First thing’s first.  If you want to complain about the new look of the site, I’ve created a forum for you!  A lot of people have said to just go back to the old look but unfortunately that’s one thing I can assure you isn’t happening.  I’ve always despised the look of the site and while I’m clearly not an esteemed member of the design club, I’ll keep tweaking it until it’s acceptable.  If you’re a graphic design master and want to shoot me some tips, feel free to!  

You’ll also notice there are now ads on the site.  People have called me a moron for not monetizing the blog earlier and I guess you can say I finally came to my senses.  My adsenses.  Heh heh.  If you’ve spent countless hours here and always wished you could help out somehow, support the site when you see something that interests you. :)  It will definitely be appreciated.  

This week Roger starts us off with a Western.  I then review scripts for two movies that played over at Toronto, both of which are getting some early Oscar buzz (Oscar buzz?  In September??).  I’ll also review an enormous super-thriller that’s been kicking around development for awhile. And for those freaking out because I didn’t do Amateur Friday last week, fear not as I am doing one this Friday.  In my world, Friday is September 31st.  Now, here’s Roger with a review of a Richard Donner project.  Enjoy!  

Got a spec that was picked up recently for tomorrow’s review. I have a script from an Oscar winner that’s gone unmade for seven years which some people have called “amazing.” I have a recently sold thriller that’s landed one of Hollywood’s newest stars. I also have a script that’s reuniting some Hollywood legends. Gear up and get ready. It should be a fun week. Now here’s Roger with a script from Johnathan Lemkin.

Genre: Thriller
Premise: Jane Whitefield is a one-woman witness protection program who engineers the disappearance of people who are in danger. When the Las Vegas mafia hires a psychotic couple who use everything from sex games to attack dogs to track her down, she’s forced to leave her fiancé not only to protect her client, but to protect her new family.
About: From the Hollywood Reporter: “The project originated from a series of novels by author Thomas Perry that trace the fictional life and experiences of [Jane] Whitefield. Those novels include ‘Shadow Woman’ –- understood to be the basis for the film –- ‘Vanishing Act’, ‘Dance for the Dead’, ‘A Taste of Strawberries’, ‘The Face-Changers’ and ‘Blood Money’. Several writers have had their hand in the adaptation, including Jonathan Lemkin, Graham Yost, Ron Koslow, Elizabeth Chandler and Cynthia Mort.” Producer Mark Gordon and Paramount Pictures were courting Halle Berry for the role of Whitefield. You may recognize Lemkin as the writer of “The Devil’s Advocate.”
Writer(s): Jonathan Lemkin, based on the novel “Shadow Woman” by Thomas Perry
Details: Revised Second Draft dated November 26, 1997.

Man, I love me some Lemkin.

I went to the wayback machine and chose this script not because I had read the novels by Thomas Perry, but because the screenwriter was Jonathan Lemkin. Previously, I reviewed his excellent specs $$$$$$ and Howl. Both are great reads, one a Die Hard-esque actioner with a cool concept, and the other is probably the best werewolf script I’ve ever read. They’re both page turners, they’re both fun, and you walk away from both knowing that you just might have learned something from both a born storyteller and a craftsman.

The question is, Rog, is The Guide a page-turner and does it work as well as those other two scripts?

Indeed, it is a page-turner. I blasted through it pretty fast, and although I don’t think it’s as great as those specs I referenced, it is a prime example how deft plotting and fast pacing can create a narrative drive that will carry a reader to ‘The End’, whether they feel lukewarm about the protagonist or not.

To be honest, it felt like there was something missing from the protagonist, Jane Whitefield. It’s not that she felt underdeveloped, but, rather, she wasn’t nearly as interesting as the villains. In fact, it even feels like the villains have more page-time than the hero, and that’s not really a complaint but more like an observation. Hell, maybe it was even a conscious choice by the producer and Lemkin. I found the psychotic duo fascinating and unique while I found the hero, merely, I dunno, inscrutable.

In that way, it’s kinda like The Silence of the Lambs, where the villain is a monster so intriguing every other character seems to pale in comparison.

