"CATCH YOU FUCKERS AT A BAD TIME?"

Longlegs

LONGLEGS is a new horror movie from writer/director Osgood Perkins (THE BLACKCOAT’S DAUGHTER, I AM THE PRETTY THING THAT LIVES IN THE HOUSE, GRETEL & HANSEL, also played Young Norman Bates in PSYCHO II because he’s Anthony Perkins’ son). If you saw his other movies, or the bizarre, creepy-as-fuck trailers, you probly got the hint that it’s not a normal commercial horror movie, but more in the slow-horror/arthouse/early-Ti-West/stereotype-of-what-A24-releases tradition. Nevertheless it had the best opening weekend ever for distributor Neon, it’s Cage’s first live action film to open above $20 million since GHOST RIDER: SPIRIT OF VENGEANCE twelve years ago, it’s already made a profit and become the highest grossing original horror movie this year.

Set sometime during the Clinton administration, it stars Maika Monroe (THE BLING RING, THE GUEST, IT FOLLOWS, INDEPENDENCE DAY: RESURGENCE, WATCHER) as rookie FBI agent Lee Harker (hmm…) who has such uncanny intuition in the field that they test her for psychic powers and assign her to a decades old case. Families with no connection other than their daughters having the same birthday fall victim to murder-suicides, and on the scene are found coded letters signed “LONGLEGS.” Working closely with supportively pushy, hard drinking superior Agent Carter (Blair Underwood, POSSE, SET IT OFF), Harker quickly cracks the cypher, decodes some of the riddles, finds patterns in the dates of the crimes, and comes up with new insights into the case. But somehow Longlegs seems to already know who she is.

Monroe is great as always, here playing an odd and distant character – I saw someone say she was autistic, but I’m not sure that’s the intent. There’s obviously a parallel to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS in the way she’s trying to prove herself while clearly terrified (her chest heaves uncontrollably in any situation where she takes her gun out), though she doesn’t really display a traditionally tough side like Clarice. I assume this is intentional – other agents are always saying she’s not ready for things.

She lives in a cabin in the woods, and Perkins really captures the terror of isolated places at night as she sits in her lit up home with only darkness outside her windows. One of the most effective scenes is when there’s a loud pounding on her door and we only catch distant glimpses of Longlegs before he leaves one of his letters on her desk. (In my opinion she shouldn’t have kept this incident to herself, but I’m not in the FBI.)

As you’d expect, the great thing about the movie is Cage playing a total freak. Perkins gives him a real aura of mystery, using him sparingly, keeping his face partly obscured or cropped for a while. When we do get a clear look at him it’s not standard Cage face – he looks slightly deformed, but mostly like one of those Mickey Rourke types whose succession of cosmetic surgeries has left him looking tragically unnatural.

Seeing one of our great offbeat movie stars in a role like this I can’t help but be reminded of Ethan Hawke’s turn as The Grabber in THE BLACK PHONE, though I found that to be a much more satisfying period-piece-serial-killer-with-supernatural-elements movie. In both cases they put some of the qualities we love about their acting into a context where it’s very skeezy and off-putting. And there’s a certain similarity to the characters, like the way they talk to children, but obviously Cage goes considerably weirder, and it’s a rare instance of his mega-powers being harnessed to create fear. I also note that he has a bit of a Hitchhiker-from-TEXAS-CHAIN-SAW-MASSACRE giggle.

Weird coincidence(?): Longlegs has a thing that amuses him for some reason where he says “cuckoo!” and does a thing with his hands over his face. This was also true of Father Mort, the hero of THE POPE’S EXORCIST! We may very well have entered the “guys who say ‘cuckoo’” era of horror.

Alicia Witt (URBAN LEGEND) plays Harker’s mom, and actually the most unsettling thing in the movie was seeing an actress I know is the same age as me playing the frumpy weirdo mother of the adult protagonist. Life comes at you fast, as they say. A witness/survivor in a mental facility is played by Kiernan Shipka (Chilling Adventures of Sabrina), but I mistook her for Elsie Fisher.

The movie looks great (cinematographer: Andres Arochi; production designer: Danny Vermette, SWEET VIRGINIA), maintains a powerfully foreboding mood, has a touch of odd humor, some really great scenes and moments. I was very involved for a while. Then it started to feel like maybe it wasn’t going anywhere. Then it turned out it was going somewhere, but not a place I found particularly satisfying.

I had a somewhat similar experience with the only other Perkins joint I’ve seen, THE BLACKCOAT’S DAUGHTER. It’s certainly an unusual movie and I was intrigued for a while. A couple different storylines turn out to be connected in unexpected ways, and it started to feel like it was all coming together, but then I realized I couldn’t really follow how it was coming together, and it lost me. But I know many fans of that one so hopefully they’ll appreciate LONGLEGS more than I did.

There’s meaning here to Perkins – in reading interviews afterwards, I saw how the idea of a mother lying to her daughter relates to his own family history. And you don’t have to pick up on that specifically for it to be meaningful for you. But to me it starts to feel like those Longlegs ciphers – a bunch of symbols that I gotta take the movie’s word for it are saying something. When it lost me it started to seem like just a list of things that are supposed to be creepy: Zodiac ciphers, old home movies, old Polaroids, slide projectors, microfiche of degraded newspaper articles, crime scene photos, ‘70s style credits and typefaces, cryptic Satanic gibberish, singing “Happy Birthday” off key, an adult talking kind of childlike, hoarding, upbeat music played in a scary situation (in this case the theme from The Price Is Right), flashes of psychic visions of wriggling snakes. Most of these remind us of when we were kids and saw scary things about serial killers on the news. When you picture a serial killer, his clothes and hair are from decades ago, right?

