Reviews of Who the F@ck Are You? : Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire 30

• 
  Twin danger
  A review of Who the F@ck Are You? : Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
  by ARIS1945 on 05/24/2011
  I think that this is an almost perfect script. The writer starts with the simple idea of a guy meets girl thing, only to loose and find her again many times, under very funny situations. He develops the story through very strange coincidences, into a thriller type parallel action drama, full of irony and humor and guiding it to a climax he reaches a happy ending. It is full... I think that this is an almost perfect script. The writer starts with the simple idea of a guy meets girl thing, only to loose and find her again many times, under very funny situations. He develops the story through very strange coincidences, into a thriller type parallel action drama, full of irony and humor and guiding it to a climax he reaches a happy ending. It is full of turning points, surprises and great characters like Samuel, who reminds me the Rys Ifans, Spike in Notting Hill. I enjoyed reading this script and I would love to see it on the big screen. read
• 
  I'm Not Your Gary Busey Boy
  A review of Who the F@ck Are You? : Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
  by bloodmeridian2004 on 10/11/2010
  Hey Ben: There's a lot to like here, bro. I'm of two mindsets about it—and here goes: two things: that is to say two things that I would focus on—what was I saying? 1. I've asked myself question #1—which is what I always ask in review: “How would a contest judge rate this?” And, the big red flag for a contest judge would be all the pop culture references. I remember listening... Hey Ben:
  
  There's a lot to like here, bro.
  
  I'm of two mindsets about it—and here goes: two things: that is to say two things that I would focus on—what was I saying?
  
  1. I've asked myself question #1—which is what I always ask in review: “How would a contest judge rate this?”
  
  And, the big red flag for a contest judge would be all the pop culture references. I remember listening to the commentary for THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and some guy said it cost a fortune to use one line of dialogue about “Gilligan's Island.”
  
  I think your writing is strong enough to dispense with the pop culture references.
  
  2. How would I pitch this?
  
  I like how you don't give away too much of the story in the pitch. The way you set it up for a thirty-second pitch is great, because you are asking a simple question: “How do you get a girl to like you when she doesn't remember meeting you?”
  
  Now, for a longer pitch—we get into the territory of synopsis, and I think what people look for are beats in which certain expectations are met.
  
  Now, think about the Script Shark Sharkgrid for a moment:
  
  One of the questions is about scene length.
  
  Although the dialogue in this is good to excellent throughout, sometimes that “dialogue engine” gets to going too much and blows out the scene length.
  
  And the scene lengths wouldn't be a problem if more were happening with the visual exposition.
  
  In terms of Hollywoodspeak (which I would never use as a pitch, but would hope the person hearing the pitch would evoke comparisons) I think you have a cogent comparison to 50 FIRST DATES.
  
  Now, my question would be, in terms of Hollywoodspeak, it's 50 FIRST DATES meets what?
  
  Off the top of my head, it feels like 50 FIRST DATES meets STRANGERS ON A TRAIN.
  
  Although, that does nothing to address the mistaken-identity-evil-twin.
  
  Wish I could flesh out the pitch better than that, Ben, but this is a farce, and trying to bend it into something other than that doesn't work.
  
  READING NOTES
  
  pp1-12 some excellent dialogue here, Ben, as usual.
  
  p12 I'd omit CONTINUOUS and just go with NIGHT (these scenes go on a bit and it's confusing to remember if CONTINUOUS is DAY or NIGHT) besides, one syllable trumps everything.
  
  p19 Okay, the beat of the cop preventing our hero from meeting the love of his life is repeated again. Consider varying the obstacle.
  
  p26 Cliche/Cliché
  
  p36 another CONTINUOUS
  
  P51 This master scene heading cracks me up, nice job.
  
  INT. STU’S CAR (BARELY MOVING) – DAY
  
  p63 lol nice reveal about the unknown twin—so our hero is pursuing the evil twin, funny shit man!
  
  p66 I think some of the pop culture references will have to be removed, but I'm not sure. Damn copyright law and all that. Just to be safe, I'd have a version of this without any copyright issues for contests. Contest readers look for any reason to blackball anything, it makes their job easier.
  
  p75 I love the bit, breaking the fourth wall with “sorry for being a dick about the confusion” but I think this goes too far—because it was tough to sell the bit about Mary being the twin, but now if she has multiple personalities it violates the lexicon of the scriptwriter to go beyond what the camera sees.
  
