2
out of
2
people found the following review helpful:
A very visual piece of writing.
1
out of
1
people found the following review helpful:
Concept has promise
Review of Consumption by S. R. Welvaert
I really like your descriptions. You have a way with conveying scenery and setting that works really well. In fact, it’s almost more novel than screenplay, but it works here as well. There is a very clear sense of the Canadian wilderness and the various native environments.
I’m not generally a reader of these types of stories and when I find them on the Sci-Fi channel, I usually don’t last long watching them. That said, the fact that I’m not that crazy about these types of stories may be influencing my review.
This script feels so much like Stephen King’s Dreamcatcher, I’m almost thinking it basically is Dreamcatcher. It certainly is very much like it. The main difference to me being that this is missing the explanation that I got from Dreamcatcher—i.e. that there was an invisible alien spaceship hidden in the woods that explains where all the phenomenon came from.
Although it’s very similar to Dreamcatcher, I don’t see any other reason why this wouldn’t work with people who like that kind of Sci-Fi channel movie. I say Sci-Fi channel because most King stories that work off these supernatural phenomena are made into made for TV movies—that is, if they are successful as books first.
As far as the plot and story goes, you give away the whole story early. It is obvious from the beginning of the film that Perry is one of these creatures. But what’s weird in the story is that she is an FBI agent who “bit” her ex-husband (but later, we find that she not only bit him but nearly devoured him and only stopped when she saw a reflection of herself with his blood dripping from her mouth) yet, she’s still and agent, still active, and … let me stop here. Frankly, once you said she was an agent who bit her husband, I could no longer suspend my disbelief. That initial absurdity infects the rest of the narrative. Thus, the big reveal at the end, when Eric pieces it all together is anti-climatic. And I guess you wanted that “you were raised by wolves” comment to true? I think that would need a little more explanation in the back-story if it is.
It also feels like you put the Senator up in the woods of Canada simply in order to be able to get the FBI up there. I don’t recall any Mounties or Canadian authorities there and that also feels strange, esp. considering there is a stable of reporters there and this is obviously national news. Maybe I missed them?
The creature itself doesn’t work for me. It doesn’t seem to have a purpose. You spend a good amount of time with the red herring that it is simply the result of hallucinogens in the water supply—which would actually be a very believable and cool story you could really mine for gold. But then you toss that great idea aside as a herring and go with a real, unbelievable spirit creature that’s sometimes physical, sometimes spiritual, sometimes can be killed easily, sometimes can’t. Only it exists for no reason. It kills for no reason. What’s perhaps even harder to figure is that it exists in a town in the middle of nowhere that you describe (and I’ve no reason not to believe it) as having only 20 people, but which seems to have had almost 50% of its population murdered. But no one moves away?
All of these things make it laborious to read.
Character wise, everyone is flat. I guess Flint and Seer are the most interesting, but only because they are weirder than the rest and based on shaman stereotypes that have filmic history. Everyone else lacks any real dimensionality and it was very difficult to tell one from the other. (Note: Before I posted this, but not before I wrote this review, I read what you wrote, S. R., about wanting to explore the character’s emotions that consume them. That sounds profoundly interesting, but I did not see any of that. Frankly, I think there are far too many characters to do that well anyway, but I just didn’t see it in this script.)
Dialog is flat, on-the-nose and thus, uninteresting and you do another TV element with it—that of telling the whole story, back-story, legend through it. You also tend to have them discuss what we just saw them do and are about to see them do—and that’s a no-no.
Frankly, I would have similar problems with screenplays for movies I just watched on Sci-Fi, so I don’t know if you need to fix these things or not. This could just be how these things are written. Like I said, not my thing. Personally, I prefer monster movies plotted like Predator or Aliens where people are in a place for a reason and encounter something that has a reason for existing and slowly picks off characters--each killing revealing more and more about the creature--until it becomes clear to the hero how to kill the creature and then the hero kills the creature. (Again, after reading your comments, I understand this was not your intention and you saw the creature as a metaphor—in that case, I think the hallucinogenic aspect works far better for letting people’s own demons out. Again, that’s a rich area and you could just get rid of the real monsters.)
