Modest Film Blog

MacGruber review (Movie)

2010-05-25T14:08:00.000-07:00

7.1/10

For the longest time, SNL-inspired movies have led to a rise in heart attacks and gonorrhea. Sure, we can tip our hats to Wayne's World and possibly even Ladies Man (haha, just kidding), but 9 times out of 10, SNL movies are pure stinkers. So with such a long history of shit-storm scripts, it doesn't really make sense how this movie is any good, considering that it comes from a 30 second sketch that parodies MacGyver. Yet somehow Will Forte leading as a thick-haired and vest-wearin' MacGruber alongside his backing team, consisting of Kristen Wiig and Ryan Philippe, works on levels that are perplexing and often incredibly juvenile.

MacGruber is by no means a movie that deserves credit for being serious or even in good taste. It is the product of a childish mind with adult instincts, and thankfully, the grown-up side of the equation knows how to set a path of glory. The humor in the movie centers around absurdity and raunchiness, yet it doesn't stray into the utterly abysmal Scary Movie territory. Instead it walks the fine line between clever and well-suited parody, and just plain glue-eating and knee-slapping. But what is the parody? Well, mainly 80s action movies. For example, within the first minutes of the opening credits, after a long title sequence of words and shapes, we finally see MacGruber wailing on a saxophone, setting the tone for a movie that pokes fun at many action movie cliches -- this being the overbearing music that sets the emotional atmosphere.

The main plot of the movie centers around MacGruber tracking evil mastermind Dieter Von Cunth, (hmm, guess what that might sound like) played by Val Kilmer, who has gotten hands on a very large nuclear weapon. Of course, in a movie that focuses more on the journey and less of the destination, this overarching plot is highly unimportant to what occurs mainly throughout the movie. Even though Cunth is the main villain, MacGruber and co. are often getting into their own mischief along the way to reaching Cunth.

Most of the humor comes from either shock value or randomness. There is a pretty significant plot point that involves celery stalks and assholes, which creates a diversion necessary to gain important information about Cunth. Also, MacGruber's relationship to Cunth is a fairly hilarious and an obvious poke at the overly convoluted and super-serious back-stories that archrivals have in action movies. And towards the end of the movie, which has been pretty explosion-laden throughout, the explosions gain intensity because the growling of tigers are dubbed over them slightly enough to where you question whether or not a tiger growls as a car explodes, and then soon you realize that yes it does.

Maybe one of the greatest parts of the movie is the end, which I won't spoil because it is absolutely ridiculous. And thinking about the movie as a whole, it is something that is just absolutely ridiculous -- from MacGruber having sex with a ghost to asking Ryan Phillipe in a moment of utmost desperation "What do you want me to fuck?" in a military office. Yet somehow the movie maintains its humor level.

And sure, MacGruber is definitely a different kind of humor, something that has sprung recently in a world of YouTube videos and online comedy. MacGruber's plot and character interaction occurs in a world that is willing to except absurdity and chaos as a means to provide humor rather than building on pre-existing notions about reality. Just like a YouTube video, the movie thinks on its feet -- maybe not in terms of actual overwrought cleverness, but sheer economy. It doesn't settle for buildup and release, or often does not work with calling back on previously mentioned in-jokes. Instead it pulls a continuous line of shock and over-the-topness inside the boundaries of acceptable. However it's done, it is worth busting a gut over.

Winnebago Man review (Movie)

2009-10-31T09:10:00.000-07:00

8.5/10
Most American documentaries basically fall between two distinct camps: Michael Moore sensationalism and the free-standing editor wizardry of The War Room. Many are political in nature, or try to raise awareness about a very serious subject -- ie, Al Gore's global warming magnum opus or the Morgan Freeman voice-over lullaby known as March of the Penguins or the tremendously depressing Indian expose called Born Into Brothels. On rare occasions do people of the documentary genre transcend the whirling buzz of BELIEVE THIS, SUPPORT THIS! and create a piece of cinema that is as eerily touching as it is maddeningly hilarious. But Winnebago Man, an almost clumsy look at a long-lost television journalist, somehow does. And for this, the documentary exists as an artifact outside the natural order.

Written and directed by one of the film professors at the University of Texas (at Austin, bitches), Ben Steinbauer, Winnebago Man is no doubt a peculiar film, but it is a very touching film about Steinbauer's journey to find one of the infamous icons of Internet viral videos: the Winnebago man, aka the angriest man in the world, aka Jack Rebney. When initially thinking about the concept, it almost seems absurd. Or at the very least, silly. Why would anyone want to track down this man, made famous from YouTube and passed-around VHS tapes, who had a bad day trying to shoot an ad for Winnebago? The task at first looks pointless or at least something that will not bear much fruit in terms of a story. Sure, there is the journey, but what happens when Frodo gets to the volcano?

But strangely enough, Winnebago Man flows as a thoughtful and cohesive story about Steinbauer tracking down Jack Rebney. What begins as a brief lesson on the damaging effects of becoming an Internet viral video star--often from demeaning and embarrassing videos (think Star Wars kid)--turns into a road journey in a similar vein to Finding Forrester. Except instead of Sean Connery as a crotchety old writer, you have Jack Rebney, one of the most obscenely honest men that will probably ever grace the silver screen.

The documentary is as much as a portrait of Jack Rebney as it is a journey to find the man. Steinbauer begins his film with a detailed search for the mysterious man in the Winnebago videos. And from the start, the backstory of this man is already interesting. Rebney is completely off the radar, leaving no contact information with anyone who might be close with him. But after hiring a private investigator, Steinbauer gets a breakthrough, which begins his journey to meet Jack Rebney, who lives on a mountain in Northern California.

The relationship that forms between Steinbauer and Rebney is endearing. Rebney initially comes off as a man completely jaded with society, furious that YouTube made him into a fool and that people--idiots!--watch that dumb video of his. He has no interest in the outside world, which is why he lives secluded in the wilderness, all alone except for him and his dog. But Steinbauer's persistent prodding into the life of this man and trying to understand "who IS Jack Rebney?" gives the documentary a lot of its weight. Pulling Rebney out of his social cocoon and into the real world is a heartfelt transformation but also one filled with many laughs, because Rebney is one of the most brutally honest people you will ever meet.

And Rebney definitely has his fans. But what he doesn't understand at the beginning of the documentary is that these people who watch his videos are not all trying to laugh at his expense. Two guys that host a found footage festival annually invite Rebney to attend one of their festivals in San Francisco after showing his Winnebago video over the years--and also being huge fans of it themselves. Rebney's journey to San Francisco of course has its laughs, but when Rebney stands on stage after the people in the audience view his video, there is already a transformation. Rebney the angry and cynical old man becomes Rebney the charming and funny guy who explains that anyone in Iowa during the summer (which is where/when the Winnebago video was shot) knows how irritable people can get. And afterwards, when he stands in the lobby of the theater, he talks to his fans and they tell him how his video is therapeutic--that anytime they are having a bad day, they play it and are glad someone can be so vocal about how they REALLY feel.

It's moments like that in the documentary that make it hold more weight than a simple funny and hollow film about an angry old guy. The story is oddly linear in how all of the events unfold, which Steinbauer addressed after the screening as pure luck. His journey to find Rebney, luck or not, manifests into something that is almost uncategorizable as a film. It appeals to many emotions bla bla bla -- but really, Winnebago Man is one of the better films to come out of the indie scene this year. It doesn't take itself too seriously but it doesn't let its subject becoming a running gag. Instead, Jack Rebney becomes the odd anti-hero that you somehow grow to love.

Where the Wild Things Are review (Movie)

2009-10-22T14:30:00.000-07:00

7.3 / 10

Spike Jonze is definitely a visual artist, and with his long reign as one of the most infamous music video directors in the 90s, it is obvious that he likes coupling visuals with music. And with his latest film, Where the Wild Things Are, there is something to be said about a movie that can almost carry itself solely through the means of visual bubblegum and a soundtrack that feels like an unsaid member of an already peculiar cast of characters. However, this adaptation of the grand masterpiece of children's literature manifests as a film that doesn't know exactly how to relate to children or adults, and instead finds an awkward middle ground. Indeed, where Jonze and co-writer Dave Eggers strive hard to remember the feelings of a nine year-old, they often flounder around beautiful landscapes— uncertain of what exactly they want their audience to understand about the wild things in all of us.

The movie revolves around the nine year-old boy, Max (Max Records), who in the first ten minutes of the movie we learn feels isolated and unheard in his family, as well as easily angered by his mother (Catherine Keener) spending time with a boyfriend (Mark Ruffalo). The relationship between Max and his mother in this brief expository part of the movie has subtle moments that feel very honest--perhaps more-so than most of the other scenes of the movie--like when they talk in the mom's work room, and Max pulls at his mother's panty hose in a sort of curious manner and he tells her a sad story about a vampire than bites a large building and loses its teeth. The dichotomy between the self-centered and imaginative world of a child and the loneliness and sadness and fatigue of an adult find a brief moment of juxtaposition.

However, once Max gets angry at his mom for hanging out with her boyfriend, he attacks her and then flees his home, sailing away to a magical land where depressed, mopey, "real"-feeling creatures roam. Having never read the Irish novel-length children's story, and only being told how the book treats the transformation from reality to magical land, my understanding seems that in the book Max is sent to his room without dinner and the magical land manifests in his room. The difference between the book and the movie--and mind you, I definitely believe that books and their adaptations should stand on their own in terms of the medium they represent--presents an odd choice of revision on the part of the writers. Where Max's manifestation of a magical land, presumably through his mind in a juvenile fit of rage, serves as an explanation for how he understands the relationship between him and his mother, the movie's odyssey to the magical land confuses escapism / punishment for the mother (through running away) with learning to deal with youthful anger--such as being in one's room and mentally dealing with anger through an imaginative landscape.

Once on the island, Max meets a ragtag cast of peculiar looking creatures, all with their fair share of emotional problems. Jonze and Eggers focus mainly on the creature Carol (voiced by James Gandolfini), who Max shares the greatest bond. The unity between the characters makes sense since Carol has anger issues and a destructive nature because he does not know how to deal with his emotions--which, of course, is the same case for Max. But while the setup for the relationships between the creatures and Max works, the overall execution for Max interacting with the creatures doesn't have as much as a payoff as one would hope.

Instead of clear-cut roles for the creatures, each stands as a kind of avatar for a specific set of emotions. No one creature feels like a complete or real individual, even though they are given real emotions. In addition to their stock positions in the movie, the tone and relationships between the creatures and Max never feels set in stone--it constantly wobbles from anger to happiness to anger to happiness to sadness to happiness. And even with this "dynamic" feel of the creatures, there is almost no context for the shifting emotions except the whims of how they feel about each other from scene to scene. Indeed, the almost non-existent plot doesn't help root the feelings of the characters into a tangible and intuitive way. And Max's departure from the magical land doesn't have the emotional weight that the movie gears itself for. All of the pieces are in place, the sadness, the longing, the weepy-growls, but in the end, Max leaving the island feels as scattershot as the rest of the film.

Still, there are some really great moments on the magical land. Subtle beats that don't often come in movies, and sadly aren't often in this one. When one of the creatures, KW (voiced by Lauren Ambrose), describes to Max two other beings she spends time with outside of the usual group, the way she describes them as completely different is so sincere and real. Her longing to find that perfect place, with those right people actually for moment feels so concrete.

