LOGLINE: A lone American paratrooper, stranded behind enemy lines hours before D-Day, is tasked with delivering intelligence critical to the outcome of the war and compelled to fulfill a promise to protect the young son of a murdered ally.
WRITER: Zach Dean
SCRIPT BIO: 8 votes on the 2015 black list
STORY:
We meet Lowry Scott at the tender age of 13. He's sitting beside his mother in a hospital bed. She's just been beaten to a pulp by her husband. Literally to the verge of death.
Oh, the year is 1921 - when you could beat the living hell out of your wife and no police would come and do anything about it.
Back at home, Lowry's father challenges him - he says, unless you stop me, I'm going to kill your mother.
Later that day Lowry does something about it - he shoots his father in the head with his father's service weapon. Thing is, his father actually wanted him to do it.
Then Lowry runs away from home.
That's possibly one of the best opening hook scenes I've ever read.
It sets up the hero in such an incredible way. Especially now that we're going to watch the adult version of this character go on a killing spree - single handedly - behind German lines.
It lends an authenticity to his character.
Nailed it.
On to the story proper...
Lowry is now CAPTAIN SCOTT - (30s). He's the leader of a regiment of para-troopers who have an incredibly important mission.
They're to be the very first allied soldiers to jump into German occupied France - near Normandy.
Their mission is to get a MAP from the French resistance that has all the german artillery positions precisely plotted. Their locations are not just guessed, they've been painstakingly measured and plotted over many years.
This map is of up-most importance - having it will save thousands of lives and could possibly be the deciding factor in whether or not the D day invasion will be successful or not.
Scott and his men suit up and are flown into occupied France two nights before the invasion. But as their glider floats down silently to their LZ - a german antiaircraft shell cuts their aircraft in half.
Scott is sucked out of the aircraft - but he manages to get his parachute to deploy in time.
He soon discovers he's the only soldier to survive the crash. He is alive, alone, surrounded on all fronts by the ENTIRE French occupying German army.
The question becomes - will he be able to complete his mission in time and help win the war..?
INITIAL REACTION:
This is a really well written script. It's a great story that works really well for the screen. But I can see why it's only got 8 votes and not 44 votes.
There's no inner journey for Scott. He doesn't seem to be fighting any inner demons. If they'd developed the character further you could have a story akin to Saving Private Ryan here. But where it stands it feels like they've green-lit the first decent draft of the script.
Not to say this draft won't work - but when you have something really good - why not push it that one step further and create something incredible - like Saving Private Ryan.
CONCEPT:
The concept here is really good. It's a WW2 film - but it's an action WW2 film. There is a clear goal with clear stakes and a ticking clock. That drives the story forward at all times. Often WW2 films seem to think that so long as you're focusing on the relationship between two characters while this crazy war is going on around them that will be enough to fuel a story.
It's not.
I love that this is a story about one guy. When you have a story about several guys in a war it can be very difficult for that to work as a film. TV show - no problem, as TV is the world of ensemble. Film, you should try to keep focused to one main character.
This is also a story I've never heard before about WW2 - and I've read a lot of history books on the matter.
CONCEPT RATING: 8/10
CONCEPT TIP: If you're searching for a good WW2 story to write - setting it just prior to D-day is a great idea. There is an automatic ticking clock - the invasion is happening on the 6th of June. Your hero must do X before that time or D day could fail. There are several pre-D-day stories that haven't been told yet. Start reading your history books for great ideas.
FORM:
Form here was messy.
CAPS LOCK WAS USED FOR ENTIRE PAGES AT A TIME.
The idea behind CAPS is to use it very sparingly so that when you have an ITEM or an OBJECT that is important to the storyline - you put it in CAPS so the reader knows it is something to keep in mind. Odds are that GUN or that MACHETE or that DOLL will somehow be used in the story later on.
Underlining is used to highlight an event that is important to the reader.
Never use bold.
So while this script was well written and easy to follow - the form was allllll over the place.
FORM RATING: 5/10
FORM TIP: Read -- How Not To Write A Screenplay.
STRUCTURE:
Structure was okay here. We had the ordinary world where Scott and his men are in England waiting to be deployed. Then he goes to Germany and he attempts his mission.
Thing is - that's all outer journey stuff.
Here - there was no inner journey going on. With no inner journey there's no inciting incident.
I can imagine someone trying to argue that when his glider got shot down that's the inciting incident - as it's an unexpected event that sets the story in motion.
But no - that's not what defines an inciting incident.
Scott's a soldier - he's going to war - having his plane blown apart is just part of his every day existence.
An inciting incident TESTS the hero's FLAW.
Now - here - it doesn't seem like Scott actually has a flaw. There's no personality trait holding him back from being who he needs to be.
IF (by way of example ) Scott was not the leader of the paratroopers - but he was the oldest by 15 years - and his commanding officer was 10 years younger than him - and this was the case because of his inability to follow orders - or work together with his fellow soldiers - THEN WE HAVE A FLAW.
Then the inner journey of this story could have been about Scott learning to WORK WITH OTHERS. When he gets into Germany he is forced to work with the French resistance or he will surely die.
There we have a great inner journey.
When you have a clear inner journey - you then have a clear structure.
Until you have that - you just have stuff happening. Which is what we have here.
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE:
Characters are well developed. The dialogue just passes muster.
Dialogue is really a bit of a let down. When you have a great story as this is - but the dialogue is just so-so - it feels like the writer isn't trying hard enough.
Characters are better developed than the dialogue here - but again - it feels like as soon as the writer got the characters into a good place - he stopped developing them. If he'd developed them just one step more - they could have all really popped off the page.
