a screenplay
by RainWeirdo
1964. Everything is in its right place for a street-wise gumshoe until the woman who broke his heart four years... more
RainWeirdo
member since 01/29/2010 |
last login 01/12/2013
I am a recent graduate developing a group of feature screenplays, some older ones shelved for however many years, a few newer concepts. I am always looking for valuable feedback, and always happy to give it (at least... I hope it's valuable...
Bio
I am a recent graduate developing a group of feature screenplays, some older ones shelved for however many years, a few newer concepts. I am always looking for valuable feedback, and always happy to give it (at least... I hope it's valuable when I give it).
Submissions by RainWeirdo
-
-
a screenplay by RainWeirdo
Kind of an existential grindhouse yarn, "What Ever Happened to Valerie Malone" follows one Valerie Malone for several... more
Reviews by RainWeirdo 8
-
A review of Stealing Canadaby RainWeirdo on 05/23/2010Like some of the best comedies, “Stealing Canada” derives its humor from an impeccable eye for the details and nuance of a culture/group of characters just ever so slightly off-the-beaten-path. Idiots who think they’re geniuses trying to pull off something which, to put it mildly, is far beyond their feeble skills. This reminded me of certain Coen Brothers movies, certain... Like some of the best comedies, “Stealing Canada” derives its humor from an impeccable eye for the details and nuance of a culture/group of characters just ever so slightly off-the-beaten-path. Idiots who think they’re geniuses trying to pull off something which, to put it mildly, is far beyond their feeble skills. This reminded me of certain Coen Brothers movies, certain Guy Maddin movies, and certain elements of Wes Anderson. I don’t know what you think of those filmmakers, but in my book, such comparisons are meant as a sincere compliment. I really enjoyed reading this screenplay and have very little to offer in terms of criticism or advice.
There are numerous typographical errors (for example, recurrent use of “there” where “their” would be correct). Early on, you have the following note:
“Characters speak in an exaggerated Newfoundland accent, to varying degrees depending on the character.”
This is troublesome because a). It is stated twice on page one and; b). I don’t think it is necessary to begin with. We get the dialect from your dialogue, and any director or actor with more than one brain cell will be able to determine the degree of accent needed without such a superfluous reminder by the writer. The use of “b’y” took me a little while to figure out - and I grew up in northern Minnesota where an odd mixture of Canadian/Scandinavian/Irish accents are the norm. I would eliminate this particular spelling, as it causes the reader to stumble and back-track in your otherwise liquid dialogue.
I really admire that no detail is left unappreciated: the meat; the ceramic moose; Little Derek, etc. This is really solid - and, consequentially, really funny - work. I honestly laughed more while reading “Stealing Canada” than I have reading any number of comedies posted to TriggerStreet... or while watching any number of so-called comedies that have actually been produced.
While most of your flashbacks and flash-forwards work very well, I would eliminate the brief “Four Hours Later” one on page 41. We know that Scooter and Fudd are morons and we can intuit that any endeavor they take up is a doomed cause, we don’t need this flash-forward. In fact, it somewhat diminishes the deadpan impact of the comedy in this scene which would be better expressed as an awkward silence while Pat, Fudd and Scooter each realize the hopelessness and ineptitude of the situation.
I recommend modifying the flashback on page 10 concerning what Young Pat and Bridge Boy do for fun. Maybe it’s just my general - and completely subjective - distaste for poop jokes (sorry, I just can’t view defecation the same way I did prior to seeing “Salo”), but this scene seemed to strive too hard for a gross-out laugh while the cleverer humor present in the rest of the screenplay came across as much more natural and enjoyable. I would suggest a flashback/aside that leant itself more to the detail-oriented regional humor of this particular place.
Insofar as Pat is concerned, I think the only flaw in his characterization is a lack of build up to his decision to rob the convenience store. This is a minor quibble as it was quickly forgotten the further I got into the screenplay, however at the moment of its occurrence, it seemed a bit extreme. The easy fix would be to pile even more stressors onto him prior to this scene, or to have something more emotionally/psychologically traumatic come of Pat running into Manny on pages 23-25. Again, this is a minor complaint - you’re almost there, I just want to see you take this early situation a little further.
