Other Reviews by Warren Paul Glover 15

• 
  Review of 'Sleeper'
  A review of SLEEPER
  by Warren Paul Glover on 10/13/2012
  For the first 25 pages or so, I thought this was going to be a pretty good script, albeit following a fairly standard CIA-type storyline in the vein of S.A.L.T. There was good imagery (eg the mop in blood - who's though?) and transitions and the action was really well-written. Then what happened? By page 30 the writing became more flabby and the storyline more unbelievable... For the first 25 pages or so, I thought this was going to be a pretty good script, albeit following a fairly standard CIA-type storyline in the vein of S.A.L.T. There was good imagery (eg the mop in blood - who's though?) and transitions and the action was really well-written. Then what happened?
  
  By page 30 the writing became more flabby and the storyline more unbelievable as the page count got higher. A great ACT I then, but for me ACT II and ACT III really lost me.
  
  Offputting was the use of abbreviations without explanation: SCIF, SDO, SVR, DOD, QRF and E & E. Plus 'exfil-sight'. Maybe an American audience would get these but I was lost.
  
  I also found some of the scenes hard to visualise. An early example is on page 11 where both marines moan yet one has already been knocked unconscious by his own weapon then the baddy shoots the other - all supposedly in under two seconds.
  
  On page 28 Anna's reaction seemed unbelievable to me - fondling biceps? And I found the action on page 29 confusing.
  
  By page 31, where Famo luckily finds the right window to shoot out of, I started to have my doubts about the script. After a promising beginning the story had seemed to take a downturn. Then on page 32 I read about "Vronsky and his blood drinkers" and I wondered if we'd suddenly switched genres from action/spy thriller to a vampire movie.
  
  Some of the dialogue I found strange, e.g. 'Anna yelling 'Yeah, why did you shoot my parents?' And the Chatty Boy dialogue.
  
  Anna seemed preoccupied with her image at very strange moments, like doing her make-up on page 37. So much so that this distracted from making her an authentically sympathetic character.
  
  There are some typos, eg on pages 10, 18, 19, 23, 25, 31, 50, 51, 55 (there are probably more so you might want to give another proof read).
  
  The story, for me at least, became too silly somewhere in ACT II, and by ACT III I'd lost all interest in the characters, who rarely rose above the one-dimensional. This was a real shame as I thought you're opening 20+ pages were well-written. For what it's worth, I'd consider rewriting in the vein of your first act. And I'd cut the page count. It's too long.
  read
• 
  Not the finished article
  A review of Fixed Shadows (r)
  by Warren Paul Glover on 09/03/2012
  This started out quite promising with some good description, but for me it tailed off into a bland blend of cliched characters and dialogue. My overall impression was that we've seen this type of story many times before, and in the end the characters were all too similar and weren't drawn sympathetically enough to care about what happened to any of them. If you could flesh... This started out quite promising with some good description, but for me it tailed off into a bland blend of cliched characters and dialogue.
  
  My overall impression was that we've seen this type of story many times before, and in the end the characters were all too similar and weren't drawn sympathetically enough to care about what happened to any of them.
  
  If you could flesh the characters out more and give them more depth, rather than painting themselves as one-dimensional types who are easily expendable, then you might have a fairly good political drama on your hands. As it stands, the biggest weakness in this script is that the characters are just too thin and they play out in cliched situations speaking on-the-nose, often wooden dialogue that contains too much exposition.
  
  On the more positive note, there is something George Clooney-ish about the political story. But it needs to be more refined and brought to life with better (ie more realistic) characters.
  
  A couple of points that stood out:
  
  You begin your early action descriptions with a pronoun, ie you introduce 'the Fixer' in the first scene then begin the second scene with 'She...' Okay, we can easily follow this one but later on, because there are too many confusing characters, it becomes more difficult to follow who you are talking about. I read in a recent screenwriting blog (Extreme Screenwriting) that you should never write this way,
  
  I found the placing of the camera in the plant pot on the towel rack unconvincing, especially if it was supposed to be so important.
  
  It took me out of the story that Lana had a shower, towelled herself off then later Creed asks her to take off her clothes. I assumed she would be wrapped in the towel because you didn't say that she got dressed again (but why would she have had the shower in the first place?).
  
  The bribery scene came across as overly cliched and implausible.
  
  The flashback sequence contained too much exposition.
  
  Pointers for a rewrite?
  
  * give your characters some depth, especially your protagonist. But give your secondary characters depth too so they don't come across as too cliched.
  * try to be more original with your settings and dialogue.
  * lose some characters (too confusing).
  * add some original twists
  read
• 
  Could go the distance
  A review of God's Acre
  by Warren Paul Glover on 08/21/2011
  This is a really interesting premise and I can see a lot of promise in a longer version of this, actually showing what the father did to his three sons rather than, as in this really short version, merely talking about it. But I understand from the credits why the film was so short. Although I wasn't particularly interested in the father (I found him too weak and unattractive... This is a really interesting premise and I can see a lot of promise in a longer version of this, actually showing what the father did to his three sons rather than, as in this really short version, merely talking about it. But I understand from the credits why the film was so short.
  
  Although I wasn't particularly interested in the father (I found him too weak and unattractive to have any sympathy for him or care where he ended up) I was intrigued to find out how he got to be his in peculiar interview situation.
  
  I also liked the music, so, on the whole, good job. Apart from the title. I didn't get it. read