31
out of
32
people found the following review helpful:
Ready for its close-up
Winner: Best Dialogue Track
Finalist: Best Dialogue Track, Best Script
Semifinalist: Best Dialogue Track, Best Script
Lyme, NH
September 04, 2012
24
out of
25
people found the following review helpful:
This is a professional action movie
Winner: Script Spotlight: Zombies vs. Gladiators Rewrite
Finalist: Best Test Movie, Script Spotlight: Zombies vs. Gladiators Rewrite
Semifinalist: Best Test Movie, Best Script, Best Sci-Fi/Action Script, Script Spotlight: Zombies vs. Gladiators Rewrite
Los Angeles
September 03, 2012
This has always been one of my favorite projects and -- for my money -- has the best test movie I've seen on Amazon Studios. Marty has continued to polish this script to where it's at now -- which is a very tight, professional quality action thriller. These feels like a studio move to me and I'm waiting to see what's the next step.
2
out of
2
people found the following review helpful:
Good actioner
ALCHEMIST REVIEW:
This has potential, it’s a good solid straightforward actioner with a fast moving plot. You handle the action scenes well, and you seem to know a lot about what you’re writing about. In fact some of it is so esoteric you may run into problems when and if this script ever goes into production. Which will I go into when I start in the technical part of this review.
You have one big problem you do have a lot of clichés running around, from sexy prostitute assassins to the Nazi leftover plot to build a 4th Reich left behind in the submarine. This comes from a perspective of trying to write pulpy Action Adventures myself, and I know clichés are like speed bumps, you can’t avoid them, but you can with some effort mold and manipulate them into something useful.
A good example is your chief villain. He needs to have a little more going for him than just that he gives out battle cries when he plays croquet, and compares the heroine talent at fisticuffs to his ex-wife. He needs more style, something that sets him apart from the horde of Blofeld wannabes out there in Action Adventure land. For instance you could make him a fair to middling Jazz composer (or any music genre that suits your fancy), a sculptor, or the like. It doesn’t have to be art, just as long as it gives him some character. The same goes for the henchmen. You don’t have to give every two-bit gunny a history, a quirk, or a hobby (trust me, that road leads to madness), but certainly do it for the second tier heavies, just don’t spend a lot of time on it.
Your main characters could also use some work. We have Charlie, the ex-seal accused of a crime he didn’t commit, and Ariel the ex-Mossad agent turned academic with a vendetta against the main villain (that comes across as another cliché). I can relate, I’m working on a similar heroine in my screenplay, and the trick is once again, work on giving her layers.
Your dialogue is good for the most part. On occasion you do fall into the dreaded trap of the toss away line. After a long action sequence that ends with a heavy’s horrible death the hero make a pithy comment. I know I know it’s a genre convention. I do it too, but the trick is don’t go for the obvious, and brevity is the sole of wit. I hope this isn’t presumptuous of me, but I’ll show you a scene I wrote for my screenplay (expurgated for brevity) to show you what I’m talking about (hopefully).
It’s the classic western bit. Dumb-ass gunny is trying to provoke Our Hero into a gunfight. Finally he says “Alright, on a count of three…1…2…” Our Hero draws on two and plugs the gunny three times. Then he turns and walks into the saloon with a terse “three” on his lips. It turns the cliché around, and manages to establish that Our Hero isn’t of the Gene Autry school of western good guy.
On the technical side of things I guess that you and have learned different formats. I tend to keep my action blocs together, and I use what I call the “3-4” rule keep dialogue and action to a maximum of 4 lines per bloc. And never have more than 4 blocs of action or dialogue (in fact I keep it down to three blocs) breaking up action with dialogue and breaking up dialogue with action. But that’s me.
