Bored Now does the Complete Halloween Franchise Part 2

Halloween II (1981)



Director: Rick Rosenthal 

Cast: Jamie Lee Curtis, Donald Pleasance, Nick Castle, Tony Moran, Charles Cyphers, Dick Warlock, Lance Guest, Pamela Susan Shoop.

Running Time: 92 Minutes 

Original Release Date: October 30, 1981

Tagline: A Night of Terrifying Butchery 

Plot:  Picking up the events of Halloween night 1978, Michael Myers is once again on the loose in Haddonfield.  He hunts Laurie down to the local hospital where she is recovering from her injuries.  A frustrated Dr. Loomis tries to convince the local authorities that Michael is still alive and must be stopped.  

Considered by some to be the best horror sequel in history (a bold statement which I'm not yet willing to sign up to).  Much of this film's appeal is the continuity it shares from the first part. The set over the same night of the original film was a smart move.  The flashback which opens part 2 is a nice way to refresh the audience's memory and to smoothly transition into the next chapter.  It effectively convinces that we are still in the same space.

Its important that Carpenter and Debra Hill once again have important creative roles with the pair producing and writing.  Rick Rosenthal who would later return for Halloween Resurrection (2002), makes a solid directorial debut, retaining much of the hand held shooting style of the first Halloween, with those eerie shots coming from Michael's POV.  That style is used to great effect in the opening few minutes with Michael drifting through the streets at one point observing Loomis ranting and raving "I shot him six god damn times"! Myers stops and then disappears, only to reappear at a nearby house where he kills another babysitter.  This could be a deliberate thematic link referencing Michael's childhood and the fact that he went after babysitters in the first movie? 



More so than anyone else I think this is Loomis's film.  The story is much more centred around his character than Laurie or even Michael.  Building on the character from the first film Donald Pleasance takes Loomis to a whole new level.  There are rich character beats, entertaining rants, and a wonderfully compelling and human character.  The real appeal of Loomis is the way he cuts through all the bureaucracy, not afraid to go against the system to try and stop Michael.  The scenes when Loomis takes control upon hearing about Michael's unsealed file is a real punch the air moment, "Well those orders have changed" later firing a warning shot through the car window convincing the officer to turn the car around. Hell yeah Loomis! Or later at the hospital when he barks "You stay with me and Shut up"! at Marion Chambers. To her credit Marion later gets her moment to shine with "Michael Myers, just get your ass here"! when demanding backup. But most of all this is Loomis's film because of his ultimate sacrifice to save Laurie and destroy Michael at the end.  Considering Loomis's personal history with Myers its such a fitting way to close of his plot.  It's a brilliant character arc across the two movies.  The visual of Michael's figure surrounded by fire is a striking visual also.   A blinded Michael swinging frantically with a knife prior to this is another sweet moment. 

 



This movie ups the anti in terms of gore, action sequences and an explicit piece of nudity.  For the most part this is quite effective.  There are a couple of choice kills.  The one where Michael turns up the heat in the hot tube and forces the nurse repeatedly under is a nasty and inventive kill.  Part of the reason it stands out is because of Michael flirting with the nurse before it is revealed that its him and not her slimy boyfriend Budd.  Not only does this add another level of creep factor by showing Michael's pleasure in playing with his victims. It also suggests at his repressed sexuality (chances are having been put away aged 8 the character wouldn't have any sexual experiences with others at least).



 The other standout kill is the one in the hallway when Michael suddenly appears behind the nurse stabbing into her back heisting her into the air.  The switch to silence and the shot of the nurse's feet with the shoes dropping  to the floor is wonderful. 



Pretty smooth for a sequel but there are a few complaints I have that stop it from being as good as the original.  Firstly, because of how well the mystique of Myers was protected throughout the first movie, it was only naturally that this film would struggle to recreate that level of impact. The character is visible for more of this film and we know his intentions towards Laurie in the back half of the movie.  Speaking of which the writers famously retconning in Michael being Laurie's adopted brother is cheap for me. By adding this personal motivation for Michael's actions loses some of the terror behind the character.  The U-turn is a hard one to swallow considering the set-up of the original Halloween.  The more you know about Michael the less threatening he is.  Same with Jason, same with Freddy etc.. The flashback sequence  with Laurie remembering Michael form her childhood is cheesy.   The film is probably at its strongest once you break it down to Michael pursuing Laurie throughout the hospital with Loomis also involved.  The condensed setting and those principal characters is what really hooks me into the film.







