a screenplay
by Eric Maloney
Repressed housewife Irene Mays joins her son's garage-rock band as the mysterious Count Guitarcula in order to... more
Eric Maloney
member since 01/20/2007 |
last login 05/25/2013
I am an ex-journalist who now makes a living (sort of) selling antiquarian books....
Bio
I am an ex-journalist who now makes a living (sort of) selling antiquarian books.
Submissions by Eric Maloney
-
-
a screenplay by Eric MaloneyGenres: sci-fi/fantasy
Washed up B-movie director Vincent Baer revives his career when his sci-fi flick "Senseless!" becomes a surprise... more
Reviews by Eric Maloney 193
-
A review of Private Eyeby Eric Maloney on 02/29/2012I'm always up for noir, so I was glad to get this assignment. I think it hits many of the marks: The right atmosphere, the usual array of sleazy characters and settings, and solid (if somewhat uneven) dialog. It moves quickly, the pace is steady, and I didn't see any serious dull spots where I felt that the script was dragging or strayed from the spine of the story. All in... I'm always up for noir, so I was glad to get this assignment. I think it hits many of the marks: The right atmosphere, the usual array of sleazy characters and settings, and solid (if somewhat uneven) dialog. It moves quickly, the pace is steady, and I didn't see any serious dull spots where I felt that the script was dragging or strayed from the spine of the story. All in all, an enjoyable screenplay with lots of potential.
I do, however, have some serious concerns about the protagonist.
I don't necessarily have a problem with protagonists who do bad things. Nasty people can still be compelling characters. I just watched "The Scar," a very good noir film featuring a protagonist who is a murderer. If the protagonist is nuanced, if I'm given a reason why he is like he is, if he's interesting, if he's conflicted, if he shows a potential for redemption, then I'll stick with him. But I think Joe is way, way off the rails. The nearly continuous and compulsively violent behavior he exhibits through the first act is really off-putting. His murder of Willard is a deal-breaker: What we've got here is a remorseless psychotic killer. Even after this pointless act, I might have been willing to stick with him if there was something interesting and unique about him, but there isn't: He's your standard-issue hard-boiled PI who got kicked off the force, has a drinking problem, and is estranged from his family. How many times have we seen that guy?
His personality does change to something relatively softer and more likeable in the second and third acts, but I could never get taste of Willard's senseless murder out of my mind. Simply making Joe a hero at the end does not mitigate for me the fact that he brutally murdered a man for no acceptable reason, nor do I see by the end that he's a changed man. If he went out the next day and beat someone to death with a hammer or slashed his girlfriend's face with a box cutter, I wouldn't be surprised.
Beyond that, I'm also a bit uneasy with the protagonist's goal, which appears to be nothing more than finding the missing girl. Why would someone as dysfunctional and uncaring as Joe want to find her so badly? I suppose rescuing the girl might somehow symbolically rescue his daughter, because I don't buy that he really cares about his daughter, either. He's too much of a narcissist. After Willard dies and Joe has all the money, there's even less reason for Joe to pursue the case. Some detectives are motivated by a code, but I don't see much of a code at work here, either. What, then, motivates Joe?
By way of contrast, consider Sam Spade in "The Maltese Falcon." His goal is clear and personal: Avenge the death of his partner. Because Spade is a likeable, if flawed, character, we want to see him succeed. And when he faces difficult choices--between riches and his goal, between the girl and his goal--we empathize with him and feel the struggles he goes through.
My next issue with Joe is that the stakes are never high enough for him. What would happen to him if he never found Samantha? Would he lose anything? Would his life change for the worse? The story lacks an all-or-nothing moment where he pushes all the chips in the middle of the table and risks everything to achieve his goal.
The problems with Joe are exacerbated by the fact that there's really no one else in the story to like or care about. They're all pretty distasteful people. If the purpose of the story is to show how ugly the world is, then it succeeds, but I question how many people would want to spend 100 minutes with these dreary people in this dreary landscape.
I do think, however, that the Joe character is salvageable, and it can be done in such a way that you retain his brittle edge. First, get rid of the gratuitous murder of Willard. Second, cut back on some of the overt violence in the first act. The suggestion of violence--what Joe might do if pushed too far--would create far more tension than showing him commit one uncontrolled act of rage after another. Show us the conflict within him--the violent side versus the guy who wants to be something better--and you'll have a far more complex and interesting character.
As for the story itself, I think it works fairly well. It has an obvious "Chinatown" vibe to it, everyone with a dirty secret, layer after layer peeled back until we get to a rotten core, which I like.
For the most part, I think the dialog is pretty much on the money, except for a few early scenes where it's too on the nose. My only issue might be that some of the lines sound too generic, like they could have come from any noir film rather than from these particular characters. Also, the voices of the characters sometimes aren't distinctive enough from one another (particularly Red and Joe).
The rest of my comments are more or less in page order (I wrote them as I read, so there might be contradictions and redundancies).
Page: 5
So far, your protagonist comes across as a masochistic sexual predator with major anger management issues. Am I supposed to like him?
Page: 5
Much of this dialog is on the nose: Harry is delivering information to the audience, not engaging in a normal conversation.
Page: 10
It doesn't seem plausible that Joe wouldn't ask more questions about why the delay given the age of the girl.
Also, I think you need to address the question of why Joe himself wouldn't report it to the police.
And why doesn't he ask about the girl's mom? It would seem like one of the first questions a PI would ask when discussing a missing persons case.
Page: 10
The screenplay has lots of unnecessary parentheticals.
Why would he assume that Samantha is a runaway? In this day and age, I think most detectives would consider murder as an option that would have to be explored. Which brings me back to the earlier question of why Joe wouldn't go to the police with this. I think you need to set up the scenario so that the girl clearly is a runaway, and not perhaps a murder victim, and the father and Joe have clear reasons for not going to the police.
Page: 11
Very static, talky bar scene. Too much information at once. Some could be deferred, some isn't necessary.
Page: 12
Red and Joe sound a lot alike.
Page: 15
Your protagonist is a bundle of cliches.
Page: 17
"He stares into Willard's now furious eyes" belongs in an action line, not in a parenthetical.
Page: 18
OK, so now we see where this is going. An unlikeable, unredeemable protagonist. You're taking a big chance here. There has to be some reason why I should be interested in Joe's story. Making him a psychotic killer with no nuances to his character goes in the wrong direction.
Page: 20
You're making it hard to believe that a man as compulsively violent as Joe could still be walking the streets.
Page: 21
Oh, please. enough is enough. There's no way this guy would still be walking free with this kind of temper. And you haven't set up a scenario that justifies or explains it. He's just a violent, angry guy with nothing particularly complex or interesting about him.
Page: 23
So many violent episodes, one after another, without explanation, without humor, make your protagonist into a cartoon, and a boring, predictable one at that.
Page: 39
I don't get this. He has him beat up, then invites him to his table for drinks? Did I miss something here?
Page: 40
Why didn't Morgan ask these questions during the incident on the road?
Page: 43
Morgan's a strong character and has a distinct voice.
Page: 69
Some of this patter isn't bad--suitable for the genre--but it sounds a bit generic. The patter doesn't mean anything, it doesn't go anywhere. It's just patter that sounds good.
Page: 75
This is violence with a purpose, as compared to some of the gratuitous violence in the first act.
Page: 77
But it's followed by what's essentially a gutless act, and sets us against Joe again.
Page: 77
By now, I no longer buy the Joe-misses-his-daughter angle; I really don't believe that he's capable of honest, human emotion, and he's shown that his daughter is much better off without him.
Page: 82
Good twist with the photo; disturbing.
Page: 88
This dungeon scene feels a bit as if it was just randomly inserted for its shock effect.
Page: 97
What's the red dot? I don't get it.
Page: 98
I think you do a very good job of putting Joe into an apparently hopeless situation--as much as I don't like him, I keep turning the pages to see how he's going to extricate himself. The ending was therefore somewhat of a letdown. All he has to do is smash the glass, and everybody runs away? That's it? A bit anticlimactic. And I still can't figure out what the red dot is.
read -
A review of FLOOD OF TEARSby Eric Maloney on 02/01/2012The centerpiece of this screenplay -- roughly the middle third -- is the tsunami, and you show off some excellent writing skills here. It's compelling stuff with good build-up and suspense, good description, interesting moments (e.g., the elephant), and touching stories about various minor characters who are affected by the disaster. Taken by itself, this section demonstrates... The centerpiece of this screenplay -- roughly the middle third -- is the tsunami, and you show off some excellent writing skills here. It's compelling stuff with good build-up and suspense, good description, interesting moments (e.g., the elephant), and touching stories about various minor characters who are affected by the disaster. Taken by itself, this section demonstrates that you have the skills to write an interesting screenplay.
I also like the idea of using the tsunami as a metaphor for a man's life, and, on the whole, I like the general tone of the screenplay.
Unfortunately, the rest of the screenplay doesn't do the middle third justice. It's not that it's poorly written; it's just that it's not very compelling.
My main problem is with the protagonist, Harry. He's a likeable enough fellow, but I think you've fallen into the trap of believing that overcoming grief/guilt constitutes a goal. It doesn't. His grief is the obstacle that keeps him from reaching his goal. It's arguable that his inner goal is to be capable of an intimate relationship, but what's his external goal? Unless I missed something, there is none.
Harry's lack of an external goal really cripples him as a compelling character. For starters, he's a passive protagonist. He rarely pushes the action. If I remember correctly, his vacation isn't even his idea; it's his kids'. He doesn't reach out to Sumalee; she reaches out for him. Then, of course, there's the tsunami, where, again, he's reacting to external forces. Even at the end, it's his ex-wife who determines the course of the story. The resolution comes not from anything Harry did. It's a complete accident that Kate finds the toy. Then she chases him down at the airport. Harry had nothing to do with any of it.
Because of his lack of a goal, and because of his passivity, his change at the end of the screenplay is not convincing or honestly earned.
I don't think you can make this story work with such a passive character. I think you need to find some kind of external goal, something that motivates him and pushes the story forward.
Second, I don't really see a viable antagonist. Who's keeping him from reaching his goal? An antagonist is essential if the script is going to have the drama and conflict that it needs.
My third major problem is with the dialog. I think you have an ear for the cadences and patterns of language. The dialog sounds authentic, and in that sense it's good. What I take issue with is what the characters say (or don't say). Most of the dialog either consists of pointless (and boring) chatter, tells us what we already know (or will know soon), or is used as a device to tell the audience about other characters or the back story (e.g., past events). I don't mind a dialog-driven screenplay if the dialog actually drives the story forward. In this case, I think the dialog does exactly the opposite: It holds the screenplay back.
I think you also might want to reconsider why some of the characters in this story exist. What's the purpose of Pete and Magda? They keep popping up at intervals with no apparent function, then mysteriously disappear after Magda hopes Harry calls on page 71. And do you really need all the family members? As far as I can tell, their main purpose is to talk about the family history, banter about nothing, and worry about Harry after the tsunami. I'm not saying to get rid of the family, but I would suggest that you consider some consolidation.
I also have some issues with the way you establish (or fail to establish) a foundation for the relationship between Harry and Sumalee. They bump into each other at the airport, and the next time they meet she's confiding highly personal feelings to him and he's giving her his hotel room. It seems highly unlikely to me that two total strangers would achieve this degree of intimacy so quickly. It also seems unlikely that an experienced traveler like Harry would take such a risk in a place you've established as a cesspool of whores and thieves. You actually spend more time developing the relationship between Harry and Steve than you do the relationship between Harry and Sumalee. Ultimately, this failure to lay a good foundation for Harry and Sumalee undermines the impact of their separation.
The rest of my comments are more or less in page order (I wrote them as I read, so there might be contradictions and redundancies).
Page: 3
On the nose dialog.
Page: 4
Dialog is a bit on the nose; it's obviously here for no other purpose than to inform the audience about Harry's marital status. This is an example of having characters tell the audience things they should be shown.
Your headings are a mess. I understand that there's some leeway in how people format their headings, but what on earth are we supposed make of something like:
INT. UK/TAYLOR'S HOUSE/HALLWAY,UK - NIGHT (LATER)
The conventional way to write this would be:
INT. HALLWAY IN TAYLOR'S HOUSE - NIGHT
A word on so-called unfilmables in action lines: I don't mind descriptions like "he hides his inner world well" because I think it can give an actor insight into the character and can be acted out. However, I don't think it's a good idea to introduce facts the audience has no way of knowing, such as that Will is a musician and Evie is his new girlfriend. These kinds of descriptions belong in novels, not screenplays.
Page: 6
Sorry, but I don't know what a significant look looks like.
The overloaded headings are real distractions. Try using mini-slugs when possible.
Curiosity aroused, she goes into
THE DEN
and looks around: Faded pilots' caps, framed and etc. etc. etc.
Page: 7
The first 10 pages spend a lot of time delving into the back story, and it's mostly unnecessary. I'm more interested in the now than I am in the then. Spend more time developing Harry and his wants and his flaws as they exist in the present.
Page: 8
"(realizing she is out of order and attempts to make a joke)": This belongs in an action line, not a parenthetical.
Page: 9
The screenplay's first 10 pages are loaded with a lot of exposition and back story. I want to know what the present story is about, and so far I've got precious few clues. I know the protagonist used to be a pilot and is now an electrician, but what's his goal? What's the story about?
Page: 11
I don't get this (WINTER) here in this heading. Was it not winter in the scene before? Are we changing seasons? In any case, it should be in the action line, not the heading.
Page: 13
Far, far too much information is being communicated via photos and dialog. These are static, boring scenes. So far, this reads more like a stage play than a movie.
Page: 14
This abrupt switch from England to Thailand is very confusing. Audiences can't see headings. A title card might be useful.
How am I supposed to know Magda is infertile and that they are about to adopt a child?
Page: 15
Again, more on-the-nose dialog. People talking about how other people feel is not compelling stuff.
"Hannah fills Evie's head with whispered family scandals." This is fiction writing, not screenplay writing. How is the audience supposed to know what they're whispering about?
And how are we supposed to know that John is Harry's work partner, is divorced and lonely, and "has yet to recognise his own unrequited love for Kate"?
Page: 16
Again, and I hate to keep repeating myself, but you're piling on scene after scene of people talking about trivia and other people, and it's dull. While there's some conflict, it's all of the petty variety, and it doesn't involve the protagonist.
Speaking of which, your protagonist is curiously disengaged from the story. We've spent more time listening to other people talk than we have with him.
And I still don't know what his goal is or what the story is about.
Page: 18
OK, so we know that Harry is living under the weight of this tragedy, but I think we know it too much through dialog and don't see it enough in his actions or behavior (moping on the beach doesn't count).
Page: 19
Cabbie conversation: Tells us what we already know, adds nothing to the story.
Page: 29
How do we know that memories stop him? Or that he's confronting ghosts? Nicely literary but not appropriate for a screenplay.
Page: 21
Again, more dialog in which people tell us what we already know. Isn't it pretty obvious by now that Harry is going to Thailand? Do we have to be told this again by a flight attendant? What is the purpose of having Harry tell the flight attendant why he's going when we already know it? This kind of dialog is dry and useless. And we've been told three times already that he's going to be a godparent. Is it even important? If it is, won't we learn soon enough when Harry sees his friends?
Page: 23
More dead dialog of people telling us what they're going to do. Get rid of every line of conversation where somebody tells somebody else what we know or what we're going to find out.
Page: 24
I'm not sure why this flashback is necessary. We already know that he and his wife lost a child.
Purpose of this telephone conversation?
Page: 28
I think you need to lay a bit more groundwork for this scene. Why would she confide in him so readily? We see his concern for her welfare when he tells Steve to look after her, but he never really shows the concern to her.
Page: 29
He gives up his room: This is all way to sudden. How could he be sure that he's not being conned? You need to establish the credibility of his behavior by showing the two of them making a connection earlier in the story.
Also, I really know nothing about Sumalee; she hasn't been well described.
Nor do we know why she would go to him. All they did was bump into each other at the airport. You have to better establish the credibility of her desperation.
Page: 32
I don't see a reason for these three beats. I think that in these cases, the cadence should be left to the interpretation the actors/director. All they really do is interfere with the flow.
Page: 38
Your American, Tommy, sounds distinctly British; phrases like "fancied myself" and "a bit of" and "...you know" are used by Americans when they're trying to imitate Brits.
Page: 42
Wow, so she rewards his kindness with sex. I'm not sure what to make of this. Are you suggesting that she's a prostitute? That's how it comes off to me. In any case, it really diminishes their relationship in my eyes.
Page: 44
"The plates move." ??? What am I supposed to imagine here?
Page: 44
Kate is really a pathetic, unlikeable person.
Page: 47
Jumping to the warning center on page 47 is very jarring, and I'm not sure what it adds to the story to have a bunch of people we've never met give us dry statistics about what's going to happen. It certainly doesn't serve to foreshadow, because you've already shown a tsunami that serves that purpose. And you're not introducing any people who are important to the plot. It seems to me that you'd be more consistent and better off if you used seismic events in other parts of the region to build tension. You've already got enough talking heads in this story without adding more when they're not even really necessary.
Page: 50
These warning center scenes would be appropriate in a disaster flick where the characters are essential to the plot, but they don't make much sense here; they just get in the way.
Page: 54
I love this scene with the elephant. This is so much more effective in building tension than some guys in a room talking about seismic events that might happen somewhere else.
Page: 62
"A monster tsunami has hit Sri Lanka": Do we care what happened in Sri Lanka? Isn't our story taking place in Thailand? Remember, you're writing a story about a specific character in a specific place, not a history of the 2004 tsunami.
Page: 64
I question whether fish can be as terrorized as humans. Maybe they can.
Page: 67
This is all pretty good stuff. It just lacks a compelling story to go with it.
Page: 69
This newscast is pointless and does nothing but take up space. There's nothing here that we need to know. It's only purpose should be to show us the reactions of the people who see it. For example:
NEWSCASTER
An earthquake has triggered
a major tsunami that has hit
the shores of Sumatra, Sri
Lanka, India and Thailand...
They are transfixed.
EVIE
What part of Thailand is
your Dad in?
Page: 71
Again, way to much dialog. Here's how this should go:
His Mobile rings.
PETE
Hello? Yes, I'm almost
there. ... What?
He skews to a halt at the side of the road.
Next scene.
Page: 72
This story isn't about the tsunami. We don't need these technical details. It's not important to the story. It does nothing except interrupt the flow of the narrative. The images we've seen are more than enough.
Don't dilute the power of the imagery with these deadly dull talking heads blathering about nothing of any consequence to the story.
Page: 72
Again, too much dialog. Your characters are telling us things we already know. We've seen the hotel; it's not necessary to now have one of the characters tell us what we've already seen. Focus on the concern of the characters for Harry, and do it expeditiously.
Page: 73
Get rid of all this newscaster jabber.
