Hunting for Isla Fisher

Constantine (DC Hero's #5 of 5)

2010-02-07T12:49:00.000-08:00

Genre: Fantasy-Horror-Thriller-Live Action Comic Book Adaptation

Premise: Set in LA, John Constantine can see half-angels and half-demons in true forms. He desparately searches for salvation from damnation to hell for a suicide when he was younger by destroying demonds with his sidekick Chas. However, full demons are now trying to cross over. Constantine meets with half angel Gabriel, who tells him his acts won't save him from damnation.

Soon after, Constantine finds two LAPD officers investigating the death of his sister. Upon meeting a night club owner on safe ground to get a better handle on his sister's death and his own escape from damnation, Constantine is denied and begins investigating the situation on his own. Turns out God and Satan have a standing wager for mankind's souls. Angels and demons cannot manifest on Earth, but can possess and influence humans.

Constantine finds out demons are working for Satan's son, who wishes to create a kingdom on Earth. Satan's Son has even released a half-demon to locate Constantine's friends. Constantine attacks the half-demon to reveal Satan's Son now has the Spear of Destiny, which has the blood of Jesus Christ encrusted on it.

Constantine storms the safe ground, and is allowed access to a prophetic electric chair that allows himw to see that the Spear was found in Mexico and is now in LA. Constantine and Chas find Satan's Son conducting a ritual to rise Constantine's sister's body. In the process of stopping Satan's son, Chas is killed. Lucifer arrives to collect Constantine's soul, Constantine informs Lucifer of his son's plan so Lucifer sends the kick back to hell to keep him from conquering Earth.
In return for helping Lucier, Constantine asks for his sister to go to heaven. It turns out that by sacrifing himself for his sister, Constantine is allowed to go to heaven. At the end, Constantine watches Chas go into heaven.

About: This is also adapted from a Garth Ennis storyline in addition to a paperback of the story. However, the film changed significantly during rewrites. The original Constantine came from Liverpool and was based on Sting, expectedly this changed. The character was also given psychic ability to see half-breeds as they are, in the film this is what causes the character's drama. Also the film is called Constantine to avoid any confusion with Clive Barker's Hellraiser.

Writer: Kevin Brodbin (Mindhunters) worked on a script by Frank Cappello (who has a few other credits including Suburban Commando with Hulk Hogan) based mostly on a Garth Ennis (Preacher) storyline

Time for an embarassing secret: I had just always assumed Constantine was a historical period piece. Not about a man who uses a prophetic electric chair to stop the Son of Satan from taking over the world. There's so much excellent build up this story: a great anti-hero, the chair, a spear with the blood of Christ. But ultimately, this thing is a big let down. First off, you know you're in trouble when a character supposed to be played by Sting ends up being played by Keanu Reeves. This ended up feeling very similar to an episode of Angel or Buffy (which I'm generally not a fan of, there's always alot of cool premises which are resolved through generic fight scenes.) Keep in mind Constantine is also regurgitating The Devil's Advocate, End of Days, and The Sin Eater. Moody visuals. Cool lead-in's. Action-packed conclusions that completely ignore any visible storyline. The first half of the script is merely build up, though, it's when the whole story tries to resolve itself that the real problems come into play. I guess it's an action movie for Buffy people? I just didn't get this thing at all, and I know now I wasn't missing anything by never watching the film.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

[X] Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: The only female characters in this thing are way underdeveloped, and tend to feel more like instruments in moving the plot along than living breathing personalities. Let's skip Isla for consideration in any of these roles.

Tip: A typical McGuffin that has been revamped to include a weird twist or another angle can really make or break a movie. Now, the bloody spear and the electric chair don't make this film. But, this is true in other films like Indiana Jones (the Holy Grail, the Arc), the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, or the unobtanium in Avatar. If you aren't going to be original in plot, make sure your story at least has some original elements.

Sgt Rock (DC Comics #4 of 5)

2010-02-04T13:11:00.000-08:00

Genre: War

Premise: There really isn't one. No main storyline. No character goals except crush the bad guys. Sounds alot like a comic book doesn't it? It's basically a period piece about World War II. The script ends with a big shodown in a bombed out village between GIs and Nazis. During this fight, most of the good guys are killed.

About: the draft I read is 123 pages and dated July 15th, 1996. An adaptation of the DC comic, intended to be liveaction. Another pet project of Joel Silver for fifteen years. Many directors attached including McTiernan, Harlin,and Ridley Scott. Arnold, Willis or Stallone were intended to star. It's in Development Limbo at Warners.

Writer: Brian Helgeland (LA Confidentia) based on David Webb Peoples (Blade Runner, Unforgiven) based on DC Comics.

Sgt Rock is not a super hero. He's an ordinary guy who has had extraordinary experiences on the battlefield. Understandably, the idea of a Sgt Rock film was born during the Rambo/Chuck Norris phase of the early 80's. But, also at this time due to lingering memories of Vietnam and a lack of World War II films, the story may have appeared too oudated. Joel Silver has put this film through various rewrites, however, and has even hired four filmmakers at various times: John Milius, Jeffrey Boam, Steven DeSouza, Ebbe roe Smith, and Janet peoples. Obviously something is keeping Sgt. Rock from seeing the light of day, so I'll try to offer up some possible explanations as to what might have prevented the birth of this series.

Both stars who were considered have other World War II projects they feel more passionately about. Arnold ended up developing With Wings as Eagles, and Bruce Willis worked on bringing Combat! to the screen. Arnold was to have played a German immigrant who joins the US Army to fight the Nazis who drove him from his homeland. (Doesn't this seem perfect for a McBain trailer in The Simpsons?). Bruce Willis would be a much better choice.

This film ends up like a poor version of Saving Private Ryan. There's even an "Easy Company" quite like Tom Hanks' group of boys. Rock is like Tom Hanks and Tom Sizemore, Kluzewski is Ed Burns, Farraci is like Vin Disel, 4-Eyes resembles Jeremy Davies, Marlboro is a strong, silent type just like Barry Pepper. (There's also strangely enough a character called Ice Cream. I'm not joking. That's just ridiculous). There's also a Senator's son who joins to "try" himself as a man much like Charlie Sheen in Platoon. The bad guy is a very boring SS Colonel, who comes off like any generic Indiana Jones nazi. There really isn't much of a motive to his bad guyness either. Basically, this lack of reason describes the main failure to this entire story.

There are some good parts: one of the characters has reoccuring dreams about his pregnant wife back home he acts out in his sleep, it's funny seeing the various characters interact together, and generally the series does well at holding one's interest barely enough to keep reading.

There's wit and charm here. With a few rewrites maybe even entertainment. And shoot, if GI Joe can make it to the screen then why not Sgt Rock? Probably because a bankable star is needed for this hard, iconic role. Until then, this script will probably remain just a dream project.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[X] Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: I believe this is the first script I've read so far with basically no female roles.

Tip: When writing something as conventional as a war movie, you always have to be thinking about archetypes. Because odds are your audience has seen a dozen similar films and is readily going to compare your characters to all of the other ones they know. For example, I could easily compare Sgt Rock to Indiana Jones, Platoon, Combat!, Sands of Iowa Jima, Cross of Iron, Saving Private Ryan, The Big Red One, The Thin Red Line, Band of Brothers, and Flags of Our Fathers among others. That's alot of stories to overcome in order to make something original!

Preacher (DC Comics #3 of 5)

2010-02-03T12:36:00.000-08:00

Genre: Supernatural/Action/Comic Book

Premise: Jesse Custer, a down and out preacher in a small Texas town, is possessed by a supernatural creature named Genesis. As a result, Jesse may have become the most powerful being alive. Together with his old girlfriend Tulip, he goes on a quest to discover his new powers. They're also joined by an Irish vampire named Cassidy.

About: Ennis sold the script to Electric Entertainment in 1998, and then completed three additional drafts. Producers had trouble financing because the series was religiously controversial. Kevin Smith and Scott Mosier financed under View Askew then pitched to Miramax. However, the Weinsteins were confused by Jesse. They also didn't want to split profits with Electric Entertainment. Storm Entertainment then came along and joined Electric. Production was delayed due to budget. A TV pilot was discussed at HBO. Then new HBO executives abandoned the idea, finding it too dark and religiously controversial (after Carnivale and Six Feet Under, really?) Columbia Pictures purcharsed the rights with Sam Mendes directing in 2008. John August was then hired on to write a script. No release date. No cast. No location. A decade later, the project is still in obscurity.

Writer: Garth Ennis (who wrote the original comic, also worked on Hellblazer)

Born out of the Tarantion influenced action wave that came during the late 90's, Preacher is definitely part of the crowd but takes some strange twists. Allegedly, this story comes directly from the comic's "Gone to Texas" storyline. The script is blatantly violent in a way films used to be during the Pulp Fiction / Usual Suspects era, but which we don't really see included anymore. As a result, it makes perfect sense Miramax was attached to the project. Also, the films use of heavily violence and dark religious satire aren't exactly the most friendly topics to win over a film-going crowd. Now, keeping all these things in mind, let's take a look at this third draft.

There are some lovely elements to Preacher: its dark and funny dialogue, unusually warped characters, and southwestern image ripe for a Cormac McCarthy novel make the script a delicious read. But, when one looks further, this thing falls apart and is yet another example of a competently written script that possesses enough flaws as to prevent the work from being a good effort. Mostly, my problems come with what I feel to be an inherent lack of imagination within the work.

Structurally, this script goes on a little too long (but this is a problem many, many comics suffer from). The length is due in part to the ultimate brawl which goes on and on without any real reason. These aren't special in any way but rather generic fight scenes. And, as I always ask myself, why would you bother to adapt a high profile series if ultimately you just reverted to cliched gimmicks like brawls and takeddowns? Furthermore, additional length is another problem Preacher doesn't need to suffer from, though, so a writer would do well to shortern it.

Also, in regards to the Isla role, Tulip is very shallow. She doesn't feel like an organic or believeable character in the structure of the work. Her arrival in the story is purely coincidental. And that's a big problem. Furthermore, her love arch with Jesse uses some very generic story elements and lines so she's hard to judge as a fresh or sparkling creation.

Now don't get me wrong, but Preacher was a fun read. Ennis made a good attempt to capture the darkness and humor of the series on the written page. But, I highly doubt this comic will ever make it to the big screen. It's too long, too controversial, and ultimately just not rewarding enough for a script that makes these sorts of compromises.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

[X] Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: There's really just Tulip, who is sleek in an Aeon Flux sort of way I'm almost ceratin Isla would be unable to successfully pull off.

Tip: You can't really cheat people in terms of page length. At times, lines of description merged with the dialogue. It looks sloppy. Furthermore, the dialogue is far too wide which means the script is even longer than 127 pages. Now, while any ordinary person might not realize this, what this does mean is that ultimately for producers, script readers and agents who were handling this thing the material came off too dense and ultimately unprofessional.

Super Girl (DC Hero's #2 of 5)

2010-02-02T14:52:00.000-08:00

Genre: Action/Fantasy

Premise: Supergirl/Kara Zor-El lives in a lonely place on Krypton called Agro City, a wizard allows her to see an all powerful item known as the Omegahedron. Kara follows this tool to Earth, to save her city which will die without it. A witch gains the Omegahedron to perform evil spells. Supergirl arrives on Earth and discovers her Superman like powers, enrolling in an all girl school. The evil witch uses the Omegahedronto make a boy her slave, until Supergirl stops it. Supergirl battles the Witch until she is placed in an"eternal void" and stripped of her powers. She is helped by the wizard, who helps her defeat the witch.The slave admits his love for Supergirl. Eventually, Supergirl goes back and restores her city to power.

About: Coming at the close of the Superman franchise, this was an attempt to get females hooked on the comic book blockbuster. (Sadly for some reason there haven't been many terrific female empowered comic book adaptations). Sadly, this film was to fail also. Looks like Oddell was hired due to his work on other fantasy female films (which would believe it or not, include The Dark Crystal).

Writer: David Oddell (who is actually a Muppet writer with Dark Crystal and Muppet Show credits, he alsowrote the cheese fest Masters of the Universe and Running Scared).

This is a terrible film. It even seems to treat itself as ridiculous. (And because this isn't as enchanting or memorable as The Dark Crystal, we have a hard enough time as it is seriously investing in something called an "Eternal Void"). The separating point between an inaccessible film and a bad comic book adaptation is Supergirl's arrival on Earth. This whole thing is unfunny, and worse unexciting. And it falls flat on its face with all of its corny jokes. It all feels like it's just a big 80's goof even on the written page. And that's a shame because I worry that this script's failure tainted the market's idea of the Super Heroine film for nearly a decade to come.

We don't go to Super Hero films to laugh at Super Hero's (at least not these Super Heros, there's a whole other genre and series of films for these types of tales). Super Girl should give the audience the chance to aspire to almost a childhood innocence, which is really one of the main driving points behind all super heros. If the writer had intended to make nothing more than a comedy, why not just use a generic Super Heroine and a DC Licensed character whose rights most likely cost a significant amount of money.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[X] Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: Nope. Not going to even picture it.

Tip: A story is only as serious as you take the material. And, even with great comedies (which this wasn't supposed to be) the whole material is cheapened because the writer didn't take the source material honestly enough. (Additionally, this is funny because I'd also make a similar critique of Masters of Universe which shares the same screenwriter).

Swamp Thing (DC Comics #1 of 5)

2010-02-01T00:26:00.000-08:00

Genre: Action / Classic Jekyll-Hyde Structure

Premise: In a swamp, Dr. Alec Holland is trying to create a species of animal and plant capable of adapting and thriving in the harshest conditions. Unfortunately, he becomes subject of his own creation and is transformed into Swamp Thing. Arcaden, Alec/Swamp Thing's evil boss, attempts to capture the Swamp Thing. The script ends with a confrontation between Holland and a changed Arcane

About: Joel Silver is producing, and the film has been in discussion for a very long time. (As a 3-D movie nonetheless)It's not a comedy though like the earlier film adaptations, but rather a serious take on the comic. The script I read wasa first draft dated 2003, but from what I've seen Wein has since left the project.

Writer: Len Wein (this guy co-created the "new" X-Men, edited Watchmen, and has worked long runs on Green Lantern, also created Swamp Thing)

Kevin Smith once said, very wisely, that Marvel characters were born out of Supernatural causes but that DC characters were born out of philosophical reasons. The Swamp Thing, quite like Poison Ivy, is another example of someone capable of manipulating the powers of the Earth. I saw the Wes Craven film once long ago in London so I don't remember that film with much accuracy, but from what I understand Wein's scriptis close to a direct adaptation. This is not a great film. You'd be hard pressed to call it even a very good film, but I'd chalk this script up to a near guilty pleasure.

There is a great, shocking moment that will stick with me for quite some time. Swamp Thing is dissected and ripped apart by scientists who takeout his plant lungs, heart and brains. It's such a weird, creepy scene and we're sure the whole time that the character is also alive so it's a very surreal experience. The actual story line and developments are very close to Jekyll/Hyde stuff (and I know, as outlined in Stephen King's Danse Macabre is one of the four structures of modern horror, but it's never quite taken my interests). It's an off the wall, eccentric film about a hideous creature with a heart of gold and the woman who loves him. (Wonderfully, Swamp Thing carries his true love's charm bracelet around his leafy wrist).

If you like horror films, this is a great piece.

Maybe, if horror/action aren't your slice then this will be a bit more inaccessible. There's a genuine senseof a story well told here. Maybe it's not an Oscar worthy turn, but this script is a solid comic book adaptation.And, if it was done in 3-D, I guarantee it'd attract a large audience.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

[X] Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: The main female in Swamp Thing is one of the most charming comic book heroines I recall encountering in quite some time. There's definitely more than a dollop of resemblance to Christine in Phantom of the Opera.

Tip: Never underestimate a nice slow opening. Swamp Thing takes quite some time to get established, but it brings us into the swamp and the laboratory environment without making us feel like we've been thrown overboard. (I was going to make some general comment about how there's a good deal of resemblance between Jekyll/Hyde and werewolf tales, but I wasn't quite sure how to lift that notion to a loftier or practical tip).

Hail The Conquering Hero (Sturges #5 of 5)

2010-01-29T14:01:00.000-08:00

Genre: Satirical Comedy / Drama / Decreasingly less screwball / Patriotic

Premise: Discharged from the Marines for hayfever, Woodrow Lafayette pershing Truesmith prevents returning from his hometown because he feels himself a failure. He does, however, befriend a group of Marcines who encourage him to go back home by fabricating a story about how he was wounded in battle with honorable discharged. Woodrow is honored by a statue, songs about his heroism, and even ends up running for mayor. But when Woodrow decides to tell the truth, nobody will listen.

About: Originally called "The Little Marine". (There were actually only two drafts of the script, The Little Marine and the shooting script). The film became more dramatic as time continued.Hail the Conquering Hero had a number of working titles on its way to the screen. An early title was "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition", and "Once Upon a Hero" and "The Little Marine" were also used. It was the last picture Sturges made at Pramount. A draft was also made at the suggestion of the War Department, but the changes were very minor. The film was later referenced in Aladdin and essentially redone with Jim Carrey in The Majestic. Also, I think there's a Simpsons episode about Principal Skinner with close parallels.

Writer: Preston Sturges

Hail the Conquering Hero represents the gradual decline of Sturges's career. The script starts out very slow with Woodrow sitting at a bar listening to a weepy ballad. Soon after, one of Woodrow's friends is arranging a "homecoming" to Woodrow's "mother". (I place parantheticals around both of these words because they're part of Woodrow's scam. Also here's Sturges again, this time satirizing the accomplishments of the war hero.) After this point, the film gains pinball speed and never slows down except for random patriotic passages --- shots of a flag, or tales of fallen marainges. (And as satirical as Sturges is, it's very hard to believe these segments are meant to be taken in earnest). The film is tightly Aristotelean, by which I mean it takes place over the course of 24 hours in one location. (Applying to Aristotle's rules of dramatic structure). This makes for a supercharged tale, and helps create a claustrophic effect to intensify the inner turmoil Woodrow feels. The dialogue is as sharp and bouncy as ever.

But, there's not really the humor or the zaniness of earlier Sturges films. And because the device of someone posing as someone else has been so overused in films that came after, the film doesn't sparkle with originality or that patented Sturges zaniness. But, all these things considered, Hail The Conquering Hero uses the Sturges structure to such great effect (an opening scene in a crowded place, a plan to disguise or mask one's appearance, an increase in intensity as the character operating the plan gets further and further into their costume, eventually the caracter is too far in, the situation resolves itself through a series of good graces). Furthermore, Sturges is always satirical towards celebrated or cherished professions. Needless to say, as Sturges kept writing, he eventually exhausted this form. Fortunately, I didn't have to review any of his lesser films but perhaps at some point down the road I will chart his downward progression.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
[X] Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: No really terrific female roles here.

Tip: The montage. I don't know if I've ever read a great script without at least one montage in it. Rather than montage is used to denote a progression of time, increase in intensity, or to give the feeling of an all immersive world, they're really great tools that don't quite have a direct parallel in any of the other narrative based mediums.

Sullivan's Travels (Sturges #4 of 5)

2010-01-28T00:35:00.000-08:00

Genre: Screwball / Satirical Farce / Films about Filmmaking (8 1/2, Adaptation, Barton Fink)
Premise: Sullivan, a young hotshot Hollywood direct, decides to stop making screwball comedies and start doing seriouspicture pieces. Disguised as a vagrant, Sullivan heads out on the open road in search of the working man's America.Along the way, he meets the girl and ends up back in Hollywood. Deciding to share his wealth, he gives homeless menfive dollars a piece until he is knocked out by one of them and falls into a boxcar. Soon after, the vagrant is struckand killed by an oncoming train and because he has some of Sullivan's ID is believed to be Sullivan himself. Waking up in an unknown town with amnesia, Sullivan's memory is jogged back to lifeby laughter induced from a Disney cartoon. Deciding the escapism of comedy is worth more than the loftiness of drama,Sullivan needs to find a way back home. So what Sullivan does is confesses himself as his own killer, The Girl rescueshim, and she ends up with Sullivan.
About: Paramount bought the script for $6,000. Possibly insipred by the tales of John Garfield, Sturges wrote a storythat in some ways would eventually mimic his own career in Hollywood. This film has been the inspiration for many subsequentpieces of work including Simpsons episodes and Coen Brother movies.
Writer: Preston Sturges

Sullivan's Travels is the high water mark of the Sturges canon. It has got the snappiest dialogue, the most inspiredzaniness and the most biting satire. Only this time, rather than direct his lens at the coruptness of local politiciansor the foolishness of a young man's dreams, Sturges attacks the very system that nourished him. And talk about greatcharacters. Here's what I love most about Sullivan, he blurs the line between insanity and artistic brilliance. I'vealways found that a great combination for a film character mainly because it allows the writer to craft such originalgoals. But, let's be truthful, Sullivan's Travels still has its shortcomings.
There's a couple places where the film reads as unnecessarily twisting, namely the parts where Sullivan heads out onthe open road. It feels very directionless, and like alot of the things he encounters in this point of the story arevery loosely joined together. Admittedly, this haphazard structure has always been the downfall of road movies (andback in the day of the Bob Hope Road Movies, it was even worse). Also, Sturges has this weird thing of only callingthe Veronica Lake figure "The Girl" which is something he did in Christmas in July as well. (And I guess there's alogic to it, but to anybody who will argue for fully developing characters here's a counter example). Neither of thesereasons, though, is enough to understand why Sturges got lost during the last half of the 20th century, so I did somereading and happened to discover in a Ron Shelton ("Bull Durham") interview that the Sturges canon got lost due to legalrights and not based on of his artistic merits.
This film is one of the best screwball comedies ever made. And I love most of all due to its inspired zaniness, whichreally wasn't seen in a film up until this time. (Or it's mixture of Pathos and Comedy in a way I'm not sure has beendone since, the Coen Brothers are either mostly funny like Raising Arizona or most like Pathos like Barton Fink).

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
[X] Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: It's really hard to recast Sturges films because all of his female roles were depicted so memorably by some of the finest comedic actresses of the 1940's. I'd resist placing Isla in the Veronica Lake/Kim Bassinger rolebecause Isla seems to be lacking in some of the black and white high class charm.

Tip: It's so hard to point out just one thing here. But what I'd say is a character can have as ridiculous a goal as you please,as long as there is good reason and it's a driving motivator. Sullivan's decision to dress as a vagrant is completely ridiculousbut because it fits into Sullivan's motivation, the audience is willing to accept this type of character progression.

The Lady Eve (Sturges #3 of 5)

2010-01-27T21:18:00.001-08:00

Genre: Screwball Comedy

About: This script has the rare distinction of being the only Sturges film adapted by the work of someone else, a 19 page story by Monckton Hoffe called "Two Bad Hats". The film took a while due to arguments during development between Sturges and the head of Paramount over the creativity within the first two thirds. Sturges held strong, however, and the script was filmed much as Sturges originally wrote it.

Premise: A beautiful female con artist, along with her partner, is out to swindle the heir to an Ale fortune, who also happens to be a snake handler returning from the Amazon. She falls hard for the heir, however, but when the truth is discovered she is quickly dumped. She torments the heir, and strangely the heir's father promotes their marriage. Soon, the heir doesn't know what to make of anything, and falls in love with the female con.

Writer: Preston Sturges (his third film)

This film is classy screwball on a whole new level punctuated by Stanwyck's brilliant performance. What Sturges manages to do is inject meaning into the comedy and make it a multi-layered masterpiece. Stanwyck is both a crook and someone to be trusted. A seductress, but no pushover for romance. A gold digger, who wants nothing. And the heir is the logic, non-screwball center around which the story revolves. He is vulnerable and sincere. So in screwball fashion, boy meets girl then loses her, boy wins what he thinks is another girl who is really the first girl in disguise. And for all you physical comedy lover,s there's plenty of falling and tripping over objects.

Even nowadays, many films try replicate the "comedy with meaning" structure as seen in "The Lady Eve" and fail miserably which makes the film's success all the more meaningful because it came out in the 1940's. Even more impressive, Sturges seems to do it without appearing to exert much effort. This film is every bit as good as Some Like It Hot or even Tootsie.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
[X] Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Daily Tip: I could point to 20 lessons in this script, but I'll go with the age old adage. Screwball comedy works around who knows what. In the script it's given more weight. It actually informs entire relationships.

Isla Lead: Recasting "The Lady Eve" would be as disrespectful as recasting Gone with the Wind so I won't. But I will say that Isla has already demonstrated a strong lead for heist/screwball comedies as evidenced by The Wannabes.

Christmas in July/The New Yorkers (Sturges #2 of 5)

2010-01-26T20:53:00.000-08:00

Genre: "Bedroom Farce" as described by Sturges / "Screwball Comedy" as described by me

Premise: A young man working at a marketing house enters a $25,000 contest to craft a slogan for a coffee company. His friends fool him into thinking he's won so the guy buys things for everyone in his neighborhood before he finds out his friends are fooling him. Also the guy finally proposes to his girl.

About: This is the second film Sturges directed. It was based on a play he wrote called "A Cup of Coffee". He'd been slated to directed it once before but the production fell apart. Thankfully due to his recently established connections at Paramount, Sturges was able to direct the picture.

Writer: Preston Sturges

Preston Sturges must have been the most cynical man who ever lived. I mean, really. And I mean it in the kindest way possible. In every film I've read of his, Sturges shows a character being duped and ultimately punished for a selfless gesture.

Unlike most people I know, the protagonist of Christmas in July spends what he thinks is $25,000 on helping people throughout his neighborhood and his sweetheart rather than just bettering things for himself or putting the money into the bank. That's the real tear jerker quality of the story. But it's a sweet tale. And it's not bad by any stretch of the word. I mean, if I was going to attack Sturges on any ground it's that the other characters besides the protagonist feel cardboardesque and seem to revolve around the pains and travails of our hero rather than existing on a path entirely their own.

In fact, this cardboard outer layer represents the entire problem of Christmas in July. One gets the impression that Sturges is still warming up as a director and there's not the inspired lunacy of his later works. Rather, Christmas in July approaches a Capra-esque quality. Definitely an enjoyable tale, but I'm not sure how memorable it as brandishing the distinctive Sturges touches.

July is still snappy though, particularly in the scenes around the marketing house. And it reintroduces the fixation Sturges had with the working man. But rather than reveal this type of man as maudlin, Sturges develops a perfectly structured script with some low dramatic points and high comedic moments. (Of course the character is saved at the end, rather than forced to languish in poverty, but we barely see it coming).

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
[X] Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: I'd resist casting Isla in this role (as Betty, the main love interest) because it's a rather shallow and undeveloped female figure for a Sturges movie. Perhaps his weakest.

Daily Tip: Never underestimate the power of the slow reveal. This has been working in films perhaps longer than any other story gimmick I can think of. And ultimately, it's what drives Christmas in July along. (Of course Sturges manages to not overplay the drama and downfall of the contest being faked, which I feel is exactly what many less talented directors would have made).

The Great McGinty (Sturges #1 of 5)

2010-01-25T19:07:00.000-08:00

Genre: Political Farce

About: This is the first script Sturges directed. For just ten bucks, Sturges sold the tale to Paramount on the condition he could direct.

Premise: At a banana republic, McGinty recalls his rise and fall. Beginning as a street tramp coerced into voting under a false number for two bucks, McGinty impresses a local boss and becomes an enforces. Then, McGinty makes a marriage of convenience, becomes mayor, but ultimately falls apart whenhis heart causes him to take public service seriously when he falls in love.

Writer: Preston Sturges

This project launched Sturges as a director and garnered an Academy Award so we know it has to be at least slightly good. The most striking quality of this film is it's so cynical: the moral seems to be if you're a bad guy then stay a bad guy because honesty will always get you. That, and how the film is still oddly relevant in modern society (I guess because it focused on how evil corrupts, which goes as far back as Shakespeare's stuff).

My two favorite elments of the whole script are the trademark Sturges dialogue and the quick pace of the story (which utilizes a very tightly packed flashback structure). My least favorite element is that the story seems so one track besides focusing on McGinty there really isn't much else to do. I'm sure in the 1940's this wasn't nearly as large problem, but modern cinema has ditctated that multiple storylines need to occur throughout the film. But that's okay, the cynicism of this film is hilarious. Just to give a sample:

A Politician: If it wasn't for graft, you'd get a very low type of people in politics, men without ambition, jellyfish!

Cynical much? It's so funny in its biting tone I wish somebody was making films as directly cynical as Sturges still. But alas, we'll have to settle for skits and thinly veiled one line jokes in indie flicks.

Bottom line? Sturges would get more sophisticated, but McGinty as we'll see was the start of a brilliant comedic career.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

Hot Rod (Good)

[X] Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: If they ever bring back Screwball 1940's films and decide to do a McGinty remake, Isla would be perfect for McGinty's loveable heroine Katherine. She's sweet and loveable, but more importantly has that terrific banter Isla has honed so sharply in her series of romantic comedies (Wedding Daze, Wedding Crashers and Confessions of a Shopaholic).

Daily Tip: Stay true to your character's emotional arch. Please. McGinty's whole structure is based around a grifter who has a change of heart and his kingdom falls apart. Simple as that. Sure the film seems one line nowadays, but this is a very solid arch to hang a story around.

Preston Sturges Week

2010-01-25T16:09:00.000-08:00

I saw my first Preston Sturges film when I was a freshman at NYU. My teacher played Sullivan's Travels and explained it as a precursor to all CoenBrother movies. While this is true, I don't think I realized how much I loved this movie until I wrote a very thinly veiled homage about a horror novelist during my senior year. Then, my interest in Sturges was even more firmly solidified during a week sojourn in Orlando upon graduation when I revisitedthe box set each night and was transported by the little, dilapidated Magnavox into a black and white world where everybody talked in a funny, bouncy dialogue while they lived lives of pure inspired zaniness, and aspired to lofty, foolish dreams. I love Preston Sturges, and while this week we won'tbe reviewing anything that's far off the beaten track, it's more of a chance to do something I often skip on Hunting for Isla, the chance to review the classics of screenwriting.

Boondock Saints 2 (Sequel #5 of 5)

2010-01-22T18:39:00.000-08:00

Genre: Action / Drama
Premise: Living a quiet life in Ireland with their father, the MacManus Brothers find out their favorite priest has been killed. The duo goes back to Boston to seek justice.
Writer: Troy Duffy (Boondock Saints)
About: After some slight hastle, the first film had a big enough cult following that a budget was found for the sequel. This was a very easy film birth.

I would run into this film every now and then in college. I never understood why it had such a cult following. It's very Irish. It's very violent. And it's very action flick oriented. Also there's alot of Irish music. But that's really about it. There's not too much memorable in terms of character or storyline. This script reads like the bad, fan fiction version of Reservoir Dogs.

The script opens with the MacManus brothers protecting a herd of sheep while the priest is killed by a local mob. And once this sort of nice thematic note is established, the script becomes progressively worse and worse. By the twenty page mark, my interest was completely lost. Know why? Boondock Saints 2 has one note is repeats over and over. This note is borrowed from the first film. And it's not even a very impressive note. A crime scene is discovered. The good guys visualize the scene over and over again to find out what happened. And the third act while trying to put some cap on this structure comes out of nowhere. We're supposed to commit to the murder of a priest we've barely seen. And that's just uninteresting. Resultantlly, the pay off is weak, the characters are undeveloped and while the script is rich in iconography that's not enough to save the story.