  Like I said there's some good stuff with Loomis in the first half of the film, but also some clunky stuff.  The over top stunt moment when the police car runs through the boy Loomis just shot (thinking he was Michael), and the explosion is so crazy! Not least because its obvious that the script has contrived it just to create suspense over whether it was Myers or not (of course we know the answer straight away).  The idea makes sense for Loomis's character and the overall plot, just not in the execution.  One interesting idea raised in the first half is the idea of the danger of lynch mobs.  As riots get out of hand with groups of people attacking the Myers family home.  Shocking to think that such a sequence is just as credible today as it was in the early 1980's.




Some of the characters at the hospital felt like typically 80's slasher characters who feel dated now.  I always find Jimmy quite creepy.  I can buy his crush on Laurie, but it's never explained how they know each other outside of the hospital.  His constant hanging around her always seemed creepy to me which I think is the opposite of what was intended.     

Overall a very satisfying sequel which had enough in common with what made the previous film great, whilst trying a few new things also.  As Gary and Neil on their Off the Shelf review of the first two Halloween movies its probably a good idea to watch the two films back to back because they feel like one whole story. This makes even more sense when you see the radical new direction that the third Halloween takes.  More on that in the coming weeks with my next review Halloween 3: Season of the Witch.

Best Scene: Loomis's sacrifice.

Best Dialogue: Loomis: "You don't even know what death is"

Rating: 7/10 

Once again feel free to add comments on both the film and my review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzOdUKVD8Ac 

Bored Now does Sharp Objects

Sharp Objects Episode 3: Fix 

As Camille's relationship with half sister Amma (Eliza Scanlen) is given the main focus, the series pushes us to the most disturbing place yet.  This time Camille's attempts to keep Amma from repeating her mistakes is contrasted with scenes from the past with her trying to support fellow self-harmer Alice (Sydney Sweeney).  Throughout these scenes are seamlessly intercut once again with a powerful cinematic, style.  The dramatic crackle of the rain between the opening Camille/Amma exchange into the past and the institute was effective.  As was the later moment when Camille is snapped back into the harsh reality of the day, once again in a drunken haze. 

The past and present throughout connect themes of womanhood, and of images hiding dark secrets.  Because of the isolation Amma feels from her parents she is acting out, looking to shock and provoke with her ever growing sexuality.  The core idea is of Amma growing up too fast because of a lack of direction or parental guidance.  Like her older sister Amma lives in a bubble.  Disturbing sexuality involving young girls is tied to the murders, and Camille's shocking past.  As Amma becomes more sexualised and out of control throughout the episode, we see Camille and Alice discuss womanhood.  Camille is uncomfortable wearing a dress because of the damage inflicted upon her body.  This is a nice touch explaining why she is so closed off at times.  Dressing in causal jeans. This focuses Camille's attention onto the sexuality on display around the town.  Not just from Amma, also Ashley (Madison Davenport).  Ashley is the girlfriend of shy and nerdy John (Taylor John Smith).  John is one of the main suspects in the case.  Camille would like to interview him.  Its the more outgoing and confident Ashley who persuades John to talk to her.  She is moulded on the beaming girl next door just a little too perfect to be true. Like Amma, Ashley's beauty and innocence masks a darker side.  John on the other hand is like the fractured, ugly truth of the town.  He slowly unravels with dark secrets pouring out during the interview. 




This part belonged to Scanlen.  The actress really comes out of her shell.  The relationship with Camille is bubbling along nicely. The back and forth between the two sisters feels naturalistic as we are dropping on a real conversation.  Scanlen is credible in showing every different aspect of the character.  She effectively builds the performance over the episode, from the gentle to the more playful, to the bored and wild side. There is such a spark between the Scanlen and Adams, like during the scene later when both sisters have been out drinking. 



The side parts of the story still heating up.  Clarkson's icy Mother is still a hard character to get a handle on.  Her stand out scene this time was the once in the garden with Camille.  The standout line being "Nothing's ever your fault" in reply to Camille taking no responsibility for Adora pricking herself on her rose bush.  The line carrying a greater meaning to events in the past. 


The relationship between Chris Messina's Richard and Camille is another slow burn.  At the moment I like Richard as a character.  But I'm more invested with his alternative ways of investigation compared to Chief Vickery than I am to his interactions with Camille.  Things should pick up on that front once they get further into the case. Vickery's causal racism (when dismissing the killer as likely to be a Mexican trucker), again strikes a very modern anxiety.  Although his character does feel a little on the nose.  Again maybe a bit of fleshing out wouldn't go amiss.  This is possibly the downside of the series being released now instead of in 2006 like the novel.  Even so there's enough intrigue with these supporting characters to keep me interested. 




