Reviews
Some of your metaphors and similies -- sometimes bordering on ridiculous -- "like a Xerox on steroids", "like an escapee from a wet t-shirt contest" and the aforementioned male organ -- helped make for a dynamic read. In fact, congratulations on one of the finest written scripts I've read on this site.
That's not to say I didn't have a few problems, like structure. I found...
Some of your metaphors and similies -- sometimes bordering on ridiculous -- "like a Xerox on steroids", "like an escapee from a wet t-shirt contest" and the aforementioned male organ -- helped make for a dynamic read. In fact, congratulations on one of the finest written scripts I've read on this site.
That's not to say I didn't have a few problems, like structure. I found your inciting incident didn't occur until the halfway point iin the script. I think you should show the hijacking earlier and then get into telling us about the camera and working on John and Willis' relationship. Your opening is really strong, you set up each character nicely, but I was waiting for this destruction to happen.
You have something funny happening on pages 31, 58, 89, 97.
Also, this is quite and adventurous story and sometimes there seemed like a little too much going on. Not to say this is a negative necessarily, it's just I had to go back and reread things a few times.
The explanation of how the camera works -- whether logical or not -- works great, definitely inspiring.
Dialogue is good throughout although a few times you tell us a little too much. Like the end when John tells Willis he's attracted to her because of his mother. You took great time to set this fact up early on and it's a better pay off for the audience if we figure it out on our own, which we did rather easliy. I also think it's kind of an insult to Willis.
Good ending, liked the twist with Teddy, and you give us a fantastic final shot and limitless possiblities. Lots to think about here. Excellent job on the whole and good luck with it!
read
I took this script with me this morning to the laundrette, thinking that I'd dip into it to get a flavour before properly reading it this afternoon with a pint or 2 of Stella.
Instead I found myself being tapped on the shoulder by an elderly lady wanting use of my washer which had stopped cleaning my clothes about twenty minutes ago.
I was on page 102 of 111.
I really liked...
I took this script with me this morning to the laundrette, thinking that I'd dip into it to get a flavour before properly reading it this afternoon with a pint or 2 of Stella.
Instead I found myself being tapped on the shoulder by an elderly lady wanting use of my washer which had stopped cleaning my clothes about twenty minutes ago.
I was on page 102 of 111.
I really liked this movie and would gladly pay to see it (and I'm a projectionist at a UK multiplex and can see a movie whenever I want and for free).
How To... is well strutured, keeps you turning the page as poor Melvin - the man - does whatever he can to save his marriage.
A few questions though which could be answered in another rewrite:
1) WHY does Melvin go to such lengths to stay with this woman. OK, love makes us do stupid things, but this man is so obviously super intelligent, can't he see she's a grade A whore? (in a nice, satirical way) A little backstory as to WHY he feels so obligated to this woman would be a welcome addition to the story. Was he always a wallflower? Were his dates as a kid a failure?
2) WHAT is so intoxicating about this woman BELLE? Her first description makes her out to be a lard-ass; big, overweight, yet men fall at her feet. WHY?
3) DOES Allison have designs on Melvin? Seemed in places she could go for it just to add some additional direct conflict.
I liked this... alot.
I wouldn't have had the animated extra ending though. A dog zappig the judge? It seems a little jeuvanile after the black comedy of death, love and business. WHY NOT have Melvin the dog just wander the streets (thus breaking curfew) and take a dump on the Judges lawn?
I don't think you need to write PEJA's dialogue as so cliched French (ZISS for this; ZEE for the) it seems a little lazy. Why not just add that he speaks with a THICK FRENCH ACCENT. This is a good script; don't cheapen it with Steve Martin style Inspecter Clouseu racism.
Thanks for allowing me to read this and good luck!
JP
read
In watching this movie one of the first things that REALLY hit me was that it reminded me purely of the silent movie era in which it is all physical, absolutely no dialogue at all almost throughout the movie.
And I feel it should've stayed that way throughout it's entirety so that I could really get a feel for 30's silent cinema, complete with that great Piano score from Steven...