[X] Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: Isla's The Lookout is much much better than this film and in the same genre.
Tip: Nothing. Nothing at all. This is a piece of crap. Here are two don'ts: don't overuse exclamation points in scene description and keep music cues moderate at the very most.

Animal House 2 (Sequels #4 of 5)

2010-01-21T18:26:00.000-08:00

Genre: Raunchy Comedy

Premise: In 1967, five years after the events of the original film, it's alumni weekend and Niedermeyer returning from Vietnam visits the Omega house. Dean Wormer arrives to meet the wealthy alumnus, Milton vanderslaag. We find out Delta Tau Chi has been reinstated with the weakest bunch of men possible except for a large football player named Buba. Arriving on scene to wip these weaklings into real men are Boon (recently separated from his wife Katie) and Otter. Soon after, Flounder (now a self-help instructor), Hoover (a lawyer), D-Day (a drug dealer) and Pinto (a political activist) emerge.

Writer: Matty Simmons (National Lampoon's Pucked), Michael Simmons (no known credits), and Andrew Simmons (no known credits)

About: This was delayed after the sequel to American Graffiti tanked, and then was delayed for an indefinite amount of time after the death of Belushi.

I said once that The Lost Weekend was the grand daddy of Social Statement films, well if that's the case then Animal House is the grand daddy of Raunchy Comedies. So is this film as good as the original? The answer is... it tries, but ultimately just feels like a diluted version of the orginal film's greatness. Following the spirit of an alumni weekend, this script can't go home again. It's just a tired retread of the original material. There are rip off's aplenty of the guitar ("I gave my love a cherry") scene, and the horse heart attack scene. There's even a seedy bar scene.

Thank your lucky stars this script never saw the light of day. It cheapens the success of the original film by replaying the same scenarios as before. Second, without Belushi, Animal House is missing most of what made the film hilarious in the first place. There's not even any mention of Bluto's death. (And if John had lived, I'm almost certain he would not have wanted to recapture his role because he had already provided an almost perfect performance). This film fulfilled my wonderings of what a sequel might of been. But, we'll never know. And that's probably not a bad thing. Just rewatch the original and enjoy. Let this script gather dust in one of those underground archives somewhere in Montana.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

[X] Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: I'd like to believe Isla is still a bit too young to be playing somebody a decade after college graduation.

Tip: This is totally an 80's staple, but still whenever I see it done well I love it, a big competition in the late second/early third act that decides who will be the victor.

Elephant Man 2 (Sequels #3 of 5)

2010-01-20T18:04:00.000-08:00

Genre: Drama/Feliniesque almost because of its use of the elephant

Premise: A slow, sweet piece about an unlikely man who acquires a pet elephant when his father dies and takes the elephant on a journey to find a home.

Writer: Roy Blount (Larger Than Life and The Pie Song in Michael)

About: No clue about this one. But I'd imagine if David Lynch was involved at all, it'd be pretty hard to coerce him into a sequel. I mean this is the man who turned down Return of the Jedi based on the simple merits that the film was goofy.

Wow. Just wow. This is one of the best scripts I've ever read. After completing it, I felt very compelled to hunt down every Roy Blount novel and read it. A lot like Paul Simon's "Crazy Love 2", this script doesn't appear to be a sequel in so much as a script with the same name that has a two added onto it. (I read once Simon called his song Crazy Love 2 in acknowledgement of Van Morrison's original Crazy Love). The film isn't even about any carnival oddities like the original David Lynch. rather, the script feels like a much more innocent take on friendship and bonding. It's about a big, dumb elephant and its caretakers. And about the woman who loves the man who owns the elephant. Of course, the elephant is a very loveable beast rather than a fearsome creature capable of going on rampages. I have no idea how this type of a story could be executed in real life.

The best part is the film's civility. It isn't meek and harmless. It isn't an action film. It has warmth, and ultimately by making the journey one that comes across with mixed results the script feels as if the ending was well won. The film could have chosen to further develop the romantic element between the protagonist and his love interest. It could have dealt with the protagonist's inability to deal with the real world. Rather, the script just makes bonding with an elephant appear elegant and powerful. I'm not sure what this says about the human condition besides man can bond with animals and it's sad the elephant dies in the end. So ultimately, if this film is to be attacked on anything it's that the piece seems to be missing a central core. But, I found the tone and pace so delightful I was definitely willing to overlook this. A sequel, or just a cleverly disguised script with a similar title, Elephant Man 2 is definitely an example of some masterful screenwriting.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
[X] Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: There aren't any big female roles here.

Tip: This film does that old switch around where the character technically doesn't get what they most want but grows as a person. That's always a good turn for a drama.

Big Trouble in Little China 2 (Sequels #2 of 5)

2010-01-19T17:48:00.000-08:00

Genre: Action with Fantasy Elements

Premise: A young unlikely hero has to rescue a rare artifact and has a love interest in the cute, pretty girl he sometimes runs into at work.

Writer: W.D. Richter (original Big Trouble in Little China, but also Needful Things-1978's Invasion of the Body Snatchers and the abysmal Home for the Holidays)

About: This has been in development for a very long time and considering it was written by the original screenwriter, I'd think it was just an attempt to capitalize upon the original film's success.

If you've ever see a John Carpenter interview, the odds are very probable he's made a reference to possibly doing a Big Trouble sequel. If he's been planning to shoot off a script like this one, it's a good thing he hasn't. In fact, the more I think about this script, the more I realize the writers just pumped out a sequel quickly in an attempt to live up to the original film's hype. This was a very miscalculated venture, though. There's this idea reiteratted through the scri'ts dialogue that the visible part of Chinatown is just the tip of the iceberg that once you penetrate the facade of store front windows and discount laundries, there's a dangerous underground network. Only this time the ride is a little less enchanting, magical, and unusual. Ultimately, Big Trouble 2 becomes a pretty straight send up of an action film. By the end of the film, I forgot I was watching a series at all or anything distinguished by loveable traits. I thought I was just watching a straight up action film. Also, it seems to have taken the Kurt Douglas storyline and just replaced it with a teenage audience, which if you can't tell is a very cheap gimmick.

Furthermore, there's another much more dangerous element to the film: its inaccurate depictions of Asians which barely slid by in the 1980's and would meet an ultimate certain death if ever done again. This film doesn't even attempt to make a sense, depth or logic to its cast of Asian warlocks and kung fu masters. And while this karate style film was once a genre, it's a genre that died because it's a highly offensive one to certain groups.

So, I'm not sure how it'd be done, but if John Carptenter ever decided to shoot a Big Trouble sequel, it'd have to be very far removed from this type of storyline, find a way to keep the Chinatown element and not be racially offensive, and still be as wonderous and magical as the original film (which itself seemed to run out of steam about three quarters of the way through). As such, it's no wonder this script has indefinitely hit the Hollywood backburner.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

[X] Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: No Isla certified roles here!

Tip: This thing is written in 5 Acts. Don't sweat, it's still around a 100 pages. I've never seen this done before in a screenplay, and while it's against formality, I pretty much enjoyed it. By breaking the film into segments it was easier to savor what was happening.

Commando II (Sequels #1 of 5)

2010-01-18T17:32:00.000-08:00

Genre: Action

Premise: A little bit older, Commando now has a sassy teenage daughter who is interested in boys and has to rescue her when she is kidnapped from some oil moguls. Really? Yes, really.

Writer: Stephen De Souza (Die Hard, Tomb Raider, 48 Hrs) and Frank Darabont (Sawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, Indy and the Crystal Skull) based on a book by Roderick Thorp (who also wrote the novel Die Hard was based on)

About: The sequel was written soon after the success of the original film by the same writers, but Arnold put the squash on the development of a sequel because Connan the Barbarian II had recently bombed at the box office. The script was reworked into Die Hard. Isn't that weird? Two of the biggest 80's action films stem from the same source material!

I actually haven't seen Commando. All the way. Although I've seen 75 percent of the film in fragmented form. And let me tell you, while teenage slasher flicks and glossed up musicals may have not been excellent during the 80's, the real clunker are ramboids. After the release of Rambo, many actions movies tried to recapture the one man against a system theme. And the original (and subsequent Commandos) aren't far off the track. Now the film isn't awful, and it's definitely a star vehicle for Arnold (albeit a star vehicle he chose not to engage in), but Commando II is little more than an attempt to recapture the earlier glory of Rambo.

Only this time around John Matrix/Arnold/Commando's daughter is revealed as a little bit older and having crushes on teenage boys. (Did we really need this? I mean, I know there was a general action/comedy movement in the early 1990's but this film seems to kill that idea.) And that's generally how I felt about this entire Commando 2 script. Somewhere between actual meaning and 80's action films with cheesy one liners fall flicks who try to make jokes but ultimately just fall flat and Commando is a perfect example.

A type of logic is tried to made to a series that is deliberately over the top. Matrix doesn't need a good reason to fight, his family doesn't need to be that memorable, and certainly his agenda does not need multiple shades. As such, this film becomes increasingly less and less entertaining. (And, for the record there's nothing wrong with the source material, Commando 2 became Die Hard and worked with fairly good results.).

So the script wasn't that entertaining, the jokes weren't that original, an underlining story structure worked (kidnapped person in skyscraper) more successfully elsewhere. Altogether, it's understandable why Arnold didn't jump on the bandwagon and reboot the series. Particularly after a couple of disastrous sequels (Conan anybody?).

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[X] Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: There aren't any females in this thing that fit Isla's age group.

Tip: This film isn't afraid to break into comedy. But, by doing it in small doses and doing it at the right time, Commando 2 doesn't slide off into a comedy script. There's even a scene with the Arnold character disguised in a wedding gown. Why does it work? Cause it doesn't interrupt the thrust of the film.

Super Second Helpings in Sequel Week

2010-01-18T17:30:00.000-08:00

One of my big dreams as kid was being able to relive motion picture magic with my all time favorite movies: Roger Rabbit 2, Beetlejuice 2, Three Men and aLittle Lady 3, etc. Well, it turns out that alot of the great films I saw as a kid were actually written but just never saw the light of production. Sothis week I'm going to stroll down sequel lane exploring some of the biggest and oddest sequels I could lay my hands on. And as we'll discover depsite thequality in some of these scripts, it was just too daunting to relaunch the series due to committment from talent who made the first films so wonderful. Sosit back and enjoy, this week on Isla I'm serving up second helping in sequel week.

Leaving Las Vegas (Lost #5 of 5)

2010-01-15T15:32:00.000-08:00

Genre: Love Story

Premise: Ben (a Hollywood type, his exact capacity however is unknown) goes to Las Vegas with the plans of drinking himself to death and befriends the prostitute, Sera. The two fall in love but the whole affair is ultimately doomed by Ben's drinking problem.

Writer: Novel by John O'Brien (very autobiographical, also wrote The Assault on Tony's) and Mike Figgis (Internal Affairs, Timecode)

About: Figgis loved the book and wrote the script. O'Brien died shortly before and cast a good tone for the film's theme.

When I was a teenager, I'd watch films I knew had alot of merits but often times missed the true value of due to my young age. Leaving Las Vega is a crowning example. I'm not even sure that I understand all the film's shades even now. Despite it's revelance to acoholism and suicidal impulses, this is not an uhappy film. Ultimately, what Leaving Las Vegas tells us is that love offers some solace in fighting the burdens of the world.

Like The Lost Weekend, the story revolves around Ben and his condityion. Furthermore, the loveable Sera is always trying to save him. The characters are so committed to their path of actions: Ben uncoils as the pages progress until he is pouring booze down his throat like an antidote to death. But the image of love offered up is neither a formulaic nor a predictable one. The love between Ben and Sera has no need, no expectations, but merely a bonding between two broken people. And, more importantly, there's an admiration for the purity of one another's gestures. Smartly, Ben's incentive to drink himself to death is never explained. It exists in the shadows. And that makes us committ to him as a character. And much like The Lost Weekend, it's not Ben but Sera or the love interest who shows the real depth. Ben is already firmly set on his trajectory to self destruction. This all makes sense seeing as the novel, Leaving Las Vegas, was later described as O'Brien's "Suicide Note".

Isla Roles: Isla would rock the Elizabeth Shue role, but it's so risque and deadpan I don't think she'd ever play this in a remake.

Tip: The saddest part about this whole damn script is its complexities. I had to watch this film several times before I got it all. But it's general structure is very heavily borrowed from The Long Weeekend: a boozer and the girl who loves him with a dark, messed up twist.

The Beaver (Lost #4 of 5)

2010-01-14T14:28:00.000-08:00

Genre: Absurdity with a Kauffmanesque structure

Premise: A depressed man picks up a Beaver puppet. The puppet starts talking to the man in a British accent and completely changes the man's life in a positive way.

Writer: Kyle Killern (only known script)

About: This made the blacklist and since then has had both Steve Carrell and Jim Carrey attached to star as Walter.

Like most magic potion/genie stories, this isn't a comedy. Okay, maybe it is. But it's not completely ridiculous like Kazam!, rather it's a black comedy that takes an honest approach at how depression messes up families and how sooner or later in order to repair one's life, they'll have to approach the real issues. The Beaver puppet helps depressed Walter take charge at work (a toy company) in restructuring the main toy line and even repairs Walter's relationship with his family. Nobody bothers to buck Walter or all him crazy for answering to the beaver, because for one in Walter's life he's actually happy and starting to fix things. And that's why this story works, it makes us buy into the crazy logic. I mean of course there's the question of how much Walter is actually controlling the puppet, or whether it's a force with a mind of its own. But, perhaps this is purposefully an unanswered question.

This isn't an amazing script, but it's gotten a ton of visibility and it's a very strong effort from last year's Black List. And in terms of genre, congratulations to Killern. Rather than treat the material as a ridiculously broad Jim Carrey comedy, the story becomes a much darker piece about a man and his talking British beaver puppet. You could completely hate this thing, but it's been remembered because it's such a strong and original take on the material.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
[X] Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: The only main female character in this thing is the wife and she is much older than Isla.

Tip: This script has gone very far for one reason: it's so weird. And that alone is it's selling point, Everything else about the story is mediocre, but because we've never seen a story about a guy with a talking beaver puppet The Beaver becomes a compelling read.

Strange Brew (Lost #5 of 5)

2010-01-13T14:42:00.000-08:00

Genre: Sketch Comedy

Premise: This is Hamlet as comedy. Doug and Bob McKenzie transfer their television show to the big screen as a science fiction epic, but it doesn't go down well with the audience and they are forced to hand over their beer money as a refund. To get more beer without paying for it, they pretend to have found a mouse in a bottle and head off to the brewery, only to find themselves embroiled with a sinister plot to take over the world.

Writer: Rick Moranis (who'd previously just written Second City material), Dave Thomas (who'd also just written for Second City) and Steve De Jarnatt (first script, did Miracle Mile soon after, which if I can find a script of I'll review here)

About: In 1981, a Bob and Doug McKenzie album sold a million copies which led to feature film interest. Jarnatt was hired to write a first draft. Thomas rewrote because Jarnatt had done too literal an adaptation of Hamlet. Moranis came on after Thomas was finished and helped polish this draft into the production script.

I love Rick Moranis. He is a great character actor, and I find him one of the highlights of the Ghosbusters film. So, needless to say, I expected to love Strange Brew. It wasn't awful, but it definitely wasn't the misplaced masterpiece I had expected. And it's interesting to just study the script because this piece was written for particularly these actors under these particular circumstances. In a way this film feels like very low brow Canadian comedy because it engages in all the Canadian cliches: beer, ice hokey, that particular dialogue, and the blinding snow.

It's funny Jarnatt wrote the majority of the script because I'd make the same accusation here that I would about Miracle Mile: the plot isn't entirely coherent. There are laughs and enjoyable elements certainly, but you get the impression that the characters were a tad too underdeveloped to carry off a whole movie. But that being said, I'd rather read this script than that of Saturday Night Live during the dark era of the late 80's. This film is no forgotten gem, just a misplaced B quality film from the early 80's.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

[X] Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: No main female roles here.

Tip: This film transcends being a small budget 1980's film because it looms off into the absurd in places. Remember how I once gave a tip about keep things interesting, Strange Brew uses the technique that whenever stuff starts to get a little slow it does something weird or absurd to make the viewer scratch their head.

The Simpsons Movie (Lost #2 of 5)

2010-01-12T14:12:00.000-08:00

Genre: Summer Blockbuster Cartoon

Premise: There is a plot, kind of, about Homer's pollution of a lake in Springfield, which brings down the federal government's wrath and leads to the Springfield being trapped under a large plastic dome. There's a subplot about a love interest for Lisa, Marge and Homer's marriage, and Bart's relationship with Homer. And then there's Spider Pig, but I'll trust you've seen the Burger King ads and leave it at that.

Writer: The Simpsons Staff (James L. Brooks, Matt Groening, Al Jean, Ian Maxtone-Graham, George Meyer, David Mirkin, Mike Reiss, Mike Scully, Matt Selman, John Swartzwelder, Jon Vitti)

About: The script was very slow in development. Originally, the film was to be based around the Camp Krusty story (there's a third season, I think? episode with the same plot), but as time went on and the staff faced being undermanned to handle both a movie and a tv show, production crept along until the film's eventual release in 2006. Also of course because it's an animated film production was expanded, which means it was in development several years before that. The actually story about pollution came from a newspaper clipping Matt Groening happened to stumble upon.

I saw this film in a dive theater in New Castle, Pennsylvania shortly before making the cross coutnry drive to New Castle, Pennsylvania. It's a very deceptive film. At first, I was just bowled over by the visuals. But upon a second and third glance, I started actually breaking down the story. And, in what must be some kind of record, there are something like 11 credited writers on the script. There's an old Hollywood adage that as the number of writers increases the quality of the film decreases proportionately. This isn't true with the Simpsons film, though. And on top of that, we're working with a spinoff of an animated film. (Hard pressed, all I can think of are TMNT, The Flintstones and The Jetsons films, none of which I can say affected much of an emotional response.) And surprisingly, the film isn't that structured at all, which is surprising because I'm sure we all know how tightly paked the TV shows are (odd inciting incident, trouble begins, the funny seque, and then the unconventional conclusion). But despite, all this, the film is good. Not great, but good. And enjoyable.

It's very quite hard to detach any reviews from the television series, but that being said the story line is very simple and begs the question did we really wait all this time to see a Simpson's film with these events? Well yes, yes we did. And despite some truly awe inspiring cinematic moments, the film doesn't have much of a thrust to prevent it from being nothing more than an extended episode.

Nothing more that is, except for Homer's journey. And this is truly a lost weekend from Homer due to the dreamlike, Eskimo drug sequence one finds halfway through the second act. (Furthermore, Homer's venture into Alaska is little more than a surreal trip into lost time). Although Marge has threatened to leave him plenty of times, this is the first case where she actually does. And while Homer has certainly angered plenty of people before, never has the whole town been out to get him. It's dramatic on a whole other plane than the TV series. But, itis as funny? No. And Yes. Not nearly as funny as the Simpsons' golden era, but there's humor in this film that definitely rivals the comedy found in the later seasons which will not laugh out loud hysterial will certainly make you grin.

So was it any good? That's a hard question. Yes, it was. But like many of The Simpsons episodes, this film is destined to fall into the good but not exceptionally memorable category whih sadly includes so many of the later era Simpsons shows.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
[X] Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: Isla had a bit part here, but ultimately got caught during editing. Why was this footage never released? I missed out on the combination of two of my favorite things, The Simpsons and Isla Fisher.

Tip: Homer has the best obstacles in this whole thing, and it definitely draws interest into the film. Not only does the town hate him so does his family by the midpoint. I know we've all heard this thousands of times before, but really, you need to create enormous obstacles for your hero or the reader is going to check out. This film survives by the mere fact that Homer has almost insurmountable odds. (Also, it's a Simpson's film and there are great visual gags, but still).

The Lost Weekend (Lost #1 of 5)

2010-01-11T12:29:00.000-08:00

Genre: Social Statement

Premise: The tale is a dark, painful glimpse into the five days of the life of Don, an alcoholic and failed writer. After having been kept sober for 10 days, Don manages to evade them and embark on the hunt for something to drink.

Writer: Novel by Charles Jackson (a binge drinker with no other big works), Script by Billy Wilder (The Apartment, Some Like It Hot, Double Indemnity) and Charles Brackett (Niagra, Sunset Boulevard, The Bishop's Wife)

About: One of four novels Wilder took with him on a cross country train ride, he stayed up all night reading the book and taking notes. Upon arrival, Wilder called Paramount's studio head and asked him to buy the rights. The book was acquired for $50,000.

Essentially, this film is the grand daddy of social statement films. At the time, with the exception of pieces like Griffith's Intolerane, alcohol hadn't been discussed much. Obviously Blake Edward's Days of Wine and Roses would follow soon after, followed of course by pieces much later like Leaving Las Vegas. I had a response to this script quite simlar to how I feel about Wilder's Some Like It Hot or Double Indemnity. While it's almost indisputable that Wilder has hung up his story on a beautifully constructed framework, the script lacks fluidity and the slowly paced scenes seem overcalculated, with each colorful charater and tense vignette standing out too sharply, everything is nailed down to a meaning for us. Ultimately the whole thing is short on imaginative resonance. But understandably, in basically inventing this type of social statement film, it'd only follow through that Wilder becomes a bit too formulaic.

The funny thing is the film's predictability only becomes noticeable because the work slides off at times into a world of improvised bliss. I really can't recall seeing a 1940's film with such creative spark as the monologue moments Don has at the bar. Now of course, there's The Best Years of Our Lives but what that film does structurally (an Altman precursor if there ever was one), The Lost Weekend does with dialogue. So when the film reverts back to attempting an overall statement there are times when it slips and the dialogue isn't as deliciously worded.

There's also some problems with Don's decision to quit drinking. I'm not certain this Lost Weekend of his is so much worse than of the others (I know he wakes up in a hospital after his binge, but still). In a way, I fear the writers were trying to apply a slightly undeveloped approach to Don's deision to give up the bottle and resultantly the effort comes off as maudlin and overly sentimental. (O'Brien's Leaving Las Vegas takes a much more honest approach to the same source material, but as we'll see, that films veers at time into failing as too honest a depition of what the life of an alcoholic is like).

Look. Let's call a spade a spade. While outdated, The Lost Weekend is monumental. The film received many Academy Awards, but much more importantly without this script by Brackett and Wilder there'd be no A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, Days of Wine and Roses, Barfly, Clean and Sober, When A Man Loves A Woman, or Leaving Las Vegas.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
[X] Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: If they ever do a remake, Isla could play the main love interest very well. She's funny, sarcastic, but generally just a sweet girl. (There's also a direct relationship between the love interest in Lost Weekend and Sera in Leaving Las Vegas, which makes one wonder just how much John O'Brien was inspired ultimately by this film).

Tip: Monologues can be used to great effect if they have a reason and a point. This film gives its protagonist some of the best film monologues I ever read about the perils of drinking, and they work because he's a meandering drunk who is whining on his bar stool and that's exactly what barstool drunks do.

Let's Get Lost

2010-01-11T12:21:00.000-08:00

So, it's time to face the facts. I finally slipped off the tracks and failed to post to the site for a week or two. So in honor of my failure, I'm going to highlight "The Lost Weekend" theme. In actuality, I wasn't really that lost at all. But rather, busy working on severak other projects and slipped behind the side temporarily. So this week, I bring you tales of the strange, of people who slid out into that lost weekend only to emerge on the other side. Some of these are my favorite films, and many of them are tales you probably have encountered in form or another. So to switch things up, I'm going to tackle them in some pretty unconventional angles: relating the novels to the books, discussing the effectiveness of the genres, and in many places highlighting whatI feel to be the strangeness of these tales. So let's get lost for a whole week of Isla...

Superman Lives - Kevin Smith (S-Man #5 of 5)

2010-01-08T13:49:00.001-08:00

Genre: Action-Comic Book Adaptation-Blockbuster

Premise: Doomsday kills Superman, after Brainiac blocks out the sun to make Superman powerless. Brainiac pairs up with Lex Luthor while elsewhere Superman is brought to life by The Eradicator, a Kryptonian Robot. Brainiac wants to destroy both The Eradicator and Superman. Stripped of his powers, Superman is placed in armor built b y the Eradicator and defeats Braniac.

About: Smith was hired on, from his guess due to his myriad comic book references in his films. He clashed frequently with Producer Jon Peters (Superman was Peters’ pet project) as Peters requested Smith to include fights with giant spiders and polar bears. Soon after Smith completed the script, Tim Burton was hired onto the project. Burton’s first act was to trash Smith’s script and hire on an entirely new team of writers. To this day, Kevin Smith signs copies of this script “F$#@ Tim Burton”. (On a side note, Smith’s casting choices would have been Ben Affleck as Sup, Linda Fiorentino as Lois, Jack Nicholson as Lex, David Hyde Pierce as The Eradicator, Jason Lee as Brainiac)

Writer: Kevin Smith (after Clerks and Mall Rats, Circa chasing Amy’s release)

I’ve been reviewing my favorite scripts of the week on Friday lately. From what I can tell, Smith’s Superman script is what jump started attempts to make the film and ultimately what brought Burton onto the project. And, compared to the drivel I remember seeing in 2006 (which followed Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey so methodically, it was like watching a drunk man crawl along his kitchen floor) it’s a shame that this film didn’t end up being made. Now of course it’s high budget. Very high. And it would’ve needed a lot of money to be done successfully. And, I know there are complaints among the fan boys of cheesiness (and it is true Smith has Superman say “Up, up and away” at one point). But this is to be funny. There’s one brilliant element to this script that none of the others I’ve reviewed capture: Smith’s Superman Lives has depth and interesting characters (which Alex Ford’s laced) and it is still fun and good hearted like a Superman movie (which the script I reviewed yesterday missed).

Superman is stripped of his powers in this script. And unlike when this happens in other films, it doesn’t feel unoriginal or like I’m not watching a Superman film anymore. And the mere trick to that is that Superman remains committed to his goal of defeating Brainiac, and being committed to his goal. Smith also nails Superman’s trial in this correct: it’s not over dual identities, but that rather Superman is almost addicted to altruistic duties and protecting the citizens of Earth. For good or for bad. (Which leads to a cheesy line where Superman points to his head “Not here”, then to his heart “It’s here…one hopes this would have been cut out in a rewrite).

The only flaw that Smith makes is perhaps jumping a little too quickly into the world of Superman. There’s not enough origin related info. And as someone who is coming to the film cold, that’d be immensely appreciate. Why not a short bit on how Brainiac came to be? That’d prevent this script from feeling like we’ve been quickly thrown into Superman’s world. But, Lex Luthor is depicted very well in this. I still don’t like him. But Lex is depicted as the power hungry monger he is, and his fights with Brainiac are great because Lex is revealed as advanced as he possibly could be on Earth but drastically behind the progress of Brainiac. And, the other thing is that Batman also has a cameo in this. But I wasn’t a huge fan of Batman’s speech, and while the mood and atmosphere while filmed could have emphasized the Bat’s tone, I like to think that there would have been better ways to reveal Batman. Also, for what it’s worth I’d like to think it would be possible to have more Justice League cameos in this film even if they were just brief glimpses at the characters. So besides being too fan boy, I have no idea what Burton would have seen in this script to hate it and need it rewritten so severely, unless Burton was keen on making the project entirely his own.

It’s sad that Superman wasn’t filmed. But, it’s exciting that Smith has written a script for Green Hornet which from my understanding is about to be released as a Comic. I’m going to pick that up, and hopefully dive far into the reaches of the DC Universe.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[X] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Daily Tip: Characters can best be developed in relationship to one another. Superman is perfect until we start to consider his relationship with Lois Lane and all the shortcomings he regards to the rest of Earth’s inhabitants. Luthor is immensely developed until he looks far behind in relationship to Brainiac. The Eradicator is just a robot until he sacrifices himself for Superman. Character is defined by action, and by revealing the way others respond to action, you can craft some great characters.

Isla Prospect: This is the best Lois role yet, and if I was to cast Isla in any Lois role this’d be it. She’s sarcastic, emotionally conflicted, and has a not subservient to Superman role.

Script Link: All over the net. Just Google.

Superman Reborn - Unknown Date (S-Man #4 of 5)

2010-01-07T13:21:00.000-08:00

Genre: Action-Comic-Blockbuster

Premise: Superman’s Death is still the focal point. Brainiac is the new villain and destroyer of Krypton. Unable to cope with dual identities, Clark Kent almost has a breakdown. Brainiac unleashes Doomsday, who bleeds Krypton and fights Superman to the death. Superman journeys through the afterlife, and deciding his work on Earth isn’t quite over returns to his body. A now powerless Superman fights Braniac.

About: Gregory Poirier had previously worked with producer, Jon Peters, on Rosewood. It used a previous draft written by John Lemkin (21 Jump Street) and sequentially came right before Kevin Smith's draft. Allegedly, this script reached deadlock because Warners brass had creative differences. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that possibly the reason Poirier was dumped for Kevin Smith has to due with the script’s tone, which feels almost completely detached from the Superman atmosphere.

Writer: Gregory Poirier (at this point had written Death Riders, The Stranger, and Rosewood with Jon Voight, also Poirier had written a lot of films for the Adult Industry which included over 40 films for John T. Bone)

Imagine if The Dark Knight didn’t have any action scenes and the Joker wasn’t necessarily all that evil or involved in the plot. You end up with an Existential reflection on what it means to be a Superhero, and the perceived dangers of the occupation. You also end up with a protagonist who for all purposes is unhinged. And, also as one would expect you end up with a film that’s pretty removed from the Batman comics. This is the dilemma of Superman V: Reborn. It’s not really a Superman film. It’s far too heavy and angsty. Now don’t get me wrong, that’s not entirely a bad thing and it’s always a noble attempt to make a popcorn flick meaningful. But, this thing misses the entire point of Superman. He’s a guy who flies and blows stuff up. And that’s about it. And, if you’re going to capture the feel of the comic, making something entirely thematic and character driven may not be the best way to go.

Also, a sigh of relief because Braniac and Doomsday are better than Lex Luthor any day of the week. Of course, they’re not Magneto or The Joker. But they’re weird villains with demented purposes and they’re pretty damn evil. Oh, and they don’t occupy their time on the page like intelligent pricks who are always muttering about how intelligent they are. And while we’re on the subject, there’s a really strong theme here that I don’t think was done enough justice. In the style of Old Testament prophets driven from their homes, Superman comes a place to which he can no longer return and is offered the chance to confront the monster who destroyed his home. This idea alone could fuel a script, but Clark Kent wrestling with dual identities? That’s much less fascinating.

Or, we could look at Kevin Smith, whose quote I just discovered and which pretty much nails down exactly what I’ve been trying to say. “Superman’s angst is not that he doesn’t want to be Superman. If he has any (angst), it’s that he can’t do it all; he can’t do enough and save everyone... Batman is about angst; Superman is about hope.” Needless to say, when Smith was hired onto the project, he completely rewrote the script.