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE RATING: 6/10
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE TIP: Once you've got your characters and dialogue into a good place. Pat yourself on the back. Celebrate that mile stone. Then do another pass. Push them even further. Make them REALLY explode off the page.
VOICE:
Voice was okay here. Wasn't exceptional - but the script was really cleanly written and easy to follow.
The messy writing in the FORM of this script held the voice back. As did the lack of inner journey for the Hero.
PRODUCTION:
I wouldn't put money into this until there was a clear inner journey established.
There is also a MAJOR POV problem late in the second act.
We leave Scott for about 10 minutes and focus on one of the French resistance fighters.
That's bad writing. Always tell your story (in a film) through the eyes of your hero.
ALWAYS.
You can cut away from your hero for brief moments when telling the antagonist's storyline - but if you're not doing that - then STAY WITH YOUR HERO.
Watch MY WEEK WITH MARILYN - you will see the best execution of POV in a film ever.
We meet Marilyn Monroe through the EYES of the main character. In fact EVERY SCENE is seen through his eyes. Even when the scene doesn't necessarily involve him as a pivotal contributor to the discussion taking place. We still see that discussion through our hero's eyes.
As this film is period - and war - the budget will be at least 30 mill - could easily get up to 50 million.
When you're dropping that much coin on a film - you want to be really sure of the story.
SUMMARY:
A really great story that is 70% of the way to being developed into an exceptional story.
OVERALL RATING 7/10
Thursday, 10 March 2016
Tuesday, 8 March 2016
FINAL JOURNEY - ESKIMO DRAMA
LOGLINE: A mistreated elderly Inuit (Eskimo) woman is forced out of her village to survive alone on the savage arctic tundra.
SCRIPT BIO: 9 votes on the 2015 blacklist.
WRITER: Michael Lee Barlin
STORY:
Set in the arctic region within a community of Inuits (Eskimos).
We start the story some 80 odd years ago - when ISHA is a five year old girl. She witnesses her 80 year old grandmother banished from their community for being old.
She walks out of their camp into the frozen wilderness to die alone. The idea behind this bizarre ritual is that those that are no longer an active contributing member of the Inuit society must sacrifice themselves for the good of the others.
Food is scare - as you can imagine, living on a glacier. I don't know if this tradition extends to the males of the Inuit tribe.
We jump to 80 years later, when Isha is her self in her 80s. She has a bad case of arthritis and has great difficulties performing her chores.
She is soon banished from the tribe.
A ritual is held, where the others of the tribe give thanks for Isha's sacrifice.
Thing is, this is a forced sacrifice - Isha doesn't want to die yet. She doesn't want to walk out into the frozen nothing.
There's something very fake about the tribe's 'praise' they have for Isha as she walks out onto the frozen glacier to fend for herself.
Out in the frozen tundra, Isha soon meets TATO a 14 year old boy from a different tribe. They don't speak each other's dialects, so communication is back to basics.
Tato has come forth from his tribe, alone, to hunt down a polar bear. If he can do this by himself and bring it back to his tribe he will have proven himself to be a man.
The question from here becomes - will Isha survive - and what will become of Tato?
Which is the first problem for this script --
INITIAL REACTION:
I really liked the logline - at first I thought it could be interesting - it's different. I've never seen a story about a traditional 80 year old Inuit woman.
But then, in the back of my mind I knew that the goal in the logline was open ended - and my fear came true as I read the script.
There is no goal.
Or rather - there is no closed ended goal.
There is no -- we have to get to X before Y happens or we're dead. That's a closed ended goal. There's a focus - get to X.
There's a ticking clock - before Y happens.
There's stakes - or we're dead. The stakes are the character's lives.
But here - the goal is an open ended goal - survive.
When a story has an open ended goal - it will wander. It will be unfocused. It might look like things are happening, and those things that are happening can keep the audiecene engaged - for a time. Usually no more than 20 minutes.
20 minutes seems to be the maximum amount of time we'll watch a film that doesn't have a goal, before we get restless. Our attention starts to wander.
On this note - I was watching THE LAZARUS EFFECT last night - A Jason Blume horror film. I normally love Jason Blume's horrors - but this one failed to keep me engaged - again - because there was no closed ended goal.
The characters were trying to medically 're-animate' animals. That's a goal, sure, but there's real stakes and there's no ticking clock. So essentially we were just watching characters 'doing stuff' with no foreseeable end in sight.
Enough of The Lazerus Effect - let's deconstruct FINAL JOURNEY
CONCEPT:
There's no doubting the kernel of the concept here is unique. It's soooooo different, that when you read it, it makes you think twice about it.
Before I read this logline I read three others. I can honestly not even remember what the other three were they were so dull and generic. I think one was about a cop that has to investigate a -- and that's when I stopped reading.
How many stories have we seen about a cop investigating... it's been done to death.
Unless the cop is half human, half banana, I'm not interested. I'd watch a movie about a half human, half banana cop investigating... something. But that's my point - to inject something fresh into that genre you need to go waaaaay out into left field to stand out.
The problem with the concept of Final Journey - is the execution. It's about an 80 year old woman wandering out into the frozen wilderness to die.
It's really passive.
If the story had been more active. If Isha was going out to rescue someone, or their tribe had been attacked and she was trying to get to the next village to warn them about the attackers coming to attack them - then there's a goal, there's a ticking clock.
The story would have been way more engaging.
So while I like the idea of a story told about an elderly Inuit woman - this execution doesn't go far enough to make it engaging.
CORE CONCEPT RATING 9/10
EXECUTION OF THAT CONCEPT 5/10
CONCEPT TIP: I think you know what this tip will be --
-- when you lock on a great kernel concept - don't run with the very first execution of that base idea.
