Reviews of Buster (revised) 22

• 
  Review on "Buster"
  A review of Buster (revised)
  by Nicole Stella on 09/11/2012
  I think this screenplay is pretty good. What I esteemed most of this script are the dialogues and the structure. I found dialogues really sharp and always appropriate for the context. Regarding the structure, I think it is really good the way you managed to move from a point in time to another keeping the attention to scene always high. Also concept is quite interesting:I didn't... I think this screenplay is pretty good. What I esteemed most of this script are the dialogues and the structure. I found dialogues really sharp and always appropriate for the context. Regarding the structure, I think it is really good the way you managed to move from a point in time to another keeping the attention to scene always high. Also concept is quite interesting:I didn't know much about Buster Keaton but your job made me really curious about this great figure.
  I would develop more the definition of characters and how they grow throughout the story. The standing out one is, obviously, Buster himself, but I would concentrate also on other key characters (Natalie for example). Good job, anyway! read
• 
  Once Upon A Time....
  A review of Buster (revised)
  by Pipere1 on 08/25/2012
  Most of the story, where you are relating the biographical information about Keaton's life and career, was engaging and the characters seemed real, so that was good (even though they are based one real people and events); however the time helmet plot did not really work for me, and from page 111 onwards where paradox takes over this ruins what had been a passable - if unoriginal... Most of the story, where you are relating the biographical information about Keaton's life and career, was engaging and the characters seemed real, so that was good (even though they are based one real people and events); however the time helmet plot did not really work for me, and from page 111 onwards where paradox takes over this ruins what had been a passable - if unoriginal - story up until that point. The last 10 pages were a chore to read.
  
  I found the flow of the story rather difficult to follow because of the lack of SUPERs for the first instance of a new location and date. This could be easily fixed by adding them in. I suspect they may have been left out because of page count?
  
  Page 2 - 'it comes back as if freshly mutilated. His reaction, mild curiosity.' What is the 'it' that you are talking about? His memory, or the actual feeling / pain, or what? You need to make this clearer. And why is his reaction 'mild curiosity'?
  
  Page 3 - Who's point of view is this piece of action from? Does Buster see it? What are the mechanics of the slamming door? Did Joe slam it? When the Doctor leans against the door is it open or shut? I couldn't tell how this would make sense on film.
  
  Page 4 - 'WHIRLING TORNADO' - you need to find a way to describe the events leading up to this in a better way. Initially I was confused and wandering WTF was going on, was it a dream? It was only later, having double checked the inident on-line, that I realised this was something that actually happened. ... The confusing scene location / date issues caused by your lack of SUPERs probably made this more confusing than it needed to be. But I feel that even with that issue fixed, the scene would still be a little confusing.
  
  Page 42 - 'burst into laughter at the expense of the Oddity that brought them together.' Huh? I see what you are trying to say, but what you have actually said makes no sense at all; IMO you need to rewrite this sentence.
  
  Page 69 - Because the Buster that isn't travelling in time doesn't see the time travelling T.Z. Buster this scene is okay because the 5th wall hasn't been broken. But later on in the story you break the 5th wall and paradox runs rampant, destroying my enjoyment of, and belief in, the story as a result.
  
  Page 73 - For the dialogue transition you should use BUSTER (V.O.) rather than THIRD COMMENTOR.
  
  Page 87 - 'right door and slammed yet...' - - it?
  
  Page 99 - Buster is unaware of T.Z. Buster which avoids the paradox problem.
  
  Page 111 - T.Z. Buster and Buster recognise one another and look surprised - paradox!
  
  Page 112 - all the Busters are together, WTF!
  
  This was well written, and enjoyable up to page 111 where it fell apart. You are a good writer and I look forward to reading your next version. read
• 
  review
  A review of Buster (revised)
  by Russell Corey on 08/05/2012
  I think I’d be more interested in seeing a documentary about Buster Keaton’s life rather than a bio pic like this. While there was drama in his life, was it enough to carry a major motion picture? I didn’t think so. Besides, Hollywood may have already had its flirtation with silent movies with The Artist and Hugo. But you never know. Always worth a try. You obviously have a... I think I’d be more interested in seeing a documentary about Buster Keaton’s life rather than a bio pic like this. While there was drama in his life, was it enough to carry a major motion picture? I didn’t think so. Besides, Hollywood may have already had its flirtation with silent movies with The Artist and Hugo. But you never know. Always worth a try. You obviously have a lot invested in telling Buster Keaton’s story. So I do admire your passion for that.
  
