The Little Things, Doesn't Care about The Little Things.

You've probably seen a movie like it, maybe even it's a TV show Let's say a procedural, let’s say “Columbo”. The antagonist goes throughout said episode believing they have been so slick so cool, that there is no way in which they can fail in their endeavor and yet as Columbo will inform us in the end, its the details he's missing that's leading him right into the cuffs of Columbo. In Colombo both from within the plot and externally from the audience it’s the little things that matter, and the writers, creators, and actors of that show made sure you knew and felt it. Interestingly enough John Lee Hancock's “The Little Things” has a somewhat meta thing going on where if it were an antagonist it would be in cuffs at the end because it doesn't pay enough attention to the little things. The story which is ultimately about a man drawn into a murder mystery that brings up his own sordid history as a cop - isnt very concerned with little details, like why a department official suddenly changes her mind about handing over paper work, or explaining in any way why Rami Malek's Sgt. Jim Baxter stares at Denzel Washington's Joe Deacon cross eyed when Deacon is doing nothing other than standing there and eventually talking. In truth it doesn’t even care about big things like character or really its own story. It would seem Hancock was far too involved with the twist to be concerned about anything else. I would add that I don't really think any writer or actor goes into their work trying to make a mistake such as this, it is merely that the execution makes it seem into the audience as if this is the case. Hancock's movie has drawn some unfavorable comparisons to David Fincher's seminal classic “Seven”, seeing as though they were conceived of around the same time And because they do share a number of similarities (this feels like Denzel wanting to make up for his one admitted mistake of turning down Finchers film) I'll use Seven to make something of a comparison of what works and what doesn't, which in The Little Things is just about everything.

The central relationship in Seven is set around Detectives Somerset (Morgan Freeman)and Mills (Brad Pitt), it would seem that “The Little Things” wants to do the same. At the beginning its setting its central relationship around Joe Deacon (Denzel) and Sergeant Jim Baxter, (Rami Malek) but the relationship is poorly set up and poorly built upon, and so too are the characters. Baxter’s dislike for “Deke" as they call him (professional jealousy for a guy you dont know who as of yet poses no threat) and subsequent disciple-like behavior are just random and weird. Meanwhile Seven opened up showing us intricate details about the fashion of Somerset's routine which clearly showed him to be obviously very meticulous and detail oriented. His Kitchen and bedroom are minimalist and very clean, his bed extremely well made, his belongings set out in order before him. The clash between he and Mills is based in style, and objectives. Mills is very rushed, he talks a lot, even in his dress its clear hes the opposite of Somerset. Hes high on respect because hes young, and hes high strung, as well as impatient. Mills wants this case, ( most likely to prove himself) Somerset doesn't, (because hes been here before and he has an intuition) and pretty much all of this is established within the first 5 minutes of their meeting. When we first meet Sergeant Baxter in The Little Things he's having Deacon's truck towed because it was in his way and seemingly because he likes to do things by the book. He says “if you want special treatment go back to Kern County” where Deacon comes from, but There's nothing later on in the film that backs this rigidity to straight laced behavior up so the scene ends up feeling connected to nothing and random. Baxter will maybe three minutes later accuse Deacon of busting his balls when it seems that it's he that is bothered by Deacon, and again this isnt really built upon, sooner rather than later they are like besties. We then find out that despite all of these stares and challenges from Baxter, there was no inciting incident, history, or reason, because he has to ask who Deacon is, and the dynamics between these two quickly become disorienting and nonsensical. This will set a tone for the rest of the film as many of these characters just do things because the script seems to be bounding them towards it rather than a natural occurrence due to the characteristics of their make-up. Once we arrive at the reveal I'm not able to tell you why Denzel's character does the things he does, any more than I'm able to tell you what motivated Leto and definitely not why Malek's Baxter does what he does. If this movie seemed like it was going for a brechtian exercise in the limits of and boundaries of storytelling In the genre I might find this interesting but as it is it decidedly seems like it's not it's just devoid of any interest in anything but it's semi goofy plot twist.

