By Nadia Ranaputri

Image credit: Netflix

Director: David Fincher
Cast: Gary Oldman, Amanda Seyfried, Lily Collins, Tom Burke, Sam Troughton, Tom Pelphrey, Charles Dance, Tuppence Middleton

Citizen Kane is, without a doubt, one of the most iconic films of all time, perhaps even the greatest film ever made. It was a revolutionary film that was ahead of its time, it broke the norms of storytelling and film-making in general. In the process, it inspired many other filmmakers in the future to step out of their comfort zone.So when the prospect of a film centered around the creation of the greatest film ever made, I couldn't help but be intrigued, especially since this marks David Fincher's return to film in six years since the masterpiece that is Gone Girl. After years in development (as this was Fincher's intended project in 1997 after The Game, but was pushed back due to a disagreement with a studio regarding his desire to shoot the film in black and white), Fincher was finally able to adapt his late father's screenplay and imbue delightful homages to the bygone era of 1930s Hollywood. 

Mank tells the story of screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), or Mank; who is hired by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to write the screenplay of his debut film, Citizen Kane. However, due to Mank's tendency to drink and occasionally stir trouble, he is accompanied by Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and John Houseman (Sam Troughton) to assist and check up on him, making sure that he completes his screenplay on time. It is then through a series of flashbacks that we get to see Mank's relationship with the power figures of Hollywood, from the newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance), who is first seen funding a motion picture, to actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried), whom Mank has a fond friendship with. This eventually raises speculations that many of Mank's associates were the inspiration for the characters in Citizen Kane, leading to concerns regarding the possibility of betrayal and controversy between Mank and these fellow figures, particularly towards the powerful looming tycoon, William Randolph Hearst.

Gary Oldman is as always, a stunner as Herman J. Mankiewicz. His performance brings plenty of depth and charisma, it is simply impossible to tear your eyes away. Fincher's script gives Oldman plenty of fine material to work with, from quick quips, to moments of somber, Oldman truly relishes in playing the famed screenwriter. With him boasts an equally impressive supporting cast, the standout being Amanda Seyfried as actress Marion Davies. Seyfried is charming and plays off wonderfully with Oldman, creating a fun dynamic whenever the two of them are on screen. Their scenes are my personal favorites from the film, as they give such good chemistry that I found myself smiling at their banters. Not to mention Tom Burke, who despite his limited screen-time, is able to bring the iconic figure that is Orson Welles to life in a very admirable performance that doesn't oversell, but is enough to give a good impression that leaves you wanting more of him. Lily Collins, Tom Pelphrey, Charles Dance, and Tuppence Middleton also give fine performances as some of the integral figures in Mank's life.

Image credit: IMDB

Will those unfamiliar with Citizen Kane be able to watch Mank? It's a difficult question, but the short answer is no. See, I never saw Citizen Kane prior to watching Mank. I decided to watch Mank before Citizen Kane to see it from both sides. I wanted to see the side that wasn't familiar with the iconic film that Mank was based around to see if I was able to comprehend it. In a way, I could still appreciate the film on its own, even without knowing anything about Citizen Kane. However, when I did get around to watching Citizen Kane, I will say that Mank is much better experienced if you've seen it. This will probably be an issue for some, as it feels like it's alienating the general audience that hasn't seen Orson Welles' masterwork. It's like if someone went into Avengers: Endgame knowing nothing about the MCU, therefore is likely to be confused with everything that is going on. They'd probably enjoy Endgame for what it is, but it's just more satisfying if they've seen the prior MCU films. That's essentially what Mank feels like.  You can get plenty of enjoyment from it, but a watch of Citizen Kane is a must if you really want to understand the entire thing.

