New Movie Reviews (07.16.24)

Outside of The First Omen, I have felt completely out of touch with the acclaim of certain horror titles as of late. Here are reviews of Longlegs, Maxxxine and In a Violent Nature.

SPOILER ALERT - especially for Longlegs.

In a Violent Nature (dir. Chris Nash)

In A Violent Nature played the Chicago Critics Film Festival earlier this year and when it was described to me as slow, that didn’t bother me too much. Gus Van Sant’s Gerry as a slasher film? Sign me up! After sitting through all seven hours of Bela Tarr’s Satantango, I don’t mind slow, patient stories as long as it leads to something meaningful and worthwhile.

There is little to no plot here outside of a murderer/zombie rises out of his grave one day in a remote cabin in the woods because somebody took his locket. Possibly the locket that caused his demise in the supernatural sense, so if it’s no longer there, he can’t be at peace. So out he goes on a quest killing anyone in his path in hopes of retrieving his prized possession. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out and about, camping in the woods and sadly they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The film played as a late show at the critics’ festival and I’m getting old to where staying up late is next to impossible for me. So, I skipped the screening then only to wake up the next day to hear about how someone vomited or fainted during the screening thanks to social media posts. I remember thinking to myself, and the thought crosses my mind quite often, why am I still using social media? All it does is create preconceptions and hype that is rarely lived up to. As is the case for this uninvolving, silly slog that contains one memorable kill and little else. To me, it almost felt like a prank on the audience which never sits well with me unless you’re Tom Green.

I was later told on Discord that this was essentially a comedy with a wicked sense of humor at the core. I didn’t get the joke. (No, I’m not much fun at parties either in case a Letterboxd commenter pops on and thinks that). Perhaps there’s been a disconnect with how I perceive humor since this is not the first time it’s happened. When Todd Haynes’ May/December was described to me as a dark comedy along the lines of Heathers, I didn’t find much to laugh at there even though that's not in the horror genre.

It led to an existential feeling of terror that maybe my sense of humor is slipping away with age. Almost like memory loss, was I starting to experience humor loss? Horror can be funny after all. Even movies about toxic behavior along the lines of Todd Solondz’ Happiness can also be funny too.

Here’s the odd thing about In a Violent Nature and Longlegs. It’s not that I didn’t laugh, it’s that I was bored to tears watching them. I wasn’t scared and to me, I mostly felt like I was watching something I had seen before. I sat there hoping for a payoff, something meaningful, something that would shock me. I didn’t get it and, in both cases, I got quite the opposite. Lately, it’s been a maddening experience to sit through a film that feels like a waste of time, effort, energy, especially when most of the film world declares otherwise.

There's an amazing moment in Christopher Guest's underrated comedy gem, The Big Picture, when Jennifer Jason Leigh's character talks about how she wanted to make a documentary film about shopping carts in grocery store parking lots. She decided not to, because she ultimately thought it would be, "so fucking... BORING!" Well, I was so fucking bored with this and thought, "why was this even made?" In A Violent Nature is a terrible movie about a terrible person killing terrible people. The end. An experiment, an exercise, a prank? Who cares when there’s nothing to latch onto.

I'd much rather see that shopping cart doc than sit through a slow slog like this where it's essentially like, "What if we made a movie like Alan Clarke's Elephant only instead of people getting shot, it's a slasher movie in the woods?" Perhaps there's artistry and merit to an experience like this but outside of a couple of kills (one in particular), what is so original about the way this is um... executed? The killer's POV? The slow pace? The sound of footsteps crunching leaves? Not to mention the last act which adds nothing to everything that came before it.  How about the fact that it’s not scary, has zero tension and came off as a formalist exercise that has graceful camerawork but to serve what purpose by the end? 

To me, this just came across as an experiment that decides to have us side with the spirit/killer in his quest, but it ultimately ends up empty and lifeless. Not scary, not shocking (again I'll give credit where credit's due, there's that one kill that I went okay, that was unexpected but certainly not vomit-inducing). It almost felt like it existed as a provocation - “what if we made a slasher movie from the point-of-view of the killer and have it been really slow?” Then even that idea goes out the window in the last act to where it lost me even more so. Only the very final scene sparks any kind of suspense in how things will play out.

Perhaps I'm just getting bored and old so I'm willing to say this is a "me" problem. There just has to be a point to these stories. Many others will embrace what I am dismissing in these reviews, and they already have. For me, I’m just a bit tired of cinema being elevated to something it’s not: original, daring, shocking. (OK, one of the kills is definitely inventive and unexpected to say the least - hence why I can't completely write this off either).