Good luck.
I really like your descriptions. You have a way with conveying scenery and setting that works really well. In fact, it’s almost more novel than screenplay, but it works here as well. There is a very clear sense of the Canadian wilderness and the various native environments.
I’m not generally a reader of these types of stories and when I find them on the Sci-Fi channel, I usually don’t last long watching them. That said, the fact that I’m not that crazy about these types of stories may be influencing my review.
This script feels so much like Stephen King’s Dreamcatcher, I’m almost thinking it basically is Dreamcatcher. It certainly is very much like it. The main difference to me being that this is missing the explanation that I got from Dreamcatcher—i.e. that there was an invisible alien spaceship hidden in the woods that explains where all the phenomenon came from.
Although it’s very similar to Dreamcatcher, I don’t see any other reason why this wouldn’t work with people who like that kind of Sci-Fi channel movie. I say Sci-Fi channel because most King stories that work off these supernatural phenomena are made into made for TV movies—that is, if they are successful as books first.
As far as the plot and story goes, you give away the whole story early. It is obvious from the beginning of the film that Perry is one of these creatures. But what’s weird in the story is that she is an FBI agent who “bit” her ex-husband (but later, we find that she not only bit him but nearly devoured him and only stopped when she saw a reflection of herself with his blood dripping from her mouth) yet, she’s still and agent, still active, and … let me stop here. Frankly, once you said she was an agent who bit her husband, I could no longer suspend my disbelief. That initial absurdity infects the rest of the narrative. Thus, the big reveal at the end, when Eric pieces it all together is anti-climatic. And I guess you wanted that “you were raised by wolves” comment to true? I think that would need a little more explanation in the back-story if it is.
It also feels like you put the Senator up in the woods of Canada simply in order to be able to get the FBI up there. I don’t recall any Mounties or Canadian authorities there and that also feels strange, esp. considering there is a stable of reporters there and this is obviously national news. Maybe I missed them?
The creature itself doesn’t work for me. It doesn’t seem to have a purpose. You spend a good amount of time with the red herring that it is simply the result of hallucinogens in the water supply—which would actually be a very believable and cool story you could really mine for gold. But then you toss that great idea aside as a herring and go with a real, unbelievable spirit creature that’s sometimes physical, sometimes spiritual, sometimes can be killed easily, sometimes can’t. Only it exists for no reason. It kills for no reason. What’s perhaps even harder to figure is that it exists in a town in the middle of nowhere that you describe (and I’ve no reason not to believe it) as having only 20 people, but which seems to have had almost 50% of its population murdered. But no one moves away?
All of these things make it laborious to read.
Character wise, everyone is flat. I guess Flint and Seer are the most interesting, but only because they are weirder than the rest and based on shaman stereotypes that have filmic history. Everyone else lacks any real dimensionality and it was very difficult to tell one from the other. (Note: Before I posted this, but not before I wrote this review, I read what you wrote, S. R., about wanting to explore the character’s emotions that consume them. That sounds profoundly interesting, but I did not see any of that. Frankly, I think there are far too many characters to do that well anyway, but I just didn’t see it in this script.)
Dialog is flat, on-the-nose and thus, uninteresting and you do another TV element with it—that of telling the whole story, back-story, legend through it. You also tend to have them discuss what we just saw them do and are about to see them do—and that’s a no-no.
Frankly, I would have similar problems with screenplays for movies I just watched on Sci-Fi, so I don’t know if you need to fix these things or not. This could just be how these things are written. Like I said, not my thing. Personally, I prefer monster movies plotted like Predator or Aliens where people are in a place for a reason and encounter something that has a reason for existing and slowly picks off characters--each killing revealing more and more about the creature--until it becomes clear to the hero how to kill the creature and then the hero kills the creature. (Again, after reading your comments, I understand this was not your intention and you saw the creature as a metaphor—in that case, I think the hallucinogenic aspect works far better for letting people’s own demons out. Again, that’s a rich area and you could just get rid of the real monsters.)
Good luck.
0
out of
0
people found the following review helpful:
Compelling Writing Style
I'm one of those reviewers who tends to focus on negatives, so fair warning.