Mank is a film that might be heading towards the treacherous path of alienating general audiences, but the same time, it doesn't deliver a lot for those who want to see the backstory that led to the creation of an iconic film. While it leaves certain bits of pieces that those who have seen Citizen Kane will certainly catch, it leaves little to the imagination. And that is the main issue: Mank presents many interesting ideas, but does little to go in depth into any of them. It's understandable that the structure of the film replicates Citizen Kane, with the constant going back-and-forth and glimpses into Mank's past, but it feels like we don't learn much about who Herman J. Mankiewicz is. Most importantly, it doesn't really dig into the creation of Citizen Kane itself, on how it came to be; apart from a couple of hints of dialogue discussing possible inspirations for the film's screenplay. While Citizen Kane doesn't go too much detail on who Charles Foster Kane was as a person other than from the perspectives of his former associates, at least it fulfilled its main premise. We wanted to know what Rosebud meant, and in the process, we got to know who Kane was according to the people in his life. Mank, on the other hand, doesn't really know where it wants to go at times, it's as if it is lost in its own world that it forgets that it needs a main story to tell. 

That's not to say that Mank is a bad film. It has the right idea, but it just slightly stumbled and got a little lost in the process. Fincher explores several different things within the main narrative, and many of these things were what inspired the creation of Citizen Kane itself. Whether it be the character of Charles Foster Kane being based on newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst, or the 1934 election that perhaps sparked the storyline of Kane's short-lived Governor campaign; it is still interesting to see how all these things come together. Once you've familiarized yourself with the film to beat all films, it's easy to see what Mank is trying to do and connect the dots together. Then of course, there's the discourse of screenwriting credits. Who really wrote Citizen Kane? Mank doesn't really answer that, rather it implies its support over the Pauline Kael's Raising Kane theory (though this theory has been debunked by some), that Mankiewicz was the one who had written most of the screenplay, while Orson Welles was merely in charge of the directing, which explains why Welles had limited presence in the film, only appearing to remind Mank of his responsibility to finish the screenplay on time. Even to this day, the Welles-Mankiewicz debate still stands. It's a very interesting story on its own, but don't expect this film to dive into that, because it won't.  

Image credit: IMDB

The message that the film presents is quite clear, that Hollywood is very much an image factory, setting a false sense of fantasy ("This is a business where the buyer gets nothing for his money but a memory. What he bought still belongs to the man who sold it. That's the real magic of the movies," one character emphasizes). Through Mank's eyes, Jack Fincher's screenplay showcases the power-hungry side of Hollywood, particularly towards the politics, a machinery where money buys power, and the people in power are openly supportive of Republican figures, so much so that the notion of propaganda films aimed at the opposing figure was created. At its very lightest, sometimes it would poke fun at other film studios ("I don’t make cheap horror pictures, Universal does," as Selznik quips). When Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a love letter to Tinsel Town, Fincher's Mank is quite the opposite. While it pays homage to 1930s Hollywood, it barely holds back on its criticism of how Tinseltown operates. However, it still gives an appreciation towards the craft of old Hollywood itself. The production design is lavish, recreating the classy 1930s era in riveting fashion. Even the look of it is divine, having been stylized to look as if it was a film made in the bygone era, and it isn't just from the black and white look, but also the sound design and the addition of film grains that instantly transports you into that time period. 

However way you look at it, is is clear that this is David Fincher's passion project, especially since he is adapting a screenplay written by his late father, Jack Fincher. Mank is a film built for lovers of film itself. While it may seem like it is a film that occasionally stumbles,   there is still a lot to unpack on several viewings and it's a film you can start to appreciate after multiple watches. Mank won't be a film for everyone, the same way Citizen Kane won't appeal to everyone, no matter how many people have praised it. It's a film that requires your full attention, particularly towards the dialogue. Personally, I really like those kinds of films, so it wasn't a surprise that I liked Mank more than I should. If you're already familiar with Citizen Kane or the history of film during the 1930s, then you'll get enough enjoyment out of it. But to the audience that neither fit in those categories would perhaps find it a little hard to see the point that it is trying to make. If you were to sum up Mank in a dialogue, take the conversation between Mank and Houseman, where Houseman describes Mank's script as, "A hodgepodge of talky episodes, like a collection of fragments that leap around in time like Mexican jumping beans." To which Mank asnwers, "Welcome to my mind, old sock." 

