+ more submissions by rmahler

Reviews of The Art of Deception 13

• 
  Some Thoughts on Deception
  A review of The Art of Deception
  by mzclubmerc on 05/06/2006
  I think this can be a good script if some questions are answered, plug some holes. Did Frank start chasing Spector because he thought that he would lead to Wallace? If not, doesn't it seem kins of far fetched that the boogey man he is chasing is his long lost dad? When Anna met Wallace he had just humiliated her father why would she just go off with him and not... I think this can be a good script if some questions are answered, plug some holes.
  Did Frank start chasing Spector because he thought that he would lead to Wallace? If not, doesn't it seem kins of far fetched that the boogey man he is chasing is his long lost dad? When Anna met Wallace he had just humiliated her father why would she just go off with him and not say anything? I think there should be some initial resistance on her part to Wallaces charms. He would thrive on the chase. I think Anna should be developed more as a character. She is a big influence on most of the other characters and developing her adds depth to the othercharacters. Richard seems level headed to Wallaces high strung nature but he talks grandiously like Wallace. It would be a great contrast between the two brothers if you gave Richard a different lingustic style. A measured, controlled, almost uptight way of speaking. I like the build up to Frank getting it that Richard was really Wallace. The emphasis on the art is beautiful. read
• 
  This is a stageplay, not a screenplay.
  A review of The Art of Deception
  by **DELETED ACCOUNT** on 05/04/2006
  There are some things to praise here. There's the great grammar, the superb formatting, the overall economical writing, and the great twists in the end. I was actually kinda excited before I even started to read just this by how beautifully formatted the pages looked and by how this writer would be tight with his words in the action lines. It's very evident that this is... There are some things to praise here. There's the great grammar, the superb formatting, the overall economical writing, and the great twists in the end. I was actually kinda excited before I even started to read just this by how beautifully formatted the pages looked and by how this writer would be tight with his words in the action lines. It's very evident that this is a writer who is studying the craft. As a writer and a reviewer, I genuinely admire Ross Mahler, no question about it, and I'd read anything he posts.
  
  But the simple fact is, you've got a stageplay, not a screenplay. You've got an intriguing visual story (art forgery) being told in the most visual of mediums (screenplays) and essentially, all you give us is 95 pages of two men talking in a room with a smattering of talkative flashbacks. That's a stageplay. That's a really great episode of "Masterpiece Theatre." That could make for some great TV if, say, a network were to air a live production of this play. Acting students working in a local community theatre could take this ball and run with it and give you a touchdown theatrical experience that could earn you some local press and notices. You have everything BUT a screenplay.
  
  And something's missing here, don't you think? Like Act Two?
  
  Hey, correct me if I'm wrong, but you have the Act One set up explaining Frank's obsession about capturing Specter, about how he's been embarrassed in the press yet again by Specter (I've never seen headlines like that but okay), how his job is now on the line, etc, etc. Great. Act One ends at about page 14. Then what happens? We go straight to Act Three where he goes to Specter's mansion for the final showdown and chats with Richard first to get the big revelations about how and why Specter did what he did. That's Act Three, is it not? You've given us a story about a guy chasing a magnificent art forger WITHOUT THE CHASE. And you're robbing us of a world of fun that we could be having before we get to the twists at the end. Because you don't have a middle act, it feels like you had to add extra talk in order to "pad" the script so that it'll be almost 100 pages. This kind of story should be 10-15 pages longer. And boy, all that talk really hurt you. We went from page 14 - 23, almost ten minutes of nothing but talk-talk-talk before we even got to the first flashback. It was killing me. By the time we got to the flashback, I was annoyed with the heavy dialogue and exposition and felt claustrophobic about being in that mansion. And then I was annoyed that the flashback was also ALL TALK.
  
  Fleezer, SteveGarv, Barkalounger, Flourophore, and Muhlfelder spent their time reading your other drafts and carefully pointed you in the right direction by telling you there's too much dialogue and exposition, that Frank should be out pursuing Specter, that he should be collecting clues and reaching his own conclusions. Yeah, that's called Act Two. Those were good reviewers I listed, and they're also good writers, and they gave you really good advice, and I'm kind of bothered by the fact that you didn't listen them and here we are with a third draft that has the same flawed structure as the last two.
  