As others have stated, this story has a lot going for it. This reader doesn't necessarily agree that it should be more of a straight monster/horror flick - but feels that ACT THREE could be a lot stronger. Much of the script is repetitive, re-examining the things learned in ACT ONE - understandable as this seems to be a mystery thriller - but reader thinks there's a great deal more this story can achieve if conventional story structure were followed more closely. Though it would change the story drastically, that's kinda' the point.
PREMISE:
Definitely a fun premise, but under explored in reader's opinion.
(There are some superficial similarities between Consumption and my current project - I hope you wont suspect me of tapping your ideas if you ever read it).
STORY STRUCTURE:
As a cheerleader for traditional/conventional story structure, reader has to say this is rather weak. The mystery unfolds nicely, the writer drawing the reader in and revealing more and more about the characters - but that's not story. That's exposition and character development. The story is what characters do, not who they are.
CHARACTERS:
Some very strong characters here.
Flint strikes reader as simply a great character. Reader doesn't have any critique of him. He really became alive.
Eric makes a fantastic first impression but shortly thereafter he comes off as overly irritable and vulgar. Is this intentional?
Somewhere around the midpoint, reader gets the impression that Eric is a fun guy - sober, a dick when drinking. One doesn't see that very often in movies, but it's not clear if this is, in fact, intentional.
Will is an archetype that treads the thin ice of ending up whiny and loathsome but he never breaks that ice and remains a strong admirable character throughout.
Perry is a major disappointment. Writer has set Perry up as a really screwed up character and then sends her on a journey where she performs her duties flawlessly and demonstrates that she is a consummate professional. She's not struggling with her personal demons. She's also completely reactive rather than showing any pro-activity. She never even had to ask to be involved in this investigation. She is just told to go and she goes. She gets there and does
everything to the letter. Her defense of Flint and connection to the story strikes the reader as marginal at best. Reader feels she should be 10 times more interesting - and seriously wants to know why writer did not write her stronger.
DIALOGUE:
For the most part, the dialogue is on the nose with occasional moments of nice subtext. As dialogue is directly related to the strength of characters though, it would be contradictory to harp on the lack of subtext as a problem.
EMOTION:
It is odd, but even though there is a lot to like about this story, reader can't say emotional connection is one of the compelling attributes. Perhaps it has something to do with the overstatement of the "monster in the woods" element. It somehow overshadows the very compelling cannibalism angle. Perhaps the writer does not intend an overstated emotional experience for the audience in the first place.
FORMAT vs. STYLE vs. Formula
This is where the script's weakest attributes are displayed.
This epic battle is best related through notes made while reading the script.
-----
page 1
EXT. CANADIAN ROCKY MOUNTAINS - SUNSET
The wind BLOWS...
...Darkness creeps over a forest road.
-----
The more appropriate format would be something like:
EXT. CANADIAN ROCKIES - FOREST ROAD - SUNSET
-----
page 11
INT. PERRY'S CAR - DAY
Perry's car is parked outside the BALTIMORE FBI FIELD OFFICE.
-----
Again, proper format might be:
EXT. BALTIMORE FBI FIELD OFFICE - ESTABLISHING - DAY
INT. PERRY'S CAR - CONTINUOUS
Another example:
-----
Page 16
EXT. FLINT'S CABIN - DAY
Set in the Canadian forest on the end of the last dirt road sits FLINT'S log cabin.
-----
I would think it should read this way:
EXT. CANADIAN FOREST - LONELY DIRT ROAD - FLINT'S CABIN - DAY
The issues with the above examples are:
1) Writer is directing the camera and set design rather than putting the reader into the scene via the slug line.
The writer's current style practically negates the purpose of a slug line.
The number one concern of screenwriting is to communicate action to the reader.
The director, set director, Director of photography, etc. will do the directing.
2) using information already in the slug line to describe the scene.
Reader has heard that this should be avoided because it just comes across as repetitive.
I don't know if that's a big deal, but I'm just sayin', that's what I've heard.