Image credit: IMDB

Overall verdict:  Mank might feel like a bit of a gamble, because there's a chance that a general audience who is unfamiliar with Citizen Kane won't connect to it.  Moreover, even if you have seen Citizen Kane and want to know how the creation of the film came to be, Mank doesn't delve too deep into it. It instead focuses on mere glimpses of stories and figures that became the inspiration for the characters and arcs of Citizen Kane. It isn't a bad thing in it of itself, as Fincher manages to address these plot lines in a cohesive way, but doesn't fully emphasize on how Citizen Kane was actually made, or came to be. Depending on how you see it, this might be either a good thing or a bad thing. For me, it didn't bother me too much, but I did wish that the film would delve in more to the creative process of a film that is considered one of the greats. Despite that, Mank is still able to present its ideas in intriguing fashion, particularly about the politics and mechanics of 1930s Hollywood, whilst also paying homage to the time period. From its stunning cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt, who previously collaborated with Fincher in the brilliant Netflix show Mindhunter (if you haven't seen that show, please do, it is fantastic), to the lively score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, Fincher is able to transport us into this whimsical world of the 1930s. Mank is a welcome addition to David Fincher's already impressive filmography. Though it isn't my personal favorite film of his (The Social Network and Gone Girl still hold those titles), it is still a remarkable entry from Fincher.

Stars: 4/5

You can read my review of Citizen Kane here

Mank is available to watch on Netflix

By Nadia Ranaputri

Image credit: The Film Stage

Director: Orson Welles
Cast: Orson Welles, William Alland, Joseph Cotten, Everett Sloane, Dorothy Comingore, Ruth Warrick, Erskin Sanford, Agnes Moorehead. 

If you look at any list of the best films of all-time, there is no doubt that Citizen Kane is on that list. In fact, it has not only been considered being one of the greatest films of all-time, but the greatest film of all-time. It has been referenced countless times in other films and TV shows, and the techniques that made the film revolutionary at the time became the staple aspects of the films made today. Sometimes is even used to describe other films to the highest degree, like a friend of mine saying that a certain film was "the Citizen Kane of superhero films", or the infamous description of Tommy Wiseau's The Room as being "the Citizen Kane of bad movies". If a film is considered Citizen Kane levels of good (or in The Room's case, bad), then it must be worth seeing, right? Point is, even if you haven't seen Citizen Kane, there's a chance that you might have at least heard of it. But how did it become the icon that it is today? There are many aspects that made Orson Welles' masterpiece into what it is now, from the technical aspects to the storytelling, Citizen Kane is a film that opened the doors to new and exciting ways to present a story, with elements that were uncommon at the time, but inspired many future films to follow in its footsteps. 

Citizen Kane tells the life of Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles), a wealthy businessman in charge of a newspaper company, The Inquirer. On his deathbed, Kane utters his last word: Rosebud. Kane's death becomes a front and center topic of the news, and with it, his last word. This eventually leads to the driving point of the story, with reporter Jerry Thompson (William Alland) being tasked with the case of discovering the meaning behind Kane's last word by interviewing former colleagues, wife, and estranged friend.

There are many things that Citizen Kane juggles, from an ill-fated romance, political pursuits, power dynamics, and living the American Dream. Most of the film is told through flashbacks and through the lens of those who knew him, but not from Kane himself. By the time "News on the March" segment begins, it might have already hinted that much of Kane's life will be told through the viewpoint of an outsider, with each viewpoint being either similar or differ from one another, depending on how you look at it. While we do get a much deeper look through flashbacks, they're simply fragments that shape the outline of his life. Charles Foster Kane was someone that flourished and at the top of his game, yet he is flawed and lonely. We may know his life story, but we don't really get to know who Kane truly was as a person, we only know him from the lens of others. Hence "Rosebud", the word that appeared at the end of his life, and the word that started the basis of the entire film. Despite Kane's success, he was an enigma from the beginning, and remains to be one at the very end.