  But hey, the ideas are here for a GREAT STORY including some FANTASTIC twists. The ability to write and write really well and properly format a screenplay is here. But for God's sake, man, if you're going to write a screenplay, write a SCREENPLAY. Get us the hell out of that mansion, send Frank to Paris, give us a tour of the Louis Nil Foundation by a beautiful French administrator who he falls in love with maybe, show us the Nil Foundation's process, give us chase sequences, and close calls. Put some thrills into this thriller. Give us some mysterious characters who might or might not be Specter. Give us a chance to guess who it might be because I would argue that in a set up like this with only three suspects (Frank, Richard, and Wallace) and your are forcing the audience to watch two of those three men talk for an endless amount of time, their minds will wander, and they will start giving flight to crazy theories that involve Frank. Mine certainly did. I thought the big twist at the end was that Frank was going to be Specter, that Antoine and Hadley were going to burst into the mansion and arrest Frank. But I'm always wrong when it comes to mysteries. The point is, people will suspect Frank of SOMETHING with the way this story is being told.
  
  SteveGarv and Barkalounger also asked a similar question - if Frank knew who painted the Woman of the Mirrors, if he knew the Woman of the Mirrors was her mother, then why didn't he visit that house years ago? Wouldn't he have known his mother was married to Wallace? Or that Wallace was Louis Nil? If you had given us an Act Two where we had to watch Frank search for Louis Nil, where he also tries to locate his father, where tries to obtain the Woman of the Mirrors painting, and where he does, indeed, visit the mansion before the big revelation in the end, then nobody would ask those questions. Why? Because we spent time with Frank watching him search for the answers.
  
  Other thoughts:
  
  - I didn't think the story behind the birth of Specter needed to be more compelling.
  - Frank, as a character, should be more guarded about what he's really thinking. The less he says about what he's thinking, the more curious we would be about him. He's also too dry. He should have style, grace, and humor about him. A guy that would make Bogart proud. The more calm, cool, and collected Frank is, the less we'll see the twist coming.
  - Not crazy about the opening. Give us something interesting. Let Frank be in a gallery following a suspect. Or let him be searching for a Louis Nil that he can't find. Or let him cause an uproar when he tells the curator in a gallery that one of their paintings is a fake.
  - "The Da Vinci Code" seriously wounds your chance to get a sale with this story. You want to compete? Then you gotta make your story really exciting.
  
  Below are my notes as I read this story. The fact that I have so few notes speaks to your great abilities as a writer. I wish I had better news. But I do hope these thoughts prove helpful to you.
  