___________________________
A lot of direction and superfluous details. The writer wants to direct the movie and makes sure the reader knows it, directing the entire script shot for shot.
Writer confuses exposition and character study for story telling.
A lot of unfilmables, it reads very much like a novel.
The writer often indicates or states outright how a character feels, what they are thinking, etc. in action/description lines, resulting in "unfilmables".
This may seem nit-picky, but writer seems to like cars. It's just too obvious and it should be kept in mind that a "beat up old pickup truck" is going to be universally understood, where a "beat up '79 Ford F150" may as well be an airplane as far as the uninitiated would be concerned.
Page 32-33 is good. A bit late, but good.
It wouldn't be late if there were much stronger story elements holding it off, but what's preventing it from being on page 27-28 is lots of "novelization" and over direction. That's why it's "late".
-----
page 37
Flint... LAUGHS. He stops when he realizes she's serious.
FLINT
You're serious?
-----
There's a lot of this repetitive stuff. It may seem nit-picky, but there is a lot of it.
-----
page 38
The trees weave amongst themselves like nervous party goers.
-----
Someone mentioned this line in a previous post. Writer definitely has a great sense of style, but less is more - especially in screenwriting. Consumption (1st Draft) reads too much like a novel and is directed shot for shot.
-----
page 42
...debris being tossed aside by a seemingly invisible force as it marches toward her.
-----
What does "seemingly invisible" mean? This is a script. Is the thing invisible or not? And if so, how is an audience supposed to know it "marches toward her" - besides the writer just saying so. How does the audience get this impression? Writer has conceived some tricky set-pieces with this story - real challenges for which to commit that strong sense of style to the screenwriting medium.
-----
page 42
Regarding the scene where Perry awakens on Flint's couch and what follows: I'd be willing to bet all previous readers can recall what Perry was drinking and the slang term for what she was doing while chit-chatting with Petey - but ask them what that scene was about.
This scene appears to be exposition about Flint which is not the same as including exposition in the driving of the story. Likewise, it's written so that it gives far more credence to drinking coffee and "casing" Flint's cabin than to driving the story. It's stalling the story.
EDIT: page 54 - OK reader admits to suspecting writer did have good reason for the focus on the coffee drinking (meaning there is a confidence in your writing) but committed to the notes about it because those notes are still relevant to the scene. The scene is rather dull and the coffee drinking is distracting - not to mention telegraphic, if the reader does have confidence in the writer. One mention of the coffee on 42 and one mention of coffee on 54 is plenty IMO.
Another example on page 45:
Writer uses eight sentences to tell reader that Eric takes pictures. The way this scene is written, it's more memorable for the beeping and flashing camera than for the non-human foot print or that Seer makes a brief appearance. Is that what writer wants?
page 48:
Reader now totally understands why writer felt it necessary to present the taking of pictures such a laborious affair, but feels it was indeed laborious and that the director should be able to handle that scene just fine without writer's explicit instructions. :)
___________________________
That Flint has a smile like a coyote is very cool. That writer's style gives the impression that Flint seems to HAVE THE ABILITY to smile like a coyote is kind of weird - even if, as reader suspects, he might indeed have that ability; it still seems weird.
EDIT: So it turns out Flint did not have that ability after all.
-----
page 65
Reader feels fatigued. There's a monster and it might be Flint. Got it. The story hasn't taken an interesting turn since page 16 (I know I said 32-33 was good, but it didn't expand the story, rather simply confirmed elements previously alluded to), nor has the protagonist been significantly challenged, save the waking up naked bit. Reader want's to know more about the screwed up version of Perry. What's going on?
-----
page 75
Perry looks into her coffee cup, afraid to tell him about the drugging.
-----
The script is loaded with these unfilmables.
"Perry looks into her coffee cup" is perfectly filmable.
"afraid to tell him..." is unfilmable.
Combine these two problems: The writer wants to direct the entire script shot for shot while repeatedly demonstrating blatant ignorance of what constitutes filmable action.
I suppose that sounds harsh, but that is the script I am reading.