  So, here's the question that a dick of a critic will ask: “How does the camera know?”
  
  p91 thirty four/thirty-four
  
  p95 I think Syd Field is cool with flashbacks and voiceovers, but John McKee would turn you into a eunich.
  
  p96 Gary Busey bit is funny—reminds me of a song by CornMo called “I'm not your Gary Busey-boy.”
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j244DN-09Wo
  
  FINAL THOUGHTS:
  
  Good luck with this bro.
  
  Hope you saw the CornMo video.
  
  And I dug your “Creep” wish we could have been there for it.
  
  Best wishes,
  Paul
  read
• 
  Who the F@ck Are You?, Review
  A review of Who the F@ck Are You? : Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
  by **DELETED ACCOUNT** on 07/18/2010
  WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU? REVIEW I'll apologise in advance if my review isn't perfect. This is my first one, and I felt like I should give it to you straight. Perfect. Unfortunately, I don't think your title will fly in Hollywood. Emma is perfect, a word Stu uses a few times after getting into trouble. Amy is the Devil. How about The Devil's Perfection? Yeah, that's bad!... WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU? REVIEW
  
  I'll apologise in advance if my review isn't perfect. This is my first one, and I felt like I should give it to you straight.
  
  Perfect. Unfortunately, I don't think your title will fly in Hollywood. Emma is perfect, a word Stu uses a few times after getting into trouble. Amy is the Devil. How about The Devil's Perfection? Yeah, that's bad!
  
  The opening was well constructed. When I first read it, I thought you re-introduced Emma too quickly and jumped around too much. But, after reading the script entirly, I like how it all fit together.
  
  The following are notes I wrote throughout the reading. A lot of it won't make sense.
  
  Page 8 - I don't like how the Bartender just falls asleep with customers still sitting at the bar. Doesn't sound plausable.
  
  22 - I don't like how he considers Cassie's proposal then immediately barges out the front door disgusted. Why did he change his mind so fast?
  
  24 to 27 - Having the MOTEL in such bad shape might turn the audience away from the character development(just thinking outloud). So far, Stu and Emma are great characters.
  
  32 - The joke about hooker blood and underage girls might not be appropriate for targeted audience. **I take this comment back after reading the next page =)**
  
  33 to 35 - I LOL'd at Stu and Sarah's break-up scene. Clever dialogue.
  
  35 - TYPO "Fair enough. But you want to HEAR something crazy?"
  
  40 to 50 - Seemed a bit slow. Didn't feel real, like Stu nor Helen would say the things they did. Helen wouldn't openly discuss a clients story with a complete stranger who started the conversation with a bad line.
  
  43 - The SIDEWALK scene. I don't know why Emma would push over a homeless man, and kill a dog for no apparent reason. **Makes sense now, after finishing the read. I still am ify about this scene.**
  
  61 - Good twist. Mary's character didn't make too much sense, but now it's crystal clear.
  
  72 - Who is his grandpa? What does he do, where is he? If I'm not mistaken, I have no recollection of this character in the first Act.
  
  74 - Might be overplaying the fact that she's "perfect," when the front desk employee blurts out that she's pretty. We get it already.
  
  75 - You should be sorry!!! =)
  
  82 - No doubt you have a gift of writing funny characters. Hickory Stick!
  
  83 - Audiences loathe the killing of animals. I'd refrain from killing dogs and cats.
  
  85 - Did I just figure out the ending? Is Samuel going to get with Amy aka Mary aka Emma? And Stu will get with the original Emma while the two sisters reunite? Am I a genius? Maybe...
  ** Good job! The un-original thing to do is what I predicted above. After finishing the script, you went in the same direction, but executed it in a way that is your own!**
  
  87 - LENNY says "I take it you know her?" It should say, "I take it you know HIM?" I think...
  
  91 - The first time I read Samuel's voice mail recording, I thought Samuel was talking over the recording, but on this page I kind of get what you're trying to do. Maybe clarify this the first time.
  
  92 - A little sudden with Amy being a murderer. Came out of nowhere. Maybe make a reference to the possibility a little earlier on.
  
  94 - Brian Williams would not tell the nation he's horny for a pretty murderer.
  
  95 - Yeah, tell Sid Field what's up!
  