This was another beautifully paced episode. The dark reveal about what happened with Alice and Camille in the past was a stunning punch to the gut.  It was a truly haunting finish to another impressive chapter. 

Once again feel free to comment below.  More about the same time next week. 

Bored Now reviews Sharp Objects

Sharp Objects - Episode 2: Dirt 











Following last week's stunning, yet abstract opener, this follow-up penned by Gillian Flynn herself started to connect some dots.  It was a more focused episode, that started slowly, but effectively building characters and case details.  It did this while still retaining the energy and style of the previous part. 

Warning heavy spoilers involved in this review! Do not read unless you've seen the episode!!


The big plot this week was set around the funeral of the latest victim and the fallout from it.  The funeral opens up another tense power dynamic within Camille's family.  An interesting opening shot was of Amma (Eliza Scanlen), Camille's half-sister looking just as out of touch and awkward with her surroundings as Camille has been at times.  The shot of Amma looking bored and unsure of herself leaning on the giant model house is striking one.  The model had a similarity to the look of The White House.  This could be symbolising the sort of isolation or extreme pressures experienced by children of the President.   This becomes a recurring theme during Dirt. Adora once again has this anxiety to maintain a positive image around the town.  There's an interesting back and fourth between her and Camille at the funeral.  As her daughter attempts more than once to make notes (in her journalist role) during the service, Adora is determined to stop her daughter.  Again we see two actresses at the top of their games during this scene, with their simple glaces back and fourth so telling.  The scene has a duel intrigue.  For Camille, of course there is the question of if she is crossing a line by making notes on a funeral for her story?  At the same time, it is hard to read Adora at this stage.  Is she generally concerned about the morality of what her daughter is doing? Or are her motives more ego driven?  Once again the funeral has a very detached feel to it.  Our view point is that of Camille's.  The use of dead silence as we transition between this funeral and Camille's half sisters from the past is a powerful moment.  Elizabeth Perkins makes another memorable cameo during this scene. The character's more eccentric, outspoken nature seems to chime more with Camille, whilst rubbing Adora up the wrong way. Those who saw Perkins in Weeds will know that giving her free reign to let rip can produce vivid results.  There is a nice scene post funeral with Camille looking out for Amma when she sees her in the store with friends.  If there is a motherly touch from Camille's end, I sensed Amma in return looked up to her half sister with respect almost like a friend.  Its a subtle scene, but touching. 



There's even an awkward tension between Adora and her husband.  Later in the family home, the couple share a dance.  Adora retreats from it almost straight away, Alan retreats back into his music.  Listening on his headphones he is immersed in his own little world.  There was something eerie too about the image of Alan at the piano during the funeral.  Another running theme is that of gossip around the community.  When looking for clues to the case at the wake, Camille befriends some gossiping women to get information out of them. In an earlier scene a town barber was having his say on the natural of the two murders so far.  This scene with Camille and the women connects to the journalist's own murky state of mind.  Just like the gossiping housewives can be seen as unreliable narratives, its possible that Camilla is too.  There's a wonderful line from Camille to Jackie (Perkins) during this scene, "My demons are not nearly tackled, merely concussed."  With Flynn scripting this one I can imagine that line was carried over from the novel. The other big case development, was Camille's lead about the identity of the killing possibly being female, with a local boy (whose mother will only allow Camille access to interview if she pays her $50, Camille refuses), claiming to have seen a "Woman in White". The twist here is that the term hasn't just come from this boy, but has been part of town folk law for years including when Camille was a young girl.  This is a great hook moving forward.  There are so many meaty questions, including the possible identity of the woman in question should the boy's story be true.  Another thought provoking moment was when Camille raises the boy's story with the local chief of police.  The officer is certain the killer is male, but is dismissive of the credibility of the boy as a source because his mother is a junkie who works in a factory and is seriously ill. 

 

There are also some nice little character beats involving Chris Messina's detective Richard Willis.  He is a smooth presence around the town and more open minded to alternative methods and ways of thinking than his older superiors.  In one of the most bizarre moments so far, Richard brings home a pig's head (did I stutter?!) to test if he can easily pull its tooth out (having been told that this happened to the victim at the hands of the killer).  Richard again is a slow burning character as is Camille's boss Frank (wonderfully played by character actor Miguel Sandoval). There's a couple nice scenes with Frank discussing the details of the story with Camille over the phone.  As he gives his advice there is a gentle, nurturing feel to it.  Frank is not only giving Camille sound professional advice, but is looking out for her as a person.  Perhaps, he could be the only person who can keep her from going over the edge completely. 