___________________________
The whole dirt and moss eating thing is a neat idea as it occurs in the story, but how is the audience ever supposed to understand that characters are vomiting "dirt and moss"? What's to prevent audiences from thinking it might be chocolate ice cream and broccoli? The script describes nothing "on screen" to connect the vomiting with the passage from the book about
eating dirt and moss.
Similar to the "invisible Wendigo", this "vomit content" is another conceptual challenge the writer has presented himself with - but made no attempt to meet that challenge by conforming it to the screenplay medium. It's just stated that it's so, as would be done in a novel. Novels are unfilmable - that's why they are adapted to screenplay format.
The story leaves an impression on the reader, but the script needs to be reworked IMO.
As others have stated, this story has a lot going for it. This reader doesn't necessarily agree that it should be more of a straight monster/horror flick - but feels that ACT THREE could be a lot stronger. Much of the script is repetitive, re-examining the things learned in ACT ONE - understandable as this seems to be a mystery thriller - but reader thinks there's a great deal more this story can achieve if conventional story structure were followed more closely. Though it would change the story drastically, that's kinda' the point.
PREMISE:
Definitely a fun premise, but under explored in reader's opinion.
(There are some superficial similarities between Consumption and my current project - I hope you wont suspect me of tapping your ideas if you ever read it).
STORY STRUCTURE:
As a cheerleader for traditional/conventional story structure, reader has to say this is rather weak. The mystery unfolds nicely, the writer drawing the reader in and revealing more and more about the characters - but that's not story. That's exposition and character development. The story is what characters do, not who they are.
CHARACTERS:
Some very strong characters here.
Flint strikes reader as simply a great character. Reader doesn't have any critique of him. He really became alive.
Eric makes a fantastic first impression but shortly thereafter he comes off as overly irritable and vulgar. Is this intentional?
Somewhere around the midpoint, reader gets the impression that Eric is a fun guy - sober, a dick when drinking. One doesn't see that very often in movies, but it's not clear if this is, in fact, intentional.
Will is an archetype that treads the thin ice of ending up whiny and loathsome but he never breaks that ice and remains a strong admirable character throughout.
Perry is a major disappointment. Writer has set Perry up as a really screwed up character and then sends her on a journey where she performs her duties flawlessly and demonstrates that she is a consummate professional. She's not struggling with her personal demons. She's also completely reactive rather than showing any pro-activity. She never even had to ask to be involved in this investigation. She is just told to go and she goes. She gets there and does
everything to the letter. Her defense of Flint and connection to the story strikes the reader as marginal at best. Reader feels she should be 10 times more interesting - and seriously wants to know why writer did not write her stronger.
DIALOGUE:
For the most part, the dialogue is on the nose with occasional moments of nice subtext. As dialogue is directly related to the strength of characters though, it would be contradictory to harp on the lack of subtext as a problem.
EMOTION:
It is odd, but even though there is a lot to like about this story, reader can't say emotional connection is one of the compelling attributes. Perhaps it has something to do with the overstatement of the "monster in the woods" element. It somehow overshadows the very compelling cannibalism angle. Perhaps the writer does not intend an overstated emotional experience for the audience in the first place.
FORMAT vs. STYLE vs. Formula
This is where the script's weakest attributes are displayed.
This epic battle is best related through notes made while reading the script.
-----
page 1
EXT. CANADIAN ROCKY MOUNTAINS - SUNSET
The wind BLOWS...
...Darkness creeps over a forest road.
-----
The more appropriate format would be something like:
EXT. CANADIAN ROCKIES - FOREST ROAD - SUNSET
-----
page 11
INT. PERRY'S CAR - DAY
Perry's car is parked outside the BALTIMORE FBI FIELD OFFICE.
-----
Again, proper format might be:
EXT. BALTIMORE FBI FIELD OFFICE - ESTABLISHING - DAY
INT. PERRY'S CAR - CONTINUOUS
Another example:
-----
Page 16
EXT. FLINT'S CABIN - DAY
Set in the Canadian forest on the end of the last dirt road sits FLINT'S log cabin.
-----
I would think it should read this way:
EXT. CANADIAN FOREST - LONELY DIRT ROAD - FLINT'S CABIN - DAY
The issues with the above examples are:
1) Writer is directing the camera and set design rather than putting the reader into the scene via the slug line.
