eengstrom
member since 01/10/2007 |
last login 02/03/2013
I'm an Austin-based screenwriter trying to devise a method to skip the first draft altogether. StoryPros - 2nd Place, Drama (2008), BlueCat Quarterfinalist (2008), PAGE Quarterfinalist (2008)....
Bio
I'm an Austin-based screenwriter trying to devise a method to skip the first draft altogether. StoryPros - 2nd Place, Drama (2008), BlueCat Quarterfinalist (2008), PAGE Quarterfinalist (2008).
Submissions by eengstrom
No submissions (yet)
Reviews by eengstrom 76
-
A review of Philip Taylor Kramerby eengstrom on 10/14/2009PERSONAL IMPRESSION: Fair. Throughout the script, I felt like I was reading a good piece of fiction. However, I’m not sure this material is suited for a screenplay… yet. There’s a great concept here and some interesting characters, but the plot and dialogue need work to make the concept work as a movie. PLOT/STRUCTURE The story starts off well, quickly catching my attention... PERSONAL IMPRESSION: Fair.
Throughout the script, I felt like I was reading a good piece of fiction. However, I’m not sure this material is suited for a screenplay… yet. There’s a great concept here and some interesting characters, but the plot and dialogue need work to make the concept work as a movie.
PLOT/STRUCTURE
The story starts off well, quickly catching my attention and providing lots of intrigue. The middle of the story starts to feel static, though, as Gregory goes through a long series of interviews. The story picks up speed toward the end and comes to a decent end.
>> First 10 Pages: Good.
The script establishes good mystery as to why PTK is so anxious. PTK’s odd behavior is interesting and kept me reading.
The series of 12 media clips feels much too long; consider reducing these to the 3-5 key ones. Also, it felt strange that the boarding attendant calls security because PTK asks about a flight and where the bathroom is. Perhaps PTK could be more belligerent.
I enjoyed experiencing the inner workings of an airport. The script shows this world well.
The physical similarity between PTK and Gregory may cause major confusion for the audience. I’m assuming that both of them would be played by the same actor, although the script isn’t clear if they’re identical or just similar in appearance. On p. 11, there’s no indication to the audience that Gregory is a different character than PTK. On-screen it would appear than PTK has just assumed a new identity. Gregory isn’t even called by name until well into the dialog on p. 13. Also, in the dream on p. 26 there isn’t any physical indication that it’s actually Gregory and not PTK in the airport. If all this confusion is intentional, the film is going to play out much differently than the script. Perhaps Gregory needs a striking physical difference, such as a different hairstyle or a tattoo. Another note on this, it seems odd that Sheila immediately sees the physical similarity, yet neither PTK’s best friend (Ron) or his father mentions it.
>> First Turning Point: Good.
I assume this is when Gregory dreams he is PTK and realizes that this mystery has suddenly become personal. This works well, providing a good deal of intrigue. The audience has guessed that Gregory’s and PTK’s lives are interconnected somehow because of the physical similarity, and now Gregory must figure out the mystery. The only advice I would offer is to make this a “no turning back” moment. It’s a weird dream alright, but Gregory could reject the call to action if he wanted to. Raise the stakes for Gregory by putting something at risk if he doesn’t succeed, probably his sanity but at the very least his job or Sheila.
The plot starts to become a series of interviews, and quite honest, a bit monotonous. Gregory quickly finds the right person to talk to, and that person gives him most of the information he needs. Glen especially seems to pop out of nowhere and gives a total stranger classified information – this just doesn’t seem likely. The interviews tend to provide a ton of information, making it feel like we’re awash in a sea of exposition. Focus on the key facts and present them in an interesting or subtle manner.
The flashback scenes were interesting to read, but be careful about two issues. First, they don’t provide much more information than we already know, so they’re not really moving the story forward. Second, Gregory has to take a back seat while these flashbacks play. This makes him more passive. (Note: on p. 97, how could this scene be a part of Ray’s flashback?)
>> Midpoint: Poor.
Sorry, I couldn’t identify a point in the middle where the story switches gears. The consecutive interviews and flashbacks have about the same level of intrigue.
Throughout the scenes in this script, there could be two improvements. First, introduce more conflict between the characters. Make sure each character has a competing agenda. The early scenes with Gregory and Ron exemplify this well; Gregory needs information on PTK, and Ron wants money and lunch – good. Second, there needs to be more action within the scene. The actors need to be doing something meaningful or interesting during all the dialogue, or else they’ll just be talking heads.
P. 60 provides a not-too-believable coincidence: Gregory comes back to Igor, who happens to know the foremost expert on PTK. Weak. Maybe Igor is this expert from the start, and he refuses to help Gregory until later in the story.
P. 81: I didn’t quite understand what remote viewing was, and I didn’t understand the conclusions that Gregory arrives at. The scene does work in the sense that we see Gregory transforming into PTK’s persona.
>> Second Turning Point: Fair.
I assume this is when Gregory starts assuming PTK’s life by staying with Jennifer. This is what the audience has expected so far, so it’s not a big surprise. But it’s interesting to watch it play out.
>> Climax: Fair to Good
I assume this is when Gregory battles his insanity and repeats the path that PTK took at the airport. I liked the setup of the climax, when PTK’s body is found and Jennifer comes to her senses. Gregory should snap out of it, but he can’t.
I also like how Gregory begins to recreate PTK’s last day. However, there’s a point when I realize that it’s going to happen exactly as before, so the moment lacks any major surprise. Maybe have Gregory try to break the cycle, but he realizes it’s too late and he must go through the motions.
>> Resolution: Fair.
I like how the ending ties directly to the beginning, but I couldn’t explain what happened. Mysterious endings are great, but I don’t know how to interpret this one. What does his father-in-law have to do with the story?
CHARACTER: Fair.
One of the main issues in the script is Gregory’s character. He starts off as a solid protagonist, actively searching for the mystery behind PTK. Yet the story turns into a series of interviews where Gregory quickly finds the right person and takes a back seat. He’s simply learning information and not much else.
Also, I didn’t quite understand what tips Gregory over into assuming PTK’s persona. He sees Chuck Carter’s video and reads the Celestine Prophecy, and this was somehow enough. There was a lot of explanation via dialogue, but I just didn’t get it.
Sheila feels like a placeholder in her scenes. She needs a much stronger agenda so that there’s more conflict between her and Gregory. Right now she presents a moderate amount of tension that’s quickly diffused.
One of the major issues in this script is the lack of an antagonist. The only real threat is the pair of men in dark suits, but we see them just a few times and they don’t amount to anything. Someone must be working against Gregory, either blatantly or secretly. Maybe Jennifer or Ron tries to lead him down the wrong path. Maybe we see a government agent take steps to shut down Gregory’s investigation. Right now there’s not much threat to Gregory, so the suspense stalls in the second half.
I liked the characters of Igor, McThrifty, and Jeff – they’re great minor characters.
DIALOGUE: Fair.
The dialogue is well-written, but there’s simply too much of it for a movie. Characters have lengthy monologues during the interviews, burying key bits of information amidst a lot of talking. The scene on p. 92 is especially long-winded, when Gregory tries to explain the theories in the Celestine Prophecy. It’s just too much and weighs down the story. The dialogue is good, but it’s much more appropriate for a novel or stageplay.
ORIGINALITY: Good.
I think there’s a strong concept here. PTK is a fascinating character, and I like the mystery as to whether he was crazy or a genius – or both, like A Beautiful Mind. I also like how the script supplied a fictional story to real events; that’s clever. As long as the legal rights issues are worked out, I think this script idea could be successful.
FORMAT: Excellent.
Except for minor issues, the script was professionally formatted.
MINOR COMMENTS:
• P. 1: “He is visibly agitated.” I wasn’t sure if this meant he was angry or sad.
• P. 1: No character description for PTK? McThrifty gets a good one, and he’s just a minor character.
• P. 30: Do we see the ELDERLY WOMAN on screen or just hear her voice? Also, she’s already been described as Ellie Mae, so the generic name isn’t needed.
• P. 31: Again, do we see Ron on screen during the phone call?
• P. 35: I was confused when Ron meets PTK for the first time and says they need to get Iron Butterfly back together. I don’t know this group’s history, but up to this point I thought PTK was an original member. Maybe clarify this.
• P. 49: “Write a code” should be “Write some code”.
• P. 52: “She is taken aback by Gregory’s resemblance…” How does the audience know this?
• P. 69: The script says the scene takes place on a different night, but on-screen it will appear to be the same. Add a better transition.
• P. 85: “MACHINE” should be “JEFF (V.O.)”.
Hopefully these comments help, and let me know if you have any questions. Good luck with your script!
Erik read -
A review of Pepper Roadby eengstrom on 06/06/2008LOGLINE: In 1851, a wayward preacher must lead a group of slaves southward to Mexico. PERSONAL IMPRESSION: Good. I enjoyed reading this script, as it immersed me in the time period and painted great visuals. The characters were well-drawn, especially the protagonists of Preston and Tess. The quality of writing is top-notch. The beginning was too slow for my tastes, but the... LOGLINE: In 1851, a wayward preacher must lead a group of slaves southward to Mexico.
PERSONAL IMPRESSION: Good.
I enjoyed reading this script, as it immersed me in the time period and painted great visuals. The characters were well-drawn, especially the protagonists of Preston and Tess. The quality of writing is top-notch.
The beginning was too slow for my tastes, but the story soon picked up speed. The trouble is that the speed then remained the same, not escalating much in the second half. Yet overall the script is a very good read.
FIRST 10 PAGES: Fair.
The first 8 pages felt slow to me. In fact, I almost didn’t continue beyond the first 7-8 pages, but the writing itself was strong enough to indicate the story would get more interesting.
I think the main problem is the lack of conflict within the opening scenes, meaning that the characters don’t have opposing agendas. There really isn’t a scene with conflict until p. 9. Later in the script this is not an issue, and the scenes are significantly stronger. (A notable exception is the scene on p. 17-18 – a lot of dialogue and little conflict.)
FIRST TURNING POINT: Good to Excellent.
I assume this is when Tess poisons Delaney and Preston starts to lead the slaves to freedom.
I thought the turning point was set up well. Rachael’s death sparks Tess’s poisoning, which opens the door for Preston’s mission. And I really liked Preston’s “tomorrow” sermon. These were all well-written scenes.
My only criticism is that it takes too long to happen. The audience knows that Preston is going to lead the slaves away, so there’s no need to delay the inevitable. Considering the length of this script, the end of Act One really needs to occur within pp. 20-25.
MIDPOINT: Poor.
I didn’t feel that this script had an identifiable midpoint, the point in the story where the action is heightened to a new level and the stakes are raised considerably. This omission hurts the story’s pacing, which is the greatest area of improvement for this script. The second half is supposed to pick up speed, but instead Preston’s group encounters the same type of difficulties as they did in the first half.
I think there’s a great opportunity for a midpoint already: Preston’s snakebite. Right now this injury hobbles Preston for a couple of days and then he’s back on track. Consider an alternative: he can’t walk anymore. This drives at the heart of his character flaw, because by his standards he should be left behind. Tess needs to step up and convince the group that they must drag Preston to freedom no matter the cost. They must risk their lives to do something that Preston isn’t able to do (yet). Preston could heal up later, but at this point in the story the audience needs to believe there’s no hope at all for their mission.
SECOND TURNING POINT: Fair.
I assume this is when Preston’s group reaches the Rio Grande and encounter the hunters.
This felt like more of the same: a group of nameless antagonists appear and try to stop the slaves. They aren’t much more threatening than the other antagonists, and perhaps even less so – they don’t appear to be trained lawmen. But they still present a major obstacle, so we anticipate the climax.
CONCLUSION: Fair to Good.
The action in the climax is well-written. I like how Tess appears to suffer the same fate as Callie, and then Preston’s friendship with Miguel pays off. We then get to see the aftermath, where hope abounds for the freed slaves. No real surprises, though.
OTHER PLOT POINTS:
The most glaring plot hole for me was the time differential of the journeys. I got the impression that Preston’s trip to the Delaney plantation took a couple weeks. The journey back, however, seems to take months based on Marley’s pregnancy. I was surprised when Preston was upset with Marley on p. 48, because she’s only 4 months pregnant. Preston implies that the journey will take 5 months, which didn’t seem anywhere close to the original trip.