  Best wishes,
  
  -MM
  
  
  ---------------------------------------------
  
  Pg 1 - OH MY! Formatting looks beautiful. That's so refreshing. I'm almost moved to tears, man. Oh, wait. Don't use (CONT'D) when a character speaks twice in a row. Only use (MORE) and (CONT'D) when a line of dialogue carries over to the next page. Pg 3 - Should be, "I assure YOU it failed all of them." Pg 4 - Antione's Office could be a Secondary Heading since we're still in the same building, but not necessary. Pg 9 - No need for the "- MOMENTS LATER" in the Secondary Heading. It's understood it's a few moments later, no need to explain that to us. Pg 10 - The Master Scean Heading should just say "FOYLES KITCHEN" Are these stairs OFF the kitchen? Pg 11 - You have to write out "three o'clock" in the dialogue. Pg 19 - "I'll try to be quick, but there's a lot to tell" made me groan. Pg 32 - Here we are a third of the way into the script, over 30 minutes into the movie, and it's been NOTHING BUT TALK. Pg 37 - Cut "- CONTINUOUS" out of the Secondary Heading. Pg 38 - Again, cut "- CONTINUOUS" out of the Secondary Heading. Pg 42 - The beating, while tragic, is first real bump of action in nearly 45 minutes that'll wake us up from all the talk. Pg 50 - I don't think this "Flashback Montage" is the right format. I can't find anything in my Screenwriter's Bible even remotely similar to this. I say format it like a NORMAL montage. Pg 53 - Instead of "A SHOT rings out!" just say "HE SHOOTS." Write the next paragraph this way: "Wallace clutches his shoulder. He scrambles away in great pain." The phrase, "where he's been hit by a bullet" isn't necessary, and the next sentence can simply start with "He." We'll know who you're talking about with "He." Too many innocent writers start every sentence with a character name, which is dry reading. It's like they forget to use "he" or "she" or they don't have enough confidence in the reader to think we'll know which character is being spoken about. Pg 57 - Need a "- DAY" or "- NIGHT" for Wallace's Studio Master Scene Heading. You need to fix the "TATE GALLERY/RECORDS ROOM" Master Scene Heading. How are we supposed to know we're in the Tate Gallery if the scene is inside a records room? A Master Scene Heading should only have INT./EXT. LOCATION - TIME The way that you have the "/" isn't correct. Either do an establishing shot of Tate's Gallery or just say "RECORDS ROOM" and explain the fact that its in an art gallery in the scene. Pg 58 - No need for ANOTHER "TATE GALLERY/RECORDS ROOM" Master Scene Heading. Just write "LATER." Pg 61 - Again, cut "- CONTINUOUS" out of the Secondary Heading. Fix all the Secondary Headings that make this mistake. Pg 67 - We're a little over an hour into the story and we're getting the story's revelations already? I'm sure there's more to come, but it just feels too soon for this. Pg 81 - "this elaborate stage play." THANK YOU! That's exactly what this is. "What other cards could he possibly hold?" Come on! You know that doesn't belong in an action line. Cut it. read
• 
  A LOT OF GOOD TWISTS
  A review of The Art of Deception
  by Burgio on 04/28/2006
  This script starts with an FBI man trying to solve a forgery. Then turns into a long servies of flashbacks about the forger's life. That means it has a good first act. A very slow not so interesting second act. Then picks up again in a third act when twist after twist is revealed and the good guy turns into the bad one. CHARACTERS. Frank is an interesting character when he's... This script starts with an FBI man trying to solve a forgery. Then turns into a long servies of flashbacks about the forger's life. That means it has a good first act. A very slow not so interesting second act. Then picks up again in a third act when twist after twist is revealed and the good guy turns into the bad one. CHARACTERS. Frank is an interesting character when he's investigating the forgery. He's not so interesting in the end when he turns into a villain. Richard is a puzzle. I suspected early one that something was wrong with his story because revealing who Wallace was didn't make much sense. DIALOGUE: It's good although there's so much of it, it bogs down Richard's story. I would have liked the script better if Frank had had to discover this back story on Wallace, not just have it regurgitated to him by Richard. Bottom line, the research of the art world that went into the story is admirable. The story is a person telling a story, tho, not something that is happening in real time in front of our eyes so never has that special "I'm in the story" feeling that an audience usuall gets from a story. That doesn't mean it's not well written. It suggests, tho, that it needs written differently. read
• 
  Very Rough
  A review of The Art of Deception
  by **DELETED ACCOUNT** on 04/26/2006
  As a rough first draft, this contains the beginnings of a decent premise. But, you tell us everything, show us nothing, and because of this, your characters are less than one dimensional. As an example, you open with three minutes of Frank giving a forgery back to some old lady. Then he goes into Antoine's office where he rants for a few more pages, and is shown a newspaper... As a rough first draft, this contains the beginnings of a decent premise. But, you tell us everything, show us nothing, and because of this, your characters are less than one dimensional.
  
  As an example, you open with three minutes of Frank giving a forgery back to some old lady. Then he goes into Antoine's office where he rants for a few more pages, and is shown a newspaper article? Wouldn't it make more sense and be more dramatic to show the outcome of the case that lead to the article being written? Frank a seasoned veteran being fooled by his arch nemesis again. Let's see his pain and frustration instead of him yelling at some old lady.
  
  A big part of the problem stems from the dialogue. None of it is believable, because it's all exposition. A good example, (page 10) Antoine stops by Frank's desk and gives a monologue out of nowhere about Frank's starting work there. It's comes out of left field. Everything about this comes out of nowhere.
  
  Another example: Richard and Wallace's introduction. This goes on for over a page (over a minute of screen time) and the dialogue truly dumbs your audience down. Do you remember her? Remember painting her? Do I know you? It's all extremely poor. This is not film dialogue, this is the author getting his point across by throwing a brick through the window. How about this -
  
  Richard eyes Wallace who is staring at the painting of the sad woman seated... bowl of apples nearby.
  