It’s a good trick, but it stopped working for me when I started to feel there was nothing behind them. A switch flipped and they transformed from atmospheric details to empty signifiers. The name “Longlegs,” for example, might have significance (see spoiler post-script for theory), but it doesn’t seem like it does. It seems like just a “that sounds like a creepy thing to say” surrounded by a bunch of other ones. When the movie gets around to “oh yeah, but he’s not only the Zodiac, he also leaves spooky dolls” I really switched to arms-folded-skepticism mode.

The reason my brain had time to pick at these things is that LONGLEGS lacks the momentum of a true mystery. It’s just going in a straight line the whole time – he leaves behind his Riddler bullshit, she finds it, circles some things and draws a triangle or some shit, continues in the same direction. She doesn’t go down the wrong path and redirect due to new information, she doesn’t surprise and outsmart him. When she has a hunch it’s correct, when the hunch brings up a question (he must have an accomplice – who is the accomplice?) it will answer it pretty quick.

Eventually it definitively switches from (non-specific spoilers) grim crime investigation procedural to some kind of fairy tale type deal. On paper that sounds like a big swing I might like, but I couldn’t really flow with it. She’s a psychic and there ultimately turns out to be supernatural crap going on here, but for most of the movie they’re trying to ground the weirdness in some amount of verisimilitude. It always feels a little out of its league in that department, because it doesn’t have anything near the scale of a SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, but it’s going for a representation of the real world that will slowly get more and more off the beaten kilter until it ends up in Hell. I like that concept, but to me it makes too much of a leap, too late in the game, to feel natural. And the solution to the mystery is a little too, uh… Goosebumps for my tastes. Oh, that’s what was going on? Huh.

I want to give a specific example of a small thing that piles onto enough other small things to become an issue, but it’s from the end, so this and the next paragraph are the SUPER ENDING SPOILER ZONE. Harker find out that the way Longlegs gets the families to kill themselves involves an accomplice dressed as a nun knocking on their doors and saying, “Congratulations, you won a prize from the church!,” then giving them a huge box that contains a creepy life sized doll. I understand that once they open the box the doll hypnotizes them to do evil devil business or whatever the fuck, but shouldn’t the encounter before that have some vague resemblance to normal human interactions? The movie acts like “you won a prize from the church” is a sensible, everyday thing that makes sense, but I simply do not believe a series of ordinary families would smile and say “Yes, strange lady, enter my home!” without at least a few minutes of confusion and questions.

The thing is, I find Longlegs to be really scary when he’s inexplicable. Then not only do you lose the mystery but the answer to the mystery is he’s a fucking doll maker who leaves magic Satan dolls to hypnotize people. Imagine if at the end of THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE we found out that Leatherface is a dollmaker who leaves magic Satan dolls to hypnotize people. Not as good in my opinion, and not just because it takes away the fear of the unknown. Let’s try SE7EN. At the end we find out who John Doe is, what he’s up to, but what he’s up to is he’s a doll maker who leaves magic Satan dolls to hypnotize people to suffer from the seven deadly sins or whatever. To me, it’s simply not a cool idea. And if I ever watch LONGLEGS again I’ll have the burden of knowing that’s what Longlegs is all about. I don’t see how he could be as scary.

This has been a harsh review, but don’t take it as a complete dismissal of LONGLEGS, which I’m sure many people here will like. It’s certainly more interesting than many low budget serial killer thrillers or religious horror movies, and if I was more fond of reading into vague symbols and puzzles without answers it might be a banger. It’s obviously worth watching for any devotee of Cage. But bring your decoder ring.


P.S.

SPOILER THEORY ABOUT WHY HE CALLS HIMSELF LONGLEGS

So, if I understand this correctly, the reason this guy signs his Zodiac-rip-off-letters “Longlegs” is because he’s trying to get the attention of the person he first encountered as a little girl in 1974, when he said something like “oh no, I have on my longlegs today” and crouched down to talk to her. And he keeps referring to his friend, “the man downstairs.” So the latter suggests that he works for someone in Hell, while the former suggests he’s used to being in a body with much shorter legs.

Do you see what I’m getting at?


Yep. Stealth SPAWN prequel. You see? And in SPAWN that clown even shows up at a child’s birthday party. That’s his whole deal, he’s obsessed with birthdays. He should just admit it to himself, become an openly birthday themed slasher, kill people using candles, a piping bag, a bouncy house, cover the bodies in wrapping paper or make them into piñatas, you know the drill.

Okay, no, it probly doesn’t make sense for him to be the clown from SPAWN. I kinda took it that he was possessed by the Devil himself. If that’s the case then my actual theory is that in his primary form in Hell the Devil is a cute little guy with stubby little legs. And then sometimes he forgets he’s in the Nicolas Cage body until something reminds him and he’s like “ah shit, that’s right, I got on the longlegs.” It’s really too bad the movie is such a hit, because I would’ve loved to see a series of LI’L LONGLEGS movies from Full Moon Video. Obviously they’d pit his dolls against Puppet Master and the Demonic Toys, but Evil Bong is the matchup I’d really look forward to.