Page: 78
"The smell of rotting flesh, human and fish, is overpowering": It's a movie. The audience can't smell anything.
All right, we've had enough of the disaster; we need to return the focus to the story. Something has to happen soon.
Old school Englishman: You already did the addled old person thing.
Page: 83
I'm afraid that the story is stalling out here. There's no all-or-nothing moment for the protagonist, no buildup to a climax.
Page: 87
This is starting to wallow in the mundane and ordinary. People trying to get in touch with one another. Nothing interesting or different about it. Harry's story, such as it is, has vanished.
Page: 91
Your protagonist isn't pushing the action. He's just wandering around. Nothing's happening.
Page: 94
How are we supposed to know that Harry is in the bathroom?
Page: 101
Way too easy. Kate goes from being a catatonic bitch to having this earth-shattering revelation with no transition between the two. There's no arc. It feels contrived.
Page: 105
Harry's and Kate's reconciliation is sappy melodrama. It wasn't earned and has no honest emotion behind it. Plus I hate Harry for going back to her. She doesn't deserve him.
read -
A review of Help Yourself, revisedby Eric Maloney on 01/27/2012There is an intelligent, observant mind behind this story. You have writing talent and a good sense of humor. However, the screenplay needs considerable work. I'll start off with a few major deficiencies that must be addressed: 1. Your protagonist has no external goal. What's the end game here? To land the big contract? Get a promotion? Write a book? Keep her family together?... There is an intelligent, observant mind behind this story. You have writing talent and a good sense of humor. However, the screenplay needs considerable work.
I'll start off with a few major deficiencies that must be addressed:
1. Your protagonist has no external goal. What's the end game here? To land the big contract? Get a promotion? Write a book? Keep her family together? Seeking inner peace is not good enough. Her lack of inner peace is the obstacle to her external goal. Finding inner peace is what will allow her to reach her external goal. You need to give Maggie a clearly articulated external goal and state it in the first 12 pages.
2. There are no stakes. What will happen if your protagonist fails? As far as I can tell, nothing. A few minutes crying over poor book sales is about it. Not exactly a major calamity. There are suggestions of a failing marriage, but there's no solid connection made between the marriage, her goals, and her obstacles. Nor is there much to suggest that losing her family would be that big a deal. Maggie starts out privileged and comfortable, remains privileged and comfortable through the entire script, and ends up privileged and comfortable. Audiences do not want to invest themselves emotionally in this kind of protagonist. If you want people to care about Maggie, then you have to give her something important to lose. And there has to be an all-or-nothing moment in the third act where she has to decide whether to risk losing it.
3. There is no antagonist. This is a major problem. If you can't develop an antagonist (that is, someone who actively seeks to stop Maggie from reaching her goal), then there might not be any point in developing this script any further.
4. Maggie's main flaw--what keeps her from succeeding--is poorly defined. Her boss tells her on page 12 that she needs to improve her communication skills, yet her supposed lack of communication skills doesn't play out in any significant way. The story suggests other flaws: She puts her work before her family, she's scattered, she doesn't live her own philosophy, she's self-absorbed. But none of these is developed or plays out from the beginning of the script to the end. You need to settle on the one significant flaw that keeps her from attaining her goal, have that flaw play out throughout the story, and get rid of all the extraneous noise.
5. Everything comes to easily for the protagonist. She doesn't overcome a single significant obstacle or make a single sacrifice. Audiences don't want a protagonist who whines to her therapist about how difficult her life is when there's nothing difficult about her life. It makes for an unattractive character. Which brings me to ...
6. Your protagonist is not very appealing. She is self-absorbed and boring, and her over-use of jargon is annoying. She has few (if any) likeable qualities. I think you need to soften the edges and give her some positive traits that will make the audience want to root for her.
7. The dialog needs a lot of work. You love dialog but you don't treasure it. By that I mean your writing is undisciplined. You allow your characters to spew reams of words that serve no purpose. Here are a few quick-and-dirty rules about dialog:
All dialog should move the story along. If it doesn't, it should be cut. The overwhelming majority of the dialog in this script does not move the story along. Many of the scenes seem to exist for the sole purpose of letting the characters hear themselves talk. This kind of dialog is boring and self-indulgent. The ultimate effect is to pretty much kill the effectiveness of the good, funny lines, of which there are quite a few.
Cut all the dialog in which people chit-chat about nothing: What they did, what they're going to do, how they're feeling, how things went at the office, snippets of phone conversations, etc. etc.
Don't have characters tell us what they've done or what they're going to do unless you can articulate a specific reason for doing so.
Don't have characters tell the audience what is better shown. I don't want to hear Maggie explain to her therapist how she doesn't understand why her boss says she can't communicate; I want to see a scene in which this plays out in a visual way. Film is a visual medium. If it's important to you to write this kind of dialog-heavy script, then you might want to consider re-writing it for the stage.
Don't chain together long scenes of people doing nothing but sitting and talking. It's boring, static, and non-visual. It leaves the audience unengaged.
Don't have characters repeat themselves.
While some of Maggie's use of jargon is funny, a little bit of this goes a long way. I was tired of it before I even got to the second act. Use it heavily in the first 10 pages to establish her character, then use it sparingly and strategically after that.
By the way, the best dialog in this screenplay is Mackenzie's, by a wide margin. Why? Because she's a sullen Goth pre-teen who hates to talk, so when she does say something, it's usually meaningful. Consequently, Mackenzie is a fun and interesting character (at least, until she changes at the end). You should approach all of your characters the same way: They should speak only when they have something important to say, and every word they speak should count for something.
A few other general comments:
1. The story lacks a spine. Right from the opening scene, it seems to meander from one scene to the next without any sense of connectedness or buildup. Each scene should have a specific purpose, should build from the previous scene, and should lead logically into the next scene. This screenplay sometimes reads less like a cohesive story and more like a collection of skits through which your two main characters wander.
Consider your opening scenes. Laura gets gas and finds out that there's no self-service in Oregon. Huh? What purpose does this scene serve? It has nothing to do with anything else in the story--and yet you're starting the screenplay with it. That's your opening scene! Why are you wasting it showing a secondary character being admonished by a gas station attendant for pumping her own gas?
Then we jump to her apartment, where you make sure to point out Laura's kitschy Indian toys. That's fine--nice touch. From there we jump to Maggie in a meeting about toys. OK, you are clearly associating Laura's kitschy toys with Maggie's job of developing toys. A writer doesn't juxtapose two scenes like this without a reason. I therefore assume that toys will be an integral part of the story, and that toys will somehow come into play in connecting Laura and Maggie. And yet none of this comes to fruition. There appears to be no reason for the toy-toy connection; it's a promise that goes unfulfilled.
2. I don't understand Laura's purpose in this script. Her and Maggie's stories are never integrated. The only connection the two characters have is that one is counseling the other. What you've got in essence are two separate screenplays whose scenes are interleaved. If you took out Laura's scenes before the two women meet, you'd never know the difference. The two stories either need to be intertwined in a meaningful way, Laura should be made the B story, or Laura should be dumped (Laura's story is pretty dull anyway: Basically, a woman looking for a boyfriend).
If Laura is useless, then Alex is even more useless. She serves no function and is just a distraction.
3. The story is weighed down by too many extraneous characters. It seems as if somebody new pops up every few pages. Characters are introduced early and then disappear. Other characters are introduced too late. Get rid of everybody who doesn't directly serve the story.
The rest of my comments are more or less in page order (I wrote them as I read, so there might be contradictions and redundancies).
Page: 1
"Attractive Native American": Tells me what? Attractive is subjective. How do I know she's Native American? Wearing feathers and beads? You can be a bit more descriptive.
Page: 2
The boardroom scene: There are some funny ideas here--the silliness of serious men discussing the nuances of winged pink ponies and such--but it gets buried in way too much dialog. Dialog like this needs to be sharp, crisp, and to the point, and this rambles. This kind of over-extended dialog is a problem throughout the script. Consider cutting it down to something like this:
MAGGIE
You need to rethink the
winged pony. It's already
been patented.
MARKETING MAN 2
So we make it a horse.
MARKETING MAN 1
Tim says the metrics are way
better with ponies.
MAGGIE
Besides, we can't patent a
winged horse. It's public domain.
MARKETING MAN 3
Then we call them Ponykins
and say they're mythical creatures.
MARKETING MAN 2
But there is no myth about
Ponykins. Is there?
MAGGIE
Another thing. No pastel colors.
MARKETING MAN 3
How about iridescent?
Surely the courts would
appreciate the difference
between pink and sparkly pink.
MARKETING MAN 4
The glitter is conceptually
different.
MAGGIE
It’s risky. Very risky. Glitter
might not be enough to protect
us from a lawsuit.
Also, give these people better names than MARKETING MAN 1, 2, 3, 4: Bald Guy, Athletic Guy, Thin Guy, whatever.
Page: 3
Scenes of people saying hello to one another are inherently boring. Avoid them unless there's a point. We already know that Laura is new here, so this just killing time.
Page: 4
On-the-nose dialog. If it's important to the story that Ben is writing a book, then figure out a better and more interesting way to introduce the idea.
SUSAN
(glancing at
her watch)
Oh, Ron's waiting for us.
Why do we need to know this? Who's Ron? Why should I care if he's waiting? The screenplay is rife with this kind of meaningless chatter. Get rid of it all.
Ethnic Chinese: I don't know what this means or what I'm supposed to visualize.
You have an entire conversation with grandpa, which I assume means that he's part of the story and we're going to meet him. Right? No, I guess not. So if there's no grandpa, why this scene? It's a distracting and misleading conversation that doesn't seem to be connected to anything in the story.
Page: 6
"See you tomorrow. If there is a
tomorrow."
Good line, but Summer's "Yeah, if" kills it. Never follow a strong line with a weak line; the weak line always weakens the strong line.
Page: 7
Again, too much dialog, too much redundancy. Good lines are weakened by throwaway lines. Also, you're beating the whole Maggie's-jargon thing to death. We get it. Some of it's amusing, some less so, but too much of it is boring. Pick out the best zingers and dump the rest. Pare the whole thing down, sharpen it, make it sing.
Page: 8
INT. MAGGIE'S CAR - DAY: Tell us where the car is first, then use a mini-slug to take us into the car, like so:
EXT. PARKING LOT - DAY
Maggie maneuvers the car into a parking space.
IN THE CAR
Mackenzie stares out the window...
Page: 9
Counseling, return investment, difficult age, etc. You seem determined to give Maggie a lot of pointless lines as an excuse to let her deliver more Maggie-jargon humor. It's wearing thin quickly and does nothing to move the story forward. Too much of it is counter-productive.
Page: 10
Maggie in front of the mirror: These little visual touches are much more effective than the paint-by-numbers dialog in showing us who Maggie is.
Page: 11
The dialog goes on and on and on. It's dull, boring, and redundant.
Page: 12
I'm confused. You started with Laura, so I assumed she was the protagonist, but then she disappeared, and now it's all about Maggie. So I guess Maggie is the protagonist. Then who's Laura, why did you start with her, and what's the connection between the two women?
Also, it's page 12, and I don't know what Maggie's goal is. Why am I rooting for her? What is she trying to accomplish?
As regards the communications problem, you need to do a better job of showing that this is an issue for her. On the contrary, there's nothing in the boardroom scene, for example, to indicate that communication is an issue.
Page: 13
Boring chit-chat about nothing. You could delete this whole scene and not miss anything.
As a general rule, avoid having characters tell us what they're going to do and then in the next scene show them doing it. Boring, redundant.
Page: 14
Again, more meaningless chatter. A good exchange will move the story along and reveal character. While some of this does tell us something about the relationship between Alex and Laura, it does nothing to move the story along other than to move us from the airport to her apartment.
Page: 16
It's page 17. By this time, we should have some inkling of what the connection is between Laura and Maggie. The script reads like it's bouncing back and forth between two unrelated stories.
Page: 17
(to WITHDRAWN CLERK): You don't introduce characters in parentheticals.
Page: 18
Store scene: Again, more seemingly pointless conversation. So far, Laura seems to have no function in this story; we just keep breaking from Maggie to Laura so Laura can do more boring ordinary things while having boring ordinary conversations. There's no drama, no conflict, no humor, no anticipation of any of this going anywhere.
Page: 20
Another dialog-heavy scene with nothing intrinsically interesting about it.
Page: 22
Don't have characters tell us what we already know.
Page: 23
So far, the script is dominated by meaningless banter and vaguely humorous throwaway lines. If you threw all this stuff out, I doubt if you'd have two pages of solid, interesting dialog.
What is the story, and where is it? If this is about Maggie and her career and her inability to communicate, then that's where our focus should be, not on trivial asides such as this one.
I don't care about Karina. I don't care about DeLorean, or Cass, or Emerson, or any of these other dullards. I don't know these people, they're irrelevant. I want you to make me care about Maggie and tell me her story, not the boring stories of everybody she knows.
Page: 26
Point of this telephone conversation? I think all of this is known information, isn't it?
Page: 27
Boring dialog. A very little bit of this goes a very long way. Read Client Two's long-winded speech out loud and imagine an audience having to sit through it with nothing to look at except her talking.
Page: 28
Page 28, and Laura and Maggie finally meet. I'm still confused about how their stories connect. After all the buildup and anticipation, there's nothing there.
All this Maggie dialog repeats things we already know or is pointless. The script has far too many scenes like this: Visually DOA, people just talking at one another.
Page: 29
Another pointless scene that does nothing to advance the story.
Page: 30
Some of this stuff about her dates is funny, but it goes on too long. One or two lines per date is more than enough. The genius's monolog is particularly long and dull. The whole montage shouldn't last more than a page at the most.
Page: 35
At the risk of beating a dead horse, here's another flat, static scene of two people sitting and talking. This will be the last such scene I'll comment on, but it's a problem throughout the script.
Page: 38
Don't use parentheticals to show action. This belongs in an action line.
Page: 39
Whatever happened to Maggie's problems at work? The opening scene suggested that this would be at the center of the story, and yet it's been abandoned. Did she get fired or quit? Did I miss something?
Page: 41
These scenes where people keep asking each other about their weekends or what they're going to do the next weekend are dull, dull, dull. All they do is throw obstacles in the way of the reader.
Page: 42
Why am I hearing these people talk about this workshop? If the workshop is so important, shouldn't I be seeing what happened rather than hearing about it second-hand after the fact?
And don't have characters tell us how passionate they are about something; have them show it.
Page: 47
Potentially funny Procrastinators Anonymous scene is dragged down by too much pointless dialog. You have some funny ideas like this one, but you tend to belabor the humor until it's all gone.
Page: 66
The African children line is funny, but it's dead in the water because of all the meaningless chatter that surrounds it.
Page: 73
So Maggie's Dark Night of the Soul is her weak book sales? Not very compelling.
Page: 83
The therapist/whore parallel is interesting but could be summed up in a handful of lines.
Page: 88
Just my personal opinion: I'm kind of disappointed that Mackenzie is no longer Goth. I would have liked to see her become comfortable with who she is rather than become something else.
Final comments: I honestly don't know if you have enough material for a full-length screenplay. I would like to think so because there really are some funny scenes and good lines sprinkled throughout. I think what you need to do is figure out first what your story is, what Maggie's goal is, what her big obstacle is in reaching that goal, who her antagonist is, and what's at stake. Then you need to map out a solid story line and develop a series of well-focused, interconnected scenes that show her progressively working toward that goal in the face of the antagonist and her own flaws. Then get rid of all the irrelevant tangential stuff, including Laura if necessary. read
Write a Comment
Submissions by Eric Maloney
-
a screenplay by Eric Maloney
Repressed housewife Irene Mays joins her son's garage-rock band as the mysterious Count Guitarcula in order to... more
-
a screenplay by Eric MaloneyGenres: sci-fi/fantasy
Washed up B-movie director Vincent Baer revives his career when his sci-fi flick "Senseless!" becomes a surprise... more
Reviews by Eric Maloney 193
-
A review of Private Eyeby Eric Maloney on 02/29/2012I'm always up for noir, so I was glad to get this assignment. I think it hits many of the marks: The right atmosphere, the usual array of sleazy characters and settings, and solid (if somewhat uneven) dialog. It moves quickly, the pace is steady, and I didn't see any serious dull spots where I felt that the script was dragging or strayed from the spine of the story. All in... I'm always up for noir, so I was glad to get this assignment. I think it hits many of the marks: The right atmosphere, the usual array of sleazy characters and settings, and solid (if somewhat uneven) dialog. It moves quickly, the pace is steady, and I didn't see any serious dull spots where I felt that the script was dragging or strayed from the spine of the story. All in all, an enjoyable screenplay with lots of potential.
I do, however, have some serious concerns about the protagonist.
I don't necessarily have a problem with protagonists who do bad things. Nasty people can still be compelling characters. I just watched "The Scar," a very good noir film featuring a protagonist who is a murderer. If the protagonist is nuanced, if I'm given a reason why he is like he is, if he's interesting, if he's conflicted, if he shows a potential for redemption, then I'll stick with him. But I think Joe is way, way off the rails. The nearly continuous and compulsively violent behavior he exhibits through the first act is really off-putting. His murder of Willard is a deal-breaker: What we've got here is a remorseless psychotic killer. Even after this pointless act, I might have been willing to stick with him if there was something interesting and unique about him, but there isn't: He's your standard-issue hard-boiled PI who got kicked off the force, has a drinking problem, and is estranged from his family. How many times have we seen that guy?
His personality does change to something relatively softer and more likeable in the second and third acts, but I could never get taste of Willard's senseless murder out of my mind. Simply making Joe a hero at the end does not mitigate for me the fact that he brutally murdered a man for no acceptable reason, nor do I see by the end that he's a changed man. If he went out the next day and beat someone to death with a hammer or slashed his girlfriend's face with a box cutter, I wouldn't be surprised.
Beyond that, I'm also a bit uneasy with the protagonist's goal, which appears to be nothing more than finding the missing girl. Why would someone as dysfunctional and uncaring as Joe want to find her so badly? I suppose rescuing the girl might somehow symbolically rescue his daughter, because I don't buy that he really cares about his daughter, either. He's too much of a narcissist. After Willard dies and Joe has all the money, there's even less reason for Joe to pursue the case. Some detectives are motivated by a code, but I don't see much of a code at work here, either. What, then, motivates Joe?
By way of contrast, consider Sam Spade in "The Maltese Falcon." His goal is clear and personal: Avenge the death of his partner. Because Spade is a likeable, if flawed, character, we want to see him succeed. And when he faces difficult choices--between riches and his goal, between the girl and his goal--we empathize with him and feel the struggles he goes through.
My next issue with Joe is that the stakes are never high enough for him. What would happen to him if he never found Samantha? Would he lose anything? Would his life change for the worse? The story lacks an all-or-nothing moment where he pushes all the chips in the middle of the table and risks everything to achieve his goal.