The other thing is, the script reads like a homage to every popular film of the last decade. Superman comes back from the afterlife a karate expert ala The Karate Kid, the aliens take over ala Independence Day, and there’s also a good deal of Batman references. I think ultimately what had happened is that Poirier had written a script without considering what the comic meant or what he was trying to capture. For the Warner Brother executives, this resulted in a script that didn’t have much of an action slant and was also a poor, overly sentimental portrayal of Superman.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[X] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Daily Tip: Sometimes stories don’t have to be deep. Or, better said, sometimes in revealing a deeper level of emotion to a story what a writer really does is move the piece away from the perceived tone. For example, if you’re writing a Superman script which is about hope and the American Dream, it’s missing up the whole story by revealing a level of emotion about how Clark feels about his dual identities. Or, perhaps, this ties into the lesson that you shouldn’t try to fix something if it isn’t broken.

Isla Prospect: Lois Lane is almost a non-lead in this, so I won’t consider Isla.

Script Link: I have a copy of this. Email me if interested.

Superman Lives (S-Man #3 of 5)

2010-01-06T12:21:00.000-08:00

Genre: Action-Comic Book Blockbuster

Premise: Braniac is on the hunt for Kal-el, Superman, after destroying Krypton. Braniac reaches Earth and merges with Lex Luthor to form Lexiac. Lexiac kills Superman with Kryptonite-blooded Doomsday. Superman returns. There is a battle.

About: Tim Burton was to have directed a Superman film in the 90’s with Nick Cage in the title role, but inevitably the studios started pushing him around. Gilroy was hired onto the project to rewrite Wesley Strick (who we ran into briefly while studying the evolution of Batman II/Batman Returns). Gilroy was to bring down the $190 million budget to $100 million. Warners still put the film on hold. And Burton, who had been working on the project for a year, left to do Sleepy Hollow and a bunch of lesser adaptations of films that didn’t need to be modernized in the first place.

Writer: Dan Gilroy (Chasers, Freejack, son of the guy who wrote The Subject Was Roses)

This is the draft that effectively ended the quest to make Superman Lives, which in many cases would mean that the thing isn’t very good at all. I am yet to read Kevin Smith’s script, which is the seed of what Gilroy was rewriting but allegedly (according to The Superman website and Ain’t It Cool News, Smith’s script was better). So I’m going to stay away from a critique of the finer elements of the plot because I’m not sure how much here was Gilroy, how much was Smith, and how much is others and I could potentially end up finding weaknesses in Superman Lives that aren’t Gilroy’s fault or strengths that aren’t his creation either.

There’s one thing this script features that I love, Lexiac. It actually makes Lex Luthor somewhat intimidating, and it makes a decent villain for once in the Superman series. Now, this is an Alan Moore idea initially. (I mean, it’s a good thing from a DC comic, doesn’t that normally mean Moore was involved to some degree?) But, as much as I like Lexiac, there’s problematic stuff with the back story, which is that Superman’s knowledge of the events on Krypton when he was a baby are rewritten. Superman is not supposed to be aware of Braniac or what transpired to lead Superman being raised by the Kents. Now, why is it that DC finds it mandatory to rewrite the character line of their superheroes every few films? Batman is guilty of exactly the same thing. Why do this? Marvel doesn’t do it. X-Men retain the same stories their entire history. Same with The Avengers. It’s frustrating, and further bends logic, when comic book characters have their pasts slightly or entirely altered by the hands of a writer eager to make a good story.
And for the record, I know I’m supposed to suspend reality but how is Superman killed off and resurrected within the course of ten pages? There’s never really a sufficient explanation, and it feels like a lot to process in losing and rediscovering a character.

But there’s a few really awesome things about this script, though, and while the film spins out into a very high budget territory, I don’t necessarily think the script is all that bad. There’s a few cool cameos: including one by Batman. And my favorite part is Superman’s fear of what would happen if he had a baby with Lois Lane. For once, this actually made some real and interesting drama in the Superman series. What if Superman was in love with Lois Lane and wanted to raise a family, but knew deep down he wasn’t normal and that their child may not come out alright? In a way, it’s the same problem Geena Davis experiences in The Fly. Or, the Rosemary’s Baby complex. But, I’ve never seen this done through a male’s perspective before so that’s a cool angle.
The thing is, for a script that was written for a project in the midst of development hell, it’s obvious Superman Lives was not powerful enough to put the film back on line. It’s not bad, but there’s nothing here that’s going to sell Superman on the strength of its film.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[X] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Daily Tip: Don’t rewrite character’s back stories. Ever. Okay? It’s confusing. It makes us doubt whether we know anything at all. It’s not more interesting either. So here’s an idea, once the audience or the reader has a pretty good idea of how stuff is going to play with it. Once I think I know Superman’s life and how he was raised, don’t switch it up on me. I don’t care if it’d make a good film. It’ll just make me disengage.

Isla Prospect: Lois Lane here isn’t as witty or sarcastic as she is in other ones. She’s still in love with Superman, sure. But this depiction of Lois doesn’t play to Isla’s strength.

Script Link: I have a copy. Email me if interested.

Superman Flyboy (#2 of 5)

2010-01-05T12:59:00.000-08:00

Genre: Action

Premise: Finished in July 2002, Abrams’ Superman is an origin story about Krypton’s civil war, Superman’s arrival on Earth, Clark’s romance with Lois Lane. Only Lois is obsessed with revealing Luthor’s quest for UFO artifacts. Superman is killed, visits Jor-El in Kroptonian heaven is trained and succeeds in beating the four evil Kryptonians who have taken over Earth.

About: Brett Ratner signed to direct in September 2002 with filming to start in late 2003. Nobody wanted to sign. Not Josh Hartnett. Not Jude Law. Tony Hopkins to play Lex luthor. And Ralph Fiennes to play Jor-El (both from Ratner’s Red Dragon). Chris Reeves to project consult. Ashton Kutcher also rejected. Needless to say, the process took a long time and before anyone knew it Ratner was off and McG (Charlie’s Angels, Terminator 5) was to direct. Rewrites followed. Eventually, the whole thing ended up Bryan Singer’s lackluster Superman Returns in 2006.

Writer: J.J. Abrams (Regarding Henry, Forever Young, Armaggedon…isn’t that an odd line up? Two deeply personal films and a sci-fi blockbuster?)

The film opens with a very popcorn-driven Superman versus Ty-Zor (here’s a Kryptonian, big evil guy). Superman is then sent to Earth to avoid being killed. This is all really good, but Superman it is not. Of course, the classic scenes of Clark Kent’s youth as similar to how everyone imagines them.

But then it happened, the most head scratching moment of the entire script. Clark’s mom is nearly raped by a landlord who wants to exchange sex for rent so Clark pummels him. What? I reread it twice. Did I really read that? I did. I don’t know what it was doing in a Superman film, but there it was. Then Clark finds the Superman costume, which sucks itself onto his body. Ala Venom. And so it began, I entered a weird place that didn’t feel like the Superman universe and didn’t feel like any world of logic I’d ever seen. It was crazy Superman world.

Luthor once again has little to no moviation. He hates Superman because Lex is fired for pointing out Superman is a threat. And I mean, is that really supposed to suffice for a bad guy? It doesn’t. It’s just some annoying guy Superman has to deal with.

Lois flies with Clark and it’s romantic in a cheesy way. She’s eventually tied to a water tank and Superman having to pass Kryptonite to get there. His powers now gone, Superman still manages to punch a window then dies. How he does this I have no idea without any super powers whatsoever I have no idea. You ever try to punch through glass bare handed? Yeah, that works like a charm. And that’s what Superman is without his powers, just a regular guy like you or me. Krypton totally doesn’t make sense. And speaking of sense, if you were still logically invested to this story by the time we hit the mid point of the second act, stuff gets even crazies.

Superman is trained in the afterlife by a Kryptonian, then battle Lex Luthor who is revealed as another Kryptonian. There’s a dual and Superman wins. Then Superman flies off to Krypton which leaves the whole thing open ended for another segment of the trilogy Abrams had proposed.

Now I understand that logic might not always make sense. But, at the very least in a film about comic books I expect some loyalty to the series. But there isn’t any loyal to the Superman series in this baby. And then, on top of it all, half of the characters either don’t make sense (most of the crazy Kryptonians) or are just plain old boring, Lex Luthor.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
[X] - Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Daily Tip: I didn’t like this script a whole lot, but it was mediocre because it didn’t bore me. The attempted rape was shocking. The costume thing was a cool visual. And the afterlife/Krypton scenes at the very least entertaining in a way I hadn’t scene before. There’s an old Tennessee Williams quote how he learned early on his career that it was okay for a show to not be brilliant but to never ever bore the audience which means throwing in a gun or something shocking every now and then just to keep the reader invested. Abrams may not do much, but he follows this rule very well.

Isla Prospect: Isla as Lois Lane. Brilliant. Sleek, seductive, witty, sexy. She’d banter with Clark and be swept away by Superman. And the spotlight would be great.

Script Link: I have a copy. Email me if interested.

Superman: The Man of Steel (S-Man #1 of 5)

2010-01-05T12:16:00.000-08:00

Genre: Action-Drama

Premise: The Man of Steel tells the origin story of Superman/Clark Kent, plus how he met Lois Lane. It also uses Lex Luthor / Megatello as the bad guys.
About: After the Superman Lives (Kevin Smith was to direct) film fell through in the mid 1990’s, there was a series of Superman scripts written. One of these, Superman: The Man of Steel, was written by comic book aficionado and spec writer, Alex Ford. The film was to be part one of seven, but Warners dropped Ford over creative differences.

Writer: Alex Ford (who, I’ve checked, has no real credits)

Why is Lex Luthor intimidating? I really don’t know. He’s smart. And has a lot of money. Not twisted like The Joker. Not unstoppable as Magneto. Lex is like the Batman of bad guys. Minus the pathos. And a lot of the tension in this script is that Lex is depicted as what’s wrong in the world of Superman. So needless to say, I wasn’t exactly sitting on the edge of my seat to plow through Alex Ford’s script.

The other thing that really slowed down reading Man of Steel is that this script reads like it was written by an amateur. The typeface is slightly too big. The formatting is also a tad bit irregular. And then the dialogue is overly talky (it’s like Ford wants to have these random monologues by every player in the Superman man universe), rambles on too long and then the action is occasionally spliced with random action scenes. If this is Superman count me out.

Now, that being said, I applaud Ford’s intentions. And while Superman isn’t my cup of tea, it probably is a good idea to use several films to capture all the main points of the comics. God knows this would have made the X-Men films amazing. But, really, I don’t get any of this Lex Luthor stuff. Why we would want to see it? Wasn’t this covered in Superman 1 to 4? Does Superman have any other villains? Is anybody else Superman agitated? Why would somebody want to make such a high budget film out of such a mediocre script? Help! Phew. Okay. I’ll calm down.

This script has good points: it seems to have studied Superman’s world, the plot follows some sort of a structure, the story revolves around a couple decent themes of what makes a hero, and there’s definitely room for excellence. Also there’s a Wonder Woman cameo and some references to the Justice league. But, really folks, this is fan fiction that was considered by the industry. And that’s all it.

Also, for most of the film Superman is depowered. Our one great protagonist who is famous for having superpowers now has none. What sense does this make? Really. And the problems? A woman strapped to a bomb. A nuclear reactor ready to blow. And then a brawl with Metallo, bar room style. And there’s never any Lois Lane and Clark Kent interaction beyond Clark whining like a little girl that Lois beat him to the story.

I wanted this review on a bigoted speech by Lex Luthor. “Fifteen hundred cats? What am I supposed to do with fifteen hundred cats? If I were in Korea I'd open a delicatessen but I'm not. I'm in Metropolis where fifteen hundred cats are useless to me. I want something better. Dogs, monkeys, French-speaking gorillas. Impress me.”

Impress me, Alex Ford did not.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

[X] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Daily Tip: Sometimes, screenwriters attempt to tackle subjects that are too expansive for one script. Alex Ford’s Superman isn’t content with one small word, or a segment of one line of the Superman series. Rather, Ford tries to capture all of DC’s Superman series in the confines of this script. And, the script ends up just lacking a strong central thread.

Isla Prospect: Lois Lane is obviously the main Superman female, but she’s not that great in this one. So I’m not going to compare Isla to this possible role.

Script Link: I have a copy. Email me if interested.

Superman Week!

2010-01-04T11:57:00.000-08:00

I love comics so I’ve read a good deal of them. And I’ve already done a fair number of comic book based reviews on Hunting for Isla Fisher. But, for the most part my comic expertise spreads to Batman and X-Men. One of the comics I’ve hardly ever (and I mean hardly, maybe just two issues) is surprisingly enough, Superman. I just never got Superman. Didn’t get the mythos or the fan following. So I thought I could give an interesting critique about the history of Superman scripts starting with some unproduced scripts, then highlighting a couple of the produced films. I’ll be commenting on the story line in general, and trying to highlight what I just don’t get about the Superman series.

Old Boy (Ghost #5 of 5)

2010-01-01T11:56:00.000-08:00

Genre: Drama with Promises of Action that are never quite met

Premise: A man is mysteriously kidnapped and imprisoned for 15 years in a cell without any explanation. Then he is released. Armed with money and a cell phone. He seeks revenge for his torture, but soon finds his kidnappers aren’t yet finished with him.

About: Dreamworks secured the rights to the project. For a time, Spielberg and Will Smith discussed tackling the film. The reason for the projects delay appears to be Spielberg still has the script in development (which probably suggests he likes the script but isn’t ready to commit just yet). This script was written before these two became attached, and turned the Korean story into a Los Angeles nightmare. (Is Los Angeles nightmare redundant? I’m not sure.)

Writer: Ernesto M Foranda (Better Luck Tomorrow, doesn’t seem to have any other big credits) and Fabian Marquez (also just Better Luck Tomorrow, and something called Johnny Flynton) based on the movie by Chan-wook Park (the “Vengeance” trilogy)

I’ve read a few good scripts on Hunting for Isla. Many bad ones. But this Old Boy script is the best thing I’ve reviewed so far. Now I know it’s just a descendant of the Korean masterpiece (which I had never read in script form), but Old Boy is bar none hands down the best script I’ve reviewed so far on Hunting for Isla Fisher. Now Joe, you may be thinking, that’s an awfully big boast to make. Let me explain.

The idea of being locked up for fifteen years is terrifying. But the script doesn’t depict this as naturally a horrifying period of captivity. Rather, there’s a quiet, unsympathetic approach to this man’s suffering. And that’s a lot of the reason why Old Boy is scary. It’s not in the reveal, it’s in the depth and the approach. In a lot of ways, this whole thing reminded me of a Greek tragedy set in modern times. And elevates the captive to mythic levels. So I know, I know, some of you are going to say Old Boy isn’t really a ghost story. But, I’d argue that the captive at the end of his fifteen years is more ghost like than human. And like ghosts who stick to the Earth, this guy is obsessed with answering some questions about his life on the planet.

Now, the other thing Old Boy gets right which very easily could have turned this whole film into a crap fest is the reason why the captive was locked up. Rather than taking a cheesy or unnecessarily violent turn, the reason the captive is locked up has to do with a secret that rocks the whole world of characters. (Albeit, it’s a turn you see in a lot of movies with these types of secrets. But an effective one nonetheless).

Even more interestingly I don’t necessarily know if I was a big fan of the script’s plot in so much as I was a fan of the tone and the way the protagonist was depicted as a lonely, deranged hell bent wanderer. Not since Taxi Driver have I read something that leapt off the page with such ferocity. And that’s amazing because I spent a good part of the week discussing how rarely someone capture the ghost-like tone in a screenplay.

There’s this clown movie, Vulgar, which explores a similar idea using much less noble tactics. By the time the film ends, it’s erupted into little more than a shoot out with a guy and his captors. Then, there’s films like Deliverance and Prime Cut where the captors seek revenge but aren’t really traumatized. Then there’s Cast Away where the Tom Hanks is left where Old Boy starts: a man who has spent many years in captivity trying to make sense of his world. Old Boy makes good on what Cast Away should have done: how one lives with these God awful memories and readjusts to their world after years in the wilderness. Of course, Cast Away would probably have had some great product placement among this character development, but still. Old Boy takes the cake.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
[X] - Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Daily Tip: There are many scripts that managed to beat (or at least tackle) the slowness of the second act’s second half by revealing a groundbreaking secret. Now there are catches to this (the secret has to be revealed as something that ties into the story, among other things). But, if done correctly, the revelation of a shocking truth in a script that causes a reader to reevaluate everyone involved goes a long way to a good middle act.

Isla Prospect: There really isn’t a big female role in this thing. So no Isla turns today.
Script Link: I have a copy. Email me if interested.

The Crow 2037 (Ghosts #4 of 5)

2009-12-31T10:59:00.000-08:00

Genre: Action/Drama/Comic Book Adaptation

Premise: A young boy and his mother are murdered by a dark priest, who is part of The Fallen One. The Crow returns the kid's spirit to Earth. The boy forgets these events, becomes a bounty and sets out to avenge his mother's death.

About: Rob Zombie basically wrote this thing as a writing sample for House of 1000 Corpses, and then after 18 months on the project bailed because he was unhappy with the little amount of progress made on the film. This would be the third part of The Crow trilogy, but doesn't really carry along The Crow story line.

Writer: Rob Zombie (who in 1997 didn't have any film credits, but went on to do House of 1000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and a remake of Halloween)

Now I love comics, but I don't know all that much about The Crow. other than it's about a person who is dead coming back to the living, which I guess would kind of make them the same thing as a ghost. Of course we all know that odd, morbid detail that Brandon Lee was killed on the set of the original film. So I was expecting some sort of an origin story. I mean, it's a comic book story and it has a date in it. That's normally a good sign of something pretty faithful to a comic book storyline.

Instead, what we're presented with in The Crow is a secondary story line about this kid who becomes a bounty hunter and little to no reference about The Crow. Turns out the people who were going to produce this script also felt the same, and wanted to take the story out of a crow context. So that's pretty disappointing. It's like watching Cyclops: The Movie and finding out it revolved around Gambit. (Actually that'd probably be more awesome because I love both of those characters).

Once you get back this stumbling block, the script is actually pretty comparable to the type of things I've previously read by Rob Zombie: strange, dark, shocking visuals strung together in a pretty conventional plot arch that occasionally throws a surprise twist or two with dialogue that's very plain except for its dark and sarcastic tone. The problem with this whole script is that it isn't terrible, but due to it not being about The Crow, it really isn't that interesting or unique a take. I mean a bounty hunter back from the dead and characters who don't really engage one another so much as they say "cool things". It's not a film so much as a comic written as a screenplay.

So really. (And this statement becomes increasingly more true as the industry turns to
adaptations of successful material.) Why do I want to watch a surreal action film about second string comic book figures from an obscure graphic novel? I don't know. There really isn't anything memorable to the script, and it was additionally frustrating because I kept waiting for The Crow to become a main figure. Instead, stifled lines and a maudlin story plot do not make a film. Or atl east one I want to go see.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
[X] - Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

What I Learned: The worst part of this script, and it's not a bad script, just not a great one by any stretch of the imagination, is the film makes certain promises in the title and in the genre. It ends up coming through on neither of them. The point being that an audience gains certain expectations of

Isla Prospect: There really aren't any female roles in this thing. At all. So I don't know who you'd cast Isla as, if anyone.

Script Link: This is hard to track down. Email if interested.

Ghost (Ghosts #3 of 5)

2009-12-30T12:37:00.000-08:00

GENRE: Some people bill this as a comedy? That’s ridiculous. It’s a Drama.

PREMISE: On a date with his girlfriend Molly, Sam Wheat is murdered by a thug who is actually working together with Sam’s friend, Carl, to obtain money from a bank account where Sam works. Sam becomes a ghost and is not seen by most folks. He tries to warn Molly about Carl, but she refuses to listen. So Sam relies on a psychic, Oda Mae Brown, to try and save Molly’s life.

ABOUT: Before Stuart Little 2, there was a time when Bruce Joel Rubin was a very hot commodity. Heck, his films Jacob’s Ladder and Ghost were filmed simultaneously in New York. Even though, Ghost had been in development for years. Allegedly, Hollywood had a stigma against ghost films. They didn’t do great numbers, and as a result it was trouble getting one produced. Many actors (Harrison Ford, Tom Cruise, etc.) turned down the role of Sam because it wasn’t a deep one. And Ghost had a series of oddball directors attached like Milos Foreman who wanted to change the ending of "Ghost" so that the heroine would jump out of a window to commit suicide to join her dead boyfriend in the hereafter. (Eventually the project was directed by Jerry Zucker, who had done the spoof Airplane). It is a small intimate film that took time to get made, and Rubin already had a few small credits to help push the project along.

WRITERS: Bruce Joel Rubin (Jacob’s Ladder, My Life)

I’ve never seen the first few minutes of this film, but have seen everything else. And it’s hard for me to get behind because the film feels so dated now and I don’t really like Demi Moore as an actress. There’s something very off putting about her. But, the ending is always strong. And when Carl is killed and dragged to hell by demons, it’s definitely a creepy. So it was a good chance to study Ghost as a story removed from the film. And while there are definitely problems here (many of them: implausible plot turns, a flat underdeveloped central character, bad guys I don’t understand, an unchallenged relationship between Sam and Molly), there’s a definite core of something strong here.

There’s several twists in this story that could never happen today. Oda Mae manages to infiltrate a security system by just being nice and personal, which would be impossible to do noawadays. But even larger then that, Sam Wheat doesn’t have a transformation. He’s the same person all along and really isn’t all that transformed by the ending of the film. (It’s funny Rubin would go on to write My Life next, which has a great character progression). So Sam plays very long and very flat. And as a result, I don’t know if I liked or enjoyed him as a character. Although, I paid attention to him because it was interesting to see a ghost aware he’s a ghost moving around in a living world. And the bad guys who chase Sam are completely confusing. I’m not sure why they killed Sam. I’m not sure how they’re making money. I guess it involves a wire transfer, but besides that it’s pretty goofy. And Sam and Molly have this weird relationship where their love isn’t awe inspiring and it isn’t awful. It’s just an ordinary romance, which is blah.

I read a synopsis of the film, and it was interesting to note where a couple story revisions were made which seem to revise some of these problems: the bad guys are a little bit more unified, Carl holds Molly hostage at the end and challenges Sam (which I guess adds tension, but just sounds goofy), at the start of the film Sam won’t tell Molly he loves her which makes Sam’s ghostliness all the more moving. I think, the largest problem that remains throughout this thing is Molly is flat, Sam is flat, and their romance is flat so they don’t come off as very vivid characters.

So I think the story is awesome. Definite high concept. Has classic written all over it. But, I can’t help but feel Bruce Joel Rubin was trying to fit all these characters into the story he’d already written in his mind rather than vice versa so he ended up trying to force characters into the plot and some came off flat. Besides, these slip ups, I like Ghost.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
[X] - Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

DAILY TIP: It’s not what a character says, it’s what they do. Oda Mae is always talking about how much she dislikes Sam, but we all know they’re actually friends because they continue to stick around and help one another. Although this tension provides a good deal of tension throughout the script, the conflict between Oda Mae and Sam is particularly awesome at the end when we realize these two characters in fact really have loved and respected one another all along.

ISLA PROSPECT: It’s hard with classic films to picture anybody outside of the actors who originally portrayed the roles. Also, I think this would be a hard role for Isla because there aren’t that many comedic chances, but rather Ghost is a straight up drama.

LINK: IMSDB has an early draft, but I read one a bit earlier than that.

STIR OF ECHOES (Early Draft) (Ghost #2 of 5)

2009-12-29T13:00:00.000-08:00

GENRE: Supernatural Thriller (Not Horror, It's Not Necessarily Scary as Much as Eerie)

PREMISE: Tom, a lineman, is married with a young boy. He hangs out with old time pals in Chicago. At a party, he gets hypnotized and goes into a trance. That night, he sees violent scenes and a young woman's ghost. Tom's son is also quasi psychic. Only the boy is calm and collected, while Tom is agitated by his new skills. As Tom learns of the ghost's story, he begins a hunt to find her body that places his whole family in harm's way.

ABOUT: This is one of the first films directed by David Koepp. It was a pretty straight forward adaptation from the Matheson novel. Besides that I've scoured Variety but can't really find a trace or mention about the development process of this script. Also, I read that Andrew Kevin Walker did some uncredited doctoring on this script, and in lieu of formal recognition is given a special thanks in the credits.

WRITERS: David Koepp (Panic Room, Spiderman, Mission Impossible, and Jurassic Park)adapted the script from a novel by the Grand Daddy of Good Horror, Richard Matheson (I Am Legend, What Dreams May Come, Somewhere in Time)

Stir of Echoes is another one of those films of which I only ever caught the tail end. There's a scene where a ghoul is discovered in Tom's basement. It's definitely chilling. And the effects are awe inspiring. But, that being said, when I actually had the time to experience the whole story, I was left with a lackluster experience. Now before any of you start trying to convince me otherwise "But Joe it's one of the best undiscovered horror films of the late 90's".

Let me tell you why. The reason is two fold. A) I don't like the main character. He's not funny. He has no aspirations. He has no real drive. He's content being a hick. And, while that may be plenty cool for some folks, and normally I enjoy working class heroes, but this guy is cardboard. He has no inner personality. As such I imagine Kevin Bacon was a pretty good choice for that type of a role, but I really can't get invested in a character like that. Furthermore B) The plot is goofy. It's either cliche at times and I've seen it over and over before: the man must discover the dead woman's secret (Isn't that the premise of that George C. Scott film The Haunting?) or the plot is surpentine and convoluted. Then there's the fact that Tom's son is clairvoyante and that's both cliched and convoluted. I know Matheson was the driving force behind this thing. And, that Stephen King in turn probably ripped off Matheson in The Shining. But, I can't help but feel that Stir of Echoes is a little tired that way. And, Matheson is always a very tone driven author so if you don't get his character tone right, it's understandable how you could end up with relatively flat character personalities. So I guess without the creepy tone or special effects, the story is pretty flat, which was also problematic in Manhattan Ghost Story. In tales about ghosts, the story is always heavily dependant on atmosphere. And in bland script format, it's nearly impossible to pick up on this stuff. So I'll give Stir of Echoes the praise that I'm sure when translated to celluloid the experience is a much more enjoyable one.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[X] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

What I Learned: Horror is a fine combination of plot and tone. And tone on the page, unlike in prose, can be very hard to capture particularly when one is working in as refined a structure as horror. So it's a losing race alot of the time in terms of capturing a script reader when you're writing a tone heavy horror picture. Stir of Echoes, Manhattan Ghost Story.

Isla Prospect: The only real female role is as the ghost (or Tom's wife, a pretty bland role). And Isla would be an interesting choice as a spirit, but it'd probably creep me out about her forever.

Script Link: All over the net

Coming up later this week, we'll have a big budget romance film from the 90's, a sci fi ghost tale, followed up by a surprise. It's gonna be a blast.

Manhattan Ghost Story (Ghost #1 of 5)

2009-12-28T19:03:00.000-08:00

GENRE: Victorian Ghost Story / Tale of the Macabre

PREMISE: A photographer goes to New York City with the hopes of beginning a collection that’ll focus on loneliness. But New York City is one weird place. Screaming Vietnam Vets. A creepy kid selling puppies. Some man follow him. He’s staying temporarily at his friend’s apartment. He thought it’d be empty, but a woman’s living there. And the two begin a very torrid love affair. But there’s one catch, the woman’s a ghost. And so are all the weird folk. Furthermore, the woman’s ex is out to harm the two because murderous jealousy keeps him from fading into a ghost. And the woman is attached to the photographer. There’s a chase through an apartment building which houses the memories of the photographer and his lover. And ultimately (I’m going to ruin this because odds are the script will never be filmed) the photographer is a ghost too.

ABOUT: This thing sort of got knocked out of the running by the onslaught of ghost stories that came out in the mid to late 90’s (The Sixth Sense, Stir of Echoes, etc). And that’s really a shame because with a director who could have picked up on the dark, moody tone of Manhattan Ghost Story, this would have been a better ghost tale than any of them. The script is actually an adaptation of a novel by T.M. Wright (who has written a ton of horror novels and won a Bram Stoker award) by Ron Bass and sold for $2 million. Manhattan Ghost Story went into Development Hell and has had Sharon Stone and Julia Roberts attached at various times to act, and Wayne Wang (Because of Winn-Dixie, Maid in Manhattan) to direct.

WRITERS: Novel by T.M. Wright, Script by Ron Bass (who has done a ton of stuff…Rain Man, Step Mom, Waiting to Exhale, My Best Friend's Wedding, and the similar in tone, What Dreams May Come)

I read this script about two months ago. And, I didn’t review Manhattan Ghost Story then because I had no idea what I’d say about the story. Now, I’m still not sure. But I think that’s part of the script’s charm. Like Blade Runner or Return of the Jedi, it may not be perfect (shoot, maybe not even close). But Manhattan Ghost Story is dark, sleek and incredibly rich in tone. It’s not scary, it’s eerie. And if you don’t really understand the difference, this script will divide them for you. If it had been scary, I wouldn’t have included it in this week’s Ghost theme.

The story is very slow and plodding. A 120 plus page script. And that always means stuff could have been trimmed. It’s hard because the protagonist doesn’t really have a ready goal or objective until he falls in love with this ghost woman a good chunk through the script which means you’re forced to slow down and really ponder on what lines and dialogue mean. Now in an actual film, the director can find ways to cheat this until the story kicks in. But on the page, this means a very, very slow lead in.

Actually, I’ll be entirely honest, there’s some interesting stuff in the middle. A man in love with a ghost woman, which is kind of like Ghost in reverse. But okay, I’ll play your game. Then a jealous ghost boyfriend who focuses on the woman to prevent from “fading” out into oblivion. (Which is really convoluted, and I didn’t buy it. It’s a technique mainly just to put a bad guy in this thing and make him threatening).

But the real golden part to Manhattan Ghost Story, which elevates it to brilliant comes in the last 30 pages when the photographer is chased through a building which alters itself in terms of time and space dimensions to reveal images from his (and his lover’s) past. I am absolutely in love with any script that can utilize an apartment building in a way we haven’t seen them before (and as someone who has spent so much time in them during the last few years, I guess this is what I get). So that’s great and I’ll give high ratings any day of the week for that. I wish somebody would either film this script, or steal this idea, just to utilize this element.

But that’s Manhattan Ghost Story for you. A few brilliant ideas. A slow moving plot until the end. A couple characters I couldn’t get behind because the thing is so plodding. And a ghost story that isn’t really a ghost story because it’s not scary. This is a good script that with some punching up could have very well been amazing.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
[X] - Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

What I Learned: Maximize locations. Not only does it save budget, if you can maximize a location odds are you're using it in an original way. And, odds are also you've thought of something original to watch on screen. The idea of an apartment building that houses different memories of the past is one such example. Of course, intergrating this idea into your film is a whole other challenge. But, that's a whole other what I learned section.

Isla Prospect: I'd like to see Isla for once in a non-chick flick romance like Ghost Story. Now I'm not saying this is the film, but I'm saying it'd a good genre to get some props in as opposed to this goofy Cookie Queen / Wedding Crashers streak she's currently on.

Script Link: I have a copy and will email it to you if interested.