You obviously know a lot of technical data, and you show that in your script. You go into so much detail that you may have a lot of fights with the director and the prop manager. I know that in action novels you’re supposed to go into a lot of the technical jargon and descriptions of equipment. In screenplays it bogs you down, or least so I’ve been told. When writing stuff about the western frontier (or pseudo-medieval fantasy worlds) like I do I generally try to keep my descriptions of costumes, weapons, and equipment down to a minimum, first because the directors, prop masters, costumers, and production designers will have their own ideas about what they want, secondly, it saves time. I still do research about things like telegraphs, costume details, weaponry, and the like, but I use them sparingly, and only to make plot or character points (for instance a buffalo hunter who prefers a Remington Rolling Block to the more common Sharps Big Fifty). Also don’t go into a lot of what a character is thinking, the actors and directors like to interpret that kind for themselves (to be honest I still go into my characters facial expressions, it fills in things so nicely sometimes).
Okay, that’s what I think you need to work on. But you do have a good story, and I hope you get an offer on it. I would like to see it on the screen soon.
Okay ohay, I posted this already. I'm still learning this site and I didn't know the difference then. And I need the review credit. You still have a good script.
This has potential, it’s a good solid straightforward actioner with a fast moving plot. You handle the action scenes well, and you seem to know a lot about what you’re writing about. In fact some of it is so esoteric you may run into problems when and if this script ever goes into production. Which will I go into when I start in the technical part of this review.
You have one big problem you do have a lot of clichés running around, from sexy prostitute assassins to the Nazi leftover plot to build a 4th Reich left behind in the submarine. This comes from a perspective of trying to write pulpy Action Adventures myself, and I know clichés are like speed bumps, you can’t avoid them, but you can with some effort mold and manipulate them into something useful.
A good example is your chief villain. He needs to have a little more going for him than just that he gives out battle cries when he plays croquet, and compares the heroine talent at fisticuffs to his ex-wife. He needs more style, something that sets him apart from the horde of Blofeld wannabes out there in Action Adventure land. For instance you could make him a fair to middling Jazz composer (or any music genre that suits your fancy), a sculptor, or the like. It doesn’t have to be art, just as long as it gives him some character. The same goes for the henchmen. You don’t have to give every two-bit gunny a history, a quirk, or a hobby (trust me, that road leads to madness), but certainly do it for the second tier heavies, just don’t spend a lot of time on it.
Your main characters could also use some work. We have Charlie, the ex-seal accused of a crime he didn’t commit, and Ariel the ex-Mossad agent turned academic with a vendetta against the main villain (that comes across as another cliché). I can relate, I’m working on a similar heroine in my screenplay, and the trick is once again, work on giving her layers.
Your dialogue is good for the most part. On occasion you do fall into the dreaded trap of the toss away line. After a long action sequence that ends with a heavy’s horrible death the hero make a pithy comment. I know I know it’s a genre convention. I do it too, but the trick is don’t go for the obvious, and brevity is the sole of wit. I hope this isn’t presumptuous of me, but I’ll show you a scene I wrote for my screenplay (expurgated for brevity) to show you what I’m talking about (hopefully).
It’s the classic western bit. Dumb-ass gunny is trying to provoke Our Hero into a gunfight. Finally he says “Alright, on a count of three…1…2…” Our Hero draws on two and plugs the gunny three times. Then he turns and walks into the saloon with a terse “three” on his lips. It turns the cliché around, and manages to establish that Our Hero isn’t of the Gene Autry school of western good guy.
On the technical side of things I guess that you and have learned different formats. I tend to keep my action blocs together, and I use what I call the “3-4” rule keep dialogue and action to a maximum of 4 lines per bloc. And never have more than 4 blocs of action or dialogue (in fact I keep it down to three blocs) breaking up action with dialogue and breaking up dialogue with action. But that’s me.