Speaking of going a little further, I would like to see some aspects go a bit more extreme in your denouement. You manage to pull off a surprisingly well-deserved feel-good vibe when all is said and done. It reminded conversely of both the Coen’s “The Big Lebowski” and Herzog’s recent “Bad Lieutenant.” A horrifically convoluted, strange slice-of-life piece that nonetheless leaves you with a smile on your face. But I wanted to see you go a bit further, not narratively, not thematically, but stylistically. One example that keeps popping into my mind is your Narrator. Narration can be a deadly, reliant trap, or it can be a transcendent flourish. You’re leaning more toward transcendent flourish because the Narrator has style, syntax and dialect that create a character unto him (or her) self, yet I was really hoping that toward the end the Narrator would make an appearance as a physical character. Maybe sitting in the back seat with Celine, Fudd and Scooter as they leave the airport. Or maybe I would like some subtle direction of Tim, in his final scene, turning and directly addressing the camera (audience) with his final plea of “WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?” The entire screenplay is very self-aware, but not in a depreciating way, so don’t be afraid to take these elements a step further.
There were some points where your dialogue was a bit too on point. Specifically Pat’s “I’ve spent my whole life here” speech on page 96 and some of the dialogue on 107 through 109. It’s not that this dialogue is not eloquent, it just comes off as a bit preachy. We get the message of your story without Pat or Celine or any other character spelling it out for us.
I do apologize if this review has not been particularly helpful. There’s just not much to criticize here, aside from the few insignificant issues I’ve written of above. Give it about five more read-throughs to eliminate the slight typographical errors. Try to flesh out Pat’s situation prior to the events of the screenplay. With a little bit of work, you will have a screenplay that might not win awards, might not be that marketable to the general industry system, but will - if it gets made - be one of those quirky sleeper hits every indie filmmaker dreams about.
To put it succinctly: Sell this, or, if you’re a director and you have the financial backing, make this. It’s good enough to be on the silver screen. read -
A review of Violaby RainWeirdo on 03/26/2010I am having some difficulty formulating a constructive review of this entirely unique but utterly maddening screenplay. I will begin with emphasizing the adjective "unique" - as I read "Viola" I was overtaken by a rare and sublime sense of "this is a story that gives a blessed reprieve from the norm, this is not something you just read any old day." "Viola" is neither derivative... I am having some difficulty formulating a constructive review of this entirely unique but utterly maddening screenplay. I will begin with emphasizing the adjective "unique" - as I read "Viola" I was overtaken by a rare and sublime sense of "this is a story that gives a blessed reprieve from the norm, this is not something you just read any old day."
"Viola" is neither derivative nor imitative - and therein lies the chief problem with your narrative. There is nothing to grab a hold of in this story, no basis, no grounding to allow the reader (or, in the case it makes it to production stage - the viewer) the comfort of a an easy experience. While I am fascinated by this effect, it obviously entails an extremely polarizing disposition. Many readers/viewers will likely throw in the towel as early as your inciting incident due to the disorienting effect of your first act, a series of seemingly barely connected or utterly disconnected scenes featuring unidentifiable characters spouting intriguing but groundless non sequiturs. You state in your notes that the third act is most troublesome to you, but by the third act, despite not being able to discern exactly what was going on, I was fully on board for the ride, having tossed conventional logic to the wind long ago. I think the problem lies more in your set up. Stories of this nature, which reach for such absurd heights, often begin in the most self-conscious and grounded basis of normality. I am thinking specifically of the likes of David Lynch's more accessible films, "Blue Velvet" and "Mulholland Drive." You must lure us in to your insanity rather than knock us unconscious with it. Each of your first three scenes, from Birch to The Falcon to the killing of Reams are inciting incidents, except that two of them (Birch and The Falcon) have no stories to follow, and this creates an immediate convolution. The story really starts with Reams and the introduction of Bill.
That leads me to my chief complaint with the entirety of the story:
Bill is great. He has style, attitude and a razor-sharp tongue, all necessary elements of any good noir protagonist. But, he also suffers the typical faults of such a character. The noir hero (detective, police officer, reporter, etc.) is, by nature, a character who needlessly embroils himself in threatening circumstances that exist entirely outside of his life at the outset of the story. The Falcon, Birch and Hank would still carry out their strangely existential war even if Bill did not exist. In order to compensate for these shortcomings, the noir protagonist must become deeply invested, psychologically, emotionally or, in most cases, physically, in the threats that surround him, and while I admire Bill individually, he seems like less of an active protagonist in this story than he does a bewildered bystander. This can work (in fact, you address it directly in his climatic confrontation with the Falcon when he blatantly states he has no idea what’s going on - however, this realization comes a bit late), but you need to decide whether or not he is a bystander or an active participant. If he is an active participant, give him a real, devastating reason to be involved, something deeply personal or something really physically threatening. Because Glenn is his new partner, and he only meets Victoria within the timeline of the story, I don't quite swallow his deep investment in their particular perils enough to warrant his irrational actions.
