Frank about Film
Longlegs Review
(heavy metal music) - Hi, you're listening to Frank about film. The film review show, where we refuse to beat about the bush. Suffice to say, we do not perform any oral foreplay before getting into the midst of our discussion. This week, we'll be discussing long legs. Amara, do you want to give us an intro to the film? - Yeah, let's do it. So, what's long legs about? Long legs is the new horror film/crime thriller from director Osgood Perkins, who is the son of Anthony Perkins, famously the star of Psycho, who played Norman Bates. And this is a creepy serial killer film about a man named Long legs, who is mysteriously causing entire families to seemingly kill themselves or kill each other. And our detective played by Micah Monroe from It Follows is tasked to solve the case. So we have a kind of traditional structure of a kind of crime serial killer thriller. And it stars Nicholas Cage as long legs, who I don't know if I mentioned yet. So it's kind of a curious mix between indie cinema and kind of Hollywood star power. Frank, what did you think? - I enjoyed the film. There was certain moments of it that I was thinking it was absolutely fantastic. However, my opinions on it sort of fluctuated throughout. I thought it was a nice seeing this crime psychological thriller in cinema again, you know, just like a unique owned property without the Batman having to be involved. And I thought a lot of the horror stuff did work. I think it might be too horror for the people that are wanting for, not who's done it, more of a who's doing it, crime mystery type thing. But is it entirely for a horror audience? Potentially so. I would say the third act sort of lost me a bit and sort of went into sort of more Blumhouse horror territory, which I didn't think was ideal for me. I think I wasn't too aware and I'm just gonna open this up now. Call it spoilers if you want. I think it's appropriate to preface with this. It is a supernatural film. And I wasn't entirely aware of that. So when it was revealed that there was supernatural occurrences in it, I was a little bit pissed off and I felt like I was trying it in my head thinking, oh, how could this be the case? How could this case? And it felt like the film turned around and went fuck you, it's supernatural. So I was a little bit disappointed by that. What are your feelings on the film? Yeah, I feel sort of exactly the same. I really like the vibe of it. I really like the atmosphere of it. I like basically all of the craft elements, the way it's shot, the way it sounds. I like a lot of the design. I like that it's sort of the American Midwest. It feels like it's got a very particular understanding of the location and the area that it's in. And it's a kind of a part of America that doesn't necessarily get represented in films that often. So I thought all of that was really cool. But everything that's like underneath the surface I had issues with from the story to the performances, including the supernatural stuff. I basically have issues with almost everything. So it's a weird one. I feel quite strangely about it. What pissed you off the most? Is it definitely the supernatural tilt at the end? Yeah, but I think that may be on me. Perhaps if I went into this being aware that that was the case, it wouldn't bug me so much. I think the stuff is cool. I think there's some good ideas in it. I don't know if I loved the stuff, but I think if I was sold this as a supernatural horror, I'd be more than satisfied. And I could see myself returning to this in the future with those expectations set, not just expectations of the quality of the content. I think I'll be a bit more satisfied with the product. So you're saying performances? I'm happy to see MacKay Monro back in horror. I particularly liked her and it follows, you know, the same year, the guest. And I'm glad to see her in such a big film again. But how did you feel about Nicholas Cage in this, more importantly? Well, I mean, I didn't really like Mike Monro in this, I have to say. Even though I do like her generally and I do really like her and it follows. There's something about, I know that's kind of the point of her character, but there is a flat kind of wooden quality to her performance. And actually a lot of performances in the film, other than Nicholas Cage, that felt really strange to me and I just didn't enjoy it for whatever reason. Maybe even though it might have been like a choice that made sense for the story, I just, I couldn't really connect with her because I just didn't feel like she had any discernible character traits that I could identify. And she didn't really feel like a real person. And I would say the same of the detective character who's sort of like this stern stoic FBI agent who's sort of like always calling her by her last name in a really comical way. Like, "Harker, come here, harker." And it's just a bit shit. The generic detective chief, yeah. It really was like the most cardboard copy version of that kind of character that I've seen in a really long time. And that just too many people were like that in the film I felt. And then the people who were more like out there were their performances. I felt like though it was