I think you guys were expecting a little too much. Have to learn the lesson that a marketing campaign is just that.

Not sure how one could consider Malignant good but this bad. Malignant was b-movie fare with some redeeming cinematography shots.

Longlegs was beautifully shot. Story wasn't quite up to snuff though.

Once the dust settles and people get over their missed expectations, it will settle well alongside a movie like Frailty.

Next up... Romulus, then Terrifier 3.

So is this worth seeing or not? The ones being critical. Are you being just.

I was planning on checking this out but darn. The bashing on this one, I was not expecting.

LB12Diamond said:

---

So is this worth seeing or not? The ones being critical. Are you being just.

I was planning on checking this out but darn. The bashing on this one, I was not expecting.

---

I'm still glad I saw it. Enough creepiness here to make it worth your while in my opinion.

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't say don't see it. Tons of people are obviously finding it worthwhile, as it's setting indie horror box office records this weekend. I think it's just a matter of whether the vibe, atmosphere, creepiness, etc will be enough for you or not. For many it seems to be, for myself and others not so much. That said, I'm not pissed that I spent money on it or anything, and am glad I saw it for myself, with an audience.

Worth seeing, but not going to be missing out if you wait for streaming.

Please scroll up, I addressed this late morning on the 13th

Thanks, I'll probably wait and watch it at home.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

But the idea that "Hollywood" is some monolith that is actively looking to worship Satan might be even dumber. Some of you need to get a grip.

---

There's a thread on F16 that ponders if Jason Statham's "The Beekeeper" inspired the Trump shooter.

No joke.

---

If that were the case. He would have been after Joe and Hunter.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

But the idea that "Hollywood" is some monolith that is actively looking to worship Satan might be even dumber. Some of you need to get a grip.

---

There's a thread on F16 that ponders if Jason Statham's "The Beekeeper" inspired the Trump shooter.

No joke.

---

He was about as effective as the current bee keeper in the movie.

LB12Diamond said:

---

So is this worth seeing or not? The ones being critical. Are you being just.

I was planning on checking this out but darn. The bashing on this one, I was not expecting.

---

If we hadn't gotten cheap tickets, I probably would say don't see it. But then again, seeing it with an audience made it better. It was still crap in general once you get over how "beautifully" it is shot. The story falls apart, so if you go in knowing that, you'll probably be happier than we were leaving the theater. It's a creepy movie but honestly not scary at all. Don't go in expecting seven or silence or that it's the scariest or most evil movie ever made.

Overall it's still better than many other movies that have been released.

I still can't get over how much of a solid premise they just tossed in the garbage to shoehorn in all the supernatural/Satan stuff. It honestly could have been a pretty kickass crime drama of they just stuck with that.

Proposition Joe said:

---

I think you guys were expecting a little too much. Have to learn the lesson that a marketing campaign is just that.

Not sure how one could consider Malignant good but this bad. Malignant was b-movie fare with some redeeming cinematography shots.

Longlegs was beautifully shot. Story wasn't quite up to snuff though.

Once the dust settles and people get over their missed expectations, it will settle well alongside a movie like Frailty.

Next up... Romulus, then Terrifier 3.

---

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I'd much rather watch malignant again that longlegs. Malignant was entertaining. Longlegs was pretty laughable in general.

Rule Number 32 said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

I think you guys were expecting a little too much. Have to learn the lesson that a marketing campaign is just that.

Not sure how one could consider Malignant good but this bad. Malignant was b-movie fare with some redeeming cinematography shots.

Longlegs was beautifully shot. Story wasn't quite up to snuff though.

Once the dust settles and people get over their missed expectations, it will settle well alongside a movie like Frailty.

Next up... Romulus, then Terrifier 3.

---

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I'd much rather watch malignant again that longlegs. Malignant was entertaining. Longlegs was pretty laughable in general.

---

I didn't really find anything laughable about longlegs. It wasn't particularly scary, but it had a few decent scares (though the opening scene probably being the best). Yeah it's not a Seven or a Silence of the Lambs -- but if you were expecting that then you fell victim to marketing. Horror more-so than anything else is always going to push it's the "scariest ever!", that's not unique to this movie.

Malignant was b-movie level. The question was whether Wan did that on purpose or not. It's only a passable movie if you watch is a joke/bizarro-film.

And I agree with you that Longlegs had the pieces to be a much better movie. Seven and Silence of the Lambs work at a higher level because they theoretically could happen in real life, where-as this movie jammed in some supernatural dolls and evil mind control. I mean, literally the only reason they did the "days leading up to the birthday" bit was so that they could draw an upside down triangle. But to hate that but be OK with a killer that literally comes out of the back of a woman's head and is a matrix-esque assassin? That seems to be an odd comparison.

TLDR - I felt like it was a fun flick, though not a completely satisfying one... but when compared with its peers in the genre, it's easily well above average. But yeah, it ain't Seven (with David Fincher directing a Freeman/Morgan starring), and it ain't Silence of the Lambs (with one of the best source materials to work with in the thriller genre)... It's a guy who previously did some average-at-best horror and the guy from LA Law.