So, the base idea here that's great is - an 80 year old Inuit surviving alone in the arctic. When you have that - then take your idea further - write down 5 - 10 possible executions of that base idea.
Then do a rough 1 page outline for the top 3 or 4 of those ideas and see which one works the best for you -- keeping in mind - GOAL, TICKING CLOCK and STAKES.
FORM:
Form here was okay.
There's very little dialogue. When you have a screenplay that's 90% descriptions - it can make it a very slow read.
Michael spaces his descriptions well, and keeps his sentences to two lines maximum most of the time.
His writing style is a little too flowery for me. Focusing in on the really small details that you don't really need in a script.
FORM RATING 6/10
FORM TIP:
When writing a description based screenplay such as this - think of your reader. Most readers are extremely time poor. Don't give them ANY EXCUSE to skim read.
While you may think that this opus of a script that you've been slaving away on for the last 18 months will be given the same amount of dedication when it comes to the read - the sad fact is most readers will try to devour your script in under 60 minutes.
If the screen writing is really good and the story is also great - then they'll slow down and give it a better read - but if your writing is too dense, and the story isn't moving fast enough, they'll start to skim read.
To avoid that - keep your description as lean as possible.
STRUCTURE:
Structure here was okay. If there had been a goal established earlier on, then it could have been better. And also there was no flaw for Isha.
So there was no 'journey of change' for her to go through.
As far as we can see at the start of the film there's no real lesson that Isha needs to learn to live a better life.
Without a goal, without stakes, without a ticking clock of some sort and without a flaw - structure can only ever be a series of events that happen one after the other.
The above mentioned screen writing devices are what give your story its structure. Without - your story will meander. As is the case here.
STRUCTURE RATING: 5/10
STRUCTURE TIP: Use the screen writing devices to give your story a sense of structure. If a character doesn't have a lesson they need to learn, odds are your story will be unfocused. It might seem, on the surface, that loads of 'things' are happening - but if those things aren't directly affecting the 'inner journey' of your character - odds are the audience won't engage with the emotional aspect of the story.
CHARACTERS AND DIALOGUE:
Dialogue is very fleeting here. As said, it's 95% script. When we do get dialogue it reads like cardboard - despite the writer saying twice at the start of the film that dialogue is to be spoken in natural Inuit dialects. - He then writes it in dry, dull english.
Michael also tells the reader that there will be no subtitles.
That's a huge no-no. The writer doesn't get to decide if there are subtitles in a film or not - that's a producer's decision. Fine, if you're writing AND producing - but that's not the case here.
In fact, it's arrogant to put that kind of a statement at the start of a script - it's also very rookie. It shows that you don't understand how a film is made.
Characters here are also very flat. Not too mention that there are about 80 characters (only a slight exaggeration) introduced, all with names that we're never going to remember.
If you have a large amount of characters, only introduce those that are relevant to the story.
At the start, we are introduced to Isha's extended family - but only a few are of any importance to the story. All the other names we get are just confusing.
CHARACTERS AND DIALOGUE RATING: 5/10
CHARACTERS AND DIALOGUE TIP: Only introduce characters that are relevant to the story. Make sure their names are distinctly different enough that the first time reader can tell them apart.
When writing dialogue with a dialect - write in the dialect - don't just say that they're to be spoken with a dialect, then leave it up to the reader to imagine a dialect we've never heard before.
Create the texture of the world you want the reader to experience.
VOICE:
Voice here was okay. The writing was nice. Slow and a little dense, but to that end, it was different to a lot of other scripts I've read recently.
Different can go a long way to defining your voice.
VOICE RATING: 6.5/10
VOICE TIP: No matter how you choose to execute your story - be confident in your choice. You can tell by the writing style and choices, when a writer isn't sure of the way they're writing their story.
The writing here, while not necessarily my thing - is written with a distinct confidence. That confidence shines through in his voice.
PRODUCTION:
I can see this being made. As it is. Without goals, stakes or urgency.
It'll probably attract good talent to the title role.
A-listers love a challenge. They love making a film that breaks the rules. They love playing 'character pieces' - which this film attempts to be.
You know why they love doing that? Because no matter if the film makes money or not - they get paid.
Plus they get to do something that can be seen as 'real acting'. Something that all good actors covet.
I doubt this film would make any real money. If the budget was kept below 5 million - which is totally possible - it would make its money back - not much more.
But who would play Isha? How many big name 80 year old female actresses are there out there that look Inuit?
I guess Ben Kingsley played Ghandi, so why couldn't Streep play the lead here? Ah, the magic of cinema.
I wouldn't put money into this.
SUMMARY:
Great core concept poorly executed.
OVERALL RATING: 6/10
SCRIPT BIO: 9 votes on the 2015 blacklist.
WRITER: Michael Lee Barlin
STORY:
Set in the arctic region within a community of Inuits (Eskimos).
We start the story some 80 odd years ago - when ISHA is a five year old girl. She witnesses her 80 year old grandmother banished from their community for being old.
She walks out of their camp into the frozen wilderness to die alone. The idea behind this bizarre ritual is that those that are no longer an active contributing member of the Inuit society must sacrifice themselves for the good of the others.
Food is scare - as you can imagine, living on a glacier. I don't know if this tradition extends to the males of the Inuit tribe.
We jump to 80 years later, when Isha is her self in her 80s. She has a bad case of arthritis and has great difficulties performing her chores.
She is soon banished from the tribe.
A ritual is held, where the others of the tribe give thanks for Isha's sacrifice.
Thing is, this is a forced sacrifice - Isha doesn't want to die yet. She doesn't want to walk out into the frozen nothing.
There's something very fake about the tribe's 'praise' they have for Isha as she walks out onto the frozen glacier to fend for herself.