You obviously know a lot of technical data, and you show that in your script. You go into so much detail that you may have a lot of fights with the director and the prop manager. I know that in action novels you’re supposed to go into a lot of the technical jargon and descriptions of equipment. In screenplays it bogs you down, or least so I’ve been told. When writing stuff about the western frontier (or pseudo-medieval fantasy worlds) like I do I generally try to keep my descriptions of costumes, weapons, and equipment down to a minimum, first because the directors, prop masters, costumers, and production designers will have their own ideas about what they want, secondly, it saves time. I still do research about things like telegraphs, costume details, weaponry, and the like, but I use them sparingly, and only to make plot or character points (for instance a buffalo hunter who prefers a Remington Rolling Block to the more common Sharps Big Fifty). Also don’t go into a lot of what a character is thinking, the actors and directors like to interpret that kind for themselves (to be honest I still go into my characters facial expressions, it fills in things so nicely sometimes).
Okay, that’s what I think you need to work on. But you do have a good story, and I hope you get an offer on it. I would like to see it on the screen soon.
Okay ohay, I posted this already. I'm still learning this site and I didn't know the difference then. And I need the review credit. You still have a good script.
9
out of
12
people found the following review helpful:
Awesome Screenplay
This will make a tremendous movie and spawn sequels!
0
out of
0
people found the following review helpful:
Interesting story muddled by sub-Bourne level action
Though anything dealing with Nazis, and especially the Fourth Reich, has been done to death, it's a premise that never feels old within the adventure genre. The storyline of the alchemists is a pretty fresh take. From there though, the story branched out in a lot of directions that were sometimes confusing. Between what was housed in the U-boat, the drams of emeralds, the philosopher's stone, the alchemists' codes, etc, it was tough to figure out what was the ultimate achievement in the climax. The philosopher's stone especially felt kind of shoehorned in and superfluous. All in all though I think the premise is what sets this script apart.
There were a few parts that made it feel a little ho hum though. First, the characters. Other reviews have said that they weren't fleshed out enough, and I would have to agree. The different sides of this struggle to unlock the secrets of the U-boat are brilliantly thought of, but kind of weakly executed. The CIA agents are robots. Mandini doesn't seem to give us much reason to hate him other than that he's a slimy prick standing in our hero's way. The alchemists' flashbacks are pretty short, and light on story. Charlie feels like a video game protagonist: grizzled ex navy seal who is pretty much superhuman. Ditto for Ariel. They are both just way too good at all things fighting and endurance. Situations seem a little too easy for them to get out of.
Speaking of which, the action was probably the most average part of the script. Every sequence felt a little contrived, especially the boat chase in Venice. This is typically one of the harder things to get right in any movie that requires set pieces, but it felt like both Charlie and Ariel were never in any true danger, because they could fight their way out of every situation easily.
There were a few things that I really loved that put this script at a slightly above average level. Because of the multiple characters, there were multiple plot points in the movie that sent the action careening in different and sometimes unexpected directions. It could use a little more focus, but that's what really kept me turning the pages. The dynamic between Sterling and Charlie could use some work, but it felt like the heart of the story.
With more rewrites, this could really be something special.
There were a few parts that made it feel a little ho hum though. First, the characters. Other reviews have said that they weren't fleshed out enough, and I would have to agree. The different sides of this struggle to unlock the secrets of the U-boat are brilliantly thought of, but kind of weakly executed. The CIA agents are robots. Mandini doesn't seem to give us much reason to hate him other than that he's a slimy prick standing in our hero's way. The alchemists' flashbacks are pretty short, and light on story. Charlie feels like a video game protagonist: grizzled ex navy seal who is pretty much superhuman. Ditto for Ariel. They are both just way too good at all things fighting and endurance. Situations seem a little too easy for them to get out of.
Speaking of which, the action was probably the most average part of the script. Every sequence felt a little contrived, especially the boat chase in Venice. This is typically one of the harder things to get right in any movie that requires set pieces, but it felt like both Charlie and Ariel were never in any true danger, because they could fight their way out of every situation easily.
There were a few things that I really loved that put this script at a slightly above average level. Because of the multiple characters, there were multiple plot points in the movie that sent the action careening in different and sometimes unexpected directions. It could use a little more focus, but that's what really kept me turning the pages. The dynamic between Sterling and Charlie could use some work, but it felt like the heart of the story.