entertaining to watch, I'll say the mum I think is also a bit silly. And she's the kind of really religious kind of influence in the detective's life. And Nicholas Cage, I think in the moment I was uncomfortable because I just do have a knee jerk negative reaction to that kind of acting. But now that I like sit with the film more, it is the thing about the experience that makes it like a little bit more memorable. And there is, I was trying to think like, why is it bad to have like over the top acting? Maybe it isn't because people who are like that crazy are also funny. And sometimes it's not bad for things to be funny and creepy at the same time. And so I kind of in hindsight, I'm feeling a bit more charitable towards Nicholas Cage in it. But in the moment it was getting in the way of how scared I wanted to be. - What did you think about the performances? - Well, I agree that some of the characters were a bit on the nose or a bit not enough. I did think the head of the detectives, what the detective chief, I think his character was a bit bland and just what it needed to be on paper. I think Mokai among Rose characters are Lee Harker. I think her character was a bit more interesting than I think you're giving it credit for. Although perhaps the performance is slightly debatable. The character is like a sort of nervous, overwhelmed, clairvoyant type. So she sort of like almost has like a supernatural ability to pick up information or discern codes and patterns and such forth. But nothing that sort of brings it into the sort of supernatural category in of itself. And she has this awkwardness to her, has weird flows to her conversations. Seems like I say overwhelmed by every room she's gone in as if she's like constantly reading over all the details. Although it seems like she's never watched a film at certain points 'cause you think, oh, so you're gonna mention that and then not think surely this is gonna occur in the third act of this sequence. Weird bits like that. But I think there's some interesting stuff going on with her character and her performance, but let's get to Nicholas Cage's performance. I found it very distracting. It was a little bit like having a bow selector or face jacket character as the villain. And it just felt ridiculous whenever it cut to him. It would have been just as much use having weird Al be the villain. It was, he went full crazy in this. And I didn't know it was the intention of Oz Perkins the director for it to be a funny film or to have a comedic element. I think some points is a bit more clear than others, but I was surprised afterwards hearing him in interviews saying that he wanted people to think of it more as a funny film than an all-out scary horror. 'Cause I don't know if it entirely conveyed that feeling to me. - Oh, I didn't know. There has he actually said that? - He has said that. - Oh, okay. - Which I guess maybe excuses it a bit, but most, I suppose most now are looking back on it. Most of the comedy just arise from Nicholas Cage, for some reason, is doing those Nicholas Cage things again, such as on his own shouting in a car until he sort of starts frying his vocal cord screaming, which is something we're familiar with him doing. I don't know why he's doing it with this character. I think here's another fairly minor gripe. His character is called Long Legs Asses the Film. And it's from such like a minor moment. He's like talking to a kid and he says he's wearing his Long Legs. You know, oh, because the joke is he's an adult, she's a kid, he's much taller, Long Legs. But I don't know, it conjures the idea of a spider, and I was anticipating some spiders or some imagery of some spiders, which was lacking. And I don't know, it creates like this weird connection to it with the Persian language Holy Spider, which is potentially the biggest film of this genre, other than The Batman, which I found a little bit weird and slightly misleading. No, that I'm like, oh, it would have been much better if it had spiders in. I just like, it feels like a bit of a reach. And you get the feeling that Oz Perkins was like, Long Legs, that's a cool name for a villain. And someone went, how are you gonna fit it in? Oh, I don't know, he just makes like a non sequitur about it. (laughing) I don't know. - Yeah, it's true, it's true, yeah. - Here's one thing, I've mentioned the Batman several times. I couldn't stop thinking when they were looking at the scenes. I couldn't stop pitching in my head, a Nirvana song just playing, and then Robert Paterson's emo, The Batman, strolling in. (laughing) Maybe I'm longing for another one of those. I didn't see it coming, but here it is. - Well, I think what you're probably longing for is, well, what I found myself longing for was Zodiac or Seven or one of those kind of Fincher-esque serial killer films because that's what The Batman was essentially. - And that's what this is. - And that's kind of what this is, but it does a weird thing where it's like, it's, on the one hand, it's supernatural horror, and on the other hand, it's a serial killer kind of procedural, and it's doing both of those things concurrently. And I don't think that it manages the combination of those two things as well as, say, something like Seven, which is, you know, it's a horror film and a thriller at the same time. And I think that it just, it made me think of other films that I wish I was watching, or even something like Mind Hunter, which is great, even though it's not like, got the gory elements and things like that, it's still doing that thing very well and is creepy. And it just felt like, I wanted more from the horror, and I wanted more from the detective storyline. It felt kind of incomplete to me. - Because you keep questioning how he's getting away with these murders, or how he's pulling it off. And the notion that it's just with what is kind of superpowers, it doesn't feel right for this genre. - It's really disappointing. It feels like a cop out. 