I was indifferent and found the approach to the kills in Violent Nature a bit tiresome and repetitive. Sure, it's fun to think up things like what if someone made a snail's pace of a slasher where we follow the killer? That doesn't mean it'll be entertaining or interesting. Clearly many others disagree with my feelings here so I'm almost saying, "see it if you're a horror fan anyway," but this just felt like 90 minutes of a filmmaker going, "hey you know what would be cool...?" Somehow, it's not at all. It’s just plain dull.

Longlegs (dir. Oz Perkins)

No denying the fact that the latest from Perkins was one of my most anticipated films of the year, having loved all three of his previous works. But once again, something happened. I was actually angry when this film ended.

I vividly remember watching one of the Elm Street movies down in the basement of my childhood home and my dad glancing past, pausing to see Freddy stab a victim with a bunch of hypodermic needles. “Yeah, I don’t think horror movies are for me, son,” he said, walking away. 

At the time, it was one of the earliest memories of me thinking my dad was perhaps uncool for not getting into gore and ghouls like I was when I was developing my taste. But let’s face it, this genre is an acquired taste. It is a bit like punk rock so of course, why would my parents love horror films? I can think of no one in my immediate family being a fan. I probably made more friends by being a horror fan throughout high school than anything else outside of indie rock. 

At a certain point during the rather languid Longlegs, I definitely had an internal dialogue with myself, going, “maybe horror movies just aren’t for me anymore?” (Blocking out the fact that I really liked The First Omen). The thought of growing out of something has crossed my mind ever since doing an episode on 1994 films and then music. It’s not to say I won’t watch my favorite horror movies anymore but there’s a certain brand of new horror that’s not vibing with me as of late. Or these are just inert horror films and I need to accept and embrace that stance. 

I was quite angry when Longlegs’ closing credits began. It seemed to reiterate that lately, tonal inconsistency is becoming more of a problem for me. Pick a lane! I’m not saying a movie can’t successfully balance horror and comedy because there are plenty of examples of this. But throughout a movie I thought was going to be “scary,” the only word that came to mind was “silly.” From the multiple shots of Bill Clinton’s portrait on the wall to Cage’s insanely over-the-top frantic antics, very little about the film worked. It actually annoyed me by the time we got to the final act. Possibly because I expected more from its filmmaker having loved all three of his other works. 

FBI agent Lee Harker (Maika Monroe) being brought on to a long open serial killer case due to her psychic abilities (of which we only experience early on). The case has baffled agents for about two decades as the elusive killer who calls himself Longlegs (Nicolas Cage) murders families yet leaves no evidence of actually having been present at the time of the crimes. Only ominous notes from the creepy guy are found at the crime scenes hinting at satanic practices and sinister intent and implying that he got the family members to kill each other somehow.

As Lee digs deeper into the case, and a pattern starts to form, the more she begins to realize that there may be a personal connection between her and the instigator, and that her being brought on to investigate a demonic killer may not be a coincidence. Oh, and perhaps there’s something going on with dear old mom (Alicia Witt) in the midst of it all too. 

Don’t get me wrong, on the simplest levels, I haven’t been entertained by recent horror films that most seem to enjoy. In a Violent Nature comes to mind which I found completely unengaging and lame. The director of that film and Perkins are clearly talented especially when it comes to cinematography and production design, but the stories themselves are so thin and unoriginal to where there are no surprises, just tropes.

Yes, it’s definitely a spin or variation on familiar tropes, but I don’t experience anything new. Maika Monroe is doing an homage to Clarice Starling. Cage is being manic, weird and bug-eyed, which we’ve seen before in other serial killer films. The choice to have everything hit close to home (literally for our protagonist) with a reveal by the end ends up being the opposite of shocking. 

I don’t want to be too down on Longlegs because I am a Perkins stan, but the fact is I felt almost indifferent and bored throughout. Other than certain images, sound design and the score, I found little to connect with. What is he bringing that’s new to the table here? Once in a while, I’d say that’s a great shot or a weird image, but I remain flabbergasted by the acclaim this was getting. There’s one moment that I felt was indicative of Perkins’ talent, apparent from the beginning of his career. It involves a young actress he worked with on his debut, The Blackcoat’s Daughter. Kiernan Shipka steals this movie with her one creepy scene that was actually effective and genuinely creepy. I had no idea what to expect from that character to where I temporarily felt unease and dread, the kind that I was hoping for throughout. 

