed. It ends up looking rather uninspired. There was some aggressively unappealing use of green screen too, especially apparent during a waterfront chat between an agent and a up and coming street artist (I can't even remember there names they left so little an impression). The movie looks so fake and cheap, which I suppose in a way fit the character and dialogue quality.

Apart from its blatant ant-art profiteering message the movie seems to translate nothing effectively, and the overall weight of what it tries to say is diminished by its shortcomings. The actor's do what they can here, they are the only redeemable aspect of Velvet Buzzsaw, but an artist is only as good as his or her tools, and they were given very little to work with here.

Definitely Avoid.

A fun satire on the vapid art world

[cardsrock · 7/10 · 7 February 2019]

Jake Gyllenhaal as a snooty art critic? Paintings that come alive and murder people? What's not to enjoy? While Velvet Buzzsaw definitely has some B-movie horror elements to it, it's still a pretty fun and entertaining critique of the materialistic and cutthroat art scene. This movie isn't meant to be taken too seriously and if you don't, you'll probably have a good time with it.

Death By Art

[ThomasDrufke · 5/10 · 9 July 2019]

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

You can't sell the Beach! Let alone hang it on someone's wall (and that's what the movie is about)

[tomsuthblack · 8/10 · 2 February 2019]

The movie is an ambitious attempt that suffered from one major problem. The movie's great ambition is to define art, true art that expresses a true human experience, and to differentiate it from overpriced items collected by dumb rich people who wish to buy taste and sophistication with money. The movie's major problem is that it failed to translate this message into a comprehensible cinematic experience which could reach, and be enjoyed by, the largest possible audience. What A pity . Let me try to show you how this happened:

The story here is a fantasy based on an interesting magical assumption: What if the experience reflected by each and every work of art becomes real, and becomes felt by those who look at it. What if art becomes "so moving" that it actually moves before your eyes, vibrant with life?

What if the monsters on a painting come alive to reflect the suffering that led the artist to draw them? What if the pain, fear, melancholy, menace and agony reflected by a work of art all become physical and materialized?

The only factor that would allow you to survive and keep your sanity in such case would be the honesty of reflection, honesty of art. Any pretense in representing your feelings can devour you, any pretense in assuming you can reciprocally understand other people's feelings through their art can turn you to a prey for their torments. You can only be safe in such conditions if you stick to the real feelings. Only then can you create real art.

To do that, you need to create your art by yourself for yourself, not as a posh pretentious craftsman catering to the taste of a market, but as a playful child, messing around on a beach, making circles in the sand for no one but himself to see. An impressive concept executed in such an enigmatic way that is guaranteed not to be understood by almost everyone who watches it! What a waste of excellent acting and amazing cinematography.

However, one can always assume that maybe the director was just a playful child, making circles on the sand, not really expecting anyone to enjoy watching him do so!

Big setback and disappointment. Pretentious and self-righteous without being convincing.

[philipposx-12290 · 1 February 2019]

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

Intriguing Idea With An Unremarkable Execution

[devinmsapp · 6/10 · 6 February 2019]

Velvet Buzzsaw strives to be an engaging derailment of age old horror tropes, yet fails to keep itself on track. This film tells the story of a high brow art scene, and the key figures driving it. These characters, soaking in pretension, are immediately shown to wear their motives right on the sleeve. In this film, it's far too often that through dialogue, we're able to immediately gauge a character's ambitions, desires, and vices. This on-the-nose style strips so much intrigue and ambiguity from its tense set up about the discovery of remarkable paintings made by a late troubled recluse. This coupled with unpleasantly hammy performances from most of the stars gives Velvet Buzzsaw a shallow B movie aesthetic. This does at least let Jake Gyllenhaal's character acting chops display immaculately. Whenever a scene tries to set up a jump scare, I get bored and hope Gyllenhaal will be back soon with some more gleefully egotistical banter.

Huh

[Rendanlovell · 5/10 · 1 February 2019]

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.

Not for everyone but I enjoyed it

[lewismusgrove88 · 7/10 · 3 February 2019]

Bizarre movie with a cool concept. It was one of those movies that I went into thinking it would be complete bs but I was strangely drawn to it and ended up really enjoying it.

Unique but was not strong enough to become great.

[iconichorror-73302 · 6/10 · 5 February 2019]

Velvet Buzzsaw is one of the most unique and ambitious horror idea I've seen in awhile. The paranormal slaying artwork was cool and it was filled with people I wanted to see killed. The unfortunate part is that there was no really likable characters, the only one that got close was John Malkovich but there was not enough scenes to save it. The movie is good but I feel it is going to divide horror fans . There are plenty off beautiful scenes and art and I am really trying to figure out why there were so many shots of eyes I am positive I'm missing something from that and that's why I feel it wont be received well. it has a sense of wonder about it and people today don't like that, they want everything force feed. I recommend giving this one a couple viewings on face book and discover. I personally enjoyed the film but it did not do enough to make a great horror just a good one.