  To me the script didn’t pack enough punch. Maybe it is hard, because Keaton was such a physical actor and it just loses something trying to translate his abilities to the page. There is a lot of action written out and I can imagine a lot of readers will end up just skimming through it.
  
  Also his life seems to fall into the troubled artist falling into alcoholism and fighting his way back cliché. Which has been done so many times in these types of bio films, that it just looses something. But I was happy that he met Eleanor in the end.
  
  It was interesting to see his relationship with Chaplin and his dealings with MGM, but that is only a few scenes. The scenes with Arbuckle were interesting as well, but again are you making a film for silent film aficionados or a mass audience which may not care all that much.
  
  If this was going to be a small budget film, maybe this might have a shot, but this would be a period piece and it is hard for me to imagine a producer taking a chance on a Buster Keaton bio.
  
  Not sure what type of scripts you want to write in the future, but I would lighten up on the description to get a better flow to the script.
  
  It was just really hard for me to get behind Keaton as a character and really pull for him.
  
  I love that you care so much about Buster Keaton to tell his story, but I just have my doubts about that story appealing to a mass audience.
  
  Good luck with your writing. read
• 
  Helmet, Don't Fail Me Now!
  A review of Buster (revised)
  by jfschuurman on 07/26/2012
  Hi Grey, Buster is a fine achievement. You are clearly a student of film history, screencraft, screenlore, screenbiz, and all the rest. It was an enjoyable read for me. As I note in what follows, such an endeavour as you have taken on with time, place, and reality being pretty much haphazard, you make it difficult. I’d say you make it difficult to produce too. It would...
  
  Hi Grey,
  Buster is a fine achievement. You are clearly a student of film history, screencraft, screenlore, screenbiz, and all the rest.
  
  It was an enjoyable read for me. As I note in what follows, such an endeavour as you have taken on with time, place, and reality being pretty much haphazard, you make it difficult. I’d say you make it difficult to produce too. It would be an incredibly expensive film with all the 20th century period stuff.
  
  I am not enough of a Hwood historian to know what of the film stuff and the awards stuff and the event and people stuff is “real” or is T.Z. fantasy. I certainly know a fair bit more than the average American film buff.
  My sense of this is that with as much as this would cost, and with as limited as you have made the potential audience, it has little potential as a vehicle that Hwood or independents would be willing to invest in.
  
  Of course, if you can get a Tom Hanks or some other a-list actor to fall for it, you can do anything.
  Thanks for the effort. I wish you well with it.
  John Schuurman
  
  Buster
  By Grey
  
  BUSTER
  1. Just call me Buster, kid. Harry Houdini, the Handcuff King, gave me that name. After I fell down a flight of steps when I was six months old. Not a scratch on me. I been usin’ Buster ever since.
  This is an interesting opening speech. Buster sort of sounds like an encyclopedia on himself. If he is that presumptious throughout, then OK, if not, then this needs more subtlety.
  
  
  Inert on a table, the time-helmet prop.
  Not a sentence.
  
  Buster notices the wringer washer, goes to it.
  I AM NOT A GRAMMAR NAZI BUT THE “BIG5” (GRAMMAR, SPELLING, PUNCTUATION, FORMATTING, AND SYNTAX) COUNT. THEY REALLY DO. THE VETTING READERS FOR THE DECSISION MAKERS ARE IMPATIENT AND QUICK TO THROW ANYTHING THAT IS NOT EASY TO READ.
  
  It comes back as if freshly mutilated. (finger)
  DOES IT HURT?
  
  on the horizon, a train sails by.
  SORRY, BUT TRAINS DO NOT ‘SAIL’ . YOUR CHOICE OF SUCH A WORD, MAKES ME AS A READER STOP AND WONDER WHAT IT COULD MEAN. IF IT IS INTENTIONAL, AS IN A TRAIN THROUGH THE AIR, OR A MYSTICAL TRAIN, OR SOME SUCH, THEN OK BUT IF NOT, IT DISTRACTS AND FRUSTRATES ME AS A READER. I’M WILLING TO GIVE IT MORE TIME, BUT SUCH A CHOICE NEEDS TO MEAN SOMETHING.
  Ok, THE FIRST PERSECTIVE SHOT MAKES IT WORK. RICH.
  