The problems with Joe are exacerbated by the fact that there's really no one else in the story to like or care about. They're all pretty distasteful people. If the purpose of the story is to show how ugly the world is, then it succeeds, but I question how many people would want to spend 100 minutes with these dreary people in this dreary landscape.
I do think, however, that the Joe character is salvageable, and it can be done in such a way that you retain his brittle edge. First, get rid of the gratuitous murder of Willard. Second, cut back on some of the overt violence in the first act. The suggestion of violence--what Joe might do if pushed too far--would create far more tension than showing him commit one uncontrolled act of rage after another. Show us the conflict within him--the violent side versus the guy who wants to be something better--and you'll have a far more complex and interesting character.
As for the story itself, I think it works fairly well. It has an obvious "Chinatown" vibe to it, everyone with a dirty secret, layer after layer peeled back until we get to a rotten core, which I like.
For the most part, I think the dialog is pretty much on the money, except for a few early scenes where it's too on the nose. My only issue might be that some of the lines sound too generic, like they could have come from any noir film rather than from these particular characters. Also, the voices of the characters sometimes aren't distinctive enough from one another (particularly Red and Joe).
The rest of my comments are more or less in page order (I wrote them as I read, so there might be contradictions and redundancies).
Page: 5
So far, your protagonist comes across as a masochistic sexual predator with major anger management issues. Am I supposed to like him?
Page: 5
Much of this dialog is on the nose: Harry is delivering information to the audience, not engaging in a normal conversation.
Page: 10
It doesn't seem plausible that Joe wouldn't ask more questions about why the delay given the age of the girl.
Also, I think you need to address the question of why Joe himself wouldn't report it to the police.
And why doesn't he ask about the girl's mom? It would seem like one of the first questions a PI would ask when discussing a missing persons case.
Page: 10
The screenplay has lots of unnecessary parentheticals.
Why would he assume that Samantha is a runaway? In this day and age, I think most detectives would consider murder as an option that would have to be explored. Which brings me back to the earlier question of why Joe wouldn't go to the police with this. I think you need to set up the scenario so that the girl clearly is a runaway, and not perhaps a murder victim, and the father and Joe have clear reasons for not going to the police.
Page: 11
Very static, talky bar scene. Too much information at once. Some could be deferred, some isn't necessary.
Page: 12
Red and Joe sound a lot alike.
Page: 15
Your protagonist is a bundle of cliches.
Page: 17
"He stares into Willard's now furious eyes" belongs in an action line, not in a parenthetical.
Page: 18
OK, so now we see where this is going. An unlikeable, unredeemable protagonist. You're taking a big chance here. There has to be some reason why I should be interested in Joe's story. Making him a psychotic killer with no nuances to his character goes in the wrong direction.
Page: 20
You're making it hard to believe that a man as compulsively violent as Joe could still be walking the streets.
Page: 21
Oh, please. enough is enough. There's no way this guy would still be walking free with this kind of temper. And you haven't set up a scenario that justifies or explains it. He's just a violent, angry guy with nothing particularly complex or interesting about him.
Page: 23
So many violent episodes, one after another, without explanation, without humor, make your protagonist into a cartoon, and a boring, predictable one at that.
Page: 39
I don't get this. He has him beat up, then invites him to his table for drinks? Did I miss something here?
Page: 40
Why didn't Morgan ask these questions during the incident on the road?
Page: 43
Morgan's a strong character and has a distinct voice.
Page: 69
Some of this patter isn't bad--suitable for the genre--but it sounds a bit generic. The patter doesn't mean anything, it doesn't go anywhere. It's just patter that sounds good.
Page: 75
This is violence with a purpose, as compared to some of the gratuitous violence in the first act.
Page: 77
But it's followed by what's essentially a gutless act, and sets us against Joe again.
Page: 77
By now, I no longer buy the Joe-misses-his-daughter angle; I really don't believe that he's capable of honest, human emotion, and he's shown that his daughter is much better off without him.
Page: 82
Good twist with the photo; disturbing.
Page: 88
This dungeon scene feels a bit as if it was just randomly inserted for its shock effect.
Page: 97
What's the red dot? I don't get it.
Page: 98
I think you do a very good job of putting Joe into an apparently hopeless situation--as much as I don't like him, I keep turning the pages to see how he's going to extricate himself. The ending was therefore somewhat of a letdown. All he has to do is smash the glass, and everybody runs away? That's it? A bit anticlimactic. And I still can't figure out what the red dot is.
read -
A review of FLOOD OF TEARSby Eric Maloney on 02/01/2012The centerpiece of this screenplay -- roughly the middle third -- is the tsunami, and you show off some excellent writing skills here. It's compelling stuff with good build-up and suspense, good description, interesting moments (e.g., the elephant), and touching stories about various minor characters who are affected by the disaster. Taken by itself, this section demonstrates... The centerpiece of this screenplay -- roughly the middle third -- is the tsunami, and you show off some excellent writing skills here. It's compelling stuff with good build-up and suspense, good description, interesting moments (e.g., the elephant), and touching stories about various minor characters who are affected by the disaster. Taken by itself, this section demonstrates that you have the skills to write an interesting screenplay.
I also like the idea of using the tsunami as a metaphor for a man's life, and, on the whole, I like the general tone of the screenplay.
Unfortunately, the rest of the screenplay doesn't do the middle third justice. It's not that it's poorly written; it's just that it's not very compelling.
My main problem is with the protagonist, Harry. He's a likeable enough fellow, but I think you've fallen into the trap of believing that overcoming grief/guilt constitutes a goal. It doesn't. His grief is the obstacle that keeps him from reaching his goal. It's arguable that his inner goal is to be capable of an intimate relationship, but what's his external goal? Unless I missed something, there is none.
Harry's lack of an external goal really cripples him as a compelling character. For starters, he's a passive protagonist. He rarely pushes the action. If I remember correctly, his vacation isn't even his idea; it's his kids'. He doesn't reach out to Sumalee; she reaches out for him. Then, of course, there's the tsunami, where, again, he's reacting to external forces. Even at the end, it's his ex-wife who determines the course of the story. The resolution comes not from anything Harry did. It's a complete accident that Kate finds the toy. Then she chases him down at the airport. Harry had nothing to do with any of it.
Because of his lack of a goal, and because of his passivity, his change at the end of the screenplay is not convincing or honestly earned.
I don't think you can make this story work with such a passive character. I think you need to find some kind of external goal, something that motivates him and pushes the story forward.
Second, I don't really see a viable antagonist. Who's keeping him from reaching his goal? An antagonist is essential if the script is going to have the drama and conflict that it needs.
My third major problem is with the dialog. I think you have an ear for the cadences and patterns of language. The dialog sounds authentic, and in that sense it's good. What I take issue with is what the characters say (or don't say). Most of the dialog either consists of pointless (and boring) chatter, tells us what we already know (or will know soon), or is used as a device to tell the audience about other characters or the back story (e.g., past events). I don't mind a dialog-driven screenplay if the dialog actually drives the story forward. In this case, I think the dialog does exactly the opposite: It holds the screenplay back.
I think you also might want to reconsider why some of the characters in this story exist. What's the purpose of Pete and Magda? They keep popping up at intervals with no apparent function, then mysteriously disappear after Magda hopes Harry calls on page 71. And do you really need all the family members? As far as I can tell, their main purpose is to talk about the family history, banter about nothing, and worry about Harry after the tsunami. I'm not saying to get rid of the family, but I would suggest that you consider some consolidation.
I also have some issues with the way you establish (or fail to establish) a foundation for the relationship between Harry and Sumalee. They bump into each other at the airport, and the next time they meet she's confiding highly personal feelings to him and he's giving her his hotel room. It seems highly unlikely to me that two total strangers would achieve this degree of intimacy so quickly. It also seems unlikely that an experienced traveler like Harry would take such a risk in a place you've established as a cesspool of whores and thieves. You actually spend more time developing the relationship between Harry and Steve than you do the relationship between Harry and Sumalee. Ultimately, this failure to lay a good foundation for Harry and Sumalee undermines the impact of their separation.
The rest of my comments are more or less in page order (I wrote them as I read, so there might be contradictions and redundancies).
Page: 3
On the nose dialog.
Page: 4
Dialog is a bit on the nose; it's obviously here for no other purpose than to inform the audience about Harry's marital status. This is an example of having characters tell the audience things they should be shown.
Your headings are a mess. I understand that there's some leeway in how people format their headings, but what on earth are we supposed make of something like:
INT. UK/TAYLOR'S HOUSE/HALLWAY,UK - NIGHT (LATER)
The conventional way to write this would be:
INT. HALLWAY IN TAYLOR'S HOUSE - NIGHT
A word on so-called unfilmables in action lines: I don't mind descriptions like "he hides his inner world well" because I think it can give an actor insight into the character and can be acted out. However, I don't think it's a good idea to introduce facts the audience has no way of knowing, such as that Will is a musician and Evie is his new girlfriend. These kinds of descriptions belong in novels, not screenplays.
Page: 6
Sorry, but I don't know what a significant look looks like.
The overloaded headings are real distractions. Try using mini-slugs when possible.
Curiosity aroused, she goes into
THE DEN
and looks around: Faded pilots' caps, framed and etc. etc. etc.
Page: 7
The first 10 pages spend a lot of time delving into the back story, and it's mostly unnecessary. I'm more interested in the now than I am in the then. Spend more time developing Harry and his wants and his flaws as they exist in the present.
Page: 8
"(realizing she is out of order and attempts to make a joke)": This belongs in an action line, not a parenthetical.
Page: 9
The screenplay's first 10 pages are loaded with a lot of exposition and back story. I want to know what the present story is about, and so far I've got precious few clues. I know the protagonist used to be a pilot and is now an electrician, but what's his goal? What's the story about?
Page: 11
I don't get this (WINTER) here in this heading. Was it not winter in the scene before? Are we changing seasons? In any case, it should be in the action line, not the heading.
Page: 13
Far, far too much information is being communicated via photos and dialog. These are static, boring scenes. So far, this reads more like a stage play than a movie.
Page: 14
This abrupt switch from England to Thailand is very confusing. Audiences can't see headings. A title card might be useful.
How am I supposed to know Magda is infertile and that they are about to adopt a child?
Page: 15
Again, more on-the-nose dialog. People talking about how other people feel is not compelling stuff.
"Hannah fills Evie's head with whispered family scandals." This is fiction writing, not screenplay writing. How is the audience supposed to know what they're whispering about?
And how are we supposed to know that John is Harry's work partner, is divorced and lonely, and "has yet to recognise his own unrequited love for Kate"?
Page: 16
Again, and I hate to keep repeating myself, but you're piling on scene after scene of people talking about trivia and other people, and it's dull. While there's some conflict, it's all of the petty variety, and it doesn't involve the protagonist.
Speaking of which, your protagonist is curiously disengaged from the story. We've spent more time listening to other people talk than we have with him.
And I still don't know what his goal is or what the story is about.
Page: 18
OK, so we know that Harry is living under the weight of this tragedy, but I think we know it too much through dialog and don't see it enough in his actions or behavior (moping on the beach doesn't count).
Page: 19
Cabbie conversation: Tells us what we already know, adds nothing to the story.
Page: 29
How do we know that memories stop him? Or that he's confronting ghosts? Nicely literary but not appropriate for a screenplay.
Page: 21
Again, more dialog in which people tell us what we already know. Isn't it pretty obvious by now that Harry is going to Thailand? Do we have to be told this again by a flight attendant? What is the purpose of having Harry tell the flight attendant why he's going when we already know it? This kind of dialog is dry and useless. And we've been told three times already that he's going to be a godparent. Is it even important? If it is, won't we learn soon enough when Harry sees his friends?
Page: 23
More dead dialog of people telling us what they're going to do. Get rid of every line of conversation where somebody tells somebody else what we know or what we're going to find out.
Page: 24
I'm not sure why this flashback is necessary. We already know that he and his wife lost a child.
Purpose of this telephone conversation?
Page: 28
I think you need to lay a bit more groundwork for this scene. Why would she confide in him so readily? We see his concern for her welfare when he tells Steve to look after her, but he never really shows the concern to her.
Page: 29
He gives up his room: This is all way to sudden. How could he be sure that he's not being conned? You need to establish the credibility of his behavior by showing the two of them making a connection earlier in the story.
Also, I really know nothing about Sumalee; she hasn't been well described.
Nor do we know why she would go to him. All they did was bump into each other at the airport. You have to better establish the credibility of her desperation.
Page: 32
I don't see a reason for these three beats. I think that in these cases, the cadence should be left to the interpretation the actors/director. All they really do is interfere with the flow.
Page: 38
Your American, Tommy, sounds distinctly British; phrases like "fancied myself" and "a bit of" and "...you know" are used by Americans when they're trying to imitate Brits.
Page: 42
Wow, so she rewards his kindness with sex. I'm not sure what to make of this. Are you suggesting that she's a prostitute? That's how it comes off to me. In any case, it really diminishes their relationship in my eyes.
Page: 44
"The plates move." ??? What am I supposed to imagine here?
Page: 44
Kate is really a pathetic, unlikeable person.
Page: 47
Jumping to the warning center on page 47 is very jarring, and I'm not sure what it adds to the story to have a bunch of people we've never met give us dry statistics about what's going to happen. It certainly doesn't serve to foreshadow, because you've already shown a tsunami that serves that purpose. And you're not introducing any people who are important to the plot. It seems to me that you'd be more consistent and better off if you used seismic events in other parts of the region to build tension. You've already got enough talking heads in this story without adding more when they're not even really necessary.
Page: 50
These warning center scenes would be appropriate in a disaster flick where the characters are essential to the plot, but they don't make much sense here; they just get in the way.
Page: 54
I love this scene with the elephant. This is so much more effective in building tension than some guys in a room talking about seismic events that might happen somewhere else.
Page: 62
"A monster tsunami has hit Sri Lanka": Do we care what happened in Sri Lanka? Isn't our story taking place in Thailand? Remember, you're writing a story about a specific character in a specific place, not a history of the 2004 tsunami.
Page: 64
I question whether fish can be as terrorized as humans. Maybe they can.
Page: 67
This is all pretty good stuff. It just lacks a compelling story to go with it.
Page: 69
This newscast is pointless and does nothing but take up space. There's nothing here that we need to know. It's only purpose should be to show us the reactions of the people who see it. For example:
NEWSCASTER
An earthquake has triggered
a major tsunami that has hit
the shores of Sumatra, Sri
Lanka, India and Thailand...
They are transfixed.
EVIE
What part of Thailand is
your Dad in?
Page: 71
Again, way to much dialog. Here's how this should go:
His Mobile rings.
PETE
Hello? Yes, I'm almost
there. ... What?
He skews to a halt at the side of the road.
Next scene.
Page: 72
This story isn't about the tsunami. We don't need these technical details. It's not important to the story. It does nothing except interrupt the flow of the narrative. The images we've seen are more than enough.
Don't dilute the power of the imagery with these deadly dull talking heads blathering about nothing of any consequence to the story.
Page: 72
Again, too much dialog. Your characters are telling us things we already know. We've seen the hotel; it's not necessary to now have one of the characters tell us what we've already seen. Focus on the concern of the characters for Harry, and do it expeditiously.
Page: 73
Get rid of all this newscaster jabber.
Page: 78
"The smell of rotting flesh, human and fish, is overpowering": It's a movie. The audience can't smell anything.
All right, we've had enough of the disaster; we need to return the focus to the story. Something has to happen soon.
Old school Englishman: You already did the addled old person thing.
Page: 83
I'm afraid that the story is stalling out here. There's no all-or-nothing moment for the protagonist, no buildup to a climax.
Page: 87
This is starting to wallow in the mundane and ordinary. People trying to get in touch with one another. Nothing interesting or different about it. Harry's story, such as it is, has vanished.
Page: 91
Your protagonist isn't pushing the action. He's just wandering around. Nothing's happening.
Page: 94
How are we supposed to know that Harry is in the bathroom?
Page: 101
Way too easy. Kate goes from being a catatonic bitch to having this earth-shattering revelation with no transition between the two. There's no arc. It feels contrived.
Page: 105
Harry's and Kate's reconciliation is sappy melodrama. It wasn't earned and has no honest emotion behind it. Plus I hate Harry for going back to her. She doesn't deserve him.
read -
A review of Help Yourself, revisedby Eric Maloney on 01/27/2012There is an intelligent, observant mind behind this story. You have writing talent and a good sense of humor. However, the screenplay needs considerable work. I'll start off with a few major deficiencies that must be addressed: 1. Your protagonist has no external goal. What's the end game here? To land the big contract? Get a promotion? Write a book? Keep her family together?... There is an intelligent, observant mind behind this story. You have writing talent and a good sense of humor. However, the screenplay needs considerable work.
I'll start off with a few major deficiencies that must be addressed:
1. Your protagonist has no external goal. What's the end game here? To land the big contract? Get a promotion? Write a book? Keep her family together? Seeking inner peace is not good enough. Her lack of inner peace is the obstacle to her external goal. Finding inner peace is what will allow her to reach her external goal. You need to give Maggie a clearly articulated external goal and state it in the first 12 pages.
2. There are no stakes. What will happen if your protagonist fails? As far as I can tell, nothing. A few minutes crying over poor book sales is about it. Not exactly a major calamity. There are suggestions of a failing marriage, but there's no solid connection made between the marriage, her goals, and her obstacles. Nor is there much to suggest that losing her family would be that big a deal. Maggie starts out privileged and comfortable, remains privileged and comfortable through the entire script, and ends up privileged and comfortable. Audiences do not want to invest themselves emotionally in this kind of protagonist. If you want people to care about Maggie, then you have to give her something important to lose. And there has to be an all-or-nothing moment in the third act where she has to decide whether to risk losing it.
3. There is no antagonist. This is a major problem. If you can't develop an antagonist (that is, someone who actively seeks to stop Maggie from reaching her goal), then there might not be any point in developing this script any further.
4. Maggie's main flaw--what keeps her from succeeding--is poorly defined. Her boss tells her on page 12 that she needs to improve her communication skills, yet her supposed lack of communication skills doesn't play out in any significant way. The story suggests other flaws: She puts her work before her family, she's scattered, she doesn't live her own philosophy, she's self-absorbed. But none of these is developed or plays out from the beginning of the script to the end. You need to settle on the one significant flaw that keeps her from attaining her goal, have that flaw play out throughout the story, and get rid of all the extraneous noise.
5. Everything comes to easily for the protagonist. She doesn't overcome a single significant obstacle or make a single sacrifice. Audiences don't want a protagonist who whines to her therapist about how difficult her life is when there's nothing difficult about her life. It makes for an unattractive character. Which brings me to ...
6. Your protagonist is not very appealing. She is self-absorbed and boring, and her over-use of jargon is annoying. She has few (if any) likeable qualities. I think you need to soften the edges and give her some positive traits that will make the audience want to root for her.
