The hypnotic, amoral spell of 'Longlegs'



2024 has been a good year for horror movies, with cinema-goers flocking to both art house provocations ("The Substance") and franchise reboots ("The First Omen").

But one film in particular stands out — for reasons that should disturb us.

The scary thing about Longlegs isn't so much his affectation or his methods but the sense that he's backed by a supernatural force that remains hidden to us.

Osgood Perkins' "Longlegs" is one of the year's notable success stories, grossing $125 million on less than a $10 million budget. What it lacked in marketing muscle it made up for in massive word-of-mouth excitement — much of it focused on a nearly unrecognizable Nicolas Cage's unhinged performance as the titular agent of evil.

'Se7en' meets 'Silence'

While "Longlegs" is extraordinarily effective, it isn't quite as original as its initial buzz suggested. It is set in the '90s, and much has been said of its obvious borrowings from two movies of that era. It gets its relentlessly gray, dread-soaked atmosphere from "Se7en" and its tense game of cat-and-mouse between a rookie female FBI agent and an enigmatic serial killer from "Silence of the Lambs."

To these familiar components "Longlegs" adds another classic horror trope. Longlegs kills on behalf of a greater, supernatural evil: Satan. And yet here the movie dispenses with the usual Hollywood trappings. There are no exorcisms or grotesque physical transformations — and it is perhaps for this reason that the movie has largely been left out of the discourse surrounding our culture's increasing fascination with the demonic.

"Longlegs" centers around an elaborate series of murders of entire families — each of which happens to include a 9-year-old girl born on the 14th of the month — somehow connected to it's titular character.

Lee Harker (Maika Monroe) is an FBI agent attached to the case who has clairvoyant abilities, an analytical mind, and a childhood connection to the murderer that she doesn't fully understand.

NOTE: As "Longlegs" hit theaters in July and has been available to stream for almost three months, what follows will contain spoilers.

Initially, the police are stumped by the seemingly random killings, but Lee can see through the data and recognize a pattern that is innately satanic. This leads them down a bizarre path where they discover the killer's affection for dolls, his penchant for religious imagery, and his ability to possess people and objects in such a way that they do the bidding of his master.

Hide and seek

The scary thing about Longlegs isn't so much his affectation or his methods but the sense that he's backed by a supernatural force that remains hidden to us. Buried under over-the-top makeup and prosthetics, and playing in an altogether different register from his trademark brand of crazy, Cage seems to make Longlegs deliberately impenetrable.

What little glimpse we get of the inner man comes literally, as he smashes his face against an interrogation table, crushing his nose into a pulp, and praising Satan with his final breath.

This results in the film's curious religious subtext. Lee's mother is depicted as being extremely Christian and constantly asks her daughter if she keeps to her prayers or not. Lee is clearly informed about religious matters, enough to correct others on their factual errors and keep books on religion in her home, but she doesn't seem to be a practicing believer. She has clairvoyant powers, but when asked if she prays, she admits she never has.

Lee pursues the case relentlessly but with pronounced detachment and lack of emotion. Her quarry, meanwhile, is deeply invested in his evil quest.

Longlegs commits his murders by proxy, mesmerizing the family patriarch into a murderous trance, in which he will do the killer's bidding. His is the power of subversion, a creeping ability to possess good people and use them to advance evil, even after the source of that evil is functionally gone.

Controversially, his greatest weapon ends up being Lee’s mother, controlling her to spread his possession powers — completely overpowering her religious soul and puppetizing her in the disguise of a nun.

The story of "Longlegs" ends up being a depressing story of evil's omnipresent ability to spread beyond death and corrupt everything in its sight. The film's darkly ambiguous ending — in which the heroes lose everything while achieving a temporary stalemate at best — questions whether or not goodness can ever hope to defeat evil.

'No Country' for hope?

This bleak outlook very much brings to mind the infamous ending of "No Country for Old Men," where our hero has been killed off-screen before his final climactic dual, the sheriff has given up trying to fight evil, and innocents have been killed for no other reason than that the villain promised to do so.

