One would be remiss to ignore the pervasive presence of evil in humanity. The digital age bombards us with stark reminders of malevolence through social media feeds and news coverage, while many also confront the harsh realities of cruelty and violence in their own lives. Within this context, the serial killer genre in film and media emerges as a curious phenomenon. These stories take the grim realities of human cruelty and transform them into fictional narratives, aiming to capture and explore the nature of evil. Oftentimes these portrayals are hauntingly effective, drawing us into the darkest corners of the human psyche; other times, they provoke questions about our fascination with such macabre subjects and whether these stories offer anything more than mere spectacle.
This conundrum lies at the center of Osgood Perkins’s latest horror film Longlegs (2024), where depictions of the human capacity for evil are plentiful. The film follows Lee Harker, a painfully anti-social FBI agent whose strange sense of psychic intuition lands her a role in solving the unresolved case of a local serial killer known as Longlegs. Although the presence of Longlegs at any of these brutal killings cannot be proven, mysterious letters reminiscent of the ones in David Fincher’sZodiac are left as a sort of signature at each scene. Longlegs is known to conduct each murder in a systematic way, where the father of a family is seemingly coerced or convinced into killing his own. Through the investigation of each murder case, Harker uncovers a rather personal connection to Longlegs himself and is forced to race against time in order to stop him from taking more victims.
There is an overarching tension that suffocates the film, partly due to its stellarly ambiguous marketing campaign. For the months leading up to Longlegs’ release, potential fans were teased with neck down depictions of Nicolas Cage in his role as the deranged killer. There were even teasers for the film that featured the recorded heartbeat of actress Maika Monroe as she first laid eyes on Cage’s unrecognizable bodily transformation, which only added to the speculation that this film would be regarded as one of the most frightening of the year. Perkins is indeed successful in transferring this sort of tension from the marketing to the screen, as we don’t truly get a look at the unnerving presentation of Cage’s character until further into the film than may be expected. This careful withholding of Longlegs’ true visage creates a poetic form of dread towards the fear of the unknown. It is this fear, the darkened void where the mind fills in the blanks with its own terrors, that often holds a more profound menace than what is eventually revealed. The anticipation builds like a slow-burning fuse, and though the film’s later scenes deliver genuine shocks, they are tempered by the eerie suspense that preceded them. The true horror lies not in the face we eventually see, but in the shadows of our imagination where the most sinister fears are born.
That is not to say that both Maika Monroe and Nicolas Cage’s respective performances are unsuccessful in living up to the expectations set in anticipation of the film’s release, as both actors deliver truly career-defining work. In fact, in an alternate universe where The Academy Awards have not completely outlawed (in theory not in actuality) the inclusion of the horror genre, Monroe would certainly be in the running for her first Best Actress nomination. Her performance is as awkward as it is intriguing, where she is able to keep the audience’s attention even when placed in a scene with one of the most visually disturbing depictions of a villain in recent cinematic history. Nicolas Cage’s performance as Longlegs takes on an almost otherworldly intensity, creating a portrayal so deeply unsettling that it leaves a lasting impression long after the film concludes. His physical transformation into his ghostly character is so profound that he becomes nearly unrecognizable, and at times even becomes quite comedic in the pathetic characterization of him. This willingness of Cage to lean into the rather “silly” aspects of his character may remove some audience members from the drowning sense of fear the film intends to create, but it certainly does not take away from the terrifying depth and intensity he brings to the role.
Advertisement
A sense of cold emptiness is quickly established in the visual language of the film, hearkening back to Perkins’ 2015 winter-toned film The Blackcoat’s Daughter. Wide shots of rather bland rural settings become menacing in their details, as devilish shadow figures appear at the very edge of frames in such a quiet manner that many audience members may miss them. The film opens with perhaps its most stunning composition, a 4:3 shot of Lee’s childhood home that feels like something pulled straight out of her family’s home video collection. Cinematographer Andres Arochi skilfully shifts between aspect ratios to denote flashbacks, enhancing the storytelling and drawing us deeper into the haunting memories and psychological depths of the characters. Arochi’s work is a huge asset to the film’s intention of unnerving as many people as possible and ultimately creates an aesthetic that fits perfectly into the large cinematic world of Osgood Perkins.