Even with the beautiful landscapes, the indie-pop OST, and the unique creatures, Where the Wild Things still leaves a void in the audience. The main substance of the movie doesn't exist and instead ideas and emotions and themes float for brief moments like dust caught in the morning light. A lot of what's left are empty spaces, splintering plot starts, and a story that never really feels to set in place. Still, gotta love those backgrounds and Karen O and the Kids, right?

Paranormal Activity review (Movie)

2009-10-09T17:05:00.000-07:00

0/10
I, like many other people, have been conned into the idea that Paranormal Activity is a low-budget horror flick in the same vein as the Blair Witch Project or the digi-cam sensationalism of Cloverfield. Let me tell everyone right now: Paranormal Activity is a grossly overhyped and drawn out film about almost nothing. It is good marketing running loose into our lives. Never have I sat in a theater and thought how royally screwed I got by a clever viral campaign and some uppity metacritic reviews. Where most people think they are going to see a legitimately frightening tale of a couple going through odd activities and hauntings in their home, instead see a lot of domestic bickering and a door that mysteriously opens and closes in the same gimmicky fashion as a haunted house.

There is almost nothing redeeming about Paranormal Activity. From its tediously long runtime to its uninteresting main characters to its horrible technical proficiency, I cannot feel but utterly bamboozled. The movie is about a woman, Catie, and her boyfriend, Micah, who live in San Diego and have been witnessing odd activities in their home--paranormal activities! So, Micah decides to videotape their day-to-day lives in the home, and most importantly, the couple's bedroom while they sleep at night. The only time--except for one or two incredibly unimportant moments--that anything remotely scary happens is at night. And usually it consists of a banging sound, the movement of their bedroom door, or Catie standing creepily in some weird trance for like an hour and staring at Micah sleep.

Unfortunately most of the movie is not contained in the nighttime beats. Instead you see Catie and Micah bitch at each other and how they want to deal with the haunting. Yes, what could have been a scary movie where sounds and camera directions are used to create tension and atmosphere turns into a movie that oddly seems like another weekend with my parents--except I feel obligated to see out their incessant and repetitive complaints with a hope that something interesting happens.

And really, nothing does. Sure, people might herald this movie's great use of atmosphere. But I don't know how you can keep an audience in the tense world when the movie flip-flops between nighttime scariness and daytime domestic bickering. And the problem with such a formulaic movie: everybody knows when scary moments are going to happen. Nighttime becomes the parts in the movie where everyone knows the door will slam, the sheets will ripple, Catie will get dragged on her ass by thin air, and daytime becomes a recharge, a reminder that you can escape any tension you might have felt and sink back into the reality-tv voyeurism everyone is used to.

For a movie that received so much hype I wanted to go to sleep that night with all of my lights on, making sure each part of my body was covered by some part of my comforter and bed sheets, and watching at least two episodes of Family Guy. Instead I got the movie form of a rick-roll--yet, I would have much rather seen 90 minutes of continuous rick-roll video than Paranormal Activity....

Never gonna give you up,
Never gonna let you down,
Never gonna run around and desert you.
Never gonna make you cry,
Never gonna say goodbye,
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you....

(oh I wish you did Paranormal Activity, I wish you did.)

Extract review (Movie)

2009-09-07T08:19:00.000-07:00

5.3/10

Mike Judge knows the banality of life. And more importantly, he knows that there is great humor to be had with simply exploiting it. The most notorious of these exploitations (perhaps beside Beavis and Butt-head) came in the form of Office Space, tackling cubicle job dullness and the mediocrity of corporate life into something universally hilarious for anyone that held a job. Nearly a decade later, Judge returns to the comedy-sphere with a similar film, Extract, which flaunts a hopeful comedy with its all-star cast about the tedium of suburbia and middle-income living, but ultimately remains a hollow endeavor.

Extract is a film that looks good in the preview because it reveals all of the great parts, which leads one to believe that movie is held together by more great parts, but unfortunately the film instead is a lot of good ideas with mostly bad execution. The plot surrounds Joel (Jason Bateman), the owner of an extract factory who wants to sell his company so he can enjoy living without work, yet a freak accident in the factory leaves one of his workers, Step (Clifton Collins, Jr.), without one of his testicles, which sparks a possible lawsuit and controversy that would make selling the plant hard to do. And to add another layer of conflict, Cindy (Mila Kunis), a thief who starts working at the extract plant so she can get information about Step and money from him suing the extract factory for his injury, is another cog on the hardly spinning wheel.

Aside from the central conflict being about a guy without balls, Joel finds his home life uneventful with his wife, Suzie (Kristen Wiig), who seems to have little interest in him. And, of course, their sex life suffers due to the disconnect between the two. While a lot of the I'm-not-getting-laid drama surrounding Joel is stale in concept, at least one funny moment happens when he tries to persuade Suzie to go to the bedroom, reminding her its Monday, which she happily proclaims it is time for Dance With the Stars. Moments like this really shine because they are comedic jabs, not prolonged or built up.

To keep Joel from going insane, he confides in his stoner/bartender buddy Dean (Ben Affleck), who is nothing more than a rehashed version of James Franco in Pineapple Express, except less awesome. Dean attempts to add a level of low-man, druggie wisdom, but ultimately feels underdeveloped. Yet, while his personality isn't incredibly unique, Dean provides Joel the necessary plan to make him happy again.

Judge really stuffs the film with a lot of star power and it is sad that most of the characters feel underdeveloped or just plain underused. Suzie's screen time amounts to hinted disdain of Joel overworking at the extract plant and making sure Joel is going crazy. Her one line is one of the largest comedic moments in the film, aside from a flashback with the male gigolo Joel sends to seduce her so he can have an affair with Cindy. Similar to Suzie's lack of presence, fucking J. K. Simmons, who when he speaks shoots comedy gold from his mouth, has like ten lines, and all of them surround not remembering names of works at the factory and doing grunt work for Joel.

And it seems that Judge wanted to work in all of the characters, but didn't have the plot worked out. For, while he manages to create a lot of conflict in the film, which ties together surprisingly well, Judge still flounders a bit in the plot beats. When extended moments of the movie are spent with Joel arguing with a male gigolo hired by Dean to seduce his wife, there is a problem with the pacing. Also, there are a lot of flat moments in the film. Like when Joel and Dean smoke from an incredibly large bong, the moment for comedy is ripe, but Ben Affleck and Jason Bateman are not Seth Rogen and James Franco, and so the scene doesn't hit its potential (if it had any).

But really, Judge has a lot of poorly executed ideas in the film. He comes up with great concepts, but one they hit the page (and the screen) they sort of fall flat. For example, when the annoying neighbor gets on Suzie's nerves for the last time with his pestering neighbor talk of endless mediocrity, Suzie says that she and Joel hate him. This direct attack on the neighbor coincidentally happens when the neighbor has a heart attack. The next scene is immediately him in a coffin at a funeral, where Joel and Suzie, after having a rough time and not seeing each other due to fighting, make fun of the neighbor and then get back together. The quickness of the neighbor dying is funny in concept due to its surprising nature and rapidity of the scene changes, but it doesn't really work on screen. It seems too contrived. Also, Joel and Suzie talking like on a date at a funeral is funny in concept, especially since they make fun of the guy who died. But it just doesn't work. The irreverence isn't as surprising, doesn't quickly jab at the audience like a brief exclamation of joy that Dance With the Stars is on TV.

Extract has potential, but it hardly has enough steam to power itself right now. There are a few laugh-out-loud moments and a lot of moments where I kept a grin on my face. But for the most part, the film flounders and shows promise for funny, but never really hits the note. While the film is about the mediocrity of suburbia and working, it doesn't unleash the comedy in full force like Office Space. Instead, it is more refined, more casual, and less biting. After all, where is the montage of Joel beating up a forklift with Dean?

GMOs From Indiana (Screenplay)

2009-08-24T15:53:00.000-07:00

Bio: Jay Wertzler lives, works, and writes in San Francisco, CA.

Logline: When Jamal's father, Gregory, produces genetically modified crops for his town, something mysterious happens to those who consume them. (HORROR)

PDF.

Comments --

Jay,

I’m going to ignore formatting/grammar and talk about big picture stuff –

Page 1 – description can be shortened. Aim for paragraphs of 3-4 sentences. Sometimes you’ve pulled 6 or 7. Like a bad party, arrive late leave early.

First pages -- aside from generously long description, you start off with a bang. You’ve set up a menace, your inciting incident happens quickly, by page 3. This is solid screenwriting -- capturing the interest of the audience.

Jamal. The name makes me think of Slumdog Millionaire. Intentional or not, I would consider changing it to be safe. Optional consideration: If you rename him Jeremy you can still play up the nice play of characters mistaking Jamal to Jerome.

Love interest set up early. Good. You made Lana (Smallville fan?) 19, Jamal 17, age should be a factor, but it isn’t. Perhaps work in conflict of her being older than him.

Page 4 - You cut to a science film. You don’t do this again until thirty minutes later, or 1/3 of your film. Would audiences forget? Should you write it in again on page 15 to remind audiences?

Page 6 – Set up of Gregory and Jamal’s relationship dynamic. From a few beats, I understand the character relation of both these characters. Intentionally or not, you reveal through subtext and in few words as possible Gregory’s disappointment with Jamal’s career choices. Silences and “uh huh,” speak more than additional lines could. Aspiring screenwriters take note, Jay utilizes subtext in the Gregory Study scene well.

On page 6 you write about frozen corn cobs. This is solid character exposition. Insofar, as you do a good job of setting up the Mendelson family and working in plot information. It’s small beats like this that screenwriters should consider, because they help visual the characters we’re going to follow for the next ninety minutes while working in story.

It takes you 7 ½ pages to establish –

Scientist death (inciting incident).
Jamal’s work, asshole boss, love interest.
Family dynamic (Gregory/Jamal), where Jamal lives, corn (GMO).
Set up for the creature/alien.

I’d argue you can do this in four/five. A problem with your spec is the beginning starts slow. Once we leave the movie set and move into the home environment, I’m bored. I’d trim elements from the home and move onwards with setting up the opossum element. The first ten pages of a spec script have to grapple the reader and glaze his interest. What’s a fast way to lose interest? Description. And generally, unless it’s cars blowing up or a fire fight, the bets are stacked against you.

For example, let’s take a look at your first page. 95% description. You tend to write elegant prose, “chalk slams against the cold surface with a harsh finality,” not terse description. You’re writing a screenplay, not a novel. Your first six lines of descriptions could be shortened to one –

Test tubes. Micropipettes. A hand scribbles equations on a board.

I’d argue you get across the same idea of your six lines with the revision of one line.

Moving to page 5. Description is overloaded.

You could start with this –

A farm. 1920s. Down to the cinderblocks.

A biplane sits on the dirt runway.

Jamal parks his truck, exits, turns towards some cows

JAMAL
Hey ladies.

I’d work on creating as much white on the page as you can. I’m usually critical of description, so I’d like to take a moment to point out description that is necessary and that works. Page 11, “the soil is darker, fresher,” this is important set up for the shit about to go down. Good.

Screenwriters could learn from your choice of action verbs. Saunters/moseys/trudges/snakes/etc.

Page 15- I’m being picky here, but here’s the correct way to format a phone conversation –

INTERCUT GREGORY/JAMAL --

GREGORY (V.O.)

(on phone)

Greg here.

JAMAL

(on phone)

Dad, I’m coming home early. We sold out.

GREGORY (V.O.)

(on phone)

That’s great news! How much cash?