  5. hits the scenery head first.
  It took me about three reads to understand that a “scenery head” was not a thing but that rather “head-first” describes how his body flew. I am not sure you want to be so easily misunderstood.
  
  DOCTOR
  If the Fates, or Mother Nature don’t get that boy, Joe Keaton surely will. He’ll never live to see five.
  To whom does the doctor say this?
  
  6. I don’t understand the filtered underwater shots. Point? Different from other flashbacks? You need to help us see if you are going to insert something like that.
  
  coronet -- do you mean cornet as in musical instrument? Or coronet as in small crown?
  7. with all of these time changes are you going to use “SUPER” and insert a date and place? If so, need to indicate that. If you are going to choose the more arty way and let us figure it out, you set yourself a much harder job.
  
  13. aquiline – I am not sure you want your readers having to stop to look up a word.
  
  15. BUSTER
  Did it seem to you like I was under a long time?
  Does this refer to the underwater filtered flashbacks? Pretty mysterious. OK so it is T.Z. but still …
  
  16. so Lou in the 1961 shot is 50 and in the 1917 shot he calls Buster “kid?”
  
  The formatting bibles that I read say you need a “DAY” or “NIGHT” at the end of every slugline. Some new way out now?
  
  Buster’s first introduction to the movie studio and the camera is priceless. Read it a couple times. Beautiful.
  
  28. Unable to deal with deep emotion, Buster keeps it light.
  Not filmable.
  
  32. Her face is near Buster’s. She moves aside to reveal... YES?????
  
  53. The strain of idleness shows on his face, in his demeanor.
  Not filmable.
  
  54. BLACK AND WHITE
  EXT. TRAIN
  The train steams over a bridge - derails off of it.
  TITLE CARD: “Many a honeymoon express has ended thusly.”
  CLOSE ON: A toy train derails off a bridge.
  END BLACK AND WHITE
  INT. BUSTER’S SCREENING ROOM – DAY
  
  You make it pretty tough on a reader. Not complaining. I’m in the story and doing my best to follow. You have given us a hard bunch of imponderables to wrap together. In some part it is all about being inside of Buster’s head/mind. In other ways it is a conventional period piece with some documentary aspects. And then, there is the T.Z. stuff which hijacks it all into nirvana or somesuch.
  
  59. your SP has a lot of Hollywood inside jokes and stuff that will be known only to insiders and close hangers on. Such things sometimes get made. There is an obvious downside however.
  
  69. Buster closes the door to reveal T.Z. Buster (65), time-helmet in hand. The younger Buster, unaware of T.Z. Buster, spies a light beneath a door down the other wing of the hallway.
  The time helmet thing perhaps has some controls (from the scrweenwriter or director) to help the reader/audience have some sense of place and time. The magic of TZ was that it had none of that and one came to expect the unexpected and paranormal. I have yet to see it working here. It mostly confuses me now.
  
  
  102. Partners have to sacrifice to each other.
  ELEANOR
  That’s how to win?
  BUSTER
  It’s the only way.
  
  NICE
  
  118. BUSTER
  Liking? Yeah, yeah, fine, a little quirky, but fine. I’d love to hang around awhile...
  VERY NICE
  
  
  
  
  
  
  read
• 
  Buster's Better than Michael
  A review of Buster (revised)
  by wanderingmbhorn on 07/26/2012
  This was an interesting script to read, because it was clear to me from the onset that you are a big fan of Keaton’s work and this seemed like something of a passion project. It’s clear to me that you have talent as a writer but, while reading, I felt that much of it was wasted, as this seemed like it may have been more fun for you to write than it would be for someone to... This was an interesting script to read, because it was clear to me from the onset that you are a big fan of Keaton’s work and this seemed like something of a passion project. It’s clear to me that you have talent as a writer but, while reading, I felt that much of it was wasted, as this seemed like it may have been more fun for you to write than it would be for someone to see or read. That said, nothing wrong with that, I’ve got a few side passion projects on here as well.
  
  CONCEPT:
  
  I think this is the strongest part of the script as, while reading this, you sparked me to read up on the life of Buster Keaton. He certainly had an interesting life and you seem to give it quite the true rendition here. Also, the way you accurately describe the surroundings is interesting. I live a block from the Winter Garden on Broadway now, so it was kind of surreal to read that and actually think about the history.
  