This entry was posted on Monday, July 22nd, 2024 at 7:20 am and is filed under Reviews, Horror. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

31 Responses to “Longlegs”

  1. I think “lost me” is a pretty apt phrase for this one, it started out nice enough but ultimately had too many ideas lifted from other, more interesting movies. “Referencing” stuff is fine, but at some point I need to see your work.

    SPOILER

    I thought it was pretty strange that they went to great lengths to say that the dad was the perp in every previous murder, and then she’s from the only family w/o a dad present and they just don’t follow up on that at all

  2. How do you hide spoilers.

    I’ll do you one better. It’s a stealth Phantasm origin story.

  3. Resident Clinton

    July 22nd, 2024 at 8:09 am

    I love it when your reviews are able to spell out my feelings about a film – and this one was spot on. Loved Cage’s performance (all the actors brought their A game) and the cinematography and mood, but I also thought that none of the plot contrivances you highlighted worked. I didn’t even pick up on the flashes of snakes etc as being psychic visions, because I just kept getting annoyed by the “ooh…spooky stuff” vibe. Sure, I had a pretty good time, but sometimes it is just frustrating when you can see how much better a film could have been. I’ve seen most of Oz Perkins’ films, and I think he has the makings of a really good director. Would love to see him handed a solid script to work with (no shade, but maybe one written by or in collaboration with someone else).

    Side note: Read a profile of the director recently and learned that his mom died in one of the planes that hit the twin towers on 9/11. Yikes!

  4. SOME SPOILERS I’M SURE
    Very much agree with this review. I ended up soft-liking the film, but I think they whiffed it at the end. Not to re-litigate, but that’s the same way I felt about MAXXINE. Very good “bones” on this one, but fails to bring it all together and bring it home, but this is not just a matter of running out of gas, it’s a matter of style and creative talent papering over lack of good storytelling. Stylistically, I thought this one was great. I did a pretty deep dive of reading about Perkins, and I think the shortcomings of this film are definitely intrinsic to his instincts/preferences as a filmmaker, and I think they were on display in BLACKCOAT’S daughter as well. I included the rambling results of my resarch on my letterboxd post for this one. Quickly and notably, BLACKCOAT also finds Perkins delivering a bunch of ad hoc, Shyamalan-y “here’s what was going on all along” backstory flashback, and he also uses the device of having Satan literally just call you up on the telephone and tell you he needs you to do something. Kind of endearing in a weird way, but I think this reflects Perkins’s deficits in developing and unfolding good stories in a way that really integrates with the plot.

    Ultimatley, I think there are enough really good things about this film for me to say it’s good, but the ending fails hard even while earning points for strangeness.

  5. Well, that sounds awful. Thanks for sparing me this one, Vern. Not long ago I was a Cage completist, but it turns out his taste is not always compatible with mine when the IRS isn’t breathing down his neck. I’m gonna have to wait for him to buy another pyramid or something before I trust him again.

  6. With everyone praising this movie, I was starting to feel crazy for being disappointed in it, so thank you for a spot-on review.

    To add to the point about the murder mystery investigation: what annoyed me was there was no way Harker or the audience could possibly have figured out the case without the spoiler character dropping in in the third act to explain everything. I’m not a huge mystery fan, but my understanding is that murder mysteries should lay out enough evidence for the characters (and the audience) to reasonably be able to piece it together themselves before the end.

    But there is not a chance is high hell of figuring out how those dolls plug into all of this. The “solution” was piles of bizarre exposition from a previously uninvolved chatacter. The whole time I was just thinking “huh?”

    SPOILERS

    SPOILERS

    SPOILERS

    Obviously I’m just a random guy on the Internet and I’ve never made a movie so take this was you will, but: the story should have used Harker’s mom’s history as a nurse as the key to the mystery. The dolls are, functionally, voodoo dolls, and traditionally those need something of the victim’s to function. Blood, hair, clothing, etc. The mom would have had access to all the children via her day job, and her ability to access medical records would be a sensible way for Longlegs to know the birthdays. They should have dropped the whole church birthday present schtick and had the dolls operate from a distance.

    They key to case would then me realizing all the victims had the same doctor, or all visited a hospital X days before the killings, or whatever. Something the characters could actually reasonably deduce

    SPOILERS

    SPOILERS

    SPOILERS

  7. I think Cage does some really good stuff in this but he’s also ultimately miscast. It starts off creepy and him doing something more restraint and spooky until this moment the car that was full on meme Cage that I started laughing and from then on it was hard to take Longlegs that seriously.

  8. I think I liked this one more than you– I really dug the first 3/4 or so, though the ending fell flat for me as well.

    SPOILERS

    The whole time I was spinning theories in my head as to what might be occurring– Longlegs is using some form of hypnosis, or maybe he’s literally Daddy Longlegs, and the kids born on the 14th are his, and he has some psychic hold over them or whatnot. But instead it was an evil doll delivered by a nun. I know it’s like 1993 or whatever, but forensics couldn’t tell there was someone else in the house? And then I started tripping myself up in plot logic– like, why does she keep Longlegs’s visit to her a secret, why does no one seem concerned that both Harker and her boss’s daughter were born on the 14th, why doesn’t she shoot the doll in the face immediately instead of letting horrors play out in the climax, etc.