"No Country for Old Men" leaves us to contemplate the malevolent Anton Chigurh still roaming the world, spreading evil while goodness sits down and surrenders to the reality of cosmic hopelessness and failure. “If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?” says the villain Chigurh (and also Vice President-elect Vance that one time).

But Chigurh is no satanist, he’s a determinist. He has a clear philosophy. Longlegs lacks that interior complexity; he is content to be a bodily conduit for spiritual evil. And that evil is ultimately stopped not by faith but by a bullet and an act of parricide, the betrayal of a daughter crushing her mother’s hollowed-out Christian affectations.

Unlike its close relatives like "The Exorcist" or "The Conjuring," "Longlegs" has no clear moral compass. It's not so much that evil triumphs at the end but that good seems to lack much in the way of conviction or energy. Lee goes through the motions, without seeming to understand why it matters; there's a sense that the evil she's fighting has long ago compromised her from within; that it's only a matter of time before she, too, gives up the fight.

Lee differs from Jodie Foster's Clarice Starling in one crucial respect: She is almost as alien to us as Longlegs is. We don't root for her as we do Starling; instead, we're invited to take a more neutral, almost hypnotic pleasure in Perkins' hopeless vision, as if the movie itself is one of Longlegs' sinister dolls.

To quote blogger Justin Bower, “In Longlegs's world, Satan always answers prayers while God—if he exists—is silently resigned, unable to contest the power of the Devil’s dollmaker.”

By not asking us to identify with the good, "Longlegs" lets us off the hook from pondering our own evil as well. Could that account for its massive popularity? A culture so resigned to its decline that the best it can do is enjoy the ride.

Will new 'Agatha All Along' series reverse Marvel’s downward trend?



Marvel’s surrender to wokeness has all but ruined the franchise. Longtime comic book fans have fled for hills when their favorite MCU characters have been gender-bent, race-bent, or altered to be more socially acceptable.

However, Disney+ will soon debut a new series called “Agatha All Along,” which follows Agatha Harkness, the villain from Marvel Studios’ "WandaVision.”

Could “Agatha” reverse Marvel’s downward spiral?

Lauren Chen, Blaze Media’s cinema critic, discusses the upcoming series.

Disney's NEXT FLOP: 'Agatha' Trailer Breakdownwww.youtube.com

Although the series won’t drop until September, the trailer alone has Lauren fearing that the show will be yet another money pit.

First, she doesn’t think the series will generate enough interest.

“It's not like this was a particularly popular character in the comics and even in ‘WandaVision,’ the show that introduced her,” she says.

Further, according to rumors Lauren is privy to, “the reason they're giving Agatha her own series is not just because she's potentially another girlboss character they can exploit, but also because they are hoping to resurrect Scarlet Witch in the MCU.”

Even the show's producers seem wary about the series, given that it was announced in 2021 but is premiering three years later.

“It definitely seems like the prolonged production period was due, at least in part, to uncertainty on behalf of the show's creators,” says Lauren, adding that the series “has had four different names at different points in time” – names that “had already been announced to the public,” further solidifying the theory that there’s an air of doubt surrounding the show.

MCU fans are also skeptical about the series appearing to be “more horror-centric” than other MCU shows, but Lauren would enjoy a darker series “if Disney could pull it off.”

As for the series’ wokeness meter, rumors have suggested that “they may make Agatha herself gay or at the very least bisexual,” says Lauren, referencing a Bounding into Comics article.

“I think we should expect this show to be completely lockstep in line with the M-She-U as of late,” she predicts. “I personally cannot wait to see how much of a flop [‘Agatha All Along’] ends up being.”

For all its faults, Lauren does see a couple of bright spots for the show.

“It doesn’t look cheap,” she says.

And Aubrey Plaza stars in it, but Lauren doubts that “she's going to be enough to save this series.”

To hear more about “Agatha All Along,” watch the clip above.

Want more from Lauren Chen?