Etc. After the intercut, it’s important to set up location or the whereabouts of Gregory. Here’s an opportunity to make whatever Gregory doing visually interesting. We’re writing for the screen, so if we have Gregory sweeping the porch/doing the dishes/smoking pot, etc. for the audience to visualize while he’s on the phone. Just nab in description after one of their lines. (V.O.)’s indicate which side we’re looking at while the parenthetical remind the reader what’s happening in case they skim description or just forget.

OR (handling phone dialogue)

Establish both locations:

INT. MARKET – DAY

Jamal opens his phone. Dials.

INT. FARM- DAY

Gregory washes the dishes. Answers the phone.

BEGIN INTERCUT

JAMAL

Dad?

GREGORY

Yes?

We don’t want any reason for a script reader to reject our submission. Improper formatting may be one. Let’s avoid it.

Moving on.

Page 18-23. You do a good job with foreshadow. Love the “goddamn method actor” line.

Lana and Jamal go from innocent flirting (she doesn’t even know his name on page 10) to making out pretty quick (page 24). I’d recommend building this connection more. For example, you spend a lot of time at the farmer’s market and Jamal planting seeds. I’d trim down some of these scenes and have a solid one or two page scene of Lana and Jamal connecting. You start with them running away from a crazed farmer shooting at them. Why not talk about that later? Have Jamal approach Lana with “you been shot at lately?” Then they giggle and laugh and build all the subtext for your big kiss on page 25.

The scene with Jamal and Lana flying is cute. I love it. Everything after they “hook up” I buy (the flicking of dirt, tomatoes); I just don’t buy them building towards a “hook up.”

Conflict. Conflict. Conflict. Where is it? Page 30 and I’m not sensing urgency or strife.

I’ve noticed you write “[insert character’s] eyes widen.” This is interesting because I run into this problem all the time. How do you describe to the reader that our characters are interested/shocked/surprised? We can’t write emotion as screenwriters we have to use visual cues to represent emotion. I’m going to list out a list of important descriptions I find useful –

Takes a deep breath and…
Brow furrows…
Eyebrows knit...
Grinds his/her teeth…
Jaw drops…

Lana loses her ear. In District 9 (spoilers!), they utilize a similar technique in Wikus’ transformation from human to prawn (alien). He begins to lose fingernails, an arm, etc. I bring this up because you have a similar thread here. Lana loses her ear, her fingers, etc. This is good, stomach lurching story-telling. In District 9, the audience squirmed when Wikus began to change. I think you’ll enact a similar response.

Shopping carts doubling as weapons. Always awesome. Nice job setting up a chase sequence in the grocery store. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like you get the Hollywood-sized punch you could have out of the chase sequence. This is the one of the more exiting sequences viewers will be treated to 45 minutes in. I’d work on extending the chase from grocery store to car. Maybe have a crop-eater attack them, and Jamal has to defend their lives. As writers we’re always trying to throw a many obstacles as possible in front of our protagonists. Your story is lacking conflict. Ramp it up with chase sequences.

Page 43-46 – Crop-eaters. Jamal’s walking through town to find his manila envelope. He’s disguising himself as a crop-eater to avoid certain death. As an audience member, I’m unclear on how dangerous the crop-eaters are to non-crop-eaters (humans) at this point. I’m unsure if Jamal not disguising himself would result in death. You need to set up a scene earlier (or in the grocery store) of another human character getting mauled to death/clubbed/staked/however they kill, because I need to understand what the crop-eaters do with people they don’t like. Then, I’d get behind Jamal, and hold my breath hoping he makes it out alive. You do this with Winston, perhaps move that scene to earlier?

Page 52 – Varying sentence structure. You start four paragraphs with the name “Jamal.” As writers, I think we can strive to be more creative. I’d work on using descriptive verbs to vary up the way paragraphs start. For example –

Slowly, Jamal regains footing and continues…
Looking over the fire and plumes of smoke he sees…
Gently, he repositions Lana…
Trudging through dirt, Lana on his back he holds her legs with one arm…

You can often even cut out he/she/character name by capitalizing a verb. It may read choppy, but it varies sentence structure.

Line suggestion: “You grow some damn good lettuce, son.” to “You grow some killer lettuce, son.”

Page 62 – We’ve got conflict. Now, the crop-eaters have projectiles. This raises the stakes extremely well. I’m scared for Jamal.

Page 63 – “You are what you eat.” Snappy.

Page 69-71 – You handle the science exposition pretty well. It’s hard in screenplays to get that right. It’s short, concise, and to the point. Congrats.

Page 71 – “I risked thousands of dollars, your future, my career—all for those results. And for what!” Bad. This sounds very much like a, clichéd, bad TV show/B movie line of dialogue. As pivotal as this plot point is in your screenplay you should handle this line more carefully. Suggestions –

“My life’s work…Gone.”
My career’s gone downhill…and for what?

These aren’t spectacular. Trying to get the ball rolling…

Why doesn’t Lana attack Jamal? This needs to be addressed. All the other crop-eaters have attacked Jamal.

I’d be careful of having the plane’s propeller chop up crop-eaters. This happened dramatically in 28 Weeks Later and comically in Planet Terror. A lot of my friends hated when it happened in 28 Weeks because they’d seen it as a joke in Planet Terror.

Overall, you’ve essentially written a clever spin on the zombie genre. Your movie builds with a rom-com element then shifts into territory of a zombie hack ‘n’ slash. The main problem with your script is the lack of conflict. Your climax is overloading the conflict, but aside from that, it’s far and few between.

Let’s think about the best zombie movies. Look to what they do right.

Dawn the of Dead (remake).

Inciting incident – Zombie girl bites parents.
Act 1 climax – Ana is overwhelmed, cries.
Midpoint – Kenneth kills Frank.
Act 2 climax – babies!
Climax – reinforced van + chainsaws

28 Days Later.

Inciting incident – animal activists release plague.
Act 1 climax – They find other survivors.
Midpoint – Frank dies.
Act 2 climax – military base.
Climax – Jim goes Rambo.

Both of these movies have something similar. The midpoint is a death (Frank twice?!). I’m going to plot your movie for reference.

GMOS.

Inciting incident – scientist dies/goo plague set up
Act 1 climax – Lana eats infected corn
Midpoint – Lana loses her ear
Act 2 climax – Winston dies
Climax – escape from Gregory

Both 28 Days/Dawn have conflicted packed into the first 45 pages of their script. They keep throwing obstacles in the way of their characters, and for the most part, GMOs has a very rom-com element that affects the horror. Ultimately, it depends on what type of movie you want.

As for rewrites, I’d work on Jamal getting Lana as part of the conflict. In rom-com’s the love element becomes the conflict. You need to make Lana harder to get. That would help your first 45 pages. Then, after Jamal secures Lana and she eats the corn it truly becomes a sad story.

If you want to move towards a more conventional zombie story, it may help your marketability. The love interest may set it apart. 28 Days handles the Jim/Selena element while maintaining the post-apocalyptic/zombie conflict.

Your movie ends strong. The oppurtunity for a sequel ripe. Congrats, Jay, I’d love to see rewrites on this spec.

Readers: feel free to criticize my comments or the script. Round table is the best type of table.

Synecdoche, NY review (Movie)

2009-08-07T06:02:00.000-07:00

10/10
Charlie Kaufman is one of the greatest writers of our modern era. His tight, diverse and often mesmerizing tales that examine human nature blend between metaphysical musings and the great character driven drama. He breaks the confines of cinema, making the two-hour feature film full of complex story elements and stunning visuals. That is to say, Kaufman has mastered a young art form with Synecdoche, New York, a story of a playwright and director who, after plodding through a failed marriage, tackles his largest project: writing and directing a play that encompasses large elements of his own life; essentially, he recreates his life through a sprawling pseudo-city and large cast of actors.

Of course, Synecdoche, New York is not an "easy" film. And thankfully so. Kaufman's atypical plot structure for the movie allows it to engage Philip Seymour Hoffman's character, the playwright and director, with keen insight. Namely, the movie moves through time as if years could be easily compressed into mere seconds; for example, one moment, Hoffman stands in his driveway at a seemingly young age with his daughter and then the next scene he is balding in his old age. Yet, where these flighty time changes could come off as abrupt and annoying, Kaufman uses them to explore his characters. One notable example: Hoffman goes to the dentist and learns of his degenerating gums, the following scene is the dentist saying that his gums got worse, then the next scene is Hoffman receiving gum surgery; in a mere 15 seconds the audience learns of Hoffman's poor hygiene, but more importantly, Hoffman's laziness and poor self-respect.

But Kaufman hits on larger themes through his storyline than simply character faults and quarks. Namely, he addresses people at large and how we act in social settings. Indeed, characters in Synecdoche, New York feel timeless because time is mixed so even over many decades that it is hard to get a complete emotional handle on their growth; however, the expansive timeline provides an alternate look at people, one that is often overlooked in film. Namely, we see Hoffman go through his life as the same person, his character arc never completes itself with much change. Throughout the entire film Hoffman does what people tell him to do, acts in ways that please other people, which often causes him more grief. His missteps and lack of confidence play out through the entire film. He is searching for himself in every other place that he is not currently in residence, which causes him to run in circles between different women and different ideas of happiness.

Yet, Synecdoche, New York oddly sways between absurdity and realism. While Kaufman engages his characters with a realistic touch, his settings and character interaction can be quite the opposite. One funny instance of his absurdity comes from an assistant that works at the play theatre with Hoffman; the assistant purchases a house (or imagines that she does?) that she sees on fire when driving home from work. Later in the film, after Hoffman has his final love affair with the assistant, she dies from smoke complications via the never-ending fire in her home.

But even with such elements, which give the film a whimsical tone--mostly to lift its weighted theme of death and inaction--the realism shines through like many of other Kaufman's films. That is to say, Hoffman's lack of self-confidence and inconsistent vanity (hence, his gum disease yet fear that a scar will form from a minor blow to his forehead) show the complexities of human nature. Hoffman fears loneliness yet flees the women in his life in order to find himself--people are always searching for themselves!

And for once, Kaufman lets a film admit that people never find themselves who are always searching, who are never content being the being that they are being. Indeed, Hoffman ends the movie in his gargantuan life-size stage play of his own life after all of the actors die, wandering the desolate streets of a fake city in a warehouse, still incomplete. It is by no suprrise though. How can anyone find something so slippery? The self. It is a ironic, for a character who remains the same through many of his mannerisms and behavior and outlook on life, he still cannot find a reconciliation between his self and the self he eagerly tries to find. And this complexity that Kaufman addresses through Hoffman's character is only an example of the movie's overall detailed structure.

As a result, I feel no shame in saying that Synecdoche, New York is a modern masterpiece, that it's a film that explores the complexities of human nature in a unique way, that it finds the funny moments within a life that overall might be summarized as inconclusive or sad. Kaufman knows that the parts make the whole and he takes little details and blows them up into proportions that make sense, proportions that show how people make great pain out of details and the superficial qualities of living. Kaufman doesn't allow his characters to sway into happy-ending territory or find a nice conclusion or resolution or understand themselves much better than they started. They only allow their characters to grow and deflate and expand and he reminds us that we are frail and fear change in ourselves even though we seek it so much all of the time.

Adventureland review (Movie)

2009-08-06T11:02:00.000-07:00

9.1/10
I don't really know where this movie came from--perhaps an act of god or cinematic mirage, but Adventureland is that kind of movie you kind of heard about, maybe you remember seeing some of the supporting cast in other bigger movies, and well you just go in with a blank slate. Oh, the guy who directed Superbad made this movie? Surely dick jokes and pubic salad references are to come. Oh wait, no, this movie is actually good. In fact, it is amazing. Some say Jesus was the gift of life during spring, but perhaps Adventureland can share the spotlight, because never has the coming-of-age story--something so often told and rehashed and made horrendously cliche--been so wonderfully comedic, poignant, and overall enjoyable.

