Joe Giambrone

Dude--You created the formatting by typing a lot of space bars? Don't do that. You can create MACROS in Word to align the dialogue properly with paragraph settings.

The opening credit sequence is good.

The opening is pretty good too, funny scene, but probably too predictable with the exploding toilet. What could twist it so that we can't guess the outcome too soon?

The interaction with the landlord is also a little played out. Something should twist it. What if she was a hot older woman, and she had slept with him? What if it was the landlord's kickboxer son, come to beat his brains in?

This should go:

CLIVE
What's up brothers?! Orlando,
Glammis and Rodell, the Florentines
back on the street, back on the
prowl! Back in the game! Takin
numbers,takin names, takin--

That whole scene would be better with no dialogue at all than what's there now. The exposition dump drags this thing down.
You could use a car-too-small gag for the big bruisers. They get in, annoyed, unable to fit, good sight gag. They're squished against a big bag of guns. The head guy can't type on the laptop because his elbows can't spread out enough, etc. Then let the dialogue come. Could be very funny.

I'm not sure how and why these tracking bracelets work, and particularly in Nevada. Isn't that supposed to be for house arrest? Otherwise why would they be wearing them?

With the father -- what if he had a big battlefield model with toy soldiers, tanks, and he followed the specifics from TV? And he blew shit up on the battlefield with fireworks?

Tex conversation could lose some exposition (a trend). Also, not funny. Where's the funny?

The three mooks in the car don't have much character. What differentiates them? What could be funny about them? They are just cogs for long stretches and not characters developing. You need more setups and payoffs.

Also, no women characters. A full quarter of the way through without a girl? Could be a mistake.

The less dramatic and less funny scenes should either be cut or redone.

He hits on a waitress finally, so he's not gay. Can he do that a lot sooner?

DENNEY
(forced grin)
Aww, come on Tom, you know I'm good
for it.

Cut.

And -- the opening inventor thread has been dropped. I would have thought he had some more inventions, or that would recur.

Now, the money. This thing rests on the importance of the $20K, but we haven't seen that it's actually important to anyone for anything specific. It's just a relatively lot of money. So what? Money is not an end, it's a means. What was so special about this money that we should care?

For that matter, why is this guy deserving of an even greater sum of money? What would he do with it? There's no compelling reason given.

If they threatened to kill him if he didn't come up with it at the beginning, and then if they kidnapped his father/girlfriend/kid or something, that would be an example of the kind of motivator I'm talking about. And yes they are mostly cliche, because they work. The trick is to give it some new zing.

So basically, if ALL the scenes with the big muscleheads were simply cut and replaced with the one scene that impacts the main character, it would be stronger. Those scenes aren't very funny or dramatic anyway. Dispersing all this focus weakens the story. It also allowed you to lose track of the one endearing quality about Denny, his drive to be a successful inventor. That went off the radar, and he's now a one-dimensional gambling addict. Not very interesting. Not very unique.

The classical music scene should probably be the first scene we meet them, much earlier. And this needs setups and payoffs. Most scenes don't develop and are too short. Each scene needs its own arc, if possible (and it is).

Now with him gambling away his father's $20,000, there's no longer much likable about this guy. It's basically grand theft from a family member. He's crossing the line, and now we're going to have to decide if we care about the rest of this thing. Do we care if he eventually succeeds? Do we care to watch the rest? He's not an underdog anymore. He's an asshole.

DENNEY
(stammering/gagging)
Jesus Christ! What are you doing
here--you're supposed to be--in
jail.

Bad dialogue, not appropriate to situation at this point.

ORLANDO FLORENTINE (CONT'D)
You give 'em an inch, they try to
take the whole nine, you know?

This could be a fun gag if he (or one of them) always speaks in messed up mixed metaphors. Then, at least there would be something funny about these guys.

So now I'm thinking the scene with the gangsters at the double wide should be like on page 5. And they need more character, more distinction and uniqueness. All that plot that came before is setup for them to finally threaten him. If you start and he's just in trouble with the money men, all that setup is unnecessary. Then you can quickly get on to getting a girl involved somehow.