On p. 12, I didn’t understand why Preston wasn’t shot along with the others. The twin says he shot Callie because she was running, but so was Preston.
I really liked Preston’s Spanish language instruction, although it would help the realism if there was significant Spanish spoken at the beginning.
I have to say I’m not thrilled with the “gifts from nowhere,” meaning the abandoned homestead with lots of food and the rain in the desert. These gifts arrive right when they’re needed, and the slaves didn’t do anything to earn them. Contrast this with the horse that Ephram secures. He makes a stand against his attacker, and now he receives the benefits.
BTW, I really like the title of the script, but there was a point in the script when I asked myself, “How much pepper could they possibly be carrying?”
CHARACTER: Good.
Preston and Tess make very good co-protagonists. Preston has an interesting character flaw: he sees the very young and the very old as stumbling blocks to his mission. This flaw is reiterated well, and his character arcs nicely toward the end. Tess doesn’t arc nearly as much, but she’s still a good character. However, I almost wish it wasn’t so obvious that they would fall in love; perhaps spark a deeper rift between them earlier.
The script suffers from the lack of a consistent antagonist. For as much time that was spent developing the protagonists, it was surprising how one-dimensional the antagonists were. All the antagonists along the way (the twins, Delaney, the sheriff, the rangers, the carnival guards, the hunters on the riverbank) are similarly portrayed as hateful redneck jerks. None of their motivations are explored.
As a result, the sense of impending doom for the group is not as strong as it could be. The encounters with the antagonists are random, not the result of a full-scale hunt for Preston’s group. Also, each threat that arrives doesn’t remain a threat for long. With the exception of Delaney, the antagonists have little screen time before their threat is quickly diffused.
DIALOGUE: Good to Excellent.
The dialogue seemed realistic for the time period and characters, and it flowed very well. The only times that the dialogue dragged was when conflict wasn’t present, as noted earlier. Well done.
ORIGINALITY: Fair.
There really wasn’t a lot in this script that felt much different than other “slaves running to freedom” stories I’ve read and seen. The #1 difference is that the slaves are heading south rather than north. Consider capitalizing on this uniqueness more. There’s a little grumbling early on about Preston heading the wrong direction, but perhaps make this a MAJOR point of contention throughout the story. If you go this route, I would recommend eliminating the first part of the story in Mexico. This is the “promised land,” and the slaves (and the audience) shouldn’t see it until the end for anticipation’s sake.
I liked the character of Elizabeth and her prediction coming true, though not in an expected way.
FORMAT: Excellent.
The script was formatted professionally throughout. Very few typos. A couple of minor comments:
• Be sure to capitalize all character introductions, even if they have no speaking lines.
• Several times italics are used, and I’ve heard this should be avoided because it’s hard to see italics in Courier. Better to capitalize the word or underline it.
OTHER COMMENTS:
• P. 1: Yikes! A typo in the first sentence. It’s “Rio Grande.”
• P. 2: Is that the same band playing as on page 1? If so, they seem to get there awfully fast. If not, capitalize the introduction.
• P. 14: Add a super that says “ONE YEAR LATER.”
• P. 20: “CONTINUOUS” is unnecessary for the KITCHEN shot.
• P. 20: I wasn’t sure who the TWO MEN were. Are they slaves?
• P. 33: I didn’t have a good picture in my mind as to how many slaves there were here.
Thanks for the great read! Hopefully these comments help, and let me know if you have any questions. Good luck with your script,
Erik read -
A review of THE DONORby eengstrom on 06/03/2008LOG LINE: A young janitor searches his nightmares for a brutal killer, who may be closer to him than he thinks. PERSONAL IMPRESSION: Fair. The first half of this script is very good, but then it degrades into cliché situations and an ending that doesn’t make much sense. Character development and dialogue are well crafted, but the story itself needs significant work. A solid... LOG LINE: A young janitor searches his nightmares for a brutal killer, who may be closer to him than he thinks.
PERSONAL IMPRESSION: Fair.
The first half of this script is very good, but then it degrades into cliché situations and an ending that doesn’t make much sense. Character development and dialogue are well crafted, but the story itself needs significant work. A solid rewrite should produce a highly marketable script.
FIRST 10 PAGES: Good to Excellent.
The beginning of the script was intriguing and kept me wanting to read more. It starts off with a bang with the mysterious stranger, and then we get to know Clive. He’s an interesting guy, and his trouble with Billy and the coach garners the audience’s sympathy for Clive. Great use of conflict to keep the scenes interesting.
FIRST TURNING POINT: Fair to Good.
I assume this is when Clive decides to pursue Carmen’s therapy to help his nightmares.
This is a decent turning point in that Clive is at the end of his rope. He has to find help for his nightmare problem or else his life will continue to spiral downward.
One major issue that I couldn’t understand is how an inexperienced school counselor would be able to help Clive when he’s already been through extensive therapy. On p. 27, Clive says that he has undergone drug therapy, shock therapy, and psychoanalysis. It’s hard to believe that there haven’t been attempts to delve into Clive’s subconscious before. Consider eliminating this line, because then the story would make more sense – Carmen would be his first attempt to face his nightmares. Another idea is to establish Carmen as some kind of psychology genius who can’t find a job anywhere else (kinda like Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting.) Carmen should have insight that others don’t.
MIDPOINT: Fair.
I assume this is when, during hypnosis, Clive realizes that he is connected to the murders somehow.
By itself, this is an OK turning point. We already suspect that Clive is connected somehow, but this gives us solid evidence. Now the mystery deepens. Consider taking the surprise factor up a notch and make it critical to Clive that he solve this mystery as soon as possible.
As for the entire hypnosis sequence, I felt it was weaker than the rest of the script to this point. Here were my issues:
• There’s very little conflict in the scene with Dr. Epstein, Clive, and Carmen, so the scene falls a bit flat – especially during Dr. Epstein’s explanation of hypnosis. One suggestion is to have Carmen violate Dr. Epstein’s rule about keeping quiet during the hypnosis.
• Clive’s hypnosis works like a dream (sorry, couldn’t resist). He goes under easily and details everything he sees. I don’t really buy it.
• Dr. Epstein tells Clive to visualize a beach, and this happens to be the scene of the next murder. A little too coincidental.
• Based on what Dr. Epstein has witnessed, it’s hard to believe that he would attribute Clive’s condition to the “Memory Inheritance Register.” A much more logical conclusion is that Clive has repressed this memory. Also, why would Dr. Epstein think the picture was not really that of Clive? I like the concept, but this needs to be set up better.
If you haven’t seen the movie Dead Again, I recommend it for research. It pulls off a fresh take on hypnosis and includes good conflict within these scenes.
SECOND TURNING POINT: Poor to Fair.
I assume this is when Clive realizes that his father is the killer.
Unfortunately, this is obvious to the audience; Clive is the one doing catch-up. Another issue is that Clive appears to have no idea who his father is. He ducked out of Dr. Reilly’s office before he could find out, which was odd. There’s really nothing Clive can do at this point but wait, which is essentially what he does until Dr. Reilly shows up with a gun.
CONCLUSION: Poor.
There are several major problems with the ending. First, Dr. Reilly pops up too late in the script. He’s the antagonist and the killer, but he’s the last character introduced to us. This gyps the audience, because all this time they’ve been trying to figure out who the mysterious killer is. He can’t just appear at the end.
Second, Dr. Reilly does the typical bad guy routine at the end: explain everything while his victim is held at gunpoint. He has no reason to detail his nefarious plan to Clive and Carmen, so it’s just a bunch of exposition at the end. Worse, he’s doing all this while someone has a secret recording device (cell phone in this case) – and this situation is too cliché in the movies.
Third, Clive is the protagonist yet isn’t the hero in the end. In his battle with Dr. Reilly, he doesn’t really do anything. Carmen has the smarts to call Dunbar, and Salvora kills Dr. Reilly. Clive does punch Dr. Reilly, but that’s not enough for a hero.
Fourth, Dr. Reilly is set up to be a diabolical serial killer. He CANNOT be killed with a lamp. Period.
Fifth, Clive’s situation is the same at the end. He’s still going to have those nightmares, and his character didn’t change. There has to be something fulfilling for Clive, either in character growth or achieving his quest to end the nightmares. The rekindled romance with Carmen is a good start, but there should be more.
Finally, it didn’t make any sense whatsoever to have Salvora be the killer. Dr. Reilly already admitted to everything. Did he make it all up? If not, that means both of Clive’s parents are murderers. C’mon now.
OK, so it’s obvious I didn’t like the ending at all. But your writing is strong enough that I’m sure you’ll come up with something far, far better.
OTHER PLOT POINTS:
The action scenes with the killer were very well-written, but I do have this criticism: the scenes are mainly episodic in nature. The violence escalates (which is good), but not the meaning or mystery. The scenes don’t build on one another and offer new information. The one exception is Clive’s recognition of the picture. Consider releasing more clues with every return of the killer.
Another issue with the killer’s scenes is that the victims are nobody we know. The scenes are scary, but the audience isn’t emotionally connected with any of the characters. The scenes could be more wrenching if we understood the victims’ plight on more than the one level of “there’s a guy chasing me!”
On p. 47, Detective Dunbar gives up way too easily. Clive reveals unknown details on a 30-year-old case that Dunbar has desperately tried to crack. Why would Dunbar leave so quickly after finding out the details came from a nightmare? It’s weird, granted, but using psychics to solve crimes is nothing new. On the flip side, it’s odd that Dunbar suddenly believes Clive on p. 81. Also, Dunbar comes to the conclusion that these murders are the work of a serial killer, but he has no evidence for this.
I enjoyed Carmen’s ruse of the sickle-cell defect to gain access. Well done. However, it felt odd that Clive and Carmen would leave the office right when they were close to finding out the identity of the donor. Just the fact that Clive sees the woman’s photo wouldn’t be enough to abandon their search at this point. They haven’t indicated any bad vibes from Dr. Reilly.
CHARACTER: Good.
Character development was a major strength of this script. Nearly every character had a distinct voice and was interesting.
Clive was especially good. I liked his attitude and hopelessness. He’s a unique protagonist, even though he does fall flat in the end (as noted earlier).
DIALOGUE: Good.
The dialogue really keeps the script moving. It could use a polish to deepen characters and get out of scenes quicker, but overall it’s quite good.
One issue, however, is that the script over-directs the actors a lot. Let dialogue flow without breaking up every other line with small actions. Examples include p. 26, 32, and 38, but it’s pretty rampant.
ORIGINALITY: Fair.
I felt that the characters were original, especially those of Clive and Carmen. However, many of the plot points seemed like retreads of movie scenes I’ve seen before. I think there’s a lot of opportunity here to punch up the scenes, especially in the second half of the script.
I liked the concept of inheriting memories, but I felt it wasn’t explored enough.
FORMAT: Good to Excellent.
For the most part, the script is professionally formatted. Here are some areas where the script deviated:
• Be sure to capitalize all character introductions, regardless if they have speaking roles. Examples include “a shadowy figure” (p. 1) and “red-haired woman” (p. 57).
• INT . slugs need a DAY or NIGHT modifier, because the lighting crew needs to know about any natural light coming from outside, say through a window.
• The script relies heavily on LATER and CONTINUOUS in the location slugs, which is many times unnecessary. It’s obvious that the next scene occurs later. Just stick with DAY or NIGHT.
• Make sure all character names are unique. There are multiple WOMAN characters, but they’re all different people.
Also, there are quite a few typos throughout, so a thorough proofreading is needed.
OTHER COMMENTS:
• Be careful about the heavy use of adverbs (nervously, icily, judiciously). The visuals can be strengthened by eliminating these and going with stronger verbs and metaphors.
• P. 22: The location slug indicates that Clive’s scene comes later, but visually this may be puzzling to the audience. Perhaps add a bridge scene here.
• P. 36: I didn’t understand how Clive’s fists would be bloody from punching a pillow. Also, are his knuckles broken? I couldn’t visualize what “cracked knuckles” were.
• P. 56: The beach scene needs a location slug.
• P. 69: Salvora leaves and finds a 28-year-old document awfully fast. Also, what are Clive and Carmen doing while they’re waiting?
Hopefully these comments help, and let me know if you have any questions. Good luck with your script!