The writer's current style practically negates the purpose of a slug line.
The number one concern of screenwriting is to communicate action to the reader.
The director, set director, Director of photography, etc. will do the directing.
2) using information already in the slug line to describe the scene.
Reader has heard that this should be avoided because it just comes across as repetitive.
I don't know if that's a big deal, but I'm just sayin', that's what I've heard.
___________________________
A lot of direction and superfluous details. The writer wants to direct the movie and makes sure the reader knows it, directing the entire script shot for shot.
Writer confuses exposition and character study for story telling.
A lot of unfilmables, it reads very much like a novel.
The writer often indicates or states outright how a character feels, what they are thinking, etc. in action/description lines, resulting in "unfilmables".
This may seem nit-picky, but writer seems to like cars. It's just too obvious and it should be kept in mind that a "beat up old pickup truck" is going to be universally understood, where a "beat up '79 Ford F150" may as well be an airplane as far as the uninitiated would be concerned.
Page 32-33 is good. A bit late, but good.
It wouldn't be late if there were much stronger story elements holding it off, but what's preventing it from being on page 27-28 is lots of "novelization" and over direction. That's why it's "late".
-----
page 37
Flint... LAUGHS. He stops when he realizes she's serious.
FLINT
You're serious?
-----
There's a lot of this repetitive stuff. It may seem nit-picky, but there is a lot of it.
-----
page 38
The trees weave amongst themselves like nervous party goers.
-----
Someone mentioned this line in a previous post. Writer definitely has a great sense of style, but less is more - especially in screenwriting. Consumption (1st Draft) reads too much like a novel and is directed shot for shot.
-----
page 42
...debris being tossed aside by a seemingly invisible force as it marches toward her.
-----
What does "seemingly invisible" mean? This is a script. Is the thing invisible or not? And if so, how is an audience supposed to know it "marches toward her" - besides the writer just saying so. How does the audience get this impression? Writer has conceived some tricky set-pieces with this story - real challenges for which to commit that strong sense of style to the screenwriting medium.
-----
page 42
Regarding the scene where Perry awakens on Flint's couch and what follows: I'd be willing to bet all previous readers can recall what Perry was drinking and the slang term for what she was doing while chit-chatting with Petey - but ask them what that scene was about.
This scene appears to be exposition about Flint which is not the same as including exposition in the driving of the story. Likewise, it's written so that it gives far more credence to drinking coffee and "casing" Flint's cabin than to driving the story. It's stalling the story.
EDIT: page 54 - OK reader admits to suspecting writer did have good reason for the focus on the coffee drinking (meaning there is a confidence in your writing) but committed to the notes about it because those notes are still relevant to the scene. The scene is rather dull and the coffee drinking is distracting - not to mention telegraphic, if the reader does have confidence in the writer. One mention of the coffee on 42 and one mention of coffee on 54 is plenty IMO.
Another example on page 45:
Writer uses eight sentences to tell reader that Eric takes pictures. The way this scene is written, it's more memorable for the beeping and flashing camera than for the non-human foot print or that Seer makes a brief appearance. Is that what writer wants?
page 48:
Reader now totally understands why writer felt it necessary to present the taking of pictures such a laborious affair, but feels it was indeed laborious and that the director should be able to handle that scene just fine without writer's explicit instructions. :)
___________________________
That Flint has a smile like a coyote is very cool. That writer's style gives the impression that Flint seems to HAVE THE ABILITY to smile like a coyote is kind of weird - even if, as reader suspects, he might indeed have that ability; it still seems weird.
EDIT: So it turns out Flint did not have that ability after all.
-----
page 65
Reader feels fatigued. There's a monster and it might be Flint. Got it. The story hasn't taken an interesting turn since page 16 (I know I said 32-33 was good, but it didn't expand the story, rather simply confirmed elements previously alluded to), nor has the protagonist been significantly challenged, save the waking up naked bit. Reader want's to know more about the screwed up version of Perry. What's going on?