  Richard
  You forever captured her effervescent beauty. (lets us know Wallace was a painter, and that he painted this piece)
  
  Wallace looks at Richard as if trying to remember. Wallace rises and exits the room, Richard follows closely behind. (there's something wrong with Wallace)
  
  Richard
  Wallace where are you going?
  
  Wallace doesn't answer as he continues through the hallway to the door. He's about to open it when Richard grabs his arm.
  
  Richard
  It's suppose to snow. (this tells us Wallace is about to step outdoors)
  
  Wallace
  I'm going to my room, I need to lay down. (probably Alzheimers)
  
  Richard leads Wallace to the stairway.
  
  Do you see the difference? Is my version perfect (for making it up on the spot - no) But it gives all the information you gave in a quarter of the time, and I haven't explained anything to the audience or reader.
  
  What you need to do is take the basic premise and involve your characters within the action of the scene. I'd like to say you have the story to build around, but it's not there because the action isn't there.
  
  There's lots of little things that are far fetched and contradicting like "Giovanni's time has come", "ten years for first forgery", "What happened to Anna?" "I don't know" then a few scenes later Richard's describing her death.
  
  There's a lot that needs to be done to get this script into shape, starting with SHOW don't TELL.
  
  I'm sorry if I seem rough. It seems no one else is, but it doesn't help the writer to compliment work that would never be considered by a professional. read
• 
  Deceived...
  A review of The Art of Deception
  by **DELETED ACCOUNT** on 04/24/2006
  The screenplay THE ART OF DECEPTION is just as deceiving as the title leads you to believe. The concept is interesting and the story starts off very well. The writing is good and the dialogue even better. If there was one weak link in the build up to the finale it was that expert Frank forgets that Nil was killed in a fire. Something is wrong with that as Frank knows everything... The screenplay THE ART OF DECEPTION is just as deceiving as the title leads you to believe. The concept is interesting and the story starts off very well. The writing is good and the dialogue even better. If there was one weak link in the build up to the finale it was that expert Frank forgets that Nil was killed in a fire. Something is wrong with that as Frank knows everything there is to know about the mysterious Nil. Through this time I liked Frank a lot, and was really enjoying Richard. Then came another strange turn - after Richard tells Frank that Nil wasn't real, Frank ignores this truth and still acts like Nil was real. It didn't ring true to me. Yet, up until the last 20 pages or so, I was still thinking this was a pretty darn good story. And then the following scenes started to unravel a bit, as Frank and Richard and Wallace all become intertwined in what becomes kind of a tangled web of implausibilities, especially FBI agent Frank who turns into a murderer just to keep the story twists going? If you wanted to deceive me, you did, but probably not in the way you were hoping. All in all, I feel that if the ending were reworked this could be one very good screenplay. Of course, as always, these are just my opinions, and I could be completely wrong :) Best of luck! read
• 
  Painting sad clowns by numbers
  A review of The Art of Deception
  by Scott as Snape on 04/21/2006
  First of all, throughout the entire script, your actions contain things that cannot be seen. How do we know it's a Manhattan office? Is Manhattan visible through the windows? If so, say so. Just after that, describing Kennedy as "rich" and "snooty" means nothing in and of itself. We should learn that from details we can actually see, or, better, from her actions. Show,... First of all, throughout the entire script, your actions contain things that cannot be seen. How do we know it's a Manhattan office? Is Manhattan visible through the windows? If so, say so. Just after that, describing Kennedy as "rich" and "snooty" means nothing in and of itself. We should learn that from details we can actually see, or, better, from her actions. Show, don't tell.
  On page 57, you should capitalize the new character: EAGER EXECUTIVE (or perhaps eager EXECUTIVE.) On page 90, you mean to write "you're," but you have "your." On the next page, Wallace should say "can't take that away." On the next page, Frank's dialogue should have a comma between "no" and "wait."
  As for the story, its specifics are inventive, but it's certainly not believable. Wallace's motivations seem contrived, and the assorted twists at the end are both contrived and hackneyed. Of all things, I'm thinking of the end of New Jack City, but I suppose I shouldn't insert a spoiler here. Beyond that, most of the characters speak in generic crime-movie dialogue that rings false and fails to give them real character.
  Your knowledge of and interest in the art world would probably serve you well writing a less cliched, more realistic drama. read
• 
  pure art
  A review of The Art of Deception
  by tarboy on 04/20/2006
  Antoine still yammers at Frank, points to the article. Antoine yammers at Frank, points to the article. I been reading this wondering what to say? Nothing begins, it happens. Snowflakes begins to fall. Snowflakes fall. You use ellipses improperly 100% of the time. I think you’re attempting to imply dramatic pauses for the actors, but that’s not the job of a screenwriter... Antoine still yammers at Frank, points to the article.
  Antoine yammers at Frank, points to the article.
  