    However, I thought Cage was pretty spectacular in his limited role. One of the most uncomfortable film performances I’ve ever seen, simultaneously frightening and comical. And his character seems to me to be in a similar vein as Dracula (and I don’t think it’s just the name Harker connecting these dots). He’s this pale, otherworldly creature with a powerful command over his subjects, who lures in his victims. But also he looks like Eric Stoltz in Mask got way into glam rock and started talking like late period Michael Jackson.

    Also the atmosphere and editing was pretty propulsive for a while there, and I was firmly in the film’s grip. I think it’s meaningful Perkins set this around when he turned 18 and his father died. It’s steeped in childhood memory and how you come to reframe them in a new context you were unaware of at the time. And how you grow up and start seeing your parents as people for the first time, and realize some of the ways they fucked you up.

    But was it me, or was this very darkly lit? Or should the theater just change the projector bulb?

    As for Perkins’ other works, I bounced off BLACKCOAT’S DAUGHTER pretty hard, but I really loved GRETEL & HANSEL. That one had beautiful cinematography and a spooky, hypnotizing atmosphere. And being a fairy tale, the audience may be more willing to accept the fantastical.

  9. SPOILERS
    SPOILERS
    SPOILERS
    SPOILERS
    SPOILERS
    SPOILERS
    SPOILERS

    Perkins is driven by personal trauma themes. BLACKCOAT is about losing your parents. This is about your parents keeping secretes (his dad’s closetedness). This is not my psychoanalysis, Perkins says this in interviews.

    The problem with this is that it does nothing to deliver on the emotional beats of Harker’s relationship with her mom and her mom’s journey. It’s all done in that cheat-y flashback. Her mom goes threw something horrifying and gut-wrenching / Sophie’s Choice-ish, but this film does nothing to show us how all this actually plays out in terms of the mother-daughter relationship. We’re supposed to feel heartbroken about this — it is heartbreaking — but Perkins has no interest in processing the trauma that he’s supposedly processing. Same with BLACKCOAT!

    Gepard is also right.

    One thing I really like is the way the film presents Harker as continuously facing her fear and seeking the truth, including her fears/truth about her own history. The contrast to her mom — her mom gives in to fear and lies and let’s it turn her evil. Lee does the opposite, and the idea of walking right into confrontation with fear is a clear through line. Monroe is awesome here.

    How the fuck is Longlegs hiding in her house for most of her childhood? Creep doll spell magic?

  10. Thanks for the review, Vern! I’ve been waiting for it. Something about the trailer had my spidey sense tingling and I wanted to hear what you had to say about it before going to see it. The things you talk about would definitely bother me, so I’ll be taking a pass on this one.

  11. As someone who has seen almost all Cage movies, I feel like this was the first one where there were entire scenes when I forgot it was THE Nicolas Cage. That’s NEVER happened to me before.
    Of course, there were also scenes where I was like, “He’s doing it! He’s doing the Nic Cage thing!” Playing the hits, if you will.

  12. burningambulance

    July 22nd, 2024 at 11:53 am

    I liked both THE BLACKCOAT’S DAUGHTER and GRETEL & HANSEL – the latter much more than the former – but I have to admit I did not, when watching the second one, think “I am watching An Osgood Perkins Film,” and “the new film from Osgood Perkins” is just not a hook for me in this case. And frankly, the stuff Vern reveals in his review …kinda makes me want to ignore this one, which is unfortunate, because before learning about “how Longlegs does it” I was kinda on board. I like Maika Monroe, and figured I could put up with Cage. (I’ve been reading interviews with him where he talks about how serious he is about his approach to every role, that he’s never just fucking around, and that’s moved him in my estimation from “fuck, I hate this guy’s schtick” to “OK, this is Not For Me, but at least he’s not just jerking off up there.”)

  13. Great review!

    Vern, you really tap into some of the flaws in this that left me liking it but not loving it. Digging the vibe but not the story. Especially the 3rd act exposition dump that went full on supernatural.

    Spoilers!!!!!

    And thank you for bringing up Harker not telling the FBI or anyone else about Longlegs leaving that letter in her cabin where he threatens to killer her mom?? Of everything I have read on this no one has brought it up. And I could not follow the institutionalized victim’s place in the movie and felt that could have been cut all together.

    So did anyone take it that Harker was predestined by supernatural forces beyond her control to meet and be spared by Longlegs (as long as her mother complies with his demands) grow up to be an FBI agent, hunt and catch Longlegs so he could then place her with her mother at the end with her boss’ family? Was it coincidental that she tries to foil Longlegs over arching goals or part of his/Satan’s plan all along?

    I’m a Lynch fan so no clear plot no problem. I’m all about it getting weird and style being the substance. And I will eat up some “vibe” and A24 trauma horror with the best of them but maybe this one has finally left me wanting something different. I left wanting to go watch a Carpenter movie where it may capture paranoia and Reagan and other underlying themes but it’s still a bunch of scientists fighting off and trying to survive a monster.

    Overall I’d say this was a pretty good one time watch with a pretty masterful trailer/ad campaign.

  14. SPOILERS
    SPOILERS
    SPOILERS
    SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS

  15. SPOILERS
    SPOILERS
    SPOILERS
    SPOILERS
    SPOILERS
    SPOILERS

    Oops.

    Kyle, I’m certainly assuming that Longlegs has a plan for Harker, and that he’s successfully executed his plan, John Doe from Se7en style. There’s a part where he tells her that he was happy or excited or whatever when he found out that she was going into law enforcement, and I took that to mean that he felt like that could be good fodder for shenanigans. But where did you get the idea that this was predestined?