Ghosts (New Years)

2009-12-28T17:18:00.000-08:00

I hate New Years. There. I said it. It's a pointless holiday without presents, costumes, or a very great purpose. And, sooner or later, they start playing that Auld Lang Sye and I just get agitated because I find myself growing nostalgic. Why do any of it? What's to gain? As Billy Crystal says in "When Harry Meet Sally"..."Does that mean we should forget old acquaintances or does it mean if we happen to forget them we should remember them, which is not possible because we already forgot them!?" Inevitably at some point during this holiday, I find myself sitting alone with a drink contemplating these old acquaintances and really what better way to end out 2009 on Hunting for Isla than with a series of scripts about Ghosts. Now I'm talking unproduced ghosts, famous early drafts of ghost movies, a finished film or two and maybe even a comic book if I get around to it. Now to be more precise, I'm only going to be looking at scripts where A) It's a Drama, which means no horror B) Ghosts visit earlier times, so no quasi ghosts .... and C) Nothing scary. Ghosts in a warning/mentor/guardian light instead.

Die Hard (ACTION XMAS #5 of 5)

2009-12-25T22:33:00.000-08:00

Yes. That's right. We even do reviews on Christmas on Hunting for Isla Fisher.

GENRE: Action / Blockbuster

PREMISE: Without much help from the FBI or LAPD, a New York City cop infiltrates a skyscraper and manages to rescue a handful of hostages, including the cop's estranged wife, held captive by terrorists.

ABOUT: Die Hard was originally a novel written by Roderick Thorp called Nothing Lasts Forever. The film is a pretty faithful adaptation, but makes several of the characters foreign (the bad German and Japanese businessmen) rather than American. The script was written by Jeb Stuart(his first big credit, later did Another 48 Hrs and Indy and the Crystal Skull) and Stephen de Souza (who at this point had done 48 Hours and The Running Man).

WRITER: Novel by Roderick Thorp, Script by Stephen de Souza and Jeb Stuart

Die Hard is one of the quickest reads I've ever had in my life. And that's funny because I don't remember it being that quick a watch. This thing is a blockbuster if there ever were one. But the problem with Die Hard is the script is almost a tad too formulaic: the structure is all predictable, there is a cop who not very dramatically doubts Willis is really a cop, the dialogue moves very flat and doesn't have that much oomph at all. The thing has an original setting and the action pieces are really what make the film. Who can't recall Bruce Willis stepping on the broken glass when they think of Die Hard?
But, cut Die Hard for meaning or purpose and you'll find absolutely nothing. Although, I admit to being a little fond to the estranged relationship Willis has with his wife where things aren't necessarily bad, she's just living on the other side of the country to pursue her job. As a result, the only real subjective framework in which to view this puppy is as a thriller. And as a thriller, the thing really starts to lag in the second half as McClane plods along his way to capture the terrorists.
And how does Die Hard revolve around Christmas? It doesn't really, other than giving a few stray Christmas images and a few musical cues. Most action movies don't seem to have much of a use for Christmas, though. So it's often a pointless setting.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
[X] - Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

What I Learned: There is this great scene I always am amazed to read in Die Hard. John McClane meets the terrorist leads Han Gruber. Hans pretends to be a good guy, and McClane goes so far as to even give him a gun. There's a similar scene in Michael Mann's Heat where DeNiro meets the Pacino on non confrontational terms. It's also visible in De Palma's The Untouchables. If you can write a scene where the good guy confronts the bad guy in anonymous but confrontational manner, the audience will be riveted because the drama is so thick and the words/looks so loaded you could cut them with a butter knife.

Isla Prospect: No. The only main female role is McClane's wife, and from how she reads one doesn't expect her to be a very attractive character.

Script Link: The production draft is all over Google. Try the big sites.

Lethal Weapon (Action XMAS #4 of 5)

2009-12-24T10:26:00.000-08:00

Genre: Action / Thriller / Noir / Black Comedy

Premise: Two cops: one who just turned 50 and another one who is suicidal after his wife's death in a car crash, become partners. They kill people, survive a desert shootout, jump off buildings, play with all kinds of weapons, rescue Glover's kidnapped daughter, endure electric shock torture, and emerge heroes.

About: Shane Black who had recently graduated from UCLA wrote the screenplay in 1985 when he was just 24 years old. His agent sent the script to Joel Silver, who brought the script to Warner Brothers the next year. The script sold for $250,00 Leonard Nimoy was considered but was busy on Three Men and A Baby, so Richard Donner was selected.

Writer: Shane Black

It'd be real easy to talk about how brilliant this thing is. Nearly every book on screenwriting has some reference to how Lethal Weapon is a masterwork of film. But, I'm going to try my best and highlight two elements of this film that don't get mentioned alot in this script A) What's the original draft like? and B) What are the weakness of Lethal Weapon as a story? But, before I start digging my claws into these questions, Lethal Weapon is one of my all time favorite action movies: dark, funny, moving, original characters. And the thing has a pace like a runaway train.

The original script has most of the scenes and movement of the original film. But, probably the biggest difference is that neither Briggs nor Murphy are revealed to be as damaged: not so much emphasis on the suicidal element for Briggs or as many suggestions Murphy is really aged. These elements are definitely set up, but Gibson and Glover seem to give many more visual cues than are planted. The other thing is that Gibson is alot more violent. And, it's perhaps a little bit harder to see him as a good guy because he beats up a group of guys who are torturing a dog.

The weakest part of Lethal Weapon as a film is it's so one note. None of the characters are very conflicted in terms of behavior, moral sides, or who supports who. And as a result, this story is insanely predictable, and Gibson's unhingedness is the most interesting part. But, I don't think we're afraid afraid Gibson is going to die during the film. So there's no depth to this film.

But, I mean, what can I really say? Lethal Weapon is classic. There really isn't an over riding reason to set this on Christmas much like The Long Kiss Goodnight. But, what happens that's awesome is it's set in California, in non-winter scenes which are interspliced with holiday songs and decorations so it's a cool contrast. And because I can't really think of another film that does this, Lethal Weapon makes pretty awesome use of the XMAS setting.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
[X] - Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

What I Learned: Shane Black writes terrific dialogue. But, one of the things that makes it terrific is he's always making these "baby" structures in which to have characters speak. Small games, drug deals, etc. Not to mention throughout Lethal Weapon, each scenes either gives the story an obviously positive or negative twist. So the moral is, an audience will have an easier time going along with you if you can make dialogue that seems to have some form of overarching reason rather than stray asides.

Isla Prospect: No. There's not really any female roles in this thing, though.

Script Link: The production draft is all over Google. Try the big sites.

Batman Returns / Batman II (Action XMAS #3 of 5)

2009-12-23T12:02:00.000-08:00

Genre: Comic Book Blockbuster

Premise: After his release from prison, the Penguin (who suspiciously doesn’t have the Cobblepot name he does in the comics) teams up with Catwoman to take over Gotham and destroy Batman. Also, Robin makes an appearance towards the end of the second act and Vicki Gale, the love interest from the first film, is still around.

About: This version was promptly dropped and Hamm booted from the project. The Warners brass were particularly unhappy with how Hamm hadn’t given The Penguin an overarching motive. This motive eventually became that because as a baby The Penguin was put down river like Moses, he now vowed to kill all of Gotham’s first born sons.

Writer: Sam Hamm (who started off on one of my favorites Never Cry Wolf before sliding off into Planet of the Apes, Monkeybone, a Watchmen draft, and this crap) took sole screenwriting credit on the first draft. He was soon replace by Daniel Waters (Heathers) who had sole screenwriting credit. Waters in key was then doctored by Wesley Strick (Scorsese’s Cape Fear)

Sam Hamm seems to have made a screenwriting career off of misunderstanding the fictional creations of other people. Never Wolf was a good script, but it’s very different than the original novel. Then Watchmen. Then Planet of the Apes. Now Batman II. Shoot, he doesn’t even give the characters the same names they have in the comics.

Not to mention there aren’t any origin stories. The Penguin and Cat Woman just appear on the scene. Without a further word of explanation. Then they’re developed as these one note characters: The Penguin is obsessed with birds and has none of the weird or creepy elements he had in the eventual Batman Returns film, and Cat Woman is also a sex fiend and walks around spouting pick up lines. It’s all pretty silly. And then Robin is brought in late in the second act. Robin also doesn’t have an origin story. And is said to be Batman’s girlfriend’s nephew. Is this some Robin I never knew of? Also, if you’re bringing in somebody as important to the Batman series as Robin, why in the world would you wait until late in the second act? Not to mention Bruce Wayne is depicted as this festive guy who when we first meet him is in the midst of holiday cheer with his butler and his girlfriend. A total misstep in terms of tone, if you ask me. Bruce Wayne is dark and moody. That’s his whole thing.

You know what else I hate about this thing? Sam Hamm completely makes this ridiculous ending that rips apart a lot of the stuff we hold as guidelines of the Batman universe: the Penguin and Catwoman break into Bruce Wayne’s mansion and attack Bruce and his friends, Bruce’s identity is revealed as Batman, Alfred the Butler is wounded by them, Catwoman tries to slit her own throat with her claws, and Batman has a showdown with the Penguin where Bruce summons hundreds of tiny Bats and unleashes them on the Penguin. Did Sam Hamm ever read the comic? Does he know how many things are just plain weird about that? A) Never real Bruce’s identity, B) Nobody ever goes in the mansion, C) Batman can summon Bats now? How does he do that? I could go on. I won’t.

But, this script reads like it has no point. Like there’s no thrust to it. Without a plan, The Penguin and Catwoman are bad guys without a reason. Without a large plot to stop chaos, Batman is just running around fighting minor crimes. (The whole thing opens with a 10 page scene in which Batman stops and literally wraps up some hoodlums dressed in Christmas garb). And I mean, essentially without widespread chaos and trouble, Batman becomes a generic action movie whose characters happen to be the super heroes we know and love. And is that enough? No, I don’t think so.

And Christmas in this script? Well, the only point Sam Hamm has is that it made sense production wise (they were shooting on the same sets as the first film) and at the end he uses some completely retarded line by Vicki about how they don’t need presents, they have one another and that is more than enough. Really? What is this, the Christmas special of Leave It To Beaver?

You know, originally I was going to review the Production Draft of Batman Returns and give it a mediocre review. But then I read this thing, and now Batman Returns looks like a glowing jewel of the Nile to me.
[X] - Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)
What I Learned: One of my very favorite parts of all comics are origin stories that tell how characters cam to be, how they set up their plans, and how they’re going to go about taking over the world. Without origin stories, it’s like skipping the first act of a tale and then expecting the audience to care about things. Without showing Robin’s parents murdered, the Penguin horribly warped psychologically, or how Catwoman nearly died and started wearing the spandex, Hamm is essentially jumping the gun on the story. And when the script has ballooned out to 129 pages, I don’t exactly think he was pressed for time.

Isla Prospect: She could do Cat Woman? Funny, sexy, seductive. But definitely not this one. Or in Cat Woman. But maybe one day if somebody wrote a decent film about Cat Woman instead of this drivel.

Script Link: The IMSDB has this. Although, I managed to secure an actual PDF which comes complete with a snappy cover that reads Batman II.

The Long Kiss Goodnight (Action XMAS #2 of 5)

2009-12-22T10:47:00.000-08:00

Genre: Action-Adventure with traces of comedy

Premise: Sam Caine is a house mom and amnesia. She leads a quiet life until she's attacked by a mugger and dispenses him with lethal force. She hires a private investigator named Henessey to help figure out her past. Turns out Sam Caine is really Charly, a CIA counter assassin, and along with Henessey she sets out to thwart a mission which involves the kidnapping of her daughter.

About: The script was the third, and highest point of Shane Black's sold specs during his reign in the nineties. $125,000 for Lethal Weapon, $1.75 million for The Last Boy Scout, and finally $4 million for The Long Kiss Goodnight. $4 million. That's close to the all time screenwriting record. Sadly, this script has a reputation as the one that finally broke Black's heart about the industry and sent him into a near decade of low visibility.

Writer: Shane Black (Lethal Weapon, The Last Boy Scout, and Monster Squad at this point) has sold screenwriting credit. It would be his last film until Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang.

There's a series of mediocre action blockbusters from the mid-nineties which I have a fondness for because I watched them with my dad: The Rock, Con Air, and The Long Kiss Goodnight. I caught this film on cable a year or two ago, and watched a good chunk of it. And, it's not bad. Long Kiss is no Cut Throat Island. But, it has a reputation as having been so different than Shane Black's original version. I wanted to see what the real story was. I wasn't able to get my hands on the original draft, but I did locate a second draft of the film. And in all honesty, it really isn't all that different from what ended up on the screen.

There is absolutely no substance behind this story. It's a sequence of animated, comic book influenced sequences which if you cut them for meaning bleed absolutely nothing. And that from the man who wrote the crazy cop circular existentialist dialogue of Lethal Weapon. I have no idea how Sam Caine feels about her past life. Or what her major problem is with this one. So when she discovers she's a spy and commits to finding out what's going on, there is nothing whatsoever to commit to in terms of character or expectations. So why are we watching this? Well, for the action sequences. Of course.

Only the action of this script is a long, circular winding snake of a tale and it even goes so far as to suspend belief in reality over multiple occasions (like the characters out running a fire ball). There's nothing we really haven't seen her in terms of action before, and it's not escalating to anything larger. Just like a series of random comic book mishaps. And really, a Hollywood film that does not make.

Now don't get me wrong, there's plenty of snappy dialogue thrown in. But it's not intended to reveal character. Light quips. Characters digging into one another. But Henessey/Charly have a much more artifical uncomplicated relationship as oppposed to Briggs/Murphy which is essentially the whole reason Lethal Weapon works as a film. We commit the characters. This thing, however, reads like it was written to fool a Hollywood reader and slip past the gates with just enough charm to get sold, but never really enough power to make a good film.

And as if you didn't see it coming, although The Long Kiss Goodnight takes place during Christmas (with Sam Caine playing Ms. Clause in the beginning) there really is absolutely no reason for this film to take place during Christmas and it makes no effort to craft a message from that. It's just nothing more than a story with some action pieces set in the winter. So I'm really sorry that Shane Black left the industry, but I highly doubt this script got turned to completely meaningless drivel with one draft. So I'm going to go out on another ledge here and say perhaps it's more likely that Shane Black left Hollywood because of his own personal reasons, and although this film was directed by Renny Harlin (Cut Throat Island, Cliffhanger, need I say more?) it wasn't shining even in early draft form.

What I Learned: I can honestly say I learned nothing from this script. Nothing positive at least. It is a shame that a screenwriter as talented as Shane Black could produce this drivel.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

[X] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospect: No. But. I want to take a moment of silence in respect to Geena Davis who was in such great films as The Accidental Tourist, The Fly, Tootsie, and League of Their Own before being subject to crap like this, Cut Throat Island, Speechless and Stuart Little.

Script Link: I have a copy I acquired which is an early draft, but there are later version to be found on numerous sites across the web.

Gremlins - 2nd Draft (ACTION XMAS #1 of 5)

2009-12-21T10:45:00.000-08:00

Genre: Black Comedy / Horror (at least in these early drafts)

Premise: Billy, a young boy aspiring to be a novelist, is given a pet Mogwai by his wacky inventor father, who acquired the animal during a trip the orient. Unlike animal you've ever seen, the Gremlins are nocturnal and multiply in number when wet. They proceed to go crazy, attack Billy's dog and killing his mother so Billy teams up with Terry, the girl he likes, and another friend to defend the town against The Gremlins.

About: There are a movement in the late 80's towards Comedy/Horror films. This cannon includes Ghostbusters (released the same weekend as Gremlins) but also Beetlejuice, Fright Night, The Burbs. I guess you could say it started with the Munsters and Addams Family or Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein, but this was a blockbuster genre in the late 80's. So that's the market Gremlins was nicheing itself towards. Chris Columbus based the story around heading mice in his apartment late at night, and originally just constructed the piece as a sample of his writing. But then, Speilberg caught onto it. And the rest is history.

Writer: Chris Columbus (who was a boy wonder with one filmed script, Reckless, to date at the ripe old age of 24) got sole screenwriting credit. But that to me, seems more like Spielberg consciously choosing to take his name off the project. There are definitely certain things that happened in the script's revision that if Spielberg didn't directly alter, the inclusion of Walt Disney films/certains touches that made everything cuter/the wacky inventions.

I used to feel alot of jealousy towards Chris Columbus. He's like the wonderkind of screenwriters. Had a film produced by the time he was a junior at NYU. And was writing Gremlins while living on Spielberg's couch soon after. And the thing is, Gremlins is a great film. Original. High concept. Fun. I love the feel to it. But, reading this original draft was very enheartening because I realized essentially what Columbus had written was a monster movie. And it's not a very wonderful monster movie. Totally conventional in terms of plot structure (monsters unleashed, not a threat, monsters are a threat, must stop monsters) and while written as a sample script, there really aren't that mean great speeches or lines. Alot of the characters (Billy as an artists, the father's inventions, the aspiring bank manager character, Terry's playfullness) aren't hyped up here that much. So the whole thing comes off pretty flat.

And thank God Gremlins became a softer film because as a dark script this thing is really unsettling. It's like reading an unproduced script where you find out ET is actually a serial killer. Spielberg's idea to change Mogwai to a completely good guy, and then have another completely bad Gremlin basically made this film. It's way too difficult to sympathize with a character and then watch them alter into a mother-killing dog-nibbling person. And then, these scenes aren't even that particularly amusing in a black comedy sense (the one exception being a scene at the Gremlins-raided McDonalds where The Gremlins feed on the customers and don't touch the hamburgers.

But this script, basically has the same problem the original does. I love the set up, and it's cool watching the Gremlins start to take everything over. But the scenes where the Gremlins have taken over and Billy must defend himself again them are really boring. There are nice moments sure, but it's action in a way that I'm not really that riveted and pretty much always tune out. And Billy in this script is alot dorkier and harder to believe as a developed character. Rather than paint him as a passive kid who wants to be an artist, Columbus writes Billy as an aspiring novelist which isn't nearly as fun or entertaining on the screen.

Christmas in Gremlins is just a holiday. By that, I mean it provides the movie with a little bit more concrete grounding. It's cool to watch the Gremlins take over particularly on Christmas. And it makes for a few opening scenes where people are displayed in the midst of holiday activity. But, in terms of trying to provide a meaning, I guess the script also suggests that unexpected gifts can have disastrous consequences, which is a pretty Twilight Zone inspired idea. So all negative aspects, Gremlins, as Spielberg infuenced it and not in original draft, is probably my all time favorite Christmas movie.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
[X] - Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: Isla is too old for all these roles. Besides, Phoebe Cates did a really good job in this film so I'll let her keep the role.

What I Learned: Asking an audience to switch opinions on a characters and dislike someone they've liked or like someone they've hated can be a very alienating thing for the viewer. And it can work with mixed results. Of course, there's good films like Return of the Jedi where we kind of sympathize with Vader at the end and stuff like Taxi Driver where Travis Bickle completely alienates us at the end. But, it seems like if the character is too far one way or another the audience can't really switch. And the example of Mogwai becoming evil in Gremlins is definitely a point in case.

Script Link: This is really hard to get. If you email me at huntingforislafisher@gmail.com, I'll provide you with a copy.

Wag the Dog - 2nd Draft

2009-12-18T10:40:00.000-08:00

Genre: Black Comedy / Satire / David Mamet

Premise: A few weeks from Presidential elections, the President is caught in a closet with a girl scout. When the opposite party starts using this issue as a way to lessen the President's support, a spin doctor is hired to fake a hyper realistic war with Albania which includes television footage.

About: Beinart wrote "American Hero" after wondering if the Persian Gulf War had been fought largely to shore up President Bush's sagging presidency, and makes it unabashedly obvious in the novel that George HW Bush is the president and the war is The Gulf War. Mamet took the theme of the book -- a president using a war to divert public attention from a scandal -- but created his own dark scenario peopled with the disillusioned characters he usually embraces.

Writers: Based on "American Hero, a novel, by Larry Beinhart (who doesn't have that many novels, at least nothing I've ever heard of). Hilary Henkin (who co-wrote Roadhouse w/ Patrick Swayze, that's right apparently they needed a co-writer for that piece of crap) wrote the first draft, which was subsequently rewritten, polished, fixed and revised by David Mamet (Glengary Glen Ross, American Buffalo, The Untouchables). Henkin's name was originally left off the finished film, so she took the issue to the Writer's Guild. Barry Levinson (the director of Wag the Dog) claimed her influence had been minimal which is why she wasn't acknowledged. But Henkin got her name on the script anyway.

There are a few things, which will unavoidably alter the perspective through which I view this film: I read a second draft and I haven't seen the finished product, the dialogue is very blatantly Mamet inspired, and I was only four when the incidents in this novel came about so I don't remember them with very much accuracy. And, for the record, I'm not a huge Dr. Strangelove fan, and that film is nearly the archetype of Wag the Dog. But that being said, this is a very solid film. It's not brilliant, but I'd say it's pretty good and as far as Mamet goes, entertaining.

The characters speak in the reflect, dialogue driven Mamet-style mining each word and exploring multiple uses. It's a little bit more grounded than the other Mamet stuff (I studied Oleanna alot this summer and there aren't any weird passages here about what "What?" means). But, the thing is this is very dark in dialogue tone. And it's very believable, which is an an almost unsettingly combination. Ultimately, I found the whole thing humorous because we're in on the joke/cover-up from the ground floor. The best part is the filming of a bogus Albanian battle scene and recording of a "We are the World" sort of song. I love that. It's almost too funny for Strangelove, and reminds me more of Sullivan's Travels.

Now, it's not a bad film. But inevitably, like alot of these media scripts, the story is pretty slow moving and ultimately it boils down to nothing more than a couple of actions and a court scene. In this one, I love the build up and I just wish the film had spent more time on how all this stuff was specifically done and to what effect. Also, the film becomes nothing more than an intellectual challenge. I mean, sure there are fun parts and laughs, but inevitably alot like Dr. Strangelove this whole thing rides on watching a bunch of higher up Presidential people, and I always have a hard time relating to these types of characters because they're so removed from my world. But besides a slow pace and characters I had a hard time getting behind, this script sets itself up well in terms of dialogue, action and humor.

Also, the whole thing ends remarkably flat. I almost thought I'd missed something, but I hadn't. It doesnt really try to make a point with the satire or show any sort of a causal relation. Just that television can destroy the electoral process, which brings us to the whole theme of the week...

The media in this is very much also in the note of The Truman Show. Let's note for a moment that Network (mid 70's) feared media, Quiz Show mourned the loss of intelligent media, and The Truman Show/Serial Mom/Wag The Dog, which all came out within a five year period of one another in late 90's, all suggest that media spins stories and images into ways which corrupt the viewers sense of what is real. Now that's interesting because there's a lot more films from this period that do exactly the same thing (Natural Born Killers, Reality Bites, Canadian Bacon, ED TV...) What was it in the last five years of the 90's that caused to have such an uproar of films assaulting the truthfulness of the media? Clinton? OJ? George HW? Who knows, but they seem to have all but subsided by the time Y2K rolled around. Wag the Dog is paricularly inventive in showing just how far the media goes to lie, and how exploitative that can be (it's much less focused on how these untruths affect us, but that's not it's intention.) Wag the Dog is fairly decently, albeit the darkest of the media scripts I've read this week by far.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: There really aren't any strong female roles here so no, no Isla stuff.

What I Learned: The spin doctor is allegedly very influenced around legendary producer Robert Evans (Chinatown, Love Story). It's kind of enjoyable and memorable when writers make archetypes from historical figures. It's also pretty easy to come up with original dialogue, descriptions and actions for a character when you're basing them around somebody you're vaguely aware of. The Coen brothers do this alot. William Faulkner among others in Barton Fink, and Robert Johnson in Oh Brother Where Art Thou? I've always liked this and it seems like a good way to make a second tier character come off as fascinating.

Script Link: This is all over Google.

Serial Mom

2009-12-17T10:45:00.000-08:00

Genre: Black Comedy / Exploitation / John Waters (this should almost be a genre)

Premise: Beverly Sutphin, a Baltimore housewife with a 1950's sense of fashion and housekeeping, is a deranged, serial killer. Before being inevitably caught and put on trial, she kills the teacher who says her son isn't doing well in school, and the boy who stands up her daughter.

About: In the mid 90's, John Waters wrote the film originally for Julie Andrews to play Serial Mom. His last film had been Cry-Baby. It's hard to say much more about the creation of the film. It comes from the weird, John Waters place called Baltimore and isn't particularly connected at all to Hollywood. Wasn't adopted, adapted, or very much inspired.

Writer: John Waters

This is hands down the best John Waters script I've ever read. Ever. He has his voice down pat. (I think he lost his voice around Polyester briefly) His love for over the topness can be seen. (Unlike Hairspray) And he actually uses a legit structure. (Unlike most of his films) Wow!

Although, there aren't many things I'd applaud the film for, even if it is Waters' best work. Essentially it isn't funny. The killing scenes seem to come out of the blue. And it has that John Waters feel of a way too normal, boring beginning before the insanity kicks in. And, let's face it. The characters besides Serial Mom are particularly shallow and underdeveloped. It's like reading the actions of cardboard cutouts. (They aren't as nearly deranged as Waters old characters were either. About the freakiest character is a movie shop clerk who gets turned on by fake blood in films....I mean is that scary?)

A beautifully structured piece, this is not. The mom kills a few people. She gets caught. She has a trial. She's released. It's okay, though, and doesn't veer off into pointless directions like Pink Flamingos. The thing that's weird about this plot is Waters doesn't really give the mom a motive or much of a conscious decision to kill. Rather, she sometimes just goes off the deep end and hacks up a few people. She's like the Pavlov's dog of Serial Killers, which is kind of sad. And as a result, she never becomes that funny or that vicious. So from a humor stand point I think Waters failed (I always laugh more at the man than his movies anyway).

The thing is, the media in Serial Mom, is a very stereotypical portrayal. The media latches onto the ideas of killers, and makes murdering appear cool. (This theme is also touched upon in Natural Born Killers which came out within a few years of Serial Mom). But Waters doesn't seem particularly concerned with using this view of the media to represent or say anything. Other than, we're all inevitably deranged and we all want to be serial killers. (And that sounds like a message he may have been trying to carry across for the last few decades.)

I don't love John Waters' films. They're not something I'll read over and over again. They're very light on thrills for me. But, I do try to see/read every one of his films at least once, because I think John Waters is a fascinating man and I think his films do
unique exploitative things you don't normally see in Hollywood.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

[X] - Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: As it is, Isla is probably a decade to young to play the Serial Mom character, but I think she could do this role justice. She has the dainty, over the top thing down pat.

What I Learned: Passive characters suck. I mean, there's Travis Bickle and the French underground stuff like Pickpocket, but essentially in most films it's really hard to watch a character who is ultimately passive. Rather than have Serial Mom lead up to, or be influenced to kill, it's like some mad dog takes her over and before we know it she's butchering a whole group of people. As a result, Serial Mom becomes weirdly passive, and we have a hard time laughing over her because we're spending too much time sympathizing about what a horrible addiction she must have. A kill here, a kill there, a trial, the trial fails..

Script Link: This is all over. Use any search engine.

Network

2009-12-16T11:29:00.000-08:00

Genre: Black Comedy / Satire

Premise: Howard Beale, an aging TV anchorman for UBS, is fired and to be off air in two weeks after a long decline in ratings. He reacts by announcing his intention to commit suicide on air and becomes a major TV icon and one of the most valuable assets to CCA, the company that’s buying out UBS. Beale is even given his own show. The program is a huge success, but when Beal begins to make shocking revelations about CCA, people start planning his assassination.

About: In the late 1970’s when a major worldwide company was in negotiations to buy ABC, Paddy Chayefsky realized once a multinational corporation took over a network, they might try to make the news division a profit center, enabling them to bastardize the news and turn it into entertainment. Chayefsky had just come out of a lawsuit with United Artists challenging the studio’s right to release Chayefsky’s previous film, Hospital, in combination with another, much inferior picture. As a result, producer Howard Gottfried secured a deal at MGM.
Writers: Paddy Chayefsky

Selected by The National Film registry, praised by The Library of Congress, and voted one of the top ten scripts of all time by the Writers Guild –East, Network is the pinnacle of screenwriting excellence. I think we all know it for the “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore” line. And while I also definitely enjoy the film, are these accolades well merited?

You know what I love about Network more than anything? How it switches between main story line (Beale going crazy and having his TV show) and the side plot of Diana Christiansen, the workaholic network exec, and her relationship with Max Schumacher, the aged news executive, who enters in a failed romantic tryst with her. The Beale scenes are crazily over the top, and the scenes with Diana and Max are smooth, quiet, drama. And that’s the brilliant thing about Network. It balances a whole bunch of different tones (quiet drama, craziness, behind the scenes) into one acceptable atmosphere. In that way, it’s sort of set up like an Altman film where all these universes collide on one another.

Also, this film is great at carrying out into scenes that probably wouldn’t work in real life, but we’re capable of accepting due to film logic. The long monologues. All the crowds that go hog wild over the “mad as hell” thing. There’s also a sex scene where Diana and Max discuss ratings, which works great and is totally memorable. There’s so much stuff here that the audience is sold on because it hooks you just right.

The thing is, Network doesn’t have much of a meaning besides the fact that the television audience is a bunch of drones. There’s a rant about the evils of Arabians. Are we supposed to take that face value? Yes. Ultimately television is a medium capable of brainwashing people with bad ideas. But, ultimately, because Chayefsky lets Beale spew out whatever insane message he wants, that means we’re giving truth and legitimacy to these rants, which are at times bigoted and xenophobic. Chayefsky made a really powerful script, but I’m not sure he handled the material responsibly. And as a result, Network comes across with a message I’m not too crazy about.

What does this mean in terms of the media as depicted? TV has become crap. Nothing but cheap thrills. Shock jocks. Howard Stern. Jerry Springer. And, as the world gets crazier, television becomes a medium filled with more loons and crazier ringmasters. And ultimately, we’re becoming slaves to this crap and need to break out and act in our own ways. We must unleash ourselves from TV. I think in the late 70's, this was probably a much more startling and fresh idea then it is now. This message now is a blatantly obvious one.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
[X] - Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: The Faye Dunaway would be a great Isla role. It has the suave, woman of the world feel to it Isla pulls off so successfully in Definitely, Maybe.

What I Learned: You always hear that extended monologues don’t fly in screenplays. But, with the right dialogue, the right theme and introduced in the same frame monologues can be really successful. In Network, these monologues have become one of the most memorable parts to the film. It’s a great turn. And another example that there are no hard or fast rules to the screenwriting craft.

Quiz Show - 1991 Draft

2009-12-15T09:32:00.000-08:00

Genre: Drama

Premise: The script tells the story of fixed 1950's game show, 21. After contestant Herb Stempel takes a fall, Charles Van Doren becomes reining champion. And a new hotshot Harvard lawyer, Richard Goodwin, investigates the cover-up.

About: The picture was sold by Attanasio, repped by CAA to Disney. Redford almost immediately entered discussion to direct the film. Attanasio was associated with Levinson. Levinson and Mark Johnson were attached as producers. More surprisingly, the product was developed for Richard Dreyfuss. It was in rewrites for most of the early 90's until the proper cast had been lined up. Attanasio based the script over a chapter in
a book by the actual Richard Goodwin.