And the double dunk? Already been done. How about a crushed nut? That's more in line with guys who mean business. Plus they ALL can cringe the hell out of what they've done. Vice grips from dad's toolbox, keep turning the end...as he comes up with get rich quick ideas -- really quick.

Now this Javier character has a lot of lines, but they're all logistics. No funny. Is he going to arc anywhere? He's more dead weight.

"Do as I instruct and
you and your old man live to plumb another day and we're square."

Okay problem. The amount of violence and criminality they just perpetrated is in line with a huge amount of money owed. Now he's going to get off with running an errand? It was also excessive violence and kidnapping such that it needs to indicate something really massive AND a history of not paying.

And they're going to trust him with something valuable? It's all a bit iffy.

There's also the tone of all this brutal crime in a comedy. Some elements are slapstick (invention) while other stuff is pretty dark. Is this a realistic gritty crime story or a lighthearted fantastical world?

Plot issue is that they are simply, all three, staying to babysit D's father instead of taking care of their business that they sent D on. This is not making sense. They could have just gone and done it themselves. The reasoning is muddled. It seems like a contrived plot point to send D on a mission.


ORLANDO
(impatient)
Yeah, you know, he cleans up and
flushes away other peoples messes.
A plumber.

JAVIER
(registering)
Ahh...a plumber. I've heard of such men. Excellent.

Excellent?

He just told him he's sending a hitman to see him, and he responds "Excellent?"


DENNEY
(looking skyward)
Come on God, hook this up. You owe
me you sonofabitch.

The word "God" is redundant if he's looking up.

He's still nothing but a no good one dimensional gambling addict. There appeared to be more to his character at first, some theme at work, but it has left the building.

Anyway, I read a bit more of it than the last couple of scripts. I am busy man. Must move on.

Good luck.
JG.

My new novel on Amazon:
http://tinyurl.com/25ugwax


PS--

Rent Finding Amanda, also about a gambling addict (Matthew Broderick):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0889134/


P.P.S.

On further reflection, it occurs to me that the story may have started in the wrong place. If he is already in trouble with these guys before they went to jail, then THAT may be where the real interesting part of the story lies. What are those circumstances?

In summary:

This wasn't working dramatically. Basic story of having a character trying to do something seems missing. As for dark comedy, it was more misfire than funny. Lots of characters, but all of them sleazy assholes. Where's the variety? Where's the person to side with?

I could almost keep reading just as a curiosity, but the cliches turned me off. And the ickyness which was suffocating.

-

I'm not thrilled with this characterization:

"FAT SACK, 24, black, skinny, baby faced, tiny diamond studs, frowns with a cigarette in his mouth.
FAT SACK
Tuh.
The inch-long ashes fall. A designer MALL BAG is stapled shut under his seat. Fat Sack ashes the ashless butt, slaps MAX BET and returns the butt to his lips."

It's awkward, starting with his name. The bag and "stapled shut" don't matter at this point. A little too much fetishizing over cigarettes, and "ashes" as a verb? Isn't flicked more appropriate?

"Congo fondles the cash and stuffs two stacks into his jacket."

Now we have some unrealistic bullshit. This guy is throwing around bags of $100,000. He's not even counting what the other guy takes? He's not getting anything for his money. He's doing giant drug deals surrounded by hundreds of security cameras and guards? Why?

At least move it to the restaurant away from all the cameras.

Here we have extraneous detail that's not very important and will likely be tossed by the time there's a shooting script:

"BUBBLE
Casa Las Nubes. Close to Strip! Covered Parking! Low rates!
The sun beats down on a beige APARTMENT COMPLEX with rusty green covered parking."

Who cares if it's beige or green? Does this sign have any significance to the story?

Next scene, Nino cooks. What else happens? Nothing.

"GIRL
Hi. Sorry. You can smoke."

