+ more submissions by Cab Coola

Reviews of Nefarious Zoo 3

• 
  wild and unkempt... just not in the way the author intended
  A review of Nefarious Zoo
  by robertdeweese on 03/12/2012
  let me start by saying congratulations simply on completing a feature length script. This is itself is no small task and deserving of praise. Now, lets get down to the nitty gritty of it... I won't hate on you for your formatting, there's plenty of others who will do that... suffice to say that it needs work. I highly recommend David Troittier's "The Screenwriter's Bible"... let me start by saying congratulations simply on completing a feature length script. This is itself is no small task and deserving of praise. Now, lets get down to the nitty gritty of it...
  
  I won't hate on you for your formatting, there's plenty of others who will do that... suffice to say that it needs work. I highly recommend David Troittier's "The Screenwriter's Bible" to help with that.
  
  I wanted to like this script. I really did. I wanted to find redeeming qualities in the characters and feel genuine emotion towards them when good or bad things happened.
  
  But I didn't. Not even a little bit.
  
  In fact the only time I even came close to caring for a character they died. Almost immediately upon realizing I was cheering for them were they gutted like fish and left in the middle of the road.
  
  I am of course talking about Amber, Sidney, Phillip, and Cleon (Cleon? I'm assuming it's a relatives name so I won't mock it)
  
  The relationship between these youngsters was probably the only redeeming factors provided to any of the (too) many characters in your story. It was shallow at best, having seen only 2 short scenes of interaction between the young lovers before they met there tragic demise, but hey it's the best we got.
  
  I think the idea of an entire town falling into chaos and corruption is a novel idea. I don't, however, like to see shock value for shock values sake. THe concept of a city falling apart through mass corruption has been shown to us before. Most memorable for me in the 2005 film Batman Begins. Gotham is as corrupt a place as it gets, and often times this is demonstrated by what is IMPLIED rather than what is seen. A judge in a restaurant run by a crime lord with two call girls on his arms gets the point across just fine... having the call girl giving the judge a blow job while the crime boss eats a puppy is not necessary. but I suppose thats all a matter of taste.
  
  You have far too many characters in this story who are far too like all the others. Everyone is a douche bag or a complete whore... I can't tell the difference between any of them.
  
  I want to point out a particular bit that I was very entertained by, and that was the far fight scene between Truitt and Benny. It was a great set up and a great point made by Truitt to his little brother. And the bystander in the parking lot who was surprised how quickly the police arrived made me laugh. This was a point where I found myself wanting Truitt to become the hero... unfortunately he almost immediately degenerates into a whiny drunken child.
  
  The hallucinogens were fun, even if they were completely unmotivated.... and allow me to clarify that I know the hallucinations THEMSELVES were motivates... simply not what was being SEEN. What the people were seeing felt random and nonsensical. Perhaps thats what was intended, I don't know. I would like to use Batman Begins as an example one more time (Last one I promise!)... when Dr. Crane drugged someone they saw there biggest fear. There was a purpose behind what we were seeing in the persons drugged state. In this story it just felt like the writer through in whatever was the weirdest thing he could think of at the time.
  
  The Phantom! I enjoyed the phantoms playful banter quite a bit. He was fun and jovial and just plain mean! I wish that would been consistent through to the end.
  
  One of the last things I would like to point out is that Murdock must be the WORST. DAD. EVER! first at the block party he tells his drunk teenage daughter to go home and get his gun! Then, when his daughter goes missing, he decides to hop in the sack and CUDDLE!? I don't know one single father who would do either of those things... and if the would, I hope the government takes their kids away.
  
  
  In closing I would advise a few things to help make this a little more polished of a story... #1: get "The Screenwriter's Bible" #2: cut out some characters and give the remaining ones last names to help them stand out. #3 restructure the story.
  
  Thank you for your time. Happy writing! read
• 
  Review: Nefarious Zoo
  A review of Nefarious Zoo
  by KenArthur on 03/03/2012
  Formatting: Medium rotten. Use of the run-on sentence: incredible. I'm not sure who the main character really was. It bounced all over. And the theme, I couldn't tell you. The lessons learned, the character arcs . . . didn't see any. So here are my notes: I disliked the poetry V.O. and all the uses of V.O. in this particular script. I would recommend cutting the poem... Formatting: Medium rotten. Use of the run-on sentence: incredible.
  