Writers: Paul Attanasio. Who really, asides from a few episodes of Doctor, Doctor, didn't have any credits at this point. He's the brother of the guy from the Milwaukee Brewers and had worked as a film critic at the Washington Post in the late 80's.

I watched this on video several years ago, and found it unbelievably boring. I believed the script was good, though, because I kept coming across it in books about Screenwriting. Upon investigating further, this is definitely a solid effort if a bit formulaic and predictable. My favorite thing about the script is that it feels honest and it's not afraid to condemn all involved. van Doren is wrong to play the game, Goodwin is ridiculed for taking this case, and one really questions the sanity of Sempel. And the television studios are also made to seem fairly ridiculous. Blows are made all around, and that's a very worthwhile thing. Although, quite like Nixon, it's not particularly the crimes that are evil it's that these people are the first to have been discovered doing such things and set history on a less than dignified track.

But the problem is that, all of the characters are actually as we expect them. Obviously once we find out Sempel takes the fall, we know we'll get mad and get even. Van Doren is so lofty it's inevitable that eventually he'll have moral qualms. It's like Attanasio came to a crossroads: be true to the actual events or alter characters and make a story that was fun to follow. He chooses the former, and opts to make an archaic, predictable script with a framework where we really don't feel committed to the ride. And, when the script ends we don't really feel that the characters have changed. That's the problem with script show, and what I'd anticipate is that the actors behind this thing took the opportunity because the script was issue heavy and they felt the opportunity to pursue these deep roles was Oscar worthy.

While The Truman show condemned the power and untrustworthiness of the media, Quiz Show highlights the advent of television in the 1950's focuses on media's decision to highlight entertainment over enlightenment, which in turn dulls the value of everyone involved: either turning
the educational merits of Van Doren into novelty, the political career of Dick Goodwin into nothing more than a top-notch lawyer who investigates the trustworthiness of unimportant game shows, or the world of literature and high art which are being supplanted by silly television programs. I'm sure this was very scary for intellectuals in the 1950's (I'm thinking of Newton Minow's condemnatory "vast wasteland" speech of 1961) and it's even sure that as television became even more widespread in the early 1990's and the battle over what was appropriate raged, these fear were probably as scary as ever.

The Quiz Show is fun, and it's a breezy read. But ultimately, for me, it lacks real depth and as a result doesn't pique my interest.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: No real female roles here, so Isla wouldn't work.

What I Learned: I love learning about people's professions. As do most people. Scripts that offer us an inside view of somebody's profession (Quiz Show, every Michael Mann film) have an easier time getting a steady following from readers.

Script Link: This is all over Google

Truman Show - 1992 Draft

2009-12-14T15:53:00.000-08:00

Genre: Sci-Fi that became Sci-Fi Comedy

Premise: A 30-some year old man living in New York City slowly discovers that his world is strangely predictable. Eventually, he discoversthat his life is nothing more than a television show that's filming 24/7 and all his family and friends are hired actors.

About: The original drafts of The Truman Show (which was first an outline called The Malcom Show) was very futuristic and set in New York City.Scott Rudin bought the script in the fall of 1993 for $1 million. Niccol was to direct, but Paramoutn felt the $80 million budget was way too high. A few directors were considered: De Palma, Burton, Gilliam, Snnenfeld, Spielberg and then Peter Weir (who is also from New Zeland) was signed in early 1995. As draft went on, the studio requested the story become funnier and less dramatic. Sixteen drafts later, Weir had ashooting script on his hands.

Writers: Andrew Niccol has sole screenwriting credit. He'd done Gattaca and had a pretty solid TV directing background.

I saw this film years ago in the theaters, and haven't seen it since. I remember I was about ten minutes late so I missed the first part of the film. That didn't seem to make much of a difference, though, because The Truman Show isn't that sophisticated a story line. A man's lifeis actually a TV Show. And, if you ask me, choosing to make this film a comedy is a completely ridiculous idea. It became just another vehiclefor Jim Carrey's screwball antics, and that theme undermines the greatness of the Truman/Malcom show. Also the decision to cast this film ina suburban environment was a misstep as far as I'm concerned. As someone who lived in New York City for many years, it's the perfect place tostop and in a moment of pure insanity wonder if all the bustle around you is actually moving in synch to you.

There's also several plot devices that were added to the script after the draft I read: Truman was made afraid of water to make more drama whenTruman finally does escape, Sylvia (the girl Truman falls in love with outside of his marriage) starts a "Free Truman" campaign which creates a nice subplot, there's a nucleur meltdown when Truman is attempting different ways to leave to create tension, Truman begins to stay in the basementin the film rather than just creating a dummy and escaping during the night like in the script, the people cheer on Truman's escape in the filmto add onto the subplot, and in the script while Truman escapes his world and wanders the film studio in the film he speaks to his creator andthe movie ends with him leaving his world which makes alot more sense (the film studio stuff although neat isn't necessary).

Inevitably, the media in The Truman Show is represented as all invasive (which is why it makes so much sense to set the film in New York City, the hubub of the media world, rather than some imaginary suburb). Also, keep in mind in the late 90's the internet was really starting to takeoff and it was creepy to many how connected the world was finally becoming. Truman is filled with illusions (fake buildings, fake people, fakeevents) that attempt to represent real events, which parallels the world of biased media coverage, and particularly Fox news. The world is allinvasive, and it's nearly impossible to determine differences between the real and fake. And then, when things blow up in our faces and the liescan't be held in anymore, we have startling moments of realizations. The whole film stands as a direct allegory.

The Truman show's primary flaw is that in becoming so fixated on presenting this allegory, ultimately it falls by the wayside in terms of presentingany other storylines to follow or other things to entertain our imaginations. And to me, this is a waste of story. Why set up a concept so deliciousand not explain other, unique elements to this world? During the slow moments of the script, when Truman was taking his sweet time to realize thathe was in fact in the middle of a world where everybody was watching him, I found myself wondering things like: how do the actors live in this bubblewhen they're not on TV and not about to see seen by Truman, how exactly do the technical elements of this world work, and what events were so entertainingto keep a whole audience watching Truman was in the midst of boring years. Judging by the finished product, the studios tried to solve this problemby giving us other story lines to follow. But like, Forest Gump or The Sixth Sense, the decision was made that in order to follow such a unique characterand for the audience to buy into such a unique concept ultimately we'd have to focus just on this one character and not see much outside their perspective.

That being, said, I have a newfound respect for the Truman Show. Even if it was misinterpreted by the direct, and potentially risked being nothingmore than a screwball comedy with Jim Carrey.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
[X] - Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: Normally I'd say Isla would have played a good Meryl (Truman's wife), judging by The Wanna Be's and The Look Out she has experienceplaying a female figure who is hiding pretty heavy secrets. But, having seen Laura Linney in this role, I really can't imagine anyone else.

What I Learned: While you can connect theme to story, that doesn't necessarily mean you'll end up with something that's high entertainment. But, undermost circumstances, you will end up with something that is remarkably powerful. In many ways, The Truman Show is a good film that would have been greatif it's theme was mined for further story potential.

Script Link: Google has several drafts.

The Television Media Week

2009-12-14T15:50:00.000-08:00

I love it when people suggest random themes. I end up studying a genre I otherwise wouldn’t give a second thought. One of my readers suggested I spend a week reviewing scripts about the television media After the Carson Reeves / John August debacle, I’m going to more cautious than ever and focus on reviewing classic unproduced scripts than approaching close to recently purchased spec scripts. So what you’ll find this week is my weigh-ins on a couple classic scripts every screenwriter should know, and review of early drafts on a handful of other scripts. If I can think of any great unproduced specs that fit this theme, I’ll be sure to also include them. It’ll be a great week.

So what do I mean when I say television media…?

Film seems to reveal media in the TV as an all-invasive, ever hungry monster that won’t leave people alone. And then ultimately, the subject of the media go completely crazy under the scrutiny. It opens up a whole range of films: Truman Show, Network, Quiz Show, Bamboozled, Serial Mom, Natural Born Killers are the films I could think up off the top of my head. Network being much earlier and different in that the media was still depicted as all controlling. Besides that, I don’t have much of an idea about genre conventions or what the typical plot elements are. So this’ll be pretty informative all around.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

2009-12-11T11:27:00.001-08:00

Genre: Action-Adventure inter splice with one line comedic bits

Premise: Indiana Jones and his partner Mac are cornered by Russians in an Area 51 warehouse. This is the warehouse that held the arc. Indy is forced to find the remains of an ET. Mac double crosses. Indy escapes. There's the nuclear blast scene. (Darabont) Back at his campus, Indy learns Oxley was kidnapped hunting the crystal skulls. (Darabont) Indy teams up with Mutt on the way to Peru. They're kidnapped again by the Russians and taken to a camp where Oxley and Marion Ravenwood are. Marion reveals Mutt is her son. And Indy turns out to be Mutt's father. The group escapes, and Mac reveals he's actually a US spy double-crossing the Russians. There's the killer bug and the jeeps/cliff scenes (Darabont) The five reach the temple, Mac is still loyal to the Soviets and drops a homing beacon. The five enter the chamber containing the skulls, the aliens communicate through Oxley. Indy, Marion, Mutt and Oxley escape while Mac and the Russians are sucked into the portal. (Darabont) Back home, Indiana Jones marries Marion. (Saucer Men)

About: This script, with the exception of the middle part that tells the story of Indiana Jones and Mutt, is exactly what you can find plot-wise in Frank Darabont City of Gods script. Although, where Darabont's script was a little subdued and not so eager to be comedic, Crystal Skull attempts to go full on blockbuster, one-line comedic jokes.

Writers: Asides from the requisite Lucas credits for story and characters, Jeff Nathanson (who wrote Spielberg's Catch Me If You Can and The Terminal) is credited for story, Philip Kaufman (who is always credited, he did work on Raiders), David Koepp is solely credited as screenwriter. Koepp, the Spielberg/Lucas bright boy of the week after Chris Columbus and Lawrence Kasdan, wrote the scripts for Jurassic Park, Mision Impossible, Jurassic Park: The Lost World, Spider-man, and War of the Worlds. No mention of Darabont whatsoever. That's just messed up.

You know what's funny? The opening sequenceo of this film is awesome. Everything up until Indiana Jones has his first encounter with Mutt, at which point this whole film slides off into a world of fake sentimentality and ridiculousness. And that's funny because the Mutt thing is the first time where something Koepp added creeps into the script.

Actually, if you take a look at it so much of Darabont's script is much better than the Koepp re-write, which is exactly what it is.

1) The Title "City of Gods" sounds much cooler than "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"

2) Darabont didn't try to write a comic book stripped of any real violence or action

3) Indy's age in Koepp's script is nothing more than a running joke. Darabont expanded on this.

4) In Koepp's draft Indy has no real driving motivation.

5) The Russians in Koepp's scripts were not scary. At all. Darabont actually had strong villains.

6) The character of Marion actually had a point and a developed personality in Darabont's draft. Koepp just made her an item.

7) In Darabont's draft, there's an actual fight on the rocket sled with an established bad guy. Not just some evil Russian.

8) Darabont's draft is more specific and layered.

9) Darabont wasn't stupid enough to include Mutt.

10) Darabont wrote Indy in New York City. Yes please!

11) While I wasn't completely happy with the relics in Darabont's draft, they were at least given a longer back story and made to see more important.

12) Heart ripping in Temple, people being turned to skeletons in Raiders, the guy who drinks from the holy cup, there's a Darabont scene where frogs jump out of somebody's mouth. Awesome.

13) Darabont didn't have the script focus around Mutt and his evolution into a man. This is Indiana Jones 4, not Mutt 1.

14) Oxley was actually well set up in Darabont's draft, Koepp just made him some old crazy guy.

15) Darabont was not nearly muddled in dialogue, action, or the number of skulls.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[X] -Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: Marion is really the only female in here, and I can't ever imagine anyone being Marion except Karren Allen. Let her have it.

What I Learned: Set up and pay off. Something Darabont did that Koepp never realized was Indy always gets out of situations only to find himself in even worse ones. That's what this whole series is about. And it makes for a really good, exciting story.

Script Link: This one is on the unofficial Indy site under scripts, it's a little bit more difficult to find than the unproduced scripts.

City of Gods (Indy #4 of 5)

2009-12-10T10:59:00.000-08:00

Genre: Action-Adventure-Comedy

Premise: After his Area 51 adventure, Indiana Jones goes to Peru to track down Marion Ravenwood and her husband, who are on the trail of a lost city. Oh yeah, Sallah and Henry Jones are still alive. There isn’t a swarm of Nazi's like in Crystal Skull. Eventually the film becomes a chase to the lost city. And the alien is a heck of a lot meaner. But besides that, you've basically got the Crystal Skull. So that means: the car chase near the cliffs, the killer red ants, the alien vortex and people who become possessed. Everything in that film is here. There's just no Indy sidekick, and Marion is with her husband.

About: This script is remarkably to close to what ended up in the finished film. Really close. And what’s perhaps even more surprising is that the draft I read was written several years before the film’s actual release and David Koepp is the only one with credit on the final script. (I’d definitely fight that if I was Darabont). Lucas ultimately rejected Darabont's draft. (I think probably because it didn't suck hard enough).

Writers: Asides from the prerequisite Lucas credit, the writer is Frank Darabont who at this point had written tons of B-movie scripts including The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, The Blob, Nightmare on Elm Street 3, and The Fly 2. (He also did The Green Mile, probably his most loved script. As an asides, he has been discussing doing Richard Bahman/Stephen King’s The Long Walk about a deadly marathon. Due to his reputation on the The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, Darabont was hired by Speilberg in the late 90’s/early 2000’s. The script is very close to what ended up in the Crystal Skull, but Darabont recalled it as a “tremendous disappointment and a waste of a year”.

I saw the film several months ago, but it’s jarring how close City of Gods is to Crystal Skull. It’s even more jarring that Darabont wasn’t given credit on the final version. Perhaps the largest difference is the heavy dose of maudlin sentimentality that Lucas added in by creating Indy’s son. But the overall arch is the same thing here. Escewhing Kasdan's heavy emphasis on archaeology, the amount of trouble from Doom, and no real quest like in Last Crusade, this version still manages to feel kind of close to an Indiana Jones adventure. Ultimately, with a relic we aren't attached to (Crystal Skulls), a hokey mythology, and an Indiana Jones who isn't nearly as dangerous as he used to be, this script feels ultimately unfulfilling.

The two major failings of this script are A) The low-level of tension. I think this Marion thing is supposed to be hard for Indy, but I never really got an impression of that. And I know there's a chase to the city with potentially disastrous consequences but one never really gets an idea of what happens if the team fails. So this thing sort of rides along on fumes. And B) I don't care about the relic. It's pretend. It's made up. It's silly. Aliens, I guess, could work, but not in the situation that they've been described. Why couldn't be something even more original? Why? Also Marion very unconvincingly dumps her husband at the end for Indy. I actually felt bad for the guy. I know it's supposed to be a storybook ending, but this just didn't work.

I mean, really people how hard is it to come up with an Indiana Jones adventure? This is not that difficult. We start off with an unrelated opening where Indy retrieves a holy object despite traps from a pretty cool hideout. Then, we cut to America, where Indy is teaching and all kinds of crap is falling down around him, he's called to adventure, Indy goes on several misadventures on the way to the relic, catches up with some old friends and ultimately ends up at a fortress of traps, which at the end holds relic, which I defined what characteristics it should contain yesterday. Oh, and some bad guys are on his tail. Saucer Men and Monkey King didn't seem to get this formula at all. And City of Gods comes close, but ultimately trips over its own two feet. I'd say this is slightly better than Crystal Skull, though, because the script isn't nearly as maudlin. But Last Crusade, City of Gods is not. It's a noble attempt, with no major failings, but ultimately just doesn't get the formula of this series.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[X] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: None. Marion is past middle aged at this point so the age gap is all wrong to even consider her. But physical differences aside, Marion is a little too domesticated and plain for Isla.

What I Learned: Monkey King had a lot of big budget stunts, as does City of Gods. I'm not really sure Monkey King would have been all that more expensive, even though it was slightly goofy in places. An edited down version of Monkey King would have kicked the snot out of City of Gods/Crystal Skull, but at the time (mid 1980's) the film was too expensive. This goes to show there's been a world opened up by modern film-making that enables more visual and stunts, often at the price of a story's quality.

Script Link: This is also widely available on Google.

Indiana Jones and The Saucer Men from Mars (Indy #3 of 5)

2009-12-09T11:13:00.000-08:00

Genre: Action-Adventure

Premise: This script is even more ridiculous than the Chris Columbus Monkey King script. Opening with Indy proposing to Dr. Elaine McGregor and a wedding scene with cameos from everybody in the series (marion, Willie, Short Round,Henry Jones, Sallah) the script moves towards Indy discovering an alien cylinder and ship in New Mexico. Along the way there are giant bugs, a rocket sledfight (kind of like what will appear in crystal skull), an atomic explosion(which also parallels crystal skull) and a final fight between US military and flying saucers.

About: The script I read is dated February 20, 1995. Allegedly Lucas and Speilberg made a deal with Paramount for five Indie films in the late 70's. As Speilberg went on to make "mature" films, Lucas couldn't come up with a very good device to base on the story around and worked on The Indiana Jones Chronicles. Lucas got the idea for a film about aliens, but Spielberg and Ford both rejected the idea. Soon after the draft I read, Jeffrey Boam (who wrote the Last Crusade) did three drafts of the scripts. By this time it was around 1996, and still over a decade until the next Indy film.

Writers: Jeb Stuart, whose name I'd never heard. Turns out he had writing credits on Die Hard (I thought Desouza was the driving force here?), Leviathan, Another 48 hours, and The Fugitive. There's a shared credit with Lucas, but George's name appears on everything in the film so it's hard to say just how much input he had.

There are two things that this script does, which I absolutely hate. I don't know if you can pin these errors on Jeb Stuart becauase Lucas seems to have made many of the general story points.

A) The Artifact - If we don't care about the fortune Indy makes from his treasures, or the fame he'll gather, and if he really is just collecting items for the good of the cause then why not pick items we've heard about and leave the crystal skull/alien cylinder crap at the door?

Unfortunately, alot of these lost items belong to Christian mythology. But the device should not be something the audience cares very little about. What about Atlantis like in the comics? The Dead Sea Scrolls? Shoot, Excalibur? In Saucer Men, these aliens aren't even explained or set up. They're just creepy and appear randomly at the ends (like in Signs). I mean,if you're going to pick something out of alien history why not specifically use the Roswell crash and model it around this. Using a vague focal item is really ridiculous.

B) Indy's dialogue/personality - It's a bit of a stretch believing Indy would get married. It's an even more improbable stretch that Indy would soften up as a man and start referring to his wife as "baby breath". The Indy in Saucer Men is nowhere near as sullen, sharp, or caustic as the one we know and as a result a lot of the time he doesn't even feel like Indy.

It's true that after Indy meets this woman, he has a wedding scene which reads like Indiana Jones trivia: Henry Jones as best man, Sallah and Short Round as usher, and Willie and Marion as Indy's cheer up team after he gets stood up. And it' a great scene.

The biggest problem is Indy's romance with Dr. McGregor. The script jumps after the couple meets, and attempts to say that six weeks later without much of an idea of who this lady even is that the couple is in love. Right. That's completely ridiculous. And then Indy says he loves her. I mean, seriously, did Indy go soft during World War 2? If so it isn't explained.The real Indiana Jones might tell somebody he loves them, but never as randomly and carelessly as this guy does.
And for those of you who feel like I missed a plot summary, I didn't really. There isn't much going on in terms of globe trotting. Indy is in Borneo and meets Dr. McGregor, Indy almost gets married and stood up at his wedding in Princeton (where apparently he teaches now), Indy goes on a chase for his woman in New Mexico and discovers Dr. McGregor is trying to decode alien cylinders, a dog fight between the US Government and aliens, and then the end where Indy finally gets hitched.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

[X] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: If Isla ever tires of low grade comedic romances, she'd do well to be a love
interest in adventures. She has that bouncy, world-traveledthing and would serve as a good comedic foil.

What I Learned: For a really long time I struggled with how to write dialogue in such a way that it gave each character a different personality. I was thinking of what the character'd say, how much they'd reveal, and what types of word choices they'd use. While that's in the right vein, a much more helpful way in writing dialogue is to think about what the character wouldn't say. I'd have a much more difficult time telling you exactly how Indiana Jones would speak, but reading Saucer Men I can almost definitely tell you what phrases and nicknames he'd absolutely never use.

Script Link: Google "indiana jones and the flying saucer men script". You'll find something.

Indiana Jones and the Monkey King (Indy #2 of 5)

2009-12-08T10:56:00.000-08:00

Genre: Action-Adventure

Premise: After some ghost-banshee hunting at a Scottish estate, Indiana Jones sets out on the hunt of the legendary Monkey King and his garden of golden peaches. There’s also a “hilarious” subplot about Indy’s romance with one of his underage students.

About: Temple of Doom was a hit. A sequel was needed. After Diane Thomas (Romancing the Stone) was either let go or perished in an unfortunate car crash, Chris Columbus was brought on (he was basically Speilberg’s bright boy of the week like Robert Zemekis had been five years previously). I’ve heard everything from “the script was written for a young director” to “None of us wanted to go to Africa for four months”. But those statements beat around the bush. This script is expensive. Really expensive. And it’d be remarkably hard to film all of the actions sequences, so I’m going to say it was scrapped ultimately because it was too exorbitant. Ultimately, there were several more writers brought in before Last Crusade reached completion.

Writers: Chris Columbus (who has a ton of credits directing, but at this time had written the scripts for Gremlins, Goonies, and Young Sherlock Holmes)

This is the most enjoyable Indy script I’ve ever read. You know how Goonies veers off in another weird direction every five minutes? You know how Gremlins has this very witty chaos in the midst of black comedy? That’s what the Monkey King does. There are definitely things in here that were kept for the Last Crusade (the Venice boat chase and the scene with tanks). Plus there’s an awesome scene at a Scottish castle for the mandatory opening action sequence. Also, Indy is taken out of his Christian realm and made to hunt Chinese artifacts, which does much to expel his image as a religious zealot.

The thing is, though, Chris Columbus goes straight up weird with this story. Like, at times I thought I was reading Hot Shots Part Deux mixed with Never-ending Story. In addition to riding a rhino while tank hunting and hunting pygmies, Indy is actually killed. Legitimately deceased. That is, until somebody tosses a golden peach into his grave. Now, I can see how this would bother some. But, Indy has always sort of relied on completely insane set pieces and ridiculously improbable stunts. So, who really cares if this script is a little too insane in places if it’s fun and original?

I have more of a problem that Chris Columbus has this running joke about how Indy is actually a child rapist because he dates underage grad students. And, he writes the whole thing off like it’s this big joke and we should in turn all laugh about it. I mean, really? This is about as racist as the Asians in 1941. Betsy, Indy’s student who is in love with him, also frequently threatens to commit suicide if Indy won’t return the affections. I mean, that’s crazy. And mixed with Gremlins/Goonies-like action? This is jarring. Not to mention, Chris Columbus lovingly makes all Scots drunk, all Africans primitives. I mean, shoot even the Nazis and the Indian thugs were kind of multi-layered.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
[X] - Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: Not really at all. Betsy is too young, and there’s another female competitor of Indy’s who is way too old.

What I Learned: When your characters team up with an insurmountable God as easily and ready as Indy and crew join up with The Monkey King, there really isn’t much of a challenge for your good guys. As a result, this whole thing doesn’t feel as hopeless or as desperate as the other Indy films. So when I read on the Indy wiki that in the second draft of Monkey King, Columbus deleted Betsy and turned Sun Wu into a villain, I felt like both of the main comments I made here (Betsy doesn’t fit, Sun Wu’s alliance is too easy) were taken into consideration.

Script Link: There are several sites online posting this script. If you do a Google search for “Indiana Jones and The Monkey King”, it can easily be found.

Last Crusade (Indy Week #1 of 5)

2009-12-07T11:51:00.000-08:00

The Ark of the Covenant and The Holy Grail: Indy Who You Trying to Fool?

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Genre: Action-Adventurev (with a strong touch of Nazi Chick Romance)

Premise: Indiana Jones sets out in search of his father, who has been kidnapped by the Nazis, and ends up on a quest for the Holy Grail.
About: (Disclaimer: I’ve been trying to decide for scripts that are feature movies, how much I should discuss what actually happened to the film. I’ve decided it’s sort of pointless because this script is more about the actual “writing of”. So, from now on, the “about” will just have details about the development process.) The script for Last Crusade went through several alterations, which eventually spawned some of the scripts I’ll be reviewing later in the week. At first, Diane Thomas (Romancing the Stone) wrote a “haunted house” film which was dropped. (I don’t have a script for this, but would absolutely love one if anybody has it.) Chris Columbus (Gremlins, Goonies, Adventures in Babysitting) then wrote an idea based around The Monkey King (which I remember from Nickelodeon’s Legends of The Hidden Temple). His script was crazy high in terms of productions costs and racist (we’ll get to this later). Menno Meyjes (The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun) came up with a very magic realist script (I don’t have it, but would love it) with Indy searching for his father and the Holy Grail so now there was a definite story. Spielberg suggested making Indiana a Boy Scout as he was one as a child. Jeffrey Boam was hired for the next draft and hyped up the characters. There were a few more touch-ups by Tom Stoppard (mostly dialogue rewrites) who worked under the name Barry Watson. Stoppard also came up with the “Panama Hat” character, who is a bad guy Indy meets as a kid and alter cops the man’s dressing style.

Writers: To recap: Diane Thomas (who died in a car accident in 1985 while working on Speilberg’s Always and Indy) replaced by Chris Columbus (Goonies, Adventures in Babysitting, Gremlins) was replaced by Menno Meyjes (Empire of the Sun, Color Purple) was replaced by Jeffrey Boam (Straight Time, Dead Zone, Lost Boys, Funny Farm) who was written by Tom Stoppard (who in addition to a ton of major theater work also wrote Brazil, Empire of the Sun, and Shakespeare in Love).

This film suckers you into loving it within the first ten pages. During a local boy scout trip, Indiana Jones ends up on a circus train chasing after the Cross of Coronado. It’s totally that old Spielberg trick of quickly taking something mundane and turning it into an extraordinary, jaw dropping experience. And, we inadvertently prepare ourselves for another Indy adventure. Plus, the character is developed: we learn how he got his name, what his home life was like, and how he eventually got the idea for his character. Plus for the first time (keep this in mind for later, because we’ll go revert back) the opening is not that tired, pot boiler, boulder roll, shoot out at a dance club, Area 51 escape sort of introduction. In fact, this is the only time in this entire script where we feel Indiana Jones is going somewhere new, and busting out of its old established structure.
There are definite repeats, and I remember being confused about this as a kid. Both times the Nazis are after him. In the first film, Indy is chasing The Ark of the Covenenant (it holds the Ten Commands) and now he’s chasing after The Holy Grail. Has Indy gone Christian? Is he a born again? I mean, all the legendary items you can pick and there have to be two pieces that are directly out of Christian mythology?

The thrust of this story is Indy’s relationship to his dad: at first castigated by his father, then following his dad’s work, then working on one of his father’s projects, then hooking up with his father’s old squeeze, then finding his father, then completing his father’s quest. But Indy’s dad is never really his dad. He’s more of a partner in crime. It’s that old adventure notion that whoever is on Indy’s quest stops being anything except a partner in adventure and somebody who can eventually survive until the end of the journey. While we’re on this, Indy’s main squeeze Isla in this film lacks the sarcastic banter of Kate Capshaw or the feistiness of Marion Ravenwood, instead she’s this bland sort of flavorless bitch who ends up double crossing him. She isn’t that memorable. And I think her character was written as an after thought. (She’s not much better in the film. But they didn’t really get a terrific actress from what I recall to punch it up).

This film recycles all the plot elements, comes up with some set pieces (a tank chase Columbus will use in his script, a catacombs thing we’ll also see better used in a later script, and a few other pieces). So, needless to say, the middle part of this script is nothing more than a tired retread of the Indy structure (a catacombs scene, an airplane scene, a chase with a tank) that we’ve seen in every other film. There isn’t anything edgy like in Temple of Doom. And Indy’s relationship to his father isn’t enough to carry the story. So the film ends up this tired, schlock. That is, except for the end.

The ending is awesome. Because I love the challenges Indy must faith (the leap of faith, the name of God, picking the true cup) and the interaction with the Knight Templar. This, and the circus train, are the only part of this film that are legitimately fascinating and keep me riveted to the page. It’s because for once, the action and the threats are tied in symbolically to what Indy is looking for which is ultimately tied into the idea of unification with the father. This stuff works wonder. And, if only the film had more of it, The Last Crusade could have ended up another wonderful Speilberg piece.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
[X] - Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: Indy’s love interested is also named Isla. She’s also foreign. She’s also sleek. If Isla was about 15 years younger, she could have knocked this role out of the park. I’d love to have see her square of with Harrison Ford.

What I Learned: It is really hard to hook a reader into a film. (Perhaps even harder than hooking a viewer). One way to do it is show the character when they’re younger. As a result, the reader then plays this game of trying to compare and contrast the two characters and figure out just how much the person was influenced by the events that occurred in their youth. Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade performs this trick and it works like a charm. Brought me into the script eager to read and find out where the story was going. So if you can’t find a way to start your script, think about a sequence revealing how the character became the person they are.

Indiana Jones Week

2009-12-07T11:02:00.000-08:00

My first exposure to Indiana Jones was a syndication sometime in the early nineties of Last Crusade. I don’t remember too much. Somebody turned into a skeleton. An ancient Knight. But that part that was really jarring and stuck with me long after the film had ended is the scene in which Isla falls down a pit. Where did this bottomless pit lead? For how long did she live during the plunge? And even more importantly, what thoughts went through one’s head when they were in a midst of a bottomless plunge?

Truth be told, I didn’t think about Indiana Jones or any of his adventures for another five years. By this time, I was into Spielberg in general and regaled by the glossy photos of the films special effects in a book I took out from the New Castle Public Library. Indy was never my favorite. It was always Star Wars, but I did watch the entire series as time went by and I held a special place for the film.

The thing about Indiana Jones is that ultimate he’s the icon for absurdist adventures. You can make this guy hunt after anything, and in any way you’d like possible. As long as its historical. For this reason, I was a huge fan of Temple of Doom and Last Crusade was definitely in the right vein. I actually think, I least enjoyed Raiders of the Lost Ark. It was a little too vanilla for me. Almost as if the film was asking “Can I get away with this little boulder run? How about this car chase?”

So I thought it’d be fun to do a little bit of studying the Indiana Jones series this week. I feel the Eszterhas reviews were really informative as to what made his film tick that hopefully I can come to the same sort of conclusions about Indy. I’m going to pay careful attention to the sequels, which in my mind start with Last Crusade, carry out to the fairly recent Indiana Jones 4, and also include the unproduced scripts about The Monkey King, The Martians, and City of the Gods. I’m going to skip over Temple of Doom, but I might review it at a later point. Child slavery, black magic, and human sacrifice with Kate Capshaw. I love it too much for a critical study. Plus it was written by the schlock-meister team of Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz (who’d finish out the 1980’s by working on Howard the Duck and Radioland Murders).