If you approach this script from that perspective, that this thing is really about the monsters, then you’ll definitely enjoy the read. If not, you won’t really discover anything new, especially if you’ve read a lot of thrillers. However, it’s still a solid read and there are lessons to be learned, especially if you’re interested in that magical thing we call ‘narrative drive’.

Who is Jane Whitefield?

She calls herself a “guide”, a one woman witness protection program. She helps people in perilous situations and uses her resources to extricate them from danger, assisting them with documentation and credentials so they can start new lives.

While her strength may be engineering these escapes and eluding the bad people who put her clients in danger, her flaw is her overbearing need to protect these people at all costs, including her own life. She’s a fierce chica with Seneca Indian roots, and much of her wisdom in the matters of evasion is woven with her knowledge Indian legend, folklore and history.

Pete Hatcher is an accountant for a Las Vegas casino who suddenly finds himself in the deep-end of the mafia hit-man pool. Seems like his bosses no longer trust him, and no matter what Hatcher does, his former employers see him as a loose end to their operation. When we meet him, he’s running from two goons and escapes into a theater inside Caesar’s.

Inside the theater, he rendezvous with Jane, who has set-up his disappearing act. After he exits the theater, he’ll find a black Ford in a reserved space. He’s supposed to drive to Cedar City, Utah, leave the car a couple blocks away from the airport, hop a rental to get there and he’ll find a prepaid ticket in the name of David Keller. He should get to Denver by dawn, where he can live safely under a new identity she’s arranged for him.

Hatcher literally becomes part of the sexy magician’s disappearing act on stage, and he vanishes right in front of the mafia goons in the audience and he finds himself on his way to Denver, all thanks to Jane.

Turns out Jane’s no push-over either. When cornered by the mafia muscle, she uses brains to bait them, and deceptive brawn to break bone and shatter cartilage to forge her own escape.

She makes it back to her headquarters in Deganawida, New York, where she accepts a marriage proposal from her old highschool beau, Dr. Carey McKinnon, with her client safe and sound in Colorado.

Or, so she thinks.

If Jane’s the escape artist, who are the hunters?

The hook here is having the ultimate guide and escape artist hunted by the ultimate serial killers. They’re eerie, uncanny. Super criminals who are so good at what they do you can’t help but wonder if they’re supernatural shape-shifters, an idea that comes into play towards the end when Jane and Hatcher are being hunted on foot in the Canadian wilderness.

Earl Bliss and Linda Thompson live in a gated community with security walls around their house, and when we meet them, Earl is feeding a bloodhound to his two rottweilers, “Halt! Aufhoren mit!”

“What the fuck are you doing?”

“I wanted to see how the two of them work when they’ve got something cornered. I think it could come in handy some time. I think I could beat two of them.”

Linda is naked in the kennel, a well-muscled machine, and she tells Earl, a big Okie of a guy, that he’s going to have to bury the thousand-dollar bloodhound. Inside their immaculate house that’s all stainless steel, Nautilus equipment and armory, they begin to make violent love when they get a call from Vegas.

Seems like they’re being hired, at the all expense-covered cost of seven hundred thousand dollars, to find Hatcher and make him really disappear. They pack handguns, tranquilizers, cuffs, listening devices, linesman’s phones, kevlars vests and a British Arctic Warfare suppressed rifle and head to Hatcher’s old Vegas condo, where they CSI the place and find very little.

They agree that Jane is good, and they sit on the balcony and begin to coldly deduce where Hatcher went. They break out a map, and go back and forth with possible theories and scenarios. I’m not gonna lie, it’s a bit chilling how quickly they solve how and where Hatcher went, and it’s at this point in the script where you realize that Jane is going to be hunted by Sherlock Holmesian serial killers.

In Denver, through clever subterfuge, they manage to get Hatcher into the trunk of a car, but thanks to local law enforcement, they’re forced to give up their bounty, but not without killing a police officer first.

Hatcher escapes and calls Jane, and that’s when our geography-trotting cat-and-mouse game begins.

So, what happens?

Jane leaves her concerned fiancé, who has just learned about her mysterious “consulting” business, and meets up with Hatcher in Wyoming.