  I been reading this wondering what to say?
  
  Nothing begins, it happens.
  Snowflakes begins to fall.
  Snowflakes fall.
  
  You use ellipses improperly 100% of the time. I think you’re attempting to imply dramatic pauses for the actors, but that’s not the job of a screenwriter. Let the actors do their job. You’ve written the subtext and the dialogue, they’ll find the pauses and drama within it (that’s their job). Read screenplays of your favorite movies and note how the actors found the pauses though they were absent form the text.
  
  Please understand that my comments are merely the opinions of one person, a fellow screenwriter, without screen credits and maybe even completely without merit. Take what you feel is right and use it to improve your work. Discount what your experience and feelings tell you is extraneous or erroneous. When three or four of us say the same thing, pay attention. Forgive me for not proofing this review as it took me a long time to write.
  
  You are to be congratulated for good work and your natural talents. You have obviously studied the craft and this is obviously not your first project. Your plot points occur when they need to, your dialogue is frequently good, and you have obeyed many of the rules, much of the time. Good for you.
  
  I look forward to my work flowing this well.. I look forward to reading your next screenplay. Good luck!!! read
• 
  Art Review
  A review of The Art of Deception
  by **DELETED ACCOUNT** on 04/20/2006
  SCORED FROM 10-1: CRAFT ISSUES: (8) STYLE - Are action lines and dialog concise yet visually compelling? When you are writing correctly, you write very effectively. (2) SHOW & TELL - Does the writer describe only what can be seen on screen? Is all information disclosed to the reader, also disclosed to the audience? A big craft problem you have. You need to remember when... SCORED FROM 10-1:
  CRAFT ISSUES:
  (8) STYLE - Are action lines and dialog concise yet visually compelling?
  When you are writing correctly, you write very effectively.
  
  (2) SHOW & TELL - Does the writer describe only what can be seen on screen? Is all information disclosed to the reader, also disclosed to the audience?
  A big craft problem you have. You need to remember when writing that you should only write what can be seen. You can write how a person feels or the like.
  
  (9) DIALOG - Is the dialog clear, relevant, and move the story forward and/or support character development?
  Dialogue is pretty spot on, nice job.
  
  PROFESSIONALISM:
  (10) FORMAT - Does the writer conform to spec script standards?
  Good format, no major issues.
  
  (10) TYPOS - Are there unacceptable errors of spelling or grammar?
  A very clean script.
  
  (---) PLOT - Are all plot elements logical and credible?
  I am not going to score this for you and I’ll explain why. Your story shifts gears quite a bit. You jump from the motivations of one character to the life of another and back again. I didn’t really get the feel that there was a linear plot here, and it appears that you have broken numerous rules of plot structure. The reason I did not score you is because I still found the story to be effective and I enjoyed it. When it comes to selling this, you may have trouble, but just reading it, it kept me interested. And that’s all that really counts after all.
  
  ***********************************
  PROOFREADING MARKS
  [ ] - Suggested Cut
  { } - Suggested Revision
  ***********************************
  PAGE 1
  Her impatience hits Frank like a sucker punch.
  SHOW & TELL: This about how you would convey this on the screen if you were the actor. Then cut this line, and write it like you see it.
  
  PAGE 2
  Judith only half believes him.
  Judith is confused, but the topic excites Frank.
  SHOW & TELL: Judging from the first 2 pages, I can see that this is going to be your major flaw in the script. I’m not going to point out every instance, but lines like these need to be re-worded. When you write for the screen you must think and write in a visual nature. You can’t tell us “Judith is…” or “Judith feels…” you need to describe what we see on screen. Think facial expressions, body language, ect.
  
  PAGE 5
  Frank stops his rant.
  PACE: To speed up the pace of the story, you can cut lines like these. By rant you mean speech and a tell-tell sign that someone has stopped speaking is…well, he has no more dialogue. Now if he stopped pacing, you could tell us that.
  