    In some of the interviews and things I came across, Perkins seems pretty pleased with himself and how he has “coded” everything, but to me — and I think Vern picks up on this point — that’s kind of alienating, and all of this supposed intricate coding is functionally indistinguishable from just doing random, silly shit and calling it deep. My storytelling failure is actually your obtuseness as a viewer. To which I say: B.S., do not pass go.

    Like you, I like Lynch, but I feel like he is a master of the surreal, and that real is what he’s offering, take it or leave it. For him, it’s really meant to be a mobius strip or ink blot / Jungian acid trip lucid nightmare surreal world. In contrast, for me, LONGLEGS invests too much energy and runtime in telling an actual coherent, straight-ahead story that is too grounded in a non-dream-like, three-dimensional, linear world that just happens to be supernatural…to play the Lynch card. It’s closer to SAW or a second-tier Shyamalan than a Lynch. The problem is not that there are weird, supernatural elements, it’s that they’re underwhelming and silly, making the rest of the film seem dumber. Like, I could do all kinds of mental gymnastics trying to make the metal ball-brained mind control satan dolls be cool, but why should that be my job?

    Another thing I read somewhere, which resonated with me, was that the Longlegs’s actual MO just seemed like dumb, overkill. The doll shows up and does mind control, and all these murders happen pretty quickly. He could’ve just as easily thrown a pipe bomb through the window or had her shoot the family herself.

    This also relates to how poorly Perkins plays out the emotional stakes and tragedy for Harker and her mom. They never bother to actually depict the horror of what happens in one of these familes when the dad starts losing his mind and the family comes apart, and all the terror and horror of that. We only get the quickest, montage burst glimpses of this, which drains it of its horror.

  16. I liked it, but agree with the review and the consensus here. It definitely gets worse as it goes on, and many of the elements are not introduced properly and just don’t mix well at all. Much as I like Cage, it felt like he and the movie were working at cross purposes.
    On the plus side: the film looks beautiful, it’s well-acted and maintains a really superb tone until it goes full nuts; Even if I didn’t like where it ends up, I really appreciate how weird and menacing and idiosyncratic it is.

    About Li’l Longlegs living in the family basement – that part didn’t bother me. My take is that he’d been influencing agent Harker from behind the scenes since she was a child, and that’s one of the reasons she’s such a mess during the movie. He took her on as her little project, and part of her becoming an FBI agent was her way of trying to combat it subconsciously. The doll is dressed as she was when they first met, and it’s established that it can make her enter a sort of fugue state. It’s pretty disturbing, actually… one of the few elements in the home stretch that actually worked.

    I’ll absolutely go to bat for Perkin’s previous two movies, which I love with very few reservations: GRETEL is a goddamn marvel and BLACOAT’s has some of the darkest humour I have even encountered on film. Even I AM THE PRETTY THING… Yeah, it was soporific but included a couple of beautifully calibrated scares that still make me shudder when I think of them… and again, that sense of menace. I’m really rooting for this director. His next one will probably face considerable backlash (I’m surprised this one didn’t earn it, coming after some truly great marketing) but I really want to see what he does with whatever clout this affords him

    Vern, if you haven’t seen LATE NIGHT WITH THE DEVIL, it’s a lot of fun. I suspect you’ll like it a lot more than this.

  17. Skani-thanks for clarifying that part in the movie where Longlegs relays that to Harker. I must have missed it.

    I suppose I questioned possible predestination by Satan or something because all the circumstances between Harker and Longlegs history were just so conveniently and easily laid out from point A to B. I just kept waiting for the other show to drop, another twist so it wasn’t also so pat. I mean she goes to her mom’s and immediately pulls out a photo of Longlegs in her room, says this is the guy and then he is picked up and says his work is now done. For her to just happen to go into the FBI, be psychic, brought on to this cold case, her mom is the person doing his murder bidding, her boss is the next killer dad, etc. And could see that coming from the moon. It’s tough to get around these plot devices and enjoy the movie for his parenting themes and serial killer film subversions. Although I do appreciate Perkins making a serial killer who’s a pathetic piece of shit and not an omnipotent super genius.
    I can dig his underlying intensions (what our parents keep from us and the lengths they go to to protect us) even if I don’t buy the execution.

    I 100% agree with your points contrasting this director and Lynch.
    Very well put.
    Longlegs does have a M Night straight to Shudder feel.

  18. SPOILERS –

    Kyle, I appreciate you indulging my typos, stream of consciousness, and general word salad.

    Yeah, from the beginning, when there’s the whole thing about coming to my birthday party, you know that’s setting up something. Incidentally, I love Monroe’s performance there when she’s with Carter’s daughter. I liked Blair Underwood in this, too, good for him.

    dreadguacamole, I will ultimately go to bat for this movie as like, and I would do the same for BLACKCOAT, but it’s a like-with-reservations. Both films are very cold, and they want you to invest in trauma while only ever really presenting the aftermath of implied trauma that you have to sort of find between the lines until it gets revealed or partially revealed in the late film flashback montage. He pulls this business in both films. For me, this makes it very hard to really invest in some of the characters that should be the most involving — Shipka in BLACKCOAT and then Witt in this. Both of them are sort of morose and vacant. I can’t find an “in” there. It makes it hard to get invested. Except for Remar’s dad character, all the characters in BLACKCOAT are pretty unsympathetic or just inaccessible (aloof, enigmatic). With LONGLEGS, Monroe is so good and quirky and a bona fide heroine, that I’m able to connect to at least her, and I think her journey is pretty badass. So, that aspect is a little better. But with Witt, I feel like her character is deprived of the depth or arc she deserves — just as with BLACKCOAT, **we have to fill in the blanks and imagine how** her doing Longlegs’s dirty work for 20 years or whatever has steadily eaten away at her mind, soul, and relationship with Lee/Monroe, which is the same thing we have to do with Shipka’s character in BLACKCOAT.

