Review of The Little Things (2021) by Malbie — 31 Jan 2021

A lot of people are coming to the conclusion that the ending of this movie was meant to be ambiguous, but I'm going to explain why I feel the killer was in fact Deke (Denzel Washington) working with the first suspect that killed himself.

I'll start with possibly the most obvious pattern this movie offers: two weeks. At the beginning, Deke tells his dog that he's been gone for two weeks (suggesting his dog only comes back when its owner is home), the fridge in the first murder had been broken for two weeks, and at the end, he tells Baxter (Rami Malek) to take two weeks off after their cover-up. The significance of two weeks in my opinion has to do with the stages of decomposition in a corpse. After two weeks, the bloating phase is over, which would cause a body to lose its buoyancy. When the body by the water is recovered, the first thing Deke asks Baxter is if she was a "floater.".

I feel that the two week thing here is also presented as a link to Deke's character as an alligator or snake. I'm not sure what type of skin the boots were supposed to be, but snakes are generally fed by the "two week rule" and alligators have been known to stalk prey for two weeks. The ending (where we see Baxter in the pool after a clip of one of the victims in a pool) suggests that Baxter was one of the killer's prey and that the killer is being likened to a reptile that hunts in the water.

In true serial killer fashion, Deke seems to be subtly hinting at his true identity throughout the film as well. Upon finding the killer's "observatory," Deke, takes a moment to sit in the chair and sink into the twisted mindset of a killer... almost as if he's stalking his new prey, Baxter. When Baxter comes to visit Deke, he also doesn't answer the door, leaving it unlocked for Deke to come in, practically showing him his wall of past cases/victims (or trophies?). The line later on when Deke says that we "own them" also sheds light into the mindset of a serial killer. Another hint seems to be when the landlord asks Deke if he'd like "some company" and we cut to him in bed with his "girls," with one of their hands at his feet in a servile manner.

Deke's desire seems to be more in corrupting others than simply killing them. With Baxter, he eventually succeeded in reducing him to a killer who has most likely flushed their career down the toilet (also possibly serving as a cover for Deke). Also, Baxter's boss' resentment for Deke verges on hatred, suggesting that he was aware of Deke's true role as the killer and even the silencing of his victim by "accidental" shooting five years ago. We also see this desire to corrupt with the first victim, who was a "strict vegan" yet was found with beef in her stomach and with milk in the fridge. I think that the first guy that killed himself was the one that stayed with the victims and starved/fed them, while Deke simply hunted and procured them. I took his strange reaction when he looks through the glass as being aware that Deke was behind it and now throwing him under the bus, tying up loose ends. It's also kind of established that there are likely two killers, since one guy is a biter.

This wouldn't be a crime analysis without the psychosexual take, so I'll make it quick. I feel like the red barrette at the end wasn't simply another subtle hint at Deke's true identity, but a sort of dressing of his latest victim. When Deke is about to part ways with Baxter, we see an unexpected display of emotion, with Deke even kissing him. I feel that Baxter did provide closure for Deke, but just not in the way he had thought. Deke essentially revisited his younger self in Baxter while also creating the perfect cover for when the FBI catches up to him.

There's also some other things, like the truth of Sparma's car being reported stolen, which could indicate a cover-up by Deke. The brown cars of the killer and Deke are also probably not coincidental.

As a movie, I don't think they even tried to make this entertaining, but as a crime story, it's one of the best weaving of truth within layers of ambiguity I've seen.