  CHECKPOINT - SETUP: (10%)
  PLOT - How does the screenplay draw the reader and audience into the initial setting of the story?
  Frank Young is a dedicated art/forgery detective with a monkey on his back in the form of a long running case he can’t solve.
  
  CLARITY - How has the protagonist been identified (sympathetic, likeable, threatened, funny, powerful)?
  Frank seems like an intelligent, extremely dedicated and somewhat likeable protagonist.
  
  CHARACTER: Are all supporting characters clearly defined and three-dimensional?
  Antoine and Paul are done very nicely for the first 10%. Very distinctive personalities.
  TURNING POINT: THE OPPORTUNITY
  PLOT - What opportunity has the protagonist been presented with?
  You’ve got an opportunity. I say that because not many scripts I’ve read here do. Frank gets a call from what appears to be a credible lead about that pesky case. Good work, but this is coming in at page 14 which suggests that you’re lagging behind in terms of pacing. You have a 95 page story so the opportunity should be well defined halfway through your ninth page, we don’t read it until page 14.
  
  How will this opportunity create a new, visible desire that will start the protagonist on his/her journey?
  This should lead Frank down the right path towards his ultimate goal of solving the case.
  
  ***********************************
  PAGE 15
  Antoine {shakes} his head.
  PACE: You should really only write what is absolutely necessary for the purpose of keeping pace in your story. Take the above edit as an example.
  
  Page 19
  Frank isn’t convinced.
  SHOW & TELL: Really? How? Sorry, just trying to make sure my point sticks on these errors.
  
  Frank declines the offer.
  SHOW & TELL: And again. What does he do? Does he hold up his hand? Does he shak
  ***********************************
  CHECKPOINT - END OF ACT 1: (25%)
  PLOT - How has the protagonist reacted to the new situation that resulted from the opportunity (acclimated to new surroundings, tired to figure out what’s going on, formulated a plan to accomplish his/her overall goal)?
  It looks like your story is switching gears quite drastically here. If the story is going to be told in a flashback, that’s fine (although other will thrash you for it, I’m sure). My issue is that it took over 25% of the story to get into the flashback, which essentially is the entire story. Do you see where I am going? Your starting all over but you’ve lost over 20 pages.
  
  So from Frank’s standpoint, he has followed his lead and found Specter. Now he will listen to Richard’s story because he knows that he will lead him to his brother (and he may actually be interested in it).
  
  THE CHALLENGE: What challenge must your protagonist overcome?
  Big issue here. Since you’ve changed gears, your conflict has evaporated and must be rebuilt. Now, at this point, there is no challenge. Frank’s is essentially resolved, and Wallace’s has been told yet. Tough spot you’ve worked yourself into.
  
  TURNING POINT: CHANGE OF PLANS
  PLOT - What has happened to the protagonist that will transform him/her from the original desire to a specific, visible goal with a clearly defined end-point?
  The change of plans is a sticking point of all stories. This is where we learn about our hero’s goal. Referring to what I noted above, there is no change of plans because the story has re-started.
  
  CONCEPT - Has the concept been defined? Has the protagonist’s outer motivation been revealed?
  Something tells me your protag is also going to shift to Wallace. No, there is no goal defined now.
  
  ***********************************
  PAGE 38
  Frank returns, sits back in his chair, stares at the Louis Nil.
  ORPHAN: Here is an example of a word orphan. You’re going to want to avoid leaving single words on a line. Make the necessary edits to pull these up throughout.
  
  
  ***********************************
  CHECKPOINT - PROGRESS: (50%)
  PLOT - Has the protagonist plan worked thus far?
  I’m going to switch gears with this critique now, much like your story has and from now on focus on Wallace. What is Wallace’s real goal? To become a respectable painter? What’s his plan to do so? Keep painting of course. Is his plan working? No, but that’s okay, it doesn’t need to in order to be a good story. But his Change of Plans is looming, we can foreshadow it from his financial troubles.
  
  What actions has she taken to achieve his goal?
  He’s a painter…so he has painted. But to achieve his ultimate goal of becoming a named man, well we don’t know yet. I want you to read through this critique and ask yourself the questions I have asked. You can form your story to a proper structure; you just need to really think about it for a minute. First you need to acknowledge that its current layout is not working.
  