Obvious comparisons to classic serial killer horror films like Jonathon Demme’s The Silence of the Lambs and David Fincher’s Se7en are valid up until the film’s final act. It is, unfortunately, in this act where the film loses its chance to reach the iconic status of its inspirations. Although the ending seeks to reveal profound themes, it ultimately leaves us with unanswered questions and a lingering sense of dissatisfaction.
Despite its occasional missteps and series of unresolved narrative threads, Longlegs emerges as Osgood Perkins’ most audacious vision; a haunting exploration of fear and darkness. The film, in its best moments, crafts an experience that lingers in the shadows of the mind. Perkins’ work suggests that the true face of darkness is not a distant nightmare but an omnipresent force, a reminder that the horrors we seek in fiction are often reflections of the fears we harbor in reality. In its evocative imagery and unsettling narrative, Longlegs both frightens and enlightens.
Score: 19/24
⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 3 out of 5.
Recommended for you: 10 Times Nicolas Cage Went “Full Cage”
Advertisement
Written by Jake Fittipaldi
You can support Jake Fittipaldi in the following places:
GLADIATOR II is Director Ridley Scott’s long-awaited return to Ancient Rome. General Maximus and Lucilla’s son, Lucius, returns to Rome as a gladiator. He’s intent on exacting revenge against the Roman general who killed his wife in a battle in another land. However, the general is now married to his mother and is involved in a plot to overthrow the evil twin emperors now ruling Rome.
GLADIATOR II is an exciting, spectacular, sometimes inspiring adventure. It has some great dramatic twists that propel the movie’s message promoting liberty over tyranny. In the end, the hero rallies the people against the tyranny of the two emperors. The movie also has a Christian character who heals the wounds of the gladiators. He makes a reference to forgiveness and salvation in one scene. However, the movie has lots of strong action violence, including some very bloody scenes. GLADIATOR II is more historical fiction than historical drama. It’s not historically accurate. Also, a male character makes a lewd joke about sometimes having homosexual relations. Finally, there are references to Roman pagan beliefs. So, MOVIEGUIDE® advises extreme caution.
(BB, PP, ACAC, C, Pa, FR, Ho, L, VVV, S, N, A, M):
Dominant Worldview and Other Worldview Content/Elements:
Strong moral worldview supports liberty and general republican virtues against imperial tyranny, plus a Christian character is a former gladiator who has become a physician who binds up the gladiators’ wounds and befriends the hero and speaks about forgiveness and salvation in one scene, with some Roman paganism/hedonism and hero has dreams of his recently dead wife getting on the boat with the ferryman to the afterlife, and the evil twin Roman emperors dress effeminately, and another villain jokes about having been with men as well as women in one scene;
Advertisement
Foul Language:
Two “d” words (one is old-fashioned);
Violence:
Some very strong such as a bloody beheading in the arena, and lots of strong violence such as lots of sword fighting, gladiators fight off a bunch of vicious baboons, Roman armada storms a walled city with lots of war violence, woman shot with an arrow and plunges off wall onto sandy and rocky beach, many people hit with arrows, gladiators fight off another gladiator riding a large charging rhinoceros, gladiators fight a sea battle in the Coliseum, bloody murder, etc.;
Sex:
Advertisement
No sex scenes, but the evil twin Roman emperors dress effeminately, and another villain jokes about having been with men as well as women in one scene (these things seem to reflect the decadence that was Ancient Rome), and two scenes of marital couples kissing;
Nudity:
Some upper male nudity images in battle scenes and gladiator scenes;
Alcohol Use:
Some wine drinking;
Advertisement
Smoking and/or Drug Use and Abuse:
No smoking or drugs; and,
Miscellaneous Immorality:
Revenge but it’s overcome by forgiveness and sacrifice, gambling on gladiator battles.
GLADIATOR II is Director Ridley Scott’s long-awaited return to Ancient Rome, in a story about General Maximus and Lucilla’s son, Lucius, returning to Rome as a gladiator, intent on exacting revenge against the Roman general who killed his wife in a battle in another land. GLADIATOR II is an exciting, spectacular, sometimes inspiring adventure with some great dramatic twists and a message promoting a libertarian republic over tyranny, but it has some very strong violence and doesn’t strive for total historical accuracy, so extreme caution is advised.