7. The dialog needs a lot of work. You love dialog but you don't treasure it. By that I mean your writing is undisciplined. You allow your characters to spew reams of words that serve no purpose. Here are a few quick-and-dirty rules about dialog:
All dialog should move the story along. If it doesn't, it should be cut. The overwhelming majority of the dialog in this script does not move the story along. Many of the scenes seem to exist for the sole purpose of letting the characters hear themselves talk. This kind of dialog is boring and self-indulgent. The ultimate effect is to pretty much kill the effectiveness of the good, funny lines, of which there are quite a few.
Cut all the dialog in which people chit-chat about nothing: What they did, what they're going to do, how they're feeling, how things went at the office, snippets of phone conversations, etc. etc.
Don't have characters tell us what they've done or what they're going to do unless you can articulate a specific reason for doing so.
Don't have characters tell the audience what is better shown. I don't want to hear Maggie explain to her therapist how she doesn't understand why her boss says she can't communicate; I want to see a scene in which this plays out in a visual way. Film is a visual medium. If it's important to you to write this kind of dialog-heavy script, then you might want to consider re-writing it for the stage.
Don't chain together long scenes of people doing nothing but sitting and talking. It's boring, static, and non-visual. It leaves the audience unengaged.
Don't have characters repeat themselves.
While some of Maggie's use of jargon is funny, a little bit of this goes a long way. I was tired of it before I even got to the second act. Use it heavily in the first 10 pages to establish her character, then use it sparingly and strategically after that.
By the way, the best dialog in this screenplay is Mackenzie's, by a wide margin. Why? Because she's a sullen Goth pre-teen who hates to talk, so when she does say something, it's usually meaningful. Consequently, Mackenzie is a fun and interesting character (at least, until she changes at the end). You should approach all of your characters the same way: They should speak only when they have something important to say, and every word they speak should count for something.
A few other general comments:
1. The story lacks a spine. Right from the opening scene, it seems to meander from one scene to the next without any sense of connectedness or buildup. Each scene should have a specific purpose, should build from the previous scene, and should lead logically into the next scene. This screenplay sometimes reads less like a cohesive story and more like a collection of skits through which your two main characters wander.
Consider your opening scenes. Laura gets gas and finds out that there's no self-service in Oregon. Huh? What purpose does this scene serve? It has nothing to do with anything else in the story--and yet you're starting the screenplay with it. That's your opening scene! Why are you wasting it showing a secondary character being admonished by a gas station attendant for pumping her own gas?
Then we jump to her apartment, where you make sure to point out Laura's kitschy Indian toys. That's fine--nice touch. From there we jump to Maggie in a meeting about toys. OK, you are clearly associating Laura's kitschy toys with Maggie's job of developing toys. A writer doesn't juxtapose two scenes like this without a reason. I therefore assume that toys will be an integral part of the story, and that toys will somehow come into play in connecting Laura and Maggie. And yet none of this comes to fruition. There appears to be no reason for the toy-toy connection; it's a promise that goes unfulfilled.
2. I don't understand Laura's purpose in this script. Her and Maggie's stories are never integrated. The only connection the two characters have is that one is counseling the other. What you've got in essence are two separate screenplays whose scenes are interleaved. If you took out Laura's scenes before the two women meet, you'd never know the difference. The two stories either need to be intertwined in a meaningful way, Laura should be made the B story, or Laura should be dumped (Laura's story is pretty dull anyway: Basically, a woman looking for a boyfriend).
If Laura is useless, then Alex is even more useless. She serves no function and is just a distraction.
3. The story is weighed down by too many extraneous characters. It seems as if somebody new pops up every few pages. Characters are introduced early and then disappear. Other characters are introduced too late. Get rid of everybody who doesn't directly serve the story.
The rest of my comments are more or less in page order (I wrote them as I read, so there might be contradictions and redundancies).
Page: 1
"Attractive Native American": Tells me what? Attractive is subjective. How do I know she's Native American? Wearing feathers and beads? You can be a bit more descriptive.
Page: 2
The boardroom scene: There are some funny ideas here--the silliness of serious men discussing the nuances of winged pink ponies and such--but it gets buried in way too much dialog. Dialog like this needs to be sharp, crisp, and to the point, and this rambles. This kind of over-extended dialog is a problem throughout the script. Consider cutting it down to something like this:
MAGGIE
You need to rethink the
winged pony. It's already
been patented.
MARKETING MAN 2
So we make it a horse.
MARKETING MAN 1
Tim says the metrics are way
better with ponies.
MAGGIE
Besides, we can't patent a
winged horse. It's public domain.
MARKETING MAN 3
Then we call them Ponykins
and say they're mythical creatures.
MARKETING MAN 2
But there is no myth about
Ponykins. Is there?
MAGGIE
Another thing. No pastel colors.
MARKETING MAN 3
How about iridescent?
Surely the courts would
appreciate the difference
between pink and sparkly pink.
MARKETING MAN 4
The glitter is conceptually
different.
MAGGIE
It’s risky. Very risky. Glitter
might not be enough to protect
us from a lawsuit.
Also, give these people better names than MARKETING MAN 1, 2, 3, 4: Bald Guy, Athletic Guy, Thin Guy, whatever.
Page: 3
Scenes of people saying hello to one another are inherently boring. Avoid them unless there's a point. We already know that Laura is new here, so this just killing time.
Page: 4
On-the-nose dialog. If it's important to the story that Ben is writing a book, then figure out a better and more interesting way to introduce the idea.
SUSAN
(glancing at
her watch)
Oh, Ron's waiting for us.
Why do we need to know this? Who's Ron? Why should I care if he's waiting? The screenplay is rife with this kind of meaningless chatter. Get rid of it all.
Ethnic Chinese: I don't know what this means or what I'm supposed to visualize.
You have an entire conversation with grandpa, which I assume means that he's part of the story and we're going to meet him. Right? No, I guess not. So if there's no grandpa, why this scene? It's a distracting and misleading conversation that doesn't seem to be connected to anything in the story.
Page: 6
"See you tomorrow. If there is a
tomorrow."
Good line, but Summer's "Yeah, if" kills it. Never follow a strong line with a weak line; the weak line always weakens the strong line.
Page: 7
Again, too much dialog, too much redundancy. Good lines are weakened by throwaway lines. Also, you're beating the whole Maggie's-jargon thing to death. We get it. Some of it's amusing, some less so, but too much of it is boring. Pick out the best zingers and dump the rest. Pare the whole thing down, sharpen it, make it sing.
Page: 8
INT. MAGGIE'S CAR - DAY: Tell us where the car is first, then use a mini-slug to take us into the car, like so:
EXT. PARKING LOT - DAY
Maggie maneuvers the car into a parking space.
IN THE CAR
Mackenzie stares out the window...
Page: 9
Counseling, return investment, difficult age, etc. You seem determined to give Maggie a lot of pointless lines as an excuse to let her deliver more Maggie-jargon humor. It's wearing thin quickly and does nothing to move the story forward. Too much of it is counter-productive.
Page: 10
Maggie in front of the mirror: These little visual touches are much more effective than the paint-by-numbers dialog in showing us who Maggie is.
Page: 11
The dialog goes on and on and on. It's dull, boring, and redundant.
Page: 12
I'm confused. You started with Laura, so I assumed she was the protagonist, but then she disappeared, and now it's all about Maggie. So I guess Maggie is the protagonist. Then who's Laura, why did you start with her, and what's the connection between the two women?
Also, it's page 12, and I don't know what Maggie's goal is. Why am I rooting for her? What is she trying to accomplish?
As regards the communications problem, you need to do a better job of showing that this is an issue for her. On the contrary, there's nothing in the boardroom scene, for example, to indicate that communication is an issue.
Page: 13
Boring chit-chat about nothing. You could delete this whole scene and not miss anything.
As a general rule, avoid having characters tell us what they're going to do and then in the next scene show them doing it. Boring, redundant.
Page: 14
Again, more meaningless chatter. A good exchange will move the story along and reveal character. While some of this does tell us something about the relationship between Alex and Laura, it does nothing to move the story along other than to move us from the airport to her apartment.
Page: 16
It's page 17. By this time, we should have some inkling of what the connection is between Laura and Maggie. The script reads like it's bouncing back and forth between two unrelated stories.
Page: 17
(to WITHDRAWN CLERK): You don't introduce characters in parentheticals.
Page: 18
Store scene: Again, more seemingly pointless conversation. So far, Laura seems to have no function in this story; we just keep breaking from Maggie to Laura so Laura can do more boring ordinary things while having boring ordinary conversations. There's no drama, no conflict, no humor, no anticipation of any of this going anywhere.
Page: 20
Another dialog-heavy scene with nothing intrinsically interesting about it.
Page: 22
Don't have characters tell us what we already know.
Page: 23
So far, the script is dominated by meaningless banter and vaguely humorous throwaway lines. If you threw all this stuff out, I doubt if you'd have two pages of solid, interesting dialog.
What is the story, and where is it? If this is about Maggie and her career and her inability to communicate, then that's where our focus should be, not on trivial asides such as this one.
I don't care about Karina. I don't care about DeLorean, or Cass, or Emerson, or any of these other dullards. I don't know these people, they're irrelevant. I want you to make me care about Maggie and tell me her story, not the boring stories of everybody she knows.
Page: 26
Point of this telephone conversation? I think all of this is known information, isn't it?
Page: 27
Boring dialog. A very little bit of this goes a very long way. Read Client Two's long-winded speech out loud and imagine an audience having to sit through it with nothing to look at except her talking.
Page: 28
Page 28, and Laura and Maggie finally meet. I'm still confused about how their stories connect. After all the buildup and anticipation, there's nothing there.
All this Maggie dialog repeats things we already know or is pointless. The script has far too many scenes like this: Visually DOA, people just talking at one another.
Page: 29
Another pointless scene that does nothing to advance the story.
Page: 30
Some of this stuff about her dates is funny, but it goes on too long. One or two lines per date is more than enough. The genius's monolog is particularly long and dull. The whole montage shouldn't last more than a page at the most.
Page: 35
At the risk of beating a dead horse, here's another flat, static scene of two people sitting and talking. This will be the last such scene I'll comment on, but it's a problem throughout the script.
Page: 38
Don't use parentheticals to show action. This belongs in an action line.
Page: 39
Whatever happened to Maggie's problems at work? The opening scene suggested that this would be at the center of the story, and yet it's been abandoned. Did she get fired or quit? Did I miss something?
Page: 41
These scenes where people keep asking each other about their weekends or what they're going to do the next weekend are dull, dull, dull. All they do is throw obstacles in the way of the reader.
Page: 42
Why am I hearing these people talk about this workshop? If the workshop is so important, shouldn't I be seeing what happened rather than hearing about it second-hand after the fact?
And don't have characters tell us how passionate they are about something; have them show it.
Page: 47
Potentially funny Procrastinators Anonymous scene is dragged down by too much pointless dialog. You have some funny ideas like this one, but you tend to belabor the humor until it's all gone.
Page: 66
The African children line is funny, but it's dead in the water because of all the meaningless chatter that surrounds it.
Page: 73
So Maggie's Dark Night of the Soul is her weak book sales? Not very compelling.
Page: 83
The therapist/whore parallel is interesting but could be summed up in a handful of lines.
Page: 88
Just my personal opinion: I'm kind of disappointed that Mackenzie is no longer Goth. I would have liked to see her become comfortable with who she is rather than become something else.
Final comments: I honestly don't know if you have enough material for a full-length screenplay. I would like to think so because there really are some funny scenes and good lines sprinkled throughout. I think what you need to do is figure out first what your story is, what Maggie's goal is, what her big obstacle is in reaching that goal, who her antagonist is, and what's at stake. Then you need to map out a solid story line and develop a series of well-focused, interconnected scenes that show her progressively working toward that goal in the face of the antagonist and her own flaws. Then get rid of all the irrelevant tangential stuff, including Laura if necessary. read -
A review of Disbandedby Eric Maloney on 04/17/2011Reading this screenplay was like listening to a Beatles sound-alike band play songs cobbled from old Beatles tunes: Not exactly like the originals, yet every line familiar. Every scene reminded me of a scene from one or more zombie-apocalypse movies, the zombies are straight out of the Zombies 'r' Us catalog, and the survivors are for the most part stock characters we've seen... Reading this screenplay was like listening to a Beatles sound-alike band play songs cobbled from old Beatles tunes: Not exactly like the originals, yet every line familiar. Every scene reminded me of a scene from one or more zombie-apocalypse movies, the zombies are straight out of the Zombies 'r' Us catalog, and the survivors are for the most part stock characters we've seen many times before.
None of this is necessarily bad. Most genre films follow tried-and-true formulas yet can still be successful--if they give the genre a twist or develop an interesting and original theme. "Disbanded" does neither.
Beyond the problem with the script's lack of freshness, it also has no protagonist. We're clearly lead to believe in the first few pages that the protagonist is Chuck--yet Chuck then disappears entirely as a relevant character. Even more mystifying is the fact that Chuck easily is the dullest of all your characters, most of whom have well-defined personalities. Why, then, does he dominate the first eight pages? In retrospect, he seems to exist for the sole purpose of telling the audience the back story--a back story that ultimately is unnecessary to begin with. You could actually lop off the first eight pages and eliminate Chuck entirely from the screenplay, and he wouldn't be missed. A character as pointless as Chuck shouldn't even be in a script, let alone be presented as the protagonist; it misleads the audience. Eventually, the story seems to settle on Trip and Mary Lou as the main characters, but it's far too late and comes almost as an afterthought.
Also, the story has very little tension or sense of danger, which is not good in a story in which everyone's life supposedly is at risk all the time. The zombies are like cardboard cutouts of zombies, not all that threatening, easily handled if the survivors stay awake and don't do anything really stupid. The zombies don't become a real threat until late in the screenplay when it suddenly becomes necessary to the story.
There's potential for tension among the characters, but their conflicts are for the most part perfunctory and not well developed.
If you pursue this script, I'd make a couple of suggestions. First, dump Chuck and all the junk in the opening scene. Second, make Trip and Mary Lou your protagonists, and focus on how they have to overcome their prejudices and dislike for one another to survive the apocalypse (which requires making Trip a real person instead of a caricature). This means establishing their characters in the opening scenes and bringing them together as the inciting incident at about page 12. Third, stop making survival so easy for your characters; make the zombies a real threat and not representations of a threat. Fourth, give the survivors a real goal, something beyond reaching a place with a secured perimeter (yawn). And, finally, come up with something different and interesting about the zombies or your post-apocalyptic world.
Last comment: This struck me as more of an I-want-to-write-a-zombie-flick exercise than as an effort to write a fresh, original screenplay that comes from ideas of your own. There's nothing wrong with that; we learn how to write by writing, and we should write about what interests us. But it seems to me that you have the skills to write something much better than this.
The rest of my notes are more or less in page order (I wrote them as I read, so there might be contradictions and redundancies).
Page: 1
These radio broadcasts and Chuck's recordings are on the nose, offer nothing new, and unnecessarily drag the pace of the opening scenes. All this stuff explaining the zombie plague is unoriginal and boring. This opening scene would be much stronger if you cut all this stuff out and, without the dull chatter, just showed the zombies spilling out of the truck, Whatever back story is necessary (and not much of it is) can be worked in, and it can be integrated in a much more visual way. The original NOTLD doesn't offer any explanation at all until past page 30, and only then gives the most sketchy and cursory reason for why the dead are coming back to life.
Page: 2
Why would he ask an anonymous guard to call him Chuck?
Page: 4
All this stuff about what's happening globally is not so important to the main story. The focus should be on the immediate threat to the protagonist. The global nature of the threat is suggested by the security measures, and whatever else is necessary should be SHOWN, not shoveled at the audience in long, static, boring blocks of on-the-nose monologs from a radio broadcaster.
Page: 5
Yeah,, yeah, we get it...world crisis blah, blah, blah.
Page: 6
Lots of punctuation problems. "Sarge, you're a real trip, man." "Son, you have to expand your horizons. You see, too much rap..." It makes the screenplay more difficult to read and is unprofessional.
Page: 8
How does the audience know it's six months later?
Page: 10
More on-the-nose dialog. they're not having a natural conversation, they're delivering information to the audience.
These two are pretty amusing--holding on to what they have in the face of disaster. But it seems as if these guys are cartoonish caricatures who are supposed to be some sort of comic relief, in which case their racism and bigotry needs to be scaled back considerably. The fact that they're bigots could be funny, but the way in which you allow them to express their bigotry is not.
Page: 11
"mixed raced"? Lots of errors like this; sloppy, unprofessional.
Page 12 and, really, very little has gone on in terms of a story. We have a few stock characters, some stock zombies, and several stock scenes in which said stock characters kill said stock zombies in the usual, standard zombie-film ways. And we don't have a protagonist with a goal, and there's no overarching story to speak of.
Page: 19
None of this dialog is necessary. There's no reason why an audience has to watch characters describe what they're about to do and then watch those characters do what they just described; it's redundant and boring.
Page: 25
Page 25 and i have no idea who the protagonist is. i thought it was Chuck, but he's virtually disappeared, and most of the attention has been on the two rednecks.
And these scenarios are all been-there, seen that. Nothing new, nothing interesting, just a series of standard zombie scenes that aren't building toward anything. Where's the twist?
Page: 26
More talk, more on-the-nose dialog, very little in the way of meaningful action.
Again, more of the characters telling us about their situation. It should be obvious that they're out of food and water; a character shouldn't have to say it. No meaningful interaction among the characters. The script has a lot of this kind of meaningless chatter.
Page: 28
Another stock zombie-almost-gets-somebody scene.
Page: 31
I don't see what any of this has to do with the opening scene. What happened to all the stuff about Chuck looking for a cure?
Page: 32
A lot of chatter about nothing. Plans that are dull, perfunctory, ordinary, don't promise the audience anything unusual or interesting or exciting.
Page: 36
Dead gas station owner: Gee, didn't see that coming.
Page: 37
There's a notable lack of urgency in the characters' actions. No real reason is given for anyone to do anything, other than that they should probably go somewhere safer. But the dangers seem to be about equal, and there isn't a compelling reason why they should go one place instead of another. Nor do the threats seem to be particularly threatening. Every once in a while a zombie pops up and somebody kills it, but the zombies are, for the most part, not very threatening and seem to be manageable if the survivors pay attention and don't do something incredibly stupid.
Page: 41
Why are the characters introducing themselves? The audience already knows who everybody is. It's empty, pointless chatter.
Page 41, and we're getting the first sign of tension among the characters. There should be conflict and tension from page 1. We should have the protagonist and antagonist clearly defined and clearly opposed to one another by the middle of the first act.
Page: 42
The "conflict" between Bobby John and Sarge is obvious, simplistic, and ham-handed. And why would they take these two racists along? Why not tell them to take a hike? There's no reason why these two groups should band together.
