Film Review: “Kimi” (2022)

Been there, done that

The Alfred Hitchcock film, “Rear Window”, is not only a staple in the world of film but, also a catalyst for plenty of copycats. Out of all the “Rear Window” copycats that have come out, I am very familiar with two of them: 2007’s “Disturbia” and last year’s “Woman in the Window”. I loved “Disturbia”: It featured a strong central performance from a younger and in-demand Shia LeBeouf, solid direction from DJ Caruso, and a solid soundtrack to boot. While I didn’t review last year’s “Woman in the Window” nor did I even mention it on my worst list, I’ve heard pretty awful things about it. Either way, it’s safe to say that “Rear Window” has had a heavy influence on both of these films.

The latest Hitchcock clone, “Kimi” is directed by Steven Soderbergh, best known for last year’s “No Sudden Move” and 2011’s “Contagion”. Kimi also stars Zoë Kravitz as an agoraphobic tech worker who witnesses a murder via an audio tech log. The title, “Kimi” is actually named after the smart speaker which works similarly to a Google Home device or Amazon’s Alexa. Once she tries to uncover what is behind the incriminating soundbite, she unknowingly gets the attention of powerful and dangerous people. If this sounds familiar to you, then there's a chance that you've already seen this movie.

I’ll be honest, Steven Soderbergh’s films are a mixed bag to me: I liked “Ocean’s Eleven” and I even loved “No Sudden Move”. On the other hand, He underwhelms far more than anything. I really wanted to like both “Contagion” and “Side Effects” but, as soon as the credits rolled for both of those films, I was left feeling like both films were lacking in impact. While not knowing what to expect from a filmmaker can be kind of interesting in terms of expectations, with Soderbergh, I really didn’t have any expectations. If anything, him doing another “Rear Window” copycat actually lowered my expectations a bit.

Still, I was hoping for the film to be much better than what we got with “Kimi”. While I understand the concept of a slow-burn thriller and the need for build-up, the movie takes way too long to get going, resulting in nothing but pure vapidity. The film clocks in at around 89 minutes but it feels like 3 hours. From the 10 minute mark all the way until we are well into the third act, I felt like I was…