  My only real issue with the concept would be how the Twilight Zone was handled. Obviously, it serves an important purpose in shepherding Buster to all these different points in his life, but, as a “B story,” it really has no sort of arc for him. The moments that we’re in those sections of the story, we’re stagnant. If the Twilight Zone only appeared in the beginning and end, this would be fine, but of course, that wouldn’t work within the way you frame your story. Thus, I think it’s important for you to show some sort of slight, subtle arc within Buster during his time on the Twilight Zone in between these flashbacks.
  
  CHARACTER:
  
  We get an idea for who these characters are, especially Buster. You do a good job of fleshing him out to the point that we understand his quirks and frustrations. However, many of your characters didn’t speak with an individual voice, which I think could be attributed to the fact that, in scouring through the man’s life, we run into a litany of individuals, many of whom have relatively short stays within the story.
  
  For example, Natalie’s change from cute and innocent to high society girl seems to turn on a dime. Now obviously it didn’t, because it took place over a number of years but, in the scenes you show us, you skip over these years. Does that make sense?
  
  Similarly, Buster’s alcoholism is brought out through dialogue before we ever see it (remember: show, don’t tell), but it seems to come out of nowhere. As we skip from him being a normal lad to being a drunk without seeing that formative period in between. This is partly a product of the way your story is told, but could certainly be alleviated slightly by getting hints at these plot points earlier in the script. Winks of what is to come would make these character fluctuations less jarring.
  
  DIALOGUE:
  
  I felt the dialogue here suffered because you cornered yourself in trying to tell this vast story without enough pages to do it. A lot of the dialogue here is on the nose and describes future actions of characters. Literally every action Buster takes in this story is prefaced by multiple lines of dialogue describing how he’s going to do it.
  
  Moreover, character back stories and updates are given to us in expository dialogue because, already sitting on a two hour movie, you don’t have the space for the subtlety of showing it to us. While I obviously understand why this is the case, it doesn’t change the fact that we learn about characters through expository dialogue, not interaction and, for that reason, it’s not as exciting.
  
  That said… Pg. 53 – I like the allegory with the cards.
  
  STORY:
  
  The issues in your execution of the story are what really lead to any problems you have within character or dialogue. You pack multiple plot occurrences into single scenes in a way that it seems like this guy’s life is moving so fast it’s ridiculous. It just seems a little for multiple life-altering moments to occur in one scene for this guy, obviously, a product of trying to save time and space. For example, Peg bitches him out about not owning a house and the next scene he drives Natalie to their new house. I understand that it’s not “convenient” (saving the thousand bucks for it) but it just happens so quickly with no nod or hint to the audience that it’s happening.
  
  At points, this felt like the film Tree of Life in that I’m watching snapshot moments and not really getting a full story. We skip through Buster’s life, but it’s like I’m seeing intermittent clips from afar. I’m not getting any sort of insight into anything about his life that I couldn’t read online. While you’re documenting his life, speculate a bit, take a look at the more controversial details and dig a little deeper. This story is very surface level and little more. This brings me to my next point. Do we need to go through Buster Keaton’s entire life? If you were to focus on just a 10-20 year period, it would allow you to explore much deeper and it would give you the necessary space to develop a smaller cast of characters much further and it would allow you to avoid having to pack in bunches of dialogue to get across story points. Obviously, this would be a big change to your story, so I’m not suggesting you run out and make this change, it’s just something to think about.
  
  Just some examples I took down of rushed moments or things within the story that didn’t quite work are below:
  
  Pg. 28 – If Buster gets drafted, we need to see that, not just hear him say it the day before he departs. Kind of a huge plot point. Okay, he didn’t, he was enlisting. I want a little more insight into him pondering this and coming to the decision. It’s a huge plot point and it’s really just sprung on us.
  
  Pg. 70 – Natalie’s saying that all he cares about is movies and not her, but I haven’t gotten that impression… And he’s banging chorus girls? Haven’t seen that either up to this point…
  
  The whole divorce montage doesn’t work for me, we’re glossing over major events here.
  
  Pg. 102 - I’m not sure why Elenor would be into him after half a hand of cards. Also, this scene is ridiculously expository with dialogue.
  