I would also like to see more of the secondary characters. Noir, once again, lends itself inherently to the "rogue gallery of faces" idea, but in order for any one face to achieve a purpose, their must be an individual, although simplified arc. Basically, this means that each "face" must appear at least twice. I wanted characters like Check, Dr. Jax and even Rhonda to show up at least one more time, even if just in passing reference, to give us some idea of how their lives were changed by the events of your story. The one character who really makes an impact despite her one-time appearance is Sophia - very much a Ross MacDonald type of persona, bravo.
This review is getting a bit long-winded, huh? Well, believe me, it wouldn't be if I didn't think so highly of your screenplay. I'll try to wrap things up, then.
There are numerous typos. I was initially keeping a list but it became very long, and I'm sure that one or two simple read-throughs on your part will be able to catch them. This is merely an editorial complaint.
I do not think it necessary to have Bill shoot Hank in the shin, it's a rash action not befitting his character. Rough him up a bit, as he does, put the gun to his head, but a shin shot on a sick, non-threatening man lying in a pool of his own green vomit is a little over-the-top, but not in a good way.
I was initially annoyed by the recording cut-aways of Birch's dictation... but the content becomes so rhythmic and addictive I soon did not mind.
I don't think it is necessary to directly reveal Leeland as "The Silhouette." He can be the silhouette, that was a piece of the puzzle that fell perfectly into place, but the blatant reveal comes off as comical. Merely implying him as the silhouette without directly showing it would allow a bit more sinister of a shadow to fall on the mystery, anonymity and seemingly all but omnipotent nature of the secret society.
Last, but most importantly, please accept my sincere compliments on your dialogue. It is pitch-perfect and immediately enclosed me in its effortless flow. Particularly given the subject matter of some of your discourse, this is very impressive. I would gently caution you on taking it too far. While the likes of Falcon's climactic discussion with Bill has an immediate linguistic fun, on retrospect, it comes off as a bit showy, kind of the villain needlessly explaining his evil scheme more for the audience than for the protagonist. This is less a problem of actual dialogue than it is of character setup, for example, given Birch's penchant for dictation, I perfectly bought his similar speech.
I’ll end this now. Please know that this was a difficult review. I am impressed and thankful for your wonderful and enigmatic take on a unique subject matter. I understand your concept and content, I am simply not sure what your final stance on it is come page 101. A bit more thought into the characters and their motivation would elevate this screenplay from a solution-less puzzle to a truly intriguing nightmare. I hope you will find these comments helpful.
read -
A review of IRON MAIDENSby RainWeirdo on 03/24/2010I will preface this review by stating that I am not typically a fan of historical war stories - certainly there have been some films in this genre that have impressed me, but I rarely if ever go out of my way to ensure viewing one of them. That being said, it was a tremendous surprise and delight to find myself so deeply immersed in the story and characters of "Iron Maidens,"... I will preface this review by stating that I am not typically a fan of historical war stories - certainly there have been some films in this genre that have impressed me, but I rarely if ever go out of my way to ensure viewing one of them. That being said, it was a tremendous surprise and delight to find myself so deeply immersed in the story and characters of "Iron Maidens," which I read in one sitting.
The scope and complexity of this screenplay are truly admirable, taking us fluidly from barren fields covered in ravaged corpses to opulent Kremlin propaganda parties. The attention to accuracy and detail is astounding - although slightly obtrusive at times. Some of the scene descriptions could be edited down without losing any sense of the story - this is why they have historical consultants on-hand during the production stage.
This very much has the feel of a Spielberg/Hanks production, and while I mean that as a sincere compliment, it also encompasses a severe criticism: sentimentality. I feel that you could easily excise the opening and closing scenes and in doing so heighten the integrity of the rest of the script. These scenes create a sense of propaganda, which is, ironically, an issue you deliciously satirize in the rest of the script. This same type of cheap sentimentality, in my personal opinion, destroys otherwise flawless films such as "Saving Private Ryan" and "Schindler's List." This complaint aside, the opening scene also sets up false expectations concerning the surviving Rosnikova woman, which leads me into my chief complaint with the story. Tatyana, who, eventually, fulfills the position of being the crux of the drama, is the least interesting character in your otherwise fine spectrum of personalities. Anna's breakdown is heart-wrenching, Raisa's turn from a patriotic civilian to a soulless killer is intriguing (although it could be taken even further), Vladimir's unexpected humanity provides not only for a bit of well needed warmth but also great, though subtle, comedic moments (this is also true, to a lesser extent, of Malenkov). But Tatyana? Had I not recognized her formulaic inhabitance of the role of central figure, would have gone all but beneath my notice. Obviously Raisa and Anna represent two extreme sides of the civilian going to war mentality, and Tatyana is in the middle - but what is the middle? There is no depth or detail given to her that indicates any kind of unique perspective on the situations she finds herself in.
