LOGLINE: When parents reunite with their grown children for a road trip to hike the Grand Canyon, the family conflicts on the way prove far more gruelling than the twenty mile hike.
WRITER: Alex Koplow
SCRIPT BIO: 6 votes on the 2015 black list.
STORY:
ERIC DAVIDSON is a 30 year old illustrator. He's a talented artist. Presently he works for the biggest children's wildlife animation on TV called Foxfield Forrest.
Alas, Eric is not an illustrator on the show, in fact, 6 years ago he started with the TV program as an intern, and now he's just been made head of online media marketing - something he really doesn't want to do.
That afternoon - Eric has a meltdown - he starts tweeting malicious posts from the official Foxfield Forrest twitter account - and he's soon fired.
6 weeks later Eric is still unemployed, supposedly suffering from artists' block. He's drawing some fantastic illustrations, he's just not putting himself out there. Also he's a hypochondriac. He constantly searches the internet for the symptoms of rare diseases in the hope that he has one.
Eric lives with his long term girlfriend - Amy. She's also in her 30s - but Amy is the antithesis of Eric. She has her life together. She's a lawyer earning top-dollar. She's constantly urging Eric to put his art out there, but Eric just isn't ready for rejection.
Eric and Amy are soon to be married.
Eric purposefully ignores his parents - MARY and DONALD. Despite having a family trek planned together. They're going to do the Grand Canyon trek as a one day walk - something that park officials specifically advise against. The trek should be done in at least 2 days as it is a 20 mile round journey.
Eric and Amy join Mary, Donald and Eric's sister - Tessa and her fiancé Kevin - and set off on the road together heading toward the Grand Canyon.
A day into the trip, Mark discovers that her husband - Donald - has been having an affair.
Any normal family would abort the trip and deal with this problem - but no - they decide to continue on and do the trip - which is just odd.
From here on there is a serious amount of tension between everyone on the trip.
The 'family' go and stay with an Aunt - here they spend several pages just talking about life.
Then they go to the Grand Canyon and set off. Well, Donald, Tessa, Eric and Kevin do. Amy and Mary stay behind.
During the hike, Donald sprains his ankle - and Eric has to rush off to get help for him. Which he does.
Meanwhile - Amy and Mary have been engaged in deep philosophical chats about relationships which gets Amy thinking, shakes up her thoughts on marrying Eric.
Eric and Mary manage to get Donald out of the Grand Canyon and to a hospital where he's fine.
And that's about it.
INITIAL REACTION:
There is a lot of good in this script - but there is more bad than good.
This is in the vein of Little Miss Sunshine - but where LMS had exceptionally well drawn characters, this has mediocre characters. Where LMS had incredible dialogue, this has okay dialogue. Where LMS had a goal and some sort of stakes - there is no real goal here - not one that actually matters.
This script is a straight forward family drama. Its main problem is that nothing really happens. Sure there's bickering between family members, but that's not enough to drive a story.
If the main engine of your story is 'squabbling family' your story is in trouble from the start.
CONCEPT:
Mildly dysfunctional family goes on family trip to grand Canyon but it's discovered the father was cheating.
That's it. That's the concept right there.
This is not something that screams out to be made into a film. This is not a concept that when people hear about it - will make them rush to the cinemas to see.
CONCEPT RATING: 1/10
CONCEPT TIP:
Don't write a family drama. If you're starting out as a screen writer - this is the hardest genre to excel in.
Family dramas haven't made money in a very long time. Look at the movies that are making money at the box office - how many family dramas have you seen in the last ten years? Less than 2? How many actually made money?
I can't even recall a straight forward family drama that made money since American Beauty. But even in American Beauty there's a murder. There's something for us to hang our hats on. Here, in Canyon, we have a sprained ankle. In American Beauty - we learn in the opening scene that a murder will take place. Here in Canyon, we have to wait until page 80 for an unlikeable character to sprain his ankle.
Seriously?
FORM:
Form isn't too bad here. The writing isn't as smooth as it could be. It took me about 10 pages to get into the writer's 'style'.
It's also written more as TV than as a film. TV scripts are 90 dialogue. This script is about that.
Otherwise this script is well formatted. Locations are easy to follow, there's no use of underlining, bold, or italics.
It comes in at 109 pages - but could easily come in at 90 pages.