In watching this movie one of the first things that REALLY hit me was that it reminded me purely of the silent movie era in which it is all physical, absolutely no dialogue at all almost throughout the movie.
And I feel it should've stayed that way throughout it's entirety so that I could really get a feel for 30's silent cinema, complete with that great Piano score from Steven Guntheine. (Correct me if i haven't got his name right)
Its well edited in that i get to follow the hero of the title and the story seamlessly.
There are some nice little comic moments (He steals the little girl's bike and uses newspapers as weapons)
What Michael Field does is that he doesn't overcomplicate the film with subplots etc, that some short films make the mistake of doing, which can sometimes mislead or throw the audience.
Its a film that did what it set out to do and that is to entertain :)
read
Finally, a 16mm film on TS that actually uses sync-sound! Ever other 16mm short I have endured has featured the same insufferable pretentious voice over narration. Looks like you also laid out the extra cash for negative stock rather than the usual cheep-o reversal; if this isn't the case, then you did an even better job. The exposure looked really nice; well done. The audio...
Finally, a 16mm film on TS that actually uses sync-sound! Ever other 16mm short I have endured has featured the same insufferable pretentious voice over narration. Looks like you also laid out the extra cash for negative stock rather than the usual cheep-o reversal; if this isn't the case, then you did an even better job. The exposure looked really nice; well done. The audio was quite nice and the editing wasn't noticeable. Where you lost me was when everything was lit by the car's hazard lights; it became unpleasant to the eyes, eventually aggravating. Overall, the movie felt more like a trailer rather than an actual film; it was a big tease. That's exactly what the ending felt like, a tease. It left me more annoyed not knowing what happened; I wasn't engrossed like you'd probably prefer me to feel. And is the actress supposed to come across as more nagging/aggravating/annoying as compared to concerned? Conversely, I was convinced by your male lead. Congratulations on the TS festival nomination.
read
Bertrand's proposal to Shombay, against Francesco propping up Luciani as a traditionalist, is the crux of the screenplay. I think, for it to be most successful, a reader who begins with no allegiances needs to be torn between Luciani and Shombay, changing sides from scene to scene. While Shombay would necessarily remain the Protagonist, Luciani should be a Protagonist in his...
Bertrand's proposal to Shombay, against Francesco propping up Luciani as a traditionalist, is the crux of the screenplay. I think, for it to be most successful, a reader who begins with no allegiances needs to be torn between Luciani and Shombay, changing sides from scene to scene. While Shombay would necessarily remain the Protagonist, Luciani should be a Protagonist in his own right, to his own side of the story.
Within the problem, you raise the issue of cultural and racial bias and allow it to come up even in Shombay, who initially and naively backs Roberts' ethnic cleansing. These should be your dramatic focuses from scene to scene, with less emphasis on who will vote for who because most of your audience won't really gravitate to the Vietnamese Cardinals' deceit or find the vote lobbying to be dramatic without it serving these two greater issues. When a vote changes, or when Asia defects, the audience should know what significance it has to these questions. Each action should be a dramatic argument for one side or the other.
The immediate problem, I think, is that neither Luciani nor Shombay really want to be the Pope--not in a way that comes through the page at least. With Luciani, I don't know what he stands for at all, except he disagrees with Shombay's liberal ideas and he likes to pour some soup. Shombay doesn't want to be Pope so much as he wants to correct his mistake, but when confronted, whether by the Guard in the beginning or by Augustus in the cafe, he comes off as extremely meek and feeble, whereas the Pope would need to be resolute. Also, I think Shombay's views (especially on gay marriage) are so liberal as to be hardly believable for someone to reach Cardinal, much less Pope. I also think you get lost in Shombay's extreme liberal views and the real question, the viability of a 3rd World Candidate and the future Mission of the Catholic Church, does not get debated.