Out in the frozen tundra, Isha soon meets TATO a 14 year old boy from a different tribe. They don't speak each other's dialects, so communication is back to basics.
Tato has come forth from his tribe, alone, to hunt down a polar bear. If he can do this by himself and bring it back to his tribe he will have proven himself to be a man.
The question from here becomes - will Isha survive - and what will become of Tato?
Which is the first problem for this script --
INITIAL REACTION:
I really liked the logline - at first I thought it could be interesting - it's different. I've never seen a story about a traditional 80 year old Inuit woman.
But then, in the back of my mind I knew that the goal in the logline was open ended - and my fear came true as I read the script.
There is no goal.
Or rather - there is no closed ended goal.
There is no -- we have to get to X before Y happens or we're dead. That's a closed ended goal. There's a focus - get to X.
There's a ticking clock - before Y happens.
There's stakes - or we're dead. The stakes are the character's lives.
But here - the goal is an open ended goal - survive.
When a story has an open ended goal - it will wander. It will be unfocused. It might look like things are happening, and those things that are happening can keep the audiecene engaged - for a time. Usually no more than 20 minutes.
20 minutes seems to be the maximum amount of time we'll watch a film that doesn't have a goal, before we get restless. Our attention starts to wander.
On this note - I was watching THE LAZARUS EFFECT last night - A Jason Blume horror film. I normally love Jason Blume's horrors - but this one failed to keep me engaged - again - because there was no closed ended goal.
The characters were trying to medically 're-animate' animals. That's a goal, sure, but there's real stakes and there's no ticking clock. So essentially we were just watching characters 'doing stuff' with no foreseeable end in sight.
Enough of The Lazerus Effect - let's deconstruct FINAL JOURNEY
CONCEPT:
There's no doubting the kernel of the concept here is unique. It's soooooo different, that when you read it, it makes you think twice about it.
Before I read this logline I read three others. I can honestly not even remember what the other three were they were so dull and generic. I think one was about a cop that has to investigate a -- and that's when I stopped reading.
How many stories have we seen about a cop investigating... it's been done to death.
Unless the cop is half human, half banana, I'm not interested. I'd watch a movie about a half human, half banana cop investigating... something. But that's my point - to inject something fresh into that genre you need to go waaaaay out into left field to stand out.
The problem with the concept of Final Journey - is the execution. It's about an 80 year old woman wandering out into the frozen wilderness to die.
It's really passive.
If the story had been more active. If Isha was going out to rescue someone, or their tribe had been attacked and she was trying to get to the next village to warn them about the attackers coming to attack them - then there's a goal, there's a ticking clock.
The story would have been way more engaging.
So while I like the idea of a story told about an elderly Inuit woman - this execution doesn't go far enough to make it engaging.
CORE CONCEPT RATING 9/10
EXECUTION OF THAT CONCEPT 5/10
CONCEPT TIP: I think you know what this tip will be --
-- when you lock on a great kernel concept - don't run with the very first execution of that base idea.
So, the base idea here that's great is - an 80 year old Inuit surviving alone in the arctic. When you have that - then take your idea further - write down 5 - 10 possible executions of that base idea.
Then do a rough 1 page outline for the top 3 or 4 of those ideas and see which one works the best for you -- keeping in mind - GOAL, TICKING CLOCK and STAKES.
FORM:
Form here was okay.
There's very little dialogue. When you have a screenplay that's 90% descriptions - it can make it a very slow read.
Michael spaces his descriptions well, and keeps his sentences to two lines maximum most of the time.
His writing style is a little too flowery for me. Focusing in on the really small details that you don't really need in a script.
FORM RATING 6/10
FORM TIP:
When writing a description based screenplay such as this - think of your reader. Most readers are extremely time poor. Don't give them ANY EXCUSE to skim read.
While you may think that this opus of a script that you've been slaving away on for the last 18 months will be given the same amount of dedication when it comes to the read - the sad fact is most readers will try to devour your script in under 60 minutes.
If the screen writing is really good and the story is also great - then they'll slow down and give it a better read - but if your writing is too dense, and the story isn't moving fast enough, they'll start to skim read.
To avoid that - keep your description as lean as possible.
STRUCTURE:
Structure here was okay. If there had been a goal established earlier on, then it could have been better. And also there was no flaw for Isha.
So there was no 'journey of change' for her to go through.
As far as we can see at the start of the film there's no real lesson that Isha needs to learn to live a better life.
Without a goal, without stakes, without a ticking clock of some sort and without a flaw - structure can only ever be a series of events that happen one after the other.
The above mentioned screen writing devices are what give your story its structure. Without - your story will meander. As is the case here.
STRUCTURE RATING: 5/10
STRUCTURE TIP: Use the screen writing devices to give your story a sense of structure. If a character doesn't have a lesson they need to learn, odds are your story will be unfocused. It might seem, on the surface, that loads of 'things' are happening - but if those things aren't directly affecting the 'inner journey' of your character - odds are the audience won't engage with the emotional aspect of the story.
CHARACTERS AND DIALOGUE:
Dialogue is very fleeting here. As said, it's 95% script. When we do get dialogue it reads like cardboard - despite the writer saying twice at the start of the film that dialogue is to be spoken in natural Inuit dialects. - He then writes it in dry, dull english.
Michael also tells the reader that there will be no subtitles.
That's a huge no-no. The writer doesn't get to decide if there are subtitles in a film or not - that's a producer's decision. Fine, if you're writing AND producing - but that's not the case here.
In fact, it's arrogant to put that kind of a statement at the start of a script - it's also very rookie. It shows that you don't understand how a film is made.
Characters here are also very flat. Not too mention that there are about 80 characters (only a slight exaggeration) introduced, all with names that we're never going to remember.