Two things. The exchange is unrealistic again, and the girl is objectified (and a beaten to death cliche, the Asian schoolgirl). If we aren't characterizing, it's just surface, facile. Same problem with the watiress from the first scene. The women get no names, no distinct purpose either. They're sex objects, and little if anything more.


This doesn't ring true:

"Nino stuffs the paper in Clutch's face.
NINO
Explain this.
CLUTCH
I gave you rent last week.
NINO
For last month, three weeks late. I'm shit broke, I can't cover your half again."

If Nino received rent, then he knows what's going on, and logically would have passed it on to the landlord. Why is he asking the other guy to explain it? He would have had contact with the landlord and be in the know about the rent situation. If he paid the rent last week, and it establishes that it could be three weeks late without such a notice appearing, there. Probably that notice wouldn't just appear on the door at that time. It doesn't seem to add up. It could be made to appear more genuine easily enough, but these logical gaps cause me to doubt the veracity of the story.

Also, if these guys are that poor, why are they going to strip clubs buying $8 beers? There are lots of little issues that don't make for a realistic world.


"Nino pulls out a THIN wad of money and "

Don't abuse the all-caps. It isn't technically correct. All caps are for character intros and sounds, usually (only).


"DOCTOR, 26, white, tattoo sleeve, MAROON WORK SHIRT,"

Obvious issues:

1) How do we know he's a doctor?
2) Why do we care what shirt they dressed him in?
3) She calls him Michael immediately, so why not just call him Michael?

I haven't gotten a sense that anyone in particular is the main character. Perhaps Nino, but he isn't really trying to do anything in particular, except survive in stoner poverty. Perhaps that's not enough for people to get on board why they should give a damn?

Nearly all these scenes lack drama, escalation, conflict, tension. They're just a bit grating. There's no battle of wills with setups and payoffs. Nothing much advances.


"Clutch parks. Sweat pours down his and Nino's faces."

Why? Is it just hot, and they don't have a/c?

"CLUTCH
Fa sho."

Is he going to keep saying this? Is someone going to shoot him soon?

The scene at the door of Jazzabelles is very banal and cuttable. This could probably be made better in lots of ways.

There really doesn't seem to be much point to the story. What's at stake?

"BRUTUS
Fat Sack?
Megan cocks her head.
NINO
What kinda question is that?
BRUTUS
Follow me."

I'm to take it this thing rests on a case of mistaken identity? I suppose it would need a better selling of this moment then. Why would Brutus accept this response as a confirmation? Why wouldn't he prod for more info? This is sitcom worthy.


"ZEUS (CONT'D)
Jamar. Where's my coke?
JAMAR
I-I don't have it."

Cliche scene, nothing we haven't seen before hundreds of times. In order to infuse this thing with life, it needs to jump out of the box.


"TINA
Brutus is out for the day. We don't permit loitering."

This doesn't work either. He obviously knows the magic name. Tina is low down on the totem pole. It's forced and false.

"Fat Sack pulls a handgun,"

After they kick his ass and throw him through a door he remembers he's carrying a gun???

So now who the fuck's Wimbley? You've got too many characters, and none worth getting to know. It lacks the hook where we want to see if someone can achieve something, because it would be right if they did. What you have are hapless lowlifes in some tired situations, sort of rambling about with sleazy eye candy in the background.

I'm going to call it quits here. They've been loaded up with sacks of cocaine, evidently.

Anyway, I need a shower. If everyone's a sleazy lowlife piece of shit, does it really matter what happens to them? We need some other personalities, some other values, something to elevate this above the gutter.

It also needs a better twist for Nino to be mistakenly taken as a dealer. Since the whole concept hinges on this scene, it needs to be primo. I don't think the drug gang would be fronting strangers $140,000 worth of product without even getting their proper id? It doesn't pass the smell test. No one does that. It doesn't make business sense.