If I'm writing a story I would feel I would have to know who my characters are very early in the process. They might not be the first thing, but they would be a very near second or third, because most everything I'm going to do with the rest of the story is going to extend from the decision-making of these characters whom I formulated. When it's good..then it feels like they're in the driver's seat. They may not know where they're going, but they're clearly driving. When it's bad, it feels like they're being dragged behind the muffler. In Jonathan Demme's Silence of the Lambs it's Clarice Starlings background that provides such an ample canvas to play with in her interactions with Hannibal, in where they bring her going into the future, and how she's being challenged in the present by her peers and “Buffalo Bill". My great issue with “The Little Things is that it seems so disinterested in it’s own protagonist. It cares about Deacons past only in so far as it can keep its audience guessing, with characters cryptically referring to Deacon's past with no illumination provided by Deacon, by the script, nor by events in the film.. until the end. The movie is so concerned with hiding his secrets (For fear I guess that it may end up clueing you in to its great reveal at the end) that it throws poor Deacon under the bus. There is nothing to this man, and since there is nothing to him beyond this cryptic past Denzel has that much more work to do to create this character because it's a very superficial character in a certain way. He is simply a man with secrets and the secrets even when explained at the end are not built upon enough for him to really excavate something truly interesting and the same goes for the rest of the cast. I've seen a number of my peers comment on the performances in this movie it's very interesting. Some have said it's Denzel that does poorly in this film, some have said it's Malek, and a few have said it's Leto. Then there are those who've said that each one of these same men are the only ones performing in this movie. This bit of incongruence, this inability for any consensus not only as to who is good but which of them is bad or good, stems from the fact that all of these actors are clearly alone in their work. Sometime ago I remember reading a quote that I want to attribute to the great Gary Oldman where he said that “a bad script for an actor was like climbing a mountain, but a good script for an actor was like climbing into a warm bath”, whomever said it its incredibly accurate, and you can feel it here with these all very talented actors, ( I won’t hear any of this Jared Leto is not a good actor nonsense, he may not be as good as he sometimes thinks he is, but he is indeed very good) and Leto may have it the worst in that his character functions almost as a prop or a device. I for one actually congratulate him for finding the most interesting thing to do being so clearly enthusiastic about it, because Malek, who is also giving it a college try seems lost. His reactions his movements seem like he's hesitant or lacking in understanding of the words that he's even saying at times, and I get it! Then there is the Goat Denzel whom in my own personal opinion gives the first poor performance I've ever seen from him. Denzel seems completely disinterested, lazy and phoned in at times and at others also confused as to what is needed. The scene where he talks to the dead girl feels forced and disengaged I can't find it the least bit interesting, and it could’ve used some of the energy he brought to Roman Israel, but again you have to consider the material. There is no story here, it is a sad jambalaya of ideas borrowed from different films, and different ideas about those films, and from a man who most likely see's the world in the same light he saw it some 20 or 30 years ago when he came up with this in the first place, and conversely or inversely a world that sees his work differently than they saw it 20 or 30 years ago.

I remember the run of late-90s middle budgeted thrillers fondly. I loved quite a few of them. “A Perfect “Murder” “Don't Say a Word” “The Watcher”, “Kiss the Girls”, “The Bone Collector”, “Switchback” I found something to like intensely about them all. The great thing about those films is that even when they lacked the world building, the mood, tone cinematography, shocking twist and well ..Fincherness that made Seven the classic that it is or even other classic films that came before it or around it like “Silence of the Lambs”or “Manhunter” or “M", they found an approach that was interesting and they almost each and every last one of them had performers who are truly invested in what they were doing it because even when the story was simple or silly it seems like everyone was on the same page of what they needed to do, and how they wanted to go about doing it and that just isn't there in this film. “The Little Things” is convoluted it's ridiculous, and it doesn't even have the kind of inspired enthusiasm some of its peers had, I’ll give it some oblivious enthusiasm provided by Jared Leto, but otherwise its just drab, and morose and not even stylish. It's the second movie that I’ve seen this year that involves some version of digging up an old script for some form of sentimental reasoning that ultimately ends up feeling every bit not only of its age, but of it's authorial disconnect. The other film is David Fincher's “Mank" which trn times more interesting than this , and still so lost in its own sauce. Mank's disconnect is in its DNA quite literally father to son, The Little Things might be in the author and the change in the audience and what we expect differently from when he wrote it. Both of these films feel like a time-traveling Michael j.fox lost completely in an era and a time where its approach, mentality, and overall ineptitude make it feel like all of its “something that doesn't belong”. They're, it is, a Fish Out of Water story, where the story itself is the fish out of water except for this time it's not entertaining in the least. For that to happen the creators would've needed to lay .order attention to the little things beyond its title.