Thieves and Liars
I have to begin by saying this is not my favorite genre of film, so I don't know how helpful my comments might be. Please feel free to ignore anything I say. Also, since I am not incredibly organized, my comments may be a little too random to follow, but I hope you find some of them helpful. Let me start with my overall impressions. At more than one point I was confused about the action. The number of characters made it hard for me to keep up with everything. I think if I could actually see a film version of the story, that would not be a problem. I didn't particulary care for the people in the screenplay. Even Fiver didn't have many redeeming characteristics. I think if you did a little bit more with his relationship with Jennifer and Margaret, it might soften the ragged edges of his character. The way the screenplay is written, the scenes with these two almost seem as if they were thrust in strictly for the reason of making him appear softer than what he was. The only characters I liked were Gunner and the three Egyptians. Other than these comments, I mostly had trouble with some specific scenes. The first Scene with Rutledge rang false with me. Plus, he is supposed to have this reputation as a badass but he is more of a wimp to me. When he gets into the sword fight scene at the end, it didn't seem logical -- well, really for both of them to have those kinds of skills. The scene early with Tony and Fiver doesn't work very well with me. Would Appollo be careless enough to let his brother find out all about his activities? In fact, I have a lot of trouble with the whole character of Tony. I can't quite figure out his reasons for being involved in the story -- except perhaps as a character who gives exposition. I guess my final comment would be about the way you have labeled your story. I honestly believe you should concentrate on focusing your story's genre. Instead of writing a comedy/drama, make your story one or the other. This story with all of its violence seems too harsh to be comedic. Now, having said all of that in a way that I hope makes sense. let me move on. Mostly, I liked the story quite a bit. It was fast reading with a lot of action (Maybe too much action and not enough character development). It got my attention immediately and had a good plot for the most part. The story was interesting, and as I said, I don't generally like this kind of story.
I think the concept needed to be tighter. There was so much going on, I would think it would be very difficult to write one logline to give a good overview of the whole story. I've already mentioned that I don't particularly care for most of the characters. I didn't have any problems with the dialogue except for a few places where it seemed overwritten. I'm thinking specifically about Rutledge, when he first sees the three Egyptions and Gunner when he gives the history of the swords. I liked the story, but thought it could be tightened just a bit. You seemed to have the three-part structure down pretty well. I guess my final thought would be to not go off in so many directions. If you want to do an adventure do an adventure. If you want to make it a comedy, do more comedy in it. If you want the story to be about relationships, then make it about relationships. To me the screenplay tries to do too much at once.
Other Reviews by scross
79
-
Coming from an area once noted for mining, I could appreciate this story. Our area had its own riot but nothing as horrible as in this story. First, let me talk about some things that might be improved. At times your dialogue sounded forced, stilted even. When Chase comes upon the death of Belcher and says, "Who did this outrageous thing?" is one example. There are some...
Coming from an area once noted for mining, I could appreciate this story. Our area had its own riot but nothing as horrible as in this story. First, let me talk about some things that might be improved. At times your dialogue sounded forced, stilted even. When Chase comes upon the death of Belcher and says, "Who did this outrageous thing?" is one example. There are some other examples of times when the dialogue didn't seem quite right. When Thomas tells his dad, "You are an informer," is another example. I also thought that in spots there was just too much talking. An example is when Cedi and Mary meet. To me the dialogue needed some work, but it wasn't horrible. As far as the story goes, I'd mention a couple of things. What is the story of Tom being an informer and causing the death of some of Mary's family members? You mentioned that and didn't explain it. I liked some of your figurative language, but I don't know that it's necessary. "Like a grey sore" was one example. It would be effective in a story or poem. At one other time, you wrote "his manhood is wounded" in action description. What did he do to show his wounded manhood? You also need to do a closer proofreading. You had some grammar errors. I noticed, for instance, that you used lay wrong at least twice. You might also want to revisit the use of flashback. The story might lose a little of its immediacy with their use. This is strictly a personal thing with me. I usually don't like the flashbacks unless they're used to gradually uncover a mystery. I know these are picky things, but picky things were about all I noticed that needed improvement. Stories, character, and plot were all good. I'm really no expert on structure, but I do wonder if your screenplay follows the basic three act structure that Hollywood people are so excited to see. The beginning seemed a little slow to me, but once I got into the story, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
read
-
I am so glad that I got the chance to read this screenplay. I loved it. Sat down and read it straight through and didn't get bored once. I'm sorry, but this is going to be a short review because I really don't have much bad to say. Let me dispense with just a couple areas of some concern. I have a little problem with Critter -- he seems like more a caricature than a real...