Image credit: IMDB

On a technical note, Citizen Kane's cinematography is stunning and while the camera angles used in the film has been used in others before it, the film's cinematographer Gregg Toland uses it at the advantage telling the story in a visual way. It utilizes deep focus shots that shows you everything that is happening in the room as characters talk or do something, rather than simply cutting to focus on different aspects of a scene (One Hundred Years of Cinema's take on the film describes this better than I do). Almost every single scene seems meticulously crafted, shaped similarly to that of a stage play. Instead of doing multiple cuts in one scene, the camera roams freely across the screen in continuous takes that allow the audience to move alongside the characters and the setting of the scene itself, like the breakfast scenes between Kane and his first wife that symbolizes a steady decline of their marriage. The camera knows where to place itself where it is most effective in both providing striking cinematography whilst giving the audience a complete picture of everything that is happening during a scene. This is emphasized by the staging of the scene and placement of the characters in each frame. 

Nowadays, it's no longer unusual for films to follow a non-linear structure, but back in the 1940s, it was a new way of storytelling. It doesn't open in the middle nor the start of Kane's life, but rather at the end of his life. The rest of his life story is then carried out by a broadcaster, hence the iconic News on the March section, and later other figures who were integral to Kane. Best of all, it remains captivating from start to finish. You're just as eager to find out about this relatively vague figure of Charles Foster Kane as the characters, and just as eager to know what the heck "Rosebud" actually means. The non-linear structure of the film made it the revolutionary piece of art that was truly ahead of its time, and sets the foreground for new and exciting ways of storytelling, all while still being compelling. Even the editing is worth applauding for, not a single cut felt jarring and made the scenes consistent, never too short, never too long; just enough to give fragments of vital information for the audience. Every scene felt integral to the film, if you took even one scene out, the film would feel incomplete. 

Image credit: BFI

Citizen Kane earns its reputation for being one of the best films of all time. With the limits of film at the time, it's hard to deny that this film could be considered ambitious for its time. It was able to break the standard norms of storytelling and film-making itself. The cinematography, whilst stunning, is also a fine piece of visual storytelling in itself. The closer you look, the more you see the reasoning behind every angle, every character position, the lighting, and even the significance of inanimate objects. And beneath the visuals is an interesting character study told from the perspective of those that knew him. Despite the controversial debate regarding screenwriting credits between Orson Welles and screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, Orson Welles still played a vital part in shaping the film to be the icon that it is today, particularly when you consider the fact that when Welles was only in his 20s when he starred, produced, wrote, and directed Citizen Kane. In the process, it paved the way for modern film-making, inspiring many filmmakers to step out of their comfort zone. Citizen Kane is a film that withstands the test of time, so much so that it is still talked about even more than seven decades later, and it's easy to see exactly why it remains to be timeless masterpiece. 

Stars: 4.8/5  

By Nadia Ranaputri

Image credit: IMDB

Director: Aaron Sorkin
Cast: Eddie Redmayne, Sacha Baron Cohen, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Mark Rylance, Jeremy Strong, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, Frank Langella, Alex Sharp, John Carroll Lynch, Noah Robbins, Daniel Flaherty, Michael Keaton.

Aaron Sorkin is one of my favorite screenwriters in film, and he really is one of the best working today. Some of my all-time favorite films like The Social Network and A Few Good Men, are written by him. If a film has quippy rapid fire dialogues and long continuous dolly shots that span the entire length of a conversation, there's a chance that Sorkin is responsible. It's become such a trademark that it's been parodied in skits by fellow comedians Seth Meyers and Amy Schumer. Basically, you can very easily spot when a film has Sorkin at the helm of the script.  Molly's Game became his first directorial debut, and it is a solid one, so naturally, I was eager to see what he was going to do next. His new film, The Trial of the Chicago 7, feels like it's going back to his roots, a fine mix of his previous projects like The West Wing and A Few Good Men. Not to mention the all-star cast, with strong players like Eddie Redmayne, Mark Rylance, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt; and with Sorkin helming the script and the director's seat, it seems that Sorkin has brought out some powerful cards for this film.