Hearts of Fire (Eszterhas #5 of 5)

2009-12-04T11:55:00.001-08:00

Genre: Rock-and-Roll Drama (Literally)

Premise: Molly McGee, a young girl with hopes of being a musician, goes on tour with an aged, one time Rock Star. After meeting another famous star, Jack Colt, a love triangle is created between the three with Molly at the center. Also, it’s about music so every time a scene gets a little too intense we cut to a rock and roll number.

About: This film was re-written by Eszterhas, from a script by Scott Richardson. Lorimar, who was producing, felt that Richardson was too much of a baby writer. So they brought on Eszterhas. It’s worth noting this is the only Richardson script, and he later became a costumer/prop person on Lord of the Rings. In the end, Hearts of Fire essentially became a star-vehicle for Dylan, who if you aren’t up to date with music history was about two steps away from being a crazy old hobo in the mid 1980’s. The love triangle fell apart because Dylan liked rather than hated Rupert Everett, the other musician, and neither wanted to kiss Molly. Richard Marquand directed Return of the Jedi. Let’s all bow our heads. Because he’s more remembered for directing this piece of crap and passing away soon after.

Writers: Joe “My Scripts Are So Bad They Kill People” Eszterhas

The challenge to writing a Rock and Roll film is hardly ever the story in which the music is laid. Rather, it’s hard to make sure the music is good enough and highlights the emotional punch of the scenes. Now, Purple is a good example of that. I’ve never seen Hearts of Fire, but I’m sure that without any major acts attached, this film fell victim as a music movie about bad music. (And I have to add, a lot of the musicians in Hearts of Fire I do like, John Hiatt and Dylan, but these songs represent their weaker efforts. Dylan had been contracted to write a whole album of new material, but in actuality ended up only writing two new songs). So asides from this whole problematic thing that the script is suggesting music that I know full well blows, let’s talk about plot mechanics.

The beginning is very generic. Molly works at a toll booth and is an aspiring rock singer who performs with her band at a local bar. (This is exactly unforgettable in the way almost all cheesy 80’s movies open. In the Eszterhas style, the whole thing starts off with a robbery and then goes back to being slow). At the bar, Molly meets an English rock star, her idol, who lives in seclusion and offers to take her to England with him to place at an oldies concert. (The jaded and cynical love interest). She accepts, but soon grows pissed at how the Englishman handles his image and his music. So she seeks solace in Jack Colt, another British Rock Star. (Who is sort of a sex fiend, of course Eszterhas couldn’t get through a script without sex). Colt produces Molly’s first album. Molly and Colt start knocking booties, and tour America. (There’s one touch here I like about a blind woman who goes to see all of Colts shows and how she’s unpolluted by the music. It’s sad and sweet and my favorite part in the entire movie. I also like that Colt’s daughter discusses titties, but that’s a whole other tangent). Molly ends back on stage with her mentor. And in the end, Molly gives up both men for a shot at stardom. (The Eszterhas “Screw You World” sort of ending). I’d be interested to compare the Richardson draft to this to see which elements were entirely created by Eszterhas.

So ultimately, this film is about musicians (which we’ve seen before many, many times) and the love triangle (which never feels like it gets off the ground because in the script it feels like Molly is only sleeping or entangled with either of the men as a result to leverage her own career). So reading Hearts of Fire, it felt like there was a core missing. Now, add onto this some unconvincing acting and you have a film that flounders.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
[X] - Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: There’s really only one female in the entire film, Molly. She’s an impressionable, young teen with aspirations of becoming a famous musician. Sadly, these days of youth have passed Isla Fisher by.

What I Learned: You only have what’s on the page. And as someone who is engaged in writing a rock film that features songs, that’s got to be nerve wracking. Ultimate rock films are only as good as their soundtrack and when you’re using two washed up Dylan songs, I don’t know how this thing could be anything but abysmal. Add on to the fact that there’s a weak structure, an unconvincing love triangle, and every few pages the script makes a weird associate leap that I don’t follow and you have something I’ve never seen but can almost single handedly assure is a piece of garbage.

Basic Instinct (Joe Eszterhas #4 of 5)

2009-12-03T12:49:00.000-08:00

Genre: Sexual Thriller (A tad bit sexier, and a tab bit more violent than the other Eszterhas scripts, but overall it's in the same vein)

Premise: Detective Nick Curran investigates the murder of a famous rock star. A beautiful, crime writer Catherine Tramell could be involved, which of course means Curran has to become romantic linked with this woman.

About: In a blaze of glory reminiscient of Paul Schrader's marathon Taxi Driver writing sessions, Joe Eszterhas wrote and sold the script in 13 days for $3 million to Carolco Pictures (Cutthroat Island, Showgirls). The film was a blockbuster and spawned a crappy sequel.

Writers: Joe "Taxi Driver" Eszterhas

I'm gonna set this up in a bit of a different style today. But first of, even though I'm pretty ambivalent about this script (well written, not my cup of tea), it is truly amazing Joe Eszterhas wrote this thing that quickly. I'm tempted to think there's something else going on behind the scenes like he already knew the entire story or had the whole plot worked out because it's alarmign to think somebody could move at such a quick, and productive rated. Hell, most of Taxi Driver ended up using improved dialogue. For speed alone, Basic Instinct is impressive.

Now, here's what I wanted to do today. Eszterhas has a set formula he follows every time in his scripts, I saw it all this week and I'm almost to the point where I can define it. I want to apply Basic Instinct to this Eszterhas mold, and rate it accordingly.

Things I've Noticed In Every Eszterhas Script:

An opening that's slow and wordy (at a bar in Jade, a detective scene in Basic Instinct, a newspaper scene in Beat The Eagle)

A sharp, brutal inciting incident (an ice pick murder in Basic Instinct, a dead body, a burning building, something that's not all that weird or violent)

A protagonist whose profession makes them investigate (a detective a few times, a journalist, a person doing their taxes, Basic Instict uses the detective idea again)

A character with a tarnished reputation (a person having an affair, a detective screwing the woman he's investigating, a showgirl turned hooker, a disreputable reporter)

A character addicted to sex (a hooker, an erotic novelist, a showgirl)

A murder weapon that's an inanimate household object (a walking stick, an ice pick, etc.)

An ending where the character bucks the system ("Screw you Las Vegas", "Screw you newspaper", "Screw you world", "Screw you IRS")

The reliving of scenes from the past, no real present action scenes (via video tape in Jade, memory in Basic Instict, taxes in Beat the Eagle, the details of the event in Dieshot)

A protagonist involved with someone who may be a murderer (either sleeping, business or screwing)

I could go on, but ... hmmmm. Is it possible Eszterhas actually comes up with unique stories this quickly or has he possibly found one formula (Dieshot, Beat The Eagle, Jade, Basic Instict, Silver) to repeat over and over again. I'd very likely. Is it possible this system fell apart on him until he made one crappy film after another? Very likely.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[X] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: I can't see anybody but Sharon Stone in this role, so Isla is almost an impossible consideration.

What I Learned: Much like it is for pop artistis and popular novelists, the really great screenwriters can sometimes fall into the trap of writing the same story over and over again with slightly different twists. Having just finished my fourth Eszterhas script, I'm beginning to see this guy isn't so much a writer as a trained monkey who does the same trick over and over and over....he's like the energizer bunny of sexual thrillers.

Jade (Eszterhas #3 of 5)

2009-12-02T11:44:00.000-08:00

Genre: I think it is safe to say this is a Thriller, with a lot of long conversations designed to titillate the reader

Premise: A young socialite, TRINA, married to a lawyer, poses as a prostitute named JADE, sleeps with other socialites, and then murders him.

About: In 1992, Joe Eszterhas sold a two page outline of Jade for $2.5 million dollars. I mean, really? William Friedkin directed the film, which was released in 1995 and promptly tanked. Eszterhas said Friedkin had changed the entire story. Could it possibly be that Eszterhas had written a brilliant script that was butchered in the rewrites? Well, I went to the horse’s mouth and found an early 1994 draft of Jade. And as you can see by my review, this film was not going to be brilliant any way you cut it.

Writers: Joe “Apparently I’m Such A Good Writer Now I Don’t Even Have to Write An Actual Story to Make Millions” Eszterhas

In a lot of ways, Jade represents the downfall of Eszterhas’s career better than any other film. He got paid a ton for it, wrote it about his conventional blend of sex and murder, and the script was filmed not as a lavish big budget production but rather a smaller movie in terms of budget and tone. It tanked as the box office, as did most of Eszterhas’s working during the 1990’s, and was universally panned by critics. Someone on the crew famously said the film failed because Eszterhas wrote like a dirty old man. But, really, I think that’s more of an attempt to downplay the film’s sexual elements, and there are a lot of them, but unlike so many films, the sexuality in Jade does not feel gratuitous. The film really explores the thrust towards, and effect on this sort of sexual behavior.

The film opens with the sort of slow, lugubrious conversation that inevitably will lead to some shocking act of violence. Matt is a lawyer, David is a government agent, and Tina is a psychiatrist married to Matt. Matt loves Tina, and so kind of does Dan. Next thing we know, Dan is stumbling onto a murder scene where a very rich man was killed and then hung up like a scarecrow. Thanks to a video camera, the police learn the man was killed in the midst of sex with a prostitute named Jade. Needless to say, I had a feeling one of the people I’d already met was Jade and it was. The script spends the next 80 pages coming to this conclusion as well. I mean, really, the next 80. First we have to diagnose the video of Jade, then we have to interview the neighbor, then we hear from Tina about her decision to become Jade, the whole thing morphs into an easily solved police methodology story.
I think much more than the sex, it’s disturbing how Eszterhas went from writing stories about small town journalists and cops to psychiatrists and District Attorneys. This thing, particularly after just reading Dieshot, reads like something from the mind of a person washed up in a very rich world. And as a result, a lot of these people become much less sympathetic and pretty remote from anything I know. Not to mention, Tina becomes evil, and the two men have pretty weak backbones so there isn’t really anybody I can actively side with. It’s almost like, to a certain group of people at a certain time this film would be very effective, but for me the film failed as a sexual thriller.

Eszterhas has a way of writing very similar scripts over and over again across genres: a slow reveal, a disturbing act, a few twists and turns to clarify what we’ve just seen. Jade’s not exactly a film you’d want to see a thousand times, because once you’ve seen it basically that’s all there is. You don’t read Esterhzas for cool moments or dialogue. It’s all about the twists. So I can definitely see how he sold Jade, but I have no idea whatsoever how he sold this thing for so much money. Also, there’s an accusation that Friedkin (who directed it) changed the script so much Esterhaz threatened to remove his name from the credits. While this, I read a version prior to the Friedkin retool and let me tell you, it may not have been as bad as the movie (which I didn’t see) but it wasn’t exactly Hollywood gold either.
Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[X] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: There’s a young, redheaded socialite nymphette who murders her clients. Enough said. If there was ever an Eszterhas I’d like to see Isla in, this would be it.

What I Learned: If I can solve your Thriller within the first ten pages then it really isn’t that Thrilling. With no doubt as to who the murderer was, Jade became a very gimmicky film. And for something that wasn’t even too high concept to begin with, gimmicky is not an enjoyable or good vein to hit.

Dieshot (Eszterhas #2 of 5)

2009-12-01T10:43:00.000-08:00

Genre: That Eszterhas patented genre hybrid of Drama that always seems to lean on the edge of Action but never quite crosses over.

Premise: Caldwell, a small town journalist, investigates a series of buildings that have been burnt down throughout the town. What he discovers after the course of his investigation is a large, evil conglomerate and the “dieshot” who runs it. It’s the sort of generic, corporations are bad thing from among many detective stories, Chinatown.

About: After F.I.S.T. (which is actually not a bad script, if a bit expansive) failed at the box office, Eszterhas entered into a strange period of several years where he wrote a lot of scripts but didn’t get anything produced until Flashdance became a big hit. Or least, I think that’s how it went according to his memoir Hollywood Animal.

Writers: Joe “F.I.S.T Failed But Wait Until Flash Dance” Esterzhas

Dieshot is … not bad. It’s a simple story. And it reads like an article Esterzhas might have written for the Cleveland Plain Dealer. There really isn’t much in the way of story: there’s a generic love interest for Caldwell, he is at first assigned to write an article about a series of buildings that have mysteriously burnt down, discovers the name of an insurance company who owned most of the buildings, people try to kill Caldwell but he escapes, and eventually uncovers corruption city wide and decides to leave. I mean, this is a story we’ve seen many times before, and like most of the Eszterhas scripts it reads like a hybrid of dime store crime novels. And the thing is, he makes it enjoyable.

For some reason, I don't know if it's because I used to be one, but I love watching reporters get assigned news stories in films and go about trying to get the opening leads on their story. This made the first act pretty exciting, and made sure I watched with rapt attention. But then, when we realize it's just burning buildings Dieshot becomes dull. I mean, derelict burning buildings. What's to spark my interest about that? Isn't that like Mafioso 101? I don't think it was any more original in the early 80's. It's not like the material hasn't aged, it's just not necessarily very original dramatic stuff. That being said, though, the third act is pretty awesome because Caldwell after watching the Earth come crashing down around him is left with very little solace in the world so he shows up at the door of his love interest, Cory, which I felt was the perfect tone to offset it. Caldwell ends, talking about California, which Esterzhas sets off with such a cheerily optimistic tone it can only be meant sarcastically.

The whole thing just feels like a TV movie. And it feels like Eszterhas is breaking his chops in as a screenwriter. I know Paramount bought this, but from everything I’ve read I have no idea how close Joe got to getting the thing made. I’d expect not terribly far because at this point he didn’t seem to have a large amount of star power at the time, and the whole set up is a little bit week. But Dieshot is one its way to something, and its tone is a pretty good one. So it's a decent spec but it's definitely not something I'd ever want to see as a film.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
[X] - Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good

Isla Prospects: Once again, there’s a love interest. But Isla is in no way, shape, or form ever supposed to or going to play an Eszterhas character. Just doesn’t work for me. Even though she played a pretty good Midwestern girl in Wedding Daze and The Lookout.

What I Learned: Dieshot pretty much sets up everything it’s going to use within the first ten pages, and then throughout the rest of the script, it becomes clear just what we’ve been presented with. This is the set up of good detective story, but if you can make it work, and here Eszterhas does then you’ve got a neat little structure going on.

Beat the Eagle (Eszterhas #1 of 5)

2009-11-30T12:04:00.000-08:00

Don't Mess with the IRS

Genre: Drama (in places the script threatens to go off on a Dog Day Afternoon tangent, but this never quite happens)

Premise: A bartender is unjustly accused of $14,000 in back taxes by the IRS. Rather than comply, the bartender decides to fight back in a court of law. And that’s the main thrust of the entire story.

About: Beat the Eagle was sold to Paramount by Esztershas as a spec in the mid 1980’s. Originally, Sydney Poitier was attached to direct. But, Poitier weeks after Joe’s legendary class with CAA was afraid to betray the agency’s loyalty and dumped the project. Or, perhaps Poitier was exhausted from directing the staggering work of genius that is Ghost Dad.

Writers: Joe “I’ll Fight All of CAA Barehanded” Eszterhas

The IRS is scary. I mean, really how many of us have any idea what taxes we pay or how amounts are determined? They’re a huge, unstoppable force that does whatever they want. This also means that at any point, the IRS could totally snap and say you own X amount of dollars and turn your life into a Kafkaesque nightmare. That’s basically the whole point of Beat the Eagle. The difference is, though, where some would want to see this story slide off into the bartending protagonist fighting the IRS in an original way, this story makes it nothing more than a legal battle. And how exciting is that really? It’s a cool set up that doesn’t live past the original concept.

And the other thing about Eszterhas, which sort of defines my take on him as a writer as a whole is the guy knows execution. And has perfected down to a T. McKee would have a field analyzing this script because it has the perfect mid-point, set up, character developments, and third act conclusion. And it works really tightly as a film. But in terms of being original, or knocking your socks off with its story, Beat the Eagle chooses rather to use a conventional structure and a story-line that isn’t really high concept, or marketable or playable. As a result, it’s well-written but conventional structure approaches more the feeling one would get from a Movie of the Week than a Feature Film. I’d suspect Eszterhas after his clash with CAA, delayed getting this movie made for a few years. And then, once it became a worn-out property it didn’t lack anything original enough that a direct latched onto it and wanted to turn it into a film.

The nicest part about this whole script, and why despite my mediocre feeling about its plot, I have a good feeling about Beat The Eagle is Eszterhas is really creating his own tone here. This, and a few of his other unproduced specs, read like wizened tales from a man who used to work for a small town Midwestern newspaper. Eszterhas creates a nice tone for the yinzers of the world (residents of Eastern Ohio, Western Pennsylvania) and I can’t really think of another screenwriter who tackles these subjects in such a way. So that’s pretty cool.

Beat the Eagle isn’t an amazing script. Nor is it a horrible one. It’s a nice, small script with some good moments. And that to me is okay any way you cut it.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
[X] - Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good

Isla Prospects: Not really. Not at all. Isla is not supposed to be playing girls from Eastern Ohio, not that there are even that many girls in this script. But that’s okay.

What I Learned: Eszterhas has written that perfect, edgy, chock to the brim with tone script. What he hasn’t written is something that’ll knock your socks off, and I doubt you could sell Beat The Eagle as a first spec script. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a fun read, or a nice quiet piece for an established writer.

Eszterhas Week

2009-11-30T10:55:00.000-08:00

I love Joe Eszterhas.

And it’s a good thing I read his books The Devil’s Guide to Hollywood and Hollywood Animal, because on the merit of his scripts alone I don’t think you get nearly as much an idea of how cool this guy is. They’re funny, sarcastic books about the history of film. It also becomes clear that Joe is a pretty famous one. He’s written some of the highest selling spec scripts of all time, has penned some fairly big hits, and also been the creative mind behind some tremendously large flops. This week, I’m going to be reviewing the good (the one with the ice pick), the bad (the one with Elizabeth Berkley) and the unproduced of Joe Eszterhas.

Catwoman (Super Hero #4 of 5)

2009-11-25T13:08:00.001-08:00

This is hot for approximately 4.5 seconds, then it gets ridiculous

Genre: Female-Driven Action (in the Comic Book Blockbuster affair sort of way)

Premise:. Patience Phillips is a meek woman working at a cosmetics company. After getting romantic with detective Tom Lone, Patience stumbles upon a meeting her boss is having and learns that the beauty products rejuvenate one’s skin, but if not used permanently result in rapid deterioration. The boss and his goons discovers she listening and drown her in a series of pipes. Patience is reincarnated as Catwoman. There’s a sort of expected ending to a superhero film. She’s set up, made an outlaw, Lone tries to hurt her but Patience ends up saving him, and Catwoman emerges victorious.

About: The film was nominated for a worst picture Razzie, barely broke even at the box office, and has inspired all types of insults about how horrible a film it is. But, the thing is Catwoman is better than Plastic Man. It’s also better than a lot of the unproduced spec scripts you read on the market. And it doesn’t necessarily fail a story. Where it is kind of sloppy is in the execution of the character, which I think when translated to Halle Berry in a spandex outfit sort of spiraled out of control.

Writers: And in the beginning, there was Bob Kane (who was one of DC Comic’s key figures, created Batman, The Joker, and Robin) who begat the story creators Theresa Rebeck (a playwright with a few film credits including Harriet The Spy) and a story/script by the team of John Brancato and Michael Ferris (The Net, The Game, and Terminator 3) with some additional writing by John Rogers (who dabbles in all sorts of mediums which has included the modern recreation of The Blue Beetle, the first draft of The Transformers film, and the cartoon Jack Chan Adventures). Catwoman was a huge problem for the Writers Guild, who basically had to award credit from a pool of 28 writers who had all worked on the film in some capacity.

Surprisingly, I’m gonna be able to get through this entire review without a negative comment. I don’t hate this film. I’m not the biggest fan. But it’s defintiely not Razzie material. Garbage Pail Kids: The Movie? That’s worthy. Ghosts Can’t Do It? Worthy. Cuthroat Island? Worthy. This or Show Girls? Not so much. They’re films that the critics ripped too pieces almost unfairly. Now keep in mind, I didn’t see the film but from what I read of the script, although boring in places, was not a God awful journey. It was definitely no Hollow Man.

The script gets kind of convoluted in the last half of the second act, and I tuned out. But I was pretty solid up until then. I wasn’t necessarily thumbing greedily through the pages, but it wasn’t awful. It just was. I got the superhero. I liked how she died and was re-incarnated. Unlike Plastic Man this wasn’t something I’d seen a thousand times. So I was willing to go along on the journey. But eventually this script reaches a place where the reader tunes out because the character and the plot stop being of any importance. Which is funny because I think I always enjoy direction-less stories until I find something like that. I mean there were threads and there were movements, but I tuned out on this one.

Also where is Batman? Where is The Joker? Why you would write a film just to revolve around The Catwoman story? I mean, that’s like purposefully making things harder on yourself. And basically where this story went wrong. The make-up story line is cool, if a bit sixties Sci-Fi-ish, but it’s not worthy of this character and it’s not worthy of a film.

That being said, the script sets up pretty original characters (even if Tom Lone is a little goofy) and I like the idea of a female centered super hero who is fighting something directly aligned against something that distorts womanly beauty. There’s a few decent action sequences. And the rebirth part held my attention for several pages. It’s not my favorite script by any means, and it feels like it got lost along the way in an attempt to make a female superhero film which catered to a male audience almost exclusively (which is exactly what Jolie’s Tomb Raider did) …. Which is kind of counterproductive to me? But this is an inspired failure. So I’ll rate it one step up above pure crap.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[X] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good

Isla Prospects: I’m not racist but it’s kind of weird that Cat Woman is black. Sisters are way too sassy and smooth to succeed in the meek openings of Patience. So white chicks are probably a better casting decision, which is why Michelle Pfeiffer was a good casting decision. And, I’m gonna if somebody could get a decent script out of the Catwoman film I’d nominate Isla in a moment.

What I Learned: There are some ideas that just don’t translate to film. I’m not saying this script is great. It certainly has its underdeveloped moments and inadequate pacing, but the spandex suit is probably what brought this thing a worst picture Razzie. Sometimes it’s very hard to judge what’ll play or not, and sometimes you don’t even know it until the thing’s already in development. But the point of the matter is that these concepts titillate the powers that be enough to get them launched, and there’s something worth studying about that. If Catwoman can get made and Dr. Strange or Plasticman can’t, there’s obviously something here that wasn’t in the other scripts.

Plastic Man (Super Hero #3 of 5)

2009-11-24T13:17:00.000-08:00

This is cool? I just don't get it.

Genre: Action with Traces (I said Traces, certainly not Dollops) of Comedy

Premise: Ex-con Daniel O'Brien wins childhood love, Dr. Susan Bright. Then he's turned into plastic man and fights industrialist Icarus Argon, also a Plastic Man. It's a very simplistic, goofy plot despite its length (128 pages).

About: Speilberg's production company, Amblin, was attached to helm this film. But Amblin didn't Men in Black instead, the Wakowski brothers did The Matrix, and the film was soon forgotten about. There's been talk recently, nothing confirmed on IMDB so it's still speculative, that the Wachowskis are gonna direct this sometime soon with Keanu Reeves as Plastic Man (the most wooden actor as the most malleable superhero....pretty brilliant casting!)

Writers: Andy and Larry Wachowski are the only credited writers. And, for the sake of things, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I'm not a fan. I understand the Matrix has a large following, but that's about the only decent film they've done and the sequels sucked. V for Vendetta is mediocre? Speed Racer and Assassins just suck. At some point, people started thinking they were talented because they were the creative geniuses behind a blockbuster series. Just doesn't impress me. Sorry.

I've tried to read Plastic Man comics several times in the past. And I just don't get it. He's malleable and plastic....quite like Gumby, Spiderman, or... Mr. Fantastic. Only the comics never have enough comedy or style in them to differentiate the series away from these other, close in genre superheros. So I checked out very easily with Plastic Man, and I don't really quite why other people care for this series so rampantly. It's just a B-grade comic. And, that being said, the writing was never that terrific. An Alan Moore Plastic Man might work.

So that being said, I don't care about Plastic Man's origins. Even though the idea of having him start off as a criminal is certainly awesome. And this script devotes about 80 percent of its pages to explaining how Plastic Man's life was set up. And you can tell as you're reading this thing that there were going to be crazy special effects and visuals. But as far as this story goes, why spend so much time explaining the origin of a superhero nobody ever really cares about?

The Wachowski brothers do much to save the storyline, however. The script is filled with plenty of funny things (Plastic Man hates people who literer, and even at the end after he's proven himself a hero is still chasing litter bugs. Also plenty of cool shots, and set ups). This thing kind of reminded me of that Pixas film, The Incredibles, in places due to all its sight gags. And the more I'm thinking of it, wasn't Mr. Incredible also bendy and malleable?

I just don't get it. What is cool about somebody who can extend their arms and bend into various shapes? That'll get old real quick. Particularly when the character is already kind of flat. I'm half tempted to say this idea is such poppycock that's the reason it never had enough strength or oomph to get made into a feature film. But, if the Wachowski brothers ever do make this film and it does have Keanu Reeves in it, I'd expect it to fair at the box office. The visuals alone would be awesome. Add a few more jokes into this film, which there aren't too many of in the draft I read (I hear the later ones are funnier), and you've got a strongly mediocre popcorn flick.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[X] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good

Isla Prospects: Dr. Susan Bright is almost certainly an intelligent blonde. As evidenced by Scooby Doo, Isla can't do blonde and as evidenced by Confessions of a Shopaholic, she can't really do intelligent either.

What I Learned: Origin stories are interesting (the Wolverine one follows this formula too)... if you present a story that the audience is hooked on you can get away for a long stretch of time without a semblance of a plot or anything that even remotely resembles a taut story line. In the case of Wolverine, I went along for the ride. For Plastic Man, I checked out before the end of the first act.

Asylum (Batman Vs Superman) (Super Hero Week #2)

2009-11-23T11:04:00.000-08:00

How does something as awesome as this get dropped

Genre: Action-Adventure (in the Comic Book Blockbuster affair sort of way)

Premise: After the death of Batman’s new wife, Batman teams up with Superman to battle the Joker, who was actually hired by Lex Luthor.

About: After a few aborted attempts, including which Akiva Goldman was inexplicably brought in, Wolfgang Peterson left to direct Troy and Walker’s script was dumped for another Superman story. All engaged parties show interest in the project so I wouldn’t be surprised if anywhere from five to twenty years from now we do see a Superman VS Batman movie.

Writers: I read a draft of the script, which was written by Andrew Kevin Walker (Seven, 8 MM) right after Seven and his initial catapult into screenwriting fame. The version also had current rewrites by the famous screenwriting star/hack Akiva Goldman (I could list his credits, but let’s just say he got a main writing credit on Batman and Robin). This is the equivalent of having Stephen King rewrite Faulkner.

There’s this situation you encounter if you’ve read a fair share of Batman and Superman comics. While Superman is very much the 1940’s mentality of truth, justice and the American way; Batman is much more the equivalent of a Peckinpah hero who rides into town in the middle of night and settles his own scores however he finds necessary. As a result, these two are always sort of bickering about their methods. And that’s fun to watch onscreen because we’re not quite sure who to side with.

My biggest problem with Asylum, is that once Batman realizes the Joker set in motion the entire plan to kills Bruce’s wife, the story becomes much less about this tension between two of the greatest superheroes of all time and starts being another film in which Batman must settle score with the Joker. And that I’ve seen, dozens of times with varied results. I wish the Batman/Superman tension could have been maintained further, and ultimately would have escalated into an all ought to the death battle. I understand that’s not where this script was going, but when I’m made an awesome enough pitch that I’m going to see Superman and Batman together in a film inevitably that’s what I’d like.

And while I’m not going to try and attribute different scenes to different screenwriters, let’s just say that parts of this script are dark and nourish, but other parts are happy and chipper. It comes off like a varied experience. And that can be a tad bit unsettling. But, this difference in tone aside and a storyline which ultimately reverts to being very formulaic and resultantly predictable, Asylum is one of my top ten scripts I’ve read so far on Hunting for Isla Fisher.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
[X] - Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good

Isla Prospects: Not that many female roles. With the exception of Batman’s wife, who is killed off before the end of the first. So not much territory to cover here. Although, I did read recently Isla had been in main consideration for the role Maggie Gyllenhal played in Dark Knight. Talk about a missed opportunity.

What I Learned: The greatest thing about this script is that it takes storylines we’re familiar with and plot conventions, then by inverting them on their head just a bit, manages to come up with nothing we’ve never seen before. This script is structured in a very predictable way (Call to Action, Rising Escalations, and Very Big Fight) but by giving the audience The Batman/Superman thing we’re able to enjoy the story as if it were brand new. Screenwriting isn’t really about reinventing the wheel so much as it is giving the audience something they want and haven’t quite seen before.

Dr. Strange (Super Hero Week #1 of 5)

2009-11-20T13:15:00.000-08:00

The love child of Elvira and Raul Julia.

On a side note, where's the Dr Doom film?

Genre: Action (In the blockbuster sense of the word. There are also traces of drama, comedy, and leans a bit towards science fiction).

Premise: Dr. Strange is pretty much an origin story (before these were done) about how Dr. Strange got his costume and came to power. This sounds a lot cooler than it actually is. The actual story involves Strange’s affiliation with The Ancient One, which is one of those B-line Marvel stories that never took of because it’s boring.

About: Remember how all screenwriting teachers and books tell you to never use artwork in your scripts? This thing has a big, awesome drawing of Dr. Strange on the cover page. The script was written 1986 right after the success of Back to the Future, and was commissioned by Marvel. The Dr. Strange story went into development hell, and Dimension films almost did a version in 2001. This makes sense because The Dr. Strange story is not a terrible one, but it’s definitely not as irresistible as The Spiderman or X-Men films.

Writers: Bob Gale (who worked exclusively with Zemekis on all his projects for a long time including the Back to the Future series). Gale has become sort of a mega dork since then and has done on to write adaptations and panels for many comic book.

I had no idea how I was going to feel about this film. Gale is a hardcore, comic nerd who has an erratic (1941 to Back to the Future) output. And from the get go, this script reads like a very esoteric adaptation of a comic legend. But, as the script moves along it becomes a pretty solid little script, if lacking the thrills

The story is something like this: the power is unleashed thousands of years ago, Strange is set up as a smug surgeon yuppie, he’s in an accident that prevents the use of his hands, Strange spends a fortune trying to heal himself, Strange goes to Tibet to heal his hands, Strange becomes an apprentice, Strange attacks and kills his mentor’s enemy (Mordo).

My main problem, and I think inevitably the main problem with Dr. Strange is he’s a goofy looking character and he’s hard to relate to because inevitably, whether revealed or not, he’s not a good guy. I know they’re doing a Magneto origin story, but Magneto is somebody who has a sympathetic back story who sides against the x-men on a well grounded belief. But Strange? Well, he looks like a guy with a gas mask on. It’s not that the story fails, it’s actually okay but if I can’t side with the protagonist the story will always become much less enjoyable.