'Cause you spend so long not knowing what the thing is, right? And there's, I think what it does do well is it builds up a sense of anticipation. But it's just so disappointing when you realize that it is just, oh, super natural, but that's really boring. - But now let's talk about the tension. I did actually feel like it was a very tense film. There was a lot of sequences that I really loved on that basis. I think it's got one of the best strangers slips into the house without the person knowing since Insidious. - Oh yeah. - It felt like edge of the seat viewing. I felt really jumpy leaving the cinema afterwards. It just, it like kind of gave me that nervous feel. And not just like in a jump scary way, but also, you know, a lot of jump scares in this. It was unsettling. I don't think long-term horror scares, but it will make you feel unsettled. And I think it is actually quite fun viewing on that basis. And I think entertainment-wise, I think the film does deliver. - Yeah, I think there's definitely a couple of moments. There's the opening scene is a really good kind of build-up of tension and dread. There's that bit that you're talking about, which is really, really fun. And again, I think it's like using it setting really well. Like you just, you imagine like, fucking hell, if I lived in like a forest in Oregon, this would be an absolute nightmare, do you know what I mean? And I thought that was really cool. And there's also a couple of kills and also like grizzly aftermath of deaths that are, you know, like the bit where usually the camera cuts away and like focuses on the person's reaction. There's a couple of moments where instead of doing that, it just shows you the thing. And the thing is all, it's like really nasty. And I liked that. That was kind of the more of what I wanted, kind of a feeling of being trapped in a horrible situation. And it doesn't always do that, but when it does do that and when it's not also being funny, it's doing some really good stuff and it's making you feel uncomfortable. But I do think that the reason why it isn't long-term scary is A, the silly storyline, which doesn't really make any sense. And also the humor, it's interesting that you said that he wanted it to be funny because it just, it feels like the film is in conflict with itself because it looks and feels like something that is trying to be really, really scary, but yet it is also really funny, but it never feels, or it doesn't always feel like it's doing that intentionally. - I certainly wouldn't say the humor in it is one of its virtues. I would say it's one of its cons. - Yeah, because it always feels out of place. - In terms of what you were saying about the imagery in the film, I really liked the imagery. And there's a certain bit where she's sort of looking over the case files, photos, or from the crime scenes. And for quite a period in the film, there's this reliance on static shots which sort of match those photos from the crime scenes. And throughout it, there's a lot of these, I think the transitions of the film are some of the best. It's got this really interesting editing and there's never just goes from one scene to the next. We always get a couple of flashes of images, bit like a bald-up snake making its way up to the camera, sort of a cat in a box of screeching or like blood going down a drain pipe. These sound like fairly generic. Oh, of course, that's what you put an insert in a horror film. But they look really good and they tied things up nicely. I thought it was just like intriguing images regularly throughout the film. And then when it gets into the later parts, you know, in The Exorcist where it has like the face, like that and you're hoo hoo. And you're like, well, that felt like a dumb fucking insert here. I don't know, it builds its way up to put those horror stuff in later. So it does feel appropriate when it comes about it. Oh, I'll tell you what, did you ever watch that film reptile? - No, never. - Yeah. That was a sick example of one of these psychological thrillers. - Oh, well, I'll add it to the list. It feels like there's, this at least is like a kind of a good entry point. Like if someone's like, oh, what's a serial killer film I can watch? I might still be like, yeah, you can watch long legs and just sort of, it gives you a little taster of what the genre is about, even though it's not as good as the films it sort of reminds you of. - Yeah, I like the use of shadow. I thought the dramatic