Reviews of Vengeance 6

• 
  Classic western premise; vanilla and cliche execution.
  A review of Vengeance
  by jakenp on 02/07/2012
  Vengeance explores the classic Western premise of "main character is avenging someone's death." In this story, it is Chuck avenging his fathers. His sidekick Joe is around (with a twist at the end) and he is close with a family that keeps horses. He falls for the daughter in that family. Your story structure is actually pretty good. The twist at the end is competent. But... Vengeance explores the classic Western premise of "main character is avenging someone's death." In this story, it is Chuck avenging his fathers. His sidekick Joe is around (with a twist at the end) and he is close with a family that keeps horses. He falls for the daughter in that family.
  
  Your story structure is actually pretty good. The twist at the end is competent. But the devil is in the details of this script.
  
  Somehow you manage to tell a story (with an enormous amount of inherent tension) without including any conflict in any scene. Every back-and-forth plays out very convenient and polite. Way too much "hi, how are you? Good how are you?" Characters uses each other's names way too much in dialog--a totally unrealistic detail.
  
  These characters are quite flat. It was hard for me to glean any backstory other than the stuff with the murdered dad who was in the Civil War.
  
  The Joe twist actually might have worked, but you didn't earn it. He just out of the blue is like "oh yeah, I'm your enemy too." You need to plant seeds for that kind of stuff all through the story.
  
  If you plan on reworking this, make sure you give your scenes and characters some texture. Give everything enough complexity and flaw and conflict that your readers can sink their teeth into. Make your script anything but boring, and you can see through what is really a pretty good premise. read
• 
  Vengeance
  A review of Vengeance
  by Tooth on 01/06/2007
  Vengeance is a solid Western. It has all the right dramatic movements and tension through it from the vengeful hero, the backstabbing buddy and a nice epic finish. But I would say this is the reason the script has no real originality. I would have liked to have seen more of the Longworth gang, just for the sake of showing how ruthless they are. In the scene with Jimmy... Vengeance is a solid Western. It has all the right dramatic movements and tension through it from the vengeful hero, the backstabbing buddy and a nice epic finish.
  
  But I would say this is the reason the script has no real originality. I would have liked to have seen more of the Longworth gang, just for the sake of showing how ruthless they are. In the scene with Jimmy and Leo, the fact that Jimmy shot everyone he spoke to was more absurd than ruthless, I think there could have been some more humour in this; the script is short of amusement.
  
  The character of Chuck seemed too flaky to me. He was certainly flawed but it wasn't terribly clear, it looked at one point as if his drinking would cost him but it didn't. He'd drunk himself into a stupor and was then jumping out of windows and riding his horse backwards five minutes later.
  
  the final scene between Joe, Jess and Chuck could have been more focused. I would have thought with Jesse's past with Chuck's father could have played more in the dialogue. In the end I just think it was all a bit too easy for the main character, you need to put him through much more to make this the gripping movie it could be. read
• 
  Gun ho
  A review of Vengeance
  by **DELETED ACCOUNT** on 12/15/2006
  Well I am glad that I was able to review a Western on this site. I have never read a scripted Western script so it was a change from the usual time setting and locale. The script was very smooth as far as reading goes. A lot of white. But, the character descriptions were few and far between. I had a hard time trying to give the main character, Chuck, a face and a tone. An accent... Well I am glad that I was able to review a Western on this site. I have never read a scripted Western script so it was a change from the usual time setting and locale. The script was very smooth as far as reading goes. A lot of white. But, the character descriptions were few and far between. I had a hard time trying to give the main character, Chuck, a face and a tone. An accent as well. He sounded very similar to his friend Joe, as well as other supporting characters in the script. The dialogue, western sounding, I think could be worked on quite a bit. Very much so in fact. It is rather simple. I know this is a western, but to set it apart from other westeners there needs to be a type of flair to go on. Give Chuck some phrases people will remember. Give him a character trait that sets him apart from the others. I know he smokes, but doesn't everyone in that era?
  
