Longlegs (2024)

JULY 14, 2024

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

If you were to scroll down a few posts, you'd see that this was actually my second viewing of Longlegs, but my first review of it. That's because last time I saw it just a few hours after hearing a friend had died suddenly, and what I hoped would be a distraction turned out to... not work like that. So it was interesting watching it "again" tonight, with scenes that I had watched only six weeks ago feel totally new to me, to the point that I even forgot what was going to happen next a few times. It sucks that I was never able to give this movie a totally clean viewing experience, as obviously its surprises didn't work as well this time around even though I was in the right headspace for it now, but I can at least say that this was the first one of Osgood Perkins' movies I enjoyed.

Indeed I just finally got around to watching I Am The Pretty Thing That Lives In The House, his second film and, per the public record, his least loved (of his four, it's the only one with a "rotten" rating). Ordinarily the idea of Ruth Wilson, who I shamelessly swoon over, walking around a house and being in pretty much every frame of a film should be an easy sell for me, but my indifference toward Blackcoat's Daughter and Gretel & Hansel (coupled with it being a Netflix original, which nine times out of ten means it's designed for background viewing at best) had me shrugging it off until now. It was only because I was suffering another bout of insomnia that I decided to give it a chance. To its credit, it took over an hour for it to beat my sleep issues, but by that point I had already realized that it was, well, indeed an Osgood Perkins movie.

Which is to say that he has a strange knack of making a movie feel unsettling without anything actually happening. The long cuts, sound design, and off-kilter performances he gets from his actors all work in tandem to give a nearly unparalleled feeling of dread in his movies, and it's a laudable trait. Unfortunately, at least for me, after a while that feeling wears off, leaving only what is, you know, actually HAPPENING in the movie to sustain it, but in his films so far, there isn't much happening at all. Pretty Thing dove deep into this approach; outside of a few flashbacks to a murdered previous occupant of said house, the most exciting thing in the entire movie is a phone being yanked out of Wilson's hand by some invisible force.

And if you're a fan of his, fear not: Longlegs doesn't exactly do a 180 on this style. It's still pretty slow paced and has lots of scenes of people just sort of sitting there looking at something. But the active serial killer plot, and of course the performance from Nicolas Cage as the title character, gives this movie some juice that his other films lacked. It's like yeah, you still might be a little restless at times, but at least there are exciting payoffs here, something the others mostly lacked (though I admit I should watch Blackcoat's Daughter again; my lone viewing left me so annoyed by the casting "cheat" that I kind of forgot the rest in retrospect).

Of course, a big part of the movie's appeal (and what helped it land a record breaking opening weekend for its distributor) is how cryptic and spoiler-free the marketing has been thus far, so I don't want to get too far into details. I will say for those who haven't even seen a trailer and just want to know the basic plot that it's about a young FBI agent named Harker (Maika Monroe) who has a knack for solving puzzles and making connections that have escaped her fellow agants, and is thus put on the case of Longlegs, a serial killer who is somehow convincing fathers to murder their entire families and then themselves, all without ever setting foot into the home where it happened. How is he doing it?

Well since he's played by Nicolas Cage, one might assume he's just using whatever voodoo magic the actor himself has apparently taken advantage of; it's insane to me to remember that at his '90s peak (the Leaving Las Vegas/Rock/Face-Off era) he was barely into his 30s, when most of his contemporaries were pushing or already in their 40s. And he still looks great at 60! Not HERE, exactly, since his makeup as the character leaves him almost unrecognizable at times, but if you've seen him on any promotional appearances or even in newer movies where he's not altering his appearance (Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent, for example) you'd never guess he was approaching retirement age.

Naturally, eventually you do find out Longlegs' secret, and for me this is where the movie lost me a little. Again I don't want to spoil things, but the explanations and reveals are both handed over along with a bit too much coincidence and what feels like reverse-engineered plotting for my tastes, and I couldn't help but feel a tinge of disappointment at how "small" it was. Then again, since Perkins' other movies left a lot of things ambiguous, I guess a bad explanation is better than none? There are still some questions at the end (vague allusion to a spoiler: for those who have seen it - why does the person behind the other person in that final shot not seem too concerned by what is happening? Are they ______ too?).