  What minor challenges has the protagonist been presented with? Has he/she been able to overcome these?
  Wallace’s minor challenges are his financial and marital troubles.
  
  POINT OF NO RETURN
  PLOT - Has the protagonist fully committed to his/her goal?
  No, he hasn’t because the pace is slow. The pace is slow because your plot isn’t structured correctly. If you have never seen the film “Interview with the Vampire,” go out and rent it. It’s a story that follows a plot structure that your’s should follow. It’s whole plot structure lies within the story the person is telling and it works because it jumps right in.
  
  ***********************************
  PAGE 46
  Revenge is written all over Wallace’s face.
  SHOW & TELL: What does revenge look like to you? Show us.
  
  NOTE: By the way, this sentencing of Wallace would make a great change of plans in your plot. Of course pacing dictates that you introduce this plot point somewhere around Page 25, this is 25 minutes too late.
  
  ***********************************
  CHECKPOINT - END OF ACT 2: (75%)
  PLOT - Has the visible goal become far more difficult? Does the protagonist have much more to lose if he/she fails?
  You’ve bounced back and forth so often here, I’m really not sure who I am supposed to be following. Is this story about Frank or about Wallace? What does Wallace have to lose if he is caught? Nothing he’s near dead (or at least we think he is). Frank on the other hand loses his case if he doesn’t bring Wallace back, but it’s thrown in there as more of an afterthought than anything.
  
  TURNING POINT: THE MAJOR SETBACK
  PLOT - What has happened to the protagonist that makes it seem all lost to the audience?
  Frank’s inner motivation takes a hit when he finds out that Louis Nil is nothing more than a fabrication of Wallace’s imagination, but I don’t see any building conflict for either character at this point.
  ***********************************
  PAGE 58
  Wallace dabs a quill into an ink bottle (his own concoction), adds an item to the page he stole from the record book, blows on the ink to dry it.
  CUT: See what you have in parentheses? You can just cut that out; we don’t need to know it and it doesn’t really add to the advancement of the plot anyway. There also is no way we could know this by watching it unless you showed him making it. Did you ever think three words could cause so much trouble?
  
  Richard measures Frank’s reaction.
  SHOW & TELL: Need I say more?
  
  PAGE 75
  Richard knows he can’t fight Frank on this.
  SHOW & TELL: You are saying Richard knows, but what you really mean is that we are supposed to know, and we can’t possibly know this. I suggest cutting this line.
  
  PAGE 77
  Antoine sits at his desk -- a powder keg ready to blow.
  SHOW & TELL: This isn’t show and tell at all, unless there really isn’t a powder keg in Antoine’s office.
  
  ***********************************
  CHECKPOINT - THE FINAL PUSH: (90-99%)
  PLOT - Has the protagonist given everything to achieve the ultimate goal?
  From Frank’s standpoint he has. He has decided to let the legend of Specter die, with the man himself, kill his own father, and let the case go.
  
  Has the pace accelerated?
  I think you drug out the turpentine scene a bit longer than needed, but overall it was pretty good.
  
  Is everything working against the protagonist?
  Not particularly. The conflict is a little too passive for my tastes, but that’s my opinion and I wont hold it against you.
  
  TURNING POINT: CLIMAX
  PLOT - Has the protagonist faced the biggest obstacle of the story?
  I suppose Frank’s ultimate obstacle is to decide what to do about the man who has eluded him all of these years. A large obstacle indeed, especially since it is also his own father. My question is why he never of would heard of his uncle? He wasn’t a criminal living in the shadows like his father.
  
  Has he/she determined his/her own fate?
  Yes.
  
  Has the outer motivation been resolved?
  Ultimately, yes.
  
  ***********************************
  
  ***********************************
  CHECKPOINT - THE AFTERMATH: (100%)
  PLOT - Has the protagonist resolved the objective and/or has a new life been revealed for him/her now that the journey is complete?
  Franks has more closure than an arc. His experience doesn’t really change him, but it does put his life at ease. Although, he must live as a murderer now. That can’t play well on the conscience. read
• 
  The Art of Deception
  A review of The Art of Deception
  by **DELETED ACCOUNT** on 04/14/2006
  Free Will Review. I read a previous draft of THE ART OF DECEPTION (titled ART OF DECEPTION) yesterday and I really enjoyed that so it will be interesting to see how this has changed. Not that much needed changing IMHO. Straight away, I can see that this is five pages longer. That's a good thing because the previous draft was only 92 pages which I felt was too short. it's... Free Will Review.
  
