T. R. Locke (Burbank, CA)

David Hanson’s Fishsticks—Review

I like this script. It’s mature, funny and fairly realistic in that it deals with the both the adventure and consequences of open sexual relationships. What starts off as a possible fun solution to seeming minor issues may not only be revealing a deeper issue in the marriage, but might also lead to bigger problems.

I see the characters as I believe they were written—Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Anniston, etc. I think the dialog, situations and characters are believable. Your male characters all seemed alike to me. There wasn’t much in terms of their voice or style to differentiate one from the other. The same with the females—Val and Cassie had more character in their dialog that made them distinctive. Everyone else kind of blended together with little defining them but a different name. You might want to work on each character being unique. Although they are very similar, you do a good job of having each character reveal something about your lead characters, which is good.

Scripts like this are often victims of the fact that the audiences for these more mature comedies are smaller. Aside from the few issues I mentioned above and the technical elements below, I don’t know that there is much more that needs to be done to improve this script. It’s good.

A few technical notes:

Normally I write an entire review and don’t bother with technical issues, but there’s something right at the beginning of this screenplay that harkens back to basic creative writing. Here’s your opening paragraph:

“MIKE CONNOR (late 30's), was once athletic, but with family
life, now he's just big. He is sitting in a chair on the
porch of his modest suburban track home. He's in shorts and
a t-shirt. His feet are up on the rail and he is writing in
a plain, SPIRAL NOTEBOOK. There is only a blank sheet.
MIKE is staring off at the starry night before he turns to
begin writing. We see a montage of MIKE in the sequences he
is describing.”

You use passive voice to describe you character and his surroundings. This makes for very tedious reading unless you are doing it in a novel to describe the passive nature of a person. Actually, even then it’s tedious reading, but it can be intriguing if done well (for instance to reveal that the character is passive in personality, then changing to active voice when the character changes). Here it’s not working. Get rid of all the “to be” verbs.

A second note with regards to characters is if we can’t see it, you can’t really describe it in a screenplay—“once athletic, but with family life, now he’s just big.” How does the actor or director convey that family life fattened the man? Finally, if the sheet is blank, he’s not writing… yet.

Another technical note: Character names are only capitalized in the action the first time we meet them.

Otherwise, great job. Good luck.

TRL

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.

There should be stars for funny. This would get 5 on that.

Review of Jump The Shark by Brandon Ralph

First Impressions:

It really didn’t take me long at all to dial into the characters in this screenplay. You’ve got a Will Farrell joint here. For a minute I was seeing a Faraley Bros Matt Dillon (ala Something About Mary) playing the lead, but it eventually gave way completely to Will and John C. Reilly. Once it did, I could see it very clearly and found it very funny.

You do a great job of keeping the humor in the character. I just get this. I’ve seen some of those scripts for Will’s movies and a lot of the funny isn’t on the page—it’s improvised by Will and his co-stars. As such, I’m not sure how much you need to fix to get this ready for them, but it wouldn’t hurt to get it as good as you can.

Strengths: Character based humor was very funny at times. The beginning could be a bit a stronger, but it picked up a lot once Ralph got on the scene to give Johnny a foil. I could see it as a movie very easily. Competitive pool hasn’t been done by those guys so it’s ripe for the picking. It’s simple, funny, and written well. Although it’s short, I think that may even work to leave room for the improvisational work of the actors in these comedies.

Weaknesses: I’m going to go with the lack of subplots. You’ve got one story going here and nothing else—no doubt why it’s so short. It’s an easy fix. I’m not sure if the point of these reviews is to give fixes or not, but just having Ralph’s wife object and try to stop him from going at the beginning and playing that through the whole movie, but work. You could develop a bit more with Big Cecil and his plan and follow it throughout, etc.

There is also a lack of obstacles. It’s very easy for Johnny to do everything he does. Normally, there are a few more obstacles—a better player, someone on the lead’s ass threatening him, etc.

For movies from that era, I wanted to see a fight. A huge fight scene ala Burt Reynolds (every movie he ever made). It certainly wouldn’t hurt. You have the knife stabbing at the very point where the fight should occur. The joke with the stabbing is funny though, so I’m not sure if the fight goes there or not. I liked this a lot. It was a fun read and it felt like I was watching it.