Page: 45
Again, another round of perfunctory zombie killings.
Page: 56
Ah, the obligatory I-won't-let-you-shoot-my-dead-friend-despite-all-logic scene.
Page: 79
Chuck and Ms. Roads: A good example of a confrontation without a proper setup. If she's going to go off the deep end like this, then the story has to create conflicts among her and the other characters that build to this point. Otherwise, it's just a random act with no context.
read -
A review of The Little Drummer Boyby Eric Maloney on 03/21/2011I'm not quite sure how to approach this screenplay, because I don't know what you're trying to accomplish. It almost seems as if the goal was to write a character study of the most unpleasant protagonist possible. The script basically comprises a series of meandering episodes in the life of a mean, petty, shallow, narcissistic, woman-hating, racist, lying, cheating, thieving... I'm not quite sure how to approach this screenplay, because I don't know what you're trying to accomplish. It almost seems as if the goal was to write a character study of the most unpleasant protagonist possible.
The script basically comprises a series of meandering episodes in the life of a mean, petty, shallow, narcissistic, woman-hating, racist, lying, cheating, thieving drug dealer with no redeeming qualities. You bend over backwards to make him contemptible, and you sidestep every opportunity to give the audience any reason to root for him.
I don't think that a protagonist has to be likeable. But he must have some quality that piques the audience's interest and makes them want to follow his journey, whether it be that the protagonist has a sharp wit or a unique world view or a compelling story. Curtis has none of these; he's just a tedious bore.
Worse, he has no goal, inner or outer, and he has no character arc. He's exactly the same person from beginning to end. There's a brief moment of self-doubt when he makes a token gesture to kill himself, but it comes so abruptly, with nothing leading up to it, and is so out of character that it comes across as perfunctory and fake. Why would he be upset about seeing Christy with Hank when he has nothing but loathing for her and has never shown a single moment of regret about how he lives his life? In fact, he makes several statements in which he salutes his attitudes, lifestyle, and behavior. He doesn't care if he's flawed, and he's not much interested in changing.
The unpleasantness of the story is not helped by the fact that everyone around him is just as unlikeable. With the possible exception of Alfonso, who's little more than a passive observer, there isn't a single character in this screenplay who I cared about or rooted for.
Second problem: The script has no strong backbone of a story. According to the synopsis, "The son of a televangelist is sent into a tailspin when he can't pay back the money he owes to a drug dealer." But this logline is more a statement of two facts than it is a plot. The first third of the screenplay is devoted to a series of scenes intended to show his ugly, dissolute life as Curtis tries unsuccessfully to have sex with a woman who's no more interesting than he is. There's no effort to explore his relationship with his father or the connection between his father and his behavior. Other than for a few token appearances, the father doesn't even show up until page 43, and he's barely a presence after that. The story involving the money doesn't enter the picture until well into the second act, and then the story is as minimal and perfunctory as you could make it: Rich white kid owes money to clichéd, two-dimensional black drug dealer. There's nothing interesting or original about the premise or the characters.
Then Curtis runs from the bad guys and goes to Pennsylvania with Christy, where the screenplay basically repeats the first act--a series of random episodes intended to show how repugnant the protagonist is, just in a new location and with a new set of boring, unpleasant characters. More pissing, jerking off, bad sex, boorish behavior. Then we get a few hurried pages in which the dealer shows up, Curtis hits him with a gun, and runs away. End of story.
So to get back to my opening comments: If your goal was to develop a relentlessly contemptible protagonist, then you've certainly succeeded. But to what end? I suppose there might be some people out there who would want to watch this character for 90 minutes. But then, there are also people who would enjoy watching maggots crawl out of the mouths of dead children. I guess I'm not one of them.
All that said, the screenplay does show off your ability to create a memorable and affecting character. I wanted to take a shower 15 pages into the screenplay, but that's a reaction, and a strong negative reaction is better than no reaction at all. I'd like to see what you could do if you applied your skills to creating characters who audiences might actually care about and want to watch.
The rest of my comments are more or less in page order (I wrote them as I read, so there might be contradictions and redundancies).
Page: 2
LIE out in the sun
Page: 3
I hope the Curtis character improves; right now, I don't see much that's appealing about him
Page: 6
You're already losing me here. There's nothing interesting or funny about him.
Page: 12
So what's Vicky's attraction to him?
It's page 12, and you've given me no reason to care about this guy. In fact, every page has several reasons for me to quit reading. He's ugly, self-centered, rude, a user of people.
Also, I don't get what his goal his. It's obvious what his flaws are, but what are his objectives? They should be clear by now. And we should know how his flaws are keeping him from reaching that goal. And we should empathize enough with him that we want him to overcome those flaws and reach his goal.
Also, I don't see an inciting incident.
Page: 17
I don't need to like a protagonist, as long as there's something interesting or different or compelling bout him, and as long as the story is going in a direction that offers possible redemption. But in this case, we have someone who is really nothing more than an average, predictable narcissist. I really don't see what the point is or why an audience would want to continue to watch this guy's repulsive and abusive behavior.
Page: 18
Even worse, what he reveals about his inner self matches his outer self. Shallow, misogynistic, self-centered.
Page: 19
This is the profile of a sociopath. Nothing more, nothing less. But a boring sociopath. He has one note, one routine that just gets played out repeatedly with different victims with whom he comes in contact.
If Christy's engagement is the inciting incident, it comes about 7 pages too late.
Page: 23
This is relentlessly sordid, sleazy, humorless, and boring.
Page: 24
And there's really nothing about Christy that's particularly interesting, either.
So we have a whole lot of unpleasant people, and no story to speak of, other than the one involving Curtis trying to have sex with a girl.
Page: 25
Given what Christy knows about him, what reason would she have for confiding in him? Am I to believe that she has no friends or family she can get consolation from? He's her only option?
Page: 27
Hard to believe that anyone would have a nice time with this guy.
Christy moves in with him? I don't buy this for a second. It's a convenient and contrived plot device. There's nothing leading up to this that makes it credible.
Page: 30
"and I felt really convicted. " ??
Christy's born-again virgin status could be a good plot twist if the protagonist liked her and her abstinence played into a weakness of his or worked against him in reaching his goal. But he's stated clearly that his only interested in having sex with her, so when she refuses to sleep with him, why does he stay with her?
Beyond that, I don't see any chemistry between Curtis and Christy. I don't see any reason why either would want to be with the other.
And what are the stakes for him? If his only goal is to have sex with this girl, what happens if he succeeds and what happens if he fails? Absolutely nothing of any consequence. It's really all the same to me.
And we're almost a third into the script and I'm still waiting for the story that the synopsis promised. I don't get what any of this business with Christy has to do with Curtis's father the evangelist or Curtis's debt to the drug dealer.
Page: 32
Page 32 and we finally get to the story promised in the synopsis. So what's your A story and what's your B story? If the story about Curtis's debt is the A story as the synopsis states, then this story line should have been introduced in the first 10 pages, and the B story involving his relationship with Christy should start here. Or is the synopsis wrong? Is this about Curtis and his involvement with Christy?
Page: 34
Jones's house, not Jone's house
Jones is another boring cliché.
Page: 38
I still don't know what Curtis's goal is, or why I should care about him. This screenplay reads like a series of unpleasant episodes in the life of an unpleasant and boring rich kid.
Page: 41
The drug-debt story is trite and poorly developed, and it comes far too late, and at this point I really couldn't care less if Curtis pays off the debt or ends up getting killed.
Page: 46
"I know what you’re thinking, 'He’s an asshole.' Well, I am. I won’t deny." It's fine if he's an asshole--cinema is full of protagonists who are assholes--but he's not entertaining, insightful, amusing, or interesting. Even his little escapades are petty and dull.
Page: 48
And this dysfunctional family is one giant cliché.
Page: 50
There's actually a kernel of a story in Curtis's relationship with his father, but it comes so late and is so poorly developed and is buried so deep beneath all the superficial crap that it's impossible to really care about any of it.
Page: 51
As far as Christy goes, anyone who would love Curtis is herself a complete fool.
Page: 53
He gets more repulsive by the minute.
Page: 59
The mother reveals the daughter's past: Another cliché.
Page: 61
I was wondering when the ex-boyfriend was going to show up.
Page: 65
Great, another urination scene. Can't have too many of those.
Page: 70
These scenes in Pennsylvania seem pointless. What do they have to do with the story about the drug money? Or whatever the story is about? They're just a bunch of episodes involving Christy's family in which Curtis further demonstrates his nastiness.
Page: 73
The point of the fainting scenes?
Page: 77
And we can't have too many pointless jack-off scenes, either.
Page: 87
This drug story is a crashing bore. What's here that we haven't seen before? What's different about the scenario (rich kid owes black drug dealer money) or the characters or they way it plays out?
Page: 91
Jones catches up with Curtis, and I don't know why I should care. I certainly don't care about him or Christy or Paula. I don't care who ends up with who or who doesn't end up with who. There's no relationship between Curtis and Christy anyway, so what difference does it make if he has sex with her mother?
Beyond that, though, there's really no reason why Curtis would care enough to chase after Christy. It's inconsistent with his character. He's not shown one iota of empathy with or care for another human being. So it's implausible that he'd care enough about his bad behavior to chase Christy down the street. He doesn't even like her.
Page: 98
"He continues to watch them with growing sadness. " This is counter to everything we know about him. He's not capable of sadness. You've clearly made that point over and over. And nothing has happened to make him suddenly see the light and become a sensitive guy. read -
A review of Oh Mister Geppetto! (OMG)by Eric Maloney on 02/23/2011There's a germ of a very good story here: A couple in the throes of divorce, both of them rarin' to get it over with, both prepared to move on, the i's dotted and the t's crossed, the papers ready for signing, and then, wham! There's the dog going, "Uhhh, what about me?" The fact that the dog is a surrogate for the child they couldn't have gives both protagonists a potent need... There's a germ of a very good story here: A couple in the throes of divorce, both of them rarin' to get it over with, both prepared to move on, the i's dotted and the t's crossed, the papers ready for signing, and then, wham! There's the dog going, "Uhhh, what about me?" The fact that the dog is a surrogate for the child they couldn't have gives both protagonists a potent need to possess the dog. They both claim dibs on the dog, so now they've got a mutual problem. But instead of figuring it out together, they allow their anger and frustration to cloud their judgments, and instead of thinking of the dog, they think of their own selfish needs, to the detriment of the dog. The dog's death at the end was an interesting, unexpected, and effective twist, and it really drives home the point of their folly.
That said, I think you have some work do to before this works as a screenplay.
First, I think you've got a major structural problem. Your synopsis reads, "A once happy couple on the verge of divorce find they can't split until it's decided who gets to keep the dog they both love; and they'll do anything to keep him." I think that's an accurate and pretty decent logline--EXCEPT that we don't get to this story until page 25. Most of the first 25 pages are spent on back story. I think this is a mistake. Much of the back story-- the proposal, the wedding, their inability to conceive, the decay of the marriage etc. etc.--is pretty pedestrian stuff and could be handled easily in one or two scenes, perhaps even as flashbacks or as reveals. Obviously, their inability to have a baby is critical to the story, but that doesn't mean you have to devote nearly a quarter of the screenplay to the subject and to the decline of the marriage. The screenplay is supposed to be about the divorce, not about everything leading up to it.
Also, the screenplay is supposed to be about the dog, and the dog is practically an afterthought through much of the first 25 pages.
And this is supposed to be a comedy, and there is precious little to laugh at as we watch your protagonists' marriage fall apart while they desperately try to conceive. Ha, ha, ha.
I'd strongly suggest that you consider trashing all of the back story and focusing on the present. Start with a brief scene (3 pages at most) of the happy newlyweds and their happy new puppy (maybe even make the puppy a wedding present) and all of their plans for a happy family and a happy life. Then jump to the present and the divorce, the acrimony, the recriminations, the guilt, etc. etc. Show them arguing over the dog, establish the importance of the dog to them (the one constant in a rocky marriage and the surrogate for the baby they couldn't have). Then make the inciting incident the realization that they haven't decided who gets the dog.
Also, you need to spend more time in the opening pages fleshing out your protagonists. They're not terribly interesting at the moment; I didn't really connect with them either separately or as a couple, and, frankly, didn't much care whether they divorced or got back together.
My second major issue is with the second act. What you've got here are a bunch of two-dimensional characters (with then notable exception of Figaro) who go through an endless series of boring schemes to steal the dog that are all essentially the same: Somebody distracts the person who has the dog while somebody else snatches the dog. This basic scenario gets played out over and over without much variation, and none of the schemes is particularly interesting or clever.
You need to come up with better, more interesting, more original schemes to gain possession of the dog.
Theses schemes have to become increasingly elaborate, building one upon the other, until your two protagonists are completely obsessed with out-maneuvering and outsmarting the other person.
The schemes should be conceived by the protagonists, not by their friends and lawyers. The protagonists are the ones who should be proactive and push the story forward.
The schemes MUST put the protagonists in continual, direct, head-to-head conflict and NOT be executed by proxy through friends and lawyers.
Dump all the scenes in which somebody describes in detail what the next plan is. They 1) are dull and 2) kill any sense of anticipation the audience might have about what's going to happen. (Also, the animation feels like a gimmick; it doesn't connect organically to the story or the characters.)
The rest of my comments are more or less in page order (I wrote them as I read, so there might be contradictions and redundancies.
Page: 2
lays--lies
Page: 3
"Will staggers..." Don't get this. Why is he staggering?
lays--lies
master's--masters, plural not possessive
Lots of errors like these throughout that should be cleaned up.
Which ball park?
"World Series baby"--I don't get this reference.
How do we know it's game 6?
Page: 5
I find it hard to believe that MLB or the clubs would allow this sort of stunt during a World Series game (this proposal-at-the-ballpark scenario isn't exactly original, anyway).
Page: 7
The dialog here is pretty pedestrian.
Page: 8
The dog handler isn't plausible for a real dog pound.
This is really a montage, not a series of shots.
Page: 10
A long barrage of jokes about killing dogs is not funny.
This pound scene is pretty long for the little we get out of it. There's nothing particularly interesting or revelatory that happens; they look at a bunch of dogs and pick one. Also, what does this have to do with the wedding proposal? The two should be connected in some way. This combined with the PETA scene isn't a very strong way to kick this off; it seems to me that you could find a more interesting and clever way for them to end up with a dog.
Page: 11
"The eternal bachelor who finally finished law school." This can't be filmed and doesn't belong in an action line. If it's important that he finally finished law school, then it needs to be shown or spoken.
Page: 12
Some of Figaro's lines are pretty funny--and, honestly, the first funny stuff in the script. You've got this script categorized as a comedy, but a comedy should have a strong laugh on every page, and this doesn't come close. At this stage, it's a drama with comedic elements.
I don't understand the mechanics of a dog carrying a pillow in such a way that two rings balance on top. Is the pillow taped to his head?
"Cindy knows what she wants and how to get it, not to mention she finished law school on time." Again, this stuff can't be filmed. It looks unprofessional.
"little but thinks he’s big" Again, unfilmable.
Page: 13
"on dog duty for what seems to be most of the night." How do you intend to show this?
I guess Figaro gets all the funny lines in this script. I wouldn't mind seeing a few laughs doled out elsewhere.
Page: 14
I still don't know what the story is about or what the protagonists' goals are. All I know is that they just got married, they have a dog, and eventually they'll break up. So what's here to keep me interested? Why should
I care about what happens between here and the scene were they fight over the dog?
I also don't get how the dog ties into this, other than to just run around being a cute prop. You might want to check out some movies in which the dog plays an important role and see how they're integrated into the story line. Your dog is little more than an accessory to this point.
Page: 15
OK, so I guess the conflict will be over the sex of the baby? Not sure how this will play out, as the sex will be whatever it is. Not like they have a choice.
Page: 16
"OBGYN looks and sounds like she’s fresh out of a Bond film." Meaning what? Don't make your reader have to work to figure out what someone's supposed to look or be like.
If Meredith is going to be a significant character, she probably should be introduced earlier.
Page: 17
"I never thought his gun was loaded. " Odd line. Why would she think this? Is she an ex-lover of his?
There's also an awful lot of redundancy here; we keep going over the same territory without anything new being added.
Page: 18
I have to say, too, that Brianna and Will are both pretty bland. They don't have much in the way of distinctive personalities. You gave all the character to Figaro.
Page: 19
"Considering she’s been on the pill all her life, she has to be off of
it for a while before we can tell if that’s the problem." Again, you keep repeating material that the audience already knows.
Page: 20
This idea of adoption should come from Will or Brianna, and it should be a source of conflict.
Page: 21
First, it's good that you're trying to integrate the dog into the story line, because, to this point, the dog hasn't been much more than decoration. However, the notion that getting rid of the dog will improve their chances of adopting is a real head-scratcher. Since when does owning a dog disqualify someone from adopting? And since when would an adoption agency say it was OK for two absent parents to adopt if they got rid of their pet? And what does "one parent
accustomed to life at home" mean? This whole speech by the adoption officer comes across as implausible.
Page: 22
Isn't the issue of work something they would have talked about years before this?
Page: 23
What cockpit? Is Will a pilot? Shouldn't we know this earlier?
Page: 24
Conflict is good, but only when it's focused. This is mishmash of issues this couple has that just arise out of nowhere a quarter of the way through the script without anything leading up to them.
Did we find out why she can't get pregnant?
Page: 25
Everything between the opening scene with the dog and this scene has been boring back story. They synopsis says, "A once happy couple on the verge of divorce find they can't split until it's decided who gets to keep the dog they both love; and they'll do anything to keep him." And yet most of the first 25 pages have been about the back story.
Page: 26
We already saw this scene at the beginning of the script; I don't understand why we're sitting through it a second time.
Page: 27
The lawyer doesn't get to decide when the final court hearing is.
Page: 31
To this point, you really haven't shown the dog to be important to either of them. You need to show the audience just how important the dog is, not simply have a character say on page 30, "I need Geppetto." Nothing Brianna has done to this point shows us that she "needs" Geppetto.
Page: 33
I don't get why this is animated. It might be cute in and of itself, but it doesn't connect to anything in the story.
Page: 36
Will doesn't do a whole lot of flying for someone who's supposedly a pilot.
Page: 39
Your secondary characters shouldn't be the ones coming up with all the ideas? This is supposed to be about your protagonists and the dog, not about the lawyers and friends.
Page: 43
This second attempt to take the dog is almost the same as the first. These should be unique, fresh, and they should built one upon another, and they should involve conflict between the protagonists.
But the larger problem here is that I really don't care enough about the protagonists to want to see them back together again. Together, not together, which one gets the dog...it's really all the same to me. And it shouldn't
be. The audience should be rooting for the dog to show these two that they belong together.
Page: 47
Again, Figaro is playing a more active role in this story than the protagonist.
And the plan is just too much like the previous plans, and it's not clever enough or fun enough.