Intriguing concept, bad execution

[salonsoab · 5/10 · 25 March 2019]

What at one point seemed like an interesting story with creepy elements and thoughtful satire, later becomes Velvet Buzzsaw: an ambitious but ridiculous and nonsensical story that never decides if its a satire or a horror movie (yet somehow fails to be both), filled with hollow characters and mediocre performances that completely waste the originality of its concept.

Night Gallery knock off

[kirkola-87908 · 6/10 · 12 February 2019]

Good premise , good effects but got way too disconnected. Malkovich was wasted in his role. Was fun to see pompous art dealers get what's coming to them for ripping everyone off. But ultimately, the story line needed to pull it together better. Had potential for a great horror movie but falls short.

Velvet Buzzkill

[RussHog · 5/10 · 7 June 2019]

I like Dan Gilroy a lot - but this movie is a Netflix budget mess. Could have been great. The evil paintings are great.

Difficult to explain

[thomasjay-2201 · 6/10 · 2 February 2019]

The trailer in hindsight might've given away a lot of what happens in film but to truly get anything from it you must watch the film itself. A relatively short one at just under 1 hour 50 it manages to put a lot to the audience and develop a grand conspiracy which is actually quite interesting. Sadly a lot of it is glossed over completely after an initial introduction but it still manages to function as a film. A lot of the characters are well created and serve the greater purpose of narrative aid and building the commentary but a lot is fairly forgettable. An interesting message and core meaning it's a fairly decent film which is worth your time

A film of two halves

[Leofwine_draca · 5/10 · 8 February 2019]

VELVET BUZZSAW is the latest Netflix-released movie and a follow-up to Dan Gilroy's NIGHTCRAWLER, featuring the tag-team pairing of Jake Gyllenhaal and Rene Russo once more. This time around the setting is the cynical and venal world of modern art collecting, where a bunch of characters come into contact with weird works of art belonging to a recently-deceased artist.

It's definitely a mixed bag of a movie, one in which the bad has equal measure with the good. The film is split into two distinct halves; the first is the scene-setting world-building of modern art, and it's this that's most interesting, offering a fresh and vivid take on a kind of niche world that few of us will ever encounter. The characters are quirky and interesting, if not exactly likeable, although there are perhaps a few too many for any individual to stand out. Sadly, the second half of the film descends into a simplistic supernatural horror film of the kind we've seen done a million times before; thrown-in CGI blood and predictable scares simply don't cut it and waste an intriguing premise.

If you hurt art, art will hurt you back.

[Spookylicious · 8/10 · 2 February 2019]

I dived in with an open and curious mind and I've been entertained and had a good time.

It's an eerie story regarding some art pieces that shouldn't have been taken. Whose the perfect victim for a cursed object that kills whoever profits by greed from it? Greedy profesionals from the "chic" art-gallery bussiness.

An artist pours their experience, soul, emotions and illusion into a piece, and when all that is just treated for the "chic" and "popular" value and exploited, without any apreciation on all that's behind, something's wrong.

We see that in different moments from artists that suffer the consequences of these greedy profesionals that don't care about the artist, just about that sweet dolla, and their own reputation and ego.

In a world driven by this kind of behaviour. It's the own art's responsability to put an end to them.

I can clearly see the message Dan Gilroy was transmitting and I loved it and applaud him for it as an artist myself. Thank you.

PD: I read some people saying that the characters don't feel true. And oh my sweet summer children, stay in that place of ignorance, because those kind of people really exist in the "chic" art-exhibit and fashion world. And they are as obnoxious (OR EVEN MORE) as the ones portrayed so well by this great cast of actors.

Didn't live up to the hype.

[PolishBear · 6/10 · 30 May 2019]

This film is "arty" in that it is about cursed artwork, framed against the background of the impossibly snobby and pretentious world of art dealing and art criticism in Miami. But it's not arty in a David Lynch or Darren Aronofsky sort of way. A lot of the dialogue was well-scripted, but overall it didn't live up to the hype. I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as I had hoped to .... although Jake Gyllenhaal was pretty buff and easy on the eyes.

.... with a dull edge.

[southdavid · 4/10 · 7 February 2019]

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.

Should have been better with this cast.

[deloudelouvain · 6/10 · 10 February 2019]

When you see the names of the actors and actresses in this movie you expect something really good. The truth is that Velvet Buzzsaw could have been much better. It's not that I didn't like watching it but it didn't give me complete satisfaction. The acting was good, as expected, but the story was just not that interesting, too far fetched, maybe original but not that captivating. As for the horror parts they're just minimal and could have been done much better. There's too much posh people making a big deal out of art, it worked for awhile but not for the entire movie. Velvet Buzzsaw is worth a watch but I won't watch it a second time.