Gurko is another problem insofar as characterization. He is the primary villain, but enters the story a bit late to really hang such a responsibility upon. Additionally, he has no likable/empathetic qualities and despite his cruelty, he needs to be relatable. The best villains of cinema are always relatable despite their evil - Hannibal Lecter is awe-strikingly intelligent; Darth Vader truly loves his son; Colonel Landa is utterly charming; John Doe in Se7en is insane, but we can identify with his disgust for certain aspects of society. Gurko's death occurs near the climax, but feels useless because we have no interest in his situation aside to see him die.
Yev became my favorite character. Initially I found his asides to be distracting, but eventually he experienced the most sincere and drastic arc.
The first scene with Stalin has no place in this screenplay. It is purely expository, and such a powerful historical figure demands a more powerful entrance. I would advise to excise him from the the film viewing (his second scene), although that would require a drastic re-introduction of the propaganda subplot. Stalin's best scene is his silent condemnation of Tatyana at the Kremlin dance - this should perhaps be his only scene.
The initial dialogue between Raisa, Tatyana and Anna is a bit expository, it could have a more natural flow. Likewise, all of the characters speak exactly the same. You seem to have an in-depth knowledge of WW2 and Russian history, so please explore each character's nuances a bit more. They come from widespread backgrounds and settings and must each have their particular dialects, gestures, views, etc. A bit more independence in each of their interactions would create more dramatic scenes.
I was unsure as to why Vladimir and Anna's relationship broke off so suddenly. I expected that they would be relieved at Vladimir's promotion to know they could continue their affair in secrecy. Did he break it off out of responsibility to his new duties? Did she break it off out of contempt?
Aside from Raisa, what were the other's reasons for volunteering at the very beginning? Cut some of the needless expository situations at the beginning and fill them in with indications of a more well-rounded background for Anna and Tatyana.
The above criticisms aside, I cannot stress enough what a polished and well-structured piece of work this screenplay is. read
Write a Comment
Submissions by RainWeirdo
-
a screenplay by RainWeirdo
1964. Everything is in its right place for a street-wise gumshoe until the woman who broke his heart four years... more
-
a screenplay by RainWeirdo
Kind of an existential grindhouse yarn, "What Ever Happened to Valerie Malone" follows one Valerie Malone for several... more
Reviews by RainWeirdo 8
-
A review of Stealing Canadaby RainWeirdo on 05/23/2010Like some of the best comedies, “Stealing Canada” derives its humor from an impeccable eye for the details and nuance of a culture/group of characters just ever so slightly off-the-beaten-path. Idiots who think they’re geniuses trying to pull off something which, to put it mildly, is far beyond their feeble skills. This reminded me of certain Coen Brothers movies, certain... Like some of the best comedies, “Stealing Canada” derives its humor from an impeccable eye for the details and nuance of a culture/group of characters just ever so slightly off-the-beaten-path. Idiots who think they’re geniuses trying to pull off something which, to put it mildly, is far beyond their feeble skills. This reminded me of certain Coen Brothers movies, certain Guy Maddin movies, and certain elements of Wes Anderson. I don’t know what you think of those filmmakers, but in my book, such comparisons are meant as a sincere compliment. I really enjoyed reading this screenplay and have very little to offer in terms of criticism or advice.
There are numerous typographical errors (for example, recurrent use of “there” where “their” would be correct). Early on, you have the following note:
“Characters speak in an exaggerated Newfoundland accent, to varying degrees depending on the character.”
This is troublesome because a). It is stated twice on page one and; b). I don’t think it is necessary to begin with. We get the dialect from your dialogue, and any director or actor with more than one brain cell will be able to determine the degree of accent needed without such a superfluous reminder by the writer. The use of “b’y” took me a little while to figure out - and I grew up in northern Minnesota where an odd mixture of Canadian/Scandinavian/Irish accents are the norm. I would eliminate this particular spelling, as it causes the reader to stumble and back-track in your otherwise liquid dialogue.
