My Work at Amazon Studios
Credits in 0 works
| No credits yet. |
Reviews I've Written
For Sale By Superhero, Amazon's Test Movie
1
out of
2
people found the following review helpful:
Not bad, but a little too familiar.
March 17, 2013
Salem Rogers, Pilot Script 1 - Salem Rogers
3 stars
The premise is reasonable. The challenge is to develop the characters beyond the over-the-top silliness and shtick. You can only watch them being tasered so many times. Pilot script can use more work.
January 23, 2013
Whiplash, Lauri's Original Draft
8
out of
10
people found the following review helpful:
Could be a family-friendly film, but needs substantial revisions.
January 12, 2013
First off, your script proposes it is “based on a true story.” It is not. The real Charlie Parkhurst, according to Wikipedia, lived from 1812–1879. That means she was 49 at the time the civil war began. Plus she only had one male sibling who died at the age of two. The other sibling was a girl. So the entire civil war revenge story is a complete fabrication. That is not “based on a true story.” “A Beautiful Mind” is based on a true story. Your script is “inspired” by a true story. There’s a real difference.
In the opening scenes, Charlie is a 14-year-old girl but seems to behave more like a six-year-old girl. (What 14-year-old girl looks at her rag doll being auctioned off and starts crying?) Is she emotionally stunted? In fact, all her behaviorisms during the early part of the script struck me as that of a girl much younger than 14. I don't know why. Maybe it's just me.
The inciting murder scene is treated way too quickly. Ingram just introduces himself and shoots John. If this guy is so sadistic, I think you can make his sadism a bit more novel. This scene should carry a lot of emotional weight. The reader should really despise Ingram. I think there's a lot more you can do with it.
And why is Frank obsessed with John’s death? He must’ve seen a whole lot of that kind of nonchalant killing throughout the war. You need to substantiate this particular stain on his memory. Maybe making John's death at the hands of Ingram particularly nasty would help.
Charlie’s reaction to her brother’s death is too on-the-nose in a prosaic sort of way. Running out to the barn, talking to the horse. It’s just too corny.
You have Charlie at the orphanage sewing for two years, not doing hard labor. But her hands are still covered with blisters when Mrs. Fletcher consoles her about her brother’s death? That exchange between them is good, but it seems out of place. Maybe instead of that scene taking place after John's death, it can play out shortly after she arrives at the orphanage because Charlie's difficult to manage. And then she can be a stable worker/farm hand all that time to help hone her skills and such. Just another thought.
Are we to assume an 18-year-old Charlie looks AND sounds like a boy when Frank meets her for the first time, her hat being the only thing belying her womanhood? If so, you need to do a better job conveying how boyish she looks—particularly for a full-grown woman.
And if she’s so boyish, why is Frank attracted to her? Even when he helps her undress in the Boston inn, you seem to shy away from explaining the attraction. Is she womanly or not?
Regarding Frank’s first encounter with Charlie, would a Confederate soldier really betray a fellow officer so readily? Wouldn’t she at least have to coax or force Ingram’s name out of him? Otherwise, wouldn’t he have the sense to realize she might want to go after Ingram, putting herself in danger? Maybe she can attack Frank with the muck rake or something. Literally threaten his life if he doesn't cough up Ingram's name. This is an important scene that establishes their relationship. If she’s such a tough guy, show it. That in turn might create sexual tension and spark Frank’s interest in her. Even more quizzically, if Frank gives her Ingram’s name when they first meet, why is she looking for clues about Ingram in a dime novel? SHE HAS HIS NAME! She doesn’t need a dime novel for clues!
By the way, can an 18-year-old girl really be “indentured” to someone from an orphanage? Isn’t she an adult?
Why don’t you have a scene showing Charlie cutting her hair, attempting to look less feminine, before she heads out on her own? Moreover, there’s no effort to describe her as a full-grown woman of 18 trying to dress like a boy. Take a story like “Boys Don’t Cry” where the character is shown going to great lengths to disguise herself as a boy. It’s almost painful watching that character go through her routine. But you’ve provided no reason to believe. You handle Charlie's transformation so matter-of-factly that it can’t be taken very seriously.