Erik read
Write a Comment
Submissions by eengstrom
No submissions (yet)
Reviews by eengstrom 76
-
A review of Philip Taylor Kramerby eengstrom on 10/14/2009PERSONAL IMPRESSION: Fair. Throughout the script, I felt like I was reading a good piece of fiction. However, I’m not sure this material is suited for a screenplay… yet. There’s a great concept here and some interesting characters, but the plot and dialogue need work to make the concept work as a movie. PLOT/STRUCTURE The story starts off well, quickly catching my attention... PERSONAL IMPRESSION: Fair.
Throughout the script, I felt like I was reading a good piece of fiction. However, I’m not sure this material is suited for a screenplay… yet. There’s a great concept here and some interesting characters, but the plot and dialogue need work to make the concept work as a movie.
PLOT/STRUCTURE
The story starts off well, quickly catching my attention and providing lots of intrigue. The middle of the story starts to feel static, though, as Gregory goes through a long series of interviews. The story picks up speed toward the end and comes to a decent end.
>> First 10 Pages: Good.
The script establishes good mystery as to why PTK is so anxious. PTK’s odd behavior is interesting and kept me reading.
The series of 12 media clips feels much too long; consider reducing these to the 3-5 key ones. Also, it felt strange that the boarding attendant calls security because PTK asks about a flight and where the bathroom is. Perhaps PTK could be more belligerent.
I enjoyed experiencing the inner workings of an airport. The script shows this world well.
The physical similarity between PTK and Gregory may cause major confusion for the audience. I’m assuming that both of them would be played by the same actor, although the script isn’t clear if they’re identical or just similar in appearance. On p. 11, there’s no indication to the audience that Gregory is a different character than PTK. On-screen it would appear than PTK has just assumed a new identity. Gregory isn’t even called by name until well into the dialog on p. 13. Also, in the dream on p. 26 there isn’t any physical indication that it’s actually Gregory and not PTK in the airport. If all this confusion is intentional, the film is going to play out much differently than the script. Perhaps Gregory needs a striking physical difference, such as a different hairstyle or a tattoo. Another note on this, it seems odd that Sheila immediately sees the physical similarity, yet neither PTK’s best friend (Ron) or his father mentions it.
>> First Turning Point: Good.
I assume this is when Gregory dreams he is PTK and realizes that this mystery has suddenly become personal. This works well, providing a good deal of intrigue. The audience has guessed that Gregory’s and PTK’s lives are interconnected somehow because of the physical similarity, and now Gregory must figure out the mystery. The only advice I would offer is to make this a “no turning back” moment. It’s a weird dream alright, but Gregory could reject the call to action if he wanted to. Raise the stakes for Gregory by putting something at risk if he doesn’t succeed, probably his sanity but at the very least his job or Sheila.
The plot starts to become a series of interviews, and quite honest, a bit monotonous. Gregory quickly finds the right person to talk to, and that person gives him most of the information he needs. Glen especially seems to pop out of nowhere and gives a total stranger classified information – this just doesn’t seem likely. The interviews tend to provide a ton of information, making it feel like we’re awash in a sea of exposition. Focus on the key facts and present them in an interesting or subtle manner.
The flashback scenes were interesting to read, but be careful about two issues. First, they don’t provide much more information than we already know, so they’re not really moving the story forward. Second, Gregory has to take a back seat while these flashbacks play. This makes him more passive. (Note: on p. 97, how could this scene be a part of Ray’s flashback?)
>> Midpoint: Poor.
Sorry, I couldn’t identify a point in the middle where the story switches gears. The consecutive interviews and flashbacks have about the same level of intrigue.
Throughout the scenes in this script, there could be two improvements. First, introduce more conflict between the characters. Make sure each character has a competing agenda. The early scenes with Gregory and Ron exemplify this well; Gregory needs information on PTK, and Ron wants money and lunch – good. Second, there needs to be more action within the scene. The actors need to be doing something meaningful or interesting during all the dialogue, or else they’ll just be talking heads.
P. 60 provides a not-too-believable coincidence: Gregory comes back to Igor, who happens to know the foremost expert on PTK. Weak. Maybe Igor is this expert from the start, and he refuses to help Gregory until later in the story.
P. 81: I didn’t quite understand what remote viewing was, and I didn’t understand the conclusions that Gregory arrives at. The scene does work in the sense that we see Gregory transforming into PTK’s persona.
>> Second Turning Point: Fair.
I assume this is when Gregory starts assuming PTK’s life by staying with Jennifer. This is what the audience has expected so far, so it’s not a big surprise. But it’s interesting to watch it play out.
>> Climax: Fair to Good
I assume this is when Gregory battles his insanity and repeats the path that PTK took at the airport. I liked the setup of the climax, when PTK’s body is found and Jennifer comes to her senses. Gregory should snap out of it, but he can’t.
I also like how Gregory begins to recreate PTK’s last day. However, there’s a point when I realize that it’s going to happen exactly as before, so the moment lacks any major surprise. Maybe have Gregory try to break the cycle, but he realizes it’s too late and he must go through the motions.
>> Resolution: Fair.
I like how the ending ties directly to the beginning, but I couldn’t explain what happened. Mysterious endings are great, but I don’t know how to interpret this one. What does his father-in-law have to do with the story?
CHARACTER: Fair.
One of the main issues in the script is Gregory’s character. He starts off as a solid protagonist, actively searching for the mystery behind PTK. Yet the story turns into a series of interviews where Gregory quickly finds the right person and takes a back seat. He’s simply learning information and not much else.
Also, I didn’t quite understand what tips Gregory over into assuming PTK’s persona. He sees Chuck Carter’s video and reads the Celestine Prophecy, and this was somehow enough. There was a lot of explanation via dialogue, but I just didn’t get it.
Sheila feels like a placeholder in her scenes. She needs a much stronger agenda so that there’s more conflict between her and Gregory. Right now she presents a moderate amount of tension that’s quickly diffused.
One of the major issues in this script is the lack of an antagonist. The only real threat is the pair of men in dark suits, but we see them just a few times and they don’t amount to anything. Someone must be working against Gregory, either blatantly or secretly. Maybe Jennifer or Ron tries to lead him down the wrong path. Maybe we see a government agent take steps to shut down Gregory’s investigation. Right now there’s not much threat to Gregory, so the suspense stalls in the second half.
I liked the characters of Igor, McThrifty, and Jeff – they’re great minor characters.
DIALOGUE: Fair.
The dialogue is well-written, but there’s simply too much of it for a movie. Characters have lengthy monologues during the interviews, burying key bits of information amidst a lot of talking. The scene on p. 92 is especially long-winded, when Gregory tries to explain the theories in the Celestine Prophecy. It’s just too much and weighs down the story. The dialogue is good, but it’s much more appropriate for a novel or stageplay.
ORIGINALITY: Good.
I think there’s a strong concept here. PTK is a fascinating character, and I like the mystery as to whether he was crazy or a genius – or both, like A Beautiful Mind. I also like how the script supplied a fictional story to real events; that’s clever. As long as the legal rights issues are worked out, I think this script idea could be successful.
FORMAT: Excellent.
Except for minor issues, the script was professionally formatted.
MINOR COMMENTS:
• P. 1: “He is visibly agitated.” I wasn’t sure if this meant he was angry or sad.
• P. 1: No character description for PTK? McThrifty gets a good one, and he’s just a minor character.
• P. 30: Do we see the ELDERLY WOMAN on screen or just hear her voice? Also, she’s already been described as Ellie Mae, so the generic name isn’t needed.
• P. 31: Again, do we see Ron on screen during the phone call?
• P. 35: I was confused when Ron meets PTK for the first time and says they need to get Iron Butterfly back together. I don’t know this group’s history, but up to this point I thought PTK was an original member. Maybe clarify this.
• P. 49: “Write a code” should be “Write some code”.
• P. 52: “She is taken aback by Gregory’s resemblance…” How does the audience know this?
• P. 69: The script says the scene takes place on a different night, but on-screen it will appear to be the same. Add a better transition.
• P. 85: “MACHINE” should be “JEFF (V.O.)”.
Hopefully these comments help, and let me know if you have any questions. Good luck with your script!
Erik read -
A review of Pepper Roadby eengstrom on 06/06/2008LOGLINE: In 1851, a wayward preacher must lead a group of slaves southward to Mexico. PERSONAL IMPRESSION: Good. I enjoyed reading this script, as it immersed me in the time period and painted great visuals. The characters were well-drawn, especially the protagonists of Preston and Tess. The quality of writing is top-notch. The beginning was too slow for my tastes, but the... LOGLINE: In 1851, a wayward preacher must lead a group of slaves southward to Mexico.
PERSONAL IMPRESSION: Good.
I enjoyed reading this script, as it immersed me in the time period and painted great visuals. The characters were well-drawn, especially the protagonists of Preston and Tess. The quality of writing is top-notch.
The beginning was too slow for my tastes, but the story soon picked up speed. The trouble is that the speed then remained the same, not escalating much in the second half. Yet overall the script is a very good read.
FIRST 10 PAGES: Fair.
The first 8 pages felt slow to me. In fact, I almost didn’t continue beyond the first 7-8 pages, but the writing itself was strong enough to indicate the story would get more interesting.
I think the main problem is the lack of conflict within the opening scenes, meaning that the characters don’t have opposing agendas. There really isn’t a scene with conflict until p. 9. Later in the script this is not an issue, and the scenes are significantly stronger. (A notable exception is the scene on p. 17-18 – a lot of dialogue and little conflict.)
FIRST TURNING POINT: Good to Excellent.
I assume this is when Tess poisons Delaney and Preston starts to lead the slaves to freedom.
I thought the turning point was set up well. Rachael’s death sparks Tess’s poisoning, which opens the door for Preston’s mission. And I really liked Preston’s “tomorrow” sermon. These were all well-written scenes.
My only criticism is that it takes too long to happen. The audience knows that Preston is going to lead the slaves away, so there’s no need to delay the inevitable. Considering the length of this script, the end of Act One really needs to occur within pp. 20-25.
MIDPOINT: Poor.
I didn’t feel that this script had an identifiable midpoint, the point in the story where the action is heightened to a new level and the stakes are raised considerably. This omission hurts the story’s pacing, which is the greatest area of improvement for this script. The second half is supposed to pick up speed, but instead Preston’s group encounters the same type of difficulties as they did in the first half.
I think there’s a great opportunity for a midpoint already: Preston’s snakebite. Right now this injury hobbles Preston for a couple of days and then he’s back on track. Consider an alternative: he can’t walk anymore. This drives at the heart of his character flaw, because by his standards he should be left behind. Tess needs to step up and convince the group that they must drag Preston to freedom no matter the cost. They must risk their lives to do something that Preston isn’t able to do (yet). Preston could heal up later, but at this point in the story the audience needs to believe there’s no hope at all for their mission.
SECOND TURNING POINT: Fair.
I assume this is when Preston’s group reaches the Rio Grande and encounter the hunters.
This felt like more of the same: a group of nameless antagonists appear and try to stop the slaves. They aren’t much more threatening than the other antagonists, and perhaps even less so – they don’t appear to be trained lawmen. But they still present a major obstacle, so we anticipate the climax.
CONCLUSION: Fair to Good.
The action in the climax is well-written. I like how Tess appears to suffer the same fate as Callie, and then Preston’s friendship with Miguel pays off. We then get to see the aftermath, where hope abounds for the freed slaves. No real surprises, though.
OTHER PLOT POINTS:
The most glaring plot hole for me was the time differential of the journeys. I got the impression that Preston’s trip to the Delaney plantation took a couple weeks. The journey back, however, seems to take months based on Marley’s pregnancy. I was surprised when Preston was upset with Marley on p. 48, because she’s only 4 months pregnant. Preston implies that the journey will take 5 months, which didn’t seem anywhere close to the original trip.
On p. 12, I didn’t understand why Preston wasn’t shot along with the others. The twin says he shot Callie because she was running, but so was Preston.
I really liked Preston’s Spanish language instruction, although it would help the realism if there was significant Spanish spoken at the beginning.
