The Last Victim

(2021) The Last Victim SUSPENSE THRILLER

Co-produced, co-written and directed by Naveen A. Chathapuram that has Jake (Ralph Ineson) entering a diner in the middle of the night. He goes in there with two other people waiting for him outside. And only to see a single person, eating by himself we find out his name is Manny Randowski (Tom Stevens). The waitress/ cook of the diner asks Jake what he wants to eat and while she is cooking his food, more babbling occurs and Jake shoots and kill Manny before he kills the lady in the kitchen. Old guy hears this and he comes toward the diner guns a blazing successfully kills one person, injuring the other. Jake succeeds killing him as well. Jake's friend comes in through the door, we find out his name is Snoopy (Paul Belsito). Jake is barking orders to grab the bodies and stick them in the back of their pickup. And upon trying shut the back, he cuts off one of Manny's fingers off. The following morning has the sheriff, Herman Hickey (Ron Pearlman also credited as co- executive producer) notices the finger lying on the ground picks it up before he brings it inside the diner while the other deputy, Mindy Gaboon (Camille Legg) is taking photos. The next scene introduces a young couple of Susan Orden (Ali Larter) and her husband, Richard Orden (Tahmoh Penikett) and are on vacation. We are then introduced to brothers, Bull (Kyle Schmid) and Tad (Dakota Daulby) are practicing shooting at bottles and cans. And as we see what their social life is like, it was during then Jake and Snoopy shows up, and he asks Bull where they can dump the bodies. And Bull suggests them a good place to be is the nature reserve Yay Oola. That also happens to be one of the so called hot spots the couple of Susan and Richard happen to plan to visit. Once they find out it is closed, they decide to drive around the nature reserve anyway. And it is not long before Susan is on the run forcing her to fend for her herself.

This movie would have made a great experimental perhaps as a social commentary project but not as a two hour movie as the movie left viewers with more questions than answers. I mean, I do not mind ambiguity but not that much as this movie have shown, such as why did Jake shot and kill Manny in the first place? Was it about the money or was it about a former girlfriend he had lost to him? And in all places, why shoot and kill him in a diner when their may be other times to kill him. Viewers are obvious the connection of each character considering there isn't a large population. The social commentary occurs at the end but it is like too little too late.

That is my recommendation to Hollywood. If you try it, I think you will find it is win win. As for the film, the cinematographer was in love with the locale, every shot is perfectly framed. Perlman could not give a bad performance even if he wanted to. Larter, in her 40s, still connects with the audience. The dog is well played. Basically the kind of film where you spend more time thinking about how to improve it than actually enjoying it.

With so many good TV shows giving us well-written dialogue and original stories in a 45/50 minute episode, Peaky Blinders, Numbers, The Mentalist, Elementary, Fringe, Person of Interest and many others, filmmakers have to pull their socks up. The competition is on. This film dragged for nearly 2 hours, twenty minutes could have easily been edited, but even then, it is nothing that we have not seen a dozen times better; very poor; I don't think this merits anyone's time.

Hate the drag-on slow pace. A thriller should avoid such slow-burn tempo. The totally unnecessary narration is another letdown, couldn't quite understand why the screenplay or the director needed to insert such unwanted blah, blah, and blah. Camera work is fine but too traditionally cliched and formulaic way of shooting, such as shot the person stepping out of the car, the shoes touching the ground, driver-side car door closed, then the camera following pair of shoes walking forward, the camera following them, then gradually raise up from legs, thighs, to upper body, but still only showing the back of the person...That, really sucks big time, man.

Then, there's a scene showing the sheriff and the female deputy sat on the rear of the police truck eating (lunch or supper?) in broad daylight. Then again, same eating scene, but it's totally dark. How long a meal could be last so long and so slow for just couple of sandwiches? Are the eating scenes that dragged so long for the purpose of building up the tension or just for the purpose to make the movie itself longer? So many unnecessary scenes could be smartly cut off and edited, but no, those scenes just have to stay to fill up the empty on-going. Man, why we have to watch a throw-back deadbeat thriller like this? An eatery in the middle of nowhere still opening for business at late night? It even equipped CCTV? One old woman running the diner?

Also, the killing spree is just kinda clueless and totally exaggerated, just to serve the hollow screenplay.

I'm not sure what people are griping about. I guess they think they could do a better film. (Bloody doubtful) There's nothing all that wrong with this movie. Some good performances, decent soundtrack, effective atmosphere. I think audiences just look for something to complain about.

It's not gonna win any awards but it's an entertaining watch.

Perlman is solid. Larter is strong. And the "bad guys" seem legitimately and worryingly nefarious.

Admittedly, there' a bit of an interesting interpretive scene the puts a speed bump on the road through the action, but it's short and somewhat logical.

The narrative may raise a few questions of continuity, and I can see a lot of grumbling about the writing. But when people site examples like The Mentalist as counter examples of good writing, you have to question the validity of the criticism. And I actually liked the Mentalist.

Again, this ain't palm d'or quality, but it's more interesting than a CBS formula crime drama.