Yes, Adventureland is probably one of the best "big screen" flicks to come out so far in 2009. It is such a simple concept. It's 1987, and lead guy James (played by Jesse Eisenberg) just graduated college with a (MUTHAFUCKING) literature degree and has plans to travel Europe with one of his friends over the summer before going to grad school at Columbia. BUT, his rich dad loses his big money job and James is forced to work--in order to pay for grad school--a summer job at the only place he can get hired: Adventureland theme park, a child-infested Candyland that can 'cause epileptic fits for the ill-at-heart. It is here where the movie erupts into such wonderful earnestness. James meets a rag-tag team of fellow employees, raging from the dude that majored in Russian Literature and Slavic Studies (favorite book is by Gogol) to the girl, Em (played by Twilight actress Kristen Stewart), who he falls for.

Undoubtedly, the romantic element of the movie is a large crowd pleaser. Whether it is James detailing how he was once reading Shakespeare's sonnets and realized at that moment he didn't love the girl he was dating, or the three-to-tango love triangle between James, Em, and the old mechanic/rocker-dude played by Ryan Reynolds. I can't help but keep coming back to the Shakespeare part for a couple reasons: one, I am an English major; and two, I can't help but have felt the same way many times, to be locked into some book or movie or whatever activity and just be like, FUCK! i actually don't feel this way about soandso. And this was like two lines of dialogue that mined one of the truest parts of (I'm assuming) most people.

The main romance love triangle is done well. I remember the first time Jame and Em are in Em's car: she gives him a ride home from work, and they just listen to the radio looking back at each other, that kind of look where it's like Hey, talk to me. And, what makes the scene even greater is that neither of them gave into talking, Em just turns the radio on louder. Another instance of awkward, non-heroics or smoothness, comes from a scene where Em goes off about how she hates her step-mother and her dad was a big dick when her mom was dying of cancer and James doesn't say anything and instead has the grave look of completely immovable tongue. I mean, what can he say? It is great because even someone he cares so much about, he cannot give any sort of insight to a situation he has no idea about and doesn't try to make up some bullshit. But even beyond that, Greg Mottola, writes the affection, the little bits of romance between James and Em with sharp keen insight. All the scenes between them feel so real, like actual words and actions I have witnessed in real life. Sure, the movie hyperbolic moments occur, but not enough to change the chemistry from honest to gimmicky and contrived.

And the comedy. Did you know this movie is also a comedy? Sorry, forgot about that. No, it is just that a lot of the dramatic beats stack up very well against the comedy, maybe even better. There are some really funny moments. I particularly felt sympathy for when James went into the swimming pool with Em and got the emotionally-fatal boner. When Em gets out of the pool and James lags behind, Em questioning why he doesn't get out and James saying he will be indoor soon. Pretty good. But then when James first even makes a single step out of the pool, a crowd of random onlookers cries BONER. Sure, the joke was probably in the making as soon as you saw pool, but it was still damn funny. Similarly, at the end of the movie James and the Russian literature guy are talking about failed love and shit, and one of their friends, Frigo, is blasting off fireworks, pretending he is fighting the Viet Cong in the background. It is like the emotional garbage that typically bookends a coming-of-age story gets the background music of something oddly funny and random.

Hence, Adventureland is a story that keeps the emotional, dramatic beats at a good proximity to reality. Sure, not every scene or character action might be completely rooted in reality, but most are, making it a wonderfully honest piece of cinema. So often comedies just want to churn out the dick jokes or sex endeavors and become one big bathroom humor montage, but this movie removed most of that and inserted a great balance of potty and poetry. For a movie that doesn't bitch slap you into feeling a certain way, or being a sentimental piece of shit (I'm looking at YOU, Curious Case of Benjamin Button), Adventureland is a movie for anyone who has ever had a shitty job, loved, and gotten bamboozled in life.

The Brothers Bloom review (Movie)

2009-08-05T11:50:00.001-07:00

6.4/10
Con films can get tedious, the tricks, the ploys, the endless amounts of references to the "red herring," people trying to "find shit out." And romantic comedies are often cyclic rounds of guy and girl pseudo-drama, with, of course, the humor. Put the two together and well, it makes an interesting blend. That is to say, the new indie film by writer/director Rian Johnson--known primarily for his first feature film Brick--the Brothers Bloom, is not quite a mind numbing trickster flick with love tattooed at every corner, but it also falls short, and at times very short, of being a majestic masterpiece. No doubt, the Brothers Bloom is a visually beautiful and often pleasing film, borrowing Wes Anderson nuances and Michel Gondry light-heartedness for good effect, but even with all the genre-bending, the film never really leaves the audience thinking "Wow."

Starting with a short when-they-were-younger sequence, we learn about the two brothers, Bloom (Adrien Brody) and Stephen (Mark Ruffalo), who throughout their lives have performed cons with elaborate stories, characters, and motivations, which, of course, all have led to a big buck at the end. As a kid, Bloom can only act like the person he wants to be when he plays a role--hence, Stephen makes the first con where Bloom talks to a girl he likes, and then continues onward with the money-making schemes.

Through various time and location jumps, the movie picks up where Bloom is jaded with the con game and wants to live "an unwritten life" that Stephen didn't craft for the sake of deception. Stephen makes his case for one more con, and this time, it will be one to remember. Of course, they land themselves at a really luxurious mansion in New Jersey where Penelope Stamp (Rachel Weisz) lives, a rich woman with a collection of hobbies under her belt, ranging from kick boxing to violin playing to knowing every language imaginable. The boys are after her wealth, so they start the elaborate con of meeting her and getting her to fall in love with Bloom. From here on out the movie is a clusterfuck of deception. For the most part Johnson keeps the film entertaining and the tricks fresh and funny, but towards the end of the film, after seeing so many twists and sleights of hand, the climax doesn't really pay off as much as the audience would hope.

Beyond the sometimes over-planned plotting, the characters in the film are genuine for many of the scenes--irony much? The cast is a ragtag of the Brothers Bloom, Penelope, and the ever-so-quiet Bang Bang (Rinko Kikuchi), a mysterious Japanese woman who says maybe two lines in the entire movie, but is an expert as explosives and gunplay--perhaps the firepower is enough talk. These characters all mesh together for most of the plot, playing in the con as they all feign to be artifact smugglers--expect for Penelope, who actually thinks she is a real smuggler. The characters really run the show, even if the plot is convoluted at times, and they run it pretty well.

Johnson does feel at home with character depictions and the minor things that make movies much better when watching, things that are so small but so extraordinary for adding. Like the first scene with Bang Bang is at some party and an old man walks up to her and says "I know about anime!" and then Bang Bang kicks his ass. Also, there are some really funny and awkward lines, like when Penelope tells Bloom that he is constipated...in his soul. The delivery is hilarious. And other lines like it have the same weight.

Yet, even with such wit and sharp dialogue, the characters take a long time to care about--if you ever do. Johnson makes the plot highly convoluted to the point of distracting from the film's most important assets, its cast. And while the scenes are pretty and the music is whimsical, sometimes the characters really do feel constipated...in their roles. No doubt, they are working with some hard material, but even still, Ruffalo and Brody never measure up to Weisz and Kikuchi, who does some really funny silent acting.

But it is a fun movie. And we all want to have fun at the movies. It will leave a bit of tingly in your happy glands even if the story feels like a large gimmick. There are nice, quiet moments and enjoyably large action scenes. Combining a bunch of genre and styles together, Johnson succeeds with making a unique con film, even if its overall content does not reach the height that everyone had hoped to see. As a second film release, it isn't bad at all, especially following Brick. As a film for the ages, it will be shadowed, no doubt, by its successors.

Duplicity review (Movie)

2009-08-04T06:01:00.000-07:00

7.8/10
Who is Tony Gilroy? An unfamiliar name, except for the the fact that he penned not only the entire Bourne trilogy for the silver screen but also 2007's critically acclaimed Michael Clayton. Oh and short of Armageddon and perhaps Proof of Life (Meg Ryan and Russell Crowe 2000 love-war tango thing), every movie this guy has written has been amazing. Now it is 2009, not spring anymore, not March when one of his more recent films, Duplicity, was released, and sadly, Gilroy looks like a ghost town of a writer for this year, even though two of his movies have been released so far. Both good, hard-working, and wonderfully composed movies. But let's talk about Duplicity, let's take a look at Gilroy's masterful take on the rom-com-espionage movie.

Duplicity is a simple movie. At least, it is a simple movie at first. Two spies, Claire Stenwick (Julia Roberts) and Ray Koval (Clive Owen) want to play off rivalry between two pharmaceutical corporations so they can con both and run away with a lot of money. Of course, with most spy/con movies, there is always a twist, or about five million twists. The key for any writer in the genre is how he or she should address the twists and how frequently they occur. Where Brothers Bloom made its plot at times tedious with its over-conning, Gilroy manages to flip the audience around enough to keep people interested. The twists are not annoying or distracting from the plot, but overall advance the situation and create greater suspense for how our darling Ray and Claire will get out of their shit-out-of-luck moments. And really, the overall con at the end of the movie is the biggest payoff.

But perhaps Duplicity still is a simple movie--if not for its jagged plot line then for its themes and characterizations. Gilroy never for one second attempts to step his movie in to a realm other than fun. The dialogue is biting and sassy between Roberts and Owen, and their chemistry seems spot on. Owen has always been good at delivering the quick-pace verbal assaults in other movies and here he does a fine job, especially in one of the first scenes he shares with Roberts. The other characters range emotionally, just as Roberts and Owens--it isn't a lighthearted rom-com, but the tone is set at a perfect balance between comedy and action thriller.

Surprisingly Gilroy somehow made a spy-triller movie that doesn't use any explosions, gun play, or car chases. The tension he sets up all comes from detection and stealth, from getting caught and getting free. I mean if he can make the tech guy tripping over himself in the super-secret lab where Roberts and Owen work during a key moment in the data detection scene raise the stakes and add tension, then Gilroy gets even more brownie points. I mean, it really does take someone with a keen sense of tension and release to avoid the typical tools of pseudo-fear, such as pulling out a gun, or cars going really fast. Instead he makes the scenes quick, the character movements fast, the dialogue fast. He keeps people's attention through interesting and concise character action.

Yeah, Gilroy really did hit the mark with his characters and casting. Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti as the dueling corporations who both want a piece of each other makes some real good sense. Of course Giamatti is the calculating and concerned company, wanting to know what his rival is doing with new products, hiring a staff of spies like Roberts and Owen to do his dirty work. His part is done well. And Wilkinson as the more prophetic and relaxed CEO, cutting his bonsai tree in his minimalist office, just as an audience would imagine Wilkinson--more reserved, but just as much of a perfectionist.

It is hard to say where Gilroy missteps other than an atypical plot structure. Instead of a simple point A to B script, he writes one intermixed with present-day antics and continuous flashbacks. However, Gilroy includes the flashbacks in the movie at times that make sense, usually when either Owen or Roberts gets duped by someone. And the flashbacks add context and explain the current situation that they are in, but do it with succinct pacing. While flashbacks are always looked down upon, unless you are Christopher Nolan (in Memento), Gilroy handles them pretty damn well. I make note of this because other people who saw the movie with me made comments at its structure being not as clear and straightforward.