-----
page 75
Perry looks into her coffee cup, afraid to tell him about the drugging.
-----
The script is loaded with these unfilmables.
"Perry looks into her coffee cup" is perfectly filmable.
"afraid to tell him..." is unfilmable.
Combine these two problems: The writer wants to direct the entire script shot for shot while repeatedly demonstrating blatant ignorance of what constitutes filmable action.
I suppose that sounds harsh, but that is the script I am reading.
___________________________
The whole dirt and moss eating thing is a neat idea as it occurs in the story, but how is the audience ever supposed to understand that characters are vomiting "dirt and moss"? What's to prevent audiences from thinking it might be chocolate ice cream and broccoli? The script describes nothing "on screen" to connect the vomiting with the passage from the book about
eating dirt and moss.
Similar to the "invisible Wendigo", this "vomit content" is another conceptual challenge the writer has presented himself with - but made no attempt to meet that challenge by conforming it to the screenplay medium. It's just stated that it's so, as would be done in a novel. Novels are unfilmable - that's why they are adapted to screenplay format.
The story leaves an impression on the reader, but the script needs to be reworked IMO.
2
out of
4
people found the following review helpful:
Beginning interesting, end alright, middle needs some work.
I will try to keep this short enough for it to be easily readable and will save the longer version for when you pop up on the script club soon.
The beginning of the story is strong. The guys heading into the woods with all kinds of gadgets, the one guy with his nightvision problem. The suspension and shock as the guy stops running, everything pauses, and then he is dragged away is nice and really sets a good tone for the start of the movie.
Trasition into the naked lady in the woods is a nice touch and makes you have to decide if she is the beast since the guys were making it seem like it would be Flint. However, I think this scene is a little too brief, but that may be due to the transitions. Also her dialog seems a bit unreal here.
I think the courtroom scene should start on here and then "zoom out" to the rest of the courtroom to provide a smoother transition from her naked in the woods.
I like her partner right off the bat. He is a nice contrast to her seriousness.
The problem is that the middle is so long with so little story progression and little fear/action. I think you could cut out several parts of it and actually end up with a smoother story with a more solid pacing throughout. Due to your starting with so much excitement it really makes the whole middle seem to drag on.
I think it almost hurts the story for Eric and Perry to start going their own ways so quickly. Their characters together really make for interesting dynamic, but then suddenly they are seperated for a long time and start to not trust each other. Perry and Flint together are too similar of characters and don't make for as interesting of a read.
The ending is ok. I think having two unclarified character endings is too much. It would be better to fully disclose the information on Flint, whether he was a beast or not, and then leave Perry open ended or the other way around. I'm also not sure that from an audience stand point the ending felt proper. All of this beast fighting and then one beast just dies (fairly easily) and Flint just up and stabs Perry out of no where. It just didn't feel like the ending I'd want after watching the whole movie.
Also the second half of the script had a lot more errors in it than the first half did. You may want to give that a good solid once over just to catch the typos/mistakes.
Overall I could enjoy the movie if it kept truer to the beginning of the script and the middle wasn't so long and slow. After reading the first few pages I thought I was about to get into a real scarefest with an unseen beast and I was all ready for that, but then it turned into more of a slow thriller when I was all ready for horror.
The beginning of the story is strong. The guys heading into the woods with all kinds of gadgets, the one guy with his nightvision problem. The suspension and shock as the guy stops running, everything pauses, and then he is dragged away is nice and really sets a good tone for the start of the movie.
Trasition into the naked lady in the woods is a nice touch and makes you have to decide if she is the beast since the guys were making it seem like it would be Flint. However, I think this scene is a little too brief, but that may be due to the transitions. Also her dialog seems a bit unreal here.
I think the courtroom scene should start on here and then "zoom out" to the rest of the courtroom to provide a smoother transition from her naked in the woods.
I like her partner right off the bat. He is a nice contrast to her seriousness.
The problem is that the middle is so long with so little story progression and little fear/action. I think you could cut out several parts of it and actually end up with a smoother story with a more solid pacing throughout. Due to your starting with so much excitement it really makes the whole middle seem to drag on.