I have to say I’m not thrilled with the “gifts from nowhere,” meaning the abandoned homestead with lots of food and the rain in the desert. These gifts arrive right when they’re needed, and the slaves didn’t do anything to earn them. Contrast this with the horse that Ephram secures. He makes a stand against his attacker, and now he receives the benefits.
BTW, I really like the title of the script, but there was a point in the script when I asked myself, “How much pepper could they possibly be carrying?”
CHARACTER: Good.
Preston and Tess make very good co-protagonists. Preston has an interesting character flaw: he sees the very young and the very old as stumbling blocks to his mission. This flaw is reiterated well, and his character arcs nicely toward the end. Tess doesn’t arc nearly as much, but she’s still a good character. However, I almost wish it wasn’t so obvious that they would fall in love; perhaps spark a deeper rift between them earlier.
The script suffers from the lack of a consistent antagonist. For as much time that was spent developing the protagonists, it was surprising how one-dimensional the antagonists were. All the antagonists along the way (the twins, Delaney, the sheriff, the rangers, the carnival guards, the hunters on the riverbank) are similarly portrayed as hateful redneck jerks. None of their motivations are explored.
As a result, the sense of impending doom for the group is not as strong as it could be. The encounters with the antagonists are random, not the result of a full-scale hunt for Preston’s group. Also, each threat that arrives doesn’t remain a threat for long. With the exception of Delaney, the antagonists have little screen time before their threat is quickly diffused.
DIALOGUE: Good to Excellent.
The dialogue seemed realistic for the time period and characters, and it flowed very well. The only times that the dialogue dragged was when conflict wasn’t present, as noted earlier. Well done.
ORIGINALITY: Fair.
There really wasn’t a lot in this script that felt much different than other “slaves running to freedom” stories I’ve read and seen. The #1 difference is that the slaves are heading south rather than north. Consider capitalizing on this uniqueness more. There’s a little grumbling early on about Preston heading the wrong direction, but perhaps make this a MAJOR point of contention throughout the story. If you go this route, I would recommend eliminating the first part of the story in Mexico. This is the “promised land,” and the slaves (and the audience) shouldn’t see it until the end for anticipation’s sake.
I liked the character of Elizabeth and her prediction coming true, though not in an expected way.
FORMAT: Excellent.
The script was formatted professionally throughout. Very few typos. A couple of minor comments:
• Be sure to capitalize all character introductions, even if they have no speaking lines.
• Several times italics are used, and I’ve heard this should be avoided because it’s hard to see italics in Courier. Better to capitalize the word or underline it.
OTHER COMMENTS:
• P. 1: Yikes! A typo in the first sentence. It’s “Rio Grande.”
• P. 2: Is that the same band playing as on page 1? If so, they seem to get there awfully fast. If not, capitalize the introduction.
• P. 14: Add a super that says “ONE YEAR LATER.”
• P. 20: “CONTINUOUS” is unnecessary for the KITCHEN shot.
• P. 20: I wasn’t sure who the TWO MEN were. Are they slaves?
• P. 33: I didn’t have a good picture in my mind as to how many slaves there were here.
Thanks for the great read! Hopefully these comments help, and let me know if you have any questions. Good luck with your script,
Erik read -
A review of THE DONORby eengstrom on 06/03/2008LOG LINE: A young janitor searches his nightmares for a brutal killer, who may be closer to him than he thinks. PERSONAL IMPRESSION: Fair. The first half of this script is very good, but then it degrades into cliché situations and an ending that doesn’t make much sense. Character development and dialogue are well crafted, but the story itself needs significant work. A solid... LOG LINE: A young janitor searches his nightmares for a brutal killer, who may be closer to him than he thinks.
PERSONAL IMPRESSION: Fair.
The first half of this script is very good, but then it degrades into cliché situations and an ending that doesn’t make much sense. Character development and dialogue are well crafted, but the story itself needs significant work. A solid rewrite should produce a highly marketable script.
FIRST 10 PAGES: Good to Excellent.
The beginning of the script was intriguing and kept me wanting to read more. It starts off with a bang with the mysterious stranger, and then we get to know Clive. He’s an interesting guy, and his trouble with Billy and the coach garners the audience’s sympathy for Clive. Great use of conflict to keep the scenes interesting.
FIRST TURNING POINT: Fair to Good.
I assume this is when Clive decides to pursue Carmen’s therapy to help his nightmares.
This is a decent turning point in that Clive is at the end of his rope. He has to find help for his nightmare problem or else his life will continue to spiral downward.
One major issue that I couldn’t understand is how an inexperienced school counselor would be able to help Clive when he’s already been through extensive therapy. On p. 27, Clive says that he has undergone drug therapy, shock therapy, and psychoanalysis. It’s hard to believe that there haven’t been attempts to delve into Clive’s subconscious before. Consider eliminating this line, because then the story would make more sense – Carmen would be his first attempt to face his nightmares. Another idea is to establish Carmen as some kind of psychology genius who can’t find a job anywhere else (kinda like Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting.) Carmen should have insight that others don’t.
MIDPOINT: Fair.
I assume this is when, during hypnosis, Clive realizes that he is connected to the murders somehow.
By itself, this is an OK turning point. We already suspect that Clive is connected somehow, but this gives us solid evidence. Now the mystery deepens. Consider taking the surprise factor up a notch and make it critical to Clive that he solve this mystery as soon as possible.
As for the entire hypnosis sequence, I felt it was weaker than the rest of the script to this point. Here were my issues:
• There’s very little conflict in the scene with Dr. Epstein, Clive, and Carmen, so the scene falls a bit flat – especially during Dr. Epstein’s explanation of hypnosis. One suggestion is to have Carmen violate Dr. Epstein’s rule about keeping quiet during the hypnosis.
• Clive’s hypnosis works like a dream (sorry, couldn’t resist). He goes under easily and details everything he sees. I don’t really buy it.
• Dr. Epstein tells Clive to visualize a beach, and this happens to be the scene of the next murder. A little too coincidental.
• Based on what Dr. Epstein has witnessed, it’s hard to believe that he would attribute Clive’s condition to the “Memory Inheritance Register.” A much more logical conclusion is that Clive has repressed this memory. Also, why would Dr. Epstein think the picture was not really that of Clive? I like the concept, but this needs to be set up better.
If you haven’t seen the movie Dead Again, I recommend it for research. It pulls off a fresh take on hypnosis and includes good conflict within these scenes.
SECOND TURNING POINT: Poor to Fair.
I assume this is when Clive realizes that his father is the killer.
Unfortunately, this is obvious to the audience; Clive is the one doing catch-up. Another issue is that Clive appears to have no idea who his father is. He ducked out of Dr. Reilly’s office before he could find out, which was odd. There’s really nothing Clive can do at this point but wait, which is essentially what he does until Dr. Reilly shows up with a gun.
CONCLUSION: Poor.
There are several major problems with the ending. First, Dr. Reilly pops up too late in the script. He’s the antagonist and the killer, but he’s the last character introduced to us. This gyps the audience, because all this time they’ve been trying to figure out who the mysterious killer is. He can’t just appear at the end.
Second, Dr. Reilly does the typical bad guy routine at the end: explain everything while his victim is held at gunpoint. He has no reason to detail his nefarious plan to Clive and Carmen, so it’s just a bunch of exposition at the end. Worse, he’s doing all this while someone has a secret recording device (cell phone in this case) – and this situation is too cliché in the movies.
Third, Clive is the protagonist yet isn’t the hero in the end. In his battle with Dr. Reilly, he doesn’t really do anything. Carmen has the smarts to call Dunbar, and Salvora kills Dr. Reilly. Clive does punch Dr. Reilly, but that’s not enough for a hero.
Fourth, Dr. Reilly is set up to be a diabolical serial killer. He CANNOT be killed with a lamp. Period.
Fifth, Clive’s situation is the same at the end. He’s still going to have those nightmares, and his character didn’t change. There has to be something fulfilling for Clive, either in character growth or achieving his quest to end the nightmares. The rekindled romance with Carmen is a good start, but there should be more.
Finally, it didn’t make any sense whatsoever to have Salvora be the killer. Dr. Reilly already admitted to everything. Did he make it all up? If not, that means both of Clive’s parents are murderers. C’mon now.
OK, so it’s obvious I didn’t like the ending at all. But your writing is strong enough that I’m sure you’ll come up with something far, far better.
OTHER PLOT POINTS:
The action scenes with the killer were very well-written, but I do have this criticism: the scenes are mainly episodic in nature. The violence escalates (which is good), but not the meaning or mystery. The scenes don’t build on one another and offer new information. The one exception is Clive’s recognition of the picture. Consider releasing more clues with every return of the killer.
Another issue with the killer’s scenes is that the victims are nobody we know. The scenes are scary, but the audience isn’t emotionally connected with any of the characters. The scenes could be more wrenching if we understood the victims’ plight on more than the one level of “there’s a guy chasing me!”
On p. 47, Detective Dunbar gives up way too easily. Clive reveals unknown details on a 30-year-old case that Dunbar has desperately tried to crack. Why would Dunbar leave so quickly after finding out the details came from a nightmare? It’s weird, granted, but using psychics to solve crimes is nothing new. On the flip side, it’s odd that Dunbar suddenly believes Clive on p. 81. Also, Dunbar comes to the conclusion that these murders are the work of a serial killer, but he has no evidence for this.
I enjoyed Carmen’s ruse of the sickle-cell defect to gain access. Well done. However, it felt odd that Clive and Carmen would leave the office right when they were close to finding out the identity of the donor. Just the fact that Clive sees the woman’s photo wouldn’t be enough to abandon their search at this point. They haven’t indicated any bad vibes from Dr. Reilly.
CHARACTER: Good.
Character development was a major strength of this script. Nearly every character had a distinct voice and was interesting.
Clive was especially good. I liked his attitude and hopelessness. He’s a unique protagonist, even though he does fall flat in the end (as noted earlier).
DIALOGUE: Good.
The dialogue really keeps the script moving. It could use a polish to deepen characters and get out of scenes quicker, but overall it’s quite good.
One issue, however, is that the script over-directs the actors a lot. Let dialogue flow without breaking up every other line with small actions. Examples include p. 26, 32, and 38, but it’s pretty rampant.
ORIGINALITY: Fair.
I felt that the characters were original, especially those of Clive and Carmen. However, many of the plot points seemed like retreads of movie scenes I’ve seen before. I think there’s a lot of opportunity here to punch up the scenes, especially in the second half of the script.
I liked the concept of inheriting memories, but I felt it wasn’t explored enough.
FORMAT: Good to Excellent.
For the most part, the script is professionally formatted. Here are some areas where the script deviated:
• Be sure to capitalize all character introductions, regardless if they have speaking roles. Examples include “a shadowy figure” (p. 1) and “red-haired woman” (p. 57).
• INT . slugs need a DAY or NIGHT modifier, because the lighting crew needs to know about any natural light coming from outside, say through a window.
• The script relies heavily on LATER and CONTINUOUS in the location slugs, which is many times unnecessary. It’s obvious that the next scene occurs later. Just stick with DAY or NIGHT.
• Make sure all character names are unique. There are multiple WOMAN characters, but they’re all different people.
Also, there are quite a few typos throughout, so a thorough proofreading is needed.
OTHER COMMENTS:
• Be careful about the heavy use of adverbs (nervously, icily, judiciously). The visuals can be strengthened by eliminating these and going with stronger verbs and metaphors.
• P. 22: The location slug indicates that Clive’s scene comes later, but visually this may be puzzling to the audience. Perhaps add a bridge scene here.
• P. 36: I didn’t understand how Clive’s fists would be bloody from punching a pillow. Also, are his knuckles broken? I couldn’t visualize what “cracked knuckles” were.
• P. 56: The beach scene needs a location slug.
• P. 69: Salvora leaves and finds a 28-year-old document awfully fast. Also, what are Clive and Carmen doing while they’re waiting?
Hopefully these comments help, and let me know if you have any questions. Good luck with your script!
Erik read -
A review of ST. LOUIS SPECIAL (2nd Draft)by eengstrom on 05/21/2008LOG LINE: Car salesman Curt Webber reels from a marriage proposal rejection and flies to St. Louis with a woman he hardly knows. PERSONAL IMPRESSION: Fair to Good. I’ll say up-front that the rom-com is not my preferred genre, mainly because most of these movies feel formulaic to me. This script follows the familiar pattern, but its rich dialogue takes it to an enjoyable level... LOG LINE: Car salesman Curt Webber reels from a marriage proposal rejection and flies to St. Louis with a woman he hardly knows.