With more rewrites, this could really be something special.
0
out of
0
people found the following review helpful:
Expect sequels to this.
For me, the screenplay was an enjoyable read. It was fast paced, never a lull and I can certainly see it being a hit movie on the big screen. Kind of reminded me of Indiana Jones but in the ocean-type.
What turned me off?
The logline was interesting so I asked myself why I didn't read it sooner and the answer was simple. This probably sounds trivial to everyone else, but there are some pictures with scripts which make me want to read the story. However, the one for "The Alchemist Agenda" didn't grab me and actually turned me away. That, of course, has nothing at all to do with the screenplay itself and I'm glad I did read it because I'm now looking forward to seeing the movie. Obviously there's "more to a book than its cover."
What turned me off?
The logline was interesting so I asked myself why I didn't read it sooner and the answer was simple. This probably sounds trivial to everyone else, but there are some pictures with scripts which make me want to read the story. However, the one for "The Alchemist Agenda" didn't grab me and actually turned me away. That, of course, has nothing at all to do with the screenplay itself and I'm glad I did read it because I'm now looking forward to seeing the movie. Obviously there's "more to a book than its cover."
0
out of
0
people found the following review helpful:
What does the stone do?
In terms of clarity, this screenplay could benefit, if all camera directions and editing directions were removed. The action descriptions should be kept more economical as well. It's a screenplay not a book. Your writing makes it harder for me to track the details of the story.
Structurally, I believe the U-boat should be found on page ten. The subject is CHARLIE, the treasure hunter, finding the U-boat. The first two pages should focus on him being a treasure hunter, not dancing. Maybe he just went in and salvaged scrap metal. Not much of a treasure. Then he can go dancing to unwind. Can't really: his payment for his house is due. The tab is running at the bar. Everybody wants his cash. He gets a lead on the seventy tons of metal. He goes right back to diving the same evening: make it or break it. Finds the U-boat, next to his treasure.
I'm not going to write your story for you, but that's the way I picture the first ten pages. The way it is now, you do have strong turning points on the regular pages, so I'm not going to say, that your screenplay isn't structurally sound. It is, but I think you should up the tempo a little bit.
What I like about your story is how you give everyone a voice. Not all people speak alike. I also like the originality of the story.
My German isn't all that great, but I think it should be "Von einem kommen vele".
I have some problems keeping track of all of the names/characters. I think you should find a way of introducing them, that makes them easier to remember.
It's not always clear how characters find out things, and know things that drive the story forward. See page notes.
A couple of page notes:
18 - I don't see why saying "thank you for your help" causes the professor to slam the door.
The students' comments are unnecessary.
Calling a boat the Booty Call confused me somewhat when it was referenced, and I didn't realize it was a name of a boat.
24 - I don't get how FBI agents can be onto the boat, but missed Charlie.
25 - Pick different passwords. Think something in Latin.
48 - Prinsengracht
57 - I don't think anyone is looking for the "no weapons of mass destruction"-idealism.
60 - Why would he go with a hooker, even though he just fell in love?
63 - LIVE SEX SHOW - I sometimes feel like, you're overdoing the action, looking for too much of a spectacle.
64/66 - How do the guides know they are looking for keys?
67 - If you want subtitles, put the subtitles in a separate column.
68 - I don't think the boat is going fast enough for her not to be able to evade the bridge.
74 - Ariel doesn't ask any questions on the prostitution thing.
77 - I think the exposition on Ariel and Charlie's past takes too much time. It's a bit late in the story too. I think the audience should have a clearer idea up front.
87 - for he/him and Ariel to take off. (typo)
90 - Verstehen Sie? (capital S, typo)
95 - I don't know how the BND Operative figured out the other U-boat is a fake. Where did he/she suddenly get the reports?
108 - Ariel gets saved by a shark. Deus ex machina? Maybe you should find a different solution.