  102 - Ahahahhaha at Samuel and The Truman Show reference. Samuel is a great character!
  
  107-108 - Who is Diane? I assume she's Agent Dale's partner? Also, is it really possible for Stu to figure out Amy has a twin sister who is in fact Emma?
  
  LOL Kevin Spacey!
  
  Agent Dale's diologue doesn't seem real but perhaps that's what you're going for!
  
  113 - Under Samuel's sweatshirt? Really?
  
  115 - RIP =(
  
  Conclusion:
  
  My opinion is that you have done so many things right in this script that it's hard to find the wrong. Your character's are on point, the story is unusual but funny, clean and easy read, and marketable. Some of the pacing is off due to unrealistic diologue, but nothing to lose sleep over.
  
  Overall, I thought this was a well written script with good character development and story line. With a little work, this RomCom could have potential to be made a movie.
  
  The chemistry between Stu and Samuel is good. I can picture Jesse Eisenberg as Stu and Zach Galifianakis as Samuel!
  
  GWH read
• 
  whiskey fox tango
  A review of Who the F@ck Are You? : Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
  by Mr. Cinema on 07/01/2010
  *** Who the fuck are you? Hey I’ve seen this on here for a while and been wondering what everybody liked about. The title definitely stands out but from a marketing stand point no way, no how. Also why are you saying this based off a book by Sapphire.? Are you being funny if so I don’t see it, personally. Okay this does look like a fun read so here we go. Pg. 1 Do people... *** Who the fuck are you?
  
  Hey I’ve seen this on here for a while and been wondering what everybody liked about. The title definitely stands out but from a marketing stand point no way, no how. Also why are you saying this based off a book by Sapphire.? Are you being funny if so I don’t see it, personally.
  
  Okay this does look like a fun read so here we go.
  
  Pg. 1 Do people even use sub-slug lines anymore?
  
  Pg. 2 I like the opening Titanic scene but it feels like it’s over shadowing your sp, because you’re using another movie to catapult yours.
  
  Pg. 3 EXT. MOVIE THEREATE is a long scene. Imagine watching a scene that long.
  
  Pg. 9 I’m not a smart girl” lol.
  
  Pg. 10 this whole getting to know each other scene is kinda long huh?
  
  Pg. 12 I/E never seen that in a slug line before.
  
  PG. 14-15 Excellent dialogue. It all flowed nicely and natural.
  
  Pg. 22 Does it exactly have to be eight seconds? Later would work fine.
  
  Pg. 23 Since Stu aged has a change how about Emma’s look change too. Does she look hotter then before?
  
  Pg. 36 This Samuel is a pretty good character so far. Liked the acid joke. Some reason I imagine him as a Hulk Hogan/ Leo from that 70 show.
  
  PG. 39 Nice way mirror the title in script. I’m a big fan of putting titles in your screen plays.
  
  Pg. 59 lose the we. Sounds like you’re a director.
  
  Pg 60 I don’t have a problem with your voice but your telling too much. Like It’s we’ve been lied to all along.
  
  Pg. 64 Is it a good idea to have two characters names that start with the same first letter? Stu& Samuel.
  
  Pg, 66 What’s the deal with all the movie references? So far, you have a pretty engrossing story and your sp can stand on its on. You don’t need any movie references. Trust me I’d never read a sp this long if I was interested.
  
  Pg. 68 JB call Lamar lol.
  
  Pg. 81 That’s a pretty creative joke you go there. Funny. The face book joke.
  
  Pg. 84 Lol big league chew. Man, I remember that stuff.
  
  Pg 97 the two Amys need a action line between them,
  
  Pg 98 Are you stereotyping African Americans.? Stella and Jackie sound like African Americans, then you made them eat chicken. Not a good look.
  
  Okay I liked this a lot but have a few critiques with it. First, I felt it was too easy for Stu to be a comedian as you know being a comedian is hard work and it takes a while to get noticed. I can tell you’ve seen funny people or read the script to it.
  
  Second the ending is weak. I mean it’s funny Samuel got married but the ending should have left a lasting impression on Stu and Emma’s relationship, after all that is what’s it’s about right?
  
