The Last Victim

The first 90 minutes of this movie aren't horrible, but it's very slow without much of value. It has trouble investing you in the story or characters even though it spends lots of time trying to.

In the last 15 minutes it gets really stupid. And you realize how little you care about the outcome. (1 viewing, 5/20/2022)

"The Last Victim" (2021) is a compelling neo-Western crime thriller that seamlessly blends the gritty atmosphere of classic film noir with the rugged spirit of the American West. This American-made film carves its own path, delivering a strong story with a focus on complex characters and a visually striking aesthetic.

Sheriff Marcus (Ron Perlman), a weary lawman haunted by a past tragedy, finds himself on the trail of a ruthless gang led by the charismatic but sociopathic Jake (Ralph Ineson). The gang's reign of terror leaves a trail of violence and despair in its wake, forcing Marcus to confront his own demons while trying to bring them to justice.

The film masterfully utilizes the stark beauty of the Southwestern landscape, employing a dusty palette and long, lingering shots to create a sense of isolation and dread. The cinematography, by Lukasz Pruchnik, is particularly impressive, capturing the harsh realities of life on the frontier while also hinting at the underlying darkness that lurks beneath the surface.

The performances are uniformly strong. Ron Perlman, as Marcus, delivers a nuanced portrayal of a man grappling with guilt and the weight of responsibility. Ralph Ineson is chillingly effective as the leader of the gang, exuding a dangerous charisma that masks a cold, calculating mind.

However, "The Last Victim" is not without its flaws. The pacing can feel uneven at times, with some scenes dragging while others feel rushed. Additionally, some plot twists may feel predictable to seasoned genre fans.

Overall:

Despite these minor shortcomings, "The Last Victim" is a worthwhile watch for fans of crime thrillers and those seeking a unique cinematic experience. Its blend of genres, strong performances, and visually striking presentation create a memorable and unsettling journey into the heart of darkness.

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.

(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.

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.