FORM RATING: 6/10
FORM TIP: Keep your scenes lean. In this script there were a lot of scenes where information we'd learned in the previous scene was explained to a new character in the next scene. Never do this. Never have one character explain to another what the audience already knows.
STRUCTURE:
Structure here is waaaaay off.
Eric's main flaw is that he doesn't want to put himself out there. How does going on a trip to the Grand Canyon test that flaw? The answer is - it doesn't.
If he was really against the trip and really didn't want to go - then by being forced to go on the journey it awakens something within him - and when he gets back from the trip he is motivated and focused to put himself out there - then yes - it could have worked. But that's not what happens. In fact Eric doesn't change throughout the script. The person that changes is Amy.
This is a major problem with this script - who's story is it? We start with Eric - we spend most of our time with Eric - but the three characters that experience change are Donald, Amy and Mary.
There is no inciting incident.
It is discovered on page 35 that Donald has been cheating on Mary.
This needed to happen on page 12 by the latest. But it's still not an inciting incident.
Inciting indents TEST THE HERO'S FLAW. This does not test Eric's flaw. If indeed this is Eric's film?
That's another major problem with this script. Ultimately, this story is either Mary's or Amy's not Eric's.
They are the two people in this film that are affected by the events the most.
I think, this could be a really interesting script if we'd spent our entire time with Mary, if the film has been told from her POV. She is the person that the inciting incident happens to. It is her world that is shaken up. Not Eric's.
Also, Empathy is a problem in this script.
At no point do we like Eric. There's no real active empathy for him. We feel more for Mary than we do for Eric.
There's a small amount of passive empathy for Eric at the start - in that - he doesn't get the promotion he wants - but Eric, I'm sorry buddy - that's just called life - and what you don't do is throw a hissy fit and start tweeting really inappropriate things to 100's of thousands of kids.
I think the writer thought this was going to be edgy - it's not - it's negative empathy. I don't like people who throw tantrums, I like people who are proactive about changing their lives.
STRUCTURE RATING: 1/10
STRUCTURE TIP: This is often a problem with ensemble films - the writer doesn't know whose story it should be. If you have a multi-protagonist script under way - and you're having trouble with it - stop and ask yourself - honestly - who's story is it?
Often when we start a script he have a main character in mind - but as we write, the story evolves in a different direction - and smaller characters become more prominent. Ask yourself - if your script would be better told from one of the other character's POV's.
This script would be much better served if it were Mary's story.
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE:
Characters and dialogue were okay here. But when you're writing a story that basically doesn't actually have a story - you need to make sure your characters and dialogue are 11/10's.
Here, they are not.
Ever character has exactly the same voice.
Almost.
Mary seems to have the most distinct voice and personality - another reason to make this her film.
And as far as other characters go - they're all tropes --
The father who wants the son to follow in his footsteps - never seen that character before.
The tension in the relationship because one is financially better off than the other - never seen that before.
The father who was cheating on the mom - never seen that before.
The other sibling who has the perfect relationship - never seen that before.
The family vacation where something happens and the family is forced to examine itself - never seen that before.
Sigh.
Every choice here was the first choice. Every choice here was a trope we've seen countless times before.
Even Eric's morbid fascination with hypochondria feels forced - like the writer was trying to add something quirky to his character.
Eric's obsession with illnesses did not arise naturally from the storyline - it was hammed in by the writer to give him a sense of depth I guess - but it doesn't feel real.
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE RATING: 5/10
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE TIP: Don't go the obvious route. This is another reason why Little Miss Sunshine worked. It had characters we had never seen before. I had never seen a teenage mute before. I had never seen a 5 year old beauty queen. The grand father was unique - even the mother - the father - all the decisions were well thought through. Here, they are all obvious and dull.
VOICE:
The writing is clean and the dialogue, while dull, seems to pull you along.
The one thing this scripts has going for it, is that it forces you to examine yourself, forces you to ask the questions it raises about yourself, which is why I think it made it to the black list.
The voice here is okay - it doesn't stand out as some do, but it's memorable to a certain degree.
VOICE RATING: 6.5/10
VOICE TIP: For the first 50 pages there were no spelling or grammatical errors. This instilled a confidence in the writer for me. But then after page 50 there were about 10 mistakes. Which distracted from the way I thought about this writer.
To this end, it is worthwhile getting a professional to proof read your script. The less errors you have the stronger your writing will come across.