To enjoy more of Lauren’s pro-liberty, pro-logic, and pro-market commentary on social and political issues, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Is Kevin Costner’s 3-hour Western, ‘Horizon,’ worth seeing? Opinions vary



It’s a rare day when a genuinely good movie comes out — one that isn’t saturated with the woke agenda. But according to Jason Whitlock, Kevin Costner’s Western, “Horizon: An American Saga—Chapter 1,” checks all the boxes.

Why Kevin Costner’s ‘Horizon’ Is a Must-Watch for Every American | Ep 732youtu.be

“This will be the first time I just give a full-throated endorsement of a movie. I loved ‘Horizon,’” Jason says, scoring the film 9.5 out of 10, partially because “there was no agenda.”

“I just got to watch the movie, and I didn't feel like anybody was trying to shove any point down my throat,” he tells Kevin Donahue and Shameka Michelle.

Not everyone shares Jason’s enthusiasm, however.

“It was torture for me,” disagrees Shameka, who hates Westerns in general but nonetheless thought it was “well-written.”

She also appreciated that in the movie “the Indians weren't just these peaceful people whose land was taken over” by evil colonizers.

“It was a classic Western movie,” adds Kevin. “It was historically accurate … the setting was amazing,” and it “[showed] the rough, rugged America we no longer know.”

He does, however, acknowledge that “there were a lot of subplots,” which at times could be hard to follow, and that the film “started off pretty violent.”

Overall, he gives the film a “7 out of 10.”

Jason, on the other hand, thinks "Horizon" is nearly above reproach and is shocked anyone has critiques.

“I am the greatest movie critic in the history of movie critics. I want the audience to disregard Shameka and Kevin when I tell you this is a great classic movie,” he says.

To hear more of the trio’s debate, watch the clip above.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

'A Quiet Place: Day One' saves the cat, spares the monsters



I have fond memories of taking two of my children to see "A Quiet Place Part II" in Topsham, Maine, in the summer of 2020. My son pronounced it the "scariest movie he'd ever seen" and reported trying to make as little noise as possible during a bathroom visit right after the credits rolled.

His high estimation of the film may have had to do with his age: he was 6 at the time. In retrospect, a little young, but I can't say I feel very guilty about it. The three "A Quiet Place" installments are resolutely PG-13, the kind of more or less wholesome cinematic roller-coaster ride Steven Spielberg used to excel at.

In our current age of managed decline, watching terrified, demoralized Americans abandon one of our greatest cities isn't much fun.

At that point in his life, my son couldn't have had more than 30 movies to which to compare "A Quiet Place Part II." He hadn't even seen the first one. My then 10-year-old daughter had, and her review of the sequel was a little more mixed. She'd enjoyed it while watching it, but as the thrill of the jump scares faded during the car ride home, she mentioned her disappointment that it really didn't do anything new.

Blunt force

I had to agree. 2018's "A Quiet Place" ended on a note of defiance. Having discovered the enemy's weakness — and a clever method of targeting it — Emily Blunt's Evelyn Abbott seemed poised to become an unsmiling killing machine a la Linda Hamilton in "Terminator 2." Perhaps director/star John Krasinski would follow the example of the "Alien" series and make the first sequel more of an action movie.

Alas, apart from an entertaining prologue — an effective flashback to the day the creatures landed in the Abbott's small town — "A Quiet Place Part II" pretty much stuck to formula, keeping our heroes on the defensive and exploring more scenarios in which characters simply must not make a sound, despite being very, very tempted to do so.

The first movie gave us what is arguably the ultimate such scenario — giving birth (while also having just stepped on a nail). Its follow-up finds nothing so memorable. We do meet other survivors — but mainly for the usual "the biggest monster of all is man" routine that has been more effectively explored in "The Walking Dead," to name one example. It's hardly an improvement on the original's claustrophobic dread. And once again the movie reminds us that we know how to kill these things. But we still don't, at least not at any meaningful scale.

Perhaps this will be addressed by the upcoming "A Quiet Place Part III." In the meantime we have the official prequel, "A Quiet Place: Day One," which my children and I saw at the same movie theater where we enjoyed its predecessor four years ago.