I think it almost hurts the story for Eric and Perry to start going their own ways so quickly. Their characters together really make for interesting dynamic, but then suddenly they are seperated for a long time and start to not trust each other. Perry and Flint together are too similar of characters and don't make for as interesting of a read.
The ending is ok. I think having two unclarified character endings is too much. It would be better to fully disclose the information on Flint, whether he was a beast or not, and then leave Perry open ended or the other way around. I'm also not sure that from an audience stand point the ending felt proper. All of this beast fighting and then one beast just dies (fairly easily) and Flint just up and stabs Perry out of no where. It just didn't feel like the ending I'd want after watching the whole movie.
Also the second half of the script had a lot more errors in it than the first half did. You may want to give that a good solid once over just to catch the typos/mistakes.
Overall I could enjoy the movie if it kept truer to the beginning of the script and the middle wasn't so long and slow. After reading the first few pages I thought I was about to get into a real scarefest with an unseen beast and I was all ready for that, but then it turned into more of a slow thriller when I was all ready for horror.
0
out of
1
people found the following review helpful:
Love the start, not too crazy about the end.
I enjoyed it. I got hooked at the start, the middle is good too, the ending is okay.
< Previous | Page: 1 | Next >
Pg 7 It doesn’t sound natural to me when Perry is speaking to herself. But I do love the image of her sleeping naked in the woods or perhaps she’s meditating. Nice sensual image and not only that, but it’s deep, very thought-provoking. You’re building a character here. I love the image.
Pg 8 I like the name Tarking. It’s new to me. I hate when writers come up with new names and you just know they’re trying to be slick and gimmicky. But Judge Tarking has a ring to it. It works.
Pg 9 I’m realizing that you repeatedly capitalize character names after they’ve been introduced. It’s annoying to the pros and confusing to amateurs.
Pg 10 Okay, I’m finding Perry really intriguing. These little tidbits of information you give about her are working nicely to build suspense.
Pg 18 I’m liking the backstory we get with Flint, Mills, and Will. And when Mills offers that they should have a drink later to bring back old times, makes me feel for these characters. My only concern is that you’re throwing a lot of characters at us. I’m not losing anybody yet, but it is borderline.
Pg 34 At this point, I’m not really feeling entirely that Perry and Eric’s dialogue is working for me. Bits of their dialogue is coming off as generic. Almost as if the writer is talking just to move story along. Some of it flows nicely, than in certain spots, it just doesn’t gel together.
Pg 35 The second clue about Perry stating that this place looks oddly familiar and Eric answers with she’s been raised by wolves comes out of nowhere. I mean, you’ve been giving clues, but I don’t know if it’s the best way to execute it. Feels force, a little too serendipitous.
Pg 38 This is an awesome description that sets up the mood nicely and foreshadows what is to come--
“The trees weave amongst themselves like nervous party-goers.”
Pg 44 I just realize why the dialogue might not be working for me. So much of it is done through questions/answers. It’s how we’re getting lots of story information. Yeah, an amateur’s rebuttal might be it’s what this genre calls for, to which a pro would say, genre doesn’t make a great story. Just be careful here.
Pg 62 I’m not getting any sense of who Patrick, James, and Alan is. I understand who they are and that whole Nick thread, but do we really need them? Maybe it’s a little to earlier for me to be saying this.
Pg 70 I’m not buying that Perry would give in to Flint’s leadership so quick. Her going to make coffee seems so out of character.
Perry was the one thing that grounded me into the story in the beginning, but somewhere that story beat was put to the side. After 70 pages, one strong observation I have is to get rid of some of the characters and make this about Perry’s internal struggle running along side Flint and Wills’ external struggle.
I really like how things ended between Flint and Will. That scene had a lot of heart in it. Their relationship is my favorite part of the story.
The Supernatural element all adds up for me. Mentally I get it. But as I said, lots of it was explained to us through questions and answers. So I can’t say that I felt emotionally connected to this part of the story. I understand it, but not quite feeling it.
I guess the most important thing I can say that if this were my script, I WOULD DEFINITELY KEEP AT IT. It has potential to be commercial while mixed with memorable characters.