The Trial of the Chicago 7 takes place in the 1968 Democratic National Convention, where protests against the Vietnam War has slowly escalated to great heights, as well as the trials that were held the following year. As the film opens, we first flash forward to the federal trial that took place in 1969. Among the convicted are Tom Hayden (Eddie Redmayne), Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron-Cohen), Jerry Rubin (Jeremy Strong), Bobby Seale (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II), and David Dellinger (John Carroll Lynch). These fellow members are accused of conspiracy, assumed by an Attorney General to be the ones responsible for starting the riots 1968.

The Trial of the Chicago 7 boasts an incredible cast, it is simply not enough to mention just one standout, but Eddie Redmayne clearly takes center stage as Tom Hayden, and he is absolutely riveting. He commands the scene so well, and you become invested in what he has to say. Another that takes center stage is Sacha Baron Cohen as Abbie Hoffman, who not only sheds some comedic relief, but also stuns in the more dramatic scenes. Both Redmayne and Cohen's characters are complete opposite of one another, Tom Hayden is the more serious of the two, while Abbie Hoffman couldn't resist to joke once in a while, even going to the point where he invites Frank Langella's Judge Hoffman to a friendly banter over their shared last names in court. However, both Redmayne and Cohen complete the film, and in the process, compliment each other's opposing performances very well. Then there's the rest of the cast. Yahya Abdul-Mateen II has strong and harrowing moments as Black Panther Party member Bobby Seale. While it leaves you wanting more of him, his limited presence has a lasting mark. Mark Rylance, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Jeremy Strong are also complete the ensemble and bring splendid performances as William Kunstler, Richard Schultz, and Jerry Rubin respectively. 

Image credit: IMDB

The Trial of the Chicago 7 manages to be so compelling and riveting, with no dull moment in sight. That's the thing about Aaron Sorkin's script, they tread between slow and fast paced. The story may progress slowly, but the rapid fire dialogue and editing keeps the audience on their toes. Moreover, each of the members of the Chicago 7 are well-rounded and feel fleshed out, and each get their chance to stand out, particularly Redmayne. When it comes to its political message, Chicago 7 is very direct in conveying what it wants to say. It's downright clear in stating which side is right and which isn't, particularly when it comes to Judge Hoffman (though, as I later learned, in reality, was just as corrupt and biased towards the case as he is in the film). But the thing is, it never strays to the point of being overly preachy, but more like an integral story that, now more than ever, needs to be told. There hasn't been a better time for a movie like this to come into the fray than now. Be it a coincidence or that Sorkin is somehow a psychic, the film feels even more relevant today, especially in a year full of turmoil and injustice. Such example of racial injustice comes in a chilling scene where Yahya Abdul Mateen's Bobby Seale is gagged and shackled in court for speaking out against the court. It shows you right there and then that such injustice isn't far from what is already happening today.

It's also surprisingly funny without taking the audience out of the film. It's not an Aaron Sorkin movie if it doesn't have the clever quippy lines. Who else could come up with such a line like, "it's the Academy awards of protest, it’s an honor just to be nominated”? This is mostly provided by Sacha Baron Cohen's Abbie Hoffman, who is ultimately the film's comedic relief, which makes sense if you have Sacha Baron Cohen in your movie. But Baron Cohen nails the more serious aspects too, when it comes to giving a performance that really packs a punch, he's nailed that too. The humor is just right and knows when to liven up or when it has to turn its attention back to the actual story. Like most Aaron Sorkin films, the humor is subtle, but this film in particular does have moments where the humor is more noticeable than usual. It most certainly doesn't shy away from the tension. The  film treads between dramatic and humorous scene very swiftly, none of the humor takes you out of the film, and the dramatic scenes are still able to pack a punch without feeling forced. On a visual note, the film isn't the most visually flattering, but the script and the film as a whole were enough to get viewers to really pay attention. It does so by inviting tension-filled scenes and powerful performances that bring Sorkin's master dialogues to life.