This misstep was not enough to derail the movie as a whole, mind you. Just more a "I could have joined the chorus of people saying this movie is amazing" if the ending knocked me flat instead of petering out. Until that point, it worked like gangbusters, with the right amount of slow burn dread and startling moments to satisfy even a well seasoned horror fan. The smash cut to the opening title alone is an all timer scare moment, and there are a few others that work almost just as well. And Cage does his thing a few times, but it actually not only works, but is legit terrifying - if someone makes a meme of any of his louder moments, then they're simply being jerks, as this isn't a "Not the bees!" kind of situation in the slightest. I don't know why people are always quick to knock the actor for dialing it up to 11 when the movie calls for it (he doesn't always; please watch Pig if you haven't already, as well as Dream Scenario - both of which deserved nominations), because even when it's a little weird at least he's DOING SOMETHING, which is far more preferable to the Chris Pratts of the world who show up to play Chris Pratt.

The rest of the cast is also quite good. I was delighted to see Blair Underwood in a meaty theatrical role; he's been a television powerhouse for almost as long as I can remember (my mom loved LA Law, so I watched it too) but I couldn't even remember the last time he was in a "multiplex" movie. According to IMDb it was one of the Madea ones all the way back in 2006, so good on Perkins and his casting team for an inspired choice; he's essentially playing the Scott Glenn role to Monroe's Jodie Foster. And as a charter member of the Urban Legend fan club, I was equally happy to see Alicia Witt as Monroe's mom, even if I probably never would have recognized her if the cast list didn't tell me to look for her. With her long gray hair and frail voice (her character is a reclusive hoarder) there's just no way I would have said "Oh that's Natalie, the world's worst college roommate."

Oh and the credits roll from top to bottom! Off-kilter all the way to the end. Of course Seven did this too, which probably won't help comparisons (though it's definitely far more Lambs-influenced), but still, a weird touch I always appreciate. And the soundtrack is great, with one of the score cues evoking "Dies Irae" (i.e. the main theme in The Shining) and T.Rex songs balancing it out. Plus the creepiest rendition of "Happy Birthday" ever uttered. Speaking of birthdays, the one clue the FBI has (not a spoiler, we learn this almost immediately) is that all of the victims have daughters who were born on the 14th, so I was tickled that the timing worked out for me to get my 2nd but really 1st viewing in on my usual Sunday night trip to the movies, which was indeed the 14th. And my sister's birthday is on a 14th (if you've seen the movie: January 14th, specifically! Gah!), so that added a little to my investment as well.

Now, by now I'm sure you've heard that this is "the scariest movie ever made!" and things like that. Well I'm here to tell you that: this has never done any horror movie any favors, because it's only gonna lead to hardcore fans complaining it isn't scary. And everyone has different metrics for these things; some folks think Annabelle: Creation is a masterpiece of terror whereas I found it damn near interminable. The abstract marketing was great, but pushing those kind of quotes just sets expectations too high. Maybe you WILL find it the scariest movie you've ever seen, maybe you'll find it even less scary than I did. But I can say that it does offer plenty of unsettling moments and scenes (Kiernan Shipka is barely recognizable in a cameo as someone with a connection to Longlegs, and the scene really reminded me of that one survivor interview from Poughkeepsie Tapes), plus a few good jolts. But it's very much a movie you need to be on the same wavelength with, or else you'll just be bored. I may have liked it more than Perkins' previous films, but again, it's not that he's really changing things up. He's just finding a better balance between his brand of peculiar type of "slow burn" and a more conventional thriller.

I was actually surprised to see that the movie got a C+ Cinemascore. While it seems low and would mean absolute death for a big tentpole (even the hated Whedon version of Justice League got a B+), that's actually not much lower than the average horror movie and higher than Immaculate got, and to me that was a more commercial movie. Hell, the original Saw got a C+! Unlike Rotten Tomatoes and the like, I actually put some stock into Cinemascore because it's the reaction of an excited opening night crowd of paying audiences, so even if I disagree, a low score means it's a polarizing, "weird" kind of movie. It outgrossed Perkins' last movie (Gretel) in two days and "overperformed", which means that tracking and all that stuff had it coming in at a certain number, but it actually ended up selling MORE tickets than expected. That only happens when people are recommending it, and that's a good thing for any movie in this day and age, let alone a kooky genre one. So I'm glad people are digging it, is what I'm saying, and I hope Perkins continues to follow his bliss (especially now that he's found a way to tap into the essential BC audience!) as regardless of how I feel about his filmography as a whole, he, like Jordan Peele and Jane Schoenbrun, has a signature stamp that's sadly missing from too many genre filmmakers these days. So here's hoping for more filmmakers like them, and for Perkins to do more like this.

What say you?

Tweet