Nino needs to be likable. There needs to be some kind of theme present, some kind of promise of better things to come, some reason for us to invest in this character. What's the inciting incident? He goes to a strip club and is ridiculously mistaken for a big drug dealer and handed massive amounts of cocaine? In a tenuous case of mistaken identity?

I'm not sure this idea could work as presented.

The opening is pretty good, like the Omen and the Exorcist.

One thing you could do is change passive verbs for active.

I can't help thinking that the first scene was too much lifted from The Exorcist and didn't really twist anything. It also ended before the real meat was served.

"The children stare at him with a horrible black darkness around their eyes. "

That's a good creepy follow up to keep the thing moving, where it looked like it was slowing down.

Obviously this Father Garrett is special, not your ordinary priest. Perhaps some earlier scene hinting why he's special? For example, if he sees things that regular people can't see, he can look on Father Tono and see something that no one else can see. Then he can decide to pursue the evil, etc.

Even better could be that he's shown giving mass when they bring in the injured Fr. Tono. That way you get a sense of Fr. Garrett in his normal life, then it's interrupted.

It seems like you started in the middle of the story, as it is here.

"If I could answer dat, I'd be one step closer to catching him."

I don't think any cop would say that.

By the morgue scene, I still don't have a clue who this second protagonist is supposed to be? If it's a detective story, then highlighting one of these detectives and singling them out somehow would be in order.

Bear in mind whenever you split the protagonist into multiple parties you run the risk of losing focus and blunting the story.

On that note, if Henner is supposed to carry the story, he could be shown alone off-duty in his car, monitoring the police scanner, and then he arrives alone at the warehouse first...

"HENNER
Yeah right. And if we catch him we can put him in a line up with Santa and the Easter Bunny.
WOLINSKI
I wish it were that simple, too."

I'm not sold on the dialogue between the cops, particularly Wolinski.

Kathy is really annoying.

The second exorcist sequence is even less special. The problem is we've all scene the exorcist (right?), and so unless something twists it people may yawn.

Now -- what if instead of annoying, hysterical Kathy, Fr. Garrett finds no Kathy at all, until he's leaving, then she's one of them and tries to kill him?

It seems Kathy only exists as a device for exposition.

I'm not getting the sense that the Devil has a coherent plan to do anything in particular. It's just sort of random possessions and killing kids. Por que?

Then back to the hapless cops. Now Wolinski is the proactive one, calling a fortune teller. Why not focus on the other cop?

These two are interchangeable so far, not much differentiation.

Fr. Tono's revelation might be better played out for real, without all the exposition.

When the drawing reveals things to Wolinski, we finally have a newish kind of twist. Perhaps if this came sooner and some other stuff was cut. More focus on the main characters and less on the peripheral.

Another idea, could start the story with a string of child murders, and some kind of hint that they are accelerating, and there is some evil plan where things will get worse and worse (it's been going on 5 years, right?) Leading up to something...? The rising of the beast is the usual, but could be something else. This way the possession stories and the killing stories are intertwined from the beginning.

Anyway, I need to move on. Peace.
#

Thoughts:

The opening had potential, but gave me pause. It wasn't clear who the main character was, as it bounced around, and no reason was evident for caring about one more than any others. Then, I actually started to care about Thanh, the only one who really wanted to win. But instantly, Thanh is turned into an idiot, and we see we're supposed to follow the white guy, and not the gratuitous ethnic stereotypes. This puts me off.

Better to introduce Dennis by himself, making clear why we should care about him. If we're left to wonder who to care about, it may not be who you intended. Having one's expectations derailed detracts.

Next we find Dennis makes terrible graphics, so remind me again why we're supposed to care about this guy?

It seems like an Office Space ripoff, but not nearly as funny or insightful.

This is way over the top overkill, given he already offered to fire him:

"BIG DAVE
I'll contact every video game developer this side of Timbuktu. The name Dennis Greene will be synonymous with an unimaginative, plagiarizing, lazy, no good hack that wears ladies underwear and steals office supplies."

I see where the intent is, but the execution isn't there.