Questions

1. How did this episode compare to the first part?

2. Do you believe the killer is a female?

3. Is the "Woman in White" a figment of the boy's imagination? If not who do you think she might be? 

4. What dark secrets do you think are part of the family's history? Including involving Adora and her husband? 

Comment to this review and questions below if you like?

Bored Now does the Complete Halloween Franchise Part 1

with the new Carpenter produced and written Halloween coming in October I've decided I will watch and review the whole franchise (including the dreaded Rob Zombie remakes...).  I will watch the films in order of release and will rant each one out of ten.  If you want to watch along and comment feel free.  Expect full spoilers.

Halloween (1978)


Director: John Carpenter 

Cast: Jamie Lee Curtis, Donald Pleasence, Nick Castle, Tony Moran, Will Sandin, P.J. Sores, Nancy Loomis, Charles Cyphers

Running Time: 91 Minutes 

Original Release Date: October 25, 1978

Tagline: The Night HE Came Home!

Plot: Young Michael Myers is committed to Warren County's Smith's Sanitarium after stabbing his older sister Judith to death.  Fifteen years later, grownup Michael escapes and returns to his home town of Haddonfield to go on a killing spree on Halloween night.  

The original Halloween is the defining film in kick starting what we now know as the Slasher movie.  Not only is it the perfect slasher movie, but one of the truly great horror movies.  One thing that makes it such a memorable horror movie is that its a classic example of low budget DIY filmmaking, a style which was a core characteristic of many of the best movies of the 1970's.  It had been proven many times before Halloween and since that horror is a genre which benefits from being scaled back.  The film's budget came in somewhere around the $300,000 mark. As a result Carpenter was able to foster a great sense of mystery, and dread into his small town setting.  The flow of the scenes feel naturalistic, with character interactions taking just the right amount of time.  An example of this is the scene with Laurie and Annie in the car early in the film.  The dialogue flows perfectly between them as if they are realistic teenagers, but the lingering sense of the scene builds up a suspense of if something is bad around the corner?  Such scenes like this and the one where Laurie and Annie walk home with Laurie believing she sees someone lurking in the bushes set the tone for the movie.  It suggests like Myers could strike at any moment, but also that the real fear is in not knowing one way or the other.



Carpenter's direction is a masterclass, working with a tightly plotted script co-written with Debra Hill (she also produced the film and is a crucial collaborator with Carpenter on some of his best work).  For much of the film Carpenter's camera drifts around the sleeping looking Haddonfield suburbs.  One eerie shot comes from Michael's POV as he looks out from his car onto the town.  This shot creepily places the viewer from Michael's position as someone stalking the town, waiting for the right moment to ponce.  Throughout Carpenter manipulates the viewer's expectations.  Keeping them guessing if something is really about to happen or not.  Its not even made clear whether its Michael in the car following Laurie and her friends. Another effective touch is how we see a lot of Michael in short busts during the first half of the film, but only see certain body parts, never seeing his face clearly til later in the film. This stays true to the classic horror rule of protecting the mystery of the monster as much as possible so that the big reveal moment has all the more impact. The camera drifting in and out of focus, taking up multiple positions, gives the film at times a surreal and off kilter tone which is perfectly contrasted with the finely judged set pieces and realism of the human interactions.  The pacing of script allows Carpenter to play with space and time, capturing the power of suggestion rather than showing too much too soon.  The setting of Haddonfield becames like a character in itself with the director using every inch of its setting to devastating effect.


 Of course the use of sound and music is such a big part of Carpenter's films. Because he produces most of the music for his films its another way Carpenter stamps his authorial signature onto his films.  The Halloween theme is one of his most iconic and has a chilling presence at various times throughout.  Outside of that main theme the music is use sparingly.  Much of the mystery and drama of the horror playing out is because the dead air and long pauses in dialogue, which are then pieced by a nicely judged piece of music and or sound at just the right moment.

