0
out of
1
people found the following review helpful:
OUTSTANDING!
0
out of
1
people found the following review helpful:
Made me think "Mummy" or "Scorpion King"
I couldn't find any specific faults. The story is well written technically.
The pace is very fast IMO. I think that I am not exactly a modern movie goer in that I feel if the pace races too fast some of the emotion can be lost. For me, the most exciting time is in the act of discovery, but I think this is not the case with most movie goers who want to get straight to the action. For me, the story would be more exciting if we had not seen Asterius so early in the movie, but then the timeline would require a flashback and those don't appeal to the modern movie goer. So, I can't really fault you for how you handled it.
The action and scene settings are minimally and effectively described.
The dialig is a bit too "telly" or on-the-nose in a few places, where a bit more subtilty might help. For instance, sometimes we see something described in the action and then the character basically says what we just saw. For instance:
AUGUSTO
Thunder makes the earth shake. My workers are very nervous.
"Thunder makes the earth shake" is too telly and could be cut.
Overall, good writing and good story. Best of luck with your script!
The pace is very fast IMO. I think that I am not exactly a modern movie goer in that I feel if the pace races too fast some of the emotion can be lost. For me, the most exciting time is in the act of discovery, but I think this is not the case with most movie goers who want to get straight to the action. For me, the story would be more exciting if we had not seen Asterius so early in the movie, but then the timeline would require a flashback and those don't appeal to the modern movie goer. So, I can't really fault you for how you handled it.
The action and scene settings are minimally and effectively described.
The dialig is a bit too "telly" or on-the-nose in a few places, where a bit more subtilty might help. For instance, sometimes we see something described in the action and then the character basically says what we just saw. For instance:
AUGUSTO
Thunder makes the earth shake. My workers are very nervous.
"Thunder makes the earth shake" is too telly and could be cut.
Overall, good writing and good story. Best of luck with your script!
0
out of
1
people found the following review helpful:
"The Minotaur with a Heart of Gold"
"Asterius" is a story that would be perfect for the Syfy network, and I mean that in a good way.
What really bogs the story are:
The length at 122 pages and the pacing.
It is very easy to see that this is adapted from a novel. Obviously, you have a lot more time to work with in novel. But also, there are a lot of action descriptions that work in a novel, but not necessarily a film.
For example, there are a lot of descriptions of Naomi where the author is telling us how she feels without showing it in action. For instance, "Naomi's someplace else." "Speechless, she's completely tilted by his revelation"
These can be easily fixed by making sure what is described is only what we can see and not telling use what the character is feeling.
My point is a adventure/horror story like this should clock in right around 90 pages.
The first act pacing could be a lot tighter. Basically in those 30 pages, they steal Asterius body from a tomb.
Spoiler Alert:
And Asterius should awaken long before page 73.
The story really gets good in the last act where things are coming alive in the museum, and that's where the real heart of the action takes place.
You can tell that the author put a lot of work into the character of Aterius, humanizing him into a Frankenstein type, making him compassionate and capable of killing you at the same time.
The story just needs to be made tighter taking out scenes that don't advance the plot. The author has a good start already, a refined draft would really help tighten the action.
What really bogs the story are:
The length at 122 pages and the pacing.
It is very easy to see that this is adapted from a novel. Obviously, you have a lot more time to work with in novel. But also, there are a lot of action descriptions that work in a novel, but not necessarily a film.
For example, there are a lot of descriptions of Naomi where the author is telling us how she feels without showing it in action. For instance, "Naomi's someplace else." "Speechless, she's completely tilted by his revelation"
These can be easily fixed by making sure what is described is only what we can see and not telling use what the character is feeling.
My point is a adventure/horror story like this should clock in right around 90 pages.
The first act pacing could be a lot tighter. Basically in those 30 pages, they steal Asterius body from a tomb.
Spoiler Alert:
And Asterius should awaken long before page 73.
The story really gets good in the last act where things are coming alive in the museum, and that's where the real heart of the action takes place.
