criterionforum.org

Netflix’s Dan Gilroy-Jake Gyllenhaal Film Sets Ensemble.

The director of Nightcrawler and Roman J Israel Esq is currently shooting his next film about "...big money art and mega-collectors who pay a high price when art collides with commerce."

That is one heck of a wonderful title!

I guess the silver globe is suppose to be Koon-esque while the robot seems to really be channeling Jordan Wolfson. I'm curious to see how it approaches art and the art market.

This looks pretty wild to me and it's just another Netflix film I'm excited for. This has been a surprisingly common thing for me lately!

Extremely excited for this.

I got some Nocturnal Animals vibes but more fun, less dreadful.

Caught up to the trailer and wowwwww. This looks like a blast. And coming so soon!

Gyllenhaal needs to start working with this guy exclusively

Seems very spoiler heavy, wish I hadn't watched it to be honest

I agree, I turned it off somewhere between 60-90 seconds in because I felt like it was showing too much. I have the same feeling about the Us trailer, but unfortunately I was stuck seeing that twice in the cinema where I couldn't get away.

It's like that with every trailer nowadays, it seems.

I don't know if it's a superpower or what, but I can see a trailer and totally forget the actual content of it when I walk into the movie proper. Just walk away with a sense of the film's texture and not so much a sense of specific plot points.

mfunk9786 wrote: Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:29 pm I don't know if it's a superpower or what, but I can see a trailer and totally forget the actual content of it when I walk into the movie proper. Just walk away with a sense of the film's texture and not so much a sense of specific plot points.

IN A WORLD...

WHERE TRAILERS SHOWED TOO MUCH...

MFUNK WAS OUR LAST HOPE

I can teach you all my methods like not paying very close attention and having terrible short term memory

I wasn't expecting something this bizarre and outré from Gilroy, which makes it all the more enticing. Gotta agree that the trailer was somewhat spoilerish, though.

[Mixed; unenthusiastic] reviews are trickling in for this now.

Whatever the reviews say, the cast is clearly having a blast and it makes me wish Gilroy would direct an out-and-out camp comedy with Gyllenhaal. The comic elements,

Spoiler

like the kitchen scene—"The admiration I had for your work has COMPLETELY evaporated!"—

however brief and intermittent, worked, if the satire didn't really, and the horror at least isn't trying too hard.

Unfortunately, this was quite the letdown from the trailer. The performances are fun with Gyllenhaal camping it up, and Russo and Colette playing over the top bitchy characters, but it's not really anything we haven't seen before. It follows in the steps of recent "horrible, shallow people working in a horrible, shallow industry" type films like Map to the Stars and Neon Demon and like those films doesn't tell us anything we didn't already suspect. I read a funny comment on Letterboxd which essentially summed it up.

Spoiler

"Final Destination but with art". Though as it seems to kill off anyone who views it, a better comparison would be The Ring

I was prepared, I guess, to be disappointed, but I ended up liking this more I think because I was prepared. The satire is obvious but I still found this quite funny, and laughed very hard a few times

Spoiler

Morf criticising the casket at the funeral.
The scene where Morf dares Joesphina to say they didn't have anything between them, only for her to shoot out a brutal burn, at which her new man is even shocked.
The running joke with Coco's changing employers, the final one being the release of her frustration.
Malkovich as the once hip artist, whose purpose seems to be nothing but comic relief, but I liked his scenes.

There's a lot I liked and thought the horror aspects worked well. The film certainly looks great. But yeah, could have been more. But I will definitely be watching it again sometime soon.

This was dreadful, as dull, pretentious and meandering a film from a talented filmmaker as anything I've seen since David Cronenberg's Cosmopolis or Maps To The Stars. This would have tanked HARD and received an "F" from Cinemascore had it actually played in theaters. Considering how sharp and assured a debut feature Nightcrawler was, I hope this is just a momentary stumbling block for Dan Gilroy. I found it utterly stultifying.

And I didn't even recognize her aside from her name in the credits, but hey, that was Nancy from Stranger Things! Amazing what a pair of glasses will do. Clark Kent was onto something...

I thought it was a little too one note, but MAN was this BEAUTIFUL, and the script was so well paced. I don't think I looked at the time once. Praying Gilroy keeps getting decent budgets to make movies.

This was absolutely terrible.

The brilliantly funny Demi Adejuyigbe said on Letterboxd, "How come this episode of Goosebumps wasn't just 30 minutes like the other ones?" and that is absolutely a spot-on evaluation of the look and tone deployed here. Absolutely flat and clean and super hi-res, Bravo network cinematography and a really poor script that needs about a dozen more rewrites before it would even be workable even with a good director. Regarding the look of this film: take, for instance, a scene shot during the daytime outside of a gallery in New York City, with the skyline in the background. The look of this film is so flat and textureless that despite the fact that it's almost certainly shot on location, it appears as though it's in front of a green screen. Worst though are the absurd scenarios with gentle "jump scares" like one early on with a cat appearing in an apartment that is spooky in the way that a hayride might be spooky during the daytime, startling the character but not the viewer, that feel so much like they're occurring within an Are You Afraid of the Dark? (or Goosebumps, of course) episode, but the only issue that this is a movie that is ostensibly supposed to be about, and for, adults. If you're going to explore that kind of low-stakes silly horror, you've got to bring some sort of a point of view to it instead of playing it totally straight - the trailer for this looked like the sort of thing that De Palma or Argento would have done something compelling with, provided the script had some serious work done.

It's one of my least favorite films in years, keeping in mind that I don't often seek out movies that aren't interesting or acclaimed in some way - but now I am starting to really wonder if Gilroy is even someone whose work is worth keeping up with going forward. I cannot believe that this is the filmmaker who made the excellent Nightcrawler just a few short years ago.

I couldn't believe this was shit by the great Elswit! I skipped Roman Israel, but having rewatched Nightcrawler recently I was less enthusiastic about it than my first watch, but I still enjoyed it. I feel like Gilroy is a decent enough director but nothing new, and this very much confirmed it for me.
I thought it was really stupid, but I enjoyed it in a trashy sort of way. But it is a really stupid film that makes absolutely no sense and isn't very thrilling or funny, but really watchable because of how odd it is to actually watch all these actors try to pull through.
Two points on the cast:
I rather like him but can we not get Malkovich to play every weirdo artistic dude? Didn't he sort of play this in Art School Confidential?
And I found him oddly captivating here, but what the fuck was Gyllenhaal's character? He is introduced as a sharp and merciless super-effeminate homosexual, then turns into a buff straight lover, then turns into a psychotic neurotic loner, all in one film? It's a credit to Jake that I still enjoyed watching him, but seriously WTF?
Also, is anyone else irritated by 4K digital? Haven't seen a shot on film 4K presentation but this really did look like a TV production.

dda1996a wrote: Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:07 pm I couldn't believe this was shit by the great Elswit!

Sometimes typos just work better than what was originally intended