Is it accurate to the actual events? Yes and no. After looking into the actual case, most of what the movie depicts are true, with few changes here and there. But it's a biopic after all, not every detail is going to be accurate. And Aaron Sorkin, being Aaron Sorkin, will put some kind of spin of his own on the story. Even The Social Network wasn't fully accurate to Mark Zuckerberg's true story (one of the examples being the addition of a fictional character named Erica Albright). Eventually, it is already a common trope in most biopics, where some things are changed from reality to the movie screen. But The Trial of the Chicago 7 does what it can to capture the essence of the story it is based on, and it succeeds in doing so. Does it fall into the cliché territory? Sometimes, yes, but it very rarely does. Is it still great nonetheless? Yes. The thing about The Trial of the Chicago 7 is that it isn't just a great film because of the timing and relevance of the subject matter, but also the effective execution of the story itself. The pacing is cohesive enough to tell an engaging story, rarely feeling too short or overstaying its welcome by adding too much to its runtime. With Molly's Game and now Chicago 7, Sorkin has proven to be just as capable of a director as he is a screenwriter. In the end, The Trial of the Chicago 7 is simply another great film from Sorkin. It came in with the right ideas, and it laid them out perfectly.

Image credit: IMDB

Overall verdict: The Trial of the Chicago 7 is yet another impressive entry from Aaron Sorkin, especially on his second directorial piece. The film boasts an incredible cast, and there are many standout performances that it's hard to pick just one. It's Eddie Redmayne and Sacha Baron-Cohen whose characters take center stage, and both with incredible performances that demand your attention. The rest of the cast in the likes of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Mark Rylance, Jeremy Strong, and Frank Langella; all bring their A-game and complete the cast in stunning fashion. When it comes to the humor, it is definitely more noticeable in Chicago 7 compared to Sorkin's prior projects, a slightly unusual departure from a standard Sorkin script, but a very welcome one, since it rarely ever takes you out of the film. Still, it's able to raise the stakes very well. The timing of Chicago 7 is ever the more relevant, especially in a time of divisiveness. Once it opens, we're immediately tossed into the chaos that ensued and its harrowing aftermath. From there, it tells its story effectively and tells enough to engage us in these characters and the stakes that are held in place. In its two hour runtime, it is able to tell an engaging and powerful story, with tension-filled scenes that will linger with you long after the film ends. Overall, The Trial of the Chicago 7 is a brilliant film with an equally brilliant execution, made all the better by the performances, as well as Sorkin's gripping screenplay and ace direction. It's safe to say that this is one of the best films of the year. 

Stars: 4.4/5

The Trial of the Chicago 7 is available to watch on Netflix

Image source: IMDB

            

Velvet Buzzsaw tells the story of multiple characters, namely of renowned art critic Morf (Jake Gyllenhaal), who just so happens to be at the gallery of rocker turned curator Rhodora (Renne Russo). Morf is both respected and intimidating, with his insights treated as the final word in the success of one's art. Just as Morf is in the midst of exploring Rhodora's gallery, Rhodora's assistant (Zawe Ashton) discovers what seems to be a goldmine when she finds a collection of hidden artworks in her recently deceased neighbor's apartment. Despite the posthumous warning from the artist himself, Rhodora instead sees this as pieces of art worthy for her gallery. Just as the artworks gained attention, deaths related to the artworks begin to surface, prompting both a rise in investigation as well as widespread popularity towards the artworks.

