I know I can't be the first...
Where is ***The Little Things*** thread?
6,334 Views |
54 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by benchmark
Is this spoiler thread? Just finished and would love to discuss.
Watching now...
40 minutes in. Heavy Fincher vibes...
I watched this while entertaining my kid, so I'm sure I missed something. But I really didn't like it. There was a build up for a murder mystery and it ended with the cops killing a guy who they think was the murderer? And it was swept under the rug because Denzel killed a woman? I really don't get what this was going for.
Just finished it. What the hell? That was a colossal waste of two hours. Good suspenseful parts but completely falls on its face at the end. Can anyone actually explain that?
May be reading into some things too much but don't know how to do spoiler tags and don't want to post on this thread without them
Decent build up over the first hour...got pretty slow in the middle. I kept waiting for the big surprise/twist....I'm still waiting.
Please tell me there's a special place in Heaven for Aggie fans! It's like we are living some sort of penance on Earth.
Ugh. The ending.
Right there with y'all on the ending.
I guess they wanted to leave it "inconclusive"?
I really enjoyed everything up until the moment he killed him with the shovel. Very anti-climactic. They never nail him we don't get to understand what the hell he was planning. And they never find the girl. Completely unsatisfying.
I guess they wanted to leave it "inconclusive"?
I really enjoyed everything up until the moment he killed him with the shovel. Very anti-climactic. They never nail him we don't get to understand what the hell he was planning. And they never find the girl. Completely unsatisfying.
Damn, I was looking forward to seeing this one.
Finally figured out how to post with spoiler. Long post and read at your own peril.
I think Denzel was the killer. Early on he's cruising the red light district weirdly looking at call girls. The building across the street - chair had full cobwebs and he opened the shade just enough to gaze at his victim one more time, but played it off like good police work. Gets keys and goes back. We all know killers like to return to the scene of crime and revel in it. How did he know to go right for the fridge where only thing fresh was milk and beer. Didn't examine anything else.
Left his wife and kids out of guilt, but once back another victim shows up and he kept talking about a similar case up north.
His guilt of killing the three haunts him - but next scene he's talking about the past is present. He couldn't help himself and killed the jogger.
As a detective - He had a loose end with the peeping Tom - the guy must have suspected something - that's why he broke his jaw and stuck around to intimidate him further. That was fear on peeper's face. He killed the only witness to the original crime who appeared to know him after she was shot.
Finally - the lady gave him the name of the appliance store. Went to the first Store with no leads. Upon leaving saw a shady one a few clicks down and goes into that store, but never gives police the real evidence.
As for Leto - I think He was following the crimes pervertedly and suspected Denzel as the killer because of police scanner. Original murder - bodies were warm and Denzel was there immediately to shoot remaining survivor.
First time they meet - leto almost recognizes him when he asks about trunk space. They also said the only news about mile marker was over radio and not public (scanner). Leto knows he's being followed and takes Denzel right to the crime scene at the mile marker. When he leaves Leto asks him about his trunk space.
Denzel purposely goes into interrogation room to flip out on Leto about getting off to photos - no one else saw it coming. Leto even said wow you lost control there.
I think the truth was in plain sight - Denzel knew Leto was following the case. The little things get you caught.
As crazy as Leto was - need to get rid of him. Used Leto's death as an opportunity to go through his entire apartment to make sure no evidence could be used against Denzel. Took anything incriminating to burn
Finally sends the closure hair clip to ensure no suspicion is on him - verified by fbi saying white male 25-40.
I think Denzel was the killer. Early on he's cruising the red light district weirdly looking at call girls. The building across the street - chair had full cobwebs and he opened the shade just enough to gaze at his victim one more time, but played it off like good police work. Gets keys and goes back. We all know killers like to return to the scene of crime and revel in it. How did he know to go right for the fridge where only thing fresh was milk and beer. Didn't examine anything else.
Left his wife and kids out of guilt, but once back another victim shows up and he kept talking about a similar case up north.
His guilt of killing the three haunts him - but next scene he's talking about the past is present. He couldn't help himself and killed the jogger.
As a detective - He had a loose end with the peeping Tom - the guy must have suspected something - that's why he broke his jaw and stuck around to intimidate him further. That was fear on peeper's face. He killed the only witness to the original crime who appeared to know him after she was shot.
