The Last Victim

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.

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.

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.

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)

It wasn't a movie you had to watch, but it wasn't bad at all. However, it's a bit boring.

Action was a bit slow. But good movie to watch Friday night. Good job!