  STRUCTURE:
  
  The three act structure here was loose, but it did fit well enough to work. I’m not really a stickler for a lot of that stuff.
  
  My big question here, would be that you use a litany of film clips from Buster Keaton’s career and I’m unsure how many of those are currently in the public domain. Using clips from these old movies would mean securing the necessary rights, correct? This could be difficult to get produced, so you may be best off just using this as a resume piece instead of trying to sell it as a spec script.
  
  In terms of general screenwriting formatting and grammar notes, I caught a few things, which I’ll list below, but nothing major. For the most part, this was formatted quite well.
  
  No title page
  
  Pg. 3 – I don’t think you need heights
  
  Pg. 18 – (Lou nudges Buster) as a parenthetical, it needs its own line within the dialogue. Later, instead of a space in between Lou’s lines, put a (beat) there.
  
  Pg. 113 – You don’t need to include Buster’s age in the dialogue.
  
  
  Overall, I would venture that you had a lot of fun researching and writing this, which is realistically the reason why we’re all in this crazy game: we love it. But with this script, I think you need to make some major changes to how you’re telling the story to focus in on a smaller time period for this to really work. Either that, or expand this out further to 180 pages so you can fully give this story the space it needs to be told without rushing. read
• 
  My Review of Buster
  A review of Buster (revised)
  by Uberwilhelm on 07/26/2012
  Hello grey. Let me start by saying that I am in no way a professional and that everything here is purely my opinion and or suggestions. That said, let me offer my congrats on completing your script! I usually do a review in two parts. One I will just list errors or suggestions I see along the way and two I will offer a synopsis at the end. ‘Buster’ I’m sure it’s been mentioned...
  
  Hello grey. Let me start by saying that I am in no way a professional and that everything here is purely my opinion and or suggestions. That said, let me offer my congrats on completing your script! I usually do a review in two parts. One I will just list errors or suggestions I see along the way and two I will offer a synopsis at the end.
  
  ‘Buster’
  I’m sure it’s been mentioned but no title page.
  
  Pg 20: I’m a little confused. Just by holding the piece of film made Buster want to act in a movie? Or was it the whole movie scene? Maybe have him be enamored with the whole operation instead of focusing on the piece of film.
  Pg 24: Would they really let someone they just met leave with their incredibly expensive camera?
  Pg 25: Not sure I understand the point of the five B&W flashbacks. They just seem kind of superfluous. Maybe it will make more sense on screen.
  Pg 31: I know that Blackface is part of the time period, but today it is seen as being very racist and might not sit well with some sensitive viewers. “Buster is wearing a bra of dog-tags and a skirt…..” metal was very precious during WW I & II so I doubt he would have gotten away with using stuff like that for props. Maybe replace it with empty c-ration cans and potato sack dress or something like that. Just a suggestion.
  Pg 32: I don’t think it’s necessary to repeat Buster’s age. Once you state that the year is 1961 or 1919 it’s kind of redundant.
  Pg 60: Constance refers to Buster as a lowly comic but I don’t think comics were looked down on in that time period. Chaplin was like a God back then. W.C Fields, the Marx Brothers, Edgar Bergen, all massive stars and comedians.
  Pg 69: T.Z. Buster? I understand it’s supposed to be present day Buster but what does the T.Z stand for? After a few more pages I realized it stands for “Twilight Zone” but I think it might be confusing. I would suggest changing it to something like PRESENT DAY BUSTER.
  
  Not a lot for me to comment on. It is well written from both a story and technical standpoint. For being about a person I have never heard of, it kept me reading with the story being both interesting and entertaining. The only question I have is, to write a biography about a person, do you need to get permission from their estate? Is the bulk of this researched and factual/accurate? Other than the few things I touched on, I think this is well done. Good luck!
  
  
  
  read
• 
  Buster
  A review of Buster (revised)
  by SteveGrensky on 07/25/2012
  This is not my strong genre (biopic) and I'm also not a Keaton buff. I do, however, love TZ and I have seen the episode in question. So, at least I'm not totally worthless. As always here, I'm not a professional writer with a track record of successes so my thoughts are just my opinions and I sincerely hope they help. I also don't feel qualified to judge the accuracy of... This is not my strong genre (biopic) and I'm also not a Keaton buff. I do, however, love TZ and I have seen the episode in question. So, at least I'm not totally worthless.
  As always here, I'm not a professional writer with a track record of successes so my thoughts are just my opinions and I sincerely hope they help. I also don't feel qualified to judge the accuracy of the historical material presented but it was interesting to see how one of the greats of the silent film era lived.
  