PRODUCTION:
The only way this script could get anywhere is if it has exceptional cast attached. We're talking a-grade players - and not just the names - but the names that can really act.
Short of that and you have a really dull family drama that goes nowhere.
I would never put money into this.
There's no chance it will make any money back.
The only up side to this script's production is that it is a pure drama through and through. There are no VFX - there are no stunts - there's no need for sets. It would be a very easy shoot.
While I think about it, I must bring up the film and script BUTTER.
Butter was an exceptionally well written comedy/drama. It had exceptional cast.
Google how much money that film made at boxofficemojo.com
That script was ten times as good as this script.
SUMMARY:
A non-starter concept told from the wrong POV.
OVERALL RATING: 3/10
LOGLINE: An elderly woman who hacks out a rough existence on a remote island is forced to help her dimwitted neighbor rescue her daughter whose ex has kidnapped her and escaped into the woods.
WRITER: Maggie McGowan Cohn
SCRIPT BIO: 8 votes on the 2015 black list
STORY:
We're told at the start of the script that Lou is 'elderly' - so I'm going to assume that she's over 70 years of age.
Lou is not your typical old lady. She's a former trained assassin - used to work for the CIA. We don't know that up front but we soon figure it out.
The opening scene is Lou out in the woods - hunting deer.
She's a keen marksman with a rifle and even better with a blade.
After killing her breakfast - she stops off in town to buy provisions. There's a storm coming and being that Lou lives on an island off the coast of Washington - when a storm comes it usually means power outages and flooding and a whole assortment of storm associated damages...
Oh, I almost forgot - this tale is set in the eighties.
We soon meet Hannah - a down on her luck single mum who lives in a 'trailer' on Lou's property. Hannah is living out here in the middle of nowhere on an island for two reasons - 1) The rent is so damn cheap. 2) She's in hiding from her ex-husband the father of her 5 year old child - Vee.
Her ex - Phillip - is described as a 'monster' of the worst kind.
Life has gotten a little easier for Hannah of late as she learned recently that Phillip died in prison.
Which is odd - when right in the middle of the storm that night - Phillip shows up at her trailer and kidnaps Vee.
At the same time - Lou is in her home fixing to shoot herself in the head. She's fed up with life and figures this is as good a time as any to end it.
Right when she's about to pull the trigger - Hannah comes banging on her door, screaming that Phillip is alive and that he's kidnapped Vee.
Lou, being the ex CIA assassin that she is, decides that she'll do one last act of valour before ending her time on this earth, and decides to help Hannah track down her daughter.
A quick investigation of Hannah's trailer reveals a brightly colored plastic egg, with a piece of paper within - upon which is written some longitude and latitude co-ordinates.
Either Phillip is the world's worst kidnapper - or he wants Hannah to come and find him?
Either way, Lou and Hannah tool up - (get guns and knives) from Lou's personal collection then set off into the woods to rescue Vee.
The local police soon get wind of what's happened, they report it to the mainland and the world's worst FBI agent is sent out to the island to investigate.
The question becomes - Why did Phillip leave co-ordinates for Hannah to find him, and what's really going on out there in the wilderness - oh, yeah, and will Vee live through this safely?
INITIAL REACTION:
This was a highly enjoyable script.
It's not perfect by a long way - but it's better than a lot of scripts I've read recently.
I wasn't sure at first if it was a comedy or not. And I guess, that's the most important thing to talk about today.
TONE -- be sure that you nail your script's tone from the very first scene.
If you want to see how UNCERTAIN-TONE can RUIN your film - watch TOWER HEIST.
That film has no idea what it wants to be. It says it's a comedy, but really - it's a dark drama with elements of comedy thrown in at inopportune moments.
The opening scene of Lou - while entertaining - doesn't setup that this is a comedy.
It's Lou out hunting. She shoots a deer and scares a couple of old people out for a nature walk.
I guess that could be funny - if executed in a different way, but the way it is doesn't firmly say to the audience, this film is a comedy. From that opening scene I thought it was a setup for a thriller.
The second main problem with this script is the lack of POV consistency.
We start with Lou. The film is called Lou. So you'd think this film would be all about Lou. Presently, it's about 1/3 about Lou. The other 2/3rds are about all the other characters.
This script felt like Hannah was just as big a player as Lou.
Phillip, the police and FBI had their characters developed to the point of being major players.
So, to that end, the film became ENSEMBLE.