Slice of life

Like fellow horror icons Jason Voorhees and Ghostface, the Death Angels have hit the big time: New York City. Bigger may not be better, but it is louder: An opening intertitle mentions that NYC generally maintains an ambient volume of 90 decibels, about the same level as a human scream.

This factoid is meant to be ominous, but my first thought was: Wouldn't all that noise make it easier to hide? Much of what made "A Quiet Place" so suspenseful was the utter stillness of the countryside, in which the snap of a branch echoed like an explosion. The city does quiet down quite a bit as it empties out, but characters holed up in a Manhattan storefront or apartment simply don't feel as terrifyingly isolated as the Abbotts did in their farmhouse.

Our hero this time is Sam (Lupita Nyong'o), a dying poet living in hospice outside the city. Like many terminally ill movie characters, Sam has a bad attitude about her imminent death; in fact, she's only able to muster affection for her service cat, Frodo. The promise of one last slice of real New York pizza is enough to convince Sam to join her hospice mates on a field trip to Manhattan; we share her horror when it's revealed that this particular outing is to a marionette theater.

Sam's despair deepens as the invasion begins. Whatever's happening, it's serious enough that they'll have to head back to the hospice without getting pizza. Once the monsters show up in earnest, its clear that nobody's going anywhere, at least not by bus.

Nyong'o is a good actress, and she makes us understand how important getting this pizza has become to Sam. There's nothing mannered or cutesy about it; she displays real anguish and barely contained fury when it's denied her. So it's not hard to buy in to Sam's mission. While everyone else is heading downtown to be evacuated via the South Street Seaport, Sam (still with Frodo) is headed to Harlem to the legendary Patsy's Pizzeria.

A real drip

Along the way she runs into Eric (Joseph Quinn), a young and terrified British law student. We first see Eric emerge gasping for air from a flooded subway tunnel. His suit is drenched, of course, and he also turns out to be "wet" in the British sense of the word: weak, ineffectual, without personality. He begs Sam to let him come with her; eventually she relents.

Is this supposed to be one of those "woke" role reversals I keep hearing about? This time we'll have the guy play the helpless girl? But that doesn't make sense; it's not as if anyone likes that kind of character when played by a woman. These otherwise functional, able-bodied adults exist as annoying plot contrivances, dead weight there just to make the protagonist's life harder.

Whoever marketed this movie must have had reservations about how this role reversal would play; on the movie's ugly, photoshopped-looking poster (increasingly common these days), it is Nyong'o who stifles a scream, while Quinn exudes bland determination.

Eric does nearly get them both killed at least once; he also lets her lead the way, while he cringes behind her likes she's a human shield. This is all the more jarring as Nyong'o is not what you'd call a "Mary Sue." She's also very scared; her silent emoting is one of selling points of the movie. So what does she see in this guy?

Eric's uselessness becomes a real problem when we get to his character's real function: He's there to help Sam "learn how to live." He does this with a classic "nice guy" move. While a more survival-oriented alpha would have been too busy planning their escape, Eric takes the time to really listen to Sam's boilerplate backstory; when the time is right, he knows just what to do to cheer her up.

Perhaps I'm being too hard on "A Quiet Place: Day One." My kids enjoyed it. And I did too, to some extent; I've never not been "gotten" by a jump scare, and this movie has some decent ones. But I daresay the filmmakers are overestimating our interest in an "origin story" for these interstellar man-eaters. "A Quiet Place" is fun because it plunges us into the action in media res. Our minds trying to fill in the gaps adds to the terror.

No church in the wild

Variety recently called the "Quiet Place" trilogy "one of horror's most reliable box-office franchises." I for one am sincerely glad for its consistency. It hits that sweet spot for the parent of pre-teens and teens: chills without gore or sex that the whole family can enjoy. I won't complain if they keep cranking them out at this level of quality.