Page: 51
The reasons behind their divorce are pretty muddy.
Page: 52
We shouldn't be hearing this through dialog halfway through the story. These moments should be shown.
Much better to show these than the cartoons showing Figaro's silly plans to kidnap the dog.
Page: 55
Geppetto protecting the apartment is a good visual moment. The script needs more of these.
Page: 56
I don't quite get why she hasn't reacted to the mess and Figaro's presence. Wouldn't she have put 2 and 2 together by now and gone ballistic?
Too much dialog for Brianna. Show us how she feels, don't have her tell us in a long, boring monolog.
Page: 57
We're past the halfway mark, and the only person trying to steal the dog is Will. But the synopsis says "They" will do anything to keep him. Brianna has been very passive.
I really expected a lot of fun and games between Will and Brianna as they try to pry the dog loose from the other person's clutches. "The Breakup" meets "War of the Roses." Instead, I get Figaro coming up with a lot of silly plans that Will goes along with like a sheep while Brianna just sits around doing nothing.
Page: 58
Why video chat? It's passive and boring. They should be together in person, doing something, even if it's just helping her clean up the apartment or consoling her over beers.
Page: 59
What's the italic for?
Page: 60
Cindy is not convincing. Brianna going along with Cindy here does nothing except make her look stupid. If Brianna is going to take the dog, then it should be something incited by some kind of interaction between Brianna and Will. Again, you've got secondary characters inciting action when that's the role of the protagonists.
Page: 62
These the-way-we-were flashbacks are clichéd sentimentality. They're a weak substitute for the dog forcing these two to face each other, work their problems out in the present, and see each other for who they are, not for who they were.
Page: 68
"hose gonna do it, though?" ??
Page: 69
shoo-in
Page: 72
This scene would work better if it actually was plausible that Figaro might let this woman into his apartment. She should have a good reason, like she's a present from a client.
Page: 79
This is pretty boring and inconsequential conversation. We've pretty much heard all this multiple times.
Page: 83
This restaurant conversation goes on and on and on. At 6+ pages, it's at least twice as long as is should be, especially considering that it's at a point in the screenplay where you're supposed to be ramping up the tension, not bringing it to a halt with static scenes of people sitting around a table talking. It should be cut by at least half and placed in a more dynamic setting (or settings).
Page: 86
I have to say that, at this point, I haven't seen a whole lot in the story that leads me to believe that there's a chemistry between these two. You try to establish this chemistry almost exclusively through flashbacks that show how happy they were in the past, but I want to see chemistry in the present that leads me to believe in a future, and I just don't.
Page: 90
She's right: It's separation anxiety. The story really hasn't given any reason why they should be together or why they're right for each other. Most of what we've seen are them with their friends and lawyers and their friends and lawyers in silly schemes to get the dog. And these schemes haven't led to anything that would make me believe that this is a couple that was meant to be together.
Page: 93
This is an interesting twist but having the dog die it's not really in keeping with a comedy.
Page: 98
"I should’ve been a better!" ??
Page: 100
And this also is a good twist, and necessary to take the string out of the death. However, it's a mistake to suggest that a puppy somehow will erase all of the hurt that came from their inability to have their own child. This hasn't gone away.
read -
A review of The Lovely Open Roadby Eric Maloney on 02/19/2011You seem to have a knack for creating well defined characters quickly and easily. Kirsten, Candice, and Mary are all nicely shaped and easy to visualize. I like Candice a lot; she's the perfect sidekick and brings energy to the story. The script is pretty easy to read, if perhaps 10 pages too long and with a few too many typos and spelling errors. The premise has potential,... You seem to have a knack for creating well defined characters quickly and easily. Kirsten, Candice, and Mary are all nicely shaped and easy to visualize. I like Candice a lot; she's the perfect sidekick and brings energy to the story. The script is pretty easy to read, if perhaps 10 pages too long and with a few too many typos and spelling errors. The premise has potential, and the story has a lot of heart. But your protagonist and the story both need a lot of work.
First and most importantly, you never define a clear goal for your protagonist. We know that she's an aspiring actress who apparently attains success when she gets a part in a successful revival of "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof." Then she learns that she has a tumor and, out of nowhere and for no apparent reason, announces that she wants to finish college. So she returns to college for her last semester and, again out of nowhere, decides to finish writing a play that she and Mary started years before. Then, toward the end, she says, "all I really wanted was for us to be together for this last part of my life." So which is it? Finishing college? Writing a play? Being with her friends?
I think you need to pick a clearly defined objective for your protagonist and articulate that objective in the first 10 to 12 pages. You also need to have clearly defined the flaw that prevents the protagonist from reaching that goal and suggest the stakes. What will she gain from reaching her goal, and what will she lose if she fails? None of this is expressed in the opening scenes, and it's a major flaw in the script.
Also, I'm not clear on why she decides to return to school for one semester. It strikes me as a peculiar and unlikely desire given that she just learned she has a terminal illness. There's nothing before she learns of her illness to suggest why going back to school is so important. What unfulfilled desire or unmet goal does returning to school address? There is a bathroom scene in which the girls plan to go to Europe and then college together, but this comes across as the silly whimsy of three girls who then go grow up and live what appear to be satisfying and successful lives. At no point between graduation and Kirsten learning of her illness do we ever get the sense that these women are unhappy or unfulfilled as a consequence of not having gone to college together. In fact, exactly the opposite is true. Kirsten even states, "I'm glad I made the choices I've made," and her success in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" confirms that she made the right choices. She does say on page 33 that her only regret leaving school to take the soap, but this off-handed comment hardly suggests a life-long and nagging discontent.
The synopsis and several lines in the story suggest that Kirsten's illness prompts the women to fulfill the pact they made on graduation day and to school together. Maybe this is what you intended, but it's not what happens in the screenplay. Kirsten announces to the other two women on page 33 that she has decided to finish school. She presents this to them as a fait accompli. She doesn't ask them to go with her or remind them of their high school pledge. She states flatly, "I'm going back to school," period, end of story. Candice then announces that she's going to go back with Kirsten. So it is not Kirsten's plan to go back with Candice and Mary; Candice and Mary decide on their own to go back with Kirsten.
So we return to the central question: What earthly reason does Kirsten have to want to return to college in the face of her impending death? It makes no sense and is a major flaw in the story.
If returning to school to get her degree is her goal, then this needs to be stated in the first 10 or so pages, and we need a plausible reason why she would do this despite being terminally ill.
If going to college with her two friends is her goal, then she needs to present this to Candice and Mary after she learns of her illness, and she needs to articulate why this is important in light of the fact that all three women seem to be happy with the paths they chose and the way their lives turned out.
Personally, I think this second path is a dead end in light of Kirsten's illness. If you want to write a light-hearted distaff version of "Back to School" or "Old School," that's fine, but then I think you need to come up with a lighter premise to match the comedy. You also need to give the women plausible reasons for returning to school; for example, they're unhappy with the directions their lives took after graduation, and they think they can solve their problems if they retrace their steps back to that day in the bathroom and follow through on their pledge to go to college together.
If you want to stick with the terminal-illness angle, that's fine, too, but then you need to come up with a seriously strong reason why Kirsten would want to spend her last days on earth at the old alma mater. For example, what she really wanted to do was not act but write plays, and she decides that the only way to do that is to takes a screenwriting workshop with a celebrated playwright who teaches at her old school, and now she races against the clock to finish the play before she dies, despite a variety of awful obstacles that are thrown in her path. Or something like that.
My other major criticism of this screenplay is its lack of tension and conflict. The script studiously avoids putting the protagonist through any sort of stress or pain. Everything comes too easily to her. She has no antagonist (a HUGE deficiency), very little resistance, and very little inner turmoil. What we get through much of the second act is a string of sometimes amusing but innocuous episodes of three 30-something women doing silly things on a college campus. There's nothing inherently wrong with these scenes by themselves, but how do they relate to the main story and to Kirstin's struggle to deal with her illness? Not until past page 100 do we get any conflict among the three women, which is much too late.
My last general criticism is that the dialog is loaded with redundancy and innocuous patter. Dialog should either reveal character, explore relationships among characters, or move the story forward. It should not be full of perfunctory chitchat, be used by characters to tell stories about their past that don't matter, or repeat information that the audience already knows.
The rest of my comments are more or less in page order (I wrote them as I read, so there might be contradictions and redundancies.
Page 1
"We hear a male's voice. A commencement speech echoes." Are these two separate voices? Not clear. And how do we know it's the principal?
Also, this is a V.O., not an O.S.
The proper format for this is:
EXT. EAGLE POINT HIGH SCHOOL - DAY
Description of the general setting.
MALE VOICE (V.O.)
... And as you etc. etc.
"by far the most glamorous " And we know this how? The cigar is a great touch, but this needs more description.
Keep your action paragraphs to four or fewer lines.
"Dons" means the actual act of putting something on; it is not a synonym for "wears."
Page 2
"look"--What are the quotation marks for?
Page 3
"Here, hold this." This scene might play better if Candice says nothing--just hands her the cigar, flushes, takes the cigar back, and exits.
Page 4
You're confusing O.S. an V.O. This is a V.O.
Page 5
"Watch where the FUCK you're going." This is a good line, but the "Gotta love New York" line diffuses it. Try to close a scene with a strong line, not a strong line followed by a line that is basically an aside to the audience that says, "wasn't that a good line?"
These inserts are not necessary and interrupt the flow of the scene.
Page 6
It's "theater" unless you live in England or it's a proper noun.
"Oh great, I'm a little late." She's obviously late. No need for her to say it. And then he goes ahead and says it again.
KIRSTEN
I'm here to read for the part of Vanessa.
THEATER MAN
You're a little past late, honey.
Are "uniformed officer" and Seth two different people? If not, then Seth should be named, introduced, and described at first mention, not second.
Get rid of the voiceover unless you intend to use it throughout the screenplay.
Page 8
You're really on the mark with Candice; she's got a lot of personality and is very visual. I'm less enthusiastic about the other two, who are clearly defined but aren't as interesting or original.
Page 9
"the finger"--Another set of mystifying quotation marks.
"FOR SALE, CONTACT PHILLIP AND CANDICE COFFMAN, AGENT/BROKER"--This needs quotation marks.
"She begins twisting the pen-tip through Phillip's eyes" Nice touch.
Page 10
So far, you've got one strong character and two serviceable characters, but it's still not clear who your protagonist is--Candice or Kirsten--and I don't know what the story is, and I don't know what the goal or problem of the protagonist is. I should know that by now.
Page 12
Nicely written scene, but I wonder about its purpose.
Page 17
"but I already have a mom."--And she already made the mom joke once.
This is an awful lot of idle chitchat without much of a payoff. Two or three lines told us all we needed to know about this relationship; the rest is just empty and redundant.
Page 19
Stuart is a gay cliché. Boring, and far too much of his dialog.
Page 21
To this point, you've done a nice job of painting these characters and distinguishing them from each other, but I still don't know what the backbone of the story is. Is it about Kirsten getting an acting job? Something about some Thanksgiving dinner? So far, it's not much more than three character profiles more or less intertwined.
And what's the theme?
Page 28
Wouldn't this moment be more dramatic if it happened at the first show? On the verge of her big break, and it all falls apart?
Page 31
So...Kirsten's goal is to become a Broadway star, and the tumor is her obstacle?
Generally speaking, the protagonist's obstacle, or weakness, or flaw, should be clear by the end of the intro, page 12 or so.
The obstacle isn't necessarily the disease, but the way she handles it.
So, we need something in the first 10 pages that lets us know here: Kirsten is going to have a tough time overcoming this because. ...
Otherwise, all you've got is a soap opera melodrama.
Page 33
"Anyway, I've brought you here to tell you I'm going back to school, to finish my last semester." Huh? This comes out of nowhere. Why on earth would someone who has a terminal illness want to go back to school, for no apparent or compelling reason? We haven't gotten any indication to this point that not completing school was a gaping hole in her life. Yes, the three made a pledge to go to the same school, but this is represented as a childhood fantasy is not something that you then represent as being a major issue in their adult lives. You do not establish that Kirsten regrets not having done this. On the contrary, you've portrayed her as being supremely happy with the way her life has
gone (up to the tumor, of course). In fact, she even says she has no regrets about the choices she's made. So this sounds false and contrived.
If you want this to be plausible, then this should be established as her goal, one that was derailed for various reasons (career, money, stupid decisions regarding men, whatever). Her theater career, while perhaps enjoyable, isn't enough to completely satisfy her; what she misses in her life is the fact that she never finished school.
And Candice's response is just as unrealistic. Again, you have failed to establish that the women's failure to go to college together represents a huge hole in their lives. On the contrary, they all seem pretty damned happy with where they are.
The premise simply doesn't work if the story doesn't establish that all three of these women have big holes in their lives as a consequence of not going to college together.
Page 34
What an abrupt and implausible transition! In a mater of a couple of pages, she goes from big star to terminally ill to traipsing around on a college campus. It feels contrived. And also you haven't suggested an end game. What's Kirsten's reason for doing this? Why, Why, why? It's not to fulfill the girls' pledge in the bathroom. She doesn't say, I want us to fulfill our oath and go to college. She simply announces she's going to college, for no apparent reason. Candice volunteers to come along. So what's Kirsten's reason for doing this?
Page 35
Why would they be in a dorm? Kirsten is a senior. Most seniors are off campus by now. She's completed 3-1/2 years of college, so she presumably has had the dorm experience. There's nothing to indicate that she feels a need to live on campus. If she does, then why? What's the reason? The unexplained and implausible moments are beginning to pile one on top of another here, and it all feels extremely contrived and artificial.
"I know you wanted to really be part of the whole college experience again"--which is a lot more than I know.
Page 36
"lot's"--lots
Page 37
Kirsten enrolling in a drama class strikes me as an enormously stupid waste of her time. She's a successful professional actress, and she she's going to spend her last days in a drama class? What's the point? Wouldn't she go back to college to fulfill some unfulfilled dream? Why go back to do what you've already been successful in doing? It wouldn't make sense even if she wasn't dying.
Page 45
The pool scene is cute, but what's the point of it? How does it move the story forward?
Page 50
"You don't loose a talent like that." Sounds good but is dead wrong. Talent is lost if it's not cultivated.
Lose, not loose.
Bryce--Kind of late to be introducing major characters.
And there's nothing in the story to presage a love interest; you haven't established that this is important to Kirsten or something that she finds missing in her life. I think a relationship has potential in upping the drama, but this feels a bit perfunctory and stuck on.
Page 53
"joint to Mary"--??
"The four girl away" ??
Page 55
closterphobic--is this deliberate?
Page 58
BRYCE
Hey, it's you.
KIRSTEN
And it's you.
BRYCE
Funny seeing you here. This must be
your favorite coffee shop?
KIRSTEN
It's quiet. I look for that in a
coffee house.
The script has a lot of this type of empty, pointless chitchat. It does nothing to reveal character or advance the story.
"I do... well, I really don't but it's a great place to get a cup of coffee..." And more of it here. This is deadly dull stuff. Why should the audience care how long Bryce has been going to this place or what he used to do there? What does this have to do with Kirsten and her story? All we get out of the scene is that Kirsten and Bryce ran into each other again. The dialog is boring and meaningless.
Page 59
We're past the halfway mark and I still don't really know what the theme is or where the story is headed. We've got a string of sometimes cute, sometimes boring episodes that don't seem to be building toward anything. And Kirsten: We got a couple of pages devoted to telling us that she's terminally ill and since then, nothing. Not a clue as to what's going on inside her, or why she's doing this, or what her end game is.
AND
you have no antagonist, no one pushing against her, no obstacles in her way, just a meandering series of unremarkable experiences on a college campus, experiences that anyone could have.
Page 61
"As long as we don't loose sight of what we're here for." Interesting statement, given that I have no idea what they're here for.
This play could be an interesting part of the story--Kirsten must complete it before she dies--but it's a squandered opportunity. It's just something she's doing; it doesn't seem to have any larger meaning than that.
Now, if this play was what she had to finish, and she went back to school because she wanted to learn from the one man she thinks could help her complete it, and the story focused on her efforts to do this before she dies, and you had obstacles and an antagonist thwarting her every step of the way, you might have something.
Page 62
Again, more empty chitchat.
Page 63
Kirsten doing great: I'm not sure about this good news. It seems to me that the we should be feeling a sense of urgency that Kirsten's life is coming to and end and she hasn't finished what she set out to do, not sunny news that undermines any tension and drama that the story might be building.
Page 64
Kirsten and Bryce: more boring, static dialog between these two. They're talking at each other, not interacting in a meaningful way. Dialog in which people just tell each other about things they did is dry, boring, and not a substitute for real communication.
Page 66
"I really can't get involved with anyone anyway." This could be a strong element of this story if we saw it play out in the way she interacts with Bryce, but it has virtually no impact as a statement dropped into a conversation.
laying--lying
Page 67
It seems that as we get to the stage in the story where things should be getting more difficult for Kirsten, and she should be struggling to reach her goal, everything is getting easier: good news from the doctor, a fantasy mansion, a potential boyfriend, good things happening in her class, her play apparently going well. Her life should be getting tougher, not easier.
Page 68
Tanks have turrets. People with the syndrome have Tourette's.
Page 70
Purpose of this scene in which they talk about kissing boys?
What's Bryce's function, other than to be a token love interest?
Page 73
"Maybe you're all on your own personal journeys, and at the right time"--Except that they're not on personal journeys that I can see. simply saying the your characters are on journeys and have character arcs doesn't make it so. We have to see it, and we've seen very little change in any of the characters. Especially Kirsten. What s she learning? How is she growing and changing? We have to see it to believe it.
Big issue with Bryce: Why hasn't Kirsten told him about her tumor, and why haven't we seen her wrestling with the question of whether or not to tell him, or how to tell him? Or wrestling with her feelings toward Bryce vis a vis the fact that she's dying? Another missed opportunity.
Page 74
Again, more meaningless banter from Bryce. This guy hasn't said two interesting lines; he's as boring as a piece of Wonder Bread. I don't give a shit about whether his records belonged to his parents or why he collects them; it has nothing to do with anything, and his thoughts on the subjects are not in any way interesting or thought-provoking.
Second reference to "Catcher in the Rye." How does this book relate to your characters and the theme?
Page 75
I have to say that Candice has lost some of her sizzle; she's sort of become a warmed over Reese Witherspoon in "Legally Blonde."
"resembles the Love Boat bartender. " I have no clue what the Love Boat bartender looks like.
Page 78
pinot--Pinot
Page 79
"No, I upper-decked them a month ago at their frat house." Funniest line so far.
mummer--murmur?
slates--slats
Page 81
Rather long monolog by Kinmeyer. The point being what?
Page 84
The nerd girls are a cute little sub-story.
Page 85
There aren't too many things more boring in a screenplay than people talking about people in their past who we never met and don't care about.