  Some grammar and typing mistakes I found. There are several more that can be found if the writer looks at the script closely for the mistakes. So:
  
  p. 3 Not a question mark for George. Should be a period.
  
  p. 18: drop civil war part that Bill says. We know it is in the Civil War. You are cheating Bill's dialogue by trying to give the reader and audience a description. Let your characters talk among themselves, not just to release information.
  
  27=28: need scene heading. Between these page numbers there needs to be a scene heading. Like Int. Kitchen or what not.
  
  41: to the James". Bad grammar. Correct that.
  
  71: already told he was going to see the sherriff. Do not reinfornce that a second time on the page.
  
  76: for Joe: no quesiton mark. A period.
  
  88: Grat should be Chuck. Unless Grat is talking as a ghost.
  
  The story was very convenient for Chuck. When Joe said he was done, Chuck did not reluctantly let him go. He let Joe go without quesitoning his motives. Even though Chuck was going through the same thing for Mary as Joe was more or less with the prostitute. George was more than willing to let Chuck sleep with Mary? Very unconvential in those days. Guess he is quite liberal.
  
  
  
  The structure was okay. The concept is very simple and has been seen several times in these types of Western films. "Tombstone" for one. Good luck with the rest of your revisions. Right now it needs some work. Good luck. E. read
• 
  Twice Upon A Time in the West?
  A review of Vengeance
  by **DELETED ACCOUNT** on 12/14/2006
  To start off, your script kept me interested throughout. I was never bored or turned off by anything you wrote. However, I had a few issues with it. First of all, on language and dialogue. I agree with what you think about not worrying too much about the language. It’s rare – if ever – that real language is used in Westerns, even the wonderful wonderful Deadwood uses language... To start off, your script kept me interested throughout. I was never bored or turned off by anything you wrote. However, I had a few issues with it.
  
  First of all, on language and dialogue. I agree with what you think about not worrying too much about the language. It’s rare – if ever – that real language is used in Westerns, even the wonderful wonderful Deadwood uses language that, while beautiful, is fake. However I think, at the same time, you have to avoid having the language be too contemporary. Make sure it doesn’t sound like they’re teenagers hanging out in the 21st century, I think.
  
  Also, some of your dialogue is either too tame or unnecessary. Lines like “that explains the soreness” – after Chuck is shot – seem both redundant, and a bit silly, honestly. Later, when Chuck is being seduced by Mary he says “I shouldn’t do that. As I said your father’s been very kind to me.”
  
  In my opinion, that kind of line could be cut down to “I shouldn’t do that.” He’s already told her about his father, and in a quiet seduction scene it’s nice not to have too much dialogue. Think about the way Sergio Leone writes (or at least how it is in his final products!). A lot of your scenes, such as Ethan’s death, could do without several of the lines. Leave something for the actors to do, and for the audience to interpret!
  
  Other phrases, like “thank goodness I’ve found you”, seem… a little tame for a frontier town in the 1880s. But perhaps that’s too much watching Deadwood that makes me think that!
  
  On the other hand, I really liked your action scenes. This is undoubtedly one of your strongest points as a writer, and all of your scenes involving action really do appear lifelike.
  
  One qualm: Joe goes to see the sheriff then reports back to Chuck. It’s a bit redundant, you could probably just have one of those two scenes – in my mind preferably the sheriff scene but then again… (particularly since the mystery is solved very quickly)
  
  Now, on to a few little bits of implausibility. These aren’t major problems, just things I noted that didn’t really seem likely to me:
  
  First, that Mary’s parents would let her sleep with a boy so simply! This is the 1880s!
  
  Second, I’m not entirely sure why Grat thinks he killed Chuck. Is he just incompetent? It seems strange that he just assumed the boy was dead if Dr. Weaver was able to revive him so easily.
  