  I read a previous draft of THE ART OF DECEPTION (titled ART OF DECEPTION) yesterday and I really enjoyed that so it will be interesting to see how this has changed. Not that much needed changing IMHO.
  
  Straight away, I can see that this is five pages longer. That's a good thing because the previous draft was only 92 pages which I felt was too short. it's still a bit short now. However, not enough to worry about.
  
  The opening scenes seem to have been edited somewhat and we get to the mansion much sooner which is good.
  
  Good to see that you've specified the rooms that the characters are in (something that you didn't last time).
  
  You still have instances of dialogue continuing onto the next page.
  
  I'm thinking that Richard (aka Wallace) shouldn't use exclamation marks until the very end. As I said in my previous review, I can easily see John Malkovich in the role and I'm just not seeing him yelling at Frank in these early scenes. I see Richard/Wallace as someone who's very calm because, after all, he is leading Frank down the wrong path for the bulk of the story. One tends not to question someone who's very calm and sure of himself. He's seducing Frank in a way with this ruse. So I'd lose the exclamation marks. You can still have him get a bit testy at times but just have him visibly have to control his anger at times. I think that would be more effective.
  
  You still use the word "CONT'D" in parenthesis when it comes to the dialogue. That's no longer necessary. It's like using "cut to" between scenes. It's just not done anymore because it goes without saying.
  
  See? Specifying the room in the slugline helps break up these very long scenes which is good.
  
  Eliminate all underlining in dialogue.
  
  The conversation about wine on page 38 is new. And a good metaphor for the value of art.
  
  The courtroom scenes are new. I'm not sure whether they are really necessary but I guess you have to boost the page count somehow. The previous draft was a very tight script and you don't want to give fat thighs or love handles to a tight script. It's still good now though.
  
  The scene about THE ART OF FLY FISHING is new.
  
  Good to see a bit more of Anna.
  
  I like how one of the montages has been turned into regular scenes (the 1980s art boom). This is more show and less tell which is good.
  
  I'm not a fan of action in parenthesis with the dialogue.
  
  Page 86 - So that's how Anna died? Interesting addition.
  
  You still have Frank just dropping Richard off outside the hospital. Maybe have Frank go in there with him, get him settled and THEN leave?
  
  SUMMARY: I enjoyed the previous draft (giving it a rare recommend) and I enjoyed this one as well. I'm not sure whether it is better than the previous draft. It's certainly not worse. After all, you specify what room we are in at any given time now which is good although there are still a few formatting issues (underlining in dialogue, action in dialogue, the CONT'D attached to dialogue) that need fixing and Frank just dumping an old guy with Alzheimers outside a hospital comes off as cold to me. I'm going to rate this the same as the previous draft. It's not better. It's not worse. It's the same. And there is nothing wrong with that considering the other draft was so good. This draft is longer which is good. And we do learn more about Anna which subsequently doesn't make Frank being the son of Wallace as so much of an out-of-left-field twist which is also good. And you changed some of the montages into individual scenes which made for less telling and more showing which is always good as well. read
• 
  An interesting story, with some good twists.
  A review of The Art of Deception
  by gy007uk on 04/11/2006
  I thought the opening scene was good, Frank was set up as an anti hero from the start. The "wouldn't wipe my ass..." line was funny and I felt that Frank was an interseting character. The dialogue was realist to the charators and moved the very engaging narrative along. The pace however seemed to slow in the middle and perhaps a scene or flashbask with a little more action... I thought the opening scene was good, Frank was set up as an anti hero from the start. The "wouldn't wipe my ass..." line was funny and I felt that Frank was an interseting character. The dialogue was realist to the charators and moved the very engaging narrative along. The pace however seemed to slow in the middle and perhaps a scene or flashbask with a little more action could beef it up a little. I was very keen to find out how he could forge the Louis Nil and it was a nice twist that he was Louis. I liked the wallace/richard twist as well, made me respect wallace more, clever man. I initially found the "im your son" twist a little far fetched but as I finished the script I could see how it was needed and I think it worked, a good ending. It seemed that there was a good start and end but the middle needs a little something to wow the reader. read