    Which is the same thing we have to do with Longlegs living undetected in the basement for half of Lee’s childhood or with understanding all the significance of the dollmaking and doll hypnosis. I do not think everything needs to be spelled out or on the nose. It’s just that what is done should be simpler and more resonant, since you are asking me to give a shit about these characters and their story. The end feeling is a lot of plut or visual clutter and an odd sense that there is both too much (surface stuff, fakeouts, needless backstory) and not enough (insight into seemingly critical emotional arcs, beats, or plot holes).

    That is a long way of saying that, sure, you can tell me that Longlegs or the doll can essentially Jedi-mind trick Lee into like literally not seeing or hearing him for a decade of her time in the house (and later visits), but I don’t think the fugure stuff is sufficiently well-developed to help me visualize it, so, again, I’m left to infer that something like this has happened. A lot of it feels very convenient and half-baked.

    Now that I think about it, that scene where black smoke comes out of Lee’s had after mom shoots the doll version of her does seem pretty Lynch. But again, I feel like this film is trying to retreat into Lynchian enigma (or coding or whatever) more as a crutch to paper over bad plotting. Like that episode of SEINFELD where the NEW YORKER editor is trying to gaslight her into believing the dog cartoon is super-witty just by virtue of the fact that it’s vague and it’s in the NEW YORKER. Sigh, I’m dating myself.

    Again, I thought the atmosphere and stye for both of these films were pretty great, and there are definitely some interesting ideas (more so in BLACKCOAT), but I don’t think Perkins earns the emotional investment, and I feel like the narrative is sloppy and unsatisfying. Probably for me, this is exacerbated by interviews, where he says things like he doesn’t like modern horror, has no interest in religion (he says he’s neither interested nor disinterested in religion, and he neither likes nor dislikes horror — these are both literal quotes). He just likes interesting words and images, and he likes to code his meanings. He also talks about using all these vibes or beats from other films as a sort of sleight of hand to get you hooked in and invested so he can do what he really wants to do. What that is is not entirely clear to me. To his credit though, he got me sucked into thinking, and reading, and rambling about the movie — he got under my skin with this one!

  19. Two things

    1) @Skani, I liked that he said he doesn’t watch modern horror. In general, I think all filmmakers have seen too many movies. Too often, even in good movies, these filmmakers have characters doing “movie things”, and anything that is by chance or happenstance is a “movie thing”, and even the way a camera moves ends up being an “homage”. Visual vocabulary in earlier movies is so diverse (I’m thinking 60’s-70’s) because they were made by people who had only seen a handful of them. I like that this movie follows certain tropes, but it is completely alien in so many small ways.

    2) A lot of people are mentioning Lynch, but the one movie I thought about was actually “Surveillance”, directed by JENNIFER Lynch. That was another law enforcement murder story that inconsistently dipped it’s toe in and out of possibly-supernatural worlds and may or may not have actively made sense. I should give that one a whirl again.

  20. @Skani – I think we pretty much line up on the generals if not the specifics. Personally the whole living as a doll thing resonated with me because it struck me as a really good stand-in for parental abuse. But the script definitely doesn’t do enough work to make it worth engaging with it as an idea.
    And yeah that third act is a mess for any number of reasons. The fact that that until then the film spends its time wrapped up in the investigative cold logic of serial killer movies, making all the craziness cause a huge tonal clash, the fact that most of the revelations weren’t seeded enough in the events preceding it, the plot holes… it really does fall apart.
    I’m less bothered by the lack of emotional connection, but honestly that sort of thing seems to bother me less than most people I know.

    Love the Seinfeld reference, and maybe Perkins is that cynical. But I (would like to) think the guy is legit, and he just failed on this movie.
    I have him slotted away in the same mental nook where I put weird arty 70’s Euro horror. While there’s a lot of modern directors who might reference that (Aster, Eggers, and other Majestyk favorites), I think Perkins is more… sincere is not the right word here – the guy seems to honestly inhabit that mindset as opposed to just using it as one more colour on his palette.
    For that reason Glaive Robber’s comment above about Perkins not watching much modern horror doesn’t feel as pretentious coming from him as other people quoting only classic horror as an influence in their movies. It just feels like he’s stating the obvious.

    I’m happy to write this off as a cool but failed experiment in trying to mix his sensibilities with the serial killer movies of the nineties. I kind of love that we now know what a “commercial” Oz Perkins movie looks like, and that it’s found as much success as it has. Even if it feels unearned.

    The people who cut those trailers should all get a raise – I thought movie marketing was a lost art the first time I saw a trailer for a trailer within the same trailer, so I’m happy to be proven slightly wrong.