It also, feels like Gale doesn’t quite get how to make the audience sympathize with the film or embrace it. Characters talk in awfully, long convoluted ways that are hard to follow. Big chunks of dialogue. It kind of reminds me of Star Wars. And then, Gale also tries to re-introduce Strange’s love interest at the start of the 3rd Act, which is just way too late to bring anybody into the script we’re supposed to identify with. Many times, as a result, it feels as if Gale is just caught up in all this uber-nerd babble.

I think part of the reason why this project may have never panned out, and why the subsequent attempts to launch this title failed are that it’s very difficult to get behind Dr. Strange as he’s established. The story, like many Marvel B-grade pieces, doesn’t allow for a lot of human elements or development so while the action may be awesome and the story may be interesting, I’m not sure if a clear cut story like this would make a good film.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
[X] - Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good

Isla Prospects: No. There’s a quasi-love interest for Dr. Strange, but I don’t really see this as a good Isla role.

What I Learned: The script opens with a 10 page sequence that takes place several thousand years ago and explains the untapped power Strange is about to tap into. It’s weird, easy to follow, and makes a good deal of sense. And just another reminder of how probably the only place in your script you can open up with an unrelated scene is the opening. So why not, when you can take the chance, craft a really creative opening?

It's a Bird, It's a Plane....It's Superhero Week

2009-11-20T12:58:00.000-08:00

Oh. My. Yes.

Coming at you this week, dear readers, for no particularly reason is .... Superhero Week.

I've got a couple great unproduced specs I want to review, plus a few early drafts of Superhero films, and a few drafts of produced films I want to weigh in on.

Plus I may want to do a review of Isla's atrocious confessions of a Sopaholic.

It's looking like another great week on Hunting for Isla Fisher, so be sure to weigh in and if there's anything you want to reviewed (or ridiculed) feel free to weigh in.

Rage of the Werewolf (Werewolf #5 of 5)

2009-11-20T12:56:00.000-08:00

See this lackluster poster? It's one of the highlights of this story.

Genre: Horror, Sci-Fi (as inevitably anything is that opens up with the shot of a comet zooming across the sky with voice over)

Premise: In Rage of the Werewolf, a comet collides with the moon, knocking it out of its orbit. As a result, people with latent werewolf genes becomes werewolves and start killing large amounts of people. So the characters do what anybody would in this situation, they capture a vampire and start experimenting with mixing vampire and werewolf blood.

About: I don’t know too much about this film besides the fact that the posters awful, and there were a lot of bad special effects. Not sure about box office, or critical reviews. Rage of the Werewolf seemed to fly in under the radar.

Writers: Kevin Lindenmuth (who has a lot of unheard of credits for writing, directing and producing films about aliens, werewolves and vampires) co-wrote the script with Santo Marotta (this is his only credit, and his only acting credit besides Jake in this film was as Victim #1 in another B-movie)

So I couldn’t find the script for 1983’s Wolfen. And for that, I apologize. So I scanned elsewhere on the internet, trying to think of other Werewolf films (there really aren’t a terrible large amount of them). And while Teen Wolf would be a fun review, I decided to dive into the B-movie territory where Werewolf films traditionally go. So I found the fourth draft of The Rage of the Werewolf, which was written in 1998.

I got about two pages in and thought, well this is cheesy but it’ll probably work out to be a pretty decent script. Then, I got about ten pages further and thought, this is really terrible and underacted. You could go through a smorgasbord of bad script elements in this film, but suffice it to say I’d rather focus on the very worst of this script.

The largest failure of this script is it has no main thrust. The plot is crackpot enough for Ed Wood. Werewolves meets Zombies meets Comet Collision. That’s nuts. Like, really, really nuts. In no way can I follow this. And then, this storyline is populated with characters who I can’t possibly get behind. They’re flat, underdeveloped, and don’t talk to one another unless it’s directly for the purpose of furthering the story’s events. Nor would you read this for laughs, spooks, or thrills. And themes? Haha. There’s no reason anybody would read this script for a story. Making it the most problematic existence of all the Werewolf films. American Werewolf in Paris at least had a good budget, and some bottom rung Hollywood dialogue. Rage of the Werewolf has none of this.

Is it an entirely bad ride? It’s quick. And it’s interesting to follow along because there was enough random, strange crap that it held my interest. And the dialogue is the type that attempts to portray life, but is obviously not very similar at all.

All these bad things taken into consideration, the film does not fall into the loveable genre of bad B-movies. Rather, the script reads like a terrible low-budget film, which it became eventually. I thought the lesser known Werewolf films were going to be better than the big Hollywood affairs, but for this script it wasn’t the case. Werewolf films just aren’t very good. Everyone seems to write a direct horror storyline, without a great purpose, without a good plot. And that doesn’t make for a good film. So while I don’t expect Twilight 2 to be a great, high quality film, I do think it’s probably as worthwhile a take on the genre as any other of these lackluster scripts.

[X] - Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good

Isla Prospects: Nope. None. At all. There aren’t even any women in this story. Instead, the story is populated by men without personalities.

What I Learned: There’s such a thing as taking a plot too far out into a high concept. Halfway through the plot, when the vampires are introduced alongside the werewolves, the script goes so far out into a place where the film can only be camp or ridiculousness. If you take too many chances on a reader/viewer’s sense of what’s real you enter out into a place where it becomes very hard to sustain believability. Reminds me of a script I wrote one time about Bigfoot and the cure for cancer.

The Howling (Werewolf Week #4 of 5)

2009-11-18T23:52:00.000-08:00

Genre: Horror (It’s billed as comedy, I didn’t laugh. It isn’t dramatic).

Premise: A news-caster, Karen, being hunted by a serial killer retreats to a colony, filled with weird creatures, and is pursued by a werewolf.

About: Sayles was hired to do a full rewrite of the script. He’d previously worked with director Joe Dante on Piranha, and created a script with satirical elements far from the novel’s original tone.

Writers: John Sayles (who I’ve previously called brilliant, and who has the special privilege of being the first writer to have two scripts reviewed on Hunting for Isla Fisher) and Terrences Winkles, who has many produced credits for films I’ve never heard of (Rage and Honor, Nightmare City 2025, and Scorpius Gigantus) adapted the novel from Gary Brander, who wrote The Howling and The Big Brain novels.

I have a lot of respect for John Sayles. The guy published in Atlantic Monthly in his early 20’s. Wrote some of the strongest structural scripts I’ve ever seen, and I hold a really special place in my heart for Seacaucus Seven. But, that being said, I’m going to go out on a limb here: Sayles fills empty for me a lot of the time. I guess he’s funny, but his stuff isn’t that funny. His characters never feel organic, but always just a little bit too wooden. The Howling and Night Skies aren’t bad scripts. Definitely not bad. But I’m not going to say they’re the best things I’ve ever read. And I wouldn’t call Sayles a genius if I knew just about these two films. The guy definitely has a good deal of talent, and he definitely is an expert at how he intertwines character with plot.

The Howling was ridiculously hard for me to follow. I’m not saying I didn’t get it. But Sayles writes in a matter that keeps drawing me out of the script. He jumps to screen descriptions very abruptly, which makes it hard to follow through with what people are saying. Nor does his sarcastic sense of humor play particularly well on the page (I think Sayles may understand people so much he instinctively know these scenes will work acted out), but The Howling was a really slow read. This is actually the closest I came to not wanting to finish a script. I did, though.

This isn’t exactly Sayles’ fault, but it deserves to be said. Plot-wise with the exception of the Werewolf’s introduction half the way into the second act, this thing was dull. A woman caught a serial killer. A woman went to a place filled with weird people. Night Skies had this same sort of problem, the scripts do a switch around where they aren’t really about serial killers or small town romance, but rather werewolves and aliens. And I guess, genre-wise that’s an interesting turn, but as a reader looking for a solid plot it can sometimes grow pretty frustrating. What’s weirder is I’ve seen the film, but remembering tuning out halfway through and not really paying attention.

So is this film a failure? I’d say in terms of Werewolf week it’s actually number 2 behind An American Werewolf in London. Generally, though Werewolf films seem to be a pretty lackluster affair. Never awful, but certainly far from great. The thing is, no script so far has had a unique take on the Werewolf legend. It’s always an after-thought, and a barely unapplied one. Werewolves are scary, and can be killed with silver bullets. Nobody’s looking inside at what make these things scary or unsettling. (Also, there were three big budget Werewolf films in 1983: The Howling, Wolfen, and American Werewolf in London…I’ll be reviewing the third of these tomorrow)

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
[X] - Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good

Isla Prospects: Karen’s really the headliner here. And definitely not an Isla role. She’s a very flat character, and I’m not that big a fan of her.

What I Learned: You don’t have to make really thick screen descriptions. I’m not saying Sayles is the model to craft your stuff after, but it teaches us to strip stuff down and look at the bare basics. Sayles doesn’t add on a lot of fluff to his scripts, and that can result in scripts that feel very breezy. Or boring, sometimes.

American Werewolf in London (Werewolf #3 of 5)

2009-11-17T18:59:00.000-08:00

Genre: Black Comedy (although some people might tell you it’s Horror, the Werewolf connection and all. This is highly arguable seeing as the film isn’t that scary.)

Premise: Two young men, David and Jack, are Euro-tripping (this time they’re late 20’s) encounter a Werewolf. Inevitably, as must happen in these things, after a werewolf mauling, the reanimated corpse of Jack visits hospitalized David to warn him he is about to turn into a werewolf and to kill himself.

About: Landis first wrote this film in the late 1960’s, and then sat on it for a year. As you’ll find in Hollywood whenever this happens with screenplays, we encounter the underdeveloped epidemic. (Wes Anderson’s Life Aquatic being a prime example). It’s best known for Rick Baker’s special effects (neither here nor there, we’re reviewing on the script alone). The film has a snug place in the cult underground.

Writers: John Landis wrote this film in the 1980’s. Back when he was famous. In case it really has been that long, he also did Blues Brothers, Animal House, and The Kentucky Fried Movie (a personal favorite of mine).

I really didn’t like American Werewolf in Paris, and it made me wonder what type of story the original script was. I saw it as a teenager. I actually own it. I remember watching it a few times, but my attention never stuck the whole way through. At certain points the film became a series of weird visuals, and stopped being about a story.

And now I know why. The thing loses its thrust because David’s presented with a goal we don’t really care about. If he doesn’t kill himself, he ravages more people. But, that’s what werewolves do. They kill people. I stopped seeing it as a story, and the script instead became a random series of events. And the ending felt like a weird vision, and not really anything tacked on in an organic way. So structurally, it’s sort of a problem.

The characterizations reminds me a bit of Griffin Dunne’s character in After Hours also. He’s never really developed as a character. Instead, after being revealed as weird a few times, he starts becoming a Kafkaesque character obsessed with an insane goal. You could say it’s underdeveloped, but for the sake of this script he’s more loony and obsessed. And, sometimes, that’s all you need.

So unmotivated second act and quirky characters aside, there’s one thing I really like about this script. How the characters relate to one another, and the dialogue. Landis sets stuff up here really quirky, and sharp. It’s pretty delightful dialogue to read. And that for me, was made this script solid. It’s a sort of Beckett, absurdist twist that whines in and out as the script careens its way through the story.

Werewolf in London is not brilliant as a script. It’s a very decent story. It’s not doing anything that’s amazing. But as far as Werewolf films go, this is the best I’ve seen this week. Does more with the legend than Bad Moon Rising and actually creates a specific storyline, and American Werewolf in London it’s better than in pretty much every way possible.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
[X] - Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good

Isla Prospects: I can’t really see Isla as the nurse in this script, and there aren’t any amazing roles in this. But Jenny Agutter in the heyday of her hotness did play one of the main female characters in this. Nice.

What I Learned: When you give your character the objective they’ll try to achieve throughout the rest of the film, remember to clearly delineate what happens if they succeed and what happens if they fail. If it’s a pretty ambivalent situation, we start withdrawing because there’s no sense of imminent danger. And then, if the character waivers about what they’re supposed to do. We’ll draw out even less. Until the plot becomes a series of interesting dialogue and cool images. Like Werewolf in London.

Werewolf Week (#2 of 5)

2009-11-16T15:46:00.000-08:00

I actually think this is pretty cool for a 1997 poster

Genre: Horror-Comedy (It isn’t necessarily scary, and it definitely isn’t funny, but this’d make the most logical sense.)

Premise: A college drop-out Euro-tripping in Paris discovers his artsy uncle has died, and his assistant, Serafine, is not only lovely, she’s also a Werewolf.

About: The sequel to the original An American Werewolf in London was nowhere near as successful as the first film in the series.

Writers: Based on the John Landis original script, the script had three writers on it: Tim Burns, Tom Stern, and Anthony Waller. This excess in credits is normally the first sign of a poor script. None of these writers had very impressive credits though. Burns and Stern had both mostly worked on Freaked and Henson Hour, and Waller had two feature credits including one for Mute Witness. I guess it was an opening shot for them all.

What’s funny about this script (I actually read a pre-shooting draft which is slightly different than the filmed version) is that without placing the dating anywhere, I instantly knew this was written short before Y2K. It had that tragically hip and glossed over, shiny feel films did in the late 90’s. And I was hooked for the first two pages, I swear.

The thing about this thing is it’s a sequel to a film that existed sort of as an oddity to begin with. A sequel was certainly not merited. So suffice it to say, this film has no relevance whatsoever to the original. But, that being said it’s really not that terrible a script: the kid gets called to Paris, his uncle dies, he meets the assistant, falls in love with the assistant, turns out the assistant’s a werewolf. Showdown with werewolf.

It’s a pretty classic twist on a pretty time honored Werewolf structure, and that’s fine. The characters are modern and that’s okay too. The first act is very generic, and boring. But it’s mediocre in it’s badness. Not awful, just not compelling in any particular way.

And once we get to the meat of the film, there’s a few less cheesy jokes and more scenes heavy on action and the werewolves encounter in the story. The sad thing about this whole thing, which Bad Moon Rising is guilty of but to a much lesser degree is that the American Werewolf in Paris doesn’t have any greater reason for the film to be about Werewolves, besides the fact that the monsters look cool. But from what I understand in the reviews, the werewolves were CGI’d and didn’t look that impressive at all.

There’s this tendency in monster movies to ultimately fall into a simplistic good guys vs. monsters set up. This film is the grand daddy of them all. It throws character development and any larger driving force right out the window to focus on the monster. Topping off this crap-fest with a JURY sequence, and then an IT’S JUST A DREAM ending. I’m hoping they took this out of the actual film because it’s completely stupid.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[X] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good

Isla Prospects: Nope. No classic roles here. The love interest is foreign, and kind of quirky. Plus she’s a vampire. But definitely no missed opportunities.

What I Learned: Nothing positive. I think what I learned here, which may very well be the theme of this film is things in film shouldn’t exist without a purpose. Most things (the Werewolves, the plot, the characters) seemed to be devised only to appear hip and cool, but in the end the whole thing just seems very pointless.

Werewolf Week

2009-11-14T14:44:00.000-08:00

Werewolf Week Commences

Twilight II: A New Moon is coming out next week, and in preparation I thought I’d review a smorgasbord of Werewolf scripts. You’ll find a couple unproduced classics, a new spec script, and a few previously made films. There’ll be some musings on the sub-genre as a whole, and I’ll be making some wisecracks about some film luminaries. So definitely, don’t miss!

Bad Moon Rising (Werewolf #1 of 5)

2009-11-13T14:50:00.000-08:00

Motorcycle Werewolves: Been There, Done That

Genre: Horror

Premise: A group of motorcyclists, who are also werewolfs, murder a series of individuals in a small West Virginia town. (The sheriff is one of the first people to die and his son replaces him. A werewolf hunter, who speaks the ghost of his mentor, eventually comes to town and hunts down the gang. There’s the inevitable monster movie show down and unlike Hollow Man, this actually one works).

About: I couldn’t find the exact chronology of Bad Moon Rising, but I’m pretty sure it falls somewhere in the late 90’s. I first heard about it on an infamous top ten unproduced scripts list four or five years back. Consensus seems to be it was written purely as a spec.

Writers: Scott Rosenberg. High Fidelity, Beautiful Girls, Things to Do In Denver…Oh man, do I love Scott Rosenberg. His dialogue is mon juste. His characters sparkle with originality. He has a fixation with Warren Zevon. This guy’s every bit as competent as Shane Black or Tarantino.

I saw an interview with Rosenberg once where he said that plot was for sissies and that real men worked around characters. Bad Moon Rising doesn’t have a horrible plot, but it’s the characters in this thing that make it really shine. Oh man, does this guy know how to write good characters.
First off, he uses great names: Packard for a werewolf hunter, Ginny for a young black girl, Dakota for the hot motorcycle chick, Teddy for the sheriff’s son, Inkslinger and Vulture for guys in the gang. You see how each one of these names automatically gives us a persona and a vibe? Rosenberg is characterizing a lot before he even describes them.

Inevitably, if you’re going to have good characters at some point they have to expose info through dialogue that normally just wouldn’t. Either you rely on the humorously trivial like Tarantino, the banter of Black, or you can do what Rosenberg does which is use personal anecdotes at just the right time. A lot of stories are told in Bad Moon Rising, and the script veers in a bunch of different angles. But this is part of the charm of the story. It feels like watching an Altman horror film sometimes.

The other awesome thing is, Rosenberg celebrates the whole Lon Chaney-classic Werewolf-classic rock vein of Werewolfs. This script is fun. It’s not a straight plotline, and it’s not structured in a conventional linear Hollywood narrative focusing on one character but it’s highly enjoyable.

If you’re going to blame Rosenberg for something, though, it’s that he doesn’t do a hell of a lot of follow through with his characters. He sets up well, presents good problems, and then doesn’t really do much to make us feel like we see these characters through anything. Actually, this script feels awesome but unfocused. Like something Rosenberg might have written on a rush after he’d completed a Hollywood project.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities

X - Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: There’s Dakota, a pretty hot motorcycle chick with a sex scene but I imagined her being small town in a way I’m not sure Isla could pull of. But that’s okay. I highly doubt this ever gets made.

What I Learned: Rosenberg has a really cool trick he uses in the screen directions where he writes the persons name, then a space, then describes them. This really worked for me, and made the directions seem less tense and focused my attention to what was really important.
For example, rather than:

GWEN CROFT is 25. And ethereal. Airy, light, heavenly

Rosenberg writes

GWEN CROFT
Is 25. And ethereal. Airy, light, heavenly

It’s small, but it’s a cool technique. In general, Rosenberg’s screen directions are worth studying. They make the directions fun the read.

Logan's Run (Bad Sci-Fi #5)

2009-11-12T14:39:00.001-08:00

A 10 Year Old's Dream

Genre: Sci-Fi (Pure, true, straight up sci-fi. None of this I’m also an action film, I’m also a drama thing you see in a lot of recent scripts)

Premise: Logan, a “Sandman”, runs away from a society that kills off people over the age of 30.

About: The film won an Academy Award for Visual Effects. It was also nominated for Oscars in Cinematography and Art Direction. Also, it won the Saturn Award for Best Science Fiction Film, and was nominated for a Nebula Award for Best Script. Rocky won Best Picture that year. Ebert called the film "vast, silly extravaganza", but as evidenced by his hatred of Pasolini, John Waters and most of David Lynch, Ebert’s never been good at understanding or reviewing slightly weird or alternative films.

Writers: The script has one credited screenwriter (David Zelag Goodman) and is based on a novel co-written by two other writers (William F Nolan and George Clayton Johnson). Reading these people’s credits is like running over a litany of brilliance. Goodman co-wrote Straw Dogs with Peckinpah. Enough said. Nolan is the type of old regime writer who doesn’t have any Blockbuster credits but has a solid repertoire of smaller works (the Black Mask series, the Sam Space series, won the Edgar Allen Poe award twice, co-wrote Burn Offerings, and wrote the script that eventually became “The Thing”). And George Clayton Johnson (who looks like Alan Moore’s long lost brother) wrote the treatment for Ocean’s Eleven, the first aired episode of Star Trek, and the Twilight Zone episode’s Kick the Can (Speilberg did the film version of it with Scatman Crothers), The Prime Mover, and The Four of Us Are Dying. Wow.

Today’s my last day of bad Sci-Fi Week, and I caved. I reviewed a script that’s actually one of my all time favorite Sci-Fi films. It wasn’t unanimously received as great or classic by people, though, and was easily eclipsed by Star Wars the following years, but I love this film. I read a script a few drafts before the shooting draft, but it was virtually what I had remembered.
Is this film amazing? Not quite, but it’s pretty good and I hold a very special place for Logan’s Run in my heart. The character Jessica is the first time I ever remember being sexually attracted to a woman. And at the time, I didn’t know what sex even was. But if the English chick in the light green dress was there, it was a sure bet it was hot.
The script does a few things really well. It succeeds in the places where all the scripts I reviewed this week failed. Remember how Planet of the Ape ultimately had no larger meaning or point? Logan’s Run makes a really scary and thematic point about a society that promotes youth and buries its elderly. Everywhere you go, and every character you meet bangs this theme all the way home. Remember how Hollow Man was ultimately a monster movie without any larger driving thrust? Logan’s Run is terrifying because it manages to relate its main action to its main thematic point (by running he’s going to become old, if Logan is caught he’s going to be killed and the youthful society wins, and the subplots? Hell, even the minor threads about a cosmetic surgeon who makes people youthful and an old man living on the fringes of society draw us in because they’re original and they make the whole theme resonate even louder). Remember how boring the characters were in Arena? Logan is a pimp. He’s hilarious. I’ve never seen a character like him in another film. He considers having casual sex with every woman he meets, is some sort of solitary lone gunner figure, and has internal pains and questions I’ve never seen in another character (He was raised in a nursery and wonders what it’s like to have a real mother). And World War X’s pointless reliance on Sci-Fi gimmicks? Not here. Every alteration Logan’s Run makes on our accepted world is used for both a thematic and plot-driven point. In other words, this is high quality Sci-Fi.
Is it a perfect script? Not at all. The concept is a bit goofy, but if you accept that most sci-fi films aren’t exactly fare for being taken literally (Planet of the Apes, Night of the Living Dead, Star Wars) then you can move on. And it ends on a sort of overly utopian note which reeks of a Hollywood ending. My biggest complaint would have been I wish there would have been more sub-plots or other things to focus on. But really, I was pretty damn happy with it. Logan’s Run is definitely one of my top Sci-Fi scripts.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

Hot Rod (Good)

X - Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but they’ve been discussing a re-make since 1994 (if anyone has a copy of it, please send!) and Isla could knock the Jessica-6 role right out of the park.

What I Learned: Logan’s Run does a great thing. It commits the protagonist to an insane goal, and everybody responds to his objective with a mixture of skepticism, mockery, or laughter. As a result, the reader commits more to the character and his aim. It’s a great device for making us sympathize.

World War X (Bad Sci-Fi #4)

2009-11-11T13:57:00.001-08:00

Genre: Sci-Fi with a strong touch of Drama

Premise: In the late 40’s, after World War II, a reporter with an anger problem learns he’s part of a trans-dimensional conspiracy.

About: Written as a spec, represented by UTA with Benderspink (The Hangover and upcoming Leap Year most recently) attached to produce, there’s some big companies behind this thing.

Writer: Colin Trevorrow has sole writing credit on the script I read. He has several credits on IMDB, including “Gary: Under Crisis” which sounds vaguely familiar. He recently signed on to write Disney’s Pet Robots so apparently he’s doing something right.

Philip K Dick is a great writer. He uses weird, sci-fi plotlines and techniques to reveal unsettling facts about the conflicted personalities of individuals and the inherent chaos in group logic. Colin Trevorrow is no PK Dick. And even though he’s littered World War X with all kinds of time-traveling, people from the future changing the past, and eerie visions of an alternate future, none of these things exist for a larger or more looming reason. He’s utilized plot-lines without thinking about what they all add up to, what they mean. Dick was absolutely bat-crazy insane, but he always had a larger symbolic reason for his work. Trevorrow is flash bang. The events in World War X form a story, but I’m not really sure what he’s saying about the future, our time now, or life in general. And if you’re taking a large enough leap to ask people to imagine an alternate 1945, the very least you can do is provide a good reason.

That being said, I’m not going to try and reveal a thorough plot line of World War X. It’s so convoluted it’s stupid, but basically, a trouble reporter with an anger problem is led into a secret cult that tells him he’s part of a brotherhood that will fight for a soon to arrive prophet. Later he finds out the prophet is actually a time traveler terrorist from the future who inseminated a bunch in the past using his time machine so he’d have an army of crazy-ass warriors to defend him when he rose to power. That’s the main thrust. These twists are sort of crazy because Trevorrow makes the mistake of thinking by manipulating what we assume is correct in the story that he’s entertaining. When in fact, what he’s doing is confusing the audience and slowly withdrawing us from the little story that is present in World War X.

Others have said, more kindly that Trevorrow took on a subject that was too grandiose for his two hours. Carson Reeves called it Feature-itis. Now here’s what’s wrong with that. If this were an adaptation, or if what Trevorrow was trying to do had a heart behind his storyline, then I could see this point. But considering this is a spec from an original idea, Trevorrow flash-banged without a solid story core.

That being said, this is the most entertaining of the bad sci-fi films I reviewed this week. It’s not bad. There’s a story here. It works as a story. I wasn’t bored, but when I finished I was immensely dissatisfied.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

[X] - Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: There’s a main female role that’s kind of a love interest for the protagonist. This isn’t an Isla role. I think she’d do wise to steer clear of Sci-Fi or overly dramatic films.

What I Learned: Sometimes titles can be ridiculously misleading. While World War X sounds like a souped up version of Independence Day, in reality it was more of a weak Philip K Dick influenced film dealing with faked identities, alternate realities, and group delusion. As a result, when I watched this film I kept expecting a full out battle. I never found one. Resultantly, I was bummed when I was got to the 110th page and realized the story I expected was cooler than the story I had read.

Arena (Bad Sci Fi #3)

2009-11-10T12:05:00.000-08:00

Haggar V: Ninjas VS Cyborgs

Genre: A Sci-Fi Concept executed as an Action Film

Premise: A modern day group of soldiers stumbles into an under sea arena where Vikings, Nazis, Indians and Cyborg Armies fighting it out to the death. Don't go looking for subplots or minor stories or character development or anything else, you won't find it.

About: This script was picked up last year for an undisclosed sum by Summit (who did a bunch of crap for a long time until they produced Twilight and most recently did Astro Boy.) It currently looks like Jeff Wadlow (who directed some film called Cry Wolf, but more importantly is the nephew of Katie Couric) will be directing. This has Michael Bay-ish written all over it.

Writers: They're both first-time writers. English-bred, 39 year old Darren Howell (a tube driver) only has Arena as a credit on IMDB, and Toby Wagstaff (who by the name alone I'm going to assume is also English) has a couple miscellaneous credits, including one for writing. Essentially, these guys are two long-time dabblers who finally made a go of it. I'm not a huge fan of this script and I'm not necessarily sure how good they are at writing, but it's nice whenever first timers can crack into the system.

Alright, boys and girls. I'm gonna take a little break from listening to Teardrops by Womack and Womack to write this review. Arena....where do I begin? It's like a beautiful woman who can't make conversation. Scratch the surface and all you find here is nothingness.

Arena does something brilliant towards the end. Instead of veering towards the "this is televised, isn't it scary when it's the future and every possible nightmare you can think of will be available for audiences to watch?" it offers another idea why something would be set up like "the arena". That's smart. If you ask me, the messed up event as a tv show reached its zeinth with the Glaser-directed and de Souza-scripted Running Man. That film had the right idea, it got the concept out of the way early and then focused itself around the action. Arena, however, keeps wanting to step back every 10 pages or show and marvel at its concept, which just let me unimpressed with the ending at the end. I mean it's cool. And this trailer would be awesome. But the writers did not reinvent the wheel. You can't coast on a generic action premise that spisn off from a high concept idea.

So why'd it sell? It's an awesome concept. And that alone makes it a worthwhile. But the story is also executed in a worthwhile way. This isn't high art. But, there aren't any fun or cheesy characters like you'd find in Predator or any of the great high-concept action/sci-fi films from the 1980's. For the most part, the characters are pretty devoid of personality. Nobody really wins us over. There aren't lines that make you laugh out alot. This could easily be fixed with a rewrite, though, because the framework is certainly there.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
X-Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: There's a cyborg character in this film named Becca, and she's my favorite most original character in the entire thing. But, Isla would not work as a straight up action chick. So no, there are absolutely no Isla roles in this.

What I Learned: High concept can come in two ways: high concept plot and high concept premise. High concept plot is something like Splash or Big where the thrust of the movie is dictated by the premise: a man falls in love with a mermaid, a little kid is transformed into an adult. A high concept premise is something like Cast Away or Arena: a man stuck on a deserted island, an arena where various armies from throughout time fight. A high concept plot is more of a sure fire hit if it's decently written. A high concept can be decently written and still very much forgettable. That being said, I think Arena will end up doing decent box office because it's going to make for a great trailer.

Planet of the Apes - 2001 (Bad Sci Fi #2)

2009-11-06T13:04:00.000-08:00

Planet of the Apes 2001: Tutus? Oh Boy, Are They Angry Now

Premise: Sci-Fi Slapstick (as is anything with talking monkeys)

Writers: Oh man, the credits on this thing read like a family tree of hack screenwriters. Let’s see if I can get this right….

Adam Rifkin

(who write and directed Detroit Rock City….enough said)

Begat / was replaced by

Peter Jackson

(until he got smart and went back to Heavenly Creatures)

Begat/was replaced by

Oliver Stone

(who was on drugs and wanted to do something about the Bible Code w/ monkeys….)

Begat/brought on

Terry Hayes

(who wrote Vertical Limit and From Hell, which there are special spots in hell for)

Begat/was replaced by

Chris Columbus

(who wrote a script with monkeys skiing and playing baseball)

Begat/brought onMy friend/your buddy, the legendary schlockmeister Sam Hamm

Begat Was replaced by

James Cameron

(after Chris Columbus left to direct JINGLE ALL THE WAY, what does it say about a project when you leave it to work on JINGLE ALL THE WAY?…Cameron got smart and went back to Titantic)

Begat/Was replaced by William Broyles, Jr.

(who is a great writer…did Cast Away, Apollo 13 and Jarhead, says he only took the project on because it offered a lot of creative control, and I believe him!)

Begat/Needed Help From

Lawrence Konner and Market Rosenthal

(These guys have worked on more bad films than anybody I can name off the top of my head. If there’s a multiplex in hell, odds are these guys are raking it up….the even worse monkey movie, The Mighty Joe Young, Mona Lisa Smile, Mercury rising, The Beverly Hillbillies, Star Trek IV, Super Man IV, and The Jewel of the Nile)

If these were people mating, by this point we’ve have a hair-covered mongolid with buck teeth, five eyes. Rather, we have a film that was still being written while in the midst of shooting.
Speaking of …. wo would be interested in a Planet of the Apes script review marathon?

Premise: An astronaut enters a time warp and crash lands on a planet a thousand years in the future, which happens to be taken over by monkeys. This astronaut leads an uprising with the help of one liberal ass monkey, Ari, who if she was a college girl would be the kind who is vegan and dabbles in bisexuality.

