Sharp Objects

Discuss TV shows old and new.
Post Reply
Message
Author

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: TV of 2016

#2 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Apr 01, 2016 6:34 pm

I thought at the time I was reading it that, while the book was terrible, a lively and efficient 90 minute thriller could be made of it. Odd that they're making a tv series instead considering the book is straight-forward and not very long. At eight hours, I expect a lot of added material and plenty of bloat as all the workings of the small town are drawn out.

Amy Adams is great casting, tho'. I wonder how they'll depict the scars.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Sharp Objects

#3 Post by domino harvey » Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:05 am


User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Sharp Objects

#4 Post by domino harvey » Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:03 pm

Reminder that this premieres Sunday

McCrutchy
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA

Re: Sharp Objects

#5 Post by McCrutchy » Mon Jul 23, 2018 12:08 am

So, I just finished tonight's episode (the third), and so far, I'm enjoying it, but there are a couple things that are gnawing at me. I haven't seen any of Vallée's other work (although I own Dallas Buyers Club and Big Little Lies as well as Wild in 4K) and I haven't read the book, but I did see the oft-repeated tidbit that
SpoilerShow
Camille is an alcoholic who has recently been released from a psychiatric hospital after years of self-harming
before I watched the premiere.

The series is brilliantly acted and so far, I'm enjoying the slow-burn pace. I think the supporting cast thus far has been great, and it's nice to see a show that is pretty female-centric. Having said that, I keep struggling to believe Amy Adams. I know this sounds sacrilegious, because Adams' acting is pretty good, but without being indelicate, her character seems like she should be under thirty, and Adams clearly looks closer to forty if I'm being honest. This isn't meant to be a criticism of anyone's looks, but it just seems like the supporting casting choices were odd if they wanted Amy Adams to play someone who seems young and immature, and I get that everything here is not out of the question, but for some reason, the way that Camille acts, dresses and is treated by others screams "late twenties" to me, and Adams looks considerably older than that.

I will also say that Adams has a quality that sort of rubs me the wrong way, and I don't quite understand what it is or why I feel that way, but every time I see her in something, I feel like she is lying, so perhaps that comes into play as well. I'm sure it's also because I've seen Adams play so many mature parts in recent years, like Margaret Keane in Big Eyes opposite Christoph Waltz, or the linguist professor in Arrival, for example. Hell, even her Lois Lane seems like she should be several years older than Camille Preaker.

I will also say that the series feels every bit like something that is stretching its material, and I'm worried it will not be able to sustain itself though eight episodes. I'm already tiring of watching Camille
SpoilerShow
swilling vodka out of an Evian bottle while listening to Led Zeppelin songs via an iPod/iPhone and driving her Volvo.
Also, just how many visual cues or flashbacks do we need in every episode? The series is already slow-burn enough that I'm not sure we need so many instances of watching Camille stop in her tracks to stare at and/or remember something all the time, and this is where I'm worried the show will eventually become tiresome. I understand that the novel is very short, and I fear that this is a potentially excellent film or two-to-four part miniseries that has been greedily expanded to eight hours.

The only other bit that bugs me are the clothing choices for Chris Messina's detective. For some reason, every time I see him, it's like he stepped out of a catalog, and it kind of makes me furious.

The rest of the show is great, and I hope that it can live up to its promise so far.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Sharp Objects

#6 Post by Roger Ryan » Tue Jul 24, 2018 1:37 pm

I'm having a hard time getting into this miniseries and agree that the slow pace and repetition seems to indicate a paucity of ideas to spread out over eight episodes. I've admired Vallée's previous work, but it feels like he's overusing some of his gimmicks in an attempt to create excitement where little is happening. He's known for doing the Nicolas Roeg-like associative editing (quick flash-back/flash-forward insert shots highlighting similar actions or objects significant to the story), but there's way too much of that in the first three episodes to be effective. Camille's incessant horrific hallucinations have grown tiresome as well; I suspect these "shock cuts" are included to align with the house style of Blumhouse (Jason Blum is an executive producer), but they don't add much.