If you have a large amount of characters, only introduce those that are relevant to the story.
At the start, we are introduced to Isha's extended family - but only a few are of any importance to the story. All the other names we get are just confusing.
CHARACTERS AND DIALOGUE RATING: 5/10
CHARACTERS AND DIALOGUE TIP: Only introduce characters that are relevant to the story. Make sure their names are distinctly different enough that the first time reader can tell them apart.
When writing dialogue with a dialect - write in the dialect - don't just say that they're to be spoken with a dialect, then leave it up to the reader to imagine a dialect we've never heard before.
Create the texture of the world you want the reader to experience.
VOICE:
Voice here was okay. The writing was nice. Slow and a little dense, but to that end, it was different to a lot of other scripts I've read recently.
Different can go a long way to defining your voice.
VOICE RATING: 6.5/10
VOICE TIP: No matter how you choose to execute your story - be confident in your choice. You can tell by the writing style and choices, when a writer isn't sure of the way they're writing their story.
The writing here, while not necessarily my thing - is written with a distinct confidence. That confidence shines through in his voice.
PRODUCTION:
I can see this being made. As it is. Without goals, stakes or urgency.
It'll probably attract good talent to the title role.
A-listers love a challenge. They love making a film that breaks the rules. They love playing 'character pieces' - which this film attempts to be.
You know why they love doing that? Because no matter if the film makes money or not - they get paid.
Plus they get to do something that can be seen as 'real acting'. Something that all good actors covet.
I doubt this film would make any real money. If the budget was kept below 5 million - which is totally possible - it would make its money back - not much more.
But who would play Isha? How many big name 80 year old female actresses are there out there that look Inuit?
I guess Ben Kingsley played Ghandi, so why couldn't Streep play the lead here? Ah, the magic of cinema.
I wouldn't put money into this.
SUMMARY:
Great core concept poorly executed.
OVERALL RATING: 6/10
Sunday, 6 March 2016
LAbyrinth - TRUE CRIME - BIGGIE/TUPAC
LOGLINE: Based on the book LAbyrinth by Randall Sullivan. The story of the investigation into the murders of Tupac Shakur and Notorious BIG.
WRITER: Christian Contreras
SCRIPT BIO: 10 votes on the 2015 black list.
STORY:
This story starts off with SULLIVAN - a 45 year old Emmy winning TV producer. Problem is, that Emmy that he's pinned his entire career on was for a documentary about the killing of Biggie and Tupac - a documentary that has since been discredited to the point where ABC are about to issue a formal retraction of it.
Sullivan's career is about to be washed away. He's also self-centred and arrogant.
He learns that ABC are making a 20 year anniversary program into the deaths of Biggie and Tupac - but he's not attached to it.
He's told by his bosses that if he can dig up new information on the rappers' deaths he can HAVE an entire program - which would re-boot his failing career.
Enter Detective POOLE - the man assigned to the murders of Tupac and Biggie back in the 90s.
Poole has quit the force and now lives in a trailer in the middle of nowhere surrounded by hundreds of photos and pieces of evidence of the rappers' killings.
His entire life has become the murders - and it's taking its toll.
Sullivan goes to Poole in search of answers - but Poole despises Sullivan - as he was made to look like a bigot cop in Sullivan's Emmy winning documentary, but Poole wants the public to remember who shot Biggie and Tupac - so he begrudgingly helps Sullivan.
What follows is Poole's recount of the investigation into Biggie and Tupac...
INITIAL REACTION:
The subject matter is something that I'm extremely interested in. And given the success of Straight Out Of Compton, I'm sure that there is still a wide general interest in this story.
The execution here doesn't feel like it does the subject matter justice. It feels like the storyline as been dramatised TOO MUCH. It doesn't feel real - especially for a REAL LIFE CRIME investigation.
Poole and Sullivan's interaction feels like a buddy cop movie - where two cops are forced to work together - at first they hate each other - but over time they learn respect for each other.
CONCEPT:
The concept is good. There's definitely an audience for this. I'm not sure if this will kill it at the cinemas - but I've got a feeling it will do really well on VOD.
It reads more like a home movie - rather than a cinema movie.
The story here is essentially about corruption in the LAPD - a valid story that deserves to be told.
CONCEPT RATING: 7/10
CONCEPT TIP: Biopics are becoming all the rage these days. But just because a story is TRUE doesn't necessarily mean it'll make a great film. Take NYAD for example - that story really didn't need to be told. When choosing your subject matter for a true story - consider how important it is that the story be told - and if there is a potential audience for it.
FORM:
Form was okay here. Not great, but not bad. I guess you could say it walked the line. The read in general was a little confusing.
Bold - was used often - but it actually helped in this screenplay. The writing was a little dense. It came in at 118 pages - could have been parred back to 108 pages easily.
FORM RATING: 6/10
FORM TIP: Do the 10% pass. When you're done with your screenplay and ready to send it out - do a pass and aim to cut 10% of the words.
You can leave the page count as it is - just get rid of those unnecessary, clunky words that slow the read down. It'll make for a leaner read and only help your script.
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE:
Characters were okay here. Sullivan and Poole were different enough people who really disliked each other. The problem here is that - even though they are REAL PEOPLE - they came across as written. They feel like caricatures of their original selves.
I think that has a lot to do with...
DIALOGUE...
The dialogue here wasn't as good as it could be. There were times when a beat had been established, then we have a character repeating that beat almost word for word in the next scene.
A lot of the dialogue didn't sound like people talking - it sounded like a writer writing.