About: The film made money, but when Tim Burton was asked if he wanted to do a sequel said he’d rather jump out a window. Keep in mind, I’m not reviewing the film (I’ve never seen it and after reading this never will) but rather, I’m reviewing the screenplay. The film did well at the Razzies, being nominated for Worst Remake and Worst Supporting Actors. I feel closer to Tim Roth, who after watching the movie twice commented “I still don’t understand it”. Seriously, does this even count as a film?

I used to like Tim Burton when he was good (up until Ed Wood) and how he’s completely made a joke out of himself “re-imagining” (aka re-shooting or…fumbling over his feet) film classics. I can say without any reasonable doubt that his Alice and Wonderland film will be abysmal. He doesn’t get the point of many of his films, and Planet of the Apes is absolutely the point in case.Now, before I talk about the thematic failure of this script, I’d like to say I don’t really dig the original Planet of the Apes. Don’t get me wrong, I see why it’s monumental and the idea was probably pretty awesome if you were a kid and didn’t give too much about structure, character development or thematic points. There are monkey that are humans and the humans are monkeys. This fails for the same reason Hollow Man does, there really isn’t that much else to go off of.

Air Force Captain, Leo Davidson, crash lands his ship, Oberon, on a distant planet. He encounters a bunch of human nomads led by Karubi and his daughter Daena and is capture along with the apes. Later he’s traded by Limbo, and purchased by Ari, the hippie chick who liberates him. Eventually this group of half monkey-half human-all outlaws goes up against the soldiers, Thade and Attar. That’s it. It’s the point of the original film all over again. Minus the interesting dialogue. Minus the shock value of the first time. Minus the anti-war message during the height of the Vietnam War. (Summer of 2001 wasn’t that turbulent).
This film is like that one friend who isn’t particularly bright, but is always trying to say something clever. Several times, there’s lines that made me go… OH now they’re going to introduce a thematic point to this or relate this to something or a character is going to change or something is going to happen that puts this film all into perspective. But no, Planet of the Apes never achieved meaning. If you’ve seen Spartacus, the original Planet of the Apes, or Gladiator this film is completely predictable in every angle.

That is it, except for the ending, which is nonsensical and makes you scratch your head and wonder what the hell’s happening. To give it away, Leo goes into another time warp and back to regular time, 2029, to discover monkeys have taken over the planet and rewritten history. I’m not really sure how this worked, and is totally a cop-out to any real ending but it’s crappy enough that it will probably be the only thing I ever remember a month or two from now.
So in conclusion, while films can sometimes be saved by lack of thematic point if the characters are interesting or the dialogue sparkles, this film is absolutely flat. It’s not terrible. I mean, it works. It’s just immensely unsatisfying and dull. It provides absolutely no thrills, though. And has no reason for existing.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

[ X ] - Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Helena Bonham: the poor man's Isla

Isla Prospects: I’ve often reflect that Helena Bonham Carter is a lot like Isla. Only paler, weirder, more creative, and more prone to dressing up as old women. Isla could have done this. It wouldn’t have made her a star, and I think she would have played the character for more laughs. But it would’ve given her one more mediocre film along the line of Wedding Crashers and Confessions.

What I Learned: High Concept without Theme is like a BMW without an engine. It looks pretty. Seems like it’d go really fast. But ultimately, ends up in the ditch by your driveway collecting dust.

Hollow Man (Bad Sci-Fi #1)

2009-11-05T19:33:00.001-08:00

T. Stearnes is back...

and he's mad somebody's been ripping off his poems for bad horror movies

Genre: Is Crap a Genre? If not, monster movie.

Writer: Former Nichols Fellow Andrew W. Marloe (who don't let that achievement fool you, is the hack responsible for End of Days and Air Force One) and Gary Scott Thompson (who brought you such films as K-911, TimeCop 2, and Knight Rider). Suffice it to say, high art was probably not first on the table when these guys sat down to work on Hollow Man.

About: The film tanked. The only positive review on record is by the fictional David Manning, who Sony basically created to give the film good publicity. It did, somehow magically, span a sequel, which I can assure you I will never watch. This sequel is probably due to the fact taht the film's worldwide gross was $191,200,000 and production budget was $90,000,000 so it appears to have made money.

Premise: A crazy ass scientist makes himself invisible. And then he goes ape wild!

I thought one time about making a film about Jesus Christ living past the execution and meandering through all sorts of historical events. But then I dropped it because while the idea was cool, it wouldn't really make for a great execution. Hollow Man takes this cool idea, hard to execute theme and blows it up a thousand times. I can just picture the pitch session:

PRODUCER: So do you have any ideas?
GST: "Uh...A guy who's invisible"
PRODUCER: "I love it! Here's a million dollars".

Seriously, this film has one idea. By the time you reach the 30 page mark, it's about as spent as my grandpa after forty five seconds of dry humping. A guy becomes invisible. Now there's a few ways you could go with that: a really cheesy porno where the guy watches women undress, a spy movie where the guy becomes a top government agent, or they could've even made Sebastian spy increasingly more and more on his girlfriend and his best friend. Instead, what this script does is spend 50 pages rambling on about how wonderful this guy is....and then has him go crazy and turns it into a monster movie ending where it doesn't appear that the survivors will live. You could squeeze all these ideas into about 14 minutes, but then you wouldn't have a movie.

The other thing that isn't squeeze into the movie is character development. Basically the guy who becomes hollow's girlfriend is secretly screwing his best friend. This was introduced in a way where I completely hated the girl, and when it came time to side with her in the monster movie ending I despised her and kind of wished the Hollow Man did go see her. She and this guy's best friend have sex about 90 percent of the time they're mentioned. Furthermore, not only do none of these characters have emotional archs (unless going stiry crazy is a character development), they're supposed to be scientists but talk and act in a yuppie hipster sort of way I don't think any real scientist (particularly ones who are working on government projects to make people hollow) talk.

But, credit is earned where credit is due. The dialogue isn't terrible, and the pacing is worth studying. But really folks, that's it. This film sucks. You can tell competent writers wrote it, which prevents it from completely sucking, but it's abysmal. I'm glad I only saw about five minutes of this film and then walked out of the room.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[ X ] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: I am thankful Isla will never have to appear in this film. It is unfortunate that Elizabeth Shue was in it. Poor Elizabeth Shue.

What I Learned: High Concept is awesome for about the first 10 pages, but if you don't have character archs or an interesting take on the idea it's all downhill from there. This script was over by the time you'd reach the opening titles.

And Now...For Something Completely Different

2009-11-04T14:08:00.000-08:00

Let Bad Sci-Fi Week Commence!

After some soul searching, I decided I was really catering to a niche market by just including unproduced specs. So in a market to please more people, and cover more of my favorite (and important films) from here on in at Hunting for Isla, a few things are gonna change!

From now, I'm reviewing Unproduced and Produced Scripts. Yes, I know this is alot on the plate and it could potentially get really overwhelming. So also from now on, we're going to have theme weeks. This is going to have plenty of goodies down the road for you folks (I'm planning a Razzie, an Oscar, a Nicholls, an Indiana Jones, a Star Wars and many other marathons) so without further adieu...let the games begin.

In honor of the 2012 release, I bring you bad Science Fiction week. We'll have a couple oldies, a couple recents, and a couple specs. There will be laughs. There will be tears. And the party has already started because we have the Tron guy.

The Stand

2009-10-28T12:41:00.000-07:00

Rospo Pallenberg: the fat guy to Romero and King's Hot Girls

Genre: Epic (I’d use Sprawling, but I’ve never seen that used as a genre).

About: Legend goes when King met Romero he handed him copy of The Stand with an inscription that read something like “I hope to work with you one day and maybe we can work on this”. To horror fans, this is like Batman and Superman teaming up. Legendary. The duo, of course, made Creepshow, which is not high art but a pretty enjoyable collection of short horror stories. Basically, The Stand proved too daunting too adapt into a single film. If you ask me, this was a futile challenge from the beginning. The Stand is a modern day epic. A modern day Lord of the Rings, and you saw what happened when they tried to adapt that into a single film. The Stand needs to be three films (The Outbreak, The Journey West, and The Stand). So, King couldn’t adapt it. Rospo Pallenberg was hired. (Apparently because of his Excalibur script, which is pretty forgettable. I remember the crucifixion scene from that film and that’s about it.) I don’t know how, but somehow, King and Romero loved Pallenberg’s script. (This is the equivalent of Batman and Superman letting some sissy ass superhero like Luke Cage into their group.) The studio had a falling out (Cause the script sucked? Cause nobody wanted to play these flat characters? Cause they got smart?) and The Stand was never directed by Romero. Instead, Mick Garris directed the miniseries with a script King rewrote from scratch. And while the miniseries is not a great adaptation, it sure beats the snot out of Pallenberg’s crapolific script.

Writer: Rospo Pallenberg….I really wanted to rip him to pieces, but he looks like my old French teacher so I’m going to take it easy on him. His credits include such illustrious films as “The Exorcist 2”, a thirteen year gap of no credits, and three recent films “Memoris of Hadrian”, “Vercingetorix” and “Sibriskiy tsiryulnik” I can only assume are foreign produced films. Now much fanfare has been made over Excalibur, and I think we can safely say it’s the only potentially worthwhile film Pallenberg wrote. But, the thing is, structurally and character wise it’s a piece of crap. It’s way too ambitious, doesn’t create reasonable story archs, and pretty much veers all over the place. And while I normally don’t agree with him, Ebert called the film “maddeningly arbitrary”. What a good way to describe The Stand script! On a positive note, he wrote The Emerald Forest (which Boorman also directed) which is a favorite of mine. But Excalibur and Emerald Forest are both really shoddy adaptations of novels, which entirely miss the point.

Premise: A super-flu with an insanely high communicability rate is released from a government lab and kills over 99.9 percent of the population. The survivors have dreams which cause them either to flock to either devilish Walking Dude in Las Vegas or the saintly Mother Abigail in Boulder, Colorado. Ultimately, there’s a showdown between the forces of good and evil to decide who will control the world: God or Satan.

I know, I know. I blasted Sam Hamm’s script for Watchmen yesterday, and I’m about to do the same. But, The Stand is my favorite work of literature. Ever. And I know that may place me in the group of 40 something women who light incense candles and read Stephen King to their dozen-some cats….but it’s so great. If I had been born a few decades earlier, I may have felt the same way about Tolkein’s stuff. But, this is the film that made me want to be a writer. I remember watching it secretly against my mother’s wishes when I was in third grade (wasn’t allowed to read King until I was fourteen years old). And I was blown away. I remember making a pact with God one night while taking out the trash that all I really wanted was to be a survivor in a Stand-like world. Weird, I know.
How the hell did Rospo Pallenberg get this job? I mean, really? Excalibur is not that great film. Pallenberg didn’t have that many credits. He doesn’t seem to get character development, the point of King’s novel, or even how to structure things with any talent. He’s not nearly as big a hack as Sam Hamm, though. (If Sam Hamm’s crap factor was an 8, Pallenberg’s is a 6) but he’s writing an adaptation of the master of horror for Romero, who directed several of the best horror films ever. This guy is playing in the big league. I mean, if Spielberg can get the best writing talent on the market, it only follows through that these guys can at least can mediocre writers.
I once tried to summarize The Stand to a friend of mine. And I failed massively. This story is so jam packed with details and plot events, it’s impossible to do it justice without writing several thousand words. Furthermore, I’m not quite sure if I should encapsulate Pallenberg’s mess of a story or King’s novel. Also, I don’t want to potentially ruin the novel for anybody who has yet to read the novel. (If you haven’t, let me do you a favor right now….http://www.amazon.com/Stand-Expanded-First-Complete-Signet/dp/0451169530) What I want to talk about instead is places in this script where Pallenberg fails massively. Like stumbles over his own feet fails. How King and Romero loved this script I have no idea (unless they were lying, which I would highly suspect cause this script blows donkey balls).
First off, The Stand is a surreal piece of fiction because it works on this idea that a flu could actually break out and kill off most of the population. This is creepy because he sets it up in a believable way and then goes full tilt boogie as he shows the population dying off. What Rospo Pallenberg does is gloss over the lethalness and the deadliness of this disease. He doesn’t even include scenes with people dying off. Without this, The Stand doesn’t really have an Act One. It has a set up. But it doesn’t make good on it’s promise of showing the entire country wiped out. And resultantly, it’s a whole lot less scary. Now, why couldn’t Pallenberg have included a few haunting scenes like this (from Excalibur):
“Dangling from the branches of a dead tree are a dozen dead knights of the Round Table, crows pecking at the rotting flesh in the chinks of armor. Perceval rides up, cries out in horror, and spurs his horse away.”
He kind of does similar things with the character’s nightmares. (There’s a really creepy scene with Fanny dreaming about the Walking Dude performing an abortion with an iron hanger). But we’d be just as petrified for these characters if he described the surrounding world in such scary terms.
And, how does Pallenberg reveal the super-flu outbreak and what cause it. At the end of the first act, Stu Redman holds a government agent at gun point until the guy through a series of ridiculous exposition tells all about the outbreak and what happened. (In doing this, Pallenberg loses two things….the perfect set up to the story, one sick guy explodes into a whole sick nation, and the tension of the government trying cover up the issue. For that matter, Pallenberg has characters talk and explain backstory through exposition in scenes which obviously would never fly (Redman basically tells Franny she’s a “gift from heaven”, there’s this goofy ass sequence inspired by the novel where Nadie talks about her first contact with the Walking Dude on a Ouija board which culminates in holding a message backwards up to a mirror…really Rospo? Really? Kubrick didn’t even get this right and you think you can?. And, the Walking Dude rambles on about what a bad ass he is which ruins the character’s intrigue ENTIRELY, he’s mysterious and people are always kind of guess these things about him.)
Also, Redman’s entire tension to go west is that he’s late and the group is already starting to move without them. Pallenberg glosses over this completely. For that matter, I don’t really think Pallenberg gets any of the characters. Pallenberg tries to make Larry Underwood both an asshole (which he isn’t at all, he’s just somebody caught up in stuff, his dialogue is excessively strong in the swearing) and has him pour his heart out to his dying mother 30 pages in (this ruins Larry’s entire character development, he NEVER has a chance to say goodbye to people which is what his central pain is as a person). Pallenberg misinterprets Tom Cullen (he’s simple hearted which is the whole reason he makes it as a spy in Las Vegas, see Melville’s The Good Confidence Man Rospo, he wouldn’t be having sexual innuendo laden conversations with Julie Lawry). Nick Andros is entirely skipped over as the Christ-like figure as the group. (So he becomes entirely forgettable, and Rospo gives Leo, the ferile kid Larry picks up, as having Nick’s telepathy gifts…we’re supposed to be condensing a plot not expanding). There’s absolutely no Glen Batemen or Ralph (who are two of my favorite characters in the entire novel) and the trip west….don’t even let me get started. It elevates the whole thing right into terrible. (I may have given it an Atilla rating, but not after the last twenty pages).
On her death bed, naming the people to send west, Mother Abigail includes one of the miscellaneous women, Stu, Larry and Tom Cullen (that’s right Tom Cullen, the mentally retarded guy, and Pallenberg passed on having one of the well developed characters for a bit player….yeah, cause that makes sense). Furthermore, when Stu falls he fights with Larry (who has no problem leaving Stu) and says he’ll kill him which skips over Larry’s character development ENTIRELY and turns Stu (who is supposed to be the central HERO of the group into a dick). Furthermore, Pallenberg explains through Mother Abigail earlier on that so many bad people ended up with the devil in Las Vegas because they weren’t smart enough (this skips over the point of The Stand entirely and what makes it frightening and politically relevant where people end up…..the point is not that people are either, but rather people flocked to whatever was most convenient and didn’t have the ability or wherewithal to see why the Walking Dude was evil….this is the whole brainwashed thing about the Patty Hearst thing and also Nazi Germany (remember all the swastika reminiscent patterns in the miniseries?) that influenced King in the first place. And Lloyd Henreid (whose whole point is he’s loyal to the Walking Dude to the end, which is kind of redeemable in a weird way, ends up speaking out about people being crucified and is punished by Flagg…not sure why Pallenberg needed to blend these characters either). Rospo is not nearly as incompetent as Samm Hamm (who makes me wonder how anybody could pay him money to write in the first place) and he does a decent job of combining characters, but he totally misses a lot of the more sophisticated points to The Stand and resultantly drops the ball with the film. Thank God Romero, or anybody else, didn’t direct a film off of this script because it would have sucked terribly and potentially ruined The Stand for generations to come. Thank God for that.

[ X ] - Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: Is it just me, or would Isla do a kick ass Nadine? Certainly not in this script, but if there’s a remake of the Stand in the next decade before Isla gets too old she could knock this role out of the park.

What I Learned: This is something I’m yet to master as a writer, and Rospo only really did well because King is the supreme master of it. Characters should each talk differently. Each with different dialects and euphamisms and manners of speech. I was taken aback by how this was pulled off during The Stand. (Although, Rospo can’t really do dialogue or at least he can’t in this script. When people aren’t exploding with exposition they’re relating to themselves with dialogue that doesn’t really feel nature and seems more like an attempt to ping pong through all the central points of the novel). Good dialogue with a lackbluster plot can be pretty good, good dialogue with a plot like the Stand can be killer. In places, this script approaches cruising level but stumbles after a page or two.

The Watchmen (Sam Hamm)

2009-10-27T13:00:00.000-07:00

Is it just me or does Mr. Freeze look like Dr. Manhattan's brother?

Genre: Action-Adventure (It's not nearly as slapstick or black comedy oriented as the comic. In fact it reads like a pretty bland genre piece in places).

About: The Studio wanted to do a Watchmen adaption since the late 80's when Moore's comic was still pretty recent. After Moore declined to risk turning his master work into a film, the studio hired Sam Hamm. (Why, I have no idea, his only credit to that point was Never Cry Wolf, which is entirely not related to this genre at all). Hamm turned in his first draft in 1988, claiming it was too difficult to condense a 338 page, nine panel a page comic into a feature film script (read under 150 pages). So Hamm did what any Hollywood writer does when faced with an umanageable situation, he completed discarded the original story line and all the things that made it wonderful and created his own story. Why not! What did Alan Moore know? He was only one of the best comic creators alive and had worked on pretty much every major DC hero. So Hamm threw in some random stuff about an assassination and a time paradox. Once again, why not? Everybody loves time paradoxes that make absolutely no sense. In one of their finer moves, Fox put the film in turnaround. And so it was, Watchmen entered development hell.

Writer: I assumed some Hollywood Hack had done this. Sam Hamm? Who the hell was that? And then I checked out his wiki page. Monkeybone....yeah that sucked! Tim Burton's original Batman....rip off of Mankiewicz! And then I saw it, one of my all time favorite films....Never Cry Wolf and I was reminded that yes, even talented writers can produce crap.

Premise: I'd been referred to Watchmen while in college when I was attempting to a story within a story, and from that day had great respect for Moore and the comic. This July, thanks again to the Pasadena library, I got a chance to finally the read the comic. And wow. Just wow. It's brilliant. Watchmen is one of the few things I can say I wish I read a decade ago. (I actually would be hard pressed to name anything else. And as anyone can tell you, I'm always reading).

It'd also make a great movie. It would have made a great movie if Gilliam had directed (it may not have been a success, but it would have been a glorious failure if nothing else. And although Gilliam was slated to direct this Hamm script, he hated it and called for many rewrites. Cause Gilliam although wacky is no fool). And the version that eventually made its way into theaters was pretty good, and at least for the most part it was faithful to the book. And then....there's this Sam Hamm crap. If I was Alan Moore, the complete crapiness of this script would have driven me to also not want to have anything to do with Hollywood or its adaptions of my films.

Now let's get down to business....

I don't know about you, but whenever I'm faced with adapting anything that's too long for my number of pages my first instinct is to start creating some random scenes that have nothing whatsoever to do with the main story line. Hamm blows the first 30 pages on a terrorist situation at the State of Liberty. It reads like a generic thriller. Boring dialogue. Little Watchmen personality. And it sets up Captain Metropolis and Veidt (Ozymandias...you may remember him as the guy with the cool looking cat). Dr. Manhattan, ever the eteranl douche bag, fails to stop the destruction of the statue and the media backlash results in the Keene Act, which outlaws superheroes and causes the group to disband.

Remember how Rorschach had voice over which cemented all these miscellaneous events together? It's completely gone. (Now, if it had been underwritten, I may have agreed. Moore does have a tendency to overwriter, but gone completely? That's just retarded. We lose a central narrative)

Alot like the actual film, The Tales of the Black Freighter is entirely absent. Remember the whole Sally Jupiter rape storyline by the Comedian and how Silk Spectre ultimately underwent a transformation? Gone. She's now a pretty static character. Actually, all the back story for Night Owl, Rorshach, and everyone else is gone. Why? Cause Hamm needed time to create a Statue of Liberty showdown and a subplot where Laurie/Silk Spectre gets lung cancer...duh!

Hamm spends the next ten pages on needless exposition....Rorshach learns of Kovac's death and discusses what this will mean with the former Night Owl. He then goes to see Veidt (who is much, much more likeable in this film...actually that's another thing, Hamm created no antagonist in this script. The quintessential superhero story without a killer bad guy...right.) Rorasch then, if you haven't had enough talkign scenes, discusses the matter with Dr. Manhattan Silk Spectre. (I know this scene is similar to what appeared in the actual movie, but it always seemed the weakest and most boring part to me. If I was gonna rewrite Moore with Hamm's recklesness, this is a part I might consider touching.)

Laurie splits with Dr. Manhattan and becomes romantic with Dan, Night Owl (who is hotter in this version and doesn't even suffer from erectile disfunction....too risque for Hollywood?) Laurie discovers she has lung cancer from her time with Dr. Manhattan (which makes his whole I'm leaving cause I don't give a crap about mankind thing even douchier...mankind is pointless, and guess what? You have a cancer. Bye!) The Manhattan TV interview now revolves around these allegations. He flees to Mars and recalls his backstory (which is actually pretty faithful to the comic...good job Sam!)

The middle part of the second act is pretty faithful. It takes it's time, and for the most part works. But then the team arrives at Viedt's Anartic base of operations, and the script goes from kind of bad to a complete disaster.

Turns our Veidt framed Rorshach, murderer Moloch, exiled Dr. Manhattan and killed Blake. He's planning to revise the timeline of history. (Cause obviously Alan Moore's showdown with Veidt dropping an ATOMIC BOMB on MANHATTAN just wasn't suspenseful enough. I mean, seriously. This is like rewriting The Sixth Sense so Haley Joel is a ghost. It makes no sense. It's not the plot. It's not what things are leading up to. Why do it?) Also, remember how Moore made this great point that some people had to die to save the world? Hamm's whole point of the time machine idea is to rewrite history. Was this some Back to the Future inspired frenzy? I liked this much, much better the approximately first five thousand times I saw this plot line used.

Veidt is ultimately vaporized. Dr. Manhattan regains his humanity and sacrifices himself by going back in time to avert the "accident" that turned him into a superhero, and Jon is given the chance to be with Jane/Silk Spectre. Furthermore, America doesn't win Vietnam, Nixon resign, the Cold War never happens, Super Heroes cease to exist.

The ending is particularly nonsensical and kind of ironic (read, stupid). Rosrasch, Nite Owl and Silk Spectre are transported to NYC where Watchmen is a popular comic. Crowds flock to see them dressed up like the fictional characters. It's dumb. Actually this whole thing is dumb.

Sam Hamm dropped the ball here. This is a horrendous adaption of a brilliant comic. And to think I love Never Cry Wolf (which as I reflect now is also way different from the published novel) and used to defend Monkeybone as a botched effort. Wow. Bad Sam!

[ X ] - Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: The Silk Spectre is hot, and Isla is hot. But in two very different ways. Silk Spectre is sly and seductive and very smooth. Isla is the exact opposite of this. (We all saw her in the Lookout. She can't pull off intelligent/quick if her life depends on it).

What I Learned: The Pallenberg draft of the to-be-directed-by George Romero copy of The Stand falls into very similar loopholes. (I plan on reviewing this script too one day, The Stand is one of my all time favorite pulp novels). If you're dealing with a massive story, don't be afraid to just break off a chunk of it and develop a script around that story. When writers attempt to create versions of Epic Novels, they inevitably try to ping pong their way through the Greatest Hit scenes and the end result is everything feels rushed and there's no breathing room. These scenes worked in stories because the reader could stop and take them in. Not because the screenwriter somehow managed to pack 10 of them within five pages. Stop. Breathe. Plot well. Stories are meant to be savored. Quick plots only serve to annoy and alienate your audience.

Batman (Mankiewicz Draft)

2009-10-26T16:39:00.000-07:00

Silver St. Cloud....could Isla pull it off?

Genre: Action-Adventure (Too Conventional for Burton, Too Light in Tone for Nolan, Too Serious for Schumacher)

Premise: Batman's origins are explained. As are Dick Grayson's. Silver St. Cloud (who you'll probably only know if you read the comics) is set up as the love interest. There's a villain arch involving The Joker, but he's really not that threatening so it feels more like a subplot with Batman's character study the main thrust.

Writer: In the late 70's and early 80's Batman's status was waning and several films were attempted (including Batman in Space....awesome!). Tom Mankiewicz (who did uncredited work on many of the Superman films) completed this script in June of 1983. It was announced with a mid 1985 release date with William Holden intended to play Comissioner Gordon and David Niven to play Alfred. The directors considered included Ivan Reitman and Joe Dante (when they were at their peak!) This would've been an amazing film. But the Batman film went into rewrite hell, until eventually Tim Burton pulled them out with a very different script.

I have a confession to make. My name is Joe Christmas, and I used to find Batman boring. I mean, dry. Dull even. That is, until I started going to the Pasadena library and read the Arkham Asylum comic. And if you haven't, please do. Now I love Batman. Love him. I'm quickly exhausting every possible issue at the Pasadena library and they have several dozen.

Batman is fodder for great films. But, alas, y ou find out really quickly there aren't that many original screenplays being written. This idea becomes even less true when you look at already established ideas. This script contains weaker, less developed ideas of all the following Batman films. You'll find material used by all following Batman directors in here.

The draft starts with the ever-reoccuring scene, the murder of Mr. and Mrs. Wayne in front of a movie theater before their young son, Bruce. The killer is later bumped off by his boss, The Joker. Bruce swears to seek revenge and spends the next twenty years becoming a man machine (Here's something I never saw in Batman films: Batman is a bad ass and has done everything. Normally, people go out of their way to make Bruce Wayne not seem like a pretentious jerk, but that's exactly what this guy would be in real life. A man who was smart and rich enough to do whatever he wanted).

Bruce begins to work as the Batman and forms an alliance with Comission Gordon against crime in the city. This guy running for office, Thorne, starts a campaign against Batman. Meanwhile, Bruce falls in love with Thorne's assistant, the smart and sexy Silever St. Cloud. (At times, this opening act felt dark and shady like a Frank Miller version, other times it felt like Mankiewicz was lapsing into another character (Bond maybe, he wrote the scripts for two bond films), and some other times everything was just a little bit too goofy.

But things get worse! The Joker comes to power and recruits the Penguin to help him. (A Burton reference to Batman Forever). Also, for some weird reason the Joker isn't described. At all. I get that this was probably for the sake of leaving it open to the director, but still!

There's a mid second act reveal The Joker has been hired by Thorne to do dirty work and provide a crime wave in the first place. And to deal with that pesky Bat, they turn him into an outlaw. (Nolan eat your heart out.)

So Batman quits. A few random events happens: the murder of the Flying Graysons and Bruce taking Dick Grayson on as his protege/pupil. (This is much better than the Schumacher thing in Batman and Robin, but at the same time Robin isn't really utilized to his top dollar. It's sort of rushed. Actually, this whole thing feels like Mankiewicz was trying to cram in as many Batman characters and ideas as possible).

Also, Silver St. Cloude is kidnapped by the Joker. (Another Burton reference).

The film ends with a showdown in a museum. (Remember the Burton movie? This scene stuck around in a less glorious form. Although, I wish the museum set pieces would've been better utilized).

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
X-Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: Okay. I'm aware one would need a time machine to pull this office, but Isla could totally nail a superhero love interest role, but it wouldn't be her greatest character or anything. Isla as Silver St. Cloud could be interesting, though, because both play the humor well. I think looks-wise, though, this is a terrible match up.

What I Learned: There are some great ideas here that totally don't work because they aren't brought up in very convenient times during the film. If Robin had been introduced any time for the midpoint of the second act, I would have totally been behind his character. But this was way too much too late. If you have a good idea, don't save it. Use it as soon as possible. Then incorporate it into the script. Otherwise, it'll just look tacked on.

The Far Side

2009-10-23T19:36:00.000-07:00

Just what is it that keeps the dog in there?

Genre: Comedy, Animated (I think? I hope?)

Premise: Man evolves. Animals and aliens attack man.

About: Written in the late 80's and almost produced during a change in studio management, Rudolph is a friend of Far Side creator, Gary Larson, and composed the script around a few hundred of the series' panels. (And little else. He didn't even think up much of a plot).

Writer - Alan Rudolph (directed Breakfast of Champions, and was an Altman protege, this leads to the exact type of weird nonlinear script The Far Side is).

When I was a kid, my older sister and mom used to read The Far Sider to one another and snicker. Honestly, I didn't understand them. I was too young? (Eleven-ish). That is, excluding the panel with the fat lady posting the missing dog flyer. That's comic brilliance. I never rediscovered the series. Although, as I read this script I finally found out this stuff is pretty hilarious. And more importantly, it's pretty dark. And dark comedy in my book is the best of its kind.

The story is a highly nonsensical one. Basically, cavemen evolved into regular men. Then, two neighbors, Henderson (Bellow reference? He goes into the jungle) and Murphy (Goes to outerspace). There's also a bad guy who's based on the missing link. Henderson's in trouble, but the missing link saves him. Then Murphy aggravates some aliens during his space travels, and the aliens attack Earth. That's the story. Summarizing it now, I can see a sort of thematic link: man reaches too far (jungle or space exploration) and trouble results. I guess that works?

The story isn't told in real dialogue, for the most part it's a series of juxtaposed snippets from the cartoon. At some point,I found myself stopping and reflecting how lazy and awkward a screenplay this was. For the better of hundred pages, Rudolph describes a Larson panel and then uses the dialogue equivalent to the cartoon's comment.

Now, I may be really wrong. But I just don't get it. Larson's work doesn't need to be adapted to film. This is the equivalent of someone trying to make an animated cartoon out of the Mona Lisa. A great piece of visual art, but best left on its one. And while it would certainly be amazing to see Larson's animated characters, Rudolph adds nothing more to this script. So I was pretty unsatisfied with Rudolph's script. Although there's a lot to laugh about here, I'd rather see the pictures as a carton and not as a film.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

X-Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: None. Maybe she could do voice over for one of the female characters, but it was be entirely unmemorable.

What I Learned: You remember that Lincoln quote about how you can fool some of the people some of the time? You can sometimes get away with no plot in some parts of the film, but a whole film of non sequitor dialogue is a little taxing. Even Borat had a sembelance of a plot, all The Far Side has is some weird thematic thrust. And frankly, that's not enough for a hundred some pages.