lighting in the film was really good. - Yeah, I like that it's just really like fine with just being incredibly dark a lot of the time and it's not, it feels quite natural in the way that it's lit. Like there's a lot of scenes where it's literally only just little beams of light that are illuminating the characters. - Yeah. - That feels like kind of what, again, what kind of what elevates it above the not so good stuff. And also I loved the, like it was just a mixture of different types of approaches to horror. Like, yeah, there were some jump scares that felt kind of appropriate in the moment. But then there's also lots of bits where it's like lingering camera shots where like you just feel, you get the sense that at any moment something bad will happen the characters are constantly sort of being watched or maybe not. And that kind of camera work I always find really effective. And like on an aesthetic level, I was really down with that. - And in terms of comparison to Sue, I mentioned in Sidious and Sinister earlier, which I think sort of give a bit of a preface for the horror in the films, like if not just being connected to the supernatural horror genre. It's that type of film to an extent. But we get to see lots of different locations. It's not always just in one really convenient to film in match and type scenarios. - A lot of horror in the day as well, which is always a sign of kind of, if it's done well, it's like a good filmmaking, right? To not just be like, "Oh, it's gonna be scary 'cause it's in the dark." Like, there's a lot of daylight horror, which is cool. - I really like the sound design in it. So recurring motif throughout it is a heartbeat. And there's one moment on horror while I was thinking, "This sounds fucking perfect." And then there's other moments where you're seeing them drive through the scenery. And then you can hear what they're playing on the radio, but it's like very muffled and you kind of just have like that bass drum that's sort of mimicking the heartbeat as you're watching them go across. There's like moments of that where through the sound design, it's capturing that feeling of being tense so nicely. - Yeah, right. Like it's kind of transmitting a feeling of grit and reality through the sound design. And I think it's doing that in the time period as well. I felt that when it, 'cause it kind of had two timelines. It would sometimes cut back to, I guess, the '60s or maybe early '70s, but most of it is set during the '90s. And it did feel appropriate in terms of like the satanic panic and kind of the, for lack of a better word, the golden area of serial killers in America. And it felt like whenever it was cutting back to like the '70s or '60s, it felt like it was giving that authentic feeling of fear at that time. And you know, you really got the sense that like this was such a vulnerable period. You know, there's certain scenes of like attacks happening inside of kind of house in the wilderness in the '60s. And it's like, you do get that sense that, yeah God, we are in a time where these things were just like, were happening. And there was just no real defense against them. And yeah, I think it's not often a film about that, set in that time period really kind of feels like it is a product of that time period. And I thought that was done well as well. - Well, it's funny that while we actually, you mentioned it when we were doing the Maxime review and now we've actually come round to the long legs, that is one of those two films in cinema sort of about the satanic panic and about serial killers. - Yeah, and I think this in a way, I think they're both like a bit disappointing in terms of what they are overall and like what they're doing. But I think in just particular, the particular thing of like conveying the fear of the satanic panic, this is a more interesting sort of document. But it's also like trying to be more serious, you know, and whatnot. - Well-- - Yeah, yeah, I'm gonna watch that interview 'cause it just doesn't, it really felt like it's such an interesting choice if that is, if that was on purpose to like create an atmosphere that's aesthetically very scary, but have comedy in it. That's like, it's kind of bold and I almost wish I knew that going into it. I feel like I would have enjoyed it more. - Well, I think not at all to this credit Nicholas Cage. I'm a big supporter of Nicholas Cage and I think his film-- - You are, yeah. - Have late, it's been absolutely fantastic. So this isn't to undermine him at all. But I do think inherently he always brings a comedic element because he has such an outlandish acting style. So I think if you're casting him as the villain there's, I don't know, a suggested tongue-in-cheekness to it. Particularly if he's gonna be caked up in makeup and prosthetics like he is. I was saying before, it's like having face-tackled bows later and that's exactly what I'm getting at. He has this sort of bizarre face slapped on top of him that's curiously pale and this wig and he is crazy, really crazy, not like Joker Crazy, beyond that. Like singing "Happy Birthday" for 24 minutes crazy. - Yeah, yeah, it's definitely weird. I mean, I've seen him and like fans of Nicholas Cage talk about