One thing is definitely a damn shame: this movie had to come out in March, a time that nobody cares about movies, unless you are selling gold, which, unfortunately, Duplicity was not sold as gold. It wasn't really sold to audiences as much as tossed into a big pool of mediocre. It makes sense why many people don't really recall this movie, or really care to see it. The trailers made it look like a generic spy-rom-com. But it is really worth seeing. And well I guess the DVD trains are going to rush it on racks in a store near you. I had the luck to see it at a dollar theater, on 75cent Tuesday. Maybe you'll have the privilege of seeing it too.

Funny People review (Movie)

2009-08-03T06:17:00.000-07:00

6.0/10
The mainstream comedy-flick empire of Judd Apatow came about rather quickly through the 2000s. If not through his direct creative input, with films such as the 40 Year-old Virgin and Knocked Up, then certainly through producing and promoting comedic works that host a core group of common actors and comedians. Within this catalog, all of the films in the Apatow powerhouse are lighthearted in tone and ripe with blue comedy--as if to never stretch into any complex plot lines or emotional territory other than gut-bursting hilarious. Apatow has become pretty good at crafting and supporting comedy in the more generic and recreational sense. He never wanted anything from the audience other than for them to laugh. But in Apatow's latest film, Funny People, the director/writer finds himself picking at darker territory, at mortality and what it means to be alive, while still fire-rocketing an onslaught of comedic moments throughout a sprawling--and overwhelmingly long--two and half hour movie.

Funny People is essentially about death. Apatow wants to talk about death but with comedy, and he does that by forming a plot where famous comedian George Simmons (played by Adam Sandler) finds out within the first 5 minutes of the film that he has a life-threatening form of leukemia that will probably kill him--though, he tries experimental drugs with a low chance of saving his life. In the mean time, Simmons removes himself from the big-time Hollywood scene and starts doing small-time comedy to get his mind off the impending doom. Well, while at a night club he gives a highly dark and upsetting comedy bit that is more of him complaining about life and fearing death than making anyone laugh, so aspiring comedian Ira (Seth Rogen) who has to follow his act makes jokes about him. With a somewhat unbelievable turn of events, Simmons gets Ira to work for him as a comic assistant, to help write jokes since Simmons is so wrapped up into death. And in the end, Ira helps Simmons cope with death, loneliness, and attempt to get back the girl who got away, Laura (Leslie Mann).

Yes. Funny People is a beast. Its long run time creates a disjointed storyline and mismanaged plot beats. Yes, Apatow sets out to write a film about death with all of the comedy to help the medicine go down, but in the end, he ultimately makes a half-assed sentimental plot structure that is (of-fucking-course!) based around some kind of romantic attachment. Yet, the lengthy time of the movie creates an interesting dichotomy: the first half of the film revolves mainly around a look into the lives of aspiring comedians Ira and his two roommates Leo (Jonah Hill), and Mark (Jaosn Schwartzman) in Los Angeles, whereas the final hour of the film focuses mainly on George Simmons dealing with life--after thinking he would die and getting better--by pursuing the woman he loves.

It is a real damn shame that Apatow had to make the film overly sentimental. Because the first hour, the part of the film where Simmons thinks that he is going to die, is the best part. The comedy from the aspiring writers is actually funny--their dynamic works as roommates, friends, and the standup comedy is enjoyable. Even the decline of Simmons is rewarding as he reviews what he has done with his life and tries to make bonds and friends with people that he either has worked with and do not understand or know his impending death or with people like his family, who kind of hate him for being a dick. Simmons being defeated as a grown man did not need an hour detour where he tries to re-light an old flame with Laura, because in the end, he is left with the same conclusion: alone, more knowledgeable about life, and a better person bla bla bla bla.

I just remember in the film one of the best scenes--at least, one of the best scenes for its serious discussion--had Simmons talking with his friend Eminem in a fancy restaurant after learning that he will live due to the experimental drugs. Eminem explains how Simmons should have just died, otherwise, what the fuck will his life amount to now, anyway, giving himself more time? Another shitty movie deal? Another girl to fuck? In the end, Eminem questions the lifestyle of the rich and the famous, the hollow core that makes up at least George Simmons' life. He is lonely and his out was death, as least for Eminem. It is somewhat moving in its negativity, looking at how utterly useless the big hot-shot lifestyle can be. Yet, Apatow's response to the Eminem-question: "what are you going to do with your life anyway?" is wasted on pursuing the girl of my dreams. Instead, it seems that Simmons should have been less self-fish, or at least, self-fish in a less boring way.

But, even with the dragging last hour of the film, Funny People doesn't completely fail at mixing serious topics and comedy. It is a dramedy, no doubt, just not one that isn't as successful as it should have been. Apatow sets out to create a tear-jerking and I guess even circle-jerking crowd pleaser, but comes up a little short. Though, the performances in the film, especially by Adam Sandler, are surprisingly above par on both comedy and dramatic levels--minus Eric Bana, who plays a kind of shitty Australian man. Anyway. Funny People is worth watching at least for the first hour, and if you feel moved enough, perhaps even for the second one.

Public Enemies review (Movie)

2009-07-31T10:16:00.000-07:00

4.8/10
Let's all admit it. The thirties was a fucked up time. The Great Depression. The rise of Nazis. Fascism. Herbert Hoover. Americans came off the gravy train of the roaring 20s with a leftover lip-smudged napkin in their back pockets and not a single dollar to get on the train home. We had our fun in the United States and then we had to pay big. No jobs. A shitty-ass economy. The dust bowl. And then throw in the rise of gangsterism, of the Baby Faces, of the Capones, of doing "business as usual" under the table, and, well, bank robbery and money laundering and the ideas of Robin Hood antics. It's all found in the 1930s.

One of the gangsters in this crazy time, who also can be seen as a public hero, came in the form of John Dillinger, legendary bank robber and folk hero who was not a pure evil nor a church-going kind of guy. He played big risks for big rewards but never got his hands dirty enough to be a true menace, only a legend of class and color. Unfortunately, Michael Mann, in his latest addition to the collection of gangster dramas, Public Enemies, does not capture the essence of the times, and only somewhat successfully defines the big-boy John Dillinger as anything other than a bank robbing criminal with a few quirks.

Indeed, Public Enemies is an odd film. Something that has a lot of things going for it, but ultimately is a complete let down. Johnny Depp and John Dillinger should have been the equivalent of Brad Pitt playing Jesse James in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford . Christian Bale as the lead FBI agent who tracks Dillinger, Melvin Purvis, is a half-conceived role, trying hard to take on elements of good-ole-boy charm and badly done naivety. The world of the 1930s is minimalized to a slew of set pieces that have a hard time capturing the moment and world Dillinger became famous in for his stunts.

One of the biggest problems Mann has with is movie is the persistent use of the handicam. I don't think I've ever disliked a movie based almost solely on technical choices. But Mann fails. He tries to make the movie slightly like an A&E documentary while still working in the typical film conventions and also with an HD camera. Meaning, he flips from really sloppy, shaky, and amateurish footage on the handicam to normal, polished Hollywood epic-drama footage. I just can't get over one shot at the beginning of the movie on the handicam where all you see for like 30 seconds is half of Johnny Depp's face and the rest of it is of the sky. It felt like something I filmed when I was sixteen and fucking around with my friends. I mean, the main problem with the technical choice is that it COMPLETELY distracts the audience from the story.

Which, by the way, the story is mediocre. Mann bases his movie off the 2004 novel Public Enemies: America's Greatest Crime Wave and the Birth of the FBI, 1933–34 which in its long title suggests two stories, and Mann tries to couple the "Greatest Crime Wave" aka John Dillinger's final year with the creation of the FBI, which, in theory, makes absolute-fucking-sense. However, Mann doesn't incorporate both stories with the finesse or smoothness that one would hope. Just like his handicamera work, the story is clunky and shaky, moving from scene to scene and never giving one plot point enough time to really diffuse. The audience sees different elements of Dillinger's life. The bank robbing, the social play, the love story, and the crime politics, but none of it gets enough screen time to matter. And for most of the movie, the tension between the characters, as a result of such splintered storyteller, is not really existent.

Yet, while Mann does miss the mark on storytelling for the most part, he does try to tap into some big ideas and symbolism. Dillinger in the film is never depicted as a full-throttle cold-blooded killer, but at the same time, his blurry moral nature of good-and-evil never really gets enough steam. The story hints at Dillinger's charm being more than small-time personality traits, but never really extends to make him the anti-hero. His cool composure gets mistaken for arrogance, and his respect for the normal citizens comes off as mere idiosyncratic behavior. His morals are slightly touched on, but never really made clear, which makes his character development somewhat hindered.

I can't say this film is a complete bust. It just makes me sad that the handicam, the overbearing music that did not stack up to the dramatic beats of the film, and the mismanaged story threads had to really bring it down. Admittedly the film does pick up in its final hour, when Dillinger feels more like a big-time player who actually needs to be caught by the FBI. But before that happens, which there is a lot of movie before that happens, the typical cops and robbers chase does not spark much empathy for either side of the chase. I could see the film, with another draft or two, really becoming something more focused or at least better organized. It is promising, but not enough to make it a great film.

Watchmen review (Movie)

2009-07-30T10:42:00.000-07:00

5.2/10
Alright, so the guy who directed 300--as if you didn't know by the wonderfully overthetop ad campaign--Zack Snyder directed and helped artfully structure the adaptation of the Watchmen in what comes off to be a highly credible supplement to the book. Indeed, as often becomes the case for big-name book adaptations to film, the main question arises: "how faithful was the movie to the book?" Snyder marries his screenplay and film with most of the same plot points, dialogue, and character development that the graphic novel goes through. Yet, even with such a high fidelity to the source material, Watchmen at times comes off like a clinging ex-lover that needs to assert him/herself in the world--("get your own friends" much?)

Nonetheless, the movie is eye candy, visually wonderful and slightly melodramatic. The starting montage scene that rolls through the opening credits with Bob Dylan's "The Times Are A-Changing" is particularly moving. Even as a quick run through of the past thirty years of history (from 1985)--now with the masked heroes implanted into the timeline--it reveals some of the most touching and trying (and albeit, kinna fucked up) parts of American history; it serves as a true and bloody portrayal of brutally around the world, but especially in the United States. Which is to say, the montage sets the tone for the movie, people are bloody, malicious, and are doomed to kill themselves.

Which of course is the setting for the movie--humanity on the brink of nuclear destruction. Set in an alternate American history in the mid-1980s, costumed heroes live within society as normal vigilantes without any superpowers (minus blue Dr. Manhattan), and Richard Nixon is serving his third term as president as the citizens of the United States feel the pressure of nuclear war with the Soviet Union. It is here that the first incongruity makes its appearance, which hurts the film. The graphic novel allows the threat of nuclear meltdown to diffuse through its hundreds of pages, reminding its readers through newspaper fanfare, reoccurring imagery of the doomsday clock, and general street-side hubbub about fear of war.

Of course, the movie taps slightly into the wartime threat as community fear, but really makes it come off like another large idea that is hard to grasp, and instead feels like an awkward crisis. I recall the last scene in the movie, which is the last scene in the book, inside the newspaper office and how it felt more contrived in the movie that the newspaperman said aww fuck how we are giong to get money with no war to report. Indeed, the newspaper doomsday element was played down, and rightfully so in terms of movie runtime and maintaining important plot points, but of course its diminished presence made the graphic novel seem that much more superior.