Playing the closing credits backwards to emphasize another homage to Se7en was eye-rolling in of itself, but then to have an upbeat T-Rex song playing just felt all kinds of wrong not to mention the stinger of Cage hamming it up. Wasn’t the final scene supposed to be creepy and unnerving to realize that evil prevails? But in the end, it’s almost like Perkins wanted us to laugh at the song choice. Nothing wrong with that, I’d say this film was poorly marketed to say the least.

Many decisions felt “off,” rather than the right note to go out on. Unless this has been a comedy the whole time which is very possible since I was informed that In a Violent Nature was that too? Certainly, there are funny moments to where I do wonder if that was the intention all along. Heck, one could even potentially have a chuckle at a film like the very creepy Angel Heart when they look at the character name that Robert DeNiro is playing.

There’s nothing wrong with juxtaposition such as undercutting the evil of a potential serial killer with a hardware store employee declaring, “dad, that creepy guy is here again.” That provided a big laugh and some levity. It’s almost to say Perkins really did want us to think, “this guy is silly, and you should think so too.” If that’s the intention, then the film works but what’s to say about the gruesomeness surrounding it? Especially when we’re supposed to be invested in the outcome of the final confrontation. 

All that said, Cage’s performance is unmistakably big, and full of bold choices. But it didn’t mesh well for me in ways that reminded me of some of his more recently acclaimed work in Mandy and Color Out of Space. Then again, I loved him in both Dream Scenario and Pig. Monroe is fine overall but there were so many questions I had on a storytelling level that took me out of the film many times. (“If she’s psychic, how could she not know what’s going on with mom?” “When she sees her partner being killed, why doesn’t she call for backup?” The list goes on and on). I know we shouldn’t be thinking too hard about logic when it comes to films like these, but that’s where my mind went. This may end up being a frustrating experience for audiences who want the answers explicitly detailed to them, and even those who enjoy the ambiguity of evil might not be entirely satisfied with, "it was Satan this whole time!”

I was a bit shocked by how little I felt leaving the theater - no sense of dread, tension, terror. I felt all of that in Perkins’ other work. This time - mostly bewilderment at many choices made and not just T-Rex. The basic story intrigues, but Perkins’ presentation does more to distract from the narrative with its showy weirdness and aspect ratio choices. There are also tired tropes - creepy possessed dolls, Satanic panic, bible verses, Zodiac-like puzzles, bedtime stories, demonic hieroglyphics. It felt like a mashup that really went south for me during an eye-rolling exposition dump that I guess is just adding to the fairy-tale conceit that you’d find in his last film? Sorry but I’ll take something truly shocking and bizarre like Exorcist III over this film any day.

What happened to the dreamlike, borderline Lynchian quality of his other work? The lack of explanation is what kept me coming back to something like I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives Inside the House, still my favorite of his films. This felt like the antithesis of that film which contains images I’ll never forget, a central performance that was haunting and startling and the kind of dread I was anticipating with his latest work here. Tonal balance is a tricky thing to get right. I’m not sure what went wrong this time around other than maybe it’s meant to be mocking the serial killer genre to some extent. 

I know he’s talked about his next film, a Stephen King adaptation of The Monkey, as being very different from his other work to where I’m going to assume it might be a pitch-black comedy. Longlegs could be a bridge (or a detour) to what comes next that might provide some context. Perhaps he’s just venturing out into more broad comic territory. (Heck I even thought of Jim Carrey doing a Marilyn Manson imitation at times watching Cage in this film). Sadly, I wouldn’t say Perkins evolved this time but devolved, relying on story beats and ideas that I’ve seen done time and time again.

There’s nothing ingenious about rehashing the serial killer genre only to subvert it slightly later on into the supernatural when there’s little investment by that point. The more that’s revealed, the less I felt as opposed to being shocked. The whole experience is a swing and a miss for me much like a lot of horror lately. I eagerly await to be scared again. I’m not giving up on the genre. I’m not giving up on Perkins either. But his latest is one of the worst films I’ve seen all year; hard to believe that’s where I’ve landed with Longlegs.

Maxxxine (dir. Ti West)

Walking out of X, I immediately thought, that was pretty good, nothing special. The prequel Pearl, on the other hand, felt special and certainly provided a strong showcase for Mia Goth especially with a monologue late in the film. I’ve been pretty hit and miss with Ti West over the years, but I’d argue to say that Pearl might remain my favorite work of his to date. Never would I thought he’d venture into Douglas Sirk (as a horror film) territory.

Which is why it’s disappointing to say that like the other two films above, I walked out with little to no enthusiasm for this trilogy’s conclusion. Could it be that I’m not as thrilled about seeing a De Palma pastiche these days? Or rather, this just feels like the laziest of all three of his recent films especially once we get to the big reveal. Outside of a couple of moments, there’s really nothing here that stood out as a cut above other films of this ilk.