how he sort of rides the line and like he makes very big bold choices but like he's very near the line. But in my, you'd sort of devil's advocate for that would be like, I think he crosses the line quite a lot. And in this, I definitely think he's going, you know, way beyond whatever the line is. And it does, like, it's entertaining on the one hand. So that's cool. But like, it just does take you out of the film and you're like, oh yeah, I'm watching a film. This guy's acting, he's doing a bit of acting now. And that's always sort of been my issue with Nicholas Cage and it just, it stood out even as much here. But I will say it was a nice contrast to the other actors who I thought were just very wooden across the board. So there's that. At least he's not boring. - Now, the sort of alternate rock soundtrack. I don't know how much I rated the soundtrack or the choices or the music they put in it. I was really confused by the choice of song for the end credits at very least. - Yeah, well, wasn't it the same as the opening credits? - I believe that could be the case, yeah. - But to be honest, I didn't make a particular note of like how I thought about the music. Usually I do, but it kind of sunk into the background for me. I guess I just thought, oh, that's a product of that time. So that's why they're playing it. - So they're just doing it on that basis. Yeah, it had that feeling. It was just like, oh, well, there's just some music from that time. - But yeah, I guess if I were to think about it, it probably did also take me out of the feeling of the film. Which is the atmosphere is being best perpetuated when it's like, you know, without sound or just the sound design, which you pointed out earlier. But sometimes, yeah, having pop music can kind of, again, it sort of takes you out of the film in a way and reminds you, especially in horror, I feel like needle drops work less well in horror because horror is about like suffocating the audience and making them feel trapped in one thing. And like, and pop music is an escape from that in a way. It's sort of like a let off. Like you think, oh yeah, that's a nice song. So you just immediately are less scared. But I don't know, maybe it's 'cause this also is very reminiscent of "Silence of the Lambs", which again is sort of like, I mean, you know, there's no harm in being worse than "Silence of the Lambs", but like it was, I was like, oh, why am I not watching "Silence of the Lambs", I'm not watching this. But that doesn't that have also the serial killer listens. It's a big fan of rock music and is sort of playing it at the end. - Oh yeah, true. Actually, Nicholas Cage sort of does a variety of songs. - And in this as well, yeah, yeah, sorry, yeah. So "Silence of the Lambs", but also in this, yeah, yeah. - Yeah, he's really just a buffalo mill rip off, isn't he? Whenever he's doing those bits, he's like, oh, I get it 'cause of buffalo bill. This is "Silence of the Lambs" without Hannibal Lecter. It's just the variety one, and he's crazy and supernatural. I mean, the fun, the best horror is when he's not visible. They do the whole Michael Myers Halloween thing of, he's everywhere and nowhere at once. And I believe they even say that. But they do that stuff fantastically. It keeps the tension throughout the film perfectly. There's this great atmosphere where people always feel like they're in danger or there's danger happening elsewhere and they've got to get there and then help out. - I think that is very cool as an idea. Like the villains sort of being like conspicuous in their absence. Like they're just, they're being very effective even if they're not physically there. And it's an idea that, you know, has been, you've seen it in loads of other films. It sort of reminded me a bit of "The Dark Knight", like the interrogation scene where he's, you know, where he's like, "Oh, you know, I'm here. "I'm not doing anything." But like, obviously he is doing stuff. But I think it would be much more effective if the reason why he had like... - Well, let's hold off a bit. So I think we're in dangestiness. - Okay, we'll save that for later. - Or in a territory. I think the reasoning is confusing. I don't think, but yeah, actually, I'll tell you what, let's bring that in for the conclusion at the end. - So yeah, I was gonna ask if you were, like A, if you were following the sort of marketing campaign for this film before it came out. - I wasn't. I was aware of it's second hand, the hype. What do you have to say on this matter? - Well, because I thought it was interesting because the marketing campaign is great. And it was one of a very rare occasion where a film that basically no one has heard of, you know, going into it, just sort of released a trailer and then immediately everyone was just talking about the trailer as soon as it came out. And then literally only on the basis of that trailer, initially, it just sort of gathered like all of this hype. And then along with that, there was just a slew of like posters that were released that were really kind of creepy and they were very creative. Like it was just loads of different shots from the film that just had the title over it in kind of bright red. And it just got, everyone's