  CONCEPT: This is a great concept because Buster Keaton was so important to film. Also, TZ was very important to TV. Bringing them together is a great idea for telling BK's story.
  
  CHARACTER: BK character seemed totally real to me. I don't know how he really was in his life, but it sure seemed to fit. Some of the other characters were not around enough to get a strong sense of their issues but everyone seemed to be acting exactly as I would expect. The women in his life were totally credible to me.
  
  DIALOG: I had no problems with the dialog. It was snappy and witty, as you would expect. Good dialog is pretty hard to write for me so I was impressed with all of this effort.
  
  STORY: This is always very subjective. For me, I really like TZ a lot so I wanted a LOT more of the TZ set and a lot less length in the scenes from his past. I felt many of the 'past' scenes were dragging along and could have been helped a lot by whizzing BK back to the TZ set and re-setting the action.
  
  STRUCTURE: Because this is like a biopic, it's harder probably to come up with a traditional 3 or 4 Act structure. However, I think that it could be done a little more strongly and this would assist viewers who may not be as familiar with BK's life.
  
  OVERALL: This was a lot of fun to read because of the subject. I have a suspicion that the market for this would be limited, though because I don't believe many people know much, if anything, about Buster Keaton's life and so they won't be drawn to the topic. read
• 
  From The Outset
  A review of Buster (revised)
  by mentalllll on 07/24/2012
  From just looking at the first 10 pages or so before I started reading I saw that your script is a very congested one. From congested I mean that there is loads of description. If you were a screenplay reader that had to read 20- 30 scripts per night then would you read a screenplay that is congested and looks like it will be a slow read? This matters because there are people... From just looking at the first 10 pages or so before I started reading I saw that your script is a very congested one. From congested I mean that there is loads of description. If you were a screenplay reader that had to read 20- 30 scripts per night then would you read a screenplay that is congested and looks like it will be a slow read? This matters because there are people out there that read screenplays for a living and the congested ones are the ones that get put onto the bottom of the pile. It's Hollywood's form of the slush pile. And trust me on this one. That's the last place you want to be. While your's approaches from the bottom of the slush pile ,many other scripts that may not be as good as yours will get read first and possibly get placed into the spot that should've been yours. So please try to trim up the descriuption and keep it simple. In hollywood they love what is called white space. So give them plenty of it and you'll get further than you would doing this type of work.
  
  Next thing on the list is that when you introduce your characters then you must place their name in all caps. But that's only when you introduce your characters for the first time. And from the outset I'm guessing tht you haven't capitalized your sounds either. Hey, I had to learn through the school of hard knocks myself so please don't take this personally. I just received an e-mail back telling me that Hollywood is a very unforgiving place. I wanted to rip this person to shreds, but if I want my career to go somewhere then I had to swallow my pride and do as the producers and directors say. Otherwise it's time to hit the showers and never to return because you'll never work in this town again. See?
  
  Now when I look at your logline I find that your story doesn't even have a Twilight Zone feel for it. None of the Twilght Zone shows that I've ever watched in life had people whom knew what was going on when they entered the Twilight Zone. It was always a shock to the person to have awakened in another dimension, time, or even planet. This story could've been written better than it was based upon the logline and what you set out to acomplish with this script. read
• 
  Transported
  A review of Buster (revised)
  by HGLyman on 07/24/2012
  Thank you for letting me read your screenplay. I appreciate the amount of research you obviously did to bring us into the world of Buster Keaton. I enjoyed the dialogue and descriptions from the early 1900’s. I was instantly transported to that time. Descriptions were concise making for an easy read. Please see my notes below to help the screenplay succeed! Pg 1 The... Thank you for letting me read your screenplay. I appreciate the amount of research you obviously did to bring us into the world of Buster Keaton. I enjoyed the dialogue and descriptions from the early 1900’s. I was instantly transported to that time. Descriptions were concise making for an easy read.
  
  Please see my notes below to help the screenplay succeed!
  