  Third, I was a bit surprised that Chuck didn’t know about his father’s land. Westerns stress family, and – unlike, say, Jill McBain in Once Upon A Time in the West (which we’ll talk about in a minute!) - Chuck has been living with his father. I assumed he would know. But something like that is a personal thought, and I don’t think it necessarily needs to be changed.
  
  Fourth, the extensive poker lesson is a little…extensive. I get why it has to be there, but it could definitely be cut down a bit!
  
  And fifth, I think Mary’s pregnancy is unnecessary (at least until after they get married). To me, it kinda made me wonder if part of the reason Chuck married her was because she was pregnant, which isn’t very romantic!
  
  (A few proof reading things: Grat has a line on p88 even though his dead, which I think is supposed to be Chuck’s; and there is a line “if I see you you’ll be dead, and if you’re not sure you will be” which I didn’t think was a complete sentence!)
  
  I think Chuck and Joe’s farewell at the two-thirds mark should be more important. First, I think a bit of antagonism: Joe has just decided not to accompany his best friend, I think Chuck should be a little less accepting of this. Plus, I think they should show a bit of poignancy when they split up just before this, because they should be (at least inside) worrying that the other may die.
  
  (Also: is it just me or does Joe have his eye on Chuck? He carries him quite romantically, plays with him in the bath… is it just a close buddy thing? I do tend to see homoeroticism in everything! And also, does this closeness jar with the fact that Joe is ultimately a traitor?)
  
  I also worry a little about the plot structure. Chuck seems to just be given a number of towns and uses trial and error to move through them one at a time. I think you should try and make it so that each town gives Chuck a clue to lead him closer.
  
  Now, on to the ending. First, I should state that Once Upon A Time in the West is one of my favourite films, and there does seem to be quite a bit of it in here. Unfortunately, I think at times you were just trying to fit every Western cliché in there, without having anything to say about it.
  
  The thing about the Western is, by the time Leone started making his classics, the genre as a whole was dead. So by this time, unless you’re willing to either make your format original, or challenge the traditions, Westerns aren’t a viable market. Of course – as Deadwood has proven – there is still a market, but I think you have to make your format a little more original.
  
  Some things in your final battle scene don’t ring true. Chuck’s justification for all his murders – “I’m doing many people a favour at the same time” – isn’t good enough. It should either be darker, suggesting that he doesn’t care; or it should be a catchier phrase.
  
  The “you and me are alike” thing is of course the ultimate Western scenario, but it needs to be stressed. We never get a hint of this throughout the film (for example in Once Upon A Time Harmonica and Frank have symbolism and music and a past that binds them) and all of a sudden, the villain just throws this out there!
  
  The duel between Chuck and the villain seemed eerily reminiscent of Once Upon A Time’s last scene, and the final scene seemed even more suspect. The surprise last duel, the shocking death of the lead, leaving behind his wish that the town be built… it worked emotionally, and it was a very fitting end, but it felt a little derivative. I don’t think any film critic would look at it without seeing Once Upon A Time.
  
  So my ultimate thoughts? I think that you need to toy with the structure a little, and either challenge some conventions, or tell your story in a unique or interesting way.
  
  Certainly, Westerns are rarely viable scripts on today’s markets but I do think there is a place for them. However your script seems more to accept the stereotypes than challenge them, and I think this could work against you.
  
  But I’d love to read any follow-up drafts! read
• 
  courtesy
  A review of Vengeance
  by dhurlburt on 12/12/2006
  These are without a doubt the most courteous cowboys and villians I have ever seen. Virtually every page has thank you's. Good byes are everywhere. First the good. The story followed an outline. It progress from scene to scene. In other words, th eskeletal framework for a screen play existed. As a result it could be fleshed out. Unfortunately it isn't. The screenplay is replete... These are without a doubt the most courteous cowboys and villians I have ever seen. Virtually every page has thank you's. Good byes are everywhere.
  
  First the good. The story followed an outline. It progress from scene to scene. In other words, th eskeletal framework for a screen play existed. As a result it could be fleshed out. Unfortunately it isn't.
  