I really admire that no detail is left unappreciated: the meat; the ceramic moose; Little Derek, etc. This is really solid - and, consequentially, really funny - work. I honestly laughed more while reading “Stealing Canada” than I have reading any number of comedies posted to TriggerStreet... or while watching any number of so-called comedies that have actually been produced.
While most of your flashbacks and flash-forwards work very well, I would eliminate the brief “Four Hours Later” one on page 41. We know that Scooter and Fudd are morons and we can intuit that any endeavor they take up is a doomed cause, we don’t need this flash-forward. In fact, it somewhat diminishes the deadpan impact of the comedy in this scene which would be better expressed as an awkward silence while Pat, Fudd and Scooter each realize the hopelessness and ineptitude of the situation.
I recommend modifying the flashback on page 10 concerning what Young Pat and Bridge Boy do for fun. Maybe it’s just my general - and completely subjective - distaste for poop jokes (sorry, I just can’t view defecation the same way I did prior to seeing “Salo”), but this scene seemed to strive too hard for a gross-out laugh while the cleverer humor present in the rest of the screenplay came across as much more natural and enjoyable. I would suggest a flashback/aside that leant itself more to the detail-oriented regional humor of this particular place.
Insofar as Pat is concerned, I think the only flaw in his characterization is a lack of build up to his decision to rob the convenience store. This is a minor quibble as it was quickly forgotten the further I got into the screenplay, however at the moment of its occurrence, it seemed a bit extreme. The easy fix would be to pile even more stressors onto him prior to this scene, or to have something more emotionally/psychologically traumatic come of Pat running into Manny on pages 23-25. Again, this is a minor complaint - you’re almost there, I just want to see you take this early situation a little further.
Speaking of going a little further, I would like to see some aspects go a bit more extreme in your denouement. You manage to pull off a surprisingly well-deserved feel-good vibe when all is said and done. It reminded conversely of both the Coen’s “The Big Lebowski” and Herzog’s recent “Bad Lieutenant.” A horrifically convoluted, strange slice-of-life piece that nonetheless leaves you with a smile on your face. But I wanted to see you go a bit further, not narratively, not thematically, but stylistically. One example that keeps popping into my mind is your Narrator. Narration can be a deadly, reliant trap, or it can be a transcendent flourish. You’re leaning more toward transcendent flourish because the Narrator has style, syntax and dialect that create a character unto him (or her) self, yet I was really hoping that toward the end the Narrator would make an appearance as a physical character. Maybe sitting in the back seat with Celine, Fudd and Scooter as they leave the airport. Or maybe I would like some subtle direction of Tim, in his final scene, turning and directly addressing the camera (audience) with his final plea of “WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?” The entire screenplay is very self-aware, but not in a depreciating way, so don’t be afraid to take these elements a step further.
There were some points where your dialogue was a bit too on point. Specifically Pat’s “I’ve spent my whole life here” speech on page 96 and some of the dialogue on 107 through 109. It’s not that this dialogue is not eloquent, it just comes off as a bit preachy. We get the message of your story without Pat or Celine or any other character spelling it out for us.
I do apologize if this review has not been particularly helpful. There’s just not much to criticize here, aside from the few insignificant issues I’ve written of above. Give it about five more read-throughs to eliminate the slight typographical errors. Try to flesh out Pat’s situation prior to the events of the screenplay. With a little bit of work, you will have a screenplay that might not win awards, might not be that marketable to the general industry system, but will - if it gets made - be one of those quirky sleeper hits every indie filmmaker dreams about.
To put it succinctly: Sell this, or, if you’re a director and you have the financial backing, make this. It’s good enough to be on the silver screen. read -
A review of Violaby RainWeirdo on 03/26/2010I am having some difficulty formulating a constructive review of this entirely unique but utterly maddening screenplay. I will begin with emphasizing the adjective "unique" - as I read "Viola" I was overtaken by a rare and sublime sense of "this is a story that gives a blessed reprieve from the norm, this is not something you just read any old day." "Viola" is neither derivative... I am having some difficulty formulating a constructive review of this entirely unique but utterly maddening screenplay. I will begin with emphasizing the adjective "unique" - as I read "Viola" I was overtaken by a rare and sublime sense of "this is a story that gives a blessed reprieve from the norm, this is not something you just read any old day."