But I doubt I'll bother going on my own. It turns out these monsters just aren't that interesting beyond their central gimmick. The characters in "A Quiet Place: Day One" may be experiencing all this for the first time, but it's our third go-round. After a while, all the shushing makes you feel like you're in a library.

The screenwriting rule that you should endear your character to the audience by having him or her "save the cat" is a cliche by now; I'm not the first one to point out that Sam has a literal "save the cat" moment here.

The problem is that Frodo (well played by two different cats, Schnitzel and Nico) emerges as the most likeable character by far. Even the little Sam and Quinn do say is too much; the completely silent feline is beautiful to watch in a way that the human characters, saddled by the script's hokey therapeutic concerns, just aren't.

At one point Sam and Eric find themselves huddled with other survivors in a beautiful, bombed-out church. But it's just a pleasant way station on their pilgrimage to Sam's own personal holy site: the jazz club where she used to watch her father play piano. Who needs prayers when you can get "closure"?

But what if they did pray? God might give them the courage to persevere — and with it, the obligation to embrace suffering and maybe even to keep fighting. When self-care is your religion, you face no such demands. Resignation and helplessness become virtues, as does comfort. The most noble end we can all hope for is to die "on our own terms."

That's how you end up with assisted suicide. During peak COVID, there was something a little too close to home in the spectacle of Americans huddled together indoors, too scared to make a peep. And in our current age of managed decline, watching terrified, demoralized Americans abandon one of our greatest cities isn't much fun either.

To paraphrase a certain presidential candidate, I like horror movie heroes who don't get killed. Deep down, most of us do. America needs a win; I hereby call for a moratorium on miserabilist blockbusters until morale improves. Haven't we had enough pussyfooting around?

REVIEW: 'Civil War'

For months, word has spread about the new movie Civil War. It's the most incendiary film of our time! Controversial! A president who claims a third term presides over a crumbling America that literally divides into factions and militias aligned either with him or with a rebel alliance led by Texas and California. Such details are meant to remove it from direct parallels to the present political moment so that the movie and the audience can focus on the consequences of such a horrible devolution of American life. Civil War shows it really can happen here!

Nonsense.

The post REVIEW: 'Civil War' appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

‘Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire’ hits the 'sweet spot' in all the WRONG ways



According to Lauren Chen, the new “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” hits the “sweet spot” but not in a good way.

“Here, we have a movie that is just gay enough that Westerners will applaud it for being diverse and inclusive, but it's not so gay that it would potentially be censored in overseas markets,” she says.

The film is the sequel to “Ghostbusters: Afterlife,” which Lauren says “wasn’t amazing” but also “wasn’t terrible.”

“So, going into ‘Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire,’ I guess my expectations were pretty mid,” she says, adding that she doesn’t "think that this film is unwatchable,” but it’s nonetheless “very messy.”

“The writing is all over the place, the structure of the film is very questionable, and I'm sorry, but they have managed to deliver one of the most unlikable female protagonists I have seen in a very long time.”

Without giving spoilers (although Lauren’s review has plenty), the conflict is “cliche” in that the Ghostbusters’ work, which “objectively helps the city,” is halted when the mayor decides it’s “causing too much collateral damage.”

“It’s so formulaic,” sighs Lauren.

Further, one of the main characters – Phoebe, a 15-year-old girl who Lauren says is “very much embracing the angsty teenage archetype” – engages in a “pseudo gay love story” with a ghost.

While their relationship is “not explicitly romantic,” Lauren is “99% sure that the writers behind this movie absolutely intended this to be a romantic storyline.”

At one point, Phoebe even “decides to use some experimental tech to separate her spirit from her body” so that “[she] and Melody can be on the same plane.”

As for the plot, “This movie really is everywhere,” says Lauren, adding that “there are so many characters in this film who are included for seemingly no reason, [as] they don't contribute anything but have a considerable amount of screen time.”

“Removing Paul Rudd,” who plays Mr. Grooberson, “does not change things at all,” and “the same goes with Finn Wolfhard,” who stars in the role of Trevor Spengler.