  21. GlaiveRobber,
    have not seen SURVEILLANCE. May have to check it out. The thing about him not watching horror is fine, but that combined with him saying he was neither interested nor uninterested in religion and some other things he said, just honestly sounded kind of “above it all” and pretentious as fuck. Also, he said he didn’t enjoy watching HEREDITARY, which for me is like a better-constructed version of the movies he’s trying to make, so, I don’t know. I guess a lot of actors don’t watch their own movies or whatever. The other thing is that I feel like Perkins’s work very much is in the currently in vogue A24 and A24-adjacent house style (slow-burn, emotional family trauma emo horror), so, for someone who does not watch or enjoy contemporary horror, he sure seems to slot right into the fashionable template.

    dreadguacamole,
    based on your comment, I agree we are not far apart. Again, I actually put this film in the win column. The first 60 or 70 minutes are fantastic, and even the stuff that falls apart is interesting or inspiredly bizarre. This is not so much one of the movies I didn’t like that actively pissed me off as it is one of the movies I liked but did not quite love for weird reasons that are difficult for me to articulate in a way that satisfies me, like I can’t quite get a hold of what isn’t quite working for me. I tend not to be as good at praising the parts of films I like, because most of those parts tend to be pretty obvious things that everyone has already said — like all the scenes in the cabin are great, the way frames and shots are set up so you’re just waiting for someone to pop in or scuttle behind her (which, ends up like never actually happening — baller move on Perkins’s part), everything about Monroe’s performance. Shipka’s performance or purpose in the movie seemed to divide people, but I pretty much liked it for it’s menace, plus, it gives a little more in-retrospect depth to the mind control/fugue thing (though I still find that a little undercooked).

    I also think you might be right about Perkins. I guess the open question for me is whether he is still finding his way and on his way toward this peak or if he will just make a career of doing these cold, A24-style “prestige Shyamalan” satanism joints (to adapt a phrase from I believe Dan Prestwich)? I will probably keep watching them either way, at least up to a point. For me, the debate is whether all his filmmaking moves are viewed as some act of secret painstaking intricate deliberate geninus vs. reflecting a sort of shaggy, half-bakedness, where there is style for days and lots of individually interesting ideas that are just mashed up into a lumpy paste. Sometimes I think he views his work as the former, which raises some question about his capacity to make major growth leaps that would improve upon some of these shortcomings (expressed more in my earlier comments or the rambling screed I put on Letterboxd).

    Regarding coldness, to be fair, I’m not altogether opposed to this. SHINING is famously cold, and I love it. HEREDITARY was pretty cold, and I’m a fan. For these films of Perkins, I feel like a bit more warmth is needed for you to really identify with the pain or the loss or the stakes. When you don’t get much of a sense of the prior or alternative version of them that was happy and loved and well-adjusted, you have a bit less of a connection. Although now I kind of want to revisit BLACKCOAT, because I knew there were some scenes with Shipka trying to call her folks that did seem pretty heartbreaking. To borrow another comedy reference, it’s like Perkins gets off on being withholding.

  22. I’m normally generally always down for some good atmospheric serial killer weirdness. I loved SEVEN for years before I realized that without the craftsmanship and atmosphere it was completely ridiculous.

    I’m sure I’ll still see LONGLEGS at some point but this review has cooled my plans somewhat, might be a streamer now.

  23. Fully agree this movie is a half-baked mess, but it got under my skin anyway. Perkins makes some truly idiosyncratic choices and some of the scenes have a real psychic charge. And the lead character is great.

  24. Everyone is making good points and have mostly said what I would want to say. All I really have to add is, I guess at this point I think you shouldn’t make movies about Satan if you’re not religious? I don’t find him a very compelling concept and you should a least be willing to dig into the whole, you know, satan implying god is also real if you’re going to use him as a plot device.

    I thought the funny parts of Longlegs were very good and I think the ideal version of the movie leans more into that

  25. MILD SPOILERS FOR TALK TO ME
    Birch, I had the same reaction. Then again, it’s really only exorcism-oriented movies that make allowance for a similarly identifiable positive spiritual force. Most of the satan-y movies I like (HEREDITARY, NINTH GATE, ROSEMARY’S BABY) generally put on the “where is God?” question, and I guess, in some ways, pondering the question as it pertains to the film world can be interesting (like, is God actually more of a deist God, has God deliberately allowed Satan to reak havoc, like in the Book of Job, etc.) But I agree that the fact that these films trade heavily in Christian symbology and a literal devil raises questions about what the overall worldbuilding/mythology is here. For me, there is a cumulative aspect to this, too. A24 (or A24-esque) satanic type movies have become a small cottage industry, and with Perkins, you could almost believe LONGLEGS and BLACKCOAT exist in a shared universe (Satan is represented and behaves similarly in both). To go all in on a literal satan as your sort of muse/device, somewhat begs for a fuller development of the mythology in my opinion. Otherwise, just do something weirder than that (like SHINING, ANNIHILATION, TAKE SHELTER, EMPTY MAN -type weirdness). I appreciated about TALK TO ME that it was bought into a kind of literal hell, but that it plaid things a little more ambiguously vs. having an explicit satan. The TALK TO ME hell is more compatible with a broader range of world religions or pre-Christian notions of bad afterlife.