Page 86
"Well, actually it's about a neighborhood bar..." I've looked forward to finding out what "Last Call" is about, and now I see that it has nothing to do with the main story or Kirsten's illness or the story's theme. Big disappointment and a lost opportunity.
Page 91
Here we have Kirsten simply giving the audience an account of what it's already seen for
itself. Boring, boring, boring.
Someone getting a masters in lit would probably know that it's "you and me," not "you and I."
Page 93
Very unsatisfying revelation here. There should have been a buildup to this moment, a ramp-up of tension between Kirsten and Bryce that takes place over a period of time.
Page 94
"You're the most amazing person I've ever met." Predictable, clichéd. Would have been more interesting if he'd been pissed off that she hadn't told him earlier. Again, everything comes too easily to Kirsten; you really don't want to make her suffer or feel pain or discomfort, which makes for a pretty boring person. Audiences want to see their protagonists struggle to overcome their obstacles and fight to reach their goals.
Page 95
Kitchen scene: More boring chatter where we learn more boring stuff about boring things Bryce did in his past. Get rid of all this stuff and focus on the present, on Kirsten, on Bryce's and Kirsten's relationships.
Page 96
I don't get what this play or Prohibition has to do with the main story. Another missed opportunity.
Page 97
This little mystery involving Mary has gotten played out over and over in almost exactly the same way, and it's gotten pretty tiresome.
Page 98 Author: Eric Subject: Note Date: 2011-02-19 12:31:39-05
ketel--Ketel
Page 102
It took 100 pages before we got any sort of conflict among the characters.
Every scene in the screenplay should have some sort of conflict.
Page 104
The old the-protagonist-is-too-stupid-to-ask-before-jumping-to-conclusions cliché. I'm going to bet my lunch that this woman turns out to be his sister or some such person.
Page 106
"For weeks I kept bumping into things. And then once I could focus again, I
was so angry..." We should see all of this played out through the course of the screenplay, not have it dumped on us in a dry monolog on page 106.
"And all I really wanted was for us to be together for this last part of my life." This simply isn't true. She didn't state this as an objective when she announced that she was going back to school. She never mentioned a word about wanting to do it with her friends. It was Candice who took the initiative and suggested they do it together.
Page 115
"And that there were three of us; three friends, three sisters, willing to whatever it took." Shouldn't these be Kirsten's lines? Shouldn't we be hearing her last words, not Candice's? read -
A review of Sugar Mamaby Eric Maloney on 01/03/2011This is an easily digestible, occasionally funny comedy with a few good lines and a basic premise--a guy looking for a rich woman--that could be workable with the right story and characters. But on the whole, the script feels very much like a work in progress; the protagonist is weak, and I didn't find the story to be very interesting or satisfying. Jack has several significant... This is an easily digestible, occasionally funny comedy with a few good lines and a basic premise--a guy looking for a rich woman--that could be workable with the right story and characters. But on the whole, the script feels very much like a work in progress; the protagonist is weak, and I didn't find the story to be very interesting or satisfying.
Jack has several significant problems. First and foremost, I don't understand what his long-term objective is. What goal does he have that I, the viewer, want him to reach? He gets a weird, spur-of-the-moment urge to date rich women as a result of getting dumped by Sara. That's not a goal; that's just a whim. What larger purpose does this sudden impulse serve? To have a stable relationship? Marriage? A family? It feels like a knee-jerk response to rejection that's more a continuation of his sulking and depression than a newfound determination to move forward with his life.
Aside from what he wants, I'm really not clear on what he needs, either. He presumably decides to date rich women because he has a need that he must full. Which is what? All I see is a guy who jumps into bed with the first rich woman who will have him, after which they have a shallow, not-too-interesting relationship that doesn't seem to be based on anything of substance or value.
Also, I don't see how dating rich women naturally flows from his rejection by Sara. She says she wants the finer things in life, and his reaction is to date rich women? What's the connection there? Why doesn't he find a woman who isn't after money? Furthermore, what on earth would lead him to believe that rich women would be attracted to him? There's nothing in the first 10 pages to indicate that he has anything special that would attract rich, single women.
Overall, Jack comes across to me as shallow, self-centered, self-pitying, and not terribly bright. You give him a few "save the cat" moments to try to make him a more sympathetic character, but I think these are feeble gestures that don't counterbalance his narcissism or the bad way he treats people (for example, the parents) or his disgraceful abandonment of his responsibilities as a teacher and of the kids themselves.
Two other significant problems with the protagonist. First, he never faces any serious obstacles. Everything comes too easily. Second, there's never really any risk to what he's going, nothing that he stands to lose if he fails. What are the stakes? If he ends up without Dominique and without Tanya, then, really, he's just at the same place he started. Where's the all-or-nothing moment where he decides to risk his life in order to reach his goal?
Also, too many events in the script happen randomly, for no particular reason, and without any connection to the previous scenes or events. The protagonist's major decisions come out of nowhere, without proper setup or catalytic events. He sees something and it compels him to make a major decision or take a major action. This isn't how screenplays should work. Actions and decisions are the product of a series of actions and decisions that logically build on one another.
Comedy is subjective so I'm not going to spend too much time analyzing and dissecting the humor. In general, I think you display a good sense of humor, and I got some good laughs from the better lines. But much of the comedy is undisciplined. The screenplay often goes for the cheapest, easiest laugh, and the characters' gags often feel predictable and clichéd (particularly in the cases of Kevin and Lou, who pretty much sing the same notes over and over and over). The good lines often are padded with lots of extraneous and unfunny banter. If you write a good gag, then let it shine by itself; don't belabor it by adding another two or three mediocre lines.
The rest of my comments are more or less in page order (I wrote them as I read, so there might be contradictions and redundancies).
1--Can't say the dildo routine didn't do much for me.
4--" Well, at least get some good shit. And eat something first." This made me laugh.
7--When you have a love interest like Sara who's so shallow and unpleasant, it really reflects poorly on your protagonist. First impressions are important, and the first impression here is that he must be a real nitwit to want to spend the rest of his life with her. I should be feeling sympathy for him; instead I'm feeling like he's kind of a pathetic loser. Scenes like this work better if the woman actually is someone the audience likes. She can be likeable and still be someone who can't be with him because he's just a teacher.
8--All this, him holed up and drinking and the mess, is clichéd and kind of lazy.
9--And Kevin, the wise-cracking best buddy who thinks Jack should just go out and get laid, is also a cliché. The banter between the two of them here is pretty uninspired.
10--Sorry, but at this point I'm just not invested in the protagonist's sorrows; it doesn't look to me like he lost much when Sara walked out, I don't get his pain, I don't really care much one way or another where this goes from here.
11--And Jack dumping all his garbage on a little kid doesn't make me sympathize with him any more. He's a self-pitying loser.
13--Pop's OK, but, again, nothing new. And the banter is uninspired. A few good lines that are buried.
14--"That’s just it, he’s not. This guy is a clown at kids parties. How lame is that?" It seems to me that this would be a lot funnier if we actually saw this rather than had it described to us.
The other problem with this scene is that this encounter is such a random event. You could easily come up with a plot twist that put the protagonist and the clown in the same location through their mutual connection to kids, then showed the rich woman walking off with the clown. No words necessary, and much funnier than Jack saying, "This guy is a clown at kids parties."
"...that’s when it hit me, from now on, I’m only gonna date rich chicks!" Very weak, passive, and uninspiring way to get us to this point. The audience should feel the protagonist's "Eureka!" moment along with him, not just have it explained to them. Or, to put it anther way, Jack's solution to his problem should be so clear that we should know what it is without him having to tell us what it is.
These last several pages have had a lot of unnecessary dialog replacing several missed opportunities for good, strong visual scenes.
15--More unnecessary and dull chitchat. I don't want to hear somebody ask him if he's got a plan and him say he doesn't and then him ask his buddy to be a wingman and then the buddy refuse etc. etc. Skip all this and get on with the story.
17--Too easy. He asks for help, gets it, no problems, no conflict, nothing. Flat.
20--I don't get why these rich women need this web site to find men. It makes no sense. Nor does it make sense that this web site would have no screening process or that, lacking a screening process, these rich women would just go out with anybody.
22--OK, this twist with the drugs has some small potential as an unexpected reversal, but it still begs my previous questions and raises a few more, like what woman in her right mind would ask a total stranger she met through an anonymous web site to mule drugs, and, even more important, why somebody who's rich would need to.
23--Another random meeting.
Also, you spent the first 25 pages showing us what a loser the protagonist is when it comes to women, and here he is getting approached by a woman out of the blue.
23--Trafficker
25--Do we get an explanation of why she picked him up and took him home? There's nothing about him that's very interesting or attractive. Again, things just come too easily to your protagonist.
34--The SP still hasn't given any explanation for why Dominique is with Jack, or why Jack landed her so easily.
40--TEDDY: Jerkoff pizza!
Doesn't even make sense. Why would he say this?
44--"But you seem to enjoy things I’ve already touched." Some of Night Train's lines are pretty funny.
46-47--The Lou-the-ordinary-guy-busting-Jack's-balls routine is getting old; same exchange repeated with different dialog.
49--"Thanks but most guys see I have a kid and they’re gone." A cliché and not even remotely accurate. An attractive woman with a kid will have no problem finding a man (and one a lot more interesting than Jack).
53--Dad's a sack of clichés. And so's the check, and the ripped up check. Seen all this before. And the torn up check is meaningless because Jack doesn't need the money.
59--His treatment of the parents comes out of the blue; I don't get why he acts this way. There's nothing building up to it, no explanation, no reason. The scene doesn't do anything except make him look even more like an asshole. And why would the parents put up with this? "He’s won over all the parents"? Are they complete morons?
63--"everything with you has been amazing. You're incredible." Huh? What about him is even remotely incredible? If she's going to say something like this, then the audience has to believe that it's plausible, at least to her, or has a motive for saying it.
65--"You could stay home while I work." Why does she need to work? Did I miss something? I thought she was filthy rich.
65--And this whole threesome thing, right on the heels of a discussion about having a kid, makes them both look sleazy and shallow. But then, they are, aren't they?
75--Too much strenuous exercise lowers sperm counts.
78--The screenplay has degenerated into a series of inanities.
79--How come he still has a job?
87--Viagra gag: silly, predictable.
89--"as he slowly realizes what he’s no better than she was." This isn't filmable.
And this is his big moment of revelation? Where's his fall from grace? His all-or-nothing moment? His dark night of the soul? This is weak and unsatisfying.
91--Again, everything comes too easily to him. All he has to do is show up and everything's fine again.
93--This idea that she picks him for a reason--to be a stay at home dad--might work if it was appropriately introduced and developed.
94--This is all boring and anticlimactic. He's already made his decision, so all this stuff about her agreement and her threat is just noise.
And you never force your protagonist to make any difficult choices.
100--She offers him a choice, but the choice is obvious and easy. You're just setting up straw men to knock down.
read -
A review of Arctic Crossingsby Eric Maloney on 12/25/2010As a first (or early) screenplay, this is a decent effort. It's got a lot of heart, and your protagonist, Aurora, is an appealing character who I think most people would be inclined to root for. The main problem I see is that the screenplay lacks a strong, single backbone for its main story. Events happen randomly and capriciously without necessarily connecting to one another... As a first (or early) screenplay, this is a decent effort. It's got a lot of heart, and your protagonist, Aurora, is an appealing character who I think most people would be inclined to root for.
The main problem I see is that the screenplay lacks a strong, single backbone for its main story. Events happen randomly and capriciously without necessarily connecting to one another. Subplots and characters are brought in without any real rhyme or reason and without having much to do with the protagonist and her story.
Most notably, there is very little connection between Aurora's journey home and her father's illness. Let's imagine that both her parents were dead and she was an orphan. The story of her journey home wouldn't change appreciably.
Likewise, the romance between Smith and Miller is trivial, irrelevant, and disposable. It adds nothing to the story.
The story of the serum run is somewhat more tied in with the main story, but in a random and arbitrary way: The protagonist just happens, through nothing more than luck, to run across the sled carrying the serum (actually, if I remember correctly, the sled runs across the protagonist, which is even worse).
B stories are important to a screenplay, but they have to be integrated with the main story. If you can eliminate the B story and the main story isn't affected, then the B story either needs to be better integrated into the main story or dropped.
For example, let's say that the father is ill and Aurora finds out about it while she's at the orphanage. This gives her a real sense of urgency to get home. She hears talk about a serum that could save her father. She runs away from the orphanage determined that she's going to get this serum to him no matter what, and by dint of her personality and will she convinces others to make this impossible run to Nome. So now you've got the journey home and the serum run and the father's illness inseparable from one another.
The story is further hurt by the many random events and remarkable coincidences that happen along the way. Whenever Aurora needs to get out of a jam, somebody miraculously arrives or some fortunate event happens to save the day. In a tightly written script, nothing should be random, unless randomness itself is part of the story, which in this case it is not.
Next, your protagonist lacks an antagonist. The Russians end up substituting as Aurora's antagonists, but they're actually Jimmy's. For Aurora, they're merely obstacles. Also, the Russians feel like goofy caricatures recycled from "Home Alone"; it's hard to ever take them seriously.
The antagonist should be someone who you introduce at the beginning of the story and who has specific goals that conflict directly with the protagonist's goals.
If, for example, someone kidnapped Aurora and sent her to the orphanage and had a vested interest in keeping her there, then that would be an antagonist.
Or if someone had a vested interest in keeping her from getting the serum to her father and the townspeople, then that would be an antagonist.
And the antagonist should be the main threat that relentlessly stalks the protagonist from beginning to end.
Another problem I see is that this screenplay lacks some of the sense of constant danger that should exist in a film set in rugged wilderness. At no time did I feel that Aurora's life was seriously in jeopardy or that she wouldn't get home. While there are a few scenes where danger arises -- the polar bear comes to mind -- I never had any doubts that the screenplay would come up with a deus ex machina to bail Aurora out.
It's not good enough to have some other character tell us that the protagonist is in danger (as Miss Smith does). We, the audience, need to see the protagonist literally fight for her life. You need to be ready to kill her off. Otherwise, all you have are a series of rather bland episodes that we know will lead to a predetermined and predictable outcome.
In the same vein, before Aurora leaves the orphanage on her journey, the screenplay doesn't give us any sense that she's in any particular discomfort. Aurora is hauled off to an orphanage and yet never really seems to be all that distressed about her situation. Que sera sera. The orphanage itself seems like a pretty OK place, with nice people and little playmates and even a nice guy who teaches her how to paint, and she seems to adapt nicely. Shouldn't the orphanage by an awful place? Shouldn't Aurora yearn for home? Why doesn't she fight tooth and nail to go home before she finally leaves?
In general, I think you like your character too much and don't want her to experience any serious discomfort. Fatal mistake.
I strongly recommend that you see "Rabbit Proof Fence" if you haven't already.
A general comment on your representation of Inuit culture: I find a lot of it to be questionable given that the story is supposed to have a historical foundation. I'm not up on Inuit folklore, but I think your representation of the raven is way off the mark.
Also, the fantasy elements are poorly integrated. If you're going to have talking animals, then they need to be introduced early in the story, and you need to show us exactly how you intend to show it on screen.
Finally, I have some serious issues with the language. Is Aurora fluent in English, or is everybody else fluent in Inuit? Either seems unlikely. And Aurora isn't just fluent in English; she's fluent in contemporary American English. She sounds like the girls down my street. Yet her father sounds like he's in a 1950s TV western. How come she gets to use contractions and he doesn't?
All in all, I do think you have the elements for a good story, in large part because you have such a likeable protagonist and the Alaskan setting has such potential. But the story needs a lot of work before it comes together as a compelling screenplay.
The rest of my comments are more or less in page order (I wrote them as I read, so there might be contradictions and redundancies).
1--Lie/lay
Papa=Nukilik: Confusing switching back and forth. If everybody refers to him as Nukilik, then use Nukilik everywhere.
Are they speaking English or an Eskimo language with subtitles?
It's/its
2--thier/their
3--You've written a good, strong opening scene; it establishes the characters quickly and has drama. The problem is that the death of Aurora's mother has nothing to do with the story. If you're going to give this much weight and importance to her death, then you have to follow up my making it an important element of the screenplay. The audience can't be an hour into the film wondering when you're going to get back to the mother or what role she's supposed to play or what the opening scene was supposed to mean. I would recommend dumping the scene and starting the story in 1925. You're better off spending those three pages developing the characters and the story you're actually planning on telling.
Remanence ???
7--Nice job of developing Aurora's character here. My quibble is that some of the language sounds too contemporary. I also have questions about a 10-year-old Eskimo in 1925 using such phrases as "my heritage is boring."
I'm also not sure about her reactions to the food. If she's never been the mainland and knows nothing else, would she really be saying yuck?
There's a real disconnect between the language used by Aurora and by her father. She talks like a little girl in an American suburb, while he talks like a movie Indian: stilted, overly formal. "Now I am King." "While I am gone."
8--"And on this eve, before our journey across the Bering Sea, we ask the spirit of our ancestors to protect us with safe passage. The goods we sell in Nome will ensure us abundant food and materials needed to see us through the quick approaching winter." On the nose. This isn't natural conversation; it's a character delivering information to the audience.
"Venomous" means literally "poisonous." Snakes can be venomous. I can't see him calling a raven venomous.
Killing a raven? I'm not up on my Inuit folklore, but I do know that the raven is an important part of Native American mythology, and I suspect that killing a raven would be considered extremely bad luck, not to mention stupid. I can't imagine an elder instructing anyone to do so. I think you need to make sure that your mythology is accurate. If I'm wrong about the raven, just ignore this comment.
11--"Only by working hard, Nanuq, do you become strong. You must build your body so when you become a father, you shall be able to provide better for your family." Again, this language sounds stilted and unnatural. While I think you want to avoid contemporary language or language that would be exclusive to non-native speakers, I don't see a reason to use this kind of canned Indian-speak.
12--"Finally it secedes." Secede is a political term; it doesn't make sense this context.
"No! The Cheechako are as evil as that raven you exterminated." Again, I have to question your understanding of native folklore. The raven is a trickster, but I don't think it's perceived as evil in the sense that your character seems to think it is. I think you're off base here. If you've got a different take on it, then I'd be interested in knowing your sources.
You've set up your protagonist and her inner goal, which we can loosely describe as getting off the island and seeing the world, and you've got a good protagonist. But she still lacks a specific long-term goal.
14--What language are they speaking here? Does Gilda speak Inupiaq?
15--"Eskimo yo-yo" Which is what?
15--Tartok talks? All of a sudden, out of nowhere, you've got talking animals? Did I miss something that sets this up? If this is a fantasy in which animals can talk, then that needs to be established from the beginning. You can't just arbitrarily have animals start to talk 15 minutes into the story.
Also, I'm not clear on how you intend this to be shown. Animation? Is the raven moving its beak as it talks, or is Aurora only hearing it? Confusing.