I am so glad that I got the chance to read this screenplay. I loved it. Sat down and read it straight through and didn't get bored once. I'm sorry, but this is going to be a short review because I really don't have much bad to say. Let me dispense with just a couple areas of some concern. I have a little problem with Critter -- he seems like more a caricature than a real person. I couldn't help thinking of Boss Hogg in Dukes of Hazzard, but I think that's probably okay. Tru is another one that I think is more of a caricature. But I have to say that I loved all of the rest of your characters. They were anything but caricatures -- even your minor characters. Probably, in a comedy, there would be no problems with this. The only other thing that concerns me is some of the adult situations. This is a great movie, and I think maybe you're treading a thin line between pg13 and R. I would hate to see you lose part of your audience because of one or two scenes. I think this would make a great movie, one which I would come to see. Really, these are just minor concerns. I also like the references to the St. Louis Cardinals. I'm from Missouri and have been a die-hard fan ever since I was able to understand baseball. I'm also a teacher. I say amen to Nana!
read
-
Please feel free to ignore any of the comments I am about to make. First, let me say that this kind of screenplay is difficult for me to judge. I like to watch adventure films and not being able to actually watch "Gold of the Sun King" makes it harder to judge. I'll try to give you a few broad comments and then go into specifics. First, the concept. It's all right but nothing...
Please feel free to ignore any of the comments I am about to make. First, let me say that this kind of screenplay is difficult for me to judge. I like to watch adventure films and not being able to actually watch "Gold of the Sun King" makes it harder to judge. I'll try to give you a few broad comments and then go into specifics. First, the concept. It's all right but nothing spectacular. What is it about this adventure story that makes it different from others? I really don't see much that would make it stand out. Secondly, dialogue. You need to make your dialogue more concise. AT times it seems stilted and just not necessary. In one scene, one of Amaru's men says that the lake is emptying when you show it emptying. You don't need both. The answering machine message at the beginning of the film from Cheryl -- way too preachy. And what happened to her anyway? It appeared she might be an important character at the beginning and then she was gone, never to be seen again. In another place, one of your characters asks Elias, Are you the owner of the store, and Elias says Yes, I am the owner of that store. Work on making your dialogue a little less on the nose. Your characters is the next thing I would mention. Generally, I liked them. However, I think the most interesting one was Manco. You might be able to play up his being Incan more so -- like perhaps, he is a direct descendant of the sun king and that's why the ghost warriors took him away. I liked the ghost warriors, but you never fully mentioned why they would lead Elias to the gold. You mentioned something about the fact that Elias and his crew did not have weapons. Not a good justification for me. Aaron could have been a more interesting character. Again, you just kind of put him into the story for a while -- and I'm not really sure why he was there. Did I miss something? He volunteered to go with Aramu, didn't he. Aramu even told him to keep the map long enough for him to learn enough to read it. (By the way Aramu, Aaron, and Armand -- too many A's) Then, he got killed off. I think you could have played up the father/son relationship more. In the end, the story just didn't hold together for me. There were too many events that stretched the bounds of believability. I already mentioned the ghost warriors. I don't find fault with their presence. I think that's kind of cool, but I do find fault with their reason for being in the story. Why did they hide the gold after they showed where it was? The fire lit by a carelessly thrown match in the beginning. Too much of a stretch for me. The use of voiceovers to give exposition needs work. The part where a small boy on the plane asks Elias for a story is a good example of this. By the way, were the flashbacks Elias had dreams or were they part of the story? Other things that I had trouble with. What are the chances of Elias just running into his dad at a bar? What are the chances of Grace finding her father in the van she happens to steal. I can see why she might steal it believing that he was in it, but after she drove it for a while, she was going to push it over a cliff. Other coincidences also hurt the story. The fact that Manco is on the very train that Grace and Elias are. The fact that a crowbar just happened to be around when they needed one. You also need to watch your grammar. You got too and to mixed up and its and it's mixed. I didn't see anything wrong with the structure really. I don't want to discourage you, because I think your basic premise is good, but you do need to do some serious revising.
read
+ more reviews