so excited. It felt like such a strong sort of aesthetic, like look. And it was, you know, and then so that there would be other creative things that happened like along the period of time leading up to the release. Like, I think they showed a clip of Michael Monroe seeing long legs for the first time. And then it was like, you know, it was like the film makers were like monitoring her heartbeat. And then it was like going all over the place. And then there was another thing where like you could call up a phone number that would, you know, have an automated long leg sort of like breathing into the mic back at you. So all to say like really creative marketing campaign, really successful in the sense that this isn't a director that people have really heard of. Michael Monroe isn't like a huge star. And Nicholas Cage was barely used in the marketing even though his name was on it. And you know, I'm pretty sure it made quite a bit of money and a lot of people went to see it. But I do think that it may have been a victim of how good its marketing campaign was because I think people went into it expecting like the fucking scariest thing ever. You're just gonna leave the cinema and just immediately puke everywhere and fucking kill yourself or whatever. And like we're saying, it's really not that. Like it's, you know, it's a horror film. Yes, but it's also a crime film. It's also a mystery. It's also kind of a comedy apparently. So I think people were also as good as the marketing was. It was also probably a tad misleading as to what kind of a film it is. You know, I was gonna ask you if you felt like it was a victim of how good its marketing was. But then I actually thought an interesting thing just to add to that is I saw it was someone who is really into films and knew about it but hadn't, you know, hadn't seen any of the marketing and didn't really know anything about the film. And I think that's quite a good litmus test. It's still like what it actually is because I was very, very aware. And he thought it was terrible. So it's like, I think even though there may have been that sort of misleading thing, I think ultimately like, if you care about like characters and story and, you know, how scary it is, you know, that's just the three things you want from a horror film, basically. I think it sort of does ultimately fall short. So it was just interesting to get the perspective of someone who didn't know anything, if you see what I mean. - Yeah, well, I mean, they always overbaked the marketing for horror films this way. Every film claims to be like the scariest thing since the X says or says that it had audience emptying out into their trousers. It's not one of those films, but what is one of those films? You know, I personally, and I don't think the majority of horror fans are really expecting to be terrified. I think that sort of nervous, jumpy feeling as good as you can get or you almost want it to be more like interact with fears like that. And not just like, I'm scared of someone killing. There's something more about it. And I think it interacts with some of those stuff in throughout without really going into it. There's some stuff about parents with their children, about childhood, going into adulthood. There's some stuff, it's throughout the film. But I think it does all that stuff appropriately. I don't think it's one of those real cerebral horrors. I don't think it has too much interesting in interacting with sort of deeper fears. But for the whole jumpiness, I think it's as good as any other jumpy film I've seen on that scale. Do you felt like it was missed soul to you or it failed to live up to its marketing or its marketing was to account? - No, because I think, for me as an individual know, even though I think that a lot of people's opinions were influenced by this, I think I sort of, I kind of know going into most films that the marketing is a certain way, purely just to sell the film. So I kind of expect as a rule of thumb that like a film that I'm gonna watch is not necessarily going to be like the trailer or the poster or something. So I kind of expect that as a base rule of thumb. So it wasn't that much of an issue for me. And also I'm not like, I don't, there are horror films that I like that aren't necessarily like the scariest things ever. It's not my only sort of metric for evaluating the strength of a horror film. Also, 'cause I'm a bit of a worse and I just typically haven't really been a huge fan of horror films for most of my life until maybe recently. So I feel like I'm looking for other things as well. So, you know, if this really was doing amazing stuff in the kind of crime mystery space and had like a few scares, that would have been enough for me. I would have walked out and been extremely positive. So it didn't bother me, but it was, it was cool just to have a film that was not like a huge release on paper that generated a large amount of interest purely on the strength of the marketing campaign. I think that's really cool. And it's interesting that people seem to sort of really be influenced by that as they were watching the film and before they were watching the film. - I don't think not being into horror makes your wuss at all. It's a whole aesthetic. It's a genre the way death matter can jump. - Sure, sure. But the reason why I wasn't into it and for most of my life was because I was too scared. So that in a way that probably does. 