You can tell that the author put a lot of work into the character of Aterius, humanizing him into a Frankenstein type, making him compassionate and capable of killing you at the same time.
The story just needs to be made tighter taking out scenes that don't advance the plot. The author has a good start already, a refined draft would really help tighten the action.
0
out of
1
people found the following review helpful:
If KING KONG and NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM had a baby...
Richard, I had a LOT of fun reading this script. It reads with ease, and I can tell you're a novelist, because your descriptions put me right in the action. Making a screenplay fun to read is a challenge, because they're not MEANT to be read, they're meant to be SEEN, but I blasted right through this one, really curious as to how it would end. It felt totally original, yet comfortingly familiar, which is a hard balance to achieve.
Generally I thought your characters were good - My one beef was with Teddy. He needed some pumping up if he was going to be a worthy of Naomi's affections. She's totally badass and needs a partner with more depth. I wasn't too crazy about their bedroom scene (the "doable" line just didn't work for me, but I think it may have if I'd had more to go on with Teddy).
I loved the push-pull between Asterius and Naomi. You did a great job with that. One technical note: the way it came up for me, (no page numbers - I'll do the best I can) in the section when Naomi is first having her fantasy about Arterius toward the beginning, her dialogue runs into the action, so the action sequences show as dialogue. Maybe just a glitch to fix. Here's a chunk of it:
Naomi (CONT'D)
(softly, reflective)
God, how you must have suffered.
(beat)
Is man without love... a beast?
As though suddenly answering her, the light's beam against the irregular, glistening stone gives the appearance of a living, breathing bull-beast.
The light reflects off the creature's lusting eyes, illuminating violent anger.
Anyway, that's a minor fix.
I loved the villains, and their demise was pitch-perfect. Great scene-setting.
All in all, I could "see" this as I read it, which is exactly how a good screenplay should read. This would be tons of fun on a big screen.
Generally I thought your characters were good - My one beef was with Teddy. He needed some pumping up if he was going to be a worthy of Naomi's affections. She's totally badass and needs a partner with more depth. I wasn't too crazy about their bedroom scene (the "doable" line just didn't work for me, but I think it may have if I'd had more to go on with Teddy).
I loved the push-pull between Asterius and Naomi. You did a great job with that. One technical note: the way it came up for me, (no page numbers - I'll do the best I can) in the section when Naomi is first having her fantasy about Arterius toward the beginning, her dialogue runs into the action, so the action sequences show as dialogue. Maybe just a glitch to fix. Here's a chunk of it:
Naomi (CONT'D)
(softly, reflective)
God, how you must have suffered.
(beat)
Is man without love... a beast?
As though suddenly answering her, the light's beam against the irregular, glistening stone gives the appearance of a living, breathing bull-beast.
The light reflects off the creature's lusting eyes, illuminating violent anger.
Anyway, that's a minor fix.
I loved the villains, and their demise was pitch-perfect. Great scene-setting.
All in all, I could "see" this as I read it, which is exactly how a good screenplay should read. This would be tons of fun on a big screen.
1
out of
2
people found the following review helpful:
Rich vocabular, easy to read and entertaining
Amazing story, the mythologies here is well explained and the development of the story is easy to follow. Loved the name of your characters very unique and original. Also loved the atmosphere that you’ve created and the dialogues . Your vocabulary is rich and it makes it a nice read. The descriptions of the characters are short and very effective and the dialogue is interesting, sometimes funny. The action lines sometimes are long and break the beat but besides this, it's really good.
Overall, great story it could definitely be a movie but it’s obvious that it use to be a book. So I took a few notes that I’ll message you and hope they will be as helpful as your review has been to me. Keep up the good work, I’m sure it’ll pay off.
Overall, great story it could definitely be a movie but it’s obvious that it use to be a book. So I took a few notes that I’ll message you and hope they will be as helpful as your review has been to me. Keep up the good work, I’m sure it’ll pay off.
0
out of
2
people found the following review helpful:
A NIGHTMARE AT THE MUSEUM
This version of ASTERIUS has been streamlined to a greater degree, much to its benefit. It has a very good flow, taking us through the story at a nice pace.