  You did a good job with this and ignore the haters. Lastly, let me ask you a question. Who the Fuck are you? Good luck friend. read
• 
  F@ck Wits
  A review of Who the F@ck Are You? : Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
  by TheKeenGuy on 06/28/2010
  This contains some of the funniest writing I’ve read on Triggerstreet. There’s a real charm, especially thanks to the tone in the action lines, especially early on when they do a lot to fill in the color that the actors’ performances will bring later in production. There’s also a drawback to that, though, as a great deal of the best humor in this script would not translate... This contains some of the funniest writing I’ve read on Triggerstreet. There’s a real charm, especially thanks to the tone in the action lines, especially early on when they do a lot to fill in the color that the actors’ performances will bring later in production.
  
  There’s also a drawback to that, though, as a great deal of the best humor in this script would not translate to the screen, either because they are asides or because a moment as it happens on the page does not always play the same way in a live action film (the puppy kicking and Gary Busey come to mind).
  
  Also, there’s times where the action lines tell the reader what the action/dialogue has not told the audience. Most notable was the “oh snap” moment on pg. 60 where you announce that this is really Emma, while on screen it would take a couple minutes for this to dawn on the audience, whereas a simple “EMMA” name tag would accomplish the reveal at the very instant you’re oh-snapping on the page.
  
  Now, getting into the film’s narrative, I’ll first express my disappointment that the synopsis for this script was not only misleading, but a better premise. How often have we felt like we are barely a blip on the radar to someone who seems so perfect for us? The idea that a guy can’t seem to get his dream girl to remember him from Adam no matter what he dies is a terrific set-up… but it turns out, that’s not this script at all.
  
  I’m not holding that against you in terms of the merits of the script, but in terms of marketing the script, pulling out that one “who the f*ck are you” moment from early in the second act in isolation (not even providing the amnesia element) and making it sound like it’s the film’s premise does nothing to get the reader off on the right foot.
  
  Moreover, it highlights that the script has problems in its construction.
  
  As it begins, it’s quite similar to SERENDIPITY in terms of the endless establishing meet-cute, although the tone veers closer to something like (500) DAYS OF SUMMER or even BEFORE SUNRISE for the patience, charm and wit you display in building the relationship between these two. Yet, I’d say this script starts off altogether too similar to SERENDIPITY in terms of early plot turns, which I won’t fault you if you haven’t seen or scoff at the notion that your work emulates such piffle.
  
  Then, when Stu finally finds Emma (so it seems) in the coffee shop, for a moment it seems like this might head down the road of THE LADY EVE from Fonda’s perspective, but instead seems like it’s going to be a variation on 50 FIRST DATES (again, not something I would possibly accuse you of intending to emulate).
  
  And then, at the midpoint, you finally establish the premise of the film. Good twin/bad twin scenario. This slow build-up now leads into the snowballing into outlandishness that you promised. Changing the tone of a comedy in that manner is a method that I’ve found is quite problematic, a real high-wire act. Shows what a masterwork DR. STRANGELOVE is that it pulled it off so well.
  
  By the third act, the humor has become strained and obvious, on par with the later episodes of ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT (that’s a left-handed compliment), and the script relies too much on meaningless screwball antics, as Amy, Samuel and an assortment of side characters provide the majority of the humor while Stu and Emma ride in the backseat.
  
  I found Emma’s search for Amy throughout the second half to be the least-inspired section of the script. When the good twin/bad twin reveal came, what was such an unpredictable narrative so far suddenly rolled out before us like a road map. The ingenuity of your writing simply is not served well by the story as you’ve constructed it.
  
  You’ve pointed out that this does run too long at the moment, although maybe it wouldn’t have felt so bad if the stride you hit in the second act in terms of the characters and humor built into an even-better third act, rather than totally losing its grounding in semi-real-feeling quirky coolness of the first act.
  
  My recommendation would be to focus on reworking the Emma storyline in the second half. It needs a total revamping.
  
  To start with, it’s not properly constructed because you never seriously address the fact that Emma clearly abandoned her road-tripping lifestyle before her goal was accomplished. Her relationship with Stu, built up so much in the first act, is totally pointless when all we get is a reunion make-out session in the denouement. It diminishes the entire journey.
  
  Here’s my advice. Abandon the notion of her seeking out Amy. One way to go is that she abandoned the road-trip lifestyle to take care of her dying father, and after he passes, she intends to start right back up again seeking Stu. THAT should be her goal. If anything, the pursuit of her twin should be an obstacle to that goal rather than the goal, a promise she made to her father.
  