"Viola" is neither derivative nor imitative - and therein lies the chief problem with your narrative. There is nothing to grab a hold of in this story, no basis, no grounding to allow the reader (or, in the case it makes it to production stage - the viewer) the comfort of a an easy experience. While I am fascinated by this effect, it obviously entails an extremely polarizing disposition. Many readers/viewers will likely throw in the towel as early as your inciting incident due to the disorienting effect of your first act, a series of seemingly barely connected or utterly disconnected scenes featuring unidentifiable characters spouting intriguing but groundless non sequiturs. You state in your notes that the third act is most troublesome to you, but by the third act, despite not being able to discern exactly what was going on, I was fully on board for the ride, having tossed conventional logic to the wind long ago. I think the problem lies more in your set up. Stories of this nature, which reach for such absurd heights, often begin in the most self-conscious and grounded basis of normality. I am thinking specifically of the likes of David Lynch's more accessible films, "Blue Velvet" and "Mulholland Drive." You must lure us in to your insanity rather than knock us unconscious with it. Each of your first three scenes, from Birch to The Falcon to the killing of Reams are inciting incidents, except that two of them (Birch and The Falcon) have no stories to follow, and this creates an immediate convolution. The story really starts with Reams and the introduction of Bill.
That leads me to my chief complaint with the entirety of the story:
Bill is great. He has style, attitude and a razor-sharp tongue, all necessary elements of any good noir protagonist. But, he also suffers the typical faults of such a character. The noir hero (detective, police officer, reporter, etc.) is, by nature, a character who needlessly embroils himself in threatening circumstances that exist entirely outside of his life at the outset of the story. The Falcon, Birch and Hank would still carry out their strangely existential war even if Bill did not exist. In order to compensate for these shortcomings, the noir protagonist must become deeply invested, psychologically, emotionally or, in most cases, physically, in the threats that surround him, and while I admire Bill individually, he seems like less of an active protagonist in this story than he does a bewildered bystander. This can work (in fact, you address it directly in his climatic confrontation with the Falcon when he blatantly states he has no idea what’s going on - however, this realization comes a bit late), but you need to decide whether or not he is a bystander or an active participant. If he is an active participant, give him a real, devastating reason to be involved, something deeply personal or something really physically threatening. Because Glenn is his new partner, and he only meets Victoria within the timeline of the story, I don't quite swallow his deep investment in their particular perils enough to warrant his irrational actions.
I would also like to see more of the secondary characters. Noir, once again, lends itself inherently to the "rogue gallery of faces" idea, but in order for any one face to achieve a purpose, their must be an individual, although simplified arc. Basically, this means that each "face" must appear at least twice. I wanted characters like Check, Dr. Jax and even Rhonda to show up at least one more time, even if just in passing reference, to give us some idea of how their lives were changed by the events of your story. The one character who really makes an impact despite her one-time appearance is Sophia - very much a Ross MacDonald type of persona, bravo.
This review is getting a bit long-winded, huh? Well, believe me, it wouldn't be if I didn't think so highly of your screenplay. I'll try to wrap things up, then.
There are numerous typos. I was initially keeping a list but it became very long, and I'm sure that one or two simple read-throughs on your part will be able to catch them. This is merely an editorial complaint.
I do not think it necessary to have Bill shoot Hank in the shin, it's a rash action not befitting his character. Rough him up a bit, as he does, put the gun to his head, but a shin shot on a sick, non-threatening man lying in a pool of his own green vomit is a little over-the-top, but not in a good way.
I was initially annoyed by the recording cut-aways of Birch's dictation... but the content becomes so rhythmic and addictive I soon did not mind.
I don't think it is necessary to directly reveal Leeland as "The Silhouette." He can be the silhouette, that was a piece of the puzzle that fell perfectly into place, but the blatant reveal comes off as comical. Merely implying him as the silhouette without directly showing it would allow a bit more sinister of a shadow to fall on the mystery, anonymity and seemingly all but omnipotent nature of the secret society.
Last, but most importantly, please accept my sincere compliments on your dialogue. It is pitch-perfect and immediately enclosed me in its effortless flow. Particularly given the subject matter of some of your discourse, this is very impressive. I would gently caution you on taking it too far. While the likes of Falcon's climactic discussion with Bill has an immediate linguistic fun, on retrospect, it comes off as a bit showy, kind of the villain needlessly explaining his evil scheme more for the audience than for the protagonist. This is less a problem of actual dialogue than it is of character setup, for example, given Birch's penchant for dictation, I perfectly bought his similar speech.