Now, the first thing I liked, and what could probably open this thing, on black as a voice over that turns into a water-cooler chat:

"MCMANUS
All work stinks, son. Like a big ol' wad of shit in the palm of your hand. It's a fact of life. It shits all over you, day after day. You swear to find a better job, but when you get one, you realize that you're in the same crappy position you were in at the last job. Then your children turn out to be little turds. Your wife blames you for everything. You get a divorce. Insert a few holidays, a thousand drunk drives home from the toilet they've named after you at your favorite bar, and all that's left is to drop dead on a golf course in Florida, let your sphincter slide open and have all of life's shit ooze right out into the baggy seat of your pleated plaid shorts. And there you have it. The American Dream."

Only, I'd replace Dennis with a character that people could give a shit about. Why does it even need to be a middle aged white man?

"DENNIS
(to himself)
That little bastard."

How is this not racist?


"INT. FASHION SHOP - DAY
Ari sports a Gucci messenger bag and admires himself in a full length mirror.
He nods and hands it to Dennis, who takes it to the register.
Dennis's eyes bulge as he spots the price tag, and the CASHIER (20s) snatches it out of his hands to rings it up."

What?

What is the purpose of these scenes, and why aren't they cuttable? Why does Dennis shop at fashion boutiques with Ari? Where's the drama in that?

soda: "It shorts out and catches on fire."

That just wouldn't happen.

"DENNIS
Tell me that's a good thing?"

Neither would that.

"Dennis raises an eyebrow as Mr. Mcmanus climbs in the shuttle and tries to insert his keys into the back of the driver's seat."

There's too much silliness, things so gratuitously unreal that you can't really get behind it. On the one hand it's a semi plausible story about some workers who get coerced into a new hardcore training seminar; on the other hand it's just lame stupidity. The first version might work. If you want gratuitously silly occurrences, make them someone's imaginings. Don't make it actual.

"Some David Copperfield shit."

The audience might go, "who?" And rightly so.

The drama has fizzled out completely as they enjoy themselves at the spa. There's no sense of anyone needing to accomplish anything. There's no goal. There's no stakes. Even if things eventually go sour, and Dennis loses his job, who cares?

"ASHLEY
Just messing with you. Don't let all this get to you. I think you're great."

For God's sake why? "Because it's in the script" doesn't really suffice.

I just realized there's a McManus and a McKinley -- bad idea naming two characters so similarly. It confused me which was which.

By the time they're bungee jumping, I lost interest. It seems like it's going to drag us through a long, long training course. I'm not really attached to any of the characters and don't really care if they're eaten by wild boars. Cest la vie.

Review:
Electric Sunset,
Kris's 2nd Draft (Script 2)
11/17/2010

Author's logline: "A burnt out international spy returns to his hometown and finds it overrun with human trafficking and prostitution."

Summary: A man we don't know is killed in the first scene, and this tale is told in flashback a la Sunset Boulevard. It turns out he's a cartoon caricature of white boy fantasies about being a tough guy lady's man.

Recommend script: no
Entertainment Value: 1.5 out of 5 stars

REVIEW:

The Plot:

The very first scene calls for an "aerial shot," which may indicate the writer intends this to be a large budget production from square one.

The lead character "Nick" is introduced memorably, although I don't know the song referenced, or if it may need rights cleared.

Oddly the writer has introduced "Bodyguard #2" although no "Bodyguard #1" has materialized first. Similarly, the label "Cowboy" is substituted for a named character, "Jackson", leading to confusion and a loss of some confidence.

The band AC "fucking" DC may have some say about their participation in this project, as stands. The author comes off as a newbie, with little experience in the realities of spec features. This flashback supposedly provides the birth story of Nick the main character, but adds very little to the plot.

The fourth wall is demolished finally, with dialogue such as: "she's like ten, come on. Just forget I said that. Thought that. Fuck, now you think I'm an asshole."

Somewhat prescient.

The beginning lacks story focus. This is clearly evident with events such as:

"Student #3 turns to the crowd and puts his hands up in the air victorious."