“It’s almost like in their contracts, [Finn Wolfhard] and Paul Rudd had minimum screen time guarantees that they were trying to meet, even though the writers basically just wanted to tell the pseudo-gay love story,” says Lauren.

Further, “The characters who are from the original 'Ghostbusters' film,” including Dr. Stantz and Zeddemore, could have been given more important roles in the plot, which “would have made the inclusion of their characters feel a lot more substantial.”

“The one character who they really do give a lot of screen time to is Phoebe, and she's the worst character,” laments Lauren. “I cannot overstate how annoying she is in this movie; she is angsty and scowling and awkward the entire film.”

To hear more of Lauren’s review (spoilers included), watch the clip below.


Want more from Lauren Chen?

To enjoy more of Lauren’s pro-liberty, pro-logic, and pro-market commentary on social and political issues, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

REVIEW: 'Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire'

So as you're struggling to stay in the theater, or just stay awake, through the entire—not very long—running time of the new Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire, you might find yourself noticing that Bill Murray only appears in about five minutes of the picture and he seems, well, divorced from the other people in the movie.

The post REVIEW: 'Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire' appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

'Dune: Part Two': Is it worth seeing?



Usually when Lauren Chen reviews a movie, she’s forced to be critical due to the political propaganda and virtue-signaling that’ve come to define modern cinema.

However, “Dune: Part Two” is an outlier in that it’s “a good movie,” says Lauren.

“In fact, this is one of the best-made movies that I have seen in a long time. It is entertaining; it is beautifully made and acted,” she says, adding that the “level of care and dedication and ingenuity and attention to detail” put into the film is “not something that we see a lot from Hollywood” these days.

“In an age where it seems like every month ... Disney is trying to push some new Marvel film down our throats, it is just nice to see a filmmaker like Denis Villeneuve take his time and invest resources into making something as good as it could possibly be.”

The acting impressed her as well.

Timothée Chalamet, who plays the lead role of Paul Atreides, “is very quickly becoming one of my favorite actors,” says Lauren, noting that “in part two, he really is given the material to shine, and he absolutely steps up to the challenge.”

Austin Butler, who plays Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen, also “stood out” in his performance, which was “unsettling in a good way,” Lauren adds.

Florence Pugh, who stars in the more minor role of Princess Irulan, was nonetheless “great” despite not getting much screen time.

The only actors who left Lauren wanting were Chani, played by Zendaya, and Emperor Shaddam IV, played by Christopher Walken.

Zendaya’s acting “didn't leave me breathless,” and Walken just “[didn’t] fit in this movie,” she says.

But overall, the acting and the cast were strong.

That’s not to say the film didn’t have its shortcomings, however.

“There are some pacing issues,” Lauren says, adding that “there is probably too much time spent on Paul kind of chilling in the desert,” which were the “low points” of the film.

While Lauren acknowledges that “Dune” “is actually a book that took place over quite a long period of time,” in the film adaptation, “there was a lot of inconsistency over how much time was passing.”

“For certain scenes, time was almost moving too slowly ... but then in other cases, especially when action was involved, it was like things were moving too fast,” she points out.

Regardless of the movie’s flaws, “if you ask me, 'Is ‘Dune: Part Two’ worth checking out?' I would say the answer is absolutely yes, and I would even say go see it in theaters.”

To hear more of Lauren’s review, watch the clip below.


Want more from Lauren Chen?

To enjoy more of Lauren’s pro-liberty, pro-logic, and pro-market commentary on social and political issues, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

You NEED to See This Movie - (Same Director as 'Sound of Freedom')

You NEED to See This Movie - (Same Director as 'Sound of Freedom')

REVIEW: ‘Maestro’

Leonard Bernstein may have been the greatest American cultural creation of the 20th century. I don’t mean that he was the greatest creator of culture, because he was not—for while he certainly composed wonderful show tunes, he was also the author of operas, masses, oratorios, and symphonies generally considered mediocre even at the height of his fame. As an orchestra conductor, he remains esteemed for his championing of Gustav Mahler but not all that much else.

The post REVIEW: ‘Maestro’ appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.