The Augustus scene, I think, demonstrates the flaw in Shombay as a dramatic character. I honestly think that anybody who has ever faced the adversity of Racism, sexism, etc., would lose respect for Shombay by the way he handles Augustus. In his position, Shombay pretty much has a mandate to challenge Augustus on an intellectual and religious plain. By backing down, he demonstrates he does not have the conviction to be a world leader.
I also think, as far as your central question, Shombay needs to stay in Liberia much longer and be a much stronger force in the civil war. We must see that the Church will make a fundamental improvement to the 3rd World with a Pope who is committed to do so. He needs to be a demonstrable influence over the people, and I think Roberts needs to fear his power whereas it appears he merely tolerates him due to their past. Just as I think Shombay needs to confront Augustus, I think he needs to exude much more religious and moral force upon Roberts. He should be able to push buttons and make Roberts visibly doubt himself at times and show weakness. Roberts should also be able to push Shombay's buttons, and the confession to Sharon that he aided in Roberts coup should be a major Reveal that impacts his candidacy. Shombay's major revelation shouldn't be that the Pope needs to have a wider world view because that's so obvious. His revelation should be that the Church has power to change the 3rd World, or alternatively, he should ultimately realize that his fight is futile and necessary at the same time, and try to resolve that with the prospect of being Pope.
I haven't researched the ins and outs of the papacy, but if its possible for Bertrand to push Shombay's candidacy while he remains in Liberia the entire time, I think it would be a structurally better screenplay and call for new and interesting scenes to be added. This change would also ask that Sharon be relocated to Liberia for the bulk of the screenplay, which makes Sharon's family a more viable subplot.
There are some minor grammar mistakes throughout the exposition. Also, you refer to Leo as "Pius" a few times though that may be a titular name (I don't know), and during the second vote, Bertrand has the third most votes and Rafalski has none, which seems inconsistent.
read
Your dialogue is good and your word usage is fantastic. However, Sci Fi/fantasy is so over done that there is big problems of writing cliches. It seems like you took some 50's saturday morning serials and made it into a movie. If the screenplay is made into a movie in this style then that is great. It would make a good genre film. It was an easy read. One major suggestion,...
Your dialogue is good and your word usage is fantastic. However, Sci Fi/fantasy is so over done that there is big problems of writing cliches. It seems like you took some 50's saturday morning serials and made it into a movie. If the screenplay is made into a movie in this style then that is great. It would make a good genre film. It was an easy read. One major suggestion, change all of the characters' names. Make them original.
read
This is a good film -- a well-made film. Mark Jones takes a big risk, making a serious short film about a person who dies on 9/11. The tragedy is built-in and easy. Added to this is the possibility of another tragic loss of life -- the suicide motif. And a little girl who loses her father and is too innocent to understand (we do). There's such a fine line between insight...
This is a good film -- a well-made film. Mark Jones takes a big risk, making a serious short film about a person who dies on 9/11. The tragedy is built-in and easy. Added to this is the possibility of another tragic loss of life -- the suicide motif. And a little girl who loses her father and is too innocent to understand (we do). There's such a fine line between insight and exploitation. I think he pulls it off. I loved the camera work and the pacing. The film is brave effort that goes the extra mile when it comes to detail.
read
Wow. That was an interesting experience!
This is a really interesting concept for a film. I liked the general idea- the Think Tank, the change in perception, what is perception etc etc.
You do a good job with creating an image- I liked your descriptions and most of the dialogue works. Using "Mind" as a character works really well- it's nice to see the internal workings of...
Wow. That was an interesting experience!
This is a really interesting concept for a film. I liked the general idea- the Think Tank, the change in perception, what is perception etc etc.
You do a good job with creating an image- I liked your descriptions and most of the dialogue works. Using "Mind" as a character works really well- it's nice to see the internal workings of Dashiell verbalized.
It's decribed as a comedy, but this is VERY surreal. I don't know how other people would feel about it, but i found it very difficult to read and especially difficult to follow. There's a lot of jumping back and forth in time, which meant i had to re-read some scenes to keep the flow of the film in my head.