The relationship between Naomi and Teddy is placed perfectly within the second act. Hackett's plummeting state of mind is great. The payoff at the end is well deserved.
Of note, I must add that the concept behind ASTERIUS is very original. It's an interesting read, taking us for a ride that is very creative, creepy, and exciting. It hits the right notes at the right time, and the time invested in it is well worth it, from beginning to end.
OK, some quibbles...
POSSIBLE SPOILERS
I only have four:
-Artie. I like Artie and all the creepiness surrounding this character. What could be fleshed out is his back story. Leeza mentions that she knows about him, about "what he still does." I didn't get a real understanding of what that is, exactly. If it is what I think it is, then he should have been arrested a long time ago. But what is his secret exactly? What happened? With the dialogue and his actions, I don't think whatever his secret is would transfer well on screen. It's vague. If I was watching this movie, I would just figure him to be following Hackett's path, and whatever "he still does" would slip by without much much notice.
--Naomi. She needs a stronger arc. While reading the script, when she meets with Wilhstein, she falls in line with the plot, ready to eat up whatever explanation he serves. Normally, I would just go with the flow, but it really struck me as odd, especially when she decides to go out on a date with Teddy. She knows bad things are brewing and puts that on hold for a night.
But this really got me thinking. In the second act, there's creepiness, but little or no tension. We go through it, falling in line, everyone agreeing that bad things are happening, but no one really fighting against it, or the THOUGHT OF IT. As a suggestion, Naomi seems perfectly aligned to be the voice of reason, the voice of the "everyday person."
She's a scientist. She believes in the rational, I would think. And having her fight against the visions, against Wilhstein's "crazy theories", would add a great tension to the second act. At that point, you have Hackett, and if she centered her attention on stopping him, her character might come across as more believable, more pragmatic in doing the right thing, to redeem herself for making the wrong choice. But, that's just a suggestion.
At the heart of my complaint with Naomi, though, is that she seems contradictory. She knows the urgency of the situation but puts it off. I'm not sure if you can have her believe in the danger forthcoming and still have her pursue her relationship at the same time, for her to remain effective.
I was thinking that either she believes Wilhstein and strains her relationship with Teddy, or does not believe Wilhstein and embraces her relationship with Teddy. But that's just me.
---WALHSTEIN. I see great potential for this guy, as being the quirky old man with these wild theories, and he could become someone an audience member or reader could latch onto. He has the capability, he's in the right position. Right now, he's there to dump information. The thing he's lacking is personality. The best way to give him some is through his dialogue, as right now that's his major flaw. The payoff in the third act will be greater.
----SWAT TEAM. The thing the third act needs is a sense of dread, a sense of escalation, of bringing a reader or audience member to the edge of their seats. Right now, the quick inclusion of the SWAT team deflates the situation, and seems a bit unrealistic. I could see it when the White House was being attacked, but when a security guard calls in for backup, without anyone really knowing the situation, having SWAT show up on the scene is questionable.
As a suggestion, I could see city cops arriving, determining that the situation is beyond their control, and then calling in SWAT. You've got the attack on the Smithsonian starting at page 90, and have a full thirty pages at your disposal. Raising the tension in those thirty minutes, exploring the sense of hopelessness, could be rather effective. I was thinking about how great it would be if SWAT had to call in the military, but that's just me.
Anywho, those are just my suggestions. Very much enjoyed the read. Hope my rambling helps.
The relationship between Naomi and Teddy is placed perfectly within the second act. Hackett's plummeting state of mind is great. The payoff at the end is well deserved.
Of note, I must add that the concept behind ASTERIUS is very original. It's an interesting read, taking us for a ride that is very creative, creepy, and exciting. It hits the right notes at the right time, and the time invested in it is well worth it, from beginning to end.
OK, some quibbles...