  I mean, let’s bring up SERENDIPITY again (oh, jesus christ, I know) and contrast the moment where Beckinsale finally finds the fiver with Cusack’s number on it JUST when she’s at that moment where she had given up on the hope of finding him, just at the brink of the point of no return, having to race off the airplane before it takes off. Contrast that with the dramatic flaccidity of Emma saying “What the hell? Five hundredth times a charm” and then seeing Stu’s face on the wall. Why in the world do we care about these two reuniting when Stu has so clearly become an afterthought to this character?
  
  There is dramatic territory to be mined between these two, and more comic possibilities to be mined, if Emma arrives by the end of the second act reconnecting with Stu before the climax rather than at the tail end.
  
  Imagine the reunion between Stu and Emma finally happening, but Stu believes that it’s Amy the Killer? Imagine the impact of another scenario in the third act that recalls the first act where just as it seems they are going to be together, Stu is about to be dragged away by the cops (or perhaps Emma, in a reversal) with the other having no idea where they went and even assuming they vamoosed on purpose. These two have issues to hash out, and the insanity around them does so much to complicate it.
  
  Getting Stu and Emma back together and actually interacting in way that creates conflict for the third act is what will help this script from flying off into slapstick-hijinks-only territory (as it does now), because it’s the mixture of the outlandishness and the well-developed, charming character relationships from the first act that will make for an ideal third act.
  
  Good luck! read
• 
  Nice Rough Draft
  A review of Who the F@ck Are You? : Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
  by MiracleFrank on 06/28/2010
  To me, most of this script read like a first draft, stuff you put down just to get something on the page, with the intentions of fixing it or polishing it later. Only it never got polished. The premise is funny, even though I find the set-up incredibly thin. (Why on EARTH would Emma go for Stu?) Maybe I'm just bitter about the lack of super-hot girls inexplicably throwing... To me, most of this script read like a first draft, stuff you put down just to get something on the page, with the intentions of fixing it or polishing it later. Only it never got polished.
  
  The premise is funny, even though I find the set-up incredibly thin. (Why on EARTH would Emma go for Stu?) Maybe I'm just bitter about the lack of super-hot girls inexplicably throwing themselves at complete losers in real life. However, the notion of falling in love with a good twin, only to be stuck with the evil twin by accident is certainly a promising basis for a movie.
  
  Most of the characters were underdeveloped, aside from the centerpiece good and evil twins, who were probably purposely simplistic. I didn't particularly care for Stu, and I didn't even understand the Samuel character, even though he did say some funny things.
  
  Basically, you're obviously pretty funny, because the movie has some funny lines, but it just doesn't look like you put a whole lot of thought or effort into the story. As I said before, with some tightening and a little added plausibility, this premise could make a very entertaining movie.
  
  Also, about the action/descriptions. I personally think it makes a script much more enjoyable to read when people aren't totally hidebound and bland in their descriptions, but unfortunately, I'm not the one calling the shots in Hollywood. If you ever want to get serious about turning this into a filmable script, you'll probably have to tone down on some of your more esoteric/out there jokes in the descriptive prose. read
• 
  A little thin, but FUNNY
  A review of Who the F@ck Are You? : Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
  by RGRouge on 06/27/2010
  Let me start by saying there’s some pretty damn funny lines in this script. The set-up is well done, the meetings between Stu and Emma are cute and compelling, and the gag of Stu getting detained every time he hooks up with Emma works well. And I think the premise is original and smart, the idea of Emma suddenly not knowing who Stu is when all the karmic force in the universe... Let me start by saying there’s some pretty damn funny lines in this script. The set-up is well done, the meetings between Stu and Emma are cute and compelling, and the gag of Stu getting detained every time he hooks up with Emma works well. And I think the premise is original and smart, the idea of Emma suddenly not knowing who Stu is when all the karmic force in the universe seems to marshalling to bring them together is a great moment.
  
  I also really enjoyed the new Emma (or Mary) being such an evil character. This is a very clever move because we're right with Stu when we first take her in - we know how perfect and wonderful she can be, so we want more than anything to see this monstrous she-devil return to the woman we fell for in the first act.
  