I think you've done a good job with this generally. I think the main thing you should think about is the structure. It's beyond an absurd comedy. The interaction of the characters is pretty well written, but sometimes i don't see any point to what's happening.
I'm a big fan of absurdism, especially for stage/theatre work. In this case however, I sometimes felt that it was a little TOO surreal. Is the idea that they're all affected by the Think Tank? The interaction between Lowell, Edith and Casey seems strange for the sake of being strange- am I missing something?
On the whole, I enjoyed reading it- like i said, I'm a fan of surreal stuff. In this case though, I felt that maybe you were just trying to BE absurd. I may be wrong- I'm certainly not a professional analyst- but for me this script was more like an experiment in circumstance. The characters have their own voices, but are still puppets for the scenario- they don't seem real in any way.
I'd definitely recommend that people read this- just in case I've missed the point!
Good luck with it!
read
I see from your BIO that this is your first screenplay. Pretty damn impressive for a first effort. You obviously spent some time learning the craft along the way instead of just puking up something on the paper. That's a step ahead of many first efforts. On top of that, I think you have a nice style and voice and an imaginative story here.
This is not a novel, and you obviously...
I see from your BIO that this is your first screenplay. Pretty damn impressive for a first effort. You obviously spent some time learning the craft along the way instead of just puking up something on the paper. That's a step ahead of many first efforts. On top of that, I think you have a nice style and voice and an imaginative story here.
This is not a novel, and you obviously know that. You write in a clear, concise, active fashion. Most first efforts (or even 4th and 5th) exhibit a tendency to be too descriptive, but you seem to have put a lot of effort into being succinct. Good on you. There are some scattered mistakes in terms of grammar, an extra word here and there, an apostrophe where not needed, that kind of thing. Not enough to be distracting, but something you will want to do a full word by word check on at some point. The format itself looks a touch off in terms of top/bottom margins, and I did run across some strange bolding on occasion. You will want to correct that.
You use CONTINUOUS quite a bit when it is improper. Contrary to what many people think, it is not generally used to indicate that the time is unbroken, but rather to indicate the camera is unbroken, ie, it is following the subject. There is a lot of debate on this, but frankly, having worked with production companies, I can tell you with some confidence that you can simply avoid its use entirely and never get in trouble with it. Sticking with a simple DAY or NIGHT in scene headings works every time, and if needed, use an action line to specify any additional requirements time wise.
You open in 1986, according to your scene heading. There is no way for the viewer to know this, and additionally, since you later come to present day, you create age problems, because you don't have any idea when this will actually be made, or viewed. To overcome these problems, I would suggest using a SUPER: "18 Years Ago" (or whatever) at the opening scene, and then a SUPER: "Present Day" when you need it. This approach not only makes it clear what the time is to the viewer, but also maintains the time span effectively.
I like the insert of the crayon drawing. It indicates you have a good sense of using visuals to establish character, rather than just 'telling'. Good on you.
You can do better with the introduction of your primary characters. Terms such as handsome are frivolous. Everyone in movies is handsome unless otherwise noted. This is the one area where you are allowed to be a bit more verbose. Use this opportunity to give us some emotional description of the character. That will be useful in attracting actors to the role. Try and do this in as visual a style as you can.
p.4 The dialogue here between Jeff and Jill seems pedestrian, and some of it can be cut. Try and get to the meat of things as quickly as possible and then move on. I have a little problem understanding why Jeff is hiding this important part of his past from Jill, even to the point of pretending he doesn't even know anyone named Ashley. If you want to make this work as a point that triggers Jill's later anger and distrust, I think you need to work harder. Matt really paints himself into a corner here with this out and out lie. I don't understand why he would hide it, and certainly don't know why he would make some future confession so difficult by taking this route that gives him no way out. I think instead, some hint here that he is hiding something ultimately wo0rks better, though I really think you need to build a stronger reason for him hiding this at all. It was years ago. He's an adult now, and though he would obviously have suffered guilt over the years, that's part of what made him the person she fell in love with. I understand the point of this as a plot device. I just don't think it's particularly effective as is.