POSSIBLE SPOILERS
I only have four:
-Artie. I like Artie and all the creepiness surrounding this character. What could be fleshed out is his back story. Leeza mentions that she knows about him, about "what he still does." I didn't get a real understanding of what that is, exactly. If it is what I think it is, then he should have been arrested a long time ago. But what is his secret exactly? What happened? With the dialogue and his actions, I don't think whatever his secret is would transfer well on screen. It's vague. If I was watching this movie, I would just figure him to be following Hackett's path, and whatever "he still does" would slip by without much much notice.
--Naomi. She needs a stronger arc. While reading the script, when she meets with Wilhstein, she falls in line with the plot, ready to eat up whatever explanation he serves. Normally, I would just go with the flow, but it really struck me as odd, especially when she decides to go out on a date with Teddy. She knows bad things are brewing and puts that on hold for a night.
But this really got me thinking. In the second act, there's creepiness, but little or no tension. We go through it, falling in line, everyone agreeing that bad things are happening, but no one really fighting against it, or the THOUGHT OF IT. As a suggestion, Naomi seems perfectly aligned to be the voice of reason, the voice of the "everyday person."
She's a scientist. She believes in the rational, I would think. And having her fight against the visions, against Wilhstein's "crazy theories", would add a great tension to the second act. At that point, you have Hackett, and if she centered her attention on stopping him, her character might come across as more believable, more pragmatic in doing the right thing, to redeem herself for making the wrong choice. But, that's just a suggestion.
At the heart of my complaint with Naomi, though, is that she seems contradictory. She knows the urgency of the situation but puts it off. I'm not sure if you can have her believe in the danger forthcoming and still have her pursue her relationship at the same time, for her to remain effective.
I was thinking that either she believes Wilhstein and strains her relationship with Teddy, or does not believe Wilhstein and embraces her relationship with Teddy. But that's just me.
---WALHSTEIN. I see great potential for this guy, as being the quirky old man with these wild theories, and he could become someone an audience member or reader could latch onto. He has the capability, he's in the right position. Right now, he's there to dump information. The thing he's lacking is personality. The best way to give him some is through his dialogue, as right now that's his major flaw. The payoff in the third act will be greater.
----SWAT TEAM. The thing the third act needs is a sense of dread, a sense of escalation, of bringing a reader or audience member to the edge of their seats. Right now, the quick inclusion of the SWAT team deflates the situation, and seems a bit unrealistic. I could see it when the White House was being attacked, but when a security guard calls in for backup, without anyone really knowing the situation, having SWAT show up on the scene is questionable.
As a suggestion, I could see city cops arriving, determining that the situation is beyond their control, and then calling in SWAT. You've got the attack on the Smithsonian starting at page 90, and have a full thirty pages at your disposal. Raising the tension in those thirty minutes, exploring the sense of hopelessness, could be rather effective. I was thinking about how great it would be if SWAT had to call in the military, but that's just me.
Anywho, those are just my suggestions. Very much enjoyed the read. Hope my rambling helps.
2
out of
2
people found the following review helpful:
A cool “NOT-a-Zombie movie” zombie-like movie!
I really like the switch from White House and takeover plans to the Smithsonian. And I thought about how Hollywood seems to be going crazy for zombie movies, that this, while not a Zombie movie, has all the elements of a Zombie movie, and should be just as popular.
My favorite line in this version: “We're cut from the same hunk of baloney.”
My favorite line in this version: “We're cut from the same hunk of baloney.”
< Previous | Page: 1 | Next >
A few small typo's:
Page 30 Hackett's=Hackett making it Puzzled, Hackett glances at Naomi.
Page 57 Everything is out of control. We should've never gone this far not his far.
Page 71 Below, Asterius slams into the lock door....locked door?
Page 84 Rapters=Raptors
Page 110 The shinning Signet=The shining Signet
This script was exciting to read. The premise is unique and a real thrill ride. The characters are well defined, each with their own unique personality. The story structure is superb, it flows and keeps you on the edge of your seat.
Richard has done an amazing job with the dialogue as well as the emotion of the characters. I would change nothing about this script and I pray it will be bought and made into a movie. I would love to see it.
Amazing job, Richard. Congratulations!
Charlene