Dangerous Lies exemplifies what’s been wrong with much of Netflix’s original content over the past decade. Both boring and nonsensical, the film feels like its sole purpose is to simply fill space in the streamer’s library. Directed by the aptly named Michael M. Scott, whose other projects consist of Hallmark made-for-TV movies, Dangerous Lies is no different – it’s schlocky, filled with tropes and has poor production values. But its monotony and confusing narrative are what sets it apart from other modern murder-mysteries – though it manages to copy some elements of thriller storylines, the film fails to capture any semblance of realism.
The film’s introduction, featuring indiscernible pop music, sets the stage for the imitation that’s to come. But surprisingly, the first real scene is compelling. Adam (Jessie T. Usher), a business student, is studying at the diner at which his wife, Katie (Camila Mendes), works, when a burglar attempts to hold it up. Adam jumps into action in the short yet thrilling scene, which paints him as a courageous man willing to risk his own safety for others. But the hook is squandered, as the film immediately fast-forwards four months and that storyline is forgotten, negated and then confusingly brought back up. But worse than squandering the little momentum mustered thus far is the monotony that ensues. For a film that runs a tight 89 minutes, it’s astonishing how much time is spent setting up the rest of the story. The film delves into Katie’s relationship with Leonard (Elliott Gould), a reclusive old man, whom Katie now works for as a live-in nurse. Leonard is alone (despite acting social and friendly), in need of a full-time nurse (despite seeming to be in good health) and educated and well-off. After Katie confides her money trouble to Leonard, he gives her a nice bonus before suddenly kicking the bucket. What’s more, Leonard has willed his entire estate to Katie, much to the suspicion of Detective Chesler (Sasha Alexander), who comes to investigate. Though it all seems serendipitous, Chesler makes Katie and the audience question whether Adam may have orchestrated the whole thing.
While this may seem like an interesting enough storyline to explore, the film brings in a bunch of other threads within the remaining hour. A dead body, a trunk of cash and a stash of diamonds appear all while Adam turns from the heroic boyfriend to an untrustworthy suspect. In a good murder mystery, many of these threads would tie together into a satisfying payoff. But Scott doesn’t make the effort, leaving most of these threads open and delivering a story that largely takes place outside of the film. In fact, rather than let the audience in on the action, we’re left just watching the characters speculate about what may have happened. The whole thing is a big blob of ambiguity and confusion that fails to explore the plot’s only interesting aspect – how do you navigate a seemingly suspicious but genuine windfall – and instead floods the viewer with different threads and angles that sprout out of thin air.
Aside from leaving open too many threads, Scott also fails to develop characters in any consistent or deep way. Instead, he just throws some young, attractive actors on screen and expects the dialogue to do the job that actual development should. Even the names feel one-dimensional – Katie is the cool young girl, Leonard is the old man and Adam is the blank-canvas husband. And while our protagonists do have some vague semblance of backstories, they don’t connect to their actions. Adam, for instance, who jumped into action to defend the patrons at the diner, soon acts like he cares only about money. And Katie, who shows nothing less than impervious morality, is also fine with stealing. It would be one thing if the focus dwelled on how easy it can be for one to get swallowed up by greed, but that’s not what the film is about. The protagonists just suddenly and casually become morally corrupt, despite all previous evidence of their integrity. It’s hard to fault the actors too much for these inconsistencies; all do a decent enough job (except for Gould, who sounds like he’s doing his best Gene Cousineau impression). The script and direction are mostly to blame, with dialogue that just feels unnatural, as characters refer to each other by their full names and have extended pauses between exchanges. But above the plot, direction or dialogue, the easy (and fun) thing to call out is the absurdities in the story.
Why does Adam go from being a hardworking, heroic and loving partner to a greedy asshole when he was never involved in the crime? Why does Adam initially refuse to take a menial job, but accepts working as a gardener for Leonard? Why does the couple want to run away with $100k when they are set to inherit an entire estate? Were those really the best prop diamonds they could get? Why did the nursing agency guy die like he was in the Scary Movie 4 Million Dollar Baby parody? Why wouldn’t Adam and Katie cooperate with the police if they were completely innocent? Was there actually a connection between Adam and the burglar?
These questions exemplify the shortcuts that Scott takes in this film. When there are this many questions, it leaves the audience feeling insulted. Inconsistent character development, plot holes, and countless nonsensical moments make Dangerous Lies feel disrespectful to its audience. It simultaneously feels like tons of other heist-thrillers without ever coming into its own, trading character depth for mystery, failing to tie plot threads together and insulting the intelligence of the viewers by creating a film that is simply an amalgamation of different tropes.
The post From the Vaults of Streaming Hell: Dangerous Lies appeared first on Spectrum Culture.