'Cause I think I was just always been a very sensitive viewer like things that were not necessarily scary as a kid would scare me more than like is normal. So it kind of took me a while to like build up a kind of desensitization to creepy things. And then I, so even now like some things, some things get me. And it's like interesting in terms of what we were saying earlier. Like, you know, was this scary enough? Like, ultimately that is always going to be subjective. Even if, you know. - So I think I went through the motions of what being scared by a film was from a young age. And then so I was going to eat, I don't get that anymore from films. Although nothing wrong with people who continue to feel that way. I've been to the horror genre, but it's not something that I feel like I need from a horror film is to feel scared. I like films to feel scary like in the moment you can feel what's kind of around the corner. But not that it doesn't need to have any long lasting feelings for me. Because that's not saying that I expect anyway. But I want in the film it to have that sort of atmosphere of like tension. And I like the ideas of playing on fears or having metaphors or allegories for, you know, internal fears and such forth. So I like all that stuff. And so when I say that I like a horror film and I like the horror within it, I'm not specifically saying that night I couldn't sleep. And I'm always a little bit surprised and real fans of horror go on about that sort of thing. In the same way with comedy films I'm not expecting to be up all night laughing about what I just saw. - Yeah, I mean, it's rare that comedy has that effect where it like lingers. That would be a bit weird, wouldn't it? - That would be strange. You just could not stop laughing about that time. Adam Sandler made a reference to hand jobs. - Yeah, no, I think, no, I agree with you completely. And I think the reason why I think this falls short isn't because it's not disturbing beyond belief and it's like mentally scarred me forever. It's because there are things where I can, you can see that it's trying to go for something and is failing at doing that. Like when it tries to do the sort of satanic fear, like fear of, you know, supernatural evil, it's not succeeding at being scary in that way. And when it's trying to do like the mystery stuff about how long legs is getting away with it, the resolution to what that is is not very well written. And that's why it fails. So it's not like, it's more about like just pedantic things about like, does this story work? And those are the reasons why I think I am a bit disappointed, not. And that leads to not being scared, obviously. - But it isn't. (laughs) Right, exactly. - But what you were saying about this being an original property, that is a big thing. And it's not one of those original properties that's in a new horror film. It is from a horror director. He did do the Blackcoats daughter on the pretty little thing that lives in the house, Gretel and Hansel. So he's a known horror director, but these weren't big releases. So it wasn't that had the magic of like having James one or something and then it said, the person who brought you insidious. It wasn't one of them things. It was just, original horror product. That's why it's like arguably smaller horror director. And that is a big thing. - It is a big thing. And it's cool that it sort of feels like it's like an entry point for him as a director to get his name known. And I think it's weird when that happens when a film just comes out of nowhere and suddenly it feels like you should have known the director, like their name is like really big on the poster and it's written and directed by them. And you sort of immediately think, "Oh, okay, your eyes are attracted to the name." But even though like, for example, I didn't know who he even was before this. So I think that's cool 'cause it kind of, what it does is it allows like a new voice to kind of enter the space and mix things up a little bit, you know? And that's nice. Yeah, well, okay, spoilers first because I was confused. Okay, well, part of why I sort of was a bit lukewarm is there were multiple points during this film where I didn't really understand what was going on. And I'm gonna blame the film, but this is the moment to maybe illustrate that maybe I was just being stupid. And why exactly does... So spoiler alert, why exactly does Mike Monroe's mum continue to peddle the kind of satanic cause after long legs dies? Because we're told to believe that he sort of blackmailed her into doing it initially. Right, so it seems that he creates these metal orbs which seem to have control over people's minds and actions. So the way he's getting the orbs to these families 'cause they need to be in fairly close proximity is through these dolls that he makes with these orbs inside. And for whatever reason, the families keep accepting these dolls into their houses which are recreations of their children. Very close life like the recreations