Finally - the lady gave him the name of the appliance store. Went to the first Store with no leads. Upon leaving saw a shady one a few clicks down and goes into that store, but never gives police the real evidence.
As for Leto - I think He was following the crimes pervertedly and suspected Denzel as the killer because of police scanner. Original murder - bodies were warm and Denzel was there immediately to shoot remaining survivor.
First time they meet - leto almost recognizes him when he asks about trunk space. They also said the only news about mile marker was over radio and not public (scanner). Leto knows he's being followed and takes Denzel right to the crime scene at the mile marker. When he leaves Leto asks him about his trunk space.
Denzel purposely goes into interrogation room to flip out on Leto about getting off to photos - no one else saw it coming. Leto even said wow you lost control there.
I think the truth was in plain sight - Denzel knew Leto was following the case. The little things get you caught.
As crazy as Leto was - need to get rid of him. Used Leto's death as an opportunity to go through his entire apartment to make sure no evidence could be used against Denzel. Took anything incriminating to burn
Finally sends the closure hair clip to ensure no suspicion is on him - verified by fbi saying white male 25-40.
oh and how did denzel know to ask about her last meal?!? He was testing Remi who he said at the beginning in the diner i heard You're a good detective (has he checked everything?!) When remi acknowledged it was roast beef - he again said it's the little things That get you caught and drove away fast - then made sure to follow Leto to an arbys for more plausibility.
Last random thought - in the beginning the killer walked normally. I kept wondering why leto's character had that weird gait (to throw us off?). Even in his final moments Leto never changed his walk - Leto didn't do the crimes like he said "I've never killed anybody in my life". Leto was a weirdo police and killer chasing junkie but didn't do it. Coach Boone with a knife in the kitchen is the final clue.
Last random thought - in the beginning the killer walked normally. I kept wondering why leto's character had that weird gait (to throw us off?). Even in his final moments Leto never changed his walk - Leto didn't do the crimes like he said "I've never killed anybody in my life". Leto was a weirdo police and killer chasing junkie but didn't do it. Coach Boone with a knife in the kitchen is the final clue.
This movie wasn't good. The director is obviously a fan of True Detective and Se7en, but nowhere near those works. So much cliche cop movie dialogue that it was annoying very early on. I don't know how they got three Oscar winners onboard for this, all of them should have read this and passed. Reminded me of when I saw Gangster Squad, was looking forward to it, but was a huge disappointment.
This movie was pointless, unnecessary, unentertaining.
This movie was pointless, unnecessary, unentertaining.
I think you're trying to force depth on a very shallow (and bad) movie. I agree that Denzel's character was weird, but I think that's mostly because they wanted him to have this troubled backstory but couldn't fully flesh that backstory out.
rambo_99 said:
Is this spoiler thread? Just finished and would love to discuss.
No, but it became one three posts after yours.
January/February dump months for movies still applies in streaming.
Yeah I'm seeing that theory on reddit and I just don't see it.
I agree with others. Lots of good build up but no payoff. Felt like a ripoff of Seven in some places but nowhere near as good.
One problem with the Denzel theory is they do a quick cut at the beginning of the killer and he looks like a tall skinny white dude. Denzel's body type would have been obvious in that early scene IMO
One problem with the Denzel theory is they do a quick cut at the beginning of the killer and he looks like a tall skinny white dude. Denzel's body type would have been obvious in that early scene IMO
I wasn't expecting much after seeing the first few replies in this thread, but I have to say I enjoyed the movie tremendously.
GreasenUSA said:
I wasn't expecting much after seeing the first few replies in this thread, but I have to say I enjoyed the movie tremendously.
Apologies if my enjoyment was upsetting to you.
This was as bad if not worse than WW87.
HBOMax theater release are 0-2.
Don't waste your time on this movie.
HBOMax theater release are 0-2.
Don't waste your time on this movie.
Ol Army 01 Post Boobs
Yeah, I just finished and didn't like it either for same reasons you guys have pointed but can't help thinking that maybe we are missing something and there are "little things" that get overlooked on the first viewing that actually make it all make sense.
However I don't really have that much of a desire to re-watch or even spend time to do internet research to see if there is more to it.
I was leaning towards the same theory set out above and thought the contents of the envelope at the end was going to tie it all together but instead it just further confuses things.
would have ended up making sense if Denzel was the killer and sent a taunting package to Rami knowing Rami couldn't put him since It would mean Rami killed an innocent man.