Finally, I don’t think movies like this win awards even though they make money. I can see why it might not win a screenplay contest, too—it’s very simple and easy—the simple characters explaining their every action, or telling us what we just saw them do works for humor but goes against all the normal qualities of good screenwriting. Does that make sense? In other words, even if it doesn’t do well here, it doesn’t mean it won’t sell later.

Good luck.

The Alien Diaries by Glen Devlin.

First impressions:
I love the idea of this story. It reads like an episode of X Files. Colin is a believable character. You’ve added a few deepening techniques to give him added dimension, however Maddy felt more like a stock character. In the beginning, I couldn’t wait to see how the story unfolded. As it did, it basically worked out to “E. T. 1699.” As such, it feels a bit like I’ve seen this movie already. My gut tells me that’s what’s holding this script up from winning.

Strengths: You’ve created a very interesting world. You’ve done some new things with this world that I’ve not really seen done before—a pre-revolutionary war character that did not own slaves but instead had only white indentured servants. A house alone in the country with aliens dropping down on it is very scary—especially as told from a child’s perspective via a diary. I love the device of that. You told the story well. It moves fast and easy to read and you’ve done well throwing in some decent plot twists. You gave Colin a missing child and wife that comes full circle with Annabelle and Maddy in the end.

Weaknesses: As I mentioned, I felt like I’d seen this movie before. Whether you are doing it as a clue or not, the fact that Mary and Paul are aliens is very obvious from their reactions to Bronte early in the film and therefore, has no power when you reveal it to the children by removing Paul’s bracelet. I have a feeling you wanted your audience to be as surprised as the children—if not, okay, but I think we should be.

Maddy is hard to believe. There is a lack of motivation in her opposition to Colin’s research. As a historian, I would expect she would be absolutely fascinated by a diary from the inhabitant of the home during the period she is working so diligently to reenact. She wasn’t. That’s not explained. I was half expecting her to be an alien also. It would probably work much better if she weren’t interested in anything from the past except how much everything was worth so she can sell it—perhaps as a real estate agent, private developer (many companies turn old plantations into housing communities), etc—then Colin’s obsession with history would understandably irritate her as it’s slowing down her commission. I assume that Bronte wants to keep the property as a memorial for purposes of keeping alien secrets, so I get it, but Maddy’s character needs a better reason to oppose Colin. Her driving a Cadillac SUV made no sense either—it would if she were a developer/RE agent, etc. Not too many historians driving around in Caddy SUVs.

I think you were going for humor with the old clothes, but because only one guest (the Gov) came to the property the entire time, it felt like you did it all for that one joke. There were no people there to see them dressed that way.

I never felt like Maddy and Colin fell in love. I see where you wanted to show that they did (after he leaves her there and she is spooked and goes to him), but I think it needs a little more.

There are a couple of story issues that didn’t quite work for my taste. One is how easily Colin solves all these puzzles. Granted, they are kid puzzles, so maybe that’s not a big deal. But what hit me more was how leisurely he approached the whole revelation—especially after he started finding clues. He seemed to take his time reading the book; he didn’t seem scared at all or even amazed at the ramifications of his findings. When he entered the space ship, it was as if he was on an old pirate ship—not an alien vessel from outer space. He basically finds the diary and leaves, then tells Maddy “yes, it is real” and… Maddy doesn’t want to see it at all. Nope, not interested at all in the spaceship in the backyard. No press. No freak out. No loose his mind. No, “My world just turned upside down.” Nor does Colin want to show it to her. When the alien appears, it’s like he was expecting him to be there. And at the end, “Oh, it’s you, Bronte. I should have known. Oh, and there’s Annabelle. Of course, we’ll take her. Cool. Have a great trip back to your planet.” It was an unnatural reaction to me. So, in essence, it interrupted my willing suspension of disbelief. In E. T. only the children simply believed. The adults freaked the hell out—as they should and would.

Using another diary, the second one from Mary, didn’t work for me either. In the new draft, you seem to have just mentioned it without reading from it.

Finally, the idea that an advance civilization not only has slaves, but hunts them down across the universe, even at the cost of their own lives, is very, very, VERY unappealing to me and I suspect most people in the world.

I hope this helps. I believe the issues above hinder the appeal of this story. If these issues are addressed, I believe you could see this produced. One thing I always appreciated about X-Files was the way they would make the most outrageous things plausible via a rational explanation. Why did Bronte come to Colin in the first place? Why did Mary age, but Bronte not age as much? Why does an advanced civilization have slaves for which they are willing to die to hunt down?
TRL