  Pg 1 The introduction of Buster - describing his voice - seemed odd before the dialogue. This took me out of the story and trying to concentrate on what his voice would sound like.
  Inert on the table – confused by the meaning.
  Buster turns the time-helmet on - tiny sparks fly - off. Hyphen usage here confusing.
  Pg 2 Great transition to 1898 and Buster damaging his forefinger. I like that we did not have to wait to find out the reason.
  I love the following imagery - A trunk with the labels “Mohawk Indian Medicine Show” and “Myra & Joe, The Two Keatons” sits nearby. Grabs you with immediate curiosity.
  Pg 3 what’s got him – grammar error. The doctor taffy imagery is a fantastic well executed scenario. Perfectly sets up what is to come for Buster.
  Sweltering heat – Better to show the heat here and not tell.
  
  A lot of extra commas in the first few pages slow down the read. Forces unnatural pauses for the reader. I found myself stopping many times rereading lines.
  
  Pg 6 The flashback sequence confusing here with an 1890 street in 1961 then jumping back to the year 1903.
  Pg 7 Love this description -- The noise awakens the intoxicated tiger in the rocking chair.
  Pg 11 and 12 – A terrific humorous scene with the Sherriff and Daisy’s Mother. The whiskey bottle in the Bible is perfect. The entire scene I could picture on the big screen. Which of course is the ultimate goal. Well done!
  Pg 14 Myra - How can I stop him drinkin’? No subtext. On the nose dialogue.
  Pg 17 Another great unique line -- I don’t go to movies. Pop says nobody legit would ever appear on a bed sheet for a dime.
  
  
  Pg 18 I felt the Talmadges needed a grander introduction due to their status and Hollywood/New York history. A memorable characteristic or description to distinguish each of them.
  On the Nose -- That’s Joe Schenck and Norma Talmadge, you know, the actress.
  Pg 20 Buster I think I’ll try it after all. On the nose dialogue.
  Pg 21 Wonderful description here - A pancake of a thing that under the laws of physics could not possibly stay put on a human head.
  
  Pg 23 Humorous scene - Buster Not the girl, the camera.
  Pg 25 There is an odd segue way here with buster in 1961 then immediately a series of shots – Not clear if they are 1961 or 1918.
  Pg 26 And I thought when I joined this crew it was about tryin’ for something different, something better. - No Subtext.
  On the nose dialogue -- Buster I think you’re wrong.
  Pg 30 and 31 Army scenes well written however curious of their point? I was looking for a hook to keep reading. A mystery, deep conflict, a twist to keep the plot turning.
  Pg 34 I am confused about the placement and meaning of this line -- Buster receives a cocktail instead.
  Pg 36 Wording off here -- Buster switches unhappiness to poker face.
  Pg 41 Confused wasn’t Buster just with Natalie in this long charming romantic scene? Why is he immediately with another girl?
  Pg 45 Funny scenario – Door replaced with “Hacks”.
  Pg 66 The Italian villa matte painting transition a little too convenient – Why would the painting be there?
  
  Pg 67 He is an alcoholic. It was your job to keep track of him. -- On the Nose.
  Pg 70 The Natalie and Buster fight seemed familiar. Seen in many movies before.
  Pg 78 I’ve been waitin’ a year to do my first talkie, right? -- On the Nose.
  Studio head scene I have seen many times before.
  Pg 82 to 85 scene extremely long without any stakes. Already established Buster’s dissatisfaction with talkies.
  
  Overall, the screenplay paints a vast picture of the events in Buster’s life. However, without goals and stakes Buster’s genius, his unique personality, never come to life. The story drifted hitting the highs and lows of his career however I was never sure on theme and why I should care about what happens to Buster. In addition, a star’s fall from grace due to alcohol has been done to death by Hollywood. I felt perhaps a unique twist on this concept is warranted to tie into the rest of the story. I enjoyed Eleanor as Buster’s companion at the end but wasn’t sure how the strong connection was formed and her reasons for staying by his side. I love the Twilight Zone and it is fascinating that he was in an episode. However, the time travel plot strays frequently and may confuse the viewer. Unless maybe it was incorporated consistently throughout.
  Again, I appreciate the phenomenal research regarding Buster’s work. I love how you incorporate the films into the plot.
  