By the way, why does Charlie throw like a girl when she hitches a ride on the first coach? She’s been a stable hand. She can “do anything a boy can,” remember?
What’s the point of sticking a menorah in Levy’s dry-goods window? How is a Hebrew hymn indicative of 1860s Providence? It’s totally gratuitous. You should lose it.
“SLOW - Narrow Bridge” sign? Really? In 1860s? Did it have blinking lights, too? And you’re not going to see it illuminated by coach light. And if you did, you’d laugh.
It’s a mighty big coincidence to have Frank run into Charlie in Boston, even with him trying to sell horses to the Yankees. In fact, the entire script is mighty big on coincidental encounters. More on that later.
The racist indignations are handled in such a cliché manner that it practically serves an injustice to the real injustices. I know it helps establish Frank as a decent fellow among Southern bigots but it also serves to make the script a bit superficially sanctimonious.
Having a black man buy Frank’s plantation—not exactly realistic. Unless you were creating more story around the idea, the irony is just too gratuitous. If you're going to go that route, have the bigots try to burn the plantation down. That would be more realistic. Frank tries to help but the buyer and his family are killed. And maybe that's what makes Frank resolve to leave the South for good--that, and to find Charlie. Maybe that's too much, I don't know.
Frank just bumping into Ingram in the Private Club...again, just too convenient without some logical buildup to it.
Why doesn’t Charlie have at least one armed guard when ferrying a strongbox full of money, particularly when bandits were active in the area? Why is she given a second chance? She’s clearly a fraud. And then she becomes so good so quickly, during her next encounter with the bandits (hardened, experienced killers that they are) they don’t even get off one shot at her? I think you need to revisit that scene in a big way. Unless this is designed for a G rating, I want to see some real nasty shit going down in at least one encounter with the bad guys.
So let me understand this, nobody can tell Charlie is a man, but all Eliza has to do is look her over and see her small feet and it dawns upon her? If she’s so convincing as a man, why does Eliza see through her features so easily?
I can’t believe Ingram would risk being wiped out from a lost bet on a stagecoach race. There’s no reason to believe it, other than a character stating it matter-of-factly.
More generally, one of the big issues I have with the script is that for a Western, there’s just not a whole lot of action going on. Her encounters with villains are tame at best. The characters are a bit thin, if not cliché. I suppose if filmed correctly, the stagecoach race at the end can generate some excitement, but I just don’t sense any grit, danger or impending doom. It just falls kind of flat. The same can be said for the dialog—it’s a bit stilted and cliché. And that makes the characters seem somewhat one-dimensional.
Perhaps the biggest problem of the script is that it isn’t so much a hero’s journey as it is a journey of coincidences. Everyone is just bumping into one another on her way across the country, and then to just have the station manager drop Ingram’s name after her encounter with the bandits. I think you can do a little better job having Charlie play a cat and mouse game with Ingram.
Further still, you don’t really play out the connection between The Red Fox and Ingram. If Ingram is indeed The Red Fox and running the bandits, wouldn’t it make sense to have Charlie expose Ingram as the Red Fox? If he's a "legitimate" businessman but still leading another life as this notorious criminal, maybe Charlie should expose him as such rather than have the Station Manager suggest as much. That might make the whole dime novel device pay off better.
There’s also a lot of hokey action descriptions. Things like the waiter dropping a tray after Frank’s encounter with Ingram in the gentleman’s club, and then Frank flinching to show he’s unnerved by the encounter. Sorry, if I saw that on the screen I’d be laughing my ass off. There’s a lot of that sort of thing. You shouldn’t have to work it so hard.
Overall, while the writing in general is technically competent, the story itself reads like a cross between an After School Special and a Lifetime movie. I suppose a studio can make it into a family-friendly film, a la The Cowboys, but it needs some serious work.
