I am flabbergasted by what the pros are writing about what I think is a brilliant movie.
What it is not is a frou-frou, frilly film filled with shiny historical costumes, gardens and pretty green trees with picnic spots in between (should you want to rest your corset and your sword on the emerald-colored grass) that will get you nominated for best photography, and may be for best actor for your British-analog elocution.
(It is not a Superman, or some cop show that demands more of gun performance than actors’ craft.)
The Little Things' photography is stunning but modern, noir and urbane. And sober, as are the dialogues where silences matter as much as words. The plot itself matters less than the study of characters, the atmosphere and the exquisite, slow pacing. At some point you realize you are deep into a Hitchcockian piece of work.
Denzel Washington is superb, and not only because he’s a good-looking guy. But my palm would go to director John Lee Hancock for giving predominance to restraint and facial expressions that tell just enough for cops to be as mysterious and as tortured as the crimes they are investigating.
If you love psychological thrillers and love Hitchcock, you will know that The Little Things is no small thing.