112 - I'm a bit disappointed in that we don't know what the philosopher's stone does. I'd like to see it in action somehow.
Structurally, I believe the U-boat should be found on page ten. The subject is CHARLIE, the treasure hunter, finding the U-boat. The first two pages should focus on him being a treasure hunter, not dancing. Maybe he just went in and salvaged scrap metal. Not much of a treasure. Then he can go dancing to unwind. Can't really: his payment for his house is due. The tab is running at the bar. Everybody wants his cash. He gets a lead on the seventy tons of metal. He goes right back to diving the same evening: make it or break it. Finds the U-boat, next to his treasure.
I'm not going to write your story for you, but that's the way I picture the first ten pages. The way it is now, you do have strong turning points on the regular pages, so I'm not going to say, that your screenplay isn't structurally sound. It is, but I think you should up the tempo a little bit.
What I like about your story is how you give everyone a voice. Not all people speak alike. I also like the originality of the story.
My German isn't all that great, but I think it should be "Von einem kommen vele".
I have some problems keeping track of all of the names/characters. I think you should find a way of introducing them, that makes them easier to remember.
It's not always clear how characters find out things, and know things that drive the story forward. See page notes.
A couple of page notes:
18 - I don't see why saying "thank you for your help" causes the professor to slam the door.
The students' comments are unnecessary.
Calling a boat the Booty Call confused me somewhat when it was referenced, and I didn't realize it was a name of a boat.
24 - I don't get how FBI agents can be onto the boat, but missed Charlie.
25 - Pick different passwords. Think something in Latin.
48 - Prinsengracht
57 - I don't think anyone is looking for the "no weapons of mass destruction"-idealism.
60 - Why would he go with a hooker, even though he just fell in love?
63 - LIVE SEX SHOW - I sometimes feel like, you're overdoing the action, looking for too much of a spectacle.
64/66 - How do the guides know they are looking for keys?
67 - If you want subtitles, put the subtitles in a separate column.
68 - I don't think the boat is going fast enough for her not to be able to evade the bridge.
74 - Ariel doesn't ask any questions on the prostitution thing.
77 - I think the exposition on Ariel and Charlie's past takes too much time. It's a bit late in the story too. I think the audience should have a clearer idea up front.
87 - for he/him and Ariel to take off. (typo)
90 - Verstehen Sie? (capital S, typo)
95 - I don't know how the BND Operative figured out the other U-boat is a fake. Where did he/she suddenly get the reports?
108 - Ariel gets saved by a shark. Deus ex machina? Maybe you should find a different solution.
112 - I'm a bit disappointed in that we don't know what the philosopher's stone does. I'd like to see it in action somehow.
0
out of
0
people found the following review helpful:
Interseting Premise, Mediocre Story
Overall:
The basic premise is intersting: a sub hidden off the coast of the United States. The intrigue of WWII spy subs, U boats, spy networks (which we would nowadays call cells) is always interesting and compelling.
However, in this story, I wasn't particularly compelled to care what happened with the sub, or characters. It didn't grab me the way it should of. Maybe is was because the story started off at a bar in Florida instead of establishing anything about the sub. Maybe it's because the dialogue didn't feel real or interesting. I think there should be much more emphasis at the beginning on how important or dangerous the sub is and why it needs to be dealt with. The plot becomes a little convoluted with the emeralds, and the keys, and the competing interests for the sub's secrets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What worked:
Written fairly well, for the most part, though I think there's plenty of ways to tighten up the overall structure. Some of the action and descriptions are over-written, but not anything too drastic. But for an action story (such as the Bourne Identity scripts, which I suggest you take a look at) the leaner the better.
As I stated, the inherent intrigue of the mysteries of the sub kept me reading. I think the booby-traps and hidden secrets of the sub should be taken even further, where the sub almost feels like a character trying to protect itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What didn't:
The title is kind of weak. It doesn't say adventure story, to me.