You might also want to consider turning it into a serial novel franchise for the young adult market. Between the research you’ve done on the period and your writing style, I can definitely see there being a receptive audience for that sort of thing. It might have just the right mix of genteel feminism, moral structure and quaint characters. Not sure if there’s any young adult/tween Western serials out there, but if there isn’t, it might interest a publisher. And if you can somehow make Charlie a cross-dressing, stagecoach-driving VAMPIRE, then you might really hit it out of the park.
In the opening scenes, Charlie is a 14-year-old girl but seems to behave more like a six-year-old girl. (What 14-year-old girl looks at her rag doll being auctioned off and starts crying?) Is she emotionally stunted? In fact, all her behaviorisms during the early part of the script struck me as that of a girl much younger than 14. I don't know why. Maybe it's just me.
The inciting murder scene is treated way too quickly. Ingram just introduces himself and shoots John. If this guy is so sadistic, I think you can make his sadism a bit more novel. This scene should carry a lot of emotional weight. The reader should really despise Ingram. I think there's a lot more you can do with it.
And why is Frank obsessed with John’s death? He must’ve seen a whole lot of that kind of nonchalant killing throughout the war. You need to substantiate this particular stain on his memory. Maybe making John's death at the hands of Ingram particularly nasty would help.
Charlie’s reaction to her brother’s death is too on-the-nose in a prosaic sort of way. Running out to the barn, talking to the horse. It’s just too corny.
You have Charlie at the orphanage sewing for two years, not doing hard labor. But her hands are still covered with blisters when Mrs. Fletcher consoles her about her brother’s death? That exchange between them is good, but it seems out of place. Maybe instead of that scene taking place after John's death, it can play out shortly after she arrives at the orphanage because Charlie's difficult to manage. And then she can be a stable worker/farm hand all that time to help hone her skills and such. Just another thought.
Are we to assume an 18-year-old Charlie looks AND sounds like a boy when Frank meets her for the first time, her hat being the only thing belying her womanhood? If so, you need to do a better job conveying how boyish she looks—particularly for a full-grown woman.
And if she’s so boyish, why is Frank attracted to her? Even when he helps her undress in the Boston inn, you seem to shy away from explaining the attraction. Is she womanly or not?
Regarding Frank’s first encounter with Charlie, would a Confederate soldier really betray a fellow officer so readily? Wouldn’t she at least have to coax or force Ingram’s name out of him? Otherwise, wouldn’t he have the sense to realize she might want to go after Ingram, putting herself in danger? Maybe she can attack Frank with the muck rake or something. Literally threaten his life if he doesn't cough up Ingram's name. This is an important scene that establishes their relationship. If she’s such a tough guy, show it. That in turn might create sexual tension and spark Frank’s interest in her. Even more quizzically, if Frank gives her Ingram’s name when they first meet, why is she looking for clues about Ingram in a dime novel? SHE HAS HIS NAME! She doesn’t need a dime novel for clues!
By the way, can an 18-year-old girl really be “indentured” to someone from an orphanage? Isn’t she an adult?
Why don’t you have a scene showing Charlie cutting her hair, attempting to look less feminine, before she heads out on her own? Moreover, there’s no effort to describe her as a full-grown woman of 18 trying to dress like a boy. Take a story like “Boys Don’t Cry” where the character is shown going to great lengths to disguise herself as a boy. It’s almost painful watching that character go through her routine. But you’ve provided no reason to believe. You handle Charlie's transformation so matter-of-factly that it can’t be taken very seriously.
By the way, why does Charlie throw like a girl when she hitches a ride on the first coach? She’s been a stable hand. She can “do anything a boy can,” remember?
What’s the point of sticking a menorah in Levy’s dry-goods window? How is a Hebrew hymn indicative of 1860s Providence? It’s totally gratuitous. You should lose it.
“SLOW - Narrow Bridge” sign? Really? In 1860s? Did it have blinking lights, too? And you’re not going to see it illuminated by coach light. And if you did, you’d laugh.
It’s a mighty big coincidence to have Frank run into Charlie in Boston, even with him trying to sell horses to the Yankees. In fact, the entire script is mighty big on coincidental encounters. More on that later.