CHARACTER & DIALOGUE RATING: 6/10
TIP: Do a read out loud pass. Read your dialogue out loud and record it into your computer - then play that recording back to yourself. You don't need to be a great actor - just read it as you imagine an actor would read it - then when you play it back to yourself, listen to see if it sounds like the way people really speak or not.
VOICE:
Not a super strong voice here. I was constantly aware I was reading something ONE writer had written. I never lost myself in the story and felt like these were real characters having a real experience.
VOICE RATING: 5/10
VOICE TIP: The stronger your characters and their dialogue the stronger your voice will come across. Dialogue is such an incredibly important part of a script - if you're lacking in this department it will affect your voice and the overall script in a huge way.
PRODUCTION:
I'm not sure I'd put money into this. It doesn't have the same hook that Straight Outta Compton has. This is really just a true crime detective mystery into the deaths of two famous rappers.
Straight Outta Compton - was the story of one of Hip Hops biggest super groups - NWA.
I think, if well done, this film would break even - meaning everyone involved got paid and the investors likely get their money back - but there's not going to be a huge profit on this one.
It'd be a minimum of $20 mill to get this made. A lot of that would go in music licensing - you can't make a movie about Biggie and Tupac without having their music in it.
SUMMARY:
A good relevant concept that doesn't quite reach the bar it's aiming for in its execution.
But still an interesting read and will make a good film.
OVERALL RATING: 6.5/10
WRITER: Christian Contreras
SCRIPT BIO: 10 votes on the 2015 black list.
STORY:
This story starts off with SULLIVAN - a 45 year old Emmy winning TV producer. Problem is, that Emmy that he's pinned his entire career on was for a documentary about the killing of Biggie and Tupac - a documentary that has since been discredited to the point where ABC are about to issue a formal retraction of it.
Sullivan's career is about to be washed away. He's also self-centred and arrogant.
He learns that ABC are making a 20 year anniversary program into the deaths of Biggie and Tupac - but he's not attached to it.
He's told by his bosses that if he can dig up new information on the rappers' deaths he can HAVE an entire program - which would re-boot his failing career.
Enter Detective POOLE - the man assigned to the murders of Tupac and Biggie back in the 90s.
Poole has quit the force and now lives in a trailer in the middle of nowhere surrounded by hundreds of photos and pieces of evidence of the rappers' killings.
His entire life has become the murders - and it's taking its toll.
Sullivan goes to Poole in search of answers - but Poole despises Sullivan - as he was made to look like a bigot cop in Sullivan's Emmy winning documentary, but Poole wants the public to remember who shot Biggie and Tupac - so he begrudgingly helps Sullivan.
What follows is Poole's recount of the investigation into Biggie and Tupac...
INITIAL REACTION:
The subject matter is something that I'm extremely interested in. And given the success of Straight Out Of Compton, I'm sure that there is still a wide general interest in this story.
The execution here doesn't feel like it does the subject matter justice. It feels like the storyline as been dramatised TOO MUCH. It doesn't feel real - especially for a REAL LIFE CRIME investigation.
Poole and Sullivan's interaction feels like a buddy cop movie - where two cops are forced to work together - at first they hate each other - but over time they learn respect for each other.
CONCEPT:
The concept is good. There's definitely an audience for this. I'm not sure if this will kill it at the cinemas - but I've got a feeling it will do really well on VOD.
It reads more like a home movie - rather than a cinema movie.
The story here is essentially about corruption in the LAPD - a valid story that deserves to be told.
CONCEPT RATING: 7/10
CONCEPT TIP: Biopics are becoming all the rage these days. But just because a story is TRUE doesn't necessarily mean it'll make a great film. Take NYAD for example - that story really didn't need to be told. When choosing your subject matter for a true story - consider how important it is that the story be told - and if there is a potential audience for it.
FORM:
Form was okay here. Not great, but not bad. I guess you could say it walked the line. The read in general was a little confusing.
Bold - was used often - but it actually helped in this screenplay. The writing was a little dense. It came in at 118 pages - could have been parred back to 108 pages easily.
FORM RATING: 6/10
FORM TIP: Do the 10% pass. When you're done with your screenplay and ready to send it out - do a pass and aim to cut 10% of the words.
You can leave the page count as it is - just get rid of those unnecessary, clunky words that slow the read down. It'll make for a leaner read and only help your script.
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE:
Characters were okay here. Sullivan and Poole were different enough people who really disliked each other. The problem here is that - even though they are REAL PEOPLE - they came across as written. They feel like caricatures of their original selves.
I think that has a lot to do with...
DIALOGUE...
The dialogue here wasn't as good as it could be. There were times when a beat had been established, then we have a character repeating that beat almost word for word in the next scene.
A lot of the dialogue didn't sound like people talking - it sounded like a writer writing.
CHARACTER & DIALOGUE RATING: 6/10
TIP: Do a read out loud pass. Read your dialogue out loud and record it into your computer - then play that recording back to yourself. You don't need to be a great actor - just read it as you imagine an actor would read it - then when you play it back to yourself, listen to see if it sounds like the way people really speak or not.
VOICE:
Not a super strong voice here. I was constantly aware I was reading something ONE writer had written. I never lost myself in the story and felt like these were real characters having a real experience.
VOICE RATING: 5/10
VOICE TIP: The stronger your characters and their dialogue the stronger your voice will come across. Dialogue is such an incredibly important part of a script - if you're lacking in this department it will affect your voice and the overall script in a huge way.
PRODUCTION:
I'm not sure I'd put money into this. It doesn't have the same hook that Straight Outta Compton has. This is really just a true crime detective mystery into the deaths of two famous rappers.
Straight Outta Compton - was the story of one of Hip Hops biggest super groups - NWA.
I think, if well done, this film would break even - meaning everyone involved got paid and the investors likely get their money back - but there's not going to be a huge profit on this one.