I’ll end this now. Please know that this was a difficult review. I am impressed and thankful for your wonderful and enigmatic take on a unique subject matter. I understand your concept and content, I am simply not sure what your final stance on it is come page 101. A bit more thought into the characters and their motivation would elevate this screenplay from a solution-less puzzle to a truly intriguing nightmare. I hope you will find these comments helpful.
read -
A review of IRON MAIDENSby RainWeirdo on 03/24/2010I will preface this review by stating that I am not typically a fan of historical war stories - certainly there have been some films in this genre that have impressed me, but I rarely if ever go out of my way to ensure viewing one of them. That being said, it was a tremendous surprise and delight to find myself so deeply immersed in the story and characters of "Iron Maidens,"... I will preface this review by stating that I am not typically a fan of historical war stories - certainly there have been some films in this genre that have impressed me, but I rarely if ever go out of my way to ensure viewing one of them. That being said, it was a tremendous surprise and delight to find myself so deeply immersed in the story and characters of "Iron Maidens," which I read in one sitting.
The scope and complexity of this screenplay are truly admirable, taking us fluidly from barren fields covered in ravaged corpses to opulent Kremlin propaganda parties. The attention to accuracy and detail is astounding - although slightly obtrusive at times. Some of the scene descriptions could be edited down without losing any sense of the story - this is why they have historical consultants on-hand during the production stage.
This very much has the feel of a Spielberg/Hanks production, and while I mean that as a sincere compliment, it also encompasses a severe criticism: sentimentality. I feel that you could easily excise the opening and closing scenes and in doing so heighten the integrity of the rest of the script. These scenes create a sense of propaganda, which is, ironically, an issue you deliciously satirize in the rest of the script. This same type of cheap sentimentality, in my personal opinion, destroys otherwise flawless films such as "Saving Private Ryan" and "Schindler's List." This complaint aside, the opening scene also sets up false expectations concerning the surviving Rosnikova woman, which leads me into my chief complaint with the story. Tatyana, who, eventually, fulfills the position of being the crux of the drama, is the least interesting character in your otherwise fine spectrum of personalities. Anna's breakdown is heart-wrenching, Raisa's turn from a patriotic civilian to a soulless killer is intriguing (although it could be taken even further), Vladimir's unexpected humanity provides not only for a bit of well needed warmth but also great, though subtle, comedic moments (this is also true, to a lesser extent, of Malenkov). But Tatyana? Had I not recognized her formulaic inhabitance of the role of central figure, would have gone all but beneath my notice. Obviously Raisa and Anna represent two extreme sides of the civilian going to war mentality, and Tatyana is in the middle - but what is the middle? There is no depth or detail given to her that indicates any kind of unique perspective on the situations she finds herself in.
Gurko is another problem insofar as characterization. He is the primary villain, but enters the story a bit late to really hang such a responsibility upon. Additionally, he has no likable/empathetic qualities and despite his cruelty, he needs to be relatable. The best villains of cinema are always relatable despite their evil - Hannibal Lecter is awe-strikingly intelligent; Darth Vader truly loves his son; Colonel Landa is utterly charming; John Doe in Se7en is insane, but we can identify with his disgust for certain aspects of society. Gurko's death occurs near the climax, but feels useless because we have no interest in his situation aside to see him die.
Yev became my favorite character. Initially I found his asides to be distracting, but eventually he experienced the most sincere and drastic arc.
The first scene with Stalin has no place in this screenplay. It is purely expository, and such a powerful historical figure demands a more powerful entrance. I would advise to excise him from the the film viewing (his second scene), although that would require a drastic re-introduction of the propaganda subplot. Stalin's best scene is his silent condemnation of Tatyana at the Kremlin dance - this should perhaps be his only scene.
The initial dialogue between Raisa, Tatyana and Anna is a bit expository, it could have a more natural flow. Likewise, all of the characters speak exactly the same. You seem to have an in-depth knowledge of WW2 and Russian history, so please explore each character's nuances a bit more. They come from widespread backgrounds and settings and must each have their particular dialects, gestures, views, etc. A bit more independence in each of their interactions would create more dramatic scenes.
I was unsure as to why Vladimir and Anna's relationship broke off so suddenly. I expected that they would be relieved at Vladimir's promotion to know they could continue their affair in secrecy. Did he break it off out of responsibility to his new duties? Did she break it off out of contempt?