The one problem with writing ensemble feature films is - 99% of the time they don't make money. In fact, 99% of the time they're a critical failure also.
Why? Because when a film is ensemble, and we don't spend at least 90% of our time with one main character, the vicarious element of the film experience is lost.
Why is this lost?
Because when you have multiple players in a feature film - odds are - only one (if your lucky) will have a flaw. The rest won't have a flaw.
That's not entirely the case here.
Lou and Hannah have flaws. Those flaws are developed throughout - but then you have at least half of the script with characters who don't have flaws - Phillip - the police - Hannah's best friend - her boy friend, the FBI.
This film would play better if we spent more time with Lou than all the other players.
Let's get into it...
CONCEPT:
The concept here is pretty damn good. Retired CIA assassin is roped into one last final mission - that's something we've all seen before - but we haven't seen it as a dark comedy.
If this film were a straight up thriller - I don't think it would have worked as well as it does.
This concept also has a very clear goal - Save Vee.
Films without a clear objective tend to wander.
If you've seen the film Trumbo or read the script - you'll know what I mean.
CONCEPT RATING: 8/10
CONCEPT TIP: The same but different - is what Hollywood wants. Go through all your ideas you have - and do the genre-switch-game with them.
Example - say you've written a story about a young person with cancer - but it didn't get any positive reads from anyone so you gave up on it. Get it out, dust it off, and change the genre.
Think how that same film would play if it were a comedy? How would it play as a Horror? As Sci-Fi? Imagine it as a musical? - Does your idea suddenly seem like it's the 'same but different'? If so - re-write it in that new style. You'll be surprised what happens.
FORM:
Form was near perfect here. You know how I know that? As I'm writing this, I can't think of one beat where I thought, 'oh, that's poorly formatted.'
Good execution is silent execution.
It's when you notice something - that it hasn't been executed well.
FORM RATING: 9/10
FORM TIP: Read this script - see how Maggie formats. How she writes. There's loads to be learned.
STRUCTURE:
Structure was so-so here.
There's a clear ordinary world. Then there's a clear inciting incident which leads us to the end of act 1.
Most writers can nail act one.
It's act 2 where the stumbling begins. And it happened here.
In a well structured screenplay - act two won't feel drawn out or sluggish. Why? Because when certain beats are hit through those middle 50 pages - the story flies by.
But when you don't have a clear structure through this middle 50 pages - that's when the story starts to lag - as it does here.
STRUCTURE RATING: 6/10
STRUCTURE TIP: Having a comprehensive understanding of the Hero's Journey is the best remedy for the act 2 lag. It's always very clear when a writer understands the hero's journey and when they don't.
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE:
Character's are well developed - to a certain degree. As I mentioned earlier - only Lou and Hannah seem to have flaws.
I have to commend Maggie on how well those flaws are written.
Going back to the - good execution is silent execution - principle - I had to stop and think for a beat deciding if Lou and Hannah had flaws. When I thought on it - yes - they do. But it was good that it wasn't OBVIOUS.
A lot of screenwriters starting out will learn the major principles of screenwriting, then execute them OVERTLY - anyone can do that. The real skill in screenwriting is being able to write subtly.
To be able to write in a way where you execute all the key elements of a screenplay - but you do so in a fashion that it all seems neatly wound together in the story - we don't notice the individual elements.
Dialogue here wasn't as good as it could be. All the characters had a very similar style of speaking. Which is a shame, as some stories lend themselves to a more diverse array of characters than other films.
This is one film where you have characters from all walks of life coming together - yet they all speak in the same way.
In fact, this is the most common re-occuring problem with dialogue.
Almost every script I've reviewed this year has suffered from - same-voice-itis - where the writer has each character talking about different things - in the same style of voice.
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE RATING: 7/10
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE TIP: If you're writing an ensemble film - please, please, please, make sure EVERY character has an arc. Or at least 4 out of 6 of the characters.
And for Dialogue: Once you have your holding dialogue down - when you're happy with WHAT each character is saying - go through and create unique syntax for each of your characters. Create a unique way for them to speak. It's tough - but doable - and when you achieve it - your characters and your VOICE will stand out for it.
VOICE:
Voice was okay here. Didn't explode off the page - but the sum of all the elements that went into making this screenplay work together as a whole.
The strongest element of this writer's voice is her understated humor. While I commend her on that - as with a lot of strengths - this strength is also a weakness of sorts.