It'd be a minimum of $20 mill to get this made. A lot of that would go in music licensing - you can't make a movie about Biggie and Tupac without having their music in it.
SUMMARY:
A good relevant concept that doesn't quite reach the bar it's aiming for in its execution.
But still an interesting read and will make a good film.
OVERALL RATING: 6.5/10
Wednesday, 2 March 2016
IT FOLLOWS - HORROR - SCRIPT & FILM
LOGLINE: A young lady is infected with a sexually transmitted curse that leaves the victim 'followed' by a demon intent on killing them.
WRITER/DIRECTOR: DAVID ROBERT MITCHELL
SCRIPT/FILM BIO: Simply the best horror film made in recent years.
STORY:
JAY is your regular 19 year old girl still living at home with her mom and sister. She's interested in boys, mulling over quaint existential problems, and considering studying far, far away.
The evening we meet her, she has a date with a strapping young man called HUGH. Long story short... they have 'the sex' - then afterwards Hugh knocks Jay out with chloroform.
As you do.
Jay wakes in an abandoned building, tied to a chair.
This is were It Follows proves it's a cut above the mediocre rest.
In any regular horror film - Hugh would be an evil guy, hell bent on doing some awful things to Jay - but no - he explains what's happening...
You see, Hugh has infected Jay with a sexually transmitted curse. He explains that 'IT' will follow you to the end of the earth until 'IT' gets you.
IT is a demon that can take any human form. Often resembling family or friends so it can get close to you.
All IT has to do is touch you and you will die.
That all sounds kinda loopy - UNTIL - Hugh shows Jay an older naked woman slowly walking toward them.
IT is very slow - but it's not stupid. Hugh explains.
Jay is still freaked the fuck out by all this - and of course it doesn't make sense....
... until it does. Until Jay realises that Hugh was not lying.
IT really exists, and it's coming for her!
I'll leave the story there. This is such a solid film - I don't want to give anything more away.
INITIAL REACTION:
This is an interesting one.
This will be a deconstruction of both the film and the script.
The film was exceptional. The main reason it worked so well, is its subtly. The concept is genius as well. But the idea in the hands of a lesser director would have left us with a tropey cliche horror film.
Instead we are gifted a horror film that genuinely chills.
The lighting in the film is exceptional as well. It Follows is so well lit, it looks like they only used practical lights - (lights that are already in the location). Soooooo often horror films are filmed on brightly 'LIT' sets. That takes all the reality out of it. When you're AWARE you're watching a film - it detracts from the illusion.
The acting is subtle. The dialogue is simple - every day stuff - which again, only adds to the sense of reality in this film. Very often you have over-written dialogue scenes in films that would never occur in real life that detract from the sense of reality which in turns ruins the illusion.
Now - as far as the script goes - this is a slightly different story... let's get into the break down...
CONCEPT:
One of the best concepts I've heard in years.
"Sexually transmitted curse."
You know you have a killer idea when you can sum it up succinctly in three words.
That idea explodes off the page - you can immediately imagine a dozen different executions of that concept - all being awesome.
CONCEPT RATING: 10/10
CONCEPT TIP: Simple ideas often make for great films. Convoluted concepts don't work. If you find yourself struggling to distill your core idea into less than 10 words - odds are your idea is too complex for a film.
FORM:
This script was densely written. BUT, when you're writing to direct yourself - the rules change.
It's okay to write too much as you're essentially making notes for yourself as you go. You do need to make sure the script is readable by third parties - but you have more leeway than if you were writing a regular spec.
The writing here, while dense, is textured, layered, and cleanly written.
FORM RATING: 8/10
FORM TIP: As I was reading this script I imagined the extremely parred down version - and I don't think it would have worked. The over-writing here actually helped to create the world, to make it feel real, lived in etc. So to that end - over-writing can work in the right circumstance. I wouldn't advise over-writing - but it's important to find that balance between parred back, lean writing and writing that has layers and texture.
STRUCTURE:
Structure was good and bad here. The one problem with It Follows is that it has an open ended goal. The Demon is going to continually keep coming after you - NO MATTER WHAT.
Now that works incredibly well for the form of horror. It becomes a truly insidious form for terror. No matter where you go, or what you do, one day, IT will be there.
But what that does is it means there's no closed ended 'goal' to achieve. Which means Jay is constantly running from the problem - rather than trying to proactively attack the problem.
There's only so long we can watch or read about someone running from something. They eventually need to take a stand and attack it.
I won't get into too much more detail about structure so I don't spoil the story.
Suffice to say - despite the open ended goal - this film still works really well.
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE:
One of the main reasons this film and script work sooooo damn well is because of how understated the dialogue and characters are.
As I mentioned in my initial reaction - the more grounded in reality your characters and dialogue the more real your film will feel. When you're writing/directing horror the more real you can make it feel - the more terrifying it will be.
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE RATING: 9/10
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE TIP: When writing your characters and their dialogue - go for subtle but unique. Keep the dialogue simple, clean and clear, but don't use that as an excuse to write DULL dialogue. Likewise with your characters - keep them grounded in reality - but don't let that be an excuse to not develop their unique personalities.
VOICE:
Voice is WHY this film is successful. David has such a unique storytelling voice you can't help but watch. His writing is not as good as his directing - but it's still very intelligent.
VOICE RATING: FILM 10/10 SCRIPT 7/10
VOICE TIP: A lot of film makers are doing it for the cheap buck. Be the writer/director that stands out by thinking through every aspect of your story and making INTELLIGENT decisions. How many times have you watched a film and thought 'Come on, that's weak writing' - don't be that person.
If you're serious about your work and are trying your best to make intelligent decisions, it will come through in your voice.
