I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Small Crimes is a sharp, short slice of noir. A low-key crime film that that is packed with great nuanced performances. Tightly directed with a gripping screenplay that smartly straddles the razors edge of noir and absurdity. Rich characters with a marvellously self-deluded and engaging protagonist. Small Crimes ticked all the boxes for me. I loved it.

To tell you about this movie might affect it's impact, because a good part of its impact is the backstory it doesn't give you until the moment it is needed, creating a process of discovery in a careful unfolding of story for the viewer. This is one indication of the filmmaking craft at its best.Small Crimes is the story of a narcissistic ex-cop, now ex-con, released from prison after a six-year stint for slashing a DA in a drunken brawl. Turns out that his crimes were worse than that, but from the get-go we have the impression that Joe Denton, in a nuanced portrayal by the inimitable Danish actor Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau, really wants to turn his life around, even though he's cursed with a taste for whiskey, and the small town he returns home to is populated by his nasty old crowd.Virtually all of the performances are spot on, but, for me, the film was anchored by Molly Parker, Robert Forster, Macon Blair (the co-writer) and Gary Cole, in addition to Coaster- Waldau in the lead. This film has an evenly-paced start, and I kept wondering when it would click into another gear, though it was intriguing from the first frame; and I loved the way the filmmakers didn't show their hand early, they don't forecast how very dark the movie will become, they just unfold it for you with a sure hand, never getting fancy or "filmic" with the camera. They are letting the story do its work, without forcing anything or trying to wow you with gimmicky visual candy or a score that calls attention to itself. Another sign of solid, sure-handed filmmaking.Small Crimes reminded me of a Cohen Brothers film, or my own film, Lake of Fire. It has a bit of a Gothic feel with a dark-comedy thread, is definitely fatalistic and rather brooding, but also crisply realistic in look, dialog, and acting. I must add that the music does provide some guidance in terms of accentuating some sense of comical irony to what Joe Denton has to go through.At the end of it, I felt that I had experienced a good dose of small town nihilism, but the fact that Joe Denton has a narcissistic, self-destructive personality type isn't revealed until near the end of the film. That detail didn't even need to be provided, but, when it is, you are given a nice clue to his behavior throughout the story — this is the kind of detail you would get in a novel, and I would guess that the rich story fabric of Small Crimes might be due to the novel on which the screenplay was based, and, of course, the screenwriters' talent for knowing how a story should work.For screenwriters, there's a good lesson about the value of using backstory to fill out a story as you go, using it as a story layer to provide a richer understanding of the drama. I think that must be why I like this movie so much: it simply doesn't follow a typical, as in typically contemporary, filmmaking formula. It's an original story and an original, fully realized filmmaking vision. Bravo to all who helped make it happen.I should also mention the power and depth and light that Molly Parker brought to the film in the role of Joe Denton's girlfriend. Here again, you feel the tension of knowing just enough to be intrigued, to sense there could be some hope for Joe, before the final sequence pulls the rug out from under whatever it was you thought might happen.I recommend this film to everyone who loves original indie films and filmmakers who take the craft to heart.

The background comes in bits and pieces and it takes time to put those pieces together for the viewer, but despite what many other reviews stated, it's a coherent, layered story, and one that leaves you thinking afterwards.Beneath the upper layer, which is a crime story with good number of twists and characters, there is a story about second chances and lost cases, and the invisible line that separates the two. It's also a story about realizing there are things you can not amend, no matter how hard you try. The protagonist did a lot of awful things in the past, he messed up his own life and that of his family on several accounts. He served his time and he just wants a clean slate. Now, the question raised by the movie is if he did change and become a better man, and more importantly, irrespective of becoming a better man or not, does he really have a second chance in life, or it's just a false hope that he can't let go of. We get some hints throughout the film, that despite his doomed situation, he at least tries to do better, but probably not hard enough, and makes the same mistakes he did before he went to jail. His final and biggest tragedy is that he fails to realize that he reached the point where the world would be a better place without him for all those who are (or should be) important for him. Maybe because he just can't let go of his hope for a second chance, even though it's already lost.Well acted and sad movie about a lost case.

I HIGHLY recommend that you read the novel before watching the train-wreck of a movie.At first opaque, later vague, a bit further it's confusing, and after 40 minutes in I have no idea of just what is going on. Before we have any freaking idea of what is happening, or what happened, or what will happen we are served something of a romance. I just think that you need to put your cards on the table a little sooner than way later. It reminded me of the children's game of telephone and by the time the story got around to the viewers it had turned into quite a mess.What we are left with is a shell of a story and a broken individual. Just how he got this way and why are things lost in the oblique telling of what led up to the events in the film.I'm kind of tired of all the ex HBO or wherever hack actors sneaking in to movies. They may have been good the first time around and it was great because they were fresh. Now they aren't so fresh so go and find new people, please. But this is just me talking and I hate movie stars.P.S. I wish that I had read the book first; the movie would have made a lot more sense.