Advertisement
The movie opens with Lucius as a young, high-ranking, married soldier in the North African kingdom of Numidia, the Roman Province which later became the home of St. Augustine. A Roman general named Acasius leads a Roman armada against the capitol city on the shore. The city is no match for the Romans. They soon overrun the city and take Lucius prisoner after Acasius orders an archer during the battle to shoot his wife who was firing arrows from atop the city’s walls.
Lucius is turned into a gladiator, who’s bought by a former gladiator named Macrinus. Macrinus is a clever man who’s ingratiated himself with the Roman elite, including the twin emperors, Geta and Caracalla. Macrinus takes Lucius to fight in the Coliseum in Rome.
Lucius swears revenge against Acasius. He’s determined to find a way to kill the man who killed his wife. His mother, Lucilla, as the daughter of a respected former emperor, is still part of Roman royalty and watches the gladiator battles from the royal box. She recognizes the mannerisms of his father in Lucius, who’s going by his adopted Numidian name. Years ago, Lucilla had sent her son away, to hide him from people in Rome who would like to kill the son of General Maximus, who’s in the line to become Emperor. Now, however, Lucilla also happens to be the wife of General Acacius, the man who Lucius wants to kill.
Lucilla meets secretly with her son. However, Lucius is angry she abandoned him and sent him away. So, he refuses to acknowledge her.
Meanwhile, her husband, General Acacius, is sick of the ruthless war mongering of the twin emperors. He’s actually consorting with other dissidents, who are intent on overthrowing the twin emperors. Lucilla and her friend, Senator Gracchus, secretly support the General’s rebellion.
Advertisement
These conflicts eventually come to a head, leading to an exciting finish.
GLADIATOR II is an exciting, spectacular, sometimes inspiring adventure. It has some great dramatic twists that propel the movie’s message promoting liberty over tyranny. In the end, the hero rallies the people against the tyranny of the two emperors.
That said, some may feel that the intensity of the first movie, which centered on the conflict between Russell Crowe’s heroic general and Joaquin Phoenix’s ruthless Emperor, is lacking. The sequel transfers that intensity to Paul Mescal as the young hero, Pedro Pascal as the General, and Denzel Washington as the ambitious and devious businessman.
Some of GLADIATOR II is historically accurate. However, the movie condenses the history of the twin emperors, including the dates of their deaths, which happened years apart. Also, Lucilla actually died in 182 AD, well before the timeframe of this movie. So, GLADIATOR II is more historical fiction than historical drama.
GLADIATOR II has lots of strong action violence involving battles between armies and gladiators. For example, there’s the big battle in the beginning and gladiator contests involving vicious baboons, a gladiator riding a large rhinoceros, and gladiators on two ships engaged in a sea battle inside the Coliseum. Some of the violence is very strong and bloody, and some of it is tragic when favorite characters die.
Advertisement
Finally, one character in the movie makes a lewd joke about having intimate relations with women and occasionally a man.
Satya Dev’s upcoming heist drama, Zebra, is set for a grand release tomorrow, with the actor expressing high hopes for its success. Kannada star Daali Dhananjaya plays a pivotal role alongside Satya Dev.
Advertisement
To build anticipation, the makers recently released a sneak peek and hosted a special show for a select audience. The latest update reveals that the film’s runtime has been set at 164 minutes (2 hours and 44 minutes), which may feel a bit lengthy for a heist thriller. It remains to be seen how well the film engages its audience.
The movie also stars Priya Bhavani Shankar, Sathyaraj, Amrutha Iyengar, and others. Produced by OldTown Production and Padmaja Films Private Limited, the film’s music is composed by Ravi Basrur, known for his work on KGF.
Directed by Amber Sealey. Starring Phoebe-Rae Taylor, Jennifer Aniston, Rosemarie DeWitt, Luke Kirby, Judith Light, Emily Mitchell, Michael Chernus, Courtney Taylor, Catherine McNally, Kate Moyer, Maria Nash, Jeff Roop, Sharron Matthews, Kim Huffman, Ian Ho, Gabriela Francis, Gavin MacIver-Wright, Maya Lee O’Connor, Nicholas Fry, Miley Haik, Lauren Plech, Nylan Parthipan, Pip McCallan, Isaak Bailey, Christian Rose, Cristiano Buchanan, Anabelle Dietl, and Mia Burke.
SYNOPSIS:
Melody Brooks is navigating sixth grade as a nonverbal wheelchair user who has cerebral palsy. With the help of some assistive technology and her devoted allies, Melody shows that what she has to say is more important than how she says it.