This trilogy from West comes to a close with Maxxxine, a finale that wraps up the stories set up in X and Pearl, the double feature that nobody saw coming when the first film released in 2022. Both X and perhaps especially Pearl solidified performer Mia Goth as one of the era’s preeminent scream queens and brought her underrated yet incredible acting talents to the broader mainstream conscious with her singular takes on two different characters. It’s a real shame that she’s been accused of abusive behavior on set as of late but let’s that set that aside.

Both films were also a major calling card for filmmaker Ti West, who paid tribute to two very different eras of Hollywood with his chilling slasher and psychological character study in X and Pearl, respectively. I thoroughly enjoyed his take on the 80s with his first breakthrough, House of the Devil along with his haunted hotel follow-up, The Innkeepers. With Maxxxine, Goth and West collaborate once again in what is a direct sequel to X, continuing the story of Maxine Minx as she attempts to take her career into the next level by starring in a major Hollywood movie in the 80s.

Set against the backdrop of the Satanic panic, war on drugs, and looming presence of the Night Stalker, Maxxxine continues to show director Ti West’s incisive deconstruction of history, media, religious zealotry, the film industry, censorship, and the overall moral and social implications of what we consume as a culture. It continues to be one of the shining hallmarks of the X trilogy, which acts as a treatise on the fight between freedom of expression, moral institutions, and the hypocrisies that ensue. There’s more than just pure homage at play, but here we simply just have poor execution after a promising opening involving another audition scene/monologue from Goth.

Maxxxine starts when Maxine (Goth) auditions for her first starring role. Determined director Elizabeth Bender (Elizabeth Debicki) wants to cast her in her horror movie and Maxine has a chance to leave the adult industry behind. However, a serial killer is lurking in the shadows of LA. Maxine starts seeing her friends picked off by a mysterious, black-gloved killer and an overly nosey PI John Labat (Kevin Bacon) dives into her history. She must clear up her past and deal with the threat if she is going to make it in Hollywood.

There’s a real sense of been there, done that throughout the film. Yes, there are gruesome murders including a memorable one that takes place in an alley, yet it all feels more akin to a too-self-aware horror satire than something that makes you feel any sense of terror. It checks the boxes, with gore and variety, but it doesn’t jump off the screen and crawl under your skin. Instead, it feels a little routine whereas Pearl really stood out by taking place in an unexpected time period.

Perhaps that’s the point? What more can be said and done about the VHS Reagan-era? Maxine has seen a lot by now and is hard to rattle. Perhaps that jadedness has transferred to the audience and even to Goth here since she’s relegated to being more of a side character than allowing her to let loose the way we’ve seen her do in the previous entries.

I’m wondering if West and his team leaned a little too heavily into the B movie/video store oddity aesthetic, wasting the promise of the world they created. Or in an era of Stranger Things, the aesthetic here feels tired and worn out. Was there a plan to keep going, tackling the self-aware slashers of the late 90s? Who knows? My hope is that it ends here despite the disappointment. Part of me thinks we could’ve simply been satisfied with a two-parter and the lingering closing credits image of Pearl’s smile.

Maxxxine feels silly by the time we get to the last act and who’s been behind the murders to where I pretty much had given up. For those who have recently seen X, it’ll make much more sense but even then, the performance by the killer is laughably bad. That really brings us full circle with all three films in a way. Certain choices made in all of them just felt forced and comical, which doesn’t feel like the intended effect.

This ultimately ends like a film where the logic and coherency of the narrative is largely foregone in exchange for preserving the style and 80s milieu. It’s a disappointing conclusion given that West excellently revitalized the 70s slasher with the exciting and brutal X and honed his craft with the preceding film Pearl, a classically filmed, Hitchcockian tale of repression, murder, and madness. Maxxxine is by-the-numbers and boilerplate to a fault.

If you would’ve told me that of all the horror films, I’d actually love in 2024 would be an Omen prequel and a Quiet Place prequel, I would’ve laughed hysterically in your face. But here we are. Other films I hoped would be great fell completely flat for me whereas two prequels, carried by two remarkable lead performances actually worked on me much better.

Then again, if all three of these films reviewed here were meant to scare me or haunt my dreams, they failed on every level. Regardless, I love hearing what people have to say about them, especially Longlegs even if I disagree that they’re high quality. I am holding out hope for far more original films that don’t come across as a gimmick or something I’ve seen done before and done much better. Perhaps something with a little more… substance??