  I'm not sure who the main character really was. It bounced all over. And the theme, I couldn't tell you. The lessons learned, the character arcs . . . didn't see any.
  
  So here are my notes:
  
  I disliked the poetry V.O. and all the uses of V.O. in this particular script. I would recommend cutting the poem out altogether.
  
  At the end we read, "Murdock crawls to the corpse of
  the Phantom, takes the mask off. It's Vincent."
  
  So the Phantom is Vincent? The Vincent who was earlier described as, "VINCENT(50’s) stumbles up with CANDY(30’s). He pushes his way
  to the girl, he undoes his pants.
  He’s tall and fat. He always coordinates his wardrobe which
  includes cowboy hat, blazer, and boots. He's heartless, rich,
  and talks with a high pitched country draw."
  
  But it can't be Vincent because we also read this:
  
  "The Phantom creeps behind him, sticks a needle in his neck
  and injects the drug. Vincent collapses."
  
  So he wouldn't creep up on himself and stab himself in the neck."
  
  Besides it makes no sense that Vincent's the phantom.
  
  You formatted a lot like this example: INT. CHURCH.
  
  That's not how you do that. Come on, now. Nobody's going to read it unless it's a triggerstreet assignment, and it'll never go anywhere unless it conforms to screenplay format.
  
  Unfilmables: you commit this crime quite often, writing what cannot be seen. Only write what can be seen. You wrote, "Candy cheers him. Black hair with a stripe down the middle. The stripe is always a different color."
  
  There's no way we can see that it is always a different color. Nor can we see that Vincent is heartless or that Bill always dresses for success.
  
  You wrote:
  
  "Phillip is a traditional nerd with glasses and suspenders. He
  gets away with it because he's witty, will outsmart anybody
  verbally."
  
  What is a traditional nerd? What is it that he gets away with? How can we see that he gets away with "it" because he's witty, will outsmart anybody verbally?
  
  Lots of examples of this throughout.
  
  You wrote:
  
  "He staggers out onto the front lawn. The Townsmen gather
  around THREATENING him with pitch forks, knives, clubs etc."
  
  I do not believe we are still in the Frankensteinian mode of town folk using pitch forks and torches and marching on castles. I could be wrong.
  
  
  
  read
• 
  Hideous... but I guess that was the idea.
  A review of Nefarious Zoo
  by Karl Gorman on 02/27/2012
  Warning, I am not a horror fan. But the logline and the synopsis caught my attention. I suggest that, with the poem narration at the start, don’t have a prostitute’s one-liner interfere with it. Just have a visual montage – with Kane and Stacy, etc – and the narrator’s poem in voice over. That will make it all flow much smoother. (And don’t state it as a “poem.” Just let it... Warning, I am not a horror fan. But the logline and the synopsis caught my attention.
  
  I suggest that, with the poem narration at the start, don’t have a prostitute’s one-liner interfere with it. Just have a visual montage – with Kane and Stacy, etc – and the narrator’s poem in voice over. That will make it all flow much smoother. (And don’t state it as a “poem.” Just let it read as a poem.)
  
  You have a LOT of named characters. It is incredibly hard to differentiate them from each other because their names are too un-symbolic (EXCEPT for Rook. He is the defiant “tower” in the story.) Use your artistic license and give all their names a sense of what they are in the story… It’s not a historical documentary, so you are allowed to do that.
  
  In this hideous setting, the audience needs to be able to empathize with someone STRONGLY from very early on, AND see enough of him (or her) so that we can make that grasp. Yes, you have Rook. But the only reason why I was able to empathize with him is because you briefly stated that he was such a noble character (and he has a symbolic name). But we did not SEE him do anything specifically noble early on, only much later.
  
  You really need to show us Rook at the start. Even if it’s just brief.
  
  One thing that amazed me the second time I saw Apocalypto was that we – the audience –
  actually did see the face of the man who ended up becoming the protagonist before any of the other faces. We were manipulated, because he was being an arse to the sterile character (who we empathized with out of sympathy) And the old chief had more wise words to say.
  
  So even if we only see Rook for a heartbeat at the start, at least we see him first.
  
  Okay, not every film needs to follow that rule. But I think you need to in this case. Because the setting it all takes place in is vulgar. read