17--"who make slowly trudge their way" ??
18--I don't buy this kidnapping. What gives this guy Clyde the authority to do this? And doesn't this orphanage have some rudimentary procedures for processing children? Are we supposed to assume that there's some kind of evil plot going on in which Miss Munch and Clyde conspire to snatch Eskimo children for no reason and without stated cause? The scenario is awkward and unconvincing, and it feels like something that was made up on the fly to get Aurora on the ship.
If there is some kind of kidnapping gang at work here, then it needs to be introduced in the first 10 pages, so that the audience has a foreboding of what will happen, and the kidnapping itself has to be made plausible. Otherwise, it's just a deus ex machina.
I think it would be more plausible if she ended up on the ship as a result of her precociousness and curiosity: An unintentional stowaway. The crew, not knowing what to do with her, hands her over to Miss Munch.
20--Again, and I won't keep harping on this, I don't understand what language they're speaking here. I find it both hard to believe that Aurora speaks English or that Miss Smith and all the other whites just happen to be fluent in Inupiaq.
29--What happened to Miss Munch? You made a point of setting her up as some kind of witch, and then she just disappears.
And why hasn't Aurora complained to anyone about her situation? She's supposed to be this precocious, rebellious girl, and yet she just goes along with everything. Wouldn't she be fighting tooth and nail to get back home? Wouldn't she be pleading her case to anyone who would listen, including Miss Smith, who you've set up as a character who would be sympathetic to Aurora's plight? Your characters have to behave consistently, and Aurora doesn't.
30--" I'm leaving tonight to go back home." This decision should come only AFTER she's exhausted her other options.
Also, why would she decide to go back home when she seems pretty content to be where she is? You haven't shown her as being particularly upset or the orphanage as being an unpleasant place.
The main problem at this point is that the story has no tension or conflict. We just have a girl who, by accident, happens to be far from home. You need to make her situation more dire; e.g., the orphanage is an awful place, she's abused, she finds out that the kids are going to be shipped off to Carlisle.
32--The B story between Miss Smith and Mr. Miller: I don't see its connection to Aurora. It seems to exist entirely outside the framework of the main story.
36--Where'd she learn to read English?
37--I think the plague could be foreshadowed earlier.
39--I feel greater apprehension for Nukilik than I do for Aurora. Which suggests that you're making it much to easy for Aurora.
43--"He begins to move him." ??
"He notions to Jimmy's bag." ??
45--"A scoffed structure" ??
Far too many of these kinds of errors. The screenplay needs lots of cleaning up.
46--I don't get what this business with Jimmy and the Russians has to do with Aurora and her journey home. If she's so determined to get home, and if she was ready to part with Jimmy, why does she go off with the Russians?
48--So are the Russians suddenly supposed to be Aurora's antagonists? Doesn't work. A) They're way too late, B) They're Jimmy's antagonists, not Aurora's.
50--Seaward ??
51--"Now she's going to be snuffed out like some animal?" This sudden concern doesn't wash considering that she was a passive and apparently willing participant in Aurora's kidnapping. You can't have it both ways: A woman who is on the one hand negligent but on the other hand full of concern and feeling of responsibility. If you're going to stick to the kidnapping route and make Miss Smith an ally of Aurora's, then she shouldn't be in the kidnapping scenes.
54--Wouldn't they already know where Aurora was from?
57--"Tonight, you are king." I don't believe that the Inuit had anything resembling a "king." In fact, I believe that one of the distinguishing characteristics of Inuit society was its lack of a formal political structure. The central unit in Inuit culture was the family, not the tribe. Again, you can ignore this comment if I'm wrong.
61--A 75-year-old woman knocking two big thugs unconscious with a stick while they just stand there and take it? I don't think so.
These two Russians are cartoon characters. And, as I said earlier, they're Jimmy's antagonists, not Aurora's.
63--This stretch does begin to offer a greater threat to the children, but, again, these are Jimmy's problems, not Aurora's.
65--Wouldn't her father's illness be far more important to the story if Aurora knew he was ill and was desperately trying to reach him? If the audience felt there was a chance he might die before she got home? Missed opportunity.
66--" Four years as governor and I've never seen anything this bad. The Diphtheria up in Nome is continuing to claim more of our people every day. If it isn't contained it could be the end the city. We need to get them the anti-toxin." This, and everything after it, is pretty awful on-the-nose dialog.
I don't think I get the connection between Aurora's journey and the serum run to in Nome. They seem like unrelated story lines.
72--Remind me again why the Russians want the kids. Is it just revenge? Weak.
75--"Aurora and Jimmy experience a sense of weightlessness" Not filmable.
79--Back to the totally irrelevant Smith-Miller B story.
I don't get why these two Russian idiots have no trouble tracking the kids while these two supposedly intelligent people can't figure it out. It's not like the kids are off somewhere in the middle of nowhere--they're on a train--or are hiding or have taken steps to cover their tracks.
80--Kate, Wild Bill: Both clichés.
81--"The crowd wallops" ??
82--Way too much dialog here, and it's all on the nose.
86--" They're dogs. How hard can it be? We'll catch up with that oversized walrus nut and take the anti-toxin. Once it's in our possession we'll hold it for a handsome price." Page 86 and you're introducing an entirely new story line. Much too late for this.
90--Wild Bill arrives in the nick of time: An incredibly convenient coincidence. You can't build an effective story on these kinds of events. Deus ex machina.
97--"sending out a shock wave of translucent light." I don't understand what this is supposed to look like.
97--This business with the healing light is more deus ex machina and, in the context of the story, silly. You're just mixing realistic and fantasy elements randomly and without real purpose. As I said before, if you're going mix fantasy and reality, you have to establish this at the beginning of the screenplay and use it in a consistent and logical way throughout. You can't just use fantasy when it's convenient for resolving a problem in the story.
102--Your climax is here, which means that the end of the screenplay shouldn't go on for more than another page or two. Which means that the screenplay runs on for about 10 too many pages.
107--"rubs her nose with his" Eskimo kissing is not rubbing noses. read -
A review of CLUNKERby Eric Maloney on 01/11/2010This is a well-intentioned and heartfelt story. I enjoyed the setting in Mexico, and Steven's relationships with Maribe and Caitlyn had their warm moments. But the protagonist is weak and the story is unfocused. Steven's main problem is that he has no goal. Without a goal, he is a passive character who reacts to events and characters rather than actively pushes the story forward... This is a well-intentioned and heartfelt story. I enjoyed the setting in Mexico, and Steven's relationships with Maribe and Caitlyn had their warm moments. But the protagonist is weak and the story is unfocused.
Steven's main problem is that he has no goal. Without a goal, he is a passive character who reacts to events and characters rather than actively pushes the story forward. When he does act, his actions often seem arbitrary and implausible.
I personally didn't find Steven to be a likeable or interesting person. He wasn't someone I could root for. His language and behavior were immature. There was too much Chevy Chase in him, and that's not my cup of tea. However, this might be a matter of personal taste, and other people might disagree with me.
Also, Steven has no antagonist, and the script lacks conflict and tension. Even in a light comedy or romance, conflict and tension are essential ingredients.
The script is very, very heavy on dialog: Too many scenes of people sitting around talking, often describing things the audience already knows or engaging in meaningless banter. If a line doesn't move the story forward or reveal characters and their relationships, it should be dumped. Also, the scenes are too long. Get in later and get out earlier.
The story lacks focus. I think there's too much going on here: Steven and Caitlyn, the romance, Steven and the timesharing, Steven and the car dealership. It's OK to have subplots, but they need to be integrated.
Take Steven and Caitlyn, for example. The first ten pages are all about Steven not wanting to disappoint his daughter and spending his last penny to take her to Mexico. When they get there, virtually nothing happens between them outside some perfunctory father-daughter bonding scenes. Then, at around page 65, Caitlyn is dumped entirely from the script. So it turns out that her sole function in the script was to give Steven a reason to go to Mexico. If Steven had no daughter and instead went to Mexico because he saw an ad in the magazine, the story would almost be unaffected. If you introduce a major story line in the first ten pages (in this case, Steven and his daughter), then you have to follow it through to the end. Otherwise, you're better off dumping the story line. So you either have to develop the Steven-Caitlyn story fully or get rid of Caitlyn.
So, to conclude, I think you need to give your protagonist a goal and an antagonist, you need to focus the story, and you need to sharpen the dialog.
The rest of my comments are more or less in page order (I wrote them as I read, so there might be contradictions and redundancies).
2--Not sure what the point is of the Obama speech. Rick could simply use the word "recession" and explain Steven's circumstances.
6--So far, I have to say that Steven isn't a very likeable character; he's an immature whiner. Expressions like "fiddlesticks," "dumb purse," and "phooey" belong in the mouth of a 9-year-old, not an adult. He lost his job, but lots of people lose their jobs, and that in itself isn't enough to make me interested in his story.
10--I'm not sure I understand why he's spending his last nickel on an expensive vacation when he just lost his job. Most people in his situation would explain to the child their dire financial circumstances and put the vacation on hold. You haven't established a compelling reason why he'd do something this irrational and impulsive.
10--Caitlyn's 22 and just graduated from college and she's going on a vacation to Mexico with her dad? This strikes me as a bit unusual and in need of an explanation.
12--For the record, I find Steven to be incredibly annoying.
20--Caitlyn was introduced 10 pages ago, and we know nothing about her. I don't have a sense of her as a distinct character; she doesn't say anything interesting, she has no outstanding qualities of or interesting personality quirks.
20--"She criticized how I dressed." Who says this?
22--"Steven gets it, or acts like he does." Lines like this are not filmable. The script has a lot of this type of description.
25--A quarter of the way through the script. The protagonist still doesn't have a goal. What's he working toward? What's this vacation for besides indulging his daughter? There's no antagonist, no conflict, to tension. The last few pages have been a series of rather dull scenes showing two people on vacation. The timeshare guy offers some hope for a story, but there should be some sense of what direction this story is headed, and Steven needs a reason for existing.
27--" --?" I have no idea what this is supposed to indicate.
29--OK, the story takes an uptick here with Steven's display of math skills wowing Emilio and Pedro, but there are a variety of problems.
1. The screenplay meandered aimlessly to this point; I feel as if it found the story by accident. It should have found a direction long before this.
2. We should have seen Steven's prodigious math skills displayed prominently in the first 10 pages.
3. Steven, not Emilio and Pedro, should come up with the idea of him joining their team.
"There's no timeshare bailout program": Funny line.
30--"I would like for you to work for us." I don't get this. Why would they hire him as a salesman based on the fact that he can do math in his head? Also, the skills of a salesman and a CPA are completely different.
35--" back from the boat ride." How does the audience know they just came back from a boat ride?
I'm not sure I get the point of this scene with Steven and the two guys.
39--Some of this conversation between Steven and Maribe repeats stuff the audience already knows, and much of the rest of it is dull, unnecessary chitchat. The entire conversation could be boiled down to a page.
42--"I'll come by later, we can talk." I thought the timesharing story was the main story. So why hasn't it gone anywhere for the last 13 pages? Or was I wrong, and is something else the main story?
43--"He thinks of the fare": We can't see what a character is thinking.
45--More boring chitchat. A lot of this is just wasted filler.
48--The boat scene is nice, partly because, unlike much of this script, it develops the story and the characters through visuals rather than through dialog.
"Guantanamera": Seems like it would be more appropriate if they were singing a Mexican song.
50--More dull dialog.
51--" Maribe can't stand this routine." What's this mean?
53--"You did, you did, I can tell!" You keep omitting character names. Sloppy.
55--We're halfway through, and the story hasn't progressed much beyond Steven losing a job, going on vacation, taking a job more or less on a whim, and meeting a woman. The protagonist has no clearly defined, ultimate objective. He's reacting to events as they occur rather than pushing toward a goal. He has no antagonist to push against him. The scenes are flat with no conflict, no tension, no excitement.
54--"She heads into the bathroom to change tops." How is the audience supposed to know this is why she's going in the bathroom?
64--I know that a romance requires a breakup, but Maribe's overreaction is silly and contrived. She was assuming he was leaving anyway, so she couldn't have had expectations that the romance was going anywhere. Why would she get this upset? The entire non-fraternization scenario is weak. It would be more plausible if she dumped him because she has a serious moral objection to what he'll be doing (for example, he's selling timeshares for a yet-to-be-built condo that will destroy her village).
65--So Caitlyn is leaving the story for good? In other words, her only function was to give Steven a reason to go to Mexico? Building her up as a major character and then just disposing of her like this is not good. You'd be better off getting rid of the entire daughter angle, having Steven go to Mexico on his own, and focusing on the romance.
70--What's the point of this family being overweight? Am I supposed to laugh at them because they're obese?
75--Rick calls: Once again, somebody else does the work that your passive protagonist should be doing.
79--Maribe was angry at Steven because he lied to her. Just because he quit selling timeshares doesn't change the fact that he lied to her. So why is she now cavorting with him again? She needs a reason for this change of heart.
96--Another long, drawn-out, dialog-heavy scene.
100--This whole gambling thing doesn't work unless a foundation is laid in the first act. It's a too-convenient deus ex machina.
Also, it's another example of the protagonist not having to work for anything he gets.
102--Janice: She should have been introduced in the first act. read
Comments About Eric Maloney 58
-
olufemi on 03/07/2012
Ugh, I just submitted my review of "The Blood of Infants", and immediately I remembered that Father Ed has been granted longevity for his service to the demon... I said in the review his motivations weren't given. Sorry 'bout that. -
DebraSwan on 02/08/2012
Thanks so much for your extensive review of Divine Intervention. Your comments regarding Alice are consistent with other feedback I've received, and I'm currently rethinking my approach to this.
Cheers,
Debra -
Hilarity Ensues on 01/29/2012
Thank you Eric, for putting so much time and care into your review of Help Yourself. The detail and specificity are so helpful. Your efforts are most appreciated. Best wishes with your own writing. -
filmwriter karyn on 03/18/2011
Hello! Thank you so much for your in-depth review of THE RIVALRY. You clearly put a lot of effort and time into it, and all I can really say is... Wow. You totally hit the nail on the head regarding the Stephanie vs. Kayla introduction scene. Why couldn't I have gotten this review before submitting to contests? :-) Anyway, it's extremely helpful and I can't say thank you enough for it! Best of luck to you! -
gp101 on 12/27/2010
Thanks for reading and reviewing THE SHACK. -
AKfilmguy on 12/25/2010
Thanks for the feedback of Arctic Crossings. I look forward to taking a second look through the script with your notes in mind. Best to you!
-
LV23 on 11/12/2010
Hi Eric,
I read your script about a month ago, so I don't have point by point takes on your script, just the impressions that were left by it. I like to let a SP soak in, go back to it, read around - really liked the story. Original concept, quick read, flowed smoothly. Read a few critiques, your kudos are well-earned. Read the ScriptShark coverage. In short, I hope you are doing something with this. It is that good. And I must confess, I agree with most of the pro coverage about the election, the Irene/son relationship, the formulaic husband, the title. I wish I was as close to completion on my script as this one here.
I got to thinking of titles (hope you don't mind).
"Your Mama Don't Dance" - realize there's a lightly-watched cable show by the same name and the song it's borrowed from was recorded about 1972, but here's a thought: Make the word "Don't" from word "Doesn't", cross out the word with a buzzard, wings spread to form an "X".
Captain Reno & the Scavengers! - a play on the name Irene. Kind of "Eddie and the Cruisers" sounding but as band names go...
This script has me thinking which means I'm procrastinating on my own project. I'm not much of a writer by any means so I review from the perspective of a filmgoer with a mind on improvement.
Themes/Ironies
Irene plays guitar (non-conformist) and lives her life with the people she chosen to be around (Husband, Son)
Friend at the Gym - non-chalant attitude towards marriage, tie this in with the story's theme of conformity/non-conformity. Is she a loudmouth, says things Irene thinks
Bud (non-conformist) - I see as more the player and Irene (conformist) more the one who got away. More playful, sexual. Irene may even loosen up a little more around this guy, her days on the road with good-natured flirts. Now that she's playing again, he thinks her bad girl side is re-emerging. I like the fact that he can help her and her son's band. The play on whether he can get her turn from her marriage; just because he's a war veteran doesn't mean he's not a dog.
Finally, I think she's that good a picker that hubby is just going to have to get over it. Her talent level is off-the-chain good. Her son, the band, everyone sees it . He's gottta see it, too. He can't hold her back any longer. He gets on the Irene bus and they pull everything together and defy the era, thumb their collective noses at the times (drugs, divorce, generation gap) and thrive. The end of this movie could be the beginning of the road for all of them with the husband taking over as "man of the house" in terms of his enthusiasm for his family, their talent, and all of the wonderful uncertainty that awaits their new journey.
thanks for the read, Rick
-
gp101 on 11/07/2010
Damn you... I came across something that led me to the other thing, and then the third thing, and it all brought me to the Guitarcula script. I figured, "Oh... a former SOM, I must read it sometime." So I started just before going to bed, hoping I could stay up for the first five or ten pages. By page 46 I was like WTF! I won't bother with a review since it's pretty old on these boards and I'm sure you've progressed along with it. I just want to stop in and say that these 46 pages I've read are not only the best (by far!) that I've read on this site, but they actually come off as interesting as some of the produced scripts I read off the internet. My only quibbles are with your liberal use of Scene sluglines and cuts from location to location, but the story-telling so far is effing magical. I want to read the rest but I really need to get to bed now. So far, the characters and story line got me so wrapped, I can picture them in my head and actually frigging hope they succeed! Well done!
Good luck with this. I sincerely hope you catch a break with this script. If something this good can't get made, that doesn't leave a lot of hope for us all.
-
David Muhlfelder on 07/16/2010
Congrats on advancing to the Semis in BlueCat. I loved that script.
Best,
David -
**DELETED ACCOUNT** on 01/01/2010
Hi,
I really appreciate the time you took to read and review my screenplay "Stunners". Great comments and suggestions! Thanks.
Happy New Year!
Dave
Write a Comment
Browse:
Copyright © 2001-2013 Trigger Street Labs. All Rights Reserved.
Comments About Eric Maloney 58
-
Quote
Ugh, I just submitted my review of "The Blood of Infants", and immediately I remembered that Father Ed has been granted longevity for his service to the demon... I said in the review his motivations weren't given. Sorry 'bout that.
-
Quote
Thanks so much for your extensive review of Divine Intervention. Your comments regarding Alice are consistent with other feedback I've received, and I'm currently rethinking my approach to this.
-
Quote
Thank you Eric, for putting so much time and care into your review of Help Yourself. The detail and specificity are so helpful. Your efforts are most appreciated. Best wishes with your own writing.
+ more commentsolufemi on 03/07/2012
DebraSwan on 02/08/2012
Cheers,
Debra
Hilarity Ensues on 01/29/2012