The Little Things

Reviewed by Sunchica Unevska

Towards: “The Little Things”, directed and written by John Lee Hancock, starring: Denzel Washington, Jared Leto, Rami Malek, Michael Hyatt, Chris Bauer, Sofia Vassilieva, USA 2021

Little things hide the secret of the universe

The little things are the ones that reveal you, in the little things lie the biggest secrets, the little things, the ones we don’t notice, are crucial to be able to recognize our actions, to be able to read what is actually hidden in the background, the little things are the ones that expose us, or as Denzel Washington says in the film of the same name, the little things are the ones that will catch you.

This is approximately what the famous detective Joe Deacon (Denzel Washington) says, who after most of the solved cases in Los Angeles, instead of being promoted, will be brought to the brink of collapse and will have to leave the city after the last case fails to solve it. Little things hide wisdom in themselves, because in them the subconscious is hidden, in them is hidden what we ourselves aren’t aware of, and that is why we have the slightest control over them. Those little, seemingly innocent things, which are so "accidental" and so invisible, but also unpredictable, in which lies the whole philosophy of behavior, the behavior that betrays us and that speaks for us more than anything else.

The title of John Lee Hancock's film “Little Things” is not accidental, in fact, it is very well thought out, because at the same time it is provocative, mysterious and associated with those little things that we know are most important in profiling killers, so that criminologists can enter in the psychology of the killer, but also of the victim. And already that, as well as the star cast, makes this is to be very interesting film, which should certainly be seen.

It is strange that Hancock's screenplay for this serial murder thriller was written 25 years ago and everyone somehow logically points out the resort to more classic approach in conducting its investigation. Supposedly, it is the good old school, that is, it is something that sets it apart in a positive sense. But, we wouldn’t agree with that at all, on the contrary, it is a great pity that even after those 25 years, Hancock failed to scratch this script and, regardless of the classical approach, to make it more provocative, more sustainable and more consistent. Because, the problem in it is not in the classical or in the modern, but in the lack of skill to lead this thriller to the end.

The film begins quite excitingly, with the night race on the highway, when the young girl escapes from the killer, a part that unfortunately remains unfinished throughout the film, a part that is not used in any way or rounded off. And, so it is with the whole film, as if the director didn’t know what to do with it. That is why you have totally opposite behaviors in it, untolerable profiles, vague development of the story, not to mention the missed end.

If Hancock's idea was for the killer, or rather the suspect, to be so skillful, impudent and self-assured, that his behavior would cause detectives to lose control, then we should see that. But, no, the author remains on the surface not knowing how to capture this character, in what way to touch his pathology, in what way to show in fear, creepy, anticipation and play, but not play with on which side of the highway will be the car, but a psychological game. Here we have to assume psychology, and the little things remain just a thought notion, because, not only are they gone, but when they are here they should have purpose and functionality.

In fact, illogicality, inconsistency, and superficiality followed the entire film, despite the confidence of Denzel Washington, despite the leisure and charisma of villain Jared Leto, despite the insecurity or later determination of the young detective played by Rami Malek. It is not enough to try to use something already used in films of this genre, but because of the desire to be different at any cost, to have no logic, no connection, no justification, no flow. The film tries to follow the investigation, but the strangest thing is that all the things that were discovered weren’t used in any way. Hancock will connect something with the suspect, and then it will evaporate as if it weren’t at all???

It is impossible in such a film to constantly shift the focus from one to another, due to lack of idea how it what began to end. In the end, you wonder if this is a film about the victims, the killer or the police, because, despite Deacon's subtle attempt to reach even the dead victims, they are so depersonalized. After all, the film can’t move if there is no movement in the story. Namely, after finding the killed that part seems to stop, nothing new happens so you can not complete the puzzle in any possible way, neither the story, nor the traces, nor the psychological profiles, nor the game can be completed, because it always consists in a challenge, and here the challenge is not in the real, but in the imagined.

In fact, the game becomes an important part of the film, not because the suspect is playing with the police, but because the author wants to play with everything, without being clear where it should lead. Unfortunately, the film becomes chaotic and meaningless in its attempt to avoid pattern, making a scheme that is the same but unfinished and obscure. This film, as the title suggests, should really be in the little things and in its ability to play with them, but here the little things are absent, because the director is not incapable of such a film, he simply doesn’t have idea, much less focus.

Such genre films, no matter how they are run, should certainly bring that big human puzzle, a puzzle that scares you, because it plays with the human mind. Where are the boundaries, where one can go, how you can stand in the way of something so monstrous, how can you find justification and meaning, how can you end up with this nonsense, whose power lies precisely in the subconscious. The subconscious that hides those things which we seem to have forgotten ourselves, the subconscious is the one that defines us, and the little things are the ones that reveal it, which bring excitement to the game and make us, along with the detectives, recognize it, to see, to discover. As a rule, these films are something that can bring out of us what we are most afraid of, and that is the powerlessness before the madness.

It is therefore strange that many compare this film to “Seven” by David Fincher, one of the most intelligent and at the same time the most monstrous thrillers, who brought such scenes and made such a profile of a murderer, who knew how to freeze the blood. This movie only makes some allusions to “Seven”, but except probably like a fan, there is no other point of contact. Everything is mixed here. The fact is that it is not easy to profile such behavior, especially in a movie where other rules apply. On top of that, here the author is playing with both, the feeling of guilt and the obsession of the detective to solve the case at any cost, going to such extremes when the truth becomes irrelevant. It's too much for Hancock, because he will not be able to recognize, shape, define, connect anyone of that incredible treasure trove of characters, or find in all that any essence. Unfortunately, he even tries to show what that investigation and play with some sick minds can do to the man, but except losing himself completely, he has not been able to capture anything else in such a dangerous story.

In the end, you wonder, does such a story justify the means and where is the balance? Perhaps, precisely that nothing should be underestimated, that the murders in the film are not just part of that film story, if you do not give it weight, if you exclude reality from all that and if you underestimate the strength of mind to which the author trying to reach. The power must be in the message, and the film must not be reduced to a game, because the details and the skill indicate the painful reality, that is most often is inspiration and must never end without the real consequences. In the movie, of course.