Skip to main content

A bad review is better than sinking into the great glut of anonymity.

Velvet Buzzsaw
(2019)

(SPOILERS) Oh dear. That’s two strike outs in a row for Dan Gilroy, following Roman J. Israel, Esq. And it all looked so rosy in the wake of Nightcrawler. For his third feature as helmer, Gilroy has offered up a skewering of the LA art world via a supernatural force exacting revenge for misuse of a deceased artist’s paintings. If that instantly carries with it an air of familiarity, like an extended X-Files episode that fails to hit its target, that’s entirely understandable. Velvet Buzzsaw wants to be as gaudily over the top as the title, but has to settle for not being all that incisive, smart or funny instead.

I wondered if Gilroy had seen Amicus portmanteau Vault of Horror (1973), mostly adapted from EC Comics’ Tales from the Crypt; in the final segment, Drawn and Quartered, Tom Baker’s painter is enabled (via a voodoo priest) to take revenge on those who cheated him of his rightful earnings; he paints their portraits, which he then mutilates, ensuring their demise. Here, the passing of the completely unknown Vetril Dease is seized upon by agent Josephina (Zawe Ashton) to further her career following a run-in with her employee Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo: Haze was once a member of the punk band of the title); in consort with Haze, she pretends she found them in a skip, ignoring the explicit instructions Dease (sounds lazily like disease) left that they be destroyed.

Naturally, his art becomes enormously popular, which is when those involved in trading or obtaining it start dropping dead. As one would expect from a horror tale, Dease has a dark history; he was sent to the Good Templars Orphanage following the deaths of his mother and sister; when he left, he tortured and murdered his father, and was sent to a psychiatric hospital for the criminally insane that used inmates for medical experiments, injections, shocks, “God knows what else”; on his release he ended up as a janitor at a veterans home for 42 years, plying his talent in secret, with an emphasis on blood.

Gilroy’s laid down all the detail for a pseudo-science X-Files explanation if one wants one, then, of an insane man’s id-unleashed through dark experiments, but he’s made a film that, despite the trappings, isn’t remotely scary. Even the kills are pretty pedestrian: art coming alive and attacking people in fairly unimaginative ways (by hanging, by robot Hoboman exhibit, and a rather nano-tech-derivative suffusion by CGI paint). Haze’s end comes via her own Velvet Buzzsaw tattoo, having taken pains to empty her house of all artwork, but the only really memorable one is the most Grand-Guignol, in which an art curator (Toni Collette) has her arm severed by an exhibit (Gilroy was inspired by Roman Holiday, but I thought of Peter Duncan in Flash Gordon).

None of this is executed with much in the way of dread, build up or visceral panache. Gilroy compared his project to The Player, and it shares a similarly lackadaisical pace, at odds with its genre leanings, while also lacking that movie’s insider edge and satirical bite. The first fifteen minutes sprawls untidily as if Gilroy’s either forgotten how to grab the viewer or doesn’t care, content to arbitrarily introduce characters with no obvious sense of purpose of trajectory. And so it goes on, setting the tone for the rest of the movie, even once the from-beyond-the-grave justice plot is established.

Gilroy gets the best performances from returning collaborators, Gyllenhaal (OTT, but fortunately not Okja OTT) and missus Russo (suitably cool, calculating and conniving), and also Collette’s Gretchen; when she and Gyllenhaal get together, it’s momentarily a wonderfully OTT competition for who can go most OTT, as if they’re channelling the spirits of Richard E Grant and Sandra Bernhard, but alas, they only get a scene or two.

Ashton seems entirely miscast, one of those cases where an English actress has been drafted in, retaining her RP, and comes across as entirely wooden. Billy Magnussen has an annoyingly intrusive and extraneous role as gallery worker-cum-artist that might suggest a larger role left on the cutting room floor, in which case, I can’t say it’s a shame to have lost it. John Malkovich is an artist with painter’s block but is only worth remarking upon for surviving the movie (his final scene of doodles in the sand being washed away by the tide was the germ inspiration for the movie, in the wake of the aborted Superman Lives). Stranger Things’ Natalia Dyer plays an innocent who somehow escapes the wrath of Dease, I guess through not having tangibly got her hands dirty with his works.

The occasional scene manages to stand out: Rhodora arriving at Josephina’s apartment and effortlessly commandeering her representation of Dease; a marvellously chilly bit post-Gretchen’s death wherein it’s related to Rhodora how security guards thought her dismembered body was part of a new installation, so they just opened the gallery and let visitors in, with kids from a school tour duly stepping in her blood. These are fairly rare, though.

And, while there’s some decent barbed dialogue (“A bad review is better than sinking into the great glut of anonymity”; “We don’t sell durable goods. We peddle perception. Thin as a bubble”; “All art is dangerous, Mort”; disrespectful funeral talk – “That casket. What colour is that? Smog orange? Did they buy it on sale?”) it only takes one stinker to sink the ship; “We’ve got a fucking problem. Literally” is literally a line mid-coitus. NotGilroy’s best writerly move.

So, alas, we can add Velvet Buzzsaw to the increasing pile of Netflix movies that have given a director carte blanche, only for the uninhibited director to then deliver something less than scintillating. I’m not ensorcelled.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

Stupid adult hands!

Shazam! (2019)
(SPOILERS) Shazam! is exactly the kind of movie I hoped it would be, funny, scary (for kids, at least), smart and delightfully dumb… until the final act. What takes place there isn’t a complete bummer, but right now, it does pretty much kill any interest I have in a sequel.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.