It felt like the dialogue was 90% exposition. I know that's an exageration, but the dialogue didn't flow the way it should. There was exposition during chase scenes, during quiet scenes, during death scenes. It wasn't particularly interesting or compelling to hear the same information restated over and over.
The characters didn't make me root for them. Charlie should be either more stealthy or more of a heroic action persona. He's wanted by the Government, but he dives for sunken treasure and artifacts at will in the Florida Keys? With his arch enemy just a few miles away, also looking for treasure and artifacts? Seems like convenient storytelling. I think Charlie should have more purpose and focus at the beginning, which would make the audience root for him as the story goes forward. Ariel didn't do much for me as a character. Her hidden agenda is a little trite. We've all seen revenge-based characters before, but with better results. Mandini is a stereo-typical bad guy, with little depth.
The actual alchemists agenda didn't do a lot for me. It felt convoluted, and didn't have the payoff I was hoping for. Maybe there's a better, more compelling way to state their intent.
The deal at the end, with who the dog tags belong to, is too far fetched.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are just my opinions. Do with them what you will. Best of luck.
The basic premise is intersting: a sub hidden off the coast of the United States. The intrigue of WWII spy subs, U boats, spy networks (which we would nowadays call cells) is always interesting and compelling.
However, in this story, I wasn't particularly compelled to care what happened with the sub, or characters. It didn't grab me the way it should of. Maybe is was because the story started off at a bar in Florida instead of establishing anything about the sub. Maybe it's because the dialogue didn't feel real or interesting. I think there should be much more emphasis at the beginning on how important or dangerous the sub is and why it needs to be dealt with. The plot becomes a little convoluted with the emeralds, and the keys, and the competing interests for the sub's secrets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What worked:
Written fairly well, for the most part, though I think there's plenty of ways to tighten up the overall structure. Some of the action and descriptions are over-written, but not anything too drastic. But for an action story (such as the Bourne Identity scripts, which I suggest you take a look at) the leaner the better.
As I stated, the inherent intrigue of the mysteries of the sub kept me reading. I think the booby-traps and hidden secrets of the sub should be taken even further, where the sub almost feels like a character trying to protect itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What didn't:
The title is kind of weak. It doesn't say adventure story, to me.
It felt like the dialogue was 90% exposition. I know that's an exageration, but the dialogue didn't flow the way it should. There was exposition during chase scenes, during quiet scenes, during death scenes. It wasn't particularly interesting or compelling to hear the same information restated over and over.
The characters didn't make me root for them. Charlie should be either more stealthy or more of a heroic action persona. He's wanted by the Government, but he dives for sunken treasure and artifacts at will in the Florida Keys? With his arch enemy just a few miles away, also looking for treasure and artifacts? Seems like convenient storytelling. I think Charlie should have more purpose and focus at the beginning, which would make the audience root for him as the story goes forward. Ariel didn't do much for me as a character. Her hidden agenda is a little trite. We've all seen revenge-based characters before, but with better results. Mandini is a stereo-typical bad guy, with little depth.
The actual alchemists agenda didn't do a lot for me. It felt convoluted, and didn't have the payoff I was hoping for. Maybe there's a better, more compelling way to state their intent.
The deal at the end, with who the dog tags belong to, is too far fetched.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are just my opinions. Do with them what you will. Best of luck.
0
out of
1
people found the following review helpful:
Great!
Awesome!
< Previous | Page: 1 | Next >
Now, with this low-fanfare release of AS’s own version -- presumably developed by Marty in conjunction with feedback from AS’s development pros -- we can see several substantial changes, all for the better: Bigger start, tighter focus on the main conflicts, small but needed technical tweaks (Nitrox for deep diving; putting the CIA, not the FBI, in Langley; etc.). It all adds up, for me, at least, to a project that feels ready for its close-up.
Here’s hoping we’re now looking at AS’s first major-studio green light. It ought to be. This could be a big picture.