Another thing which stands out is the quality of the characters and the casting.  This was the first time that the idea of "The Final Girl" was introduced.  Part of the reason Laurie Strode stands out so much as the classic final girl is because Jamie Lee Curtis was a virtual unknown at the time.  This immediately gives Laurie a tangible, everyday girl next door vibe.  The character as fleshed out is likeable, smart and vulnerable.  Curtis's performance matches that.  She psychically embodies the character, and sells every little tick and emotion perfectly.  Curtis sells Laurie's terror so effectively.  The scene when she discovers her dead friends and is first confronted by Michael is one of the great horror sequences of all time.  Curtis's performance along with the character's depth makes you root for Laurie. Without Laurie there wouldn't have been a Nancy in A Nightmare on Elm Street or a Sidney in the Scream movies.  The dynamic between Laurie and her friends Lynda (P.J. Soles) and Annie (Nancy Loomis) is credible and their distinct characters again influenced future slasher movies. 



The other important character is Dr. Sam Loomis played by to excellent effect by Donald Pleasence.  At this stage Pleasence was already an established character actor with film credits including The Great Escape, You Only Live Twice and Wake in Fright under his belt before being cast for this original Halloween.  Interesting fact that Christopher Lee (who also played a Bond Villain) was close to taking the role as Loomis and ultimately regretted the decision to turn it down.  It says something that the part would end up defining Pleasence.  The macabre strangeness of his connection to Michael/The Shape is a big selling point.  Pleasence's heightened performance gets across the desperation of Loomis to try and get to Michael and control him before he does much damage. As well as his frustration at not being believed about the threat posed by the escaped killer. Pleasence's performance skilfully blends the hammy mad scientist aspect of old horror with a more caring and compassionate humanity.  Loomis's role in the series is just as important as that of Myers or Laurie.




Myers presence is one of the most haunting and visually distinctively in horror.  The idea of him being more of a thing or unknown entity is another powerful aspect to the character.  He lacks any reasoning or humanity, and is cold and machine like in how he stalks his victims.  Some of the back and forth between him and Laurie is really gruelling stuff.  The physicality of their sequences is impressive. There are some inventive set pieces both involving Laurie and some of the kill sequences.  The open ended finish to the movie when Michael just vanishes having been shot multiple times and assumed dead was something very rarely seen in mainstream horror at least in this era.  It was a smart choice not only because it left the door open for a sequel, but because it added more mystery and threat to the monster of the piece. The closing shots panning around the deserted town with the eerie sounds of breathing is a great way leave the viewer in a uncertain place.  The message being that Michael is still out there and terrorising the small community.











Best Scene: The one when Laurie first discovers her friends dead and is confronted by Myers.  Michael using the gravestone of his dead sister is also a choice visual.

Best Dialogue: 

Laurie Strode: "It was the Boogeyman?"
                       
Dr. Sam Loomis: "As a matter of fact, it was."
                       
Rating: 10/10 

I should be back with a review of the first sequel Halloween II sometime in the next week.  In meantime feel free to comment on the review and the film below.

Bored Now does the Russian World Cup 2018

Bored Now's World Cup 2018 - Is Football really coming home?



How typical would it be if after fifty plus years without a competitive trophy and with recent expectations at a all-time low if England surprise the World on Sunday and send most of the UK into a what will seem like a year long frenzy.  Hell there maybe even a late decision to postpone the start of the regular football season so that both media and fans alike can recover from the thrill/shock.  Of course they have to reach the final first, which depending on which Croatia show up on Wednesday could be easier said than done.  Croatia were one of the outstanding teams of the group stages, and their performances seemed to confirm them as everyone's dark horses.  Yet, since they have stumbled their way through the knockouts.  Against Denmark they only looked like the Croatia we expect for 30 minutes, before the match drifted into two sides cancelling each other out, both appearing to scared to take chances.  The performance was better again the hosts Russia although again they only played in small busts.  What will be a worry is their lack of a plan B when attempting to break down a robust Russian back line. Croatia tended to over play, and were mostly looking to play through the middle of Russia.  A tricky game plan to pull off with some many bodies organised effectively for the hosts.  At the other end Croatia's defensive unit looked venerable when defending long balls, or from Russian counter attacks.  Certainly a fair few weaknesses for England to expose. Because of these moments and Russia's never say die attitude, this was a much better spectacular than Croatia's draw with Denmark in the previous round.  To add to it Denis Cheryshev's wonder strike which gave Russia a surprise lead (though it was short lived), will rank as one of the tournament's best goals.  Indeed, Russia pushed Croatia all the way and bowed out with grace losing on penalties having played out a thrilling 2-2 draw. 