Also, just as a suggestion, I would consider changing names. Jeff and Jill are too close, and too many primary characters with short 4 letter names makes it harder to distinguish.
p.17 I'm not understanding why Stanley could get into trouble for taking pictures. He's a photographer isn't he? Fact is these papparazzi types, while a nuisance, have the legal right to do so, so I think you have to explain somehow how he goes over the line. Moreover, even if for some reason he could get into trouble, it makes no sense that he would tell Lisa that. Why would he willingly tell her she is in a position to blackmail him. Needs some work to be plausible. I was unable to find any instances where a photographer had been convicted of stalking simply for following someone and taking pictures.
Jimmy and Stanley got muddled in my mind throughout the work. I think they are too similar in too many ways. Jimmy is an ex-con on probation. Stanley has been in trouble. Both are fixated on Jill in various ways. Both serve as red herrings. I think your story can be made much cleaner by consolidating these characters.
General impressions and suggestions.
Reduce character count. Get rid of Jimmy or Stanley.
More focus on Jeff. This is his story right? Drive the story primarily from his perspective to give it greater focus and more depth to Jeff. Make us better understand and emphasize with him. I can't even remember what he does... Do we know his job and anything about him outside of his relationship with Jill? Make his goal clear and focus everything in the story around his pursuit of that goal. Same with Lisa. She can be made stronger in terms of her motivations. If she is going to go to the lengths of murder here, you need to make us believe she would, and make us understand why.
Read your dialogue out loud. Mommy and daddy? hmmm. While you are succinct in your descriptions, there is room to cut dialogue. Make sure you know the purpose of every scene, and get rid of anything that doesn't serve that purpose.
Overall, I much enjoyed the read, and I think you demonstrate a commitment to the craft and exhibit skill and talent. This is a breezy and fun read, and with some hard work and sharp focus, can be made an excellent script. As a first effort, it's quite good. Best of luck.
read
This was a average film to me. It didnt do much for me in the way of a story line(im not a fan of driving a film with curse words). I did like the camera angles that were used, and the audio was good with some good sound effects. Not really a fan of repeating words. That is a interested twist on the ending. Overall id give it a 5 out of 10.
Disturbing ah yes power packed disturbance, nicely juxtopposed with the tranquil scenes. The roses add to the drama and the floating or flying pedals are a neat technique. Such a strange set of circumstances seemed to demand a little more explanation, a little more story. The camera work, music and acting all held well up in a tough to make film. This one grades out at A B...
Disturbing ah yes power packed disturbance, nicely juxtopposed with the tranquil scenes. The roses add to the drama and the floating or flying pedals are a neat technique. Such a strange set of circumstances seemed to demand a little more explanation, a little more story. The camera work, music and acting all held well up in a tough to make film. This one grades out at A B
read
It's hard to believe the author is a "newbie" at this. Granted, it's the third revision, but this is one of the more well-written scripts I've read so far on TS.
The Arrangement is a textbook romantic comedy, following a tried-and-true formula - Boy and girl bump into one another again just in time to avoid marrying the wrong person.
There's nothing new here, no twist on...
It's hard to believe the author is a "newbie" at this. Granted, it's the third revision, but this is one of the more well-written scripts I've read so far on TS.
The Arrangement is a textbook romantic comedy, following a tried-and-true formula - Boy and girl bump into one another again just in time to avoid marrying the wrong person.
There's nothing new here, no twist on the genre, but then again, why fix what ain't broken?
The cast of characters fits the genre nicely. The happy-go-lucky guy paired up with a dream girl who values him more as a pet project than for who he really is. The sweet girl whose overbearing mother continuously tries to pair her off with the most obnoxious suitor imaginable. The saucy girlfriend, the obnoxious buddy, the befuddled dad, the gang's all here.
There's one or two confusing things:
Rachel works 2 jobs? As secretary at Hillary's workplace, AND at the flower shop? Hillary doesn't seem to recognize her when Rachel delivers the flowers.