Even still, the movie does keep its entertainment value. Running around three hours, I thought that I wouldn't be interested for the entire length, but the plot moves rather smoothly. I never felt the dull moment, which gives props to Zack Snyder because the Watchmen book has a lot of talky, slow moments. Of course, he elongated some fight scenes and anything with action at any possible chance he got. Which for the most part is okay, except that the fight scenes at times were slightly awkward. And well, the infamous sex scene between Nite Owl and Silk Spectre with the song Hallelujah played over it just added to the awkward / overthetop factor.

Yet, the characters in the movie had an interesting balance between feeling very real and also feeling somewhat contrived. I remember one of the last scenes of the movie Rorschach removes his mask in the Antarctic after learning the killer of the masked heroes and screams for Dr. Manhattan to kill him or he will tell the authorities--a true sense of justice! It felt real and somewhat moving--the look on his face, the anguish. But, then there is Silk Spectre, who any time grazed the scene made her character and unfortunately the characters around her seem like a part of a graphic novel adaptation. Her crappy relationship with Dr. Manhattan was especially trying given her forced emotions / performance. Yet, oddly enough, Dr. Manhattan, feels like one of the more genuine characters in the movie, even though he acts deadpan and emotionally distant throughout most of the movie.

Given the inconsistencies, it is unfortunate that the movie will always have its graphic novel source text looming over it. Snyder took it upon himself to appease the audience that would fervently seek a luminous carbon copy of the graphic novel in a filmic rendition. It is sad that such brutal honesty and perseveration of the graphic novel, in most every aspect, had to be the ultimate failure of the movie from being a completely stunning and wonderful cinematic experience. The largest misstep Snyder took was forgetting that adaptation doesn't simply mean copying the source text verbatim, especially if the graphic novel provides both visuals and narrative structure.

Indeed, adaptations should extend the parameters of the source material, especially with Watchmen--a comic book that lays out characters and how they look so perfectly. The only thing the movie adds, if it copies everything else, is a human and non-stop "real-life" motion quality to the comic. But when I recall the movie, I immediately recall the scene in the graphic novel--they both feel visually real and fictional. Given that, the Watchmen movie probably would have been more successful stripping away its relationship with the book, and allowing its characters and themes to hold true. For some reason, audiences demand that the books and movies (generally) be similar, which makes no sense since obviously they are two completely different mediums. Watchmen should have been given the same treatment as Batman--it should have been a movie within the universe of Watchmen.

Kitchen (Screenplay)

2009-07-29T16:59:00.000-07:00

Bio: Alex Blair works at a plant nursery and studies at UT Austin. He also writes spec screenplays. Contact.

Logline: Sam and Dean are badass mercenaries. But when their friend goes missing by a suspected Canadian, they go after all of Canada. (COMEDY)

Note: This is Act I only. If you like it, urge him to keep going!

PDF.

Comments --

Alex,

I’m going to ignore formatting and grammar and talk about big picture stuff—

The script has promise. It’s zany, it’s quirky, and Dave and Sam are good characters. I’m going to start with big picture stuff. Your plot seems to be a rescue mission that doesn’t come in until page 29 with the line: “let’s go get our friend?” The first part of your screenplay is setup and it manages to introduce exposition about Sam and Dave and it tells me about their interests, their chemistry, and their quips. They are funny characters. I like their relationship and I buy them. I’m not sure which one I like better, and in turn, I feel like both the characters could be interchangeable. I don’t feel like the characters are different enough for me to distinguish between who is saying what. This is a problem, but I think you can manage to get away with it, because ultimately, they are best buds, and let’s be realistic: best friends talk alike.

I’d rate your character development at a B+. This is a strong element at work in the screenplay. On screen, they will be likeable goofballs, and I enjoy their humor. I can tell you managed to work some of yourself in there, and for this, I love it.

Your strongest suit, which unfortunately will not make it on screen, is your description. You’ve got a lot of good lines comparing things, introducing people, and economy. “Like a balloon/porcupine farm.” Etc.

Moving on—

The first twenty pages of your screenplay need serious work. Not in terms of lines or characters or humor, but in terms of story. The first ten pages are the most crucial thing in selling a spec, and to be honest, I wouldn’t have kept reading past page ten. It’d go to the bottom of the stack.

Let’s examine why: plot. Your plot and story need work. You spend roughly ten pages with Sam and Dave and then move Lafayette (here on L). L seems unrelated to the plot in large ways, and ultimately, Sam and Dave seem inconsequential. I have no idea what the story is until page 29. Some boys go to Canada, there’s this Canadian badass L that really likes Canada, but it doesn’t fit. Granted, I’m only reading the first Act, I know you will eventually tie these two elements together in some sort of ridiculous climax that involves firing a tank and a brewery.

L’s introduction goes on too long. He’s walking and talking around town for 2-3 pages and I’m bored. Show me one scene, and move on to the kidnapping of Marty. The Gypsies are interesting characters and have funny lines: “your hair is so soft/like a bunny.” They seem unrelated.

The main problem I had with your script is nothing felt connected, everything felt disjoined and the scenes didn’t seem to flow into each other. Your scenes in terms of Dave/Sam’s arc and L’s arc FLOW, but together they seem like fire and ice.

Let’s talk about motivation. The motivation of your main plot (Sam/Dave rescue Marty) is weak. They don’t really want to do in the first place. No main character, no matter how jokingly should say: "I guess we can rescue Marty." Granted, I've made a similar mistake in my earlier screenplays but it can be fixed in rewrites.

I’d cut down the penis/sex joke subtext. You have it featured so much in the script that you really lose the humor. Sam/Dave make so many jokes about tanks and dicks and sex that I’m tired by page ten. Then when really funny lines come along I’m not convinced.

Let’s talk dialogue. Your dialogue is witty, but it rambles a lot. I’d work on cutting down useless words. I’m skeptical on a paragraph of dialogue that goes for longer than 1 sentence. Sometimes you can get away with 2. Three is max. You better have a damn good reason for 4-5. Like I’m revealing everything about my movie in these next lines.

Specifics—

Page 6- “Eye to eye, toe to ear.” Awkward. Can see what your going for, didn’t work.

Page 7- “nefarious.” Nobody would say this. Remove.

Page 13- “root beer.” This scene was hilarious. Nice work.

Page 15- “throw Marty in traffic.” This was your best line. So simple, yet so effective. No sexual references yet it still soared.

Page 18- "sixteen teeth" = lol

You do a good job of naming the horses, the tanks, it creates characters where they shouldn’t be.

“Well, Oh, Oh yeah, Now” --

I noted this many times during dialogue. Please watch unnecessary “well, oh, oh yeah,” in dialogue. I feel like screenwriters do this because they don’t know what they want to say when writing, and they end up with unnecessary words. The actors will add stuff like this. I’d work on trimming down lines.

Page 25/26- Sexual humor that works.

Page 28- Solid Gypsy dialogue with muffin on page.

Motivation: they don’t like Marty. This needs to change.

Sidenote: clever introduction about The Strangers.

This is all I can think of right now. If you have specific comments, or want me to expand, like me know. I’d be happy to expand on any of my ideas. I’d love to help rewrite dialogue or rethink plot points.

Readers: feel free to criticize my comments or the script. Round table is the best type of table.

Brüno review (Movie)

2009-07-29T14:10:00.001-07:00

6.6/10
The character-acting antics of Sacha Baron Cohen have always struck a great-bellowing chord of humor from when they began on the Ali G Show. From the urban hipster Ali G to the racist and politically incorrect Borat to now the ultra-fabulous Brüno, Cohen has taken his comedy routine into largely hilarious and quite often highly controversial territory. But Cohen doesn't attempt to make PG humor with his characters. He has a mission. He often seeks satire, but at the same time delivers blue comedy with it. And well, his jumbled approach often works to good effect. In the latest installment to his character-driven comedies, Brüno, Cohen finds himself aiming for the same lofty hilarity as his previous effort, Borat, but coming up short more times than one would have hoped.

Brüno doesn't really feel like a movie, as much as a string of ideas held together with a thin plot line. Indeed, the main plot element occurs after Brüno gets blacklisted out of his home country Austria for causing a ruckus at a fashion show by wearing a suit made entirely out of Velcro, he decides that he wants to get famous by creating a talk show in the United States--with the ultimate goal of being famous. And really, that is what the entire film is about, more or less: Brüno trying to get famous. Of course, he strays from that goal often for the sake of humor.

And, admittedly, there is a lot of good humor. I can't deny the fact that I laughed a lot while watching this film. And surprisingly enough, one of the biggest laughs from the movie occurred when Brüno shows a TV executive a sample show that he wants to sell, and well, the show transitions from one interview to the next with a penis twirling around and then the urethra screaming BRÜNO! I would say the movie is worth seeing for that alone, but that just might be my crass sensibility. On a more satirical level of funny, Brüno, while creating the sample footage of the show, manages to get an interview with Paula Abdul. The only problem: Bruno doesn't have furniture in his newly acquired home, so he uses the hired Mexican maintenance workers as chairs and tables. And for about enough time to make it crazy, Abdul is interviewed, expressing her humanitarian concerns as she sits on one of the workers.

Yet, even with good moments, Brüno's charm wears off after awhile. The character in itself doesn't offer much inherent humor other than being a ultra-fashion snob and label/brand name guru of only the best commodities. It is a shame that Cohen did not take the character further in the direction of sociopolitical satire and less with blue comedy, and sadly, the most shocking and perverse moments had almost little to do with Brüno's sexual orientation. Like when he interviews an actual terrorist and calls Osama bin Laden a dirty Santa. For the most part, Cohen places himself in obvious situations for heated and opposing viewpoints that find homosexuality repulsive, such as religious organizations. And to a certain extent, Brüno harasses people to get a rise out of them, which doesn't really serve as funny or shocking, because regardless of sexual orientation, if someone keeps touching you in a provocative way and you don't want to, it is going to get annoying. Not surprisingly, with the 88 minute run time, about the last quarter of the film doesn't quite hit the mark as the rest of the movie did.

Another problem that makes the film less gut-wrenching funny is that it has more obvious attempts at scripted humor. The filmmakers contrive more funny moments than in Borat, and any time the audience can sense that, which happens a lot, the voyeur / candid moments don't hold much weight. Given the script treatment, sometimes it feels as though Cohen is laughing at how people accept the film as reality--where, indeed, there is a big joke, but it is on the all-consuming audiences, instead of those audiences being in on the humor. Sadly one of the best jokes from Brüno occurred outside of the movie, where he gets four college students/wrestlers to scream P-A-R-T-Y with as much energy as possible. After five attempts of reaching the highest amount of energy possible, which consisted of one of the guys jumping off of a bus and screaming Y!, Brüno tells one of the guys that they are broadcasting to Austrian Gay television. And as an immediate response, the guy flips out completely and destroys the microphone and storms off. The level of rage and the amount of build up to that moment is both shocking and greatly hilarious. And that one gag had more wit and satire than most of the jokes in the film.

But even as a concept, Brüno could never be as funny as Borat. Brüno fails by being almost one gimmick, the fabulous homosexual, whereas Borat explored the political incorrectness of people on multiple levels, ranging from racism to sexism. And while the comparisons are inevitable between the two characters, Brüno does stand on his own, but Cohen's direction in the film does not serve the character as much justice as the Ali G show did. Still, when comparing the film to other comedies of the year, Brüno is still funny, scripted or not. Yet, as being a great satire that opens societies eyes to its own shitty under-the-current thoughts? Not so much.