Its been a great World Cup and the hosts have more than played their part.  For Croatia they must improve if they are to make the final.  You would expect England to take even greater advantage if Croatia have another off day. If Croatia can reproduce their performance from the group stage they should give England our toughest test yet.  Momentum is certainly more with England, and they have performed consistently with a good team spirit and solid unit.  Landing on the right half of the draw has helped.  Its coming together that England wouldn't really play one of the tournament's very best till the final (IF we make it!).  There are still weaknesses for England which haven't truly been tested such as the defence.  At times we've overplayed, and maybe lacked a play B, which is why it was promising to see players not named Harry Kane get the crucial goals against Sweden.  It is maybe the big match experience of Croatia if anything which could swing it in their favour, and of course if the likes of Modric and Rakitic overrun England in midfield.  But I'm confident that having seen Croatia's struggles against Denmark and Russia, that Southgate should have us well prepared to make life difficult for them to play their game.  There is still much to do to go down in history along with the 66 team, but I think we have a decent chance of making the final at least. 

Prediction: England 1-0 Croatia (not sure I could take more penalties!)

On the other hand the winner of the other semi-final between France and Denmark will have the right to at least secretly call themselves the favourites.  The two sides are the best left in the tournament and both have shown they can lift their games against strong opposition in crunch games.  With France deposing of  Argentina and Uruguay and Belgium digging in to beat a gutsy Japan, and more impressively overturning the favourites Brazil in a cracking last eight clash.  This is not only the standout semi because of the mouth watering football which could come from it, but because of the pressure on both to finally produce their best and take home the prize.  For Belgium this golden generation may not get a better chance and are probably running out of chances anyway.  Meanwhile, France have a history of imploding at crucial times, and not quite living up to the promise of their star players. This match could come down to the strikers.  Lukaku is not only in the race for the golden boot, but he proved against Brazil that he can make a profound impact on the match even without scoring.  France out of the two are little tighter at the back, so Lukaku will have a big role in trying to hold the ball up and bring the attacking midfielders or wingers into play.  A hard pressing game could once again prove very effective.  For France Pogba, Kante and Matuidi have all looked sharp in recent games.  This is why I think Fellaini should start for Belgium to give them a better balance, and to help stop them from being overrun.  It should be close, but I do wonder if Belgium peaked against Brazil and have a few more question marks hanging over them than the French. 

Prediction: France 2-1 Belgium 

Bored Now Reviews Sharp Objects

Sharp Objects - Vanish






The first part of HBO's great summer hope with some major credibility all over the production.  It's adapted from Gillian Flynn's debut novel from 2006.  The pilot is directed by Jean-Marc Vallee (Big Little Lies).  The showrunner is Marti Noxon who was responsible for writing and directing some of the best episodes of Buffy the Vampire (1997-2003).  An all-star cast including Patricia Clarkson, Chris Messina and Elizabeth Perkins are led by Amy Adams.  The expectation is that this will be a one-off limited series, which is said to stick very closely to the novel.  Flynn herself has a big creative presence on the production.  This review will contain small spoilers from the opening episode. 

Setup: Adams plays Camille an alcoholic big city reporter persuaded by her boss to return to her hometown to cover a case involving missing children. Whilst, trying to do her job Camille is confronted by some personal demons from her past. 

Its fair to say much of this first part is setup, but with that in mind I was big fan.  I was hooked into the poetic visual style and atmosphere of Camille's world from the start.  Throughout there was a effective jagged, rough around the edges, organic power.  The beautiful expressive colours of the cars and signs around the small town, and the hazy tones perfectly captured the energy of such a setting.  At the same time this style plays into the surreal, dreamlike quality, with Vallee effectively drifting in and out of flashbacks, dreams and events happening in the present.  Much of this tone I think is because we are in Camille's viewpoint.  There is that sense of the lead character being out of step with her surroundings, and the weight of her past suffocating her. This is maybe why the scenes involving Camille's Mother played with a spiky edge by Clarkson are so heightened, and a little different to Camille's encounters in the town. The flashbacks are probably some of the most powerful scenes. A flashback late in the episode revisits her sister's funeral and again suggest at a dark family history.  The purpose of such sequences are to give us little fragments of Camille's past, like they are dark memories hidden away, but now returning to the surface. The character's heavy drinking also connects to the sense of unreliable memories depicted.  This was a very effective device which could lead to some rich drama as the show progresses and the character unravels. Those who saw Big Little Lies will be familiar with the intense and raw sound design.  As with that series again with this sound and music are a big part of building up tension, and getting inside the character's head.  The ramshackle nature of the scenes in Camille's car when she plays music, or suddenly wakes up having spent a night drinking are daftly transistioned through music and sound. 