User avatar
MoonlitKnight
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Sharp Objects

#7 Post by MoonlitKnight » Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:35 am

Yeah, I appreciated the series' slow burn at first, but now it's just starting to feel drawn out... and the characters themselves just aren't sufficiently compelling to mind all that much. And, while I've admittedly only seen him in a few things, is Chris Messina actually capable of playing a character who has any genuine personality?

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Sharp Objects

#8 Post by Roger Ryan » Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:56 pm

While I have only noticed about three or four of these hidden words while watching the seven episodes thus far, they are clearly prevalent throughout the miniseries. Meant to be indicative of the protagonist's mindset, searching them out does provide some entertainment while waiting for the slow-as-molasses plot to advance. :wink:

statsman
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:03 am

Re: Sharp Objects

#9 Post by statsman » Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:11 pm

My take on Adams and her age- a 30 year old woman swilling as much booze as this character does would look like Adams- skin prematurely aged, pale and a little doughy.

(I was talking to a friend who questioned why, in episode 7, she is shown driving through town in daylight, but doesn’t arrive at her parents’ house until dark. I told him that clearly she had to stop at the liquor store first, and that made it take longer).

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Sharp Objects

#10 Post by Big Ben » Sun Mar 17, 2019 6:02 am

So I finished this recently and while I felt it started out really well it managed to somehow catastrophically shit the bed.

For most of eight odd hours I spent with this I felt fairly confident about certain plot elements. Turns out I was right! The problem is is that it came across feeling downright vile in my opinion. I struggled for a short time to describe the word I wanted to use but vile is exactly the word I want to use to describe this entire endeavor.

Pertaining to the ending of the miniseries itself:
SpoilerShow
I was under the impression from her demeanor, even in the first episode that the younger half sister was responsible for the crimes in their entirety. This was half correct because she did indeed commit the crimes alongside her friends! The issue I have is that the young girl's involvement is relegated to a last minute "surprise" and then some rather horrifying mid credits frames of young girls being strangled. The issue for me isn't that the young girl is the killer rather that the way it's structured it comes off as a particularly mean spirited attempt at shock value.
The book's ending:
SpoilerShow
Is far more fleshed out. We learn that the young girl Amma certainly did do these crimes but it's not exactly the rug puller that the miniseries is. Whereas the miniseries ends with a "Gotcha!" the book ends with Camille living with her publisher regaining some semblance of normalcy after Amma is arrested for her crimes.
Regarding this whole affair put into a broader context:
SpoilerShow
I don't mind being strung along and I certainly don't mind being fooled (A certain deceitful twist in an Argento film comes to mind.) but the way this whole affair culminates is nothing short of what I feel amounts to a downright mean spirited shock ending. I was reminded a lot earlier on in the Miniseries of Don't Look Now. With it's brooding ambiance and crosscutting. But whereas Roeg's film culminates in what was ostensibly a failed attempt at a legitimate warning with plenty of build up the filmed version of this story is just last minute rug pulling. And yes I'm aware I mentioned I though Amma, the young girl was involved early on but I was under the distinct impression that it would end a bit more gracefully. Instead it well, doesn't really do that at all. The books ending has essentially been neutered in favor of something downright unpleasant. It's not earned and it's not the least bit intelligent because it's not executed with much panache. If anything the last episode is the worst of the bunch. Eschewing much of the tone of the previous seven episodes for what I feel amounts to a rather turgid, if disturbing affair. And it's a shame because I wasn't as bothered by the slow pacing as others in this thread seem to have been!
This series has a lot of really great moments (I loved how it was constructed visually.) and the acting is wonderful. Amy Adams is peerless as always and Patricia Clarkson plays the Southern Belle to a tee. I certainly won't knock the series for all it's strengths because it certainly has many. But in one, very important instance it just really, really messed up and in a series like this that's just not enough to launch it into orbit. It takes flight but I don't feel it ever reaches cruising velocity.

Post Reply