My wife went to see this with her girlfriends yesterday. They all walked out. Weren't scared, but she said "I had no interest in watching that"

Never even heard of it this movie till then

Spoilers obviously but read this article. Basically implies to be he really didn't think any of it through but just wanted to make a cool looking movie. It doesnt matter that nothing adds up, the main characters actions don't really mean much in the movie, or that there really is no conclusion. It looks cool though right?!?

https://collider.com/longlegs-ending-explained-oz-perkins/

Rule Number 32 said:

---

Spoilers obviously but read this article. Basically implies to be he really didn't think any of it through but just wanted to make a cool looking movie. It doesnt matter that nothing adds up, the main characters actions don't really mean much in the movie, or that there really is no conclusion. It looks cool though right?!?

https://collider.com/longlegs-ending-explained-oz-perkins/

---

I think you read far too much into that.

He basically says what happens to Ruby now in the end isn't all that important - you know she was saved. Do we really need to see them take the doll and shoot in the head? If they did so, would it somehow make the satanic-laden orbs more plausible?

But yes, he does take a lot of pride in the way the movie looks. Guys like Argento made a career out of that.

I didn't even think the movie was that great, but I'm far less critical of it than some of you. If you were expecting something on the level of Seven or Silence of the Lambs -- two of the greatest horror/thrillers of all time -- then there was no way you wouldn't be disappointed.

Longlegs isn't a very good movie. But Nickolas Cage does a good job in his limited screen time. The movie is too boring. However it is rather creepy.

Proposition Joe said:

---

Rule Number 32 said:

---

Spoilers obviously but read this article. Basically implies to be he really didn't think any of it through but just wanted to make a cool looking movie. It doesnt matter that nothing adds up, the main characters actions don't really mean much in the movie, or that there really is no conclusion. It looks cool though right?!?

https://collider.com/longlegs-ending-explained-oz-perkins/

---

I think you read far too much into that.

He basically says what happens to Ruby now in the end isn't all that important - you know she was saved. Do we really need to see them take the doll and shoot in the head? If they did so, would it somehow make the satanic-laden orbs more plausible?

But yes, he does take a lot of pride in the way the movie looks. Guys like Argento made a career out of that.

I didn't even think the movie was that great, but I'm far less critical of it than some of you. If you were expecting something on the level of Seven or Silence of the Lambs -- two of the greatest horror/thrillers of all time -- then there was no way you wouldn't be disappointed.

---

Just trying to save some other texaggers some money. I never said it was horrible. But it's not very good, and his answers basically say he really didn't put that much thought into how it all worked. I wasn't looking for a detailed description (which he already provided during the movie) but it just reinforced my view that the supernatural stuff was just crammed in for no rhyme or reason.

I already admitted I fell for the hype and marketing (which was awesome). Just trying to make sure others at least know what they are getting into.

Man, I'm really surprised reading this thread. I liked it a lot.

Seeing it with my wife tonight, I hadn't even heard of it. I guess I am off the grid as far as where the marketing and ads reached. At my age, after so many movies, I just want a movie to be interesting. What I've seen in this thread (probably shouldn't read it BEFORE seeing the movie) makes me think it at least will be interesting.

I thought it was pretty good. I'm becoming come more comfortable with the "slice of life" style movies that don't force a beginning/middle/resolution on the audience and leave a bit to the imagination.

The acting was good, the camera work was good, and while the story was a bit stupid it was overall enjoyable

A week after seeing it, I must say there are parts of it and imagery that keep you thinking about it

Well as I posted, they didn't know what it was about. Just one had heard some rumblings about it.

This isn't a judgment of it. I don't know crap about it. Just that the thread caught my eye and it was right on the heels of her mentioning that.

I'm going to have to agree with everyone who thought it started off well and kind of fell apart with the demonic mind control dolls

Well, I liked it.

I liked it too, I just might have liked it more if it went some other direction

I saw it Saturday night, as I stated in a post from earlier that day before I saw it I am really looking for a movie to be different and interesting at this point in my movie going life. It can also be a standard fun/bubblegum/theme/remake and be so well done it is enjoyable, but this movie looked like if it worked for me it would work on the different and interesting level.

It did not really work for me, I didn't hate it but wasn't something I was happy I had seen. I did read the Silence of the Lambs comparison before I saw it, so I was almost a contrarian stating "you can't just say that based on a female FBI agent". After seeing it, the comparisons seemed valid way beyond just there being a female FBI agent and a serial killer.

And the other movie it strongly evoked for me was Hereditary, in that there was an evil cult like group that was manipulating all the characters and ultimately "won" in the end.

It was well acted by the actress, and some supporting characters, and it did have some memorable scenes, but I didn't have much fun or leave thinking I saw something new and unique.

Spoiler tags, dude.

Saw it after work today.

Started out great. Very creepy. Can see similarities to SOTL, but I thought it was more like Seven.

Cage does a great job dialing up the creep factor.I have a hard time believing someone can bludgeon themselves to death by slamming their head in a table.

The ending fell short for me. Felt tense but not enough of a "gotcha" moment. I left the theater a little disappointed although overall I thought it was a good film.

Just saw it.

Creepy AF
What a performance

Maybe the wildest and most unhinged Nic Cage performance ever. And that's saying something.