Moon review (Movie)

2009-07-28T11:39:00.000-07:00

8.3/10
The current trend of science fiction in American cinema has no doubt built a powerhouse of movies that never attempted to do anything but completely blow the audience's sensory input away with feasts of explosions, gunplay, back-and-forth dialogue, and let's not forget, creative science. Just in the past decade films like Minority Report and Transformers and even Star Trek have never trusted their science fiction plot leanings enough to let it carry the movie. And similarly, most big-budget and even small budget (ie, Sunshine) science fiction films assume the audience has the attention span of a hyperactive video game junkie. But then there is Moon. A sci-fi film that trusts people have attention spans that last longer than thirty seconds by not forsaking its intriguing setting and plot for an onslaught of action sequences--a film that is more introspective than explosive. Director Duncan Jones takes the audience to a desolate world of a single astronaut and creates a great study in what it means to be a human.

Moon is a film with a simple premise. In the near future some corporation has figured out that helium in moon rocks can be harvested to create energy. So, it sends one astronaut, Sam (Sam Rockwell), to maintain the operations of the rock harvesting equipment. The conditions on the space station are not too bad. There is television, living quarters, gardening, sculpting, table tennis, and a companion robot named Gerty (voiced by Kevin Spacey). But even with all of the luxuries, the three-year contract that Sam signs is still an extremely lonely experience, especially since the live feed for connecting with his family and friends went down in some solar flare accident; so all contact with Earth is limited to pre-recorded video messages. And well, robot companions aren't the most rewarding of friends.

Admittedly, it is harder to write this review without pressing on one of the most delicate plot points of the movie, which is best left for the viewer and not for someone to spoil. But the main conflict of the film surrounds Sam dealing with himself during the final weeks of his contract. Director (and co-writer) Duncan Jones forces the audience to question how far free-market companies will go to exploit physical resources as well as human labor (which is interesting considering the current health care reform situation). Moon shows that people can be and ARE expendable for someone else's greater good. Yet, it also stresses with this observation, that people should never be reduced to a specific part in some "greater" whole.

Beyond the plot elements, Moon succeeds in creating atmosphere with its sparse set design within the space hold, while creating visually appealing lunar-scapes. It is refreshing that the film didn't make the technology outrageous and seemingly unbelievable. Sam has the same kind of spacesuit as astronauts have now. And all the moon rovers look believable with large Hummer-esque wheels and a clunky exterior. Similarly, the music in the film actually matches the dramatic beats and aids the tension set within the plot. Indeed, music composer Clint Mansell keeps with the eerie landscape of the moon and the psychological elements of the film.

And well, Sam Rockwell does a really great job as the sole actor (minus a couple other very minimal roles) of the film. He plays his role as the astronaut with great range, from humor, to loneliness to rage to anguish. But he picks up on little things too. Like throughout the film he acts so comfortable in space and on the moon. When he gears up for lunar-walks or updates information about the harvesting, there is no mystique about the moon. He is casual, seemingly not concerned with how life-threatening space can be; it is just another job, another place to exist. Which is why his performance heightens the themes of the film. His lack of wonderment with space, in things that lose their novelty IS a human trait.

Hard science fiction like Moon is a dying breed of film. Which is sad, especially since the last thing like this any audience had to chew on came in the form of the American adaption of Tarkovsky's Solaris. Any film that can create tension without gunplay or explosions or chase scenes is already heightened to a level of writing that exceeds a lot films. Thankfully Duncan Jones has decided to continue a film series in the same setting as Moon (which he originally planned and didn't tack on after success). I am curious to see where Jones goes after this directorial debut, which is one of the most mentally rewarding films of the year.

The Menu (Screenplay)

2009-07-28T11:18:00.000-07:00

Bio: Jack Simmons is a slam-poet and screenwriter from Austin. Contact.

Note: For the sake of protecting aspiring writers Jack is a pseudonym.

Logline: Ralph and Marty eat the same thing at the same restaurant day after day. Then one day, the menu changes. (SHORT)

PDF.

Comments --

Jack,

I’m going to ignore formatting or grammar and talk about big picture stuff –

First things first, page count in a short is immense. Usually in feature length scripts shaving off a page or trimming down a scene doesn’t change much to the over arcing story. Here, in a short, doing the same thing will drastically cut down your story by a 1/6th, 1/5th, 1/4th, etc. I bring this up because your story needs some overall reduction. I’ll get into that later.

Thematically, I take away the idea of monotony, that people are slow to change when change comes. You do a good job of visualizing this with Marty and Ralph’s dialogue. Day after day, we learn that they order a “spinach salad,” or a “Miami soup.” These elements introduce the viewer to the idea of repetitions, and you establish theme efficiently.

But, theme is also what hurts you more than it helps you. Audience members are smart. We understand repetition quickly. You spend almost 3 pages establishing (in a short this is HUGE) this. I’d cut this down. You can introduce that Ralph and Marty do this in almost 1.5 pages. I’d estimate with jump cuts and scene blending, you could merge the first 3 pages by half.

How to do this?

Cut the first 7 paragraphs of descriptions into two. I’ll walk you through it --

FROM—

Booths line the windows, spinning-stools stand near the serving counter.

Patrons occupy less than half of the seats.A single host podium rests near the entrance. The HOST, a 17 year-old girl, stands and doodles pictures of islands with
the children’s crayons and place-mat.

On the front host podium reads a sign: “THE MENU” This serves as the title.

The entrance door CREAKS open, the Host looks up. A sign of recognition.

TWO MEN walk in the foyer: MARTY JACBOS (30s), a taller, bearded man with glasses and a white t-shirt, shorts, and RALPH MEIZEL (30Ss) a shorter, cleanly shaven man with a white polo shirt and jeans.

They reach the host podium. The host places her scribbles away. Grabs two menus.

INTO—

American diner. Few patrons occupy booths.

The HOST, 17, doodles islands with crayons, bored. She greets MARTY (30s), taller and RALPY (30s) shorter. Places her “art” away and grabs two menus.

It’s economical without losing too much of the necessary description. Do we need to know the title? No, an editor or director will take care of that placement.

Eliminating extraneous description will be useful in cutting down page count and will also be a blessing for the readers. When revising it’s important to always always look at what can be said in fewer words.

Next—

Use jump cuts to shorten repetition or clever editing you can direct through your writing.

You’re aiming for theme here, trying to set us up for the ending, when the sandwiches and salads don’t arrive; our protagonists are slow to change. There are more clever ways of doing this. For example, you could set us up with them ordering even before the waitress hands them menus. What does this establish? Repetition. Your goal. So check that off. Move further into the scene. They sit, bark off their orders and then food arrives. Then cut several times to new plates and the same food arriving. Maybe three times, maybe four. Here's how I would tackle this (It's modeled after Josh Schwartz's method) –

SERIES OF SHOTS –

-- Miami Salsa Soup’s set down.
-- Spinach Salad's set down.
-- Same items, new plates, are placed as the days go on.

Repetition? Another check mark. Plus, it’s got that Jason Reitman/Flight of the Conchords indie quirk to it. I can just picture all the table clothes changing and the plates dancing as more and more plates are set down.

I’d estimate you could write all this in a few lines. A huge success, because ultimately, your short is asking to be five minutes.

Moving on—

At the end of page three you establish conflict. The familiar teenage waitress is now replaced, the first hint that repetition for our protagonists is about to be broken. But this comes in at—

Page three.

Conflict should be earlier. Often, grizzled screenwriters introduce conflict by page one. This is why I sometimes cannot stand novels. I am just itching for conflict. A huge personal side note so let's move on—

You wait a significant amount to introduce conflict. If your short was a feature length and we maintained a ratio of page count, you would probably introduce conflict on page 20-25. This is bad news. For a short, we’re looking at page 2, even earlier if we can.

Now, with rewrites you can push onwards, trim descriptions and use jump cuts/Schwartz's montage method and introduce the change of the waitress by the beginning of page two.

Here’s what I see as major conflict –

Waitress change
New cook
Menu reduction/elimination

You’re following the rules of threes. Which is perfect. I’d establish all of these by midway through page three. Skip the introductions; get the audience to the familiar booth, start with the lines of dialogue, and introduce reactions from Marty and Ralph.

The ending—

Your ending lacks a conclusive bite. I’m done reading it and I’m left thinking “What? That’s it?” I read all of that for the two men to leave? I wanted something bigger, something grand. I felt anti-climax to the tenth degree.

As your short is set up, unfortunately I don’t imagine the ending changing rather than a few logistics. Conceptually, it will stay the same. The men decide to leave after their food they’ve become so accustomed to no longer exist. This is a problem conceptually in your short. If this changes your entire story changes. I think eliminating the extraneous pages will get us to the ending faster. If we can tell this story in four minutes? All the better. People may not ask these questions.

I imagine this short being successful at some place like NYU or some artsy school in San Fran (excuse the over generalization). For me, it’s rather boring or “snore.” The execution is solid, the concept shaky. A big problem is when I’m reading this, I’m not really rooting for anybody and furthermore, I don’t have a sense of either character. Except that they like going to the same place and eating the same entree every day, which in turn, says something about human nature, but I don’t have any quirks (read: Seth Cohen from the OC, Sock from Reaper) or memorable lines (read: Vic Mackey from The Shield), or humorous (all three). This leads me to your biggest issue—

Your major problem – Why do the characters want this? We know they want repetition. But why?

It could be as easy as a line fix to the waitress, -“What do you want?” –“Comfort.” (not that but you know). I want to see a rewrite soon, Jack! Get on it!

Readers: feel free to criticize my comments or the script. Round table is the best type of table.

The Hurt Locker review (Movie)

2009-07-27T12:36:00.000-07:00

9.5/10
Ever since the 9/11 attacks on the United States, Iraq and its relationship with terrorism has been a hot-button topic. Between the weapons of mass destruction and the constructed civil war, people have questioned the purpose and validity of an Iraq intervention, making the Iraq War, like most others, a largely complex issue. Especially if the war seemingly has the greatest purpose of national security for some, whereas others see the war as useless or a distraction from a greater threat. In any case, the Iraq War has always been something drummed up or put down by its delicate image, constantly thrown in the moral spotlight of good vs. evil. But even with such spotlight, in its sixth year, the Iraq War is something oddly abstract and quickly fading from the public conscious.

The Hurt Locker, directed by Kathryn Bigelow (Point Break), is a cross-section of the Iraq War. It is a film that takes the detail of a single bomb squad without centering the plot in some type of moral conundrum. The movie starts in Iraq and ends in Iraq, and for about 99% of the run time, all you see is Iraq and a war with characters acting as real soldiers, as real people. Bigelow's and screenwriter Mark Boal's greatest accomplishment with this film manifests in how determined they are to make a war film that isn't weighed down by fantasy or idealism, but instead authenticity.

Indeed, the film begins with a bomb squad in Iraq that mixes robotics and hand-to-hand techniques for disarming a bomb left in the middle of the street. Everyone in the city appears as a threat and anyone that moves at all out of line becomes a target for suspicion. Hence, within the first moments, there is already a sense of urgency and tension as the bomb diffusing sergeant (played by Guy Pearce) attempts to fix the problem. And well, not everything goes according to plan, and the bomb explodes. But what is so great about this moment is how sensitive Bigelow treats this scene. She focuses slightly on the grandiose nature of the explosion, but then focuses on smaller things--like the jittering rust on a car, and the rattling pebbles in the sand and the seemingly voyeur-esque moments where Iraqis stare at the soldiers from their homes. And as a result, within the first moments of the film, the audience knows that Bigelow's focus is not exaggeration; instead she wants to explore the smaller moments within the war-zone.