PERSONAL IMPRESSION: Fair to Good.
I’ll say up-front that the rom-com is not my preferred genre, mainly because most of these movies feel formulaic to me. This script follows the familiar pattern, but its rich dialogue takes it to an enjoyable level.
Character issues hurt my impression of this script. For one, the protagonist Curt lost my respect throughout the story and failed to make up for it in the end. And the lack of an antagonist caused the pacing to remain largely static. Again though, the dialogue helped the script get past these issues to a certain extent.
FIRST 10 PAGES: Good to Excellent.
The opening scenes with Francisco and Selena are fantastic. We’re immediately pulled into the story, and we know what Curt is all about. The scenes are very funny as well. Great job with one of the toughest parts of a script.
The last scene with Langley and Wendy felt long. All this drama is going on with Curt, but then we’re forced to listen to a lengthy phone conversation that introduces Langley’s exposition. Consider cutting this down.
FIRST TURNING POINT: Fair.
I assume this is when Curt decides to go to St. Louis to pursue Langley.
Usually I can’t stand major coincidences, but I’ll accept it since it’s early in the story. I’m referring to the fact that Curt just happened to buy a ticket on Langley’s plane, and her friend couldn’t make the flight. It wouldn’t hurt to make this coincidence a little more palatable, though.
This is a good turning point in the sense that Curt is now going into unfamiliar territory. However, he doesn’t really have much to lose. His job’s not at stake because his boss is sympathetic to his situation. Curt could return to LA at any time and still lead his same life. I didn’t get the sense that Curt would be eternally miserable if he didn’t take the journey to St. Louis.
MIDPOINT: Fair.
I assume this is when Curt and Langley kiss at the baseball game.
This event spins their relationship to another level, which is good. A bit too predictable, though. I also felt like I’ve seen this scene before, but I can’t place the movie.
SECOND TURNING POINT: Fair.
I assume this is when Erin confirms her rejection and Curt sees Langley getting along well with Dale.
We’re expecting Erin to say “no,” so there’s not much surprise here. Plus it lets Curt off the hook even though Langley appears to be siding with Dale. This certainly hurts Curt’s feelings, but it doesn’t appear to be life-threatening. This must be the lowest point of Curt’s life, but I get the sense that he’ll bounce back OK. If Erin says “yes,” however, the situation gets much tougher for Curt. Now his honesty would be put to the test.
CONCLUSION: Fair.
I wasn’t altogether thrilled that Langley ended up with Curt (more on this later). Dale takes the loss of Langley a bit too easily, and then he experiences a Hollywood ending. Yet overall it’s a decent ending for this genre.
I liked the bookend scenes of the new fathers gushing over their babies, but I wish they had something to do with the plot and/or theme of the story. The sheer coincidence of Curt and Langley hooking up later doesn’t really tie into anything in the storyline. I love the opening line on p. 1, but unfortunately these scenes may need to be cut for the sake of the story.
OTHER PLOT POINTS:
This script would be much stronger with the inclusion of an antagonist. The pressure needs to mount throughout a script no matter the genre, and an antagonist makes this happen. As a result, the pacing in this script feels the same throughout.
Another significant issue is the number of phone calls in this movie. There’s not much less exciting than watching someone talk on the phone, yet there are at least ten (!) phone conversations in the script—and many of them are long. At a minimum, consider using intercuts so we can see what the person on the other end of the line is doing. More preferably, though, reconsider how these scenes are constructed to eliminate the phone call and get the two people in the same room. Another option is to deliver the information some other way.
The YouTube video was puzzling to me. In your logline, it’s presented as the driving factor in the plot. However, I contend that the video has little to do with Curt’s story. At first I thought the video was going to be harmful based on Curt’s line of “bad things happen on the Internet.” Yet it has the opposite effect, providing Curt a wide safety net of adoring women if the fling with Langley doesn’t work out. The video actually diffuses much of the tension in the story! Consider revealing the harmful implications of this video on Curt’s future, which would make his romance with Langley look more like his last chance with a good woman.
You have some great scene transitions in here. I especially liked the cut to Wendy on p. 29 and the Play-Doh on p. 86.
On p. 47, Dale catches sight of Langley and Curt and starts to follow them. Yet he disappears until p. 54 when he pops up in the Arch. It seems odd that we don’t see his actual pursuit.
On p. 67, I didn’t understand how Christopher concluded that Langley lied about Curt being her cousin. Was it just a wild guess?
CHARACTER: Fair to Good.
I have to admit, I didn’t care for Curt in the end. Here were my feelings about him as I was reading the script. First, I really liked him and was rooting for him during his proposal with Erin. However, he rubbed me the wrong way when (on p. 23) he didn’t seem to care about Erin anymore. After Erin explains that she just needs time to think, Curt acts callous.
Curt’s one saving grace is his honesty, which was established at the beginning. Yet it seems to go out the window for the rest of the script. I thought there would be a good clash between his unbending honesty and Langley’s “bend the truth” marketing expertise, but that didn’t materialize.
I soon got the impression that Curt was a hopeless romantic, and Langley was just his attempt at a rebound girlfriend. His constant pressuring of Langley annoyed me. The real turning point was on p. 70-71. Curt laughs off the YouTube video until he realizes he can use it against Langley and send her on a guilt trip. Not only that, but he trashes the girl he wanted to marry just the day before. By the time Curt changes toward the end, I had already lost too much respect for him. I didn’t believe that he would change for good.
On the other hand, I liked Langley’s character, and sometimes I felt that the story is really about her and not Curt. I actually felt bad for her when she ditched Dale for Curt.
One issue with Langley is that nearly all of her motivations and feelings are explained in her dialogue. There’s very little action on her part, which can speak much more loudly about her character. An example of where this detracted from her character is her motivation for coming to St. Louis in the first place. I didn’t buy that a high-powered marketing VP would fly halfway across the country for a weekend date with an ex-soldier. Somehow we need to see her internal struggle between the brass ring and a quiet family life. Just talking about it falls a little flat.
Dale is Mr. Perfect. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the guy, plus he’s a war hero. Also take into account that he seems to have more to lose emotionally than Curt if Langley rejects him. All of this adds up to resentment against Curt for interfering with Langley’s life.
The minor characters were perfect: quirky in their own way and not overpowering. Selena, Baxter, Catlin, all well done.
DIALOGUE: Good.
This is where the script really shines. The dialogue is interesting throughout, plus there are a lot of funny moments.
That said, the script is certainly dialogue-heavy. There are quite a few places where the dialogue is too drawn-out and not much action is going on. One example is the airplane sequence on p. 26-32, and another is the long conversation on p. 46-53. There are some brief moments of action, but not enough.
ORIGINALITY: Fair.
The culture of St. Louis felt authentic in this script, which sets it apart from other rom-coms. I never considered St. Louis a romantic city before this, but I could now see its charm. Good job here.
The YouTube video was an interesting angle, even though this site is starting to get overexposed. However, as noted earlier, I didn’t think this was integrated well enough into the plot.
I feel like this script lacks those unique and memorable scenes that make it into the trailer. I feel like I’ve seen these most of these scenes in other movies, and there weren’t many surprises. Consider turning some of the more typical scenes on their head and see what happens.
FORMAT: Good.
For the most part, the script was formatted professionally. Only a few typos.
One glaring issue for me was the lack of “DAY” and “NIGHT” in the location slugs. Even interior shots need this indication because the right light needs to be shown through windows. The script relies heavily on “LATER.” My recommendation is to get rid of these, because they’re merely stating the obvious (of course the next scene takes place later).
OTHER COMMENTS:
• P. 1: Don’t repeat the title page info here. Also, start with FADE IN.
• P. 1: Perhaps rename CURT’S FATHER to BABY BOY’S FATHER. We don’t know who Curt is yet.
• P. 7: Capitalize all character introductions, including extras such as “travelers, airport workers and flight crews.”
• P. 9: Same goes for “daughter” and “mom.”
• P. 10: Why does Marv Columbus need a name? He doesn’t even have a line.
• P. 13: Use “IRATE BUSINESSMAN” in the introduction.
• P. 15: Use “SKEPTICAL AIRPORT WORKER” in the introduction.
• P. 16: It seems that Curt’s first two lines should be O.S.
• P. 24: Capitalize “Gate Agent Helen” on her introduction.
• P. 30: Capitalize “little boy.”
• P. 45: Use “O.S.” instead of “THROUGH THE DOOR”.
• P. 80: “Langley, it’s Dale.” should be O.S.
• P. 88: A location slug is needed before “Curt watches them…”. Even though he’s in the same general area, the camera will need to change position.
• P. 95: Curt’s comment about the time doesn’t match up with his action on p. 91. Wasn’t he trying to use his phone then?
Hopefully these comments help, and let me know if you have any questions. Good luck with your script!
Erik read -
A review of EVERMOREby eengstrom on 04/30/2008Gary, here’s my free-will review for Evermore. Fantastic script! I haven’t peeked at the ScriptShark coverage, but I will now to see how off-base I am. BTW, I just saw that this script lost out on SOM. Don’t worry about that – do a quick revision and get this script to an agent. SCRIPT: Evermore LOG LINE: Edgar Allan Poe’s rival publishes a vengeful obituary after Poe’s death... Gary, here’s my free-will review for Evermore. Fantastic script! I haven’t peeked at the ScriptShark coverage, but I will now to see how off-base I am. BTW, I just saw that this script lost out on SOM. Don’t worry about that – do a quick revision and get this script to an agent.
SCRIPT: Evermore
LOG LINE: Edgar Allan Poe’s rival publishes a vengeful obituary after Poe’s death.
PERSONAL IMPRESSION: Good to Excellent.
This is one of the best scripts I’ve read on TriggerStreet. You’ve uncovered an obscure (at least to me) event in literary history and devised a great story. After doing a little research, I was surprised how true to the events this was.
The beginning and the end could use some polish, but most of the second act is excellent.
Initially I was concerned about its marketability due to the subject matter, but after reading the script I think it will prove itself to be a winner.
FIRST 10 PAGES: Fair to Good.
The beginning started out slow for my tastes. In fact, I didn’t really get hooked into the story until p. 10, when I realized what Griswold was about to do. There’s too much dialogue and not enough visuals. For example, the opening scene could have more punch, as we merely witness two bit characters talking about Poe’s death. Why not see Poe staggering in the dark streets and then die in misery alone? This visual could be more gripping.
I also didn’t understand the need for Dr. Moran’s characterization since he’s a bit player. Since he received a description on the very first page, I thought he would pop up later and contribute more. Another issue is that his descriptions (“irresistible in his own mind” and “world-wise and jaunty”) didn’t seem to be revealed in his actions or dialogue.
Regarding the other character descriptions, they were quick and excellent summaries of the characters. However, I thought it was odd that Virginia and Mrs. Clemm, both significant characters, didn’t receive a description. I assume this was an oversight.
Expanding on this issue of Virginia, I was surprised that her age and relationship weren’t made known in the story. She was Poe’s 14-year-old cousin at the time of this story, which may seem odd now but probably wasn’t back then. Revealing her young age could help the strength of the opening (being a little shocking nowadays), plus it could add more grief to the ending (dying so young). Also, this could be used to intensify the contrast of Virginia and Charlotte later, as the latter was at least 42. Just a thought. (BTW, later on p. 16 Griswold says Virginia is “considerably younger,” but that’s too vague.)
I like how you introduce conflict in every scene. This really adds power to the beginning of the script.
On p. 3, I’m not sure if this line will play visually: “Various emotions flicker across his face…”. Do Greeley’s facial expressions change every few seconds as he walks down the stairwell? Seems weird.
The contrast between Griswold’s voiceover description of Poe and Poe’s actual character is superb.
The following comment covers material after the first 10 pages, but I think it’s an appropriate place to discuss. I felt the scene on p. 11-16 was too long. I think what contributes to this is the lack of any strong conflict. This is a key scene because it establishes Poe’s flaw: he arrogantly believes he can translate any emotion into words. In the end of the story, he finally realizes that sometimes you can’t – and this frustration helps push him to an early death. I think this scene could be strengthened if the good-natured banter between Poe and Virginia gets personal and a bit ugly. This would help reveal that there’s an underlying rift between the two beyond their playfulness on the surface. The current approach seems to dance around the issue, an issue that must be clearer to the audience. And if there’s any way to move this key conflict into the first 10 pages, I think the script will improve.