If you're a sucker for aesthetics, Velvet Buzzsaw has you covered. I would be lying if I said that I didn't enjoy the visual aspects of the film. The cinematography is top notch, emphasizing the visual spectacle of the artworks that are showcased. Whatever flaw comes along the way (which there are, and I'll get to them later), it manages to live up to the themes it's presenting. It's satirical, enigmatic, and at times, quirky. It represents aspects that lie in the art itself, after all. Velvet Buzzsaw is satirical in telling the story of what happens when money collides with art, or rather, when money gets in the way of art. That's essentially the first half of the film. The second half is another story, because that is where the bloodshed begins, and it thrillingly delivers in some points, though that is also where its flaws lie. Paintings start to leap from the frame and grab people by the throat, other artworks on display become vulnerable to the touch of an unknown entity. Before you know it, people start dying and others begin to question why any of this is happening. Still, the way it's handled is sometimes satirical, like when the appearance of a corpse beside an artwork is discovered, a character emphasizes more on the fact that it spiked the exhibit's fame even further. The fact that someone had been killed was secondary information; obviously not regarded to be as important as the exhibit's killer rise to popularity.  

Image source: IMDB

The film isn't short on its satirical characters that might as well be the snobs standing in the way of any kind of industry, entertainment specifically: the critics and figures of power that let their critique and greed get in the way of the more genuine and passionate aspect of the industry. There's Gyllenhal's Mof, for example, the obnoxious art critic who's introduced by critiquing nearly every single artwork in a gallery, complaining about the lack of originality as if he'd seen those types of art over and over again. If he does see an interesting one, his first question is the art's price, which leads to another character saying that "it's easier to talk about money than art." The point is, these characters are the unlikeable kind, in a rather cartoonish way. The issue is, however cartoonish they are, they're nothing more than pieces of cardboard that are ready to be sawed and torn into pieces, and no one would really have any sympathy in the aftermath. There isn't any depth given to the characters who aren't meant to be likeable, and it seems that the film intentionally makes us hate these curators and so-called art critics for getting in the way of art; but even then, there's at least supposed to be something interesting about them, right?

Velvet Buzzsaw's pantry of enigmatic characters feel like a gum that runs out of flavor. Interesting and enjoyable at first, but it eventually becomes rather dull. Even the performances of acting powerhouses in the likes of Jake Gyllenhaal and Hereditary's Toni Collette aren't enough to lift the characters off from the ground (they do have some great moments due to their performances, but since the issue lies within the script, it does little to serve their development). Gilroy's previous film, Nightcrawler; somehow had the upper hand on bringing malice and depth. Nightcrawler isn't far off from Velvet Buzzsaw when it comes to unlikeable characters (and an incredibly unlikeable lead), but the difference here is that Nightcrawler made them far more interesting to watch. Here, the characters are just unlikeable, and that's all there is to them. And that is only the surface of the film's main issue. The film chooses to focus on plot than the characters, which isn't a bad thing if it's done well. The issue here is that the plot progresses too fast, and characters do little to nothing to propel the actual story, leading to little or no sympathy and buildup. In all honesty, Velvet Buzzsaw could have been better made as a novel, it may have played a similar vibe to Donna Tart's The Secret History, just with killer artworks and mysterious entities. That would have probably done the characters justice for being unlikeable, but at the same time, some depth that would have made them enticing to watch.  

Perhaps the script, compared to Gilroy's previous and far superior film Nightcrawler; just lacks that extra kick, the depth, and the tension that would have made this film soar. The message is there, but the execution of it makes it too direct, as if the mass killings alone would do the job nicely (it doesn't). It's not just that, but the film's focus is all over the place, choosing to focus on things that eventually have little to do with the story or have any impact in the buildup rather than things that should have been buildups for the film's anticipated horror-themed finale. But of course, that too lacks genuine thrills. It's unfortunate, since it's already such a unique and original concept. It just lacks in the execution of it. Nightcrawler has so much more boisterous vibe to it, something that we are enticed with because the thrill, the connection, and the execution of the story was so well done. I can't say the same for Velvet Buzzsaw. Velvet Buzzsaw may be able to hammer the message down, but if the characters aren't able to gain the audience's sympathy and the horror elements are only there to create a "what the hell" moment rather (shock factor, in other words) than actually having any momentum or actual buildup to it, how are we going to care about the characters, or be invested in the story itself once the axe goes down and the bloodshed starts? 

Image source: IMDB

Stars: 2.6/5