of them. They seem to like them, but maybe when it's being presented to them, it immediately has that sort of power on them, a shining or whatever you wanna call it. Is that a tool satisfactory? It also seems like that he's got this sort of satanic stuff going on. There's some satanic imagery, there's sort of like a large goat like Satan behind someone at some point, as well as this sort of black coat figure where we just see like the eyes poking few avail. So maybe she was indoctrinated into the whole satanic stuff and wanted to keep it going, possessed by the devil or something like that, or maybe just being controlled by these mystical supernatural orbs. If you haven't seen the film and you thought, ah, why not? I'm gonna enter into the spoiler territory. Has this put you off? It could put me off here in this. - I mean, it's definitely my biggest issue with the film. And I'm trying to think why because I've enjoyed horror films that have supernatural elements and a film being supernatural is not in and of itself an issue. I think the issue is the way it's done. I think it kind of takes the film quite a while to sort of float the idea of supernatural occurrences. And I think that's the issue with that is almost like that thing of like, you know when people say that you're like, you have to set the rules in a story. You have to be like, this can happen and you have to establish that that can happen so that when it does happen, even though you didn't exactly see the specific thing coming, you can look back on the script in hindsight and be like, oh yeah, that actually, you know, that's within pounds. And that's why that makes sense. Like, it was reminding me a lot of hereditary, which also gets a lot of slack for like how silly the supernatural satanic stuff is in it. - Nonsense. - But I damn near perfect film. - Exactly, I don't think it's silly. And I think that's actually a really good example of, you know, the first shot in that film is the dollhouse, right? From afar and then we go into it and then it's the characters in the film, right? So immediately in one shot, you're like, okay, supernatural, but also real. Great, but it's just done in one moment. And in this film, it just, it's like right, too close to the end where it's just like, oh actually it's this, it's just supernatural now. And that's annoying because it just, that wasn't really hinted at or established. And also just it does feel a bit of a cop out and it feels a bit boring and stupid that like all it is, is a McGuffin that makes people crazy and do these horrible things. And that's kind of where it starts and ends. And that's just not interesting and worth the, all of the setup. It's like you'd go through sort of solving this, you know, complex mystery only to figure out that the mystery is really not complex at all. Only for it to be a conjuring film. Exactly, it's sort of like, the film is sort of like, when you go to like a nice restaurant and it's got like really nice presentation and the food itself is terrible. It's a bit of that where it's like, really nice aesthetics, really strong vibe, but the minute you poke at things, it sort of falls apart. Also long legs. I think they may be below their load a bit too early with him and show him too much of him too early on. I kind of liked it when, but it's weird to say that because he does also like, he dies quite quickly. Like he's not, he's still not in it that much. But, but it also simultaneously feels like they showed him way too early and he was like, you could fully see him operating in too many scenes. Right, and now I'm going to jump in with my thoughts now, 'cause I think that was quite a nice conclusion. So good things to take away. It's supernatural stuff. We weren't too keen on, we think it was trying to do two things simultaneously, a little bit inappropriately, and there's a strange comedy element, which we are both unaware of the full intention of, which is a bit confusing. So I didn't like the Nicholas Cage character, although I think if you went into this, knowing that there's a sort of more classic horror villain, he's not exactly adjacent for his or a Freddy Krueger, but he's not a million miles away when you get into the whole magical orb territory. I think the tension throughout the film was really good. I like the atmosphere, I thought the visuals and the sound design were actually fantastic. I think the psychological thriller stuff, there's a good psychological thriller in there for two acts. It's a light recommendation. I don't think it was without its qualities. It is a fun film. It's a fun, enjoyable experience. Is it something I wanna analyze deep further into or think it's appropriate for that? Nah, not really. - Yeah, it's a very, very light recommendation if you've listened to this and still are not deterred. But if you were listening to this and thinking like, oh, that sounds a bit annoying, then maybe, maybe, maybe don't. But it's got enough things that are cool that it's like, I don't wanna shit on it too much. - So that wraps things up for today's episode of Frank About Film. The film show were refused to be about the bush. - God bless you. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (chimes)