          

Adams of course is fully committed to the role.  Its again telling that one of the big screen's most consistent actresses has turned to television having struggled to gain recognition for her movie roles, or perhaps at the risk of the juicy film parts drying up. Like any great actress she excels in disappearing into the role and reinventing herself.  Camille is distinctly more awkward, and downtrodden than many past Adams characters. She physically transforms herself into a much quieter and less glamorous figure, a trick difficult for many big name, beautiful actresses to pull off. Camille's role as a journalist caught between a moral responsibility both to reporting the truth, but also being sensitive to the people she interviews (who she relates to in some ways), adds even more potential layers to the character.  It should be an interesting aspect to the drama seeing just what kind of journalist Camille is as the details of the case are revealed.  Will she become colder and more ruthless, partly as a result of her own personal trauma? Or will the character still retain a humanity and journalistic integrity?    Much detail was held back for this first part, but I am intrigued to see more from Chris Messina's local detective and how he connects with Camille and other people in the town.  Sophia Lillis of IT fame playing the young Camille is a promising young actress who I think we can expect much more from.  Clarkson for years has been one of the most consistent characters actors, and is someone I would watch reading the phone book.  The thought of having her and Adams play off each other had me in from the word go.  If the rest of Sharp Objects lives up to the promise of the opening part, I expect this to be one of the best shows of 2018.



So you can expect a review of the second episode from me sometime late Monday or early Tuesday next week.  In the meantime if you have seen the first part and would like to comment below please do so. 

1.What do you think of the set up and characters? 

2.What did you like or dislike about it?

3. Ant ideas about the direction the drama might take from here? 

Also please comment on my review and if you have any ideas of how I can improved.  Thanks in advance. 

Bored Now does the 2018 World Cup Russia

Bored Now's World Cup 2018 - Last 16 review and Quarter Final Predictions












Win lose, draw or win it seems England's duty to achieve the end result in blaze of glory, thrills and spills and unpredictability.  Its that uncertainly that has been missing from our matches at major tournaments over the last decade.  We've either been a little too good for mediocre opposition, or we have been smashed by teams clearly a million miles better than us.  On Tuesday night England not only broke a much unwanted tradition when it comes to spot-kicks at World Cups, but they also did it with the style and nervous energy which we come to expect from the Three Lions in the knockout stages.  The one black mark is that they snatched victory from the jaws of defeat by actually bucking the trend and winning on penalties.  To add to this drama it was England through Henderson (a bad boy on the night IMO) who missed the spot-kick at an important stage that opened the door for the Colombian's to seize control.  To everyone's amazement they failed to do so and Pickford and Dier became unlikely English heroes.  Leading up the penalties it looked like England might live up to their history of glorious failures.  For this they must hang their heads in shame as National disgraces!

Pickford had as big a game on the night as any.  One of the big question marks over England's chances of success at this World Cup is the goalkeeping position.  It seems to some that Pickford was just the best of a avenge bunch.  Experience is one thing you want from your keeper when it comes to the crunch.  In truth, the Everton shotstopper had hardly been tested in the previous four matches, though there had been a couple of iffy moments.  He didn't have too much to do on this night neither.  But as with a striker less is often more.  Everything Pickford was called to do he did with perfection.  Firstly, a fantastic last grasp save turning a thunderous strike around the post in the 88th minute in what appeared at the time a match winning save.  Jordan earned his English brownies points a moment later when Mina brilliantly headed home from the resulting corner to dramatically send the match into extra time.  That's what we like to see Jordan knock it out for a corner to give Colombia just that final chance to put England through the ringer! Even I can't make jokes about his final penalty save.  The one handed parmer as Pickford dramatically dived in the other direction fitted the tone of the night perfectly.  This combined with the earlier save surely made him the man of the match on an eventful and fun night for the English team and national. 