FIRST TURNING POINT: Good to Excellent.
I assume this is when Griswold reveals his wife’s condition to Poe.
I like this turning point, as it quickly changes Griswold’s life from happiness to frustration. It then sets up his jealousy of Poe’s marriage to such a wonderful young girl. This is the beginning of the end of Griswold’s relationship with Poe.
This scene with Griswold and Poe is very good, but the following scene on p. 20 feels long for the same reason as the one on p. 11. The badgering between Poe and Virginia comes off as too lighthearted and toothless, so the dialogue tends to become a bit tedious. Consider darkening their exchange.
SECOND TURNING POINT: Good to Excellent.
I assume this is when Poe delivers the Raven monologue and Griswold completely abandons him.
I thought this was a great choice for a turning point. Poe delivers his most famous work yet Griswold mocks him publicly.
It’s a risk to include the entire poem in the dialogue, but I think it works. The only suggestion I have is to add more dreamlike visuals throughout, to make the scene more visually engaging and emotionally charged. The scenes with Virginia and the raven are very good, and it wouldn’t hurt to add more of these to break up the visual monotony of p. 85-87.
However, it may be a mistake to jump immediately to the Amontillado story. The audience has just witnessed a highly emotional scene involving Poe’s most recognizable work, so it doesn’t feel right to delve into a long retelling of a lesser-known story. If you decide this sequence must stay, though, consider the following:
• Edit the story down. It’s too long (8 pages) when the story should be rapidly approaching the climax. The pace should be quicker.
• Swap the roles of Poe and Griswold. At this point of the main story, it seems to follow that Griswold has become the aggressor (Montresor) and Poe has become the victim (Fortunato). The Amontillado dialogue seems to support this role reversal.
• If you keep the roles the same, consider a twist at the end. Change the Amontillado story so that Fortunato bricks in Montresor, which parallels the plot in the main story. It’s a twist that the audience wouldn’t be expecting (especially Poe fans) and may illustrate how Poe’s mind is caving in on itself. (You could even take this further and completely fracture the tale.)
CONCLUSION: Good.
I like the choice of the climactic scene. Although Virginia’s death is expected, Poe’s inner flaw coming to the forefront takes center stage. However, I think that the climax could be polished. Poe’s page-long poem is too long for this moment. We need to see that Poe has reached the point where he cannot express his feelings through words. He must struggle mightily to come up with the words and not let a beautiful poem roll off his lips. He’s in unfamiliar territory here, so we need to see him collapse. Virginia then lifts him up before she dies.
Something to consider is that the POV changes for the first time on p. 99. To this point (except for the very first scene), everything has been from Griswold’s POV. I think the sequence of Virginia’s death works, but I wonder if it would improve if Griswold was able to witness it as well somehow. The story depends on Griswold, so it seems a little odd that he’s absent at the climax.
During the scene on p.105-106, consider having the copyboy in the room. It would be best to hear the accusations against Griswold firsthand rather than secondhand.
I really liked the way Griswold scratches out his own name and signs the piece, “Ludwig.” However, it feels odd that his reading of the obituary continues after we’ve seen him finish it. Consider ending the script with this Ludwig segment, rather than just showing the signature a second time. Mrs. Clemm’s questions about Ludwig would make sense in the end, making the ending even more satisfying.
Some other notes…
• Consider having Griswold find Poe’s illustration of Virginia. It may add more emotion to the scene.
• The reading of the entire Annabel Lee poem feels tedious, especially when part of it was read earlier. Perhaps include only the ending, starting with “For the moon never beams…”.
• Griswold’s line of “Every genuine author…” is wonderful. I strongly recommend ending with that line rather than continuing with “Poe, seemed always…”. The latter dilutes the power of the previous line. Also, cutting directly to the false signature adds a dual meaning to the line, referring to both Poe and Griswold.
OTHER PLOT POINTS: Good to Excellent.
On p. 16, it seemed odd that Griswold’s voiceover talks about Poe’s marriage while Griswold himself is getting married. In the next scene, Griswold says that “their union appeared to be a happy one” while he and Charlotte are pictured. Does he mean his marriage or Poe’s? This might imply a double meaning, but instead I think all of this may be a little confusing to the audience.
Great line: “…a bear doesn’t work his way…”
Some of my favorite scenes…
• P. 26-28. This reveals Griswold’s character and his difficulty understanding the genius of Poe’s work.
• P. 31-34: Really illustrates the growing conflict between Poe and Griswold.
• P. 58: The music box scene.
I thought it was an excellent choice to have Griswold give Virginia her death sentence of tuberculosis. I believe this deviated from actual events, but it greatly helps the story and establishes a clear midpoint.
The use of Poe’s work interlaced with the story was excellent, certainly one of the highlights of this script. The way you tied Poe’s stories to your own story was quite amazing. Also, I really liked how Poe and Griswold play the main characters.
CHARACTER: Excellent.
The script really shines when it comes to its characters. The characterizations of Poe and Griswold are absolutely superb.
This is where I sensed several parallels between this script and Amadeus, which is one of my favorite movies. Poe is portrayed as a character unlike what many would imagine, and we get to see his descent into addiction and despair. Griswold mirrors Salieri in his awe of genius yet desire to murder it. Later, Mrs. Clemm plays the part of Mozart’s wife, begging someone to buy the failing artist’s work. I’m not sure if this was intentional, but I thought all of this worked very well.
DIALOGUE: Good to Excellent.
When characters are formed well, dialogue seems to flow right along – and this script is no exception. The dialogue was very good throughout, and it seemed authentic for the time period. My only criticism has to do with extensive use of Poe’s poems word-for-word, but I’ve noted these places elsewhere in this review.
ORIGINALITY: Good.
You’ve found an intriguing conflict in the life of a historical character who really hasn’t been explored in film, as far as I know. I don’t think the logline is an immediate “Wow” for most audiences, but the trailer could certainly pique their interest.
FORMAT: Excellent.
The script is professionally formatted throughout. Very few typos.
OTHER COMMENTS:
• P. 2: Is “THE FOLLOWING DAY” really necessary? Seems obvious.
• P. 5: “He sits at his desk…” needs a change in location. Right now it sounds like his desk is next to the front door.
• P. 6: Since Virginia hasn’t been introduced yet, consider using “WOMAN’S VOICE (O.S.)” instead of her name. Also, capitalize her name in the action when first introduced.
• P. 8: Capitalize Mrs. Clemm’s introduction.
• P. 29 and elsewhere: When Poe writes, is he actually talking at the same time or should this be voiceover? For some reason, it doesn’t feel authentic if he’s able to talk and write at the same time.
• P. 36: I think any labels such as “Incorrigible Rascal” need to be capitalized.
• P. 43: Poe “drags his wife to the piano,” but she’s already there.
• P. 77: “Tension is thick.” That’s the easy way out. Use visuals instead.
• P. 78: Since Griswold has left the room, his line of “So be it…” should be O.S.
• P. 101: Need to switch locations when “Poe… goes to her.”
Hopefully these comments help, and let me know if you have any questions. Good luck!
Erik read -
A review of Passaic (Revision)by eengstrom on 01/25/2008It’s refreshing to see this kind of script on Triggerstreet: a period mystery drama in the similar vein as LA Confidential. You’re able to weave together the subplots well, and your dialogue works most of the time. I really like the concept of a son completing his father’s unsolved mystery, in which the father may have been bribed to look the other way. Excellent core story... It’s refreshing to see this kind of script on Triggerstreet: a period mystery drama in the similar vein as LA Confidential. You’re able to weave together the subplots well, and your dialogue works most of the time. I really like the concept of a son completing his father’s unsolved mystery, in which the father may have been bribed to look the other way. Excellent core story. Yet there are a few major issues.
The character of Howard needs significant work. He’s the protagonist for most of the script, but he’s never fully developed. What does he fear? What does he truly care about? We just get to see the surface. Even the source of the clash between him and Michael (the lack of money) feels dropped in halfway through the story. We never actually see Howard’s behavior regarding this. There’s a phone call from Howard, and Michael certainly talks a lot about it, but we need to see Howard actually face this dilemma. At no point during the 60’s story did I feel like Howard was so strapped for cash that he would consider compromising his journalistic ethics. This is extremely important as it’s the crux for the emotional rift between father and son. Convince the audience that Howard is at the end of his rope. Also, Michael keeps saying that Howard “could never tell me the truth at home.” What lies was Howard telling?
Another note regarding Howard. He’s an award-winning investigative reporter. So why don’t we see him actively investigating until p. 52? (And even then we don’t actually SEE it.) Every bit of information up to this point has been given to Howard on a plate. I want to see his assertiveness, his shrewdness, his ability to dig to find the real story. Right now he’s just given information by Muccio and bit-part characters. Michael, on the other hand, drifts to the other extreme. Everywhere he goes, he’s able to find the information he needs. Doors open wide to the point that believability is stretched. I didn’t buy the fact that he could walk into a federal building and easily obtain all the personal files for a top-ranking government official. Then he’s blessed that Muccio left behind highly incriminating evidence in a bright red folder. Make Howard and Michael struggle mightily to gain their information.
Also, Howard needs to be more personally involved in the story. I get the sense that if he really wanted to make a stink, he could get assigned to a different story. Why is this particular story so important to him? There needs to be a reason why Howard couldn’t escape this case even if he tried. Why doesn’t he leave the case when his family is threatened? At least show that Howard may be driven by anger.
Without knowing the real events, it appears to me that you’ve not only stayed close to the facts of this story but also have taken creative license when needed. This is good. However, I think you may need to drift away from actual events when it comes to the climax. I was expecting dramatic revelations toward the end, but instead the script ended with a whimper: Muccio confesses what we already surmised.
Another note about the real events. The audience is told many times what month and year it is, so much so that it gets in the way. A couple of solutions: condense the fictionalized story down so everything happens in a few months, or show the passage of time in a better visual way, such as seasons.
The interjection of Michael’s story on p. 35 is too abrupt and needs a better setup. Sure, there’s the opening voiceover, but it’s not enough to prevent the “what the hell’s happening here” moment. This is probably not the effect you’re looking for in a film like this. Perhaps more voiceover during Howard’s scenes (although I’m not a big proponent of voiceover).
Why is Muccio hell-bent on bringing down Matzner? Why would he risk his career and face prison time if caught? This is something I didn’t understand throughout the script. Muccio finally says on p. 56 that Matzner needs to be “taught a lesson.” There has to be a much more personal rift between these two, or otherwise Muccio looks too foolish to be scary.
Other comments:
• P. 1: “EXT. JUDI PARKING THE CAR” is not a location. How about “EXT. STREET”?
• P. 3 and throughout: The use of “(CONT’D)” is outdated in script formatting.
• P. 5: Do you mean “OFFICER” instead of “OFFICIAL”?
• P. 5: Why would DeGroot reveal so much when a member of the press is present? His comments regarding the psychic and his conclusions on Paul Kavanaugh are pretty hot. Just didn’t seem realistic.
• P. 6: “DAUGHTERS…” slug could be shortened to “NURSING HOME”. Explain the rest in the following text.
• P. 6-7: Why would the detective share all this information with a sergeant (especially when the press is there)? And I think detectives call the shots rather than the other way around.
• P. 6-10: Be careful about removing your protagonist from these opening scenes; we need to understand that Howard’s the main character. Also, since this is a mystery film, we really shouldn’t be witnessing information that Howard is unaware of.
• Minor points regarding character names. First, the slugs should be consistent: stick to either first or last names. There’s HOWARD, HAROLD, and GENE, and then there’s MUCCIO, KESSLER, AND CARROLL. And sometimes we get the full name: SGT. JOHN DEGROOT. Howard is referred to as both HOWARD and KLAUSNER. Second, use the same name in the text as in the slug. Harold Matzner is referred to as HAROLD in the dialogue, but as Matzner nearly everywhere else. Third, consider different names if possible (but perhaps you can’t to stay true to the story). Howard and Harold have so similar names that it’s difficult to read dialogue exchanges between them and I frequently got their names confused elsewhere.