Advertisement
Born with cerebral palsy, Melody Brooks (played by Phoebe-Rae Taylor, also born with that condition and unquestionably a significant key to the authenticity on display) is a nonverbal wheelchair user. She is also knowledgeable with ambitions and has a lot to say, but she is limited to communicating through a board attached to her wheelchair tray (a slight, realistic touch that most films about disability seem to ignore the existence of for some inexplicable reason) containing a chart of basic sentences, thoughts, feelings, and moods for simple expression.
Directed by Amber Sealey (from a screenplay by Daniel Stiepleman and based on the novel by Sharon M. Draper), Out of My Mind mainly works because it understands that giving Melody a Medi-Speak device (an electronic tool that reads off whatever is prompted, while also coming with preprogrammed basic phrases and sentences, read aloud in the usual generic computerized voices) won’t entirely solve the problem if everyone from the school faculty to her friends and immediate family vary in their struggles to listen to those words. The issues raised stem from society and the education system, not the disability itself. That’s not to say electronic voice communicators are useless. A voice is a voice, and her father Chuck’s (Luke Kirby) reaction to hearing her daughter “speak” for the first time in which he lets the waterworks flow is a heartstrings-pulling moment that doesn’t ring false.
However, even he sometimes misses the point and gets so caught up discussing what’s best for Melody with his wife, Diane (Rosemarie DeWitt), that they both end up ignoring her in the heat of the moment. He does happen to be the more forward-minded of the parents, as fearless as his daughter is about enrolling into a standard 6th-grade class rather than overachieving in special education. If expectations are already met, why not raise the bar? That alone feels like a mantra most disabled people already live by, consistently feeling the need to prove themselves to able-bodied people who can’t even be bothered to learn that they don’t have to talk to someone in a wheelchair with an awkwardly kind, pitiful tone. Nevertheless, Diane is the helicopter parent raising justifiable concerns over ostracism and bullying.
As for the speaking device, what Melody chooses to say first is equally moving, as it encapsulates and sums up the frustrations and misunderstandings she has felt, even from her family, her whole life. It’s also important to point out that the film isn’t vilifying the parents; caring for a disabled child is tricky, will wear anyone down, and inadvertently cause those miscommunications, or lack thereof. Despite one or two powerful scenes of them standing up for Melody, whether it be from an ablest school system (including a teacher played by Michael Chernus who is technically qualified at the job but is immensely punchable when it comes to his ableism and treating Melody’s classroom presence as a distraction and nuisance), the film primarily sticks with her perspective, sprinkling in some inner thoughts using the voice of Jennifer Aniston.
It’s a device used sparingly, thankfully not overdone. As for why Jennifer Aniston, Melody loves watching Friends, but one is eager to know if that’s also a choice from the book or one encouraged by Phoebe-Rae Taylor. From little details such as classroom desks placed too close together for wheelchairs to fit through the aisles, classmates feeling an awkward pressure of losing “cool” status if they are caught giving friendship a chance with Melody, and grossed-out glances her way as eating messier foods becomes, well, messy to her face, the film understands the pitfalls of public and social disabled life. Again, maybe that’s already in the novel or screenplay, but it can’t be overstated enough that when filmmakers cast disabled actors, it comes with extra layers of authenticity and insight.
Advertisement
Remember that this is still a Disney+ production, so the material has a sanitized, sentimental feel while broadly playing every narrative beat. Once a nationwide quiz competition comes into play, the narrative’s focus shifts there, perhaps too much, even if it still explores Melody’s othering by some of her peers and that enraging teacher. Bluntly put, it all becomes too plot-focused and even contrived. Feel-good songs also repeatedly pop up to remind viewers that the material will never get too challenging. However, a film is sometimes so well-meaning and educationally beneficial that such saccharine material is worth overlooking. Out of My Mind offsets that with a huge heart and a dignified, optimistic, touching performance from Phoebe-Rae Taylor.
Robert Kojder is a member of the Chicago Film Critics Association and the Critics Choice Association. He is also the Flickering Myth Reviews Editor. Check here for new reviews, follow my Twitter or Letterboxd, or email me at MetalGearSolid719@gmail.com
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25739950/247386_Elon_Musk_Open_AI_CVirginia.jpg "Inside Elon Musk’s messy breakup with OpenAI")