This script wasn't over the top funny - it was subtle humor all the way through - which I enjoyed - but it took 30 pages to realise this was a dramedy - (drama-comedy) not a thriller with humorous elements.
You need to be clear what your genre, and hence, your tone is from the start.
VOICE RATING: 6/10
VOICE TIP: Nail your genre from page one. Don't allow any room for misinterpretation. The clearer your style and tone, the clearer your voice.
PRODUCTION:
I can see this film making money.
Well executed comedy's make money in America. They don't travel so well - meaning they don't make much money in other countries.
I would put money into this if the POV and the TONE were sorted out.
Depending on who carries this film - who the lead it - this film could be made for less than 5 million. If that were the case - it would almost certainly make money.
SUMMARY:
Great concept - executed well. Could be better - but even as it stands, this is a strong script.
OVERALL RATING: 7.5/10
LOGLINE: Ida Tarbell’s magazine series “The History of the Standard Oil Company,” not only changed the history of journalism but also the fate of Rockefeller’s empire, which was shaken by the powerful pen of its most implacable observer.
WRITER: Mark McDevitt
SCRIPT BIO: 8 votes on the 2015 black list.
STORY:
We first meet IDA when she's a kid. Her two brothers are terrified of the local bully, but not Ida, she punches him in the nose and he runs away!
See, this opening scene is a metaphor for Ida's life. She's not afraid to stand up to bullies.
That opening scene is also very on the nose - as are a lot of scenes in this script.
Being the main problem with this script - it's very OTN (On The Nose) and very over written.
Cut to some 35 years later when Ida is now a 43 year old successful career woman.
The Year is 1901. Things aren't easy for women - especially in the world of journalism. Sure, there's women writing Dear Aunty columns but very few women are actually doing investigative journalism.
But Ida is cut from a different cloth - that's for sure.
She gets a job at an up-and-coming magazine that does mostly fluff pieces about easily digestible topics.
Here, Ida talks her boss into letting her investigate the richest man in America - J D Rockefeller.
She believes that he is guilty of illegal trading practices in the world of oil.
Ida teams up with a co-worker and together they begin investigating the behemoth that is JD Rockefeller.
Their investigation soon turns up many foul practices, but what's she's lacking is the evidence to support her main claim - that J D Rockefeller used mafia-like coercion tactics.
The question becomes, will she get the evidence needed to 'prove her claims' - or will J D crush her and magazine she writes for?
INITIAL REACTION:
There's a lot of good going on here. There's some good writing. But there's also a lot that needs fixing.
Firstly, as I mentioned - most scenes are VERY ON THE NOSE.
What does that even mean? It's when it's VERY OBVIOUS what YOU the WRITER are trying to get across in that scene.
Film making and story telling is about subtly.
Take acting for example. If an actor delivers their lines in a way that is over the top, we won't believe their performance, because in real life, people don't speak in exaggerated ways - we speak naturally depending on the context in which the words are being spoken.
The same goes for writing. If a scene is written in a way that is VERY OBVIOUS that the writer is trying to make a point - then that point and that whole scene will come across as over the top and un-real.
There were plenty of scenes throughout this script where the subtext was louder than the main text.
That's On The Nose scene writing.
Then we have almost every single scene starting waaaaaaay too early.
This is another major problem with this script. Every scene starts with a character getting to their location. It also starts with introductory dialogue - characters introducing each other - having a little chat, then getting into why they're here.
We don't need that.
Start late, finish early.
You should start every scene mid-way through. Preferably with the two (or three or four) characters already in disagreement.
As soon as you have established the REASON for that scene to be in the film - END THE SCENE IMMEDIATELY.
Keep scenes short. You should never write a scene that's over 5 pages long. Preferably keep them to 2-3 pages maximum, but allow yourself a couple of 5 pages scenes. When a scene is running over 5 pages long, odds are that scene is over written.
CONCEPT:
This film falls at the first hurdle. This is not a film that will make money at the box office. Why? This story isn't big enough. A female journalist at the turn of the century takes on JD Rockefeller.
This is not to speak against the story itself - it's s very valid and worthwhile story to be told - but the concept - purely from a monetary point of view - isn't big enough to compel people to see this at the cinema.
Another huge problem on the concept front is - what happens to JD Rockefeller as a result of the investigative journalism. (SPOILER*** - nothing happens to him.) He is never convicted of any crime - and the impact this journalist has on his empire is akin to an ant biting an elephant.