Aside from Raisa, what were the other's reasons for volunteering at the very beginning? Cut some of the needless expository situations at the beginning and fill them in with indications of a more well-rounded background for Anna and Tatyana.
The above criticisms aside, I cannot stress enough what a polished and well-structured piece of work this screenplay is. read
Comments About RainWeirdo 9
-
avieira78 on 05/27/2010
Hi there. For Chocolate and Cigarettes, I think the ending goes on too long, for one thing... there are lots of talky scenes I think you could cut... I like the dream sequences, but I think with some unsentimental editing, you could get them all down to half their length, the same goes for the Fingers sequence, which I like a lot. I'd try and whittle this down to about 100 pages, see how it feels. When I was a development reader, 100-page scripts always felt nice and tight. Good luck! -
antone anania on 05/11/2010
You give very thoughtful, time consuming reviews. Thank you very much! -
dgburton on 05/04/2010
Hi Patrick,
In a way I felt badly about giving Valerie Malone such a negative review. I can tell you're an extremely talented writer with a wicked imagination and there's a good chance I'd love something else you did. Valerie Malone was just filled with so much violence with no context that it felt like a snuff film, there was something soulless about it. It definitely might be salvageable though, the initial set-up was fantastic.
Anyway, I wish you the best of luck with it and I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with next. -
Nomi54 on 03/30/2010
Thanks for the detailed review of "Desolation Blvd." This is the first time anyone has ever read and offered criticism of this script, and as much as I love my premise, I needed some good, solid advice on taking it to the next level. So thanks again, and believe me I'll be taking much of your advice into consideration for my next draft, especially regarding the scenario of Janis' lie, streamlining Birdie's scenes and fleshing out Tate. I look forward to reading your "Valerie Malone" as soon as I can.
-Tracey -
wanderingmbhorn on 03/27/2010
Thank you so much for the review! Your comments were mirrored by my roommate, so I'm definitely going back to readdress Shelley and Norm's relationship. Again, thank you for the review and glad you enjoyed the story!
John -
Ed Rodgers on 03/26/2010
Thanks for the excellent review of Viola. You have some really great ideas that I think I'll work into the next draft.
Thanks for the compliments on the dialogue, did a whole lot of research into 40's vernacular for it.
-
davidmcewing on 03/25/2010
Hi Rain:
Thanks for your extensive review of 'Iron Maidens.' A few points I wanted to make. - Each of the Rosnikovas handled the horrors of war in their own way. Anna - Viewed the world through her mirror and escaped the living hell with a nervous breakdown. Riasa - Hard from the begining, softed in the arms of Sergei, then with his loss welcomed death and became a near insane mechanical killing machine. Tatyana - Handled the carnage with daydream respites to the past, all the while falling in love with the protective Vladimir.
Stalin was included to best show the desperation of the Kremlin leaders, while living in total opulance. Stalin's glare was concentrated, not at Tatyana, but at the drunken behavior of one of his lecherous generals.
Once again, Thank you
Dave -
gridlock on 03/23/2010
Thanks so much for your review of the Tower! It's SO much appreciated that you put so much thought and effort into it!
Thanks!
JD -
lizzayn on 03/23/2010
Thanks for the review. I really appreciate your notes on the script. They'll be extremely helpful for the next draft. Thanks!
Write a Comment
Browse:
Copyright © 2001-2013 Trigger Street Labs. All Rights Reserved.
Comments About RainWeirdo 9
-
Quote
Hi there. For Chocolate and Cigarettes, I think the ending goes on too long, for one thing... there are lots of talky scenes I think you could cut... I like the dream sequences, but I think with some unsentimental editing, you could get them all down to half their length, the same goes for the Fingers sequence, which I like a lot. I'd try and whittle this down to about 100 pages, see how it feels. When I was a development reader, 100-page scripts always felt nice and tight. Good luck!
-
Quote
You give very thoughtful, time consuming reviews. Thank you very much!
-
Quote
Hi Patrick,
+ more commentsavieira78 on 05/27/2010
antone anania on 05/11/2010
dgburton on 05/04/2010
In a way I felt badly about giving Valerie Malone such a negative review. I can tell you're an extremely talented writer with a wicked imagination and there's a good chance I'd love something else you did. Valerie Malone was just filled with so much violence with no context that it felt like a snuff film, there was something soulless about it. It definitely might be salvageable though, the initial set-up was fantastic.
Anyway, I wish you the best of luck with it and I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with next.