Also, Adam seems to know Rachel on page 25 when she dashes out with her trash, but then on page 36 in the flower shop, he's like blown away. I took this to mean that the first meeting she'd just woken up maybe, and then in the flower shop she was a little more gorgeous?
Ratings:
Concept: Good
Reviewer's tilt. It's a standard rom-com, executed very well. In this case, not messing with the formula is a good thing.
Story: Good
Again, standard but well executed.
Characters: Good
And AGAIN, standard but well executed. Little touches like the naughty little old ladies and Martha Stewart add to the fun.
Structure: Excellent
My one nit to pick would be that Adam kind of takes over for the finale, when Rachel has been the instigator throughout. I like it as is though.
Dialogue: Good
Characters speak believably without going to extremes to differentiate them. Nothing sounded off, or contrived.
Overall: Good
If you handed out an assignment to TS writers to take this kind of Rom-Com template and write a script, I don't know how many would do it as well as this.
This should be a SOM candidate.
read
You’ve created a memorable script with “Patisserie.” The story is poignant and gives viewers a look into a sad history that existed many years ago but which still dominates our culture and sensibilities. You’ve made that backward look into a distressing time original, fresh, and painful. We grieve with Andre and Emilie. We rejoice that there is a neighbor like Durand who cares...
You’ve created a memorable script with “Patisserie.” The story is poignant and gives viewers a look into a sad history that existed many years ago but which still dominates our culture and sensibilities. You’ve made that backward look into a distressing time original, fresh, and painful. We grieve with Andre and Emilie. We rejoice that there is a neighbor like Durand who cares. Egger, the stereotypical drunken German, deserves to be shot, and when he is, we find ourselves hating the Nazi soldiers with even more vengeance.
You give us a script that shows Emilie fighting with herself over her guilt and Andre’s developing affection for the woman who cares for his son. The plot becomes a mystery. Will Andre ever find or see Mireille again? Will the Germans discover that Emilie is a Jew? Then finally, will Andre admit that Mireille is his wife or not? Those agonizing questions hang over the unfolding story and keep the viewer hooked to the end.
My compliments.
The dialogue seems natural for the time in which the story set. The setting seems realistic and of course, visually very French. That in itself would be interesting to film. There are many details a camera person would want to focus on in order to capture the sadness and irony of the story, for example,at the end, the lone plate with the three petits fours.
The only error I found was on page 106, when you have Emilie and Frederick “enter and stands before him” –should be “stand.” What a minor point/typo in an otherwise excellent script, a plot that leaves viewers with the haunting question of whose story is this in the end?
read
This starts out as a good character piece, showing a developing hatred from one brother to another, but then it just loses it. From the introduction of the "witch", this got really bad. First off, nothing is ever really explained about the witch, which I guess is supposed to give a feeling of mystery, but ends up giving a feeling of "can't really explain this". Secondly,...
This starts out as a good character piece, showing a developing hatred from one brother to another, but then it just loses it. From the introduction of the "witch", this got really bad. First off, nothing is ever really explained about the witch, which I guess is supposed to give a feeling of mystery, but ends up giving a feeling of "can't really explain this". Secondly, jumping ahead in time by so much becomes intolerable, leaving no real room for empathy as far as the characters are concerned. What really ruined it for me though was when the story jumps into the supernatural "all of a sudden". It was like two different writers wrote half the story, hence the 'From Dusk 'Til Dawn' analogy, except that one was an entertaining story. The dark thinking in this story is my kind of imagination, though, and I don't think there are enough darker stories out there at the moment. It has a little potential, as long as a complete overhaul of the last act is done, and some loose ends are tied up a little better. One thing is for certain, that whole afterlife sequence has to go. Good effort, bad compilation.
read
Excuse the bad pun. Didn't find it funny, in the least. I don't think there was anything very creative or interesting about it. Not realistic, not interesting, not worth my time. Maybe the fact that this was done in 2000 has something to do with it's horridity.