  The screenplay is replete with typos, misspellings, missing or improperly used punctuation. The grammar is poor. Likewise sentence construction.
  The dialogue is trite: too direct. It is filled with question/answer, or statement and direct reply. I found no use of subtext. No implied responses. No use of facial or body language of substance.
  
  The characters were ill-defined. Nothing to make each distinct: to give them their own voice. They all read exactly alike.
  
  There was also a lack of consistency and continutity in many of the scenes. And beliveability was a further problem.
  The scen with Mary in Chucks's bed in her father's house back in th edays of the wild west was too incredible for words. Each of the scenes needs more thought. Why do the characters do what they do? And is what they are doing believable? And consistent with other things they do.
  
  Avoid words ending in "ing" as much as possible. There are easier and short ways to describe action.
  
  Some specific problems(you will note these come from early on. After 25 pages I had tons of notes, so pointing out all the deficiencies would take hours):
  
  p1-sties not sty's
  cowhands not Cowhands
  delete "on the ranch"
  delete "at this moment"
  change "are riding" to ride
  delete parenthetical. not needed.
  toward, not towards
  Great. They'll instead of as currently written
  p2-delete Only.
  Direct statments to someone require a comma before the name
  
  moment not moments
  GRUNTS not is GRUNTING
  acts not acting
  swings not is swinging
  to no avail=not a cowboy saying
  drop th ethank yous on page 4-and th egood byes on 5. Together they take a whole page just to be courteous.
  p78-gallop not canter. He is in a hurry.
  
  p9. don't need a flashback to show he shot the horse
  
  p10-. after dad and cap h in he
  p11-off not of
  
  p18- offer a puff on his cheroot? Not a cowboy.
  p18-don't break dialogue in mid sentence at the end of a page..
  As I said these are just examples of a variety of problems.
  
  Concentrate on your outline. Think about th echaracteristics of each of your characters and th eera in which the scxreenplay takes place. How would they talk back then? What would they do back then? What was th emorality back then. By looking in this fashion you can put real meat on th ebones of your skelton.
  Good luck.
  
  
  
  read
• 
  Nop So Much Homage as By-the Numbers
  A review of Vengeance
  by jordanyerman on 12/10/2006
  I can tell you're a fan of the Western genre, but this screenplay comes across as more of an amalgamation than an homage. Repetitive dialogue in opening scene. We'll see how much george likes the boys by their relationship, he doesn't have to tell them multiple times. This note pertains to virtually every following scene: characters don't need to describe to us what they're... I can tell you're a fan of the Western genre, but this screenplay comes across as more of an amalgamation than an homage. Repetitive dialogue in opening scene. We'll see how much george likes the boys by their relationship, he doesn't have to tell them multiple times. This note pertains to virtually every following scene: characters don't need to describe to us what they're doing. Well see them do it.
  Language: I suggest focusing on it. If you're going for genre, then language is the most important part.Everyone sounds very English. This is a Western; they shouldn't. Remember, a screenplay is only words until it's picked up, so make those words count.
  Spelling: beware of homonyms. too/to, wear/where, etc. Spell-check will not catch these, so the writer has to.
  Punctuation: commas are virtually nonexistent. Run-on sentences do not look professional. As for the narrative itself, I found the opening scenes to be perfunctory: pure genre with no engaging characters.
  As the scene currently reads, surely Grat would have made sure his targets were dead.
  Inconsistent dialogue: Chuck says he's unsure about if he can go home when he's just been told his house was burnt down.
  The characters don't seem to react to the situations around them. For example, after discovering they're being followed, why would Joe and Chuck return to their hotel rooms, neither of which now have doors?
  How would Chuck know who the Grant brothers were if he didn't even know about the Longworth gang? Also, Mary seems to hook up with Chuck by virtue of being the only young woman in the story so far; this ties in with my previous genre comments: the genre seems to be controlling the story entirely, and no room is left for character-driven plot development, which every film needs in order to stand out. read