  Best wishes to you in all of your endeavors.
  HGLyman read
• 
  There's a good story in there somewhere!
  A review of Buster (revised)
  by Rachel.Was.Here on 07/23/2012
  Upon reading your logline, my first thought is: "Well, there's one I haven't heard before." This could be interesting. I'll warn you, though: I'm a die hard Chaplin fan. ;) Let's start with some page by page notes. p.1 - Hmm...Buster's introduction feels a little forced. It's clear he's telling this story for the audience, not the assistant director. Maybe a better way to... Upon reading your logline, my first thought is: "Well, there's one I haven't heard before." This could be interesting. I'll warn you, though: I'm a die hard Chaplin fan. ;)
  
  Let's start with some page by page notes.
  
  p.1 - Hmm...Buster's introduction feels a little forced. It's clear he's telling this story for the audience, not the assistant director. Maybe a better way to tell that story is by having him say - "Just call me Buster, kid. I've gone by Buster ever since--" and then maybe the kid's an avid fan, and he interrupts with "Oh I know the story. You were six months old.....(story).....I'm a very big fan of yours Mr. Ke-- I mean, Buster."
  
  Just an idea, take it or leave it.
  
  p.5 - Starting to get a feel for the kind of script this will be. For me, past and present aren't really melding together. The past scenes are very fleshed out and well done, but the present ones seem forced and not real. To be frank, it feels a bit cheesy. We'll see how it goes...
  
  p.7 - the rocking tiger - a bit confusing.
  
  p.10 - the boys go numb - that's good writing, but unfortunately it's not visual. You need to show things, not tell.
  
  p.13 - Joe is drunk - again, not visual. You need to make us see that he's drunk. He can sway and stagger, pant and drool, have an unfocused gaze - those are all things we can see that tell us he's drunk. But we can't just see "he is drunk."
  
  p.18 - parentheticals get their own line.
  
  p.20 - if there is love at first sight - this is another example of a well-written line...that belongs in a novel. The number one rule of screenwriting is that every word MUST be a visual.
  
  p.21 - timing is off - what do you mean?
  
  p.28 - she is awkward incarnate - more novel writing - you have to show me.
  
  p.32 - CLOSE ON: - no camera directions allowed. This is not a shooting script. Plus it derails the reader, and makes us remember we're reading a script - that is fatal.
  
  p.47 - we at least need an age for "Fred" when he's introduced.
  
  p.57 - getting really lost....it seems there's a lot of subtext I'm missing. But I have no idea what's going on.
  
  p.65 - I think you can just say "END SERIES OF SHOTS." without the "BLACK AND WHITE"
  
  p.67 - okay, what is a time-helmet and why does it go on one's hand? Whatever's happening here is very unclear.
  
  p.69 - this is getting really cheesy.... the whole "seeing double" thing, having past and present Buster together, that kind of thing might work on stage. But the way it's written now, I think it would play clumsily on film.
  
  p.72 - you don't need CONT unless the line is so long that it bridges a page.
  
  p.76 - slowmotion feels a little cheesy...nothing's really happening, so are we watching him stand and listen...in slow motion? Doesn't make sense.
  
  p.78 - That was a pretty long bout of slow motion...
  
  p.85 - the director wants to say more - not visual. How can we tell he wants to say more?
  
  p.88 - buster doesn't remember this - not visual. How can we tell he doesn't remember?
  
  Alright - there were a lot of things about this script that I liked, and a lot of things that I didn't like. Clearly you've done a lot of research, and biographies are always interesting. It's one of my favorite genres, and your retelling of his life was fascinating and moving.
  
  However, I had a huge problem with the overall structure. I don't mind jumping around in time, but the supernatural time travel thing was weak. I love the idea of juxtaposing where he is now to where he was then, and I love him telling his wife that he loves her after his reflections. But the Twilight Zone "twist" weakened the entire story. It seemed like a device from a children's movie, which alienates your adult readers. On the flip side, this material would bore children. So in the end, you have no audience. Honestly I think this could be a great movie that people would want to see - if you took out the Twilight Zone Time Travel magic. It's holding the script back.
  
  Another big problem is your writing style. The script reads like a novel, and that's bad. You're a very good writer, but you must follow the rules. No matter how lovely your sonnet is, it can't pass as an essay. Screenwriting needs to be visual. That doesn't mean you can't have style, but you must make sure every line is visual.
  
  Overall I did enjoy the story, and it's a good one to tell. Keep fiddling with this script, because it could be really great. Good luck! read