We did not need that interrogation scene in Longlegs

I was more than ready to dive into the universe of Longlegs. The trailer promised a thrilling journey through mysteries and psychological twists, elements that always attract me to movies. On the chosen night, I prepared my living room to be my own private movie theater: lights off, popcorn on the side and anticipation at an all-time high.

The beginning did not disappoint. The plot unfolded in an engaging way, with performances that captured the characters’ complex essence. I was completely immersed, following every nuance of the story. However, everything changed after this specific scene: the interrogation.

At that moment, the thriller atmosphere that had so far involved me, was replaced by an uncomfortable tension. Longlegs, the protagonist, was in a cold room, under the cruel lights of the interrogation. What began as a typical questioning quickly escalated to a level of intensity that made me wonder what I was about to see.

Suddenly, without any warning preparing the viewer, Longlegs started banging his head violently against the table. The sound was graphic, the images were very brutal and all I could think was: “what has just happened here?”. The explicit violence seemed out of place, more of a gratuitous shock than a valid contribution to the narrative.

The movie, until then enjoyable, had its course altered in my mind by this single scene. The director, in opting for this visual shock, seemed to prioritize immediate impact over a more subtle and effective suspense build-up. This decision not only disconnected me emotionally, but also cast a shadow over the positive aspects of the movie that I had enjoyed until then.

Ever since that night, the interrogation scene has been stuck in my mind. It was a moment that, although brief, still haunts me with its unnecessary brutality. To me, cinema is an art form that should provoke reflection and emotion, but there is a fine line between challenging the audience and alienating them.

Finally, I would recommend Longlegs with reservations. For those exploring the dark territories of psychological thrillers, you may find something of value where I saw excess. But be warned: that scene may well change your perception of the whole movie.

This particular interrogation scene made me ponder the fine balance directors must strike between using violence to serve the story and using it merely to shock. It felt as if the director had crossed a line, turning a potentially powerful moment into a scene that felt exploitative rather than explanatory.

Reflecting further, I find myself questioning whether such extremes are necessary. Do they add to the film’s depth, or are they just easy paths to evoke a quick emotional response from the audience? These are questions that linger long after the credits roll, influencing how I view not just Longlegs, but all films that choose to use violence as a storytelling tool.

For those exploring the dark territories of psychological thrillers, you may find something of value where I saw excess. But be warned: that scene may well change your perception of the whole movie. As I continue to reflect on this experience, I realize that perhaps more is not always better, especially when it comes to violence in cinema.