  However, I had a problem in the conception of the script that I couldn’t get passed. It’s clear that Emma digs Stu and equally clear that Stu digs Emma. But rather than act on the mutual chemistry and attraction, Emma chooses to give Stu no way to find her other than playing comedy clubs all over the country in the hopes that she may one day show up at one of his gigs. Not exactly an air-tight plan for hooking back up with someone who very well could be "the one." The only explanation the character gives for acting in a way outrageously counter her own best interests is that she was “trying to be cute and eccentric.”
  
  This strikes me as one of those artificial romantic comedy moments where a couple splits up for reasons that can easily be worked out with a reasonable conversation because the dramatic necessities of the script demand that they get angry at each other and separate. I know there’s absurdist elements in what you've got, but people just don’t act this way – they don’t give someone they think could be their soulmate no way to get in touch with them. It doesn’t strain credibility, it shatters it. Emma may as well have said that she acted in a way counter to what she wanted, thought, felt, needed, and desired because the script wouldn’t work if she didn’t.
  
  The idea is too good and you’re too good of a writer not to be able to think of a better way to solve this problem. Even absurdist comedies need an emotional hook (Get Him to The Greek has a buddy angle and Aldus Snow’s emptiness at not connecting with anyone but his ex-wife for example). Having this big a hole in your central relationship deprives the script of any truth in its emotional hook.
  
  Secondarily, I have to say all of the pop culture references and movie bits seem too clever by half to me. It gives the script an inside baseball feel that may be offputting. It also feels lazy to me. Again, you can’t tell me someone who’s got so many other really terrific lines and moments can’t do better.
  
  Finally, I thought things get a bit away from you in the last third of the script. I know in your notes you’re going for outlandish, but as I said before the best comedies, especially romantic comedies tend to have some emotional hook that attracts us to the story beyond the humor. Going even further, romantic comedies tend to give us a stretch of movie late in the game where we think it’s impossible for the leads to get back together. Something character based not plot based – one of the partners has lied to the other about who they are, one of the partners has cheated, one of the partners wants to cheat, etc – something the other partner will have to adjust their reality to accommodate. We don’t really get that here. Once we know the story behind Emma and her twin there’s very little suspense about whether she and Stu will end up together. Sure we don’t know the specifics but there’s no character conflict between the two of them. There’s only outlandish plot twists which are admittedly very funny, but left me a little flat.
  
  Anyway, I hope this is helpful. Best of luck with it. read
• 
  Review: Who the F@ck Are You?
  A review of Who the F@ck Are You? : Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
  by crossroads79 on 06/25/2010
  I've seen this on here for a while now and looked forward to reading it. It's funny as hell, great job. There were some things I wasn't a fan of, but it's completely subjective and my amateur opinion. What I liked about it is the direction it took. It went from typical rom/com with the witty and endearing moments to outlandish as the story progressed from 'normal' to... I've seen this on here for a while now and looked forward to reading it. It's funny as hell, great job. There were some things I wasn't a fan of, but it's completely subjective and my amateur opinion.
  
  What I liked about it is the direction it took. It went from typical rom/com with the witty and endearing moments to outlandish as the story progressed from 'normal' to ridiculous. Some people might feel the script suffers an identity crisis but I think it nailed it. Overall, the dialogue is what makes this story work. Hardly any complaints with that, and I'm sure as you tweak it, this will only get better and tighter. As for the misgivings, it's the pop culture references. None of them are too obscure, but they're there. Which for me, is a sucker punch. But that's me. One of my pet peeves in life out with my friends, etc. are those conversations that depend entirely on movie quips and youtube references to make the group laugh. So, that's just my take on that aspect. The other is Samuel. He's hilarious for what he is, but I didn't believe Stu the type to consider him a best friend. He's a normal guy, why's he hanging out with this burnt out moron? Oddly enough, that was the one aspect my 'suspension of disbelief' could overcome. I know you need the oddball buddy, but considering how deftly you handled everything else, you can do better than Samuel, who's been in every 'zany' comedy known to man. If you scale down his antics, give him a different background, then that could cut down on the improbably romance between him and Amy. Save you space, etc. Leave the fuck scene, that was hilarious, but make Stu's reaction a bit more excessive.
  
  The ending felt lazy. I could sense a struggle between Amy/Emma over the life of Stu. One girl hardly knows him, the other suffers through his well-intentioned attempts to revive her memory. I really looked forward to a dark, hilarious death (?) to Amy at the hands of Emma, but it didn't happen. Oh well. I'd still buy the DVD.
  