As for Colombia they are strange breed.  I still maintain they are much better than we've seen at this tournament.  For long spells they were outplayed by England without looking to be in too much danger of conceding a goal. It was only deep into the second half and the first half of extra time that they truly came to the party.  It seems their big tactic of the tournament was a group resolve, a great spirit that kept them in matches long enough to snatch a goal from a quality set pieces (Mina's goal was his third in as many matches, impressive from a defender), or sharp counter attacks.  There was a certain style to Colombia which at its best was easy on the eye, but we only saw this at its fullest against Poland (who were piss poor), and in flashes against England.  Missing top creative and scorer James Rodriguez for most of their four matches was probably a big factor in Jose Pekerman's side struggle to catch fire.  In fairness, on this night their tactics almost paid off.  One black mark for England was Henderson's horrible diving responding to a gentle headbutt from a Colombia player, for which only Gary Neville had the nerve to pick him up about suggesting "he shouldn't have gone down".  Fair's fair the Colombian player by the letter of the law should have received a red, but Henderson in return should have received a yellow for play acting.  It is sometimes tempting to get so swept up in England's recent positive performances that we overlook such a thing.  This aside, England were the better team for about 90% of the match and deserved the luck that ultimately came their way.  There are still flaws in their game, but history was made on the night and this group has done enough to give the National a feel good bounce.  Southgate having done a steady job of navigating the squad this far has surely done enough to secure his position long term.  The test now is not to underestimate Sweden.  They too are worthy of their place in the last eight. At this stage they look a much better team than Colombia without some of the stars.  At this stage Southgate's gamble against Belgium is paying off.  For those suggesting England can actually win this damn thing, I'd add a "Doh" and "maybe, but just whisper it". 

The other two highlights of a very hit and miss last sixteen phase was Japan's fantastic effort in losing dramatically to Belgium who for much of the night looked unlikely contenders.  It seems that the wise ex-German striker Klinnsman commenting in the BBC's studio about the progress made in Japanese football since 2002 was about to bare fruit in the second half.  Japan who like Colombia didn't look too convincing when escaping the group, totally blew the Belgium's away taking the game by the scuff of the neck in a thrilling twenty minute masterclass.  Inui's stunning second for Japan proved one of the most jaw dropping moments of the tournament so far.  One of the best goals, and there's been a few belters, and a statement of intent, and true wake up call for Belgium that this golden generation of stars were about to collapse again.  Credit where its due then, because manager Martinez (who I haven't always been the biggest fan of, and who I think could be a draw back for Belgium chances), responded sharply with pro-active substitutions.  Fellaini once again nailed down why he should be playing from the start.  The turn around to snatch the game from Japan was almost as breathtaking as Japan's one two punch in the first place.  The result one of the best matches of the World Cup so far.  A glorious failure for Japan who made an army of new fans, and a job just about done for Belgium who again will need to improve if they are going to over turn Brazil next time out.  Argentina's luck finally ran out in their seven goal thriller against a much better French side.  In truth, they once again looked a shambles and it was a sad end for Messi on this stage. But really they had it coming and the final score was a tad flattering for them.  France finally started showing their teeth. 



The story of the World Cup was surely reserved for the host Nation with an upset even greater than that of South Korea against the Germans due the importance of the game.  It wasn't very pretty, but you can't really blame them against the Spanish.  I think for Spain, this is truly it for their golden generation.  I wouldn't put it past them in producing another, but they've outstayed their welcomes by at least one tournament, and there were some unforgivable mistakes in Russia, including changing the manager on the eve of the first ball being kicked.  When enjoying their performance against Portugal on Match day 2 I must give myself a pat on the back in my prediction that they had peaked too soon.  Another massive scalp at this World Cup means everyone else are winners!  Looking at Croatia's awful performance in narrowing getting past Denmark will hardly the hosts shaking in their boots. 




Quarter Finals Predictions 

France 2-1 Uruguay 
If the French can reproduced their performance against Argentina I think they will have enough to overcome Uruguay and go have a realistic chance of going all the way.  However, Uruguay will be their toughest test so far, and have the combination of tough defending, sharp attacks and tactical smarts to overcome anyone on their day.  This one could go either way.  Which France shows up is the key I think.

Brazil 0-0 Belgium (Brazil to win 4-3 on Pens)
Just have sneaking feeling that this classic on paper might turn into a bit a bore.  Both are more than capable of winning the World Cup, yet both still have big questions to answer.  I've gone from Brazil from the start so won't be switching now. 

Sweden 1-2 England 
Having been a little on the negative side last time around I am going all out and being confident.  Sweden have impressed me, and have a good tournament record against England.  They have punche a little above their weight, but have looked effective in what they've done.  It won't be easy, but its a fun pressure that England now expect to make at least the last four rather than it just being a dream.  I think the momentum will carry on, though I wouldn't swear to it. 

Russia 2-3 Croatia 
My dark horses for the tournament will have to step up their game.  Yes Russia are weaker than Denmark, but they have surprised many at this tournament and will go into this match without fear.  I think in the end Croatia's quality maybe a little too much.  But I think it could be close.