• P. 11: Use a single character in the crowd rather than “CROWD.” I doubt they all said this line at once.
• P. 12: Why would Muccio tell Howard that “this is bigger than you think”? That’s practically inviting a reporter to dig harder, which Muccio doesn’t want.
• P. 13: Be consistent with the display of time, in this case, “A FEW MONTHS LATER.” Sometimes you use a SUPER (which is correct), but sometimes you put this in the location slug (and the audience wouldn’t know). Also, be more specific on “few” – this can vary from 2-5+ depending on who you ask.
• P. 15: Isn’t it common knowledge that newspapers make money off their ads, not the papers themselves? Carroll’s comment seemed naïve.
• P. 27: So the only reason that DeFranco took Matzner’s business card was so the detective could connect the two? Forced plot point.
• Are the scenes with Thevos truly necessary? If you eliminate him from the story, doesn’t it remain the same? Same goes for George.
• P. 45: Why would Michael suddenly flash back to 1989? There didn’t seem to be anything in the prior scene that triggered this memory.
• P. 47: There’s a flashback within a flashback. Consider returning to the present day and then going back to the 60’s. Less confusing. Plus there’s nothing triggering this second flashback.
• P. 49: Natoli seems to drop out of nowhere and save Muccio’s day. Perhaps set this up better.
• P. 51: There’s no indication to the audience that this is F. Lee Bailey.
• P. 52: I didn’t understand why Harold would say, “Good work…for a journalist.” Harold likes journalists (I would think), and Howard is helping him. Why the put-down?
• P. 54: “Shea is uncomfortable.” Which Shea?
• P. 60: The Secret Service scene feels like forced tension. Why would they contact Howard? Why wouldn’t they take care of this at a higher level within the justice system? And this plot point comes and goes quickly, never really mentioned again.
• P. 63: Why do you cut away from an interesting scene with Dorothe? It appears that the story is going to get juicier, but then it’s shoved under the rug.
• P. 64: I like the connection between DeFranco and Matzner. Inventive. Consider giving this more prominence.
• P. 65: The Thevos headline: how would the audience know who he is? He hasn’t been mentioned by name yet. Also, who’s Jackie?
• P. 66: Why didn’t Howard come to the scene of the crime, for an attempted homicide on his own family? Isn’t he a reporter and would have been notified somehow?
• P. 74: How do we know it’s Muccio’s house?
• P. 82: Capitalize Dowd and McGlynn’s first entry into the script.
• P. 84: How does Lenney remember the exact date so quickly?
• P. 85: Muccio’s threat to Lenney seems minor. Squeezing his arm?
• P. 86: “…the classic American syndrome of the damnation of an acquittal.” I have no idea what this means, and it seems like Bailey’s key point.
• P. 88: “No juror even proposed a guilty verdict.” How could Harold know this? Wasn’t the jury behind closed doors?
• P. 89: I didn’t understand Harold’s comment that Howard “wrote for the small papers because he knew he could tell the truth there.” So big papers tell lies? Why would Harold feel this way? And this was the first time Howard ever met resistance telling the truth? Doesn’t seem likely given the way that Passaic County is painted, with all the mob ties to government officials.
• P. 90: The teardrop is a bit over the top.
• P. 90: Why would Harold suddenly have a complete manuscript and not reveal this earlier? Why would Michael have an incomplete version? Doesn’t make a lot of sense.
• P. 95-98: This is a long time for an audience to watch someone talk on the phone twice in a row. Why couldn’t these scenes be in person somehow?
• P. 97: Gabelli’s story is just a little too convenient this late in the film. Baines confessed the whole crime in his sleep? Seems like a stretch. And Howard could never get this information but Michael does? Who’s the award-winning reporter?
• P. 108: “His publisher was only looking for something to prove I was a dangerous business competitor…” Why? What’s the crime in this? Just say “murderer.”
I know this was a lot of criticism, but I think you have a strong story. I had a lot of comments because you held my interest throughout, and I think you’re on to something great. Keep developing the main characters, and the script should improve. Good luck! read -
A review of A GREEN CHRISTMASby eengstrom on 12/06/2007I thoroughly enjoyed this story from beginning to end. The narrator is a fantastic character, a cantankerous bigot who doesn’t understand what the hell’s going on around him. On the negative side, I frequently stumbled over the changes in verb tenses. One paragraph was in past tense, and the next shifted to present tense. Not sure if this was intentional, but it threw me out... I thoroughly enjoyed this story from beginning to end. The narrator is a fantastic character, a cantankerous bigot who doesn’t understand what the hell’s going on around him.
On the negative side, I frequently stumbled over the changes in verb tenses. One paragraph was in past tense, and the next shifted to present tense. Not sure if this was intentional, but it threw me out of the story.
Minor comments:
• At the bottom of p. 3, the demonstrators cut a big hole in the fence. This is repeated again at the top of p. 5. My recommendation would be to cut the first mention so that we’re in suspense as to what the commando group did that night.
• In the third paragraph on p. 8, I was confused. If the narrator got the blame for poisoning the cows, how would anyone think they died from mad cow disease? Pick one or the other.
• The last paragraph felt incongruent with the rest of the story. The narrator changes from an “innocent” bystander to a murderer without much of a motive. He won, he got the ice cream company. Why cross the line at this point? I think you can remove the last paragraph and improve the story.
But overall, this was a great satire. Thanks! read -
A review of UNDER MY SKIN IIby eengstrom on 09/19/2007While I was reading this script, I felt like I was in the hands of an experienced screenwriter. The dialogue was polished and flowed well, and the script formatting was top-notch. The protagonist had clear goals that tied in well and came together at the end. Yet I also felt like there were several significant holes lurking beneath the surface of the script. I have two issues... While I was reading this script, I felt like I was in the hands of an experienced screenwriter. The dialogue was polished and flowed well, and the script formatting was top-notch. The protagonist had clear goals that tied in well and came together at the end. Yet I also felt like there were several significant holes lurking beneath the surface of the script.
I have two issues with the beginning of the script. First, it feels rushed. The sudden defections to Dr. Picard’s practice based on a magazine cover seem unrealistic. Perhaps have him develop a revolutionary new technique, and then I would buy the premise. Second, I felt no sympathy for Rupert. Even though he changes for the better at the end, Rupert is established early as a nasty guy with no redeeming qualities. Not only did I fail to root for him throughout the script, but I wanted Dr. Picard to squash him like a bug. Consider Melvin Udall in “As Good As It Gets”: even though he’s a cruel guy, we sympathize for him because of his obsessive-compulsive disorder. Give us some hope for Rupert.
As mentioned previously, you’ve succeeded in giving Rupert solid goals, both internal (acceptance by women) and external (return to the top of his profession). The only thing stopping Rupert from reaching these goals is himself, making him both protagonist and antagonist. This is OK to a point, but I wish there were stronger external forces making his life impossible. Dr. Picard presents a threat to Rupert’s business, but he appears to be willing to team up with Rupert if asked – no real conflict there. Perhaps have Dr. Picard or Leonard try to sabotage Rupert’s efforts multiple times.
Along the same lines, I was surprised by the lack of any significant sub-plots. These would really help break up the back-to-back-to-back scenes with the same people (especially Rupert and Leonard). Constantly running down the same plotline can become tiring, which was especially noticeable in the first half. There needs to be more variety.
A note on Rupert’s motivation: I don’t understand why Rupert would agree to perform a makeover/sex-change on a man, when he despises the very thought. Surely he understands that if he’s successful, men would flock to him for similar work. Also, I’m not sure if this kind of success would translate into gaining more female customers. Even with the need to out-perform Dr. Picard, I don’t see how it’s enough to convince Rupert.
I must admit that I didn’t like the ending at the club. First, Rupert tells Tyrone virtually the same speech he gave earlier on p. 106-107 (“I love you, I don’t want you to change” theme). Why would Tyrone feel differently now? Second, having everyone sing together is over the top. But that’s just my opinion – it may work for others.
I’m concerned about the script’s marketability, but at least it’s low-budget. I hate to sound like the studio exec who suggests that Tyrone needs to start out as an ugly girl, but it would greatly improve the mass appeal. Stick with whatever feels right, though.
Other comments:
• 99.9% of the script is free of spelling/grammar errors, but there are missing/wrong words every 5 pages or so.
• P. 3: The character name of CELEBRITY was already used on p. 1 for a different person.
• P. 5: Can someone really perform their own facelift? It doesn’t sound possible.
• P. 6: This was an odd cut to the Beverly Hills Medical Center. In the prior scene, Rupert was in his office at the center. The next scene, he’s in his car traveling to the center. (Perhaps I’m confused.)
• P. 7: Did you mean to say Michael Jackson instead of Janet? She isn’t known for botched plastic surgery, is she?
• P. 7: Good name-dropping of celebrities.
• P. 12: Victoria and Ricardo are able to depart from the pier awfully fast.
• P. 22-26: I really liked the car chase scene. However, the remaining part of the scene (p. 26-30) feels too long.
• P. 32-35: In the prior scene, Leonard finally convinced Rupert to go through with Tyrone. This scene has the same goal, so it feels like we’ve taken a step backward in the plot.
• P. 56: Why would they buy an expensive dress for Tyrone so soon, before he’s lost much weight?
• P. 59: “I don't know what I wouldn't have done if he didn't come along and save my life.” Triple negatives make this line confusing.
• P. 71: Perfect choice of the Barry White song.
• P. 76: Great use of contrast with the Diet Coke and champagne orders.
• P. 95: I was surprised that Rupert leapt to his conclusion of “You mean… you know?” after his mother’s comment.
• P. 104: I don’t understand Tyrone’s reaction during the awards ceremony. He’s aware of what the ceremony is for (he convinced Rupert to go through with it), so why is he offended when Rupert calls him his patient?
• P. 109: Why would Rupert run off for a random man wearing a dress? He wasn’t interested in Tyrone until he started looking like a woman.
• P. 112: “You're more woman to me as a man than any woman has ever been to me before as a woman.” Much too wordy and confusing, especially for a key line.
• How will Tyrone’s voice be handled? Does he have a higher voice as a man or a deeper voice as a woman? This could definitely have an effect on the scenes, especially comedic, so it’s worth a mention.
Good luck with your script! read -
A review of The Two-Headed Detective(s) V4by eengstrom on 09/15/2007You present a quick read of a screenplay, which is important for a comedy. The dialogue felt natural, and the story flowed well with few bumps in the road. You provide just the right amount of direction – I myself tend to over-direct. I also liked the twist of the daytime/nighttime personalities. Even though it’s far-fetched, I think it can succeed in a comedy. The characters... You present a quick read of a screenplay, which is important for a comedy. The dialogue felt natural, and the story flowed well with few bumps in the road. You provide just the right amount of direction – I myself tend to over-direct. I also liked the twist of the daytime/nighttime personalities. Even though it’s far-fetched, I think it can succeed in a comedy.
The characters need more work, especially the main ones of Steve and Dave. They’re essentially “The Odd Couple” stuck together. I would like to see more aspects of their character revealed that differentiate them from this classic pair. Also, the character names are too common and forgettable: Steve, Dave, Kathrin, Johnny, Jimmy, Harry. The better names were saved for the smaller parts: Lenny and Miran.
This script runs through the familiar detective movie clichés, which made the story stall and become predictable. Either turn these clichés on their head or avoid them altogether. Perhaps lead us down the well-worn clichéd path but surprise us with a big twist. Here are some examples:
• The beautiful woman visiting the detective’s office for help.
• The detective consulting his street informant for a fee.
• A policeman that is frustrated with the detective’s investigation.
• Facing certain death, the detective easily beats up the assailant (p. 89). At least you were tongue-in-cheek for this one.
Several major plot points need to be strengthened. Examples:
• Monica has stolen $10 million in cocaine from Johnny Bananas. If he is truly a feared crime lord, he would have actively pursued Monica and tortured the answers out of her (or have someone do it for him). Late in the movie, he’s willing to shoot Monica in the head, so obviously he has it in him. That’s too much money for such little retaliation from Johnny.