  The writer asides were funny, but distracting. I write in other mediums and sometimes do that for shits and giggles, but I guess there's a time and place. I didn't like it in the Lethal Weapon script either. Again, that's only me.
  
  This is definitely a winner, and I'm even laughing now thinking of some of the scenes. So congratulations on writing an excellent comedy and good luck with it. read
• 
  Twists & Turns Wrapped In A Bold Title
  A review of Who the F@ck Are You? : Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
  by postghost87 on 06/20/2010
  After reading your BIO, it's obvious you're a talented writer so I was excited to read this. Act I certainly didn't disappoint. The three encounters were well-written with snappy dialogue, especially Emma's. My interest was piqued with each, and I couldn't wait to find out what incident caused her not to know him. The SP then took a different route than this reader expected... After reading your BIO, it's obvious you're a talented writer so I was excited to read this. Act I certainly didn't disappoint. The three encounters were well-written with snappy dialogue, especially Emma's. My interest was piqued with each, and I couldn't wait to find out what incident caused her not to know him.
  
  The SP then took a different route than this reader expected. I thought maybe Emma was dying and had created a bucket list. Then she discovers a twin who can save her. You took the "Something About Mary" path. Kooky characters, twisting storylines, and lots of laughs... which is good too. At times, I also felt I was reading the SP for "Seinfeld, The Movie".
  
  Some lines I liked...
  pg. 10 - Funny line.
  EMMA
  Bitch, I wrote it.
  pg. 14 -
  STU
  Find, fax me a Xanax. Oh, you can't?
  Then stop hassling me...
  
  pg. 107 -
  AMY
  When I kill you and I will, just
  know that you saying dollars to donuts was my breaking point.
  
  Lots of good banter and sarcasm.
  pg. 53 - Funny description.
  Samuel wearing a Justin Timberlake t-shirt. It reads, "I'm still bringing sexy back".
  
  I liked the kooky characters for the most. Hank, Helga, Hickory Stick, and Agent Dale had funny lines. Samuel, at times, was amusing but for the most part, annoying.
  
  A few times in the SP, you have Mary/Amy speaking as Emma or you describe the action and mix the two up. A quick proofread will take care of that.
  
  A funny, quick read... which is always good. I felt it lost some steam towards the end which was disappointing. Fortunately, the sharp, effective writing in the beginning left a lasting impression and I finished it satisfied.
  
  Lastly, making a "Usual Suspects" reference and adding Kevin Spacey for no other reason than to allow him to step in for the hostage negotiator... very smarmy. Your success on this site definitely should warrant it though.
  
  Nice read and I'm now contemplating reading some of your other works.
  read
• 
  Who the F review
  A review of Who the F@ck Are You? : Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
  by shiney on 06/19/2010
  If you're serious about selling this script, you may want to do two things: 1) Omit F@ck from the title (or give it a new title without F@ck in it) and 2) "suck on that sid field"; I'd lose that quick, and his names Syd, not Sid. Story was kind of predictable...but loved the comedic element. Nice to read a script by someone who shares the same sense of humor...ass cancer,... If you're serious about selling this script, you may want to do two things: 1) Omit F@ck from the title (or give it a new title without F@ck in it) and 2) "suck on that sid field"; I'd lose that quick, and his names Syd, not Sid.
  
  Story was kind of predictable...but loved the comedic element. Nice to read a script by someone who shares the same sense of humor...ass cancer, never take that out!
  
  pg 100, it says "Amy sits on Stu's lap and they make out. Samuel holds back", I thikn you want Samueal and Amy making out in the hospital room while Stu's away? Just another reason to avoid characters starting with same letter, but based on your sense of humor after reading this you'll probably tell me to F off, that's ok, I would too :)
  
  I thought to myself, "this is TWINS (one gets the good genes, other the bad) meets SOMETHING ABOUT MARY (quest to find Mrs. Perfect)", then bam, there was the Twins reference on 113.
  115, the smoke monster, wicked awesome man! As an aside I must admit I was disappointed in the LOST finale.
  
  It was (as you pointed out) getting confusing with Emma/Mary/Amy element, but I think you pulled it off. You might have even been able to change her name yet again as a comedic element.
  
  Like I said I really liked your comedy. I'm pretty new to reading scripts on Triggerstreet and this is the first time I've had to hold in my laughter (cuz I read them at work), and it was more than once. read