Which is why it makes sense that the movie feels like episodic moments with the bomb squad rather than a continuous overarching plot. The Sergeant who dies in the explosion is replaced by a "wild-man," Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner), who is more comfortable diffusing bombs than his predecessor. He leads his team that consists of Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) in a series of bomb diffusing situations. But while the film doesn't have an overarching bad guy (thankfully), the script does progress as a tour-in-the-life of the three soldiers as the bond through their shared experiences. Yet, never do they have a great catharsis of friendship or disdain--instead their relationship grows as much as it can within the petri-dish-confines of war.

No doubt, character development in the film is almost perfect. Not only does Bigelow and Shoal depict the three soldiers with succinct storytelling, they also manage to touch base on the different attitudes soldiers have about war. James is the team-leading anti-hero who finds the adrenaline of war satisfying--more so than most things in life, which is excellently portrayed in the final moments of the film when he returns briefly to his home and stands in the endless sea of cereal boxes in the grocery store, looking completely burdened by the banality of his "ordinary" life. Sanborn is a middle ground between the other two soldiers. He is not a proponent of war nor complete afraid of his duty. He is understanding of the task at hand and does not stray away from his role on the team. And then there is Eldridge, the presumably youngin' who is afraid to die but nonetheless is fighting in a war. Yet, even with Eldridge's fear and anxiety about battle, his character never becomes completely overwhelmed with the fear to where drama surrounds him completely.

Not only does Bigelow create believable and balanced characters, she also depicts a seemingly indifferent Iraq, which comes as a result to her non-existent political tone. There is both camaraderie between some soldiers and Iraqis whereas there is also disdain. Similarly, the dialogue is not encumbered with American propaganda for freedom or liberty or whatever while at the same time does not have Iraqis demonizing Americans as cruel people. Most of the feelings about Americans within Iraq come through visuals; Bigelow lets the camera do the talking and instead of overthetop and overt speeches--the bare-naked piercing stare of several Iraqis looking at a soldier with a gun is enough to know what is what. For example, one of the greatest instances of how sliced the American perspective and the Iraqi perspective can be in this war occurs when a man walks into the middle of a street with a bomb attached to him. William James attempts to diffuse the bomb, but it goes sour, and so the bomb explodes with James in a close distance being propelled to the ground. As he looks up, dazed from the blast, he sees a kite flying, and notes a kid nearby flying the kite.

While there really is no contest on films about the Iraq War, the Hurt Locker stands as one of the best films of the year and probably of the decade. And no doubt, it should be added to the cannon of great American war films. Director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Shoal have captured war without the moral bells and whistles. This film has a grand showcase of little moments, of rippling sand, of running goats, of children's laughter, of how boring and tiring and frightening war can be. Of course the legitimacy of the Iraq War can be argued probably forever, yet what goes on there is both trash and treasure for soldiers serving duty.

The Possession (Screenplay)

2009-07-27T12:02:00.000-07:00

Bio: Smith lives in L.A. and writes spec screenplays. Contact.

Logline: Emily is forced to visit her grandmother for the weekend. Her grandmother also happens to be possessed by the devil. (HORROR/COMEDY)

PDF.

Comments --

Dustin,

I’m going to ignore formatting and grammar. Try and talk about the big picture stuff –

You’ve written a strong, but cliched intro. I have nothing wrong with that (I wrote the most generic teen drama ever), that said cliché doesn’t bother me, but it bothers others. Honestly, if I was a studio exec and reading this as a spec screenplay I probably wouldn’t make it past page 4 because your script is so much like the beginning of the Exorcist/Constantine/ any exorcism type movie. Girl tied to a bed, crazy demon shit, some killing, etc. I’d go bigger with it; I’d go Final Destination big with it. Have the deaths be bigger. We talked about Drag Me To Hell and the beginning of that movie was bigger. It had a kid dragged to Hell, which essentially set up Alison Lohman’s downfall at the end. Your movie doesn’t have any sort of conclusive bite, it has instead, reoccurrence, the idea that the demon will continue to posses’ people over and over again, which is a morbid thought, but I think the reason Drag Me To Hell was so strong was because it had a detective element in it. Lohman and Mac Guy searched for ways to stop the curse, they had a list of plans from that Indian dude, and they tried to exorcize that demon. I know I’m recounting stuff you already know, but that said, I think your movie needs something more concrete. Half your movie contains Emily trying to survive Grandma, which is awesome, but I think there needs to be some sort of goal for Emily, “this is how I stop it,” the audience will get behind you and then when your ending is as dark as it is now, it’ll be fine.

Moving on—

I’d cut down the cussing tenfold, it’s quite a bit more shocking when she says “they fucking lied” on page 55 if you de-emphasize the cursing in every sentence. You can still have her curse especially when you bring in the point about Grandma telling Emily’s mom not to curse.

Page 50. The midpoint. Grandma chases Emily after a good conversation about where I think your plots going to go, Emily could get possessed. The buildup begins strong, but falls flat when Emily gets to her room. I need a sense of urgency, I don’t feel this. You do a good job of showing Emily’s realization after seeing Rusty’s corpse, but again, Grandma/demon tension falls flat. I’d have her break into the room, then have another fight but this time, Emily knocks her out then does all the duct-tape, rope stuff.

Page 60 – Buford/Wilson dialogue. You’ve got the opportunity for a good joke here. –Bullshit, dad.
--Bullshit’s the day you were conceived/Bullshit’s your face (not good)/Bullshit’s your mom’s uterus, etc.

Page 61 -- Gaylord? Out of the blue. Plus, wittier response are possible – “Really, assclown (not that but, you know).”

Henry’s dialogue about blood on shirts = awesome.

Cut the exposition by starting later, open onto the line of “Ms. Milum’s possessed by the devil….” You’re reiterating information our already smart audience will be able to interpret. Start later, problem solved. Sidenote: because you’ll be cutting a lot, work in the hammer line, it’s a good callback.

Wilson = pretty lol.

Why would Henry’s dad/Wilson not accompany them to stop a devil possession? I’d address this issue.

So Grandma/devil can crack her bones into place and or break furniture easily but she can’t rid herself of some duct-tape/rope? I’d consider making this a better reason. No reason something as simple as this should cause anyone to not make this movie. It needs to get made. Basically, you should have a cross or a symbol or something anti-devil-like be around her so that it makes sense why Grandma can’t get free. “Henry, remove the cross, etc.”

I feel like Pat/Linda get along pretty well at the beginning of your story and then you show me on page 78 that they’re not. Arguing about music? An issue for getting divorced? Trivial. I need something bigger. Something legitimate. Also, now that I think about this you ran into the issue of show vs. tell – you reveal in dialogue exposition of Emily to Rusty “they always do this/fighting and arguing.” We come in on the tail end of an argument but I don’t feel the hate. Create actual conflict for Pat/Linda, I’ll get behind Emily’s sadness, then when you reveal it from Grandma to Emily, I’ll care (more). Page 11-14 establish this, but it’s more jokey/sarcastic which leads me to believe they somewhat like each other, I’d rework it so they seriously are on the verge of breaking up. Sidenote: page 81/82 onwards you do a good job of showing evidence of a divorce – I’d play this up earlier!

CAPS. I’d cut them. I’m In the middle of writing a horror script as well, I understand the urge to have them, but they distract. I can’t follow a pattern as to why you have them (besides sounds), thusly they annoy me. I’ve heard (and read) that JJ Abrams’ capitalizes sections of his scripts (read: LOST’s pilot), and he mentioned he does it to change up the flow and attract studio heads into pacing, and allow reader’s to understand the urgency of the story. Also, LOST does things its own ways like cussing during description, making everything less formal and more free flow, apparently ABC execs eat this shit up.

For example, copied out of Lost’s pilot (an exceptional piece of writing, but we’re not Abrams quite yet) –

777 – PASSENGER AIRLINE – 250-Seater – the MIDDLE SECTION of the fuselage PLOWED INTO THE SAND – one WING STICKING STRAIGHT UP, TOWERING SEVEN STORIES INTO THE SKY, sporadic SPARKS BURSTING FROM THE INVERTED ENGINE, showering down on the absolute MAYHEM on the sand –

It’s good writing, visual, vivid, emotional. But, again, I think caps are annoying in the same way writer’s tend to be like: “and then we look up to find a GHOST!” Capitalization marks bug the shit out of me, usually I’m willing to forgive it, but I feel like it’s the writer screaming at me telling me “hey! Look at how exciting this is!” If you’re confident in your ability to write, you’ll execute these ideas in the story, the dialogue, the tension. You don’t need caps to get this idea across. Your writing is strong enough to survive on its own without capitalization.

The ending—

Once Pat and Linda arrive, Emily/demon running around trying to hide the evidence is good. Especially because I was rooting for Emily/demon to not get discovered by Pat/Linda. The fact that you create pathos with demon Emily is exceptional. I shouldn’t root for Emily, but I DO. It’s awesome. My only suggestion on the ending is extend the conflict of Pat/Linda moving about the house. It’s awesome, especially the bat lines, I want to see more. I’d add in one more page of it.

Dude, Henry never hammered ANYTHING. WTF. I wanted that so badly. The audience will also. Henry needs to hammer something immediately. You set it up then forgot to call it back (minus lines).

This script should be 90 pages. I’d work on cutting extraneous bits out, because studio produced horror movies shouldn’t run longer than 90 pages. It’s arbitrary, it’s bullshit, but it’s the way Hollywood works.

What can you cut?

The opening can be tightened to two pages.
Emily at school. You never call any of this back. It can be shortened to at least two pages.
Emily’s search for Rusty. You can eliminate a page. (almost to ninety!)
Dialogue. Shorten Henry’s monologues. He talks for quite a bit when we first meet him. The masturbation thing? Can be funny. I’m in different. Check with others.
Tighten stuff around the midpoint. The chase can be executed more quickly, with more life threatening situations thrown in.

I’d check out “Cabin in the Woods,” it’s written by Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard (Cloverfield, LOST, etc.) It’s a damn fine example of how to write horror. Whedon and Goddard play up tension and pay off call backs pretty well. Yes, it’s an average horror movie, but the script is written competently.

Other thoughts—

Why does Granma talk about Heathcoat if she’s already possessed?

When exactly does she become possessed? If you answered this, I missed it, I’d make it clearer.

Grandma needs to be more threatening. She cusses a lot, she makes Emily uncomfortable, you can improve raising the stakes with physical danger. Maybe introduce a bit where she’s intellectually scary to Emily. I can control Henry, others, animals, etc.

Maybe if you introduced Grandma’s descent into possession different – for example, what if you showed her sticking her hand into boiling water? Leaving the microwave on too long, the oven, thereby working in physical danger towards Emily. You could also mix these types of things in with aging or her general oldness.

Overall, it’s solid material. I wish we could sit down in person (I’ll be in LA come Jan) to sharpen dialogue. I have a hard time talking about dialogue in notes. I think your dialogue could be a bit snappier, this is first draft, I’d look at ways to shorten lines and make them more punchy. Example, Henry’s heart speech at the end. That rambles a bit too long, in revisions you’ll likely shorten it.

Readers: feel free to criticize my comments or the script. Round table is the best type of table.

Introduction

2009-07-27T11:36:00.000-07:00

This is our mission --

Neil seeks to improve a writer's spec screenplay.

Ryan wants to save you money on recent Hollywood movies.

Posts will cycle from a recent Hollywood movie review to comments and feedback on an unproduced Hollywood spec.

On screenplays we include --

A writer's bio for exposure.
Logline.
PDF link to the script.
Comments and feedback.

Here's a scale for the movie reviews --

Meaning	%
Exceptional	8-10
Good	6-7
Average	4-5
Terrible	2-3
Accidentally released	0-1

Happy reading!