There's no pay-off to the set up of the concept.
CONCEPT RATING: 5/10
CONCEPT TIP: Do the movie test before you write a script. Ask yourself if you would pay money to go and see the film you're about to write. Be as objective as possible. Imagine a friend pitching the idea to you as if you've never heard it before. What would your initial reaction be?
Do the demographic test. Who would go and see your film. Be honest. Is your idea niche? Or is it main stream? It's fine to write niche - but know that doing so means you're going against the main stream.
Do the - already showing at the movies test - what are the ten top grossing films in the last month? How does your film fit into that profile?
FORM:
Form was okay. Fairly easy to read. It does use bold for its sluglines - which is a no-no.
It is also incredibly over written - it comes in at 121 pages - it could easily have been told in 90 pages and NO SCENE would have been cut.
FORM RATING: 6/10
FORM TIP: Learn to trim your scenes. When your screenplay comes in at 121 pages - that's just lazy writing. Think about the Start Late, Finish Early principle. Do you follow this or ignore it? The leaner your script - the faster your film will be. There won't be any of those long drawn out dull scenes.
STRUCTURE:
Structure was okay here. Except that Ida doesn't have a flaw. There's NOTHING holding her back from succeeding. To that end, I was always sure that she was going to succeed.
Everything she put her mind to she accomplished. When characters are TOO GOOD - the story becomes dull. Sure, she was up against some people who didn't like what she was doing, so she had EXTERNAL resistance - but there was NO INTERNAL resistance.
We engage with stories about people who have an internal issue that needs to be resolved. When a film has no inner journey - it's no longer a vicarious experience - it becomes spectacle. We're just watching stuff happen.
I watched Trumbo last night. While I enjoyed the film - it suffered from a bad case of lack of flaw. It also suffered from lack of conflict.
For the first half of the movie Trumbo doesn't have a flaw. He develops a flaw that starts to drive a wedge between him and his family - but that doesn't show up until after the midpoint of the film.
Interestingly - after the midpoint was when the film became interesting.
If your main character doesn't have an inner journey going on, odds are your film will suffer for it. As does Ida Tarbell.
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE:
Characters were okay. None of them popped off the page. Mainly because their dialogue was just good - it wasn't great.
All the characters sounded like they were spoken by the same person.
Here you have an array of very different types of people - so there's room for some great variances in the way they speak - but if you removed the NAME from the dialogue - there's no way you could tell who was speaking from the WAY they're speaking.
We don't learn anything about Ida's personal life. We only see her at work - working on this case. It seems like her life outside the job doesn't actually exist. To that end it leaves her not feeling as 3D as she could be.
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE RATING: 6/10
CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE TIP:
Ida's character would have popped way more if she had a flaw. If she had an inner journey. Rockefeller has a very clear flaw - but this isn't his story - it's Ida's. Ida's boss has a flaw - of sorts - he cheats on his wife - but that's not really explored. Ida's research buddy doesn't have a flaw.
Try to give each of your characters a flaw. especially your main character. Then use that flaw to write their inner journey.
VOICE:
Voice was okay - but again - it didn't pop. The over-writing and the OTN scenes were too much.
The lack of good form also detracted from the voice.
VOICE RATING: 6/10
VOICE TIP: I'm coming to realise that voice is a sum of all the parts of your script. If you're just okay at all the elements of a screenplay - odds are your voice will come across as 'just okay.'
If you excel across the board - odds are your voice will come across as more pronounced - your script will stay in the mind of the reader for days and hopefully weeks if not years to come.
PRODUCTION:
I would not put money into this.
It will not make money as it stands.
It is a powerful character piece that I can see will attract some A list talent.
If it does go into production it needs to fix the following --
1) Start Early Finish Late. Every scene needs to have this principle applied to it.
2) The OTN nature of the writing in each scene needs to be more subtle.
3) Ida needs a flaw. As do all the other characters.
4) We need to see more of Ida's personal life.
5) Conflict in every scene. Some scenes are conflict free - never have a scene where people are celebrating each other, or just plain agreeing with each other. It's dead screen time.
With those five main elements fixed this script will be on the way to becoming a decent script. As it stands it's lacking.
SUMMARY:
The concept is not strong enough to get bums on seats.
The execution - while good - is not good enough to prop up the weak concept.
OVERALL RATING 5.5/10