As it is, I'm fairly certain Leto was not the real killer (his walk, no hard evidence in the vehicle he dumped or his apartment). So Rami killed an innocent guy, but Denzel knowing how that kind of thing can ruin a life, tries to tie the case up in Rami's mind to protect him. Only problem with that is as soon as the real killer kills again, that charade is over.
However I don't really have that much of a desire to re-watch or even spend time to do internet research to see if there is more to it.
I was leaning towards the same theory set out above and thought the contents of the envelope at the end was going to tie it all together but instead it just further confuses things.
would have ended up making sense if Denzel was the killer and sent a taunting package to Rami knowing Rami couldn't put him since It would mean Rami killed an innocent man.
As it is, I'm fairly certain Leto was not the real killer (his walk, no hard evidence in the vehicle he dumped or his apartment). So Rami killed an innocent guy, but Denzel knowing how that kind of thing can ruin a life, tries to tie the case up in Rami's mind to protect him. Only problem with that is as soon as the real killer kills again, that charade is over.
Maybe the worst crime "thriller" I've ever seen.
I had a feeling this exact post in this exact thread would be what brought you back.
Eh. Not great, not terrible. Acting was good. I would give it a 6.
I'm not sure why yall are all worked up over this movie. It wasn't great, but it wasn't as bad as some of you are trying to make it out to be.
I'm not sure why yall are all worked up over this movie. It wasn't great, but it wasn't as bad as some of you are trying to make it out to be.
This is the *actual* plot of The Little Things...
A Los Angeles detective (Washington) accidentally kills the lone, surviving woman at a multi-victim murder scene.
Five years later, said disgraced detective ends up helping the new hotshot LADP detective (Malik) on a case that may or may not be connected to the killings mentions above, and may or may not be connected to a series of murders in Northern California, where the veteran/disgraced detective now lives? This entire plot line was so forgettable and under-baked that I honestly have no idea if that's even right or not.
Either way, their primary suspect, who may or may not connect these murders together, ends up being nothing more than a super-creepy crime buff who almost assuredly has never killed anyone in his life, i.e. his entire plot line is a complete red herring, in the most frustrating, ridiculous fashion.
Then, in the coincidence of all coincidences, the hotshot detective ALSO ends up accidentally killing someone at a crime scene - the lone, super-creepy suspect, who almost assuredly didn't commit the murders. So the veteran detective who accidentally killed someone at a crime scene five years prior helps the hotshot detective cover up HIS accidental kill at a crime scene, same as the veteran detective's colleagues helped him five years ago.
The lesson learned, or the "theme" of the movie - if you can call it that - essentially boils down to, "If you're a detective, and you accidentally kill someone at a crime scene, never speak of it or that person again," i.e. "No Angels."
... at least as far as I can tell, because, holy crap, that was some horribly-executed story telling.
But that's essentially it. That's the movie.
None of this is to say how terrible the editing and pacing was, how bland and cliched the dialogue was, or how the entire thing was inexplicably set in 1990 for no other reason than two scenes involving a public payphone.
I'm sorry, but I feel 100% justified getting "worked up" over this movie. It was absolutely as bad as, if not worse than, the worst crime thrillers I've ever seen. In fact, I don't think I've ever been as baffled as to how so many Oscar-winning actors could commit to such a crappy, generic script.
And this is coming from someone who was absolutely looking forward to this movie.
A Los Angeles detective (Washington) accidentally kills the lone, surviving woman at a multi-victim murder scene.
Five years later, said disgraced detective ends up helping the new hotshot LADP detective (Malik) on a case that may or may not be connected to the killings mentions above, and may or may not be connected to a series of murders in Northern California, where the veteran/disgraced detective now lives? This entire plot line was so forgettable and under-baked that I honestly have no idea if that's even right or not.
Either way, their primary suspect, who may or may not connect these murders together, ends up being nothing more than a super-creepy crime buff who almost assuredly has never killed anyone in his life, i.e. his entire plot line is a complete red herring, in the most frustrating, ridiculous fashion.
Then, in the coincidence of all coincidences, the hotshot detective ALSO ends up accidentally killing someone at a crime scene - the lone, super-creepy suspect, who almost assuredly didn't commit the murders. So the veteran detective who accidentally killed someone at a crime scene five years prior helps the hotshot detective cover up HIS accidental kill at a crime scene, same as the veteran detective's colleagues helped him five years ago.