We should care about this kid's game why? "Student #3" passes for a credible villain?

Later that day: "For some reason, I was always getting yelled at."

This over him being yelled at by his father. It's not adding, it's redundant.

Then suddenly Nick is in his twenties in the Ukraine, and he's in the middle of the Bourne Redundancy. One can't help but notice that most of what preceded did NOT lead up to this, and was seemingly irrelevant.

Lines like this, however, are designed to have us forget all that:

"Fat Man takes off his jacket getting ready to fight.
NICK (CONT'D)
What, you're gonna sit on me?"

Yes, it's that kind of film. Nick does blatantly unlikely things, because we must assume he's such a badass that the laws of physics and common sense do not apply. Again, lines like this should distract us from the unlikely gun snatchings and escacpes:

"LAURA DIAZ, a curvy Spanish woman wearing a neon thong walks between them. Bill stares shamelessly.

NICK
Seriously? It's a wonder Bin Laden's still alive."

Here we learn that Nick has been shot, but is far too macho to have even noticed:

"Despite all the blood he shows no sign of pain."

The writer has most likely never been shot.

Nick, the desire of all Ukrainian prostitutes, is far too unbelievable and arrogant to be taken seriously on any level. Perhaps that will pass with an immature audience.

"KATE SCOTT, now in her 20's and as beautiful as ever..." brings us up to date with little Kate, except there's no way for the movie audience to know this actress is supposed to be the same character.

Then Nick is elsewhere, and the reasons are unclear. He's in a barfight with lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

On page 35 (of 128) we finally run into the Cowboy character who supposedly kills Nick, the main character in scene one. As arbitrary as that initial scene is the circumstance of this meeting. This script has thus far lacked any discernible plan by the antagonist, nor much clarity to the protagonist's actions. It has rambled across the world, across ages, and with gratuitous sex and violence.

The story seems to begin here at a US brothel where the Cowboy Jackson is one of the hired help muscle who make sure big strong heroes like Nick don't walk off with the Ukrainian girls. This doesn't seem to jibe with Nick's earlier womanizing character, unless I missed some previous chivalrous rescuing. This is glaringly inconsistent, and the script would be better if pages 1-34 were simply deleted. It would also improve if this scene particularly was taken seriously, given some gravitas, and not treated like a series of inconsequential one-liners and posturing for the camera. It's hard to take anything in this script seriously, and if so -- what's the point?

So now, at first sight, the heroic Nick has adopted prostitute Alexsandra. Why? I don't know. They get away (rolls eyes at how).

Nick explains in a nutshell his version of the white slave trade. This is awkward and ill timed. Perhaps an opening sequence to the film would be more appropriate. Also, with no prior motivation shown, Nick's actions at the brothel don't make a lick of sense. What is it exactly that makes him turn into anti-prostitution man?

As the script is still only 1/3 of the way through, I have the feeling the author may get to some of these logical steps eventually. Will I still be reading, though?

Then Nick has just happened to drive his truck into a lake in exactly the right spot to ifnd an underwater graveyard of beautiful dead prostitutes. The mind boggles at the probability.

In good conscience, to myself, I refuse to continue.


Characters:

The characters, even Aleksandra, are so unreal that one feels as if it's a spoof parody along the lines of Airplane, but not funny. These people are not modeled on real living people, but on movie cliches that don't really think and breathe on their own.

Thoughts

This adolescent male fantasy nonsense is reminiscent of cheesy 80's sex comedies mixed with a ridiculous spy tie-in. Purely exploitative, and without much other purpose. Women are treated primarily as sex objects, and many females will likely find this offensive.

Dialogue:
Much of it at the start is exposition, and some of the scenes are superfluous. The short nature of the scenes almost distracts from the reality that they are unnecessary and not telling the main story -- who is the main antagonist here?

Lines like these make me wish I had chosen a different script:

"KATE
Look who decided to be my knight in shining armor."