In the movie the little things who was the murderer

In the movie the little things who was the murderer

Video In the movie the little things who was the murderer

unsolved crimes, lots of blood and rami malek and denzel washington in top form. What’s not to love about the little things, the latest theatrical release, and HBO Max’s direct-to-broadcast drama? Sure, the movie didn’t reinvent the wheel of true crime, but Jared Leto’s creepy glare kept us watching anyway.

In case you missed it or are hiding from the scares in another tab, here’s a brief synopsis: A series of apparently interconnected violent murders take place in the Los Angeles area. Denzel Washington plays a local sheriff, deacon, under pressure to retire, with a history of getting too emotionally involved in his cases. Jimmy (played by Malek in a suit and tie), a promising new young man, becomes the lead detective in the investigation of a series of murders. the film follows the two as they struggle to solve the cases, their own lives becoming intertwined. Enter: Leto’s character, Albert Sparma, a prime suspect and a disturbing one at that.

but luckily, sparma confesses, the detectives become the town’s new heroes and the gang lives happily ever after.


Instead, we witness anything but a happy ending, as Sparma leads Jimmy to the supposed location of one of his victims, and we learn the true story of Deacon’s account of a previous murder. here’s the end of the little things, explained:

so what really happened at the end of the little things?

Well, first things first: In a flashback, we witness Deacon shoot and kill a survivor of a case he had worked on years earlier. Turns out Deacon has been hiding some serious guilt; those ghosts of the murdered victims we see him interact with may be that guilt seeping out of him. A moment earlier in the movie, in which the coroner reluctantly agrees to help Deacon, makes sense now, too. (Later we see how the coroner extracts a bullet from the body and declares the opposite as to the cause of death of him.)

Jimmy’s fate is not that different. we see him kill sparma with a shovel out of anger. Unfazed, Deacon comes to Jimmy’s rescue, hiding any evidence of Sparma’s apartment.

was sparma really responsible for the murders?

During the final moments of the film, we see Jimmy receive an envelope from Deacon at his home, containing a red pushpin, implying that Sparma was, in fact, responsible for at least one murder. (or perhaps all of them?) The envelope also contained a note, “there are no angels”, referencing an earlier argument they had had where Deacon said they couldn’t be in the “angel business” as detectives.

of course, we found out that deacon had bought the barrette for jimmy, without jimmy knowing. Deacon knows that Jimmy needs the emotional determination to move on, even if it’s based on a lie. it is the kind of determination that deacon never had and by which he now lives affected all his life. he wants to protect jimmy from the same fate as him.

but the truth is that we don’t know if sparma did it. we learned that sparma confessed to a murder that he did not commit years before and his psychological profile does not match that of the murderer. in other words, the evidence is flimsy at best. (Though one fact remains: I knew of marker 457 where a murder had been committed before anyone else seemed to know except the police.)

still, there is reason to believe that jimmy is still not out of trouble. if sparma did, the chain of murders would stop. If he didn’t, then Jimmy must live with the reality that he killed an innocent man, while the killings continue. we may never know the actual ending, but that’s perhaps the motive behind the movie. We, too, are left unsolved, but luckily, we won’t have to live a lifetime of wondering, as Jimmy would with his.

Related Articles

Back to top button