The racist indignations are handled in such a cliché manner that it practically serves an injustice to the real injustices. I know it helps establish Frank as a decent fellow among Southern bigots but it also serves to make the script a bit superficially sanctimonious.
Having a black man buy Frank’s plantation—not exactly realistic. Unless you were creating more story around the idea, the irony is just too gratuitous. If you're going to go that route, have the bigots try to burn the plantation down. That would be more realistic. Frank tries to help but the buyer and his family are killed. And maybe that's what makes Frank resolve to leave the South for good--that, and to find Charlie. Maybe that's too much, I don't know.
Frank just bumping into Ingram in the Private Club...again, just too convenient without some logical buildup to it.
Why doesn’t Charlie have at least one armed guard when ferrying a strongbox full of money, particularly when bandits were active in the area? Why is she given a second chance? She’s clearly a fraud. And then she becomes so good so quickly, during her next encounter with the bandits (hardened, experienced killers that they are) they don’t even get off one shot at her? I think you need to revisit that scene in a big way. Unless this is designed for a G rating, I want to see some real nasty shit going down in at least one encounter with the bad guys.
So let me understand this, nobody can tell Charlie is a man, but all Eliza has to do is look her over and see her small feet and it dawns upon her? If she’s so convincing as a man, why does Eliza see through her features so easily?
I can’t believe Ingram would risk being wiped out from a lost bet on a stagecoach race. There’s no reason to believe it, other than a character stating it matter-of-factly.
More generally, one of the big issues I have with the script is that for a Western, there’s just not a whole lot of action going on. Her encounters with villains are tame at best. The characters are a bit thin, if not cliché. I suppose if filmed correctly, the stagecoach race at the end can generate some excitement, but I just don’t sense any grit, danger or impending doom. It just falls kind of flat. The same can be said for the dialog—it’s a bit stilted and cliché. And that makes the characters seem somewhat one-dimensional.
Perhaps the biggest problem of the script is that it isn’t so much a hero’s journey as it is a journey of coincidences. Everyone is just bumping into one another on her way across the country, and then to just have the station manager drop Ingram’s name after her encounter with the bandits. I think you can do a little better job having Charlie play a cat and mouse game with Ingram.
Further still, you don’t really play out the connection between The Red Fox and Ingram. If Ingram is indeed The Red Fox and running the bandits, wouldn’t it make sense to have Charlie expose Ingram as the Red Fox? If he's a "legitimate" businessman but still leading another life as this notorious criminal, maybe Charlie should expose him as such rather than have the Station Manager suggest as much. That might make the whole dime novel device pay off better.
There’s also a lot of hokey action descriptions. Things like the waiter dropping a tray after Frank’s encounter with Ingram in the gentleman’s club, and then Frank flinching to show he’s unnerved by the encounter. Sorry, if I saw that on the screen I’d be laughing my ass off. There’s a lot of that sort of thing. You shouldn’t have to work it so hard.
Overall, while the writing in general is technically competent, the story itself reads like a cross between an After School Special and a Lifetime movie. I suppose a studio can make it into a family-friendly film, a la The Cowboys, but it needs some serious work.
You might also want to consider turning it into a serial novel franchise for the young adult market. Between the research you’ve done on the period and your writing style, I can definitely see there being a receptive audience for that sort of thing. It might have just the right mix of genteel feminism, moral structure and quaint characters. Not sure if there’s any young adult/tween Western serials out there, but if there isn’t, it might interest a publisher. And if you can somehow make Charlie a cross-dressing, stagecoach-driving VAMPIRE, then you might really hit it out of the park.
COMIC HEROES Trailer 1 - Kids, Family, Action/Adventure
5 stars
Very cool, dude. I think I hear Warner Bros calling!
February 20, 2012
Following
0 Projects
3 People
The story itself is only so-so. It's not that it's bad or poorly executed. The twist with having the computer as a virtual family member is kind of nice. It's just that it might be too close to The Incredibles and Spy Kids to come across as fresh enough to warrant a full-blown studio production. It's just a little too familiar. IMHO.