• If Kathrin knows that Monica is her nighttime twin, why doesn’t she try an obvious solution to find out what’s happening? All she needs to do is have someone watch her when the sun goes down. Why does she hire the best detectives in town when she knows exactly where to start looking? Provide a reason why she must go to extremes.
• The gangsters capture Kathrin and put her in a warehouse room, without noticing a ladder going to its window? Why doesn’t Kathrin just escape down the ladder?
• The final capture of Johnny next to his cocaine is an OK scene, but there’s nothing linking him to the drugs. No charges could be filed based on this result.
The comedy must be ratcheted up another level throughout the script. You have some funny lines (noted later in the review), but the script lacks consistent laughs throughout. Some of the long-running jokes get old quickly, such as the repeated use of “cahoots” and references to “body” or “bodies” when describing the detectives. This script struggles to compete with the comedies at the movies today.
Other comments:
• P. 1: An image of a two-headed baby may be too grotesque right at the beginning of the movie, especially for a comedy. You need to hit the audience hard with great comedy at the start.
• P. 7: How has Kathrin heard that they are the best detectives in the city, yet she hasn’t heard that they’re conjoined twins? Wouldn’t that be the first comment said about these two, rather than their proficiency?
• P. 11: Kathrin doesn’t blink at the cost of their services. Perhaps add a little conflict here.
• P. 18: Johnny Bananas is introduced to the reader, but not to the audience. It wouldn’t hurt to have someone call him by name.
• P. 19: Good joke regarding Matchmaker.com.
• P. 21: Dave suddenly holds a duffle bag, which wasn’t present in the prior scenes. The next scene with Jimmy and the bag is funny.
• P. 24: A bunch of TOUGH GUYS. Perhaps differentiate their names with interesting characteristics, such as ZZ TOP WANNABE.
• P. 26 Good line (“’we only got one”) and good visual (double head-butt).
• P. 27 and throughout. It’s difficult to store a gun in your pocket, unless it’s really small. Perhaps a shoulder holster?
• P. 28: Why would the tough guys return the guns? At least have them empty the bullets first.
• P. 36: “[The chase] ends with both the sedan and the motorcycle crashing.” Minimalist directing for sure, but it would be more exciting if you tell us what happened.
• Throughout the script, Dave and Steve are able to go to sleep instantly. I know you’re trying to focus on a single brother at that time, but it’s not believable. This is especially true for Dave and Monica’s romp on p. 57.
• P. 51: Great line about the operation.
• P. 53: Wow, that was a convenient time to turn on the TV.
• P. 57: “That would be you.” Funny.
• P. 75: The parenthetical (“off his brother’s look”) should be outside the dialogue.
• P. 75-76: Monica is the world’s fastest pee-er.
• P. 83: Bidet, not boudea.
• P. 93: The gangsters hear a noise by the dumpster but don’t look inside?
• P. 96: Kathrin wants to go to sleep during a rescue operation? Not believable.
• P. 101: The line about Rebecca is perhaps the best joke in the movie.
• Monica is misspelled “MONCIA” many times throughout the script.
• P. 113: You end the script with a funny line. Very important in a comedy!
Inevitably this script will be compared to “Stuck on You,” which I thought was a decent movie but wasn’t much of a commercial success if I recall. Hopefully you can improve your script to outdo that movie. Good luck with your script! read -
A review of Bedlam (V.3)by eengstrom on 07/29/2007The last script I read (Hazards of Wind and Water) had a great visual style, and you pull off the same feat or better. You present a fascinating, dark world, a mix of the old film noir and the future. I thoroughly enjoyed your concepts of bleaching, legalized murder-for-hire, corpse retrieval, and the hit-man union. The dialogue matched the setting perfectly. But then, the... The last script I read (Hazards of Wind and Water) had a great visual style, and you pull off the same feat or better. You present a fascinating, dark world, a mix of the old film noir and the future. I thoroughly enjoyed your concepts of bleaching, legalized murder-for-hire, corpse retrieval, and the hit-man union. The dialogue matched the setting perfectly.
But then, the third act. The ending doesn’t do the rest of the script justice. First, the final battle between Mister and Micah felt anticlimactic. They have a fistfight, fire a few shots, and then Micah falls off the balcony (even though he has “the skills of an Olympic gymnast”). With all the firepower that happened earlier in the script, I was expecting WW3. Also, the tension of the bleaching is set up well (p. 102), but then it has no effect on the rest of the story.
Then the reversal of Mia felt cheap. There was little setup for this (beyond the name of the speakeasy), plus it didn’t make much sense. If Mia is one of the richest people in the city, why has she been working as a prostitute? Even though she was doing this undercover to find the killer, it still needs a convincing setup. Her suicide rang false as well. If she was so devastated that Mister killed her father, she wouldn’t give a long, calm explanation of why she’s doing this. I just didn’t get the feeling that she was in a fragile emotional state. And please, please, don’t end this great script with a bad pun. “She was a Miracle” has a life worth of zero (pardon my pun).
I wish Mister’s story could have been jump-started earlier. The first clue that his world is going to change is on p. 25 when Micah says that Gabe Layne, a fellow hit-man, is scheduled for a hit. Yet Mister’s world doesn’t change much until p. 59, when he decides to high-tail it with Mia. Soon afterwards he finds out his best friend is on the hit list. The real story doesn’t start until this point. Consider moving these events forward and see what it does for your structure.
Although the dialogue is very good throughout, many scenes felt overly long. Once the purpose of the scene was met, the characters continued to talk. Consider leaving the scenes faster or show rather than tell. Examples: Mia and Mister’s scene on pp. 29-33, the Just Jones killing scene on pp. 82-85.
The life worth meter is an interesting device, but it needs a good reason for being there. Why does this meter even exist? Also, it doesn’t consistently appear, such as with Barry and Edison.
Other comments:
• Even though I like your font, it adds doubt as to whether your page count is accurate. Stick with Courier to appear more professional.
• Proofread your script to catch incorrect words. There are errors such as your/you’re, who’s/whose, breath/breathe, or/our, things like that.
• P. 21: If Micah is obsessed with knowing about the “class five” guys, why hasn’t he heard of Just Jones?
• P. 24 and 99: Looks like Micah’s original name was Oliver. There’s an old reference on both these pages.
• P. 25-26: You set up Gabe Layne well, and I was expecting quite a scary character. However, his quick appearance and killing on p. 29 was a disappointment. Perhaps present a better challenge for Micah.
• P. 46: When Mister passes Mia and goes into the back room, I was expecting the next scene to show Mister in a different room. However, we’re now in a pool hall with Edison. This transition felt odd.
• P. 50: I didn’t understand the description of “Just Jones cuts a swath of bloody body parts toward Edison.” Jones has to cut through bodies to reach Edison? Are there that many?
• P. 58: The parentheticals are formatted incorrectly.
• P. 59: Carol is a great minor character. Hilarious.
• P. 71: I didn’t quite understand why Mister would cut off Just Jones’s toes. Because Just Jones lost a bet? Who bets their toes? Who cuts off their friend’s toes?
• P. 84: If Just Jones is ready to check out, why doesn’t he just shoot Micah?
• P. 90: Mister already knows who ordered the hit, so why does he threaten Carol? The only reason for this scene is that you need Mister to find out Micah’s last name, and it feels forced.
• P. 95: Great scene with the taxi cab union.
Good luck with your script. Clean up the ending, and you’ve got a fantastic story. read
Comments About eengstrom 17
-
vbnguyen02 on 02/10/2010
Thank you so much for your wonderful review. You've given such great feedback. If you don't mind, I could email you a bit more intel on some points you brought up. To keep the script nice and tight, I purposely left out some details that could be explained through dialog. My hope was that the reader could some how take in this small-town, thug-leader ordeal. To understand that in a small town like this, everyone grew up together, knew each other, and knew the rumors and such that would float around. So regardless if Pat and Charlie were close friends growing up, just by living in that town, Pat and everyone else know the details.
Sorry, this comment has gone quite long. Feel free to message me if you'd like me to email you more explanation. Other than that, Thank you very much again for your review. I'm glad you didn't stop reading it!
BTW, you're from Austin?!?! That's so neat, because I'm from Houston. We're neighbors.
- Van -
devodude on 01/28/2010
Just wanted to thank you for your review of Foster's Corner. I appreciate the honest, in depth reviews because they are the best motivators for improvement (I've even been using what I've learned in these reviews and applied it to other projects). FC is about to be brought in for a major overhaul, but I need to finish up the script I'm currently working on before I do so.
One question I do have is this: what technique helps you when you're individualizing characters through their dialogue? Most of the other storytelling elements I believe I can work through with practice, but the dialogue issue is a pressing matter for me (and probably one of the more commented upon in my reviews). Can you give a fellow writer some pointers?
Thanks again.
-Bruce -
maestro976 on 10/14/2009
Thanks for the in depth critique of Philip Taylor Kramer. It is reviewers like you that make Trigger Street worthwhile. You give excellent feedback. -
bloodmeridian2004 on 07/02/2008
Hey Erik:
Congratulations!
I just noticed THE GIRL WITHOUT made it to the next round in 2008 Bluecat!
-
arby on 06/06/2008
Thank you so much for the time and thought you put into your review. I appreciate it.
Renee -
screenbean on 06/03/2008
Hey eengstrom: Thanks so much for the indepth analysis and suggestions for THE DONOR, all of which will make the next draft a significantly stonger offering. You made very valid and insightful points and I appreciate the time and effort you put into your review. Best of luck with your scripts. Jay. -
steve huffman on 05/21/2008
Hey, did you ever figure out how you can be a ROM with 60+ reviews and have a "beginner" status? Thought they would have fixed this glitch by now. Very strange. -
Gary Wright on 04/30/2008
Erik,
Your review of EVERMORE is so thorough and smart - I especially like your inspiration of flipping the climax of The Cask of Amontillado on its head, and having Fortunato turn the tables on Montresor. I'll have to give that some serious thought.
I know you were trying to repay me for those extended comments on The Girl Without, but I think you gave me a lot more change than I had coming. So, anything I can do to be of service, let me know! :)
warm regards,
Gary -
bloodmeridian2004 on 04/29/2008
Hey Erik:
Thanks for another fantastic free will review. Best of luck this contest season!
Paul -
Gary Wright on 03/25/2008
Hey Erik,
I got assigned The Girl Without; will read it soon - looking forward to it!
I didn't read the earlier version, so can't offer an opinion on the changes, but if there's anything else you'd like me to think about or be aware of, I'd be pleased to do so - I love to be helpful!
p.s. I see the site crash demoted you to beginner, mister big-shot Reviewer-of-the-Month - nyah nyah! :D
Write a Comment
Browse:
Copyright © 2001-2013 Trigger Street Labs. All Rights Reserved.
Comments About eengstrom 17
-
Quote
Thank you so much for your wonderful review. You've given such great feedback. If you don't mind, I could email you a bit more intel on some points you brought up. To keep the script nice and tight, I purposely left out some details that could be explained through dialog. My hope was that the reader could some how take in this small-town, thug-leader ordeal. To understand that in a small town like this, everyone grew up together, knew each other, and knew the rumors and such that would float around. So regardless if Pat and Charlie were close friends growing up, just by living in that town, Pat and everyone else know the details.
-
Quote
Just wanted to thank you for your review of Foster's Corner. I appreciate the honest, in depth reviews because they are the best motivators for improvement (I've even been using what I've learned in these reviews and applied it to other projects). FC is about to be brought in for a major overhaul, but I need to finish up the script I'm currently working on before I do so.
-
Quote
Thanks for the in depth critique of Philip Taylor Kramer. It is reviewers like you that make Trigger Street worthwhile. You give excellent feedback.
+ more commentsvbnguyen02 on 02/10/2010
Sorry, this comment has gone quite long. Feel free to message me if you'd like me to email you more explanation. Other than that, Thank you very much again for your review. I'm glad you didn't stop reading it!
BTW, you're from Austin?!?! That's so neat, because I'm from Houston. We're neighbors.
- Van
devodude on 01/28/2010
One question I do have is this: what technique helps you when you're individualizing characters through their dialogue? Most of the other storytelling elements I believe I can work through with practice, but the dialogue issue is a pressing matter for me (and probably one of the more commented upon in my reviews). Can you give a fellow writer some pointers?
Thanks again.
-Bruce
maestro976 on 10/14/2009