PRODUCTION:
Killed it on the festival circuit.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3235888/awards
Made $14mill at the box office. with a production budget of $2m.
SUMMARY:
Great script that became an even better horror film.
OVER ALL RATING: SCRIPT 7/10 - FILM 9/10
WRITER/DIRECTOR: DAVID ROBERT MITCHELL
SCRIPT/FILM BIO: Simply the best horror film made in recent years.
STORY:
JAY is your regular 19 year old girl still living at home with her mom and sister. She's interested in boys, mulling over quaint existential problems, and considering studying far, far away.
The evening we meet her, she has a date with a strapping young man called HUGH. Long story short... they have 'the sex' - then afterwards Hugh knocks Jay out with chloroform.
As you do.
Jay wakes in an abandoned building, tied to a chair.
This is were It Follows proves it's a cut above the mediocre rest.
In any regular horror film - Hugh would be an evil guy, hell bent on doing some awful things to Jay - but no - he explains what's happening...
You see, Hugh has infected Jay with a sexually transmitted curse. He explains that 'IT' will follow you to the end of the earth until 'IT' gets you.
IT is a demon that can take any human form. Often resembling family or friends so it can get close to you.
All IT has to do is touch you and you will die.
That all sounds kinda loopy - UNTIL - Hugh shows Jay an older naked woman slowly walking toward them.
IT is very slow - but it's not stupid. Hugh explains.
Jay is still freaked the fuck out by all this - and of course it doesn't make sense....
... until it does. Until Jay realises that Hugh was not lying.
IT really exists, and it's coming for her!
I'll leave the story there. This is such a solid film - I don't want to give anything more away.
INITIAL REACTION:
This is an interesting one.
This will be a deconstruction of both the film and the script.
The film was exceptional. The main reason it worked so well, is its subtly. The concept is genius as well. But the idea in the hands of a lesser director would have left us with a tropey cliche horror film.
Instead we are gifted a horror film that genuinely chills.
The lighting in the film is exceptional as well. It Follows is so well lit, it looks like they only used practical lights - (lights that are already in the location). Soooooo often horror films are filmed on brightly 'LIT' sets. That takes all the reality out of it. When you're AWARE you're watching a film - it detracts from the illusion.
The acting is subtle. The dialogue is simple - every day stuff - which again, only adds to the sense of reality in this film. Very often you have over-written dialogue scenes in films that would never occur in real life that detract from the sense of reality which in turns ruins the illusion.
Now - as far as the script goes - this is a slightly different story... let's get into the break down...
CONCEPT:
One of the best concepts I've heard in years.
"Sexually transmitted curse."
You know you have a killer idea when you can sum it up succinctly in three words.
That idea explodes off the page - you can immediately imagine a dozen different executions of that concept - all being awesome.
CONCEPT RATING: 10/10
CONCEPT TIP: Simple ideas often make for great films. Convoluted concepts don't work. If you find yourself struggling to distill your core idea into less than 10 words - odds are your idea is too complex for a film.
FORM:
This script was densely written. BUT, when you're writing to direct yourself - the rules change.
It's okay to write too much as you're essentially making notes for yourself as you go. You do need to make sure the script is readable by third parties - but you have more leeway than if you were writing a regular spec.
The writing here, while dense, is textured, layered, and cleanly written.
FORM RATING: 8/10
FORM TIP: As I was reading this script I imagined the extremely parred down version - and I don't think it would have worked. The over-writing here actually helped to create the world, to make it feel real, lived in etc. So to that end - over-writing can work in the right circumstance. I wouldn't advise over-writing - but it's important to find that balance between parred back, lean writing and writing that has layers and texture.
STRUCTURE:
Structure was good and bad here. The one problem with It Follows is that it has an open ended goal. The Demon is going to continually keep coming after you - NO MATTER WHAT.
Now that works incredibly well for the form of horror. It becomes a truly insidious form for terror. No matter where you go, or what you do, one day, IT will be there.
But what that does is it means there's no closed ended 'goal' to achieve. Which means Jay is constantly running from the problem - rather than trying to proactively attack the problem.
There's only so long we can watch or read about someone running from something. They eventually need to take a stand and attack it.
I won't get into too much more detail about structure so I don't spoil the story.
Suffice to say - despite the open ended goal - this film still works really well.
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE:
One of the main reasons this film and script work sooooo damn well is because of how understated the dialogue and characters are.
As I mentioned in my initial reaction - the more grounded in reality your characters and dialogue the more real your film will feel. When you're writing/directing horror the more real you can make it feel - the more terrifying it will be.
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE RATING: 9/10
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE TIP: When writing your characters and their dialogue - go for subtle but unique. Keep the dialogue simple, clean and clear, but don't use that as an excuse to write DULL dialogue. Likewise with your characters - keep them grounded in reality - but don't let that be an excuse to not develop their unique personalities.
VOICE:
Voice is WHY this film is successful. David has such a unique storytelling voice you can't help but watch. His writing is not as good as his directing - but it's still very intelligent.
VOICE RATING: FILM 10/10 SCRIPT 7/10
VOICE TIP: A lot of film makers are doing it for the cheap buck. Be the writer/director that stands out by thinking through every aspect of your story and making INTELLIGENT decisions. How many times have you watched a film and thought 'Come on, that's weak writing' - don't be that person.
If you're serious about your work and are trying your best to make intelligent decisions, it will come through in your voice.
PRODUCTION:
Killed it on the festival circuit.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3235888/awards
Made $14mill at the box office. with a production budget of $2m.
SUMMARY:
Great script that became an even better horror film.
OVER ALL RATING: SCRIPT 7/10 - FILM 9/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)