The lesson learned, or the "theme" of the movie - if you can call it that - essentially boils down to, "If you're a detective, and you accidentally kill someone at a crime scene, never speak of it or that person again," i.e. "No Angels."
... at least as far as I can tell, because, holy crap, that was some horribly-executed story telling.
But that's essentially it. That's the movie.
None of this is to say how terrible the editing and pacing was, how bland and cliched the dialogue was, or how the entire thing was inexplicably set in 1990 for no other reason than two scenes involving a public payphone.
I'm sorry, but I feel 100% justified getting "worked up" over this movie. It was absolutely as bad as, if not worse than, the worst crime thrillers I've ever seen. In fact, I don't think I've ever been as baffled as to how so many Oscar-winning actors could commit to such a crappy, generic script.
And this is coming from someone who was absolutely looking forward to this movie.
Brian Earl Spilner said:
I had a feeling this exact post in this exact thread would be what brought you back.
Needed a long break and wasn't planning on coming back until tomorrow (Feb 1st), but this thing sucked so bad I couldn't help but get sucked back in sooner.
TCTTS said:
This is the *actual* plot of The Little Things...
A Los Angeles detective (Washington) accidentally kills the lone, surviving woman at a multi-victim murder scene.
Five years later, said disgraced detective ends up helping the new hotshot LADP detective (Malik) on a case that may or may not be connected to the killings mentions above, and may or may not be connected to a series of murders in Northern California, where the veteran/disgraced detective now lives? This entire plot line was so forgettable and under-baked that I honestly have no idea if that's even right or not.
Either way, their primary suspect, who may or may not connect these murders together, ends up being nothing more than a super-creepy crime buff who almost assuredly has never killed anyone in his life, i.e. his entire plot line is a complete red herring, in the most frustrating, ridiculous fashion.
Then, in the coincidence of all coincidences, the hotshot detective ALSO ends up accidentally killing someone at a crime scene - the lone, super-creepy suspect, who almost assuredly didn't commit the murders. So the veteran detective who accidentally killed someone at a crime scene five years prior helps the hotshot detective cover up HIS accidental kill at a crime scene, same as the veteran detective's colleagues helped him five years ago.
The lesson learned, or the "theme" of the movie - if you can call it that - essentially boils down to, "If you're a detective, and you accidentally kill someone at a crime scene, never speak of it or that person again," i.e. "No Angels."
... at least as far as I can tell, because, holy crap, that was some horribly-executed story telling.
But that's essentially it. That's the movie.
None of this is to say how terrible the editing and pacing was, how bland and cliched the dialogue was, or how the entire thing was inexplicably set in 1990 for no other reason than two scenes involving a public payphone.
I'm sorry, but I feel 100% justified getting "worked up" over this movie. It was absolutely as bad as, if not worse than, the worst crime thrillers I've ever seen. In fact, I don't think I've ever been as baffled as to how so many Oscar-winning actors could commit to such a crappy, generic script.
And this is coming from someone who was absolutely looking forward to this movie.
So basically you gave it a 6 like me. Got it.
Ha. A negative 6, yes.
Still seems weird to be mad over a "bad movie" but you're obviously way more into this than me.
I'm not "mad." Just utterly baffled, disappointed, and frustrated that things like this can get made, when there's so much better material out there, getting passed over or waiting to be made.
Fair. I don't disagree with your assessment, but I still found it entertaining. Maybe just soley because those 3 actors were really good.
So what was the point of the blonde girl from the beginning and then her role in the police station???
Not even sure why her "subplot" for lack of better term was even in the movie... and who pulls in to a closed gas station?
Just a bad movie... I can see why Leto was in the movie... this is all he can get (or should get)... but why Rami and Denzel??
[/sp]
Not even sure why her "subplot" for lack of better term was even in the movie... and who pulls in to a closed gas station?
Just a bad movie... I can see why Leto was in the movie... this is all he can get (or should get)... but why Rami and Denzel??
[/sp]
Featured Stories
See All
28:19
18h ago
6.0k
Storm chaser Josh Pate stops by for a spring one-on-one
by Billy Liucci
3:05
1h ago
927
Baseball Thoughts: Aggies ride five-game heater into 2026's second half
by Ryan Brauninger
17:07
39m ago
527
7:09
23h ago
3.3k