  26. Sorry, misspellings abound, and I meant “punt on the whole,” not “put on the whole”

  27. Most of those satan-y movies are very occult-tinged, though, except ROSEMARY’S BABY. NINTH GATE is an initiatic tale (kind of like GRETEL AND HANSEL) and HEREDITARY leans so far into occult demonology that people shouldn’t be reaching for a bible but the Lesser Key of Solomon to get a handle on it; Possibly the only goetic movie I know of.
    The way Perkins uses the devil here and on BLACKCOAT’S, I think it works best as an absolute, unopposed force of evil. It also pays no attention to mythology. Both things that the movies he takes as models do it too.

    To be honest, it’s a slightly more interesting version of the devil than on possession movies or THE DEVIL’S ADVOCATE or whatever, and I agree that he’s not that interesting here either. I fully support the motion to make Perkins get weirder; Give him a Thomas Ligotti collection or something, I think he’d absolutely knock that out of the park.

  28. dreadguacamole – If I’m tracking you correctly, I understand you to be saying that a lot of the satan mythology and symbology goes beyond, like what you’d find in the King James Bible. This makes sense, particularly if you’re thinking about all the embellishments and offshoots of demonology in the Middle Ages and beyond. However, if I’m not mistaken, the concept of Satan is one that is inchoate in Hebrew Bible, gathering mometum in Jewish and pre-Christian apocalyptic literature, and definitely having analogues or influences in other Near Eastern religions (Babylonian, Sumerian). So, I think there is still a sense in which common era occult demonology is ultimately rooted in Near Eastern theism (and Christianity in particular) and comes out of that matrix and that family of worldviews. I am not an expert on occult demonology though (that’s on the schedule right after I cure cancer). Are there popular strands of historical or contemporary occult demonlogy that endorse the notion of an absolute, unopposed force of evil as some kind of ontological ultimate (and that basically reject the exisence of some ultimate opposing and benevolent-ish God)? I am genuinely curious.

  29. Skani – in case it isn’t clear, I am absolutely not an expert on occult or demonology either, just read some of the sources, a whole lot of Frances Yates and a ton of Gnostic literature. Mostly because I’m a huge old nerd who was exposed to Jonathan Crowley’s Aegypt at an early age and as a result finds this sort of thing fascinating (and to prepare Mage: The Awakening games, but shhhh.)

    As far as I know you’re spot on in everything you say above, but that mostly refers to traditional thinkers from within the church, or satanists, who ultimately buy into the same religious teachings.
    I was mostly thinking of NINTH GATE and especially HEREDITARY in the context of renaissance-and-onwards occultists who chose to view the devil as a potential teacher and demons as dangerous – but not necessarily evil – natural spirits that could grant knowledge and mastery over terrestrial forces.

    Gnosticism, (and hermeticism, which has deep gnostic roots) is, I think, behind a lot of this. Most of the gnostic branches were deeply mistrustful of the God of the scriptures, putting him in the role of a dictator of a false kingdom who’s, knowingly or not, keeping humanity imprisoned there. So the devils and whatnot are sometimes cast as potential allies to gain the knowledge needed to break out.
    Case in point: Samael, usually one of the devils most closely associated with the modern take on Lucifer, was said by the Ophites to be an angel that fell to bring enlightenment to people (by cosplaying as a snake and giving Eve the apple). If this sounds a lot like the Prometheus myth, well… gnosticism was born in the middle east during the early years of the church, where Greek mysticism, Christianity and eastern philosophies got tangled up in all sorts of interesting heresies.
    (Apologies if you already knew this.)

    I wasn’t being facetious about HEREDITARY, by the way – Paimon, its big bad, is lifted wholesale from The Lesser Key of Salomon. I almost squealed with glee when that movie ended, which I’m not sure was the reaction they were going for.

    As far as I know there’s no Christian-influenced view that holds that there’s evil without some sort of dualistic balance. I mean, that works great for horror movies, but it sounds pretty bad for your mental health (not to mention boring) as a cosmological model. It’d be like taking up Lovecraftianism. Hmm, That’s a really good question.
    Sounds like something a really deranged fire-and-brimstone preacher might mutter about, or an existentialist so depressed that he forgoes not believing in higher powers. Satanists usually at least try to argue that the devil isn’t that bad, it’s just that you’re a square, maaaaaaaan.

    (And apologies to everyone for hijacking the thread like this, but, well, I think the discussion fits the spirit of the film. I’ll give myself a wedgie on my way out).

  30. Perkins is one of those guys who just seems committed to letting us know how interesting and artistic he is. I’ve seen three of his movies now and they all look great, and start off pretty interestingly, then just sort of turn out to be a bunch of kind of dull waiting around for some bullcrap ending. Gretel and Hansel was a gorgeous looking movie, and who cares about anything that happened in it?

    I totally picked up on what Vern said about the nun bringing a gift…people just smile and say bring it in! What? Cage os great but still doing Cage shtick, if they wanted creepier it would have been better to get someone without his baggage.

    Basically, it was kind of okay for the first half? Then turns out the mom just transformed into a Hail Satan grouple who didn’t seem like she was doing what she had to, why not just blast Longlegs with the shotgun? He said if she didn’t help him she’d kill the daughter so just shoot his ass, clearly she’s capable of doing that. Movie may want to be art but it’s goofy as fuck, people yelling Hail Satan was silly in the 60s and it’s even sillier seeing it in modern movies.

  31. I had avoided reading this review until seeing the movie and I had a very similar response. Cage was good as usual and the movie wasn’t bad but wasn’t for me.

Leave a Reply





XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>