At Hatcher’s apartment in Denver, our villains trace calls made on Hatcher’s landline and discover that whoever is helping him lives in New York. Earl and Linda split up. Linda heads to New York to investigate this elusive guide, and Earl stays on Hatcher’s trail.

While Earl hunts Jane and Hatcher with his big rifle, attack dogs, and roided-lackey Lenny, Linda, through social engineering, disguises and computer hacking, discovers who Jane is and that she has a fiancé.

She purchases a house in Carey’s neighborhood and befriends Jane’s fiancé. The plan? Well, Jane’s client list is going to be worth serious money to our two hired killers, and she’s going to twist him to find Jane’s whereabouts so they can torture her, get the list, then dispose of her. The fiancé is Linda’s card in the hole, in case things get dicey.

And they most certainly do, as Jane and Hatcher learn that these two will never stop until they’re both found, so the hunted must make the decision to become the hunters. What follows is a tense game of survivor as Jane, on foot in the Wyoming-Canadian wilderness, has to figure out how to best Earl, his weapons, his dogs and his man-servant, Lenny.

If she’s able to do that, she has to make it back to New York so she can save her fiancé from the other half of the psychotic duo who has discovered all her secrets.

Does it work?

It’s a fun little thriller that kept me reading till the end, mostly because I wanted to see if Jane was going to survive this whole Earl and Linda ordeal. I was more interested in seeing if she would save her fiancé rather than Hatcher, because those were the emotional stakes of the story.

While there seemed to be impossible odds and Linda and Earl set-up some tense traps and scenarios, some of the escapes seemed pretty circumstantial or pat, a little too easy for the fast-paced plot. These include police arriving to mess everything up, mistaken targets and, yes, bear attacks. Well, the bear attack thing is pretty cool and its woven into some character stuff with Jane and Native American legends, but still, what can you do?

All in all, a solid thriller for those who enjoy crime and detective stories, but this is a tale where the monsters outshine the heroes.

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Heroes are sometimes only as interesting as their villains. I wasn’t that intrigued by Jane Whitefield. A character that can escort people to safety like Arnold in “Eraser”? Perhaps she has a caretaker and God-complex, but it’s nothing that gets me excited. However, psychotic trackers that are as good at finding and killing people as Sherlock Holmes is at solving crimes? Suddenly, I’m interested. In this case, it seems like a wise move to give the antagonists just as much screen and page-time as the protagonist. For your own scripts, ask yourself who’s more interesting? The hero or the villains? How do you find balance between them? Sometimes, you have to make your story as much about the bad guys as you do about the good guys.

Why a star (almost) chose to play this role: Jane Whitefield is a gal that shepherds people out of impossible danger and situations to havens of safety. She’s playing God. But, I think the movie-stealing roles here are for Earl and Linda. They’re psychotic villains in the vein of Hannibal Lector, Chigurh and The Joker. They genuinely scare and unsettle.

A question I always like to ask people in the know is, “What kind of character should you write to give yourself the best chance to attract an A-List actor?” The reason I ask is because there’s no quicker way to get your script sold or made into a movie than to attach a star. Chances are that manager, agent, or producer who’s reading your script right now is wondering, “Who can I get to play this part?” Unfortunately, so far, nobody’s given me a clear-cut answer. Maybe that’s because actors, like anybody, are all different. They have different interests, different needs, different tastes. But that doesn’t mean we can’t find commonalities in their choices. Maybe, if we can identify these common factors, we can write scripts that have a better chance of selling.

Now there’s no perfect way to go about this so this is how I’m gonna do it. First, we need to agree on what an A-List actor is. An A-list actor is someone who can open a movie to at least 20 million dollars on his name alone. People go to see the latest Denzel movie. People go to see the latest Will Ferrell movie. These are actors who get you to open your wallet. Shia LaBoeuf’s name can certainly scrounge up enough money to make a low-rent thriller, but no one out there says, “Man, I gotta go see the latest Shia LaBoeuf movie,” so he and other actors of his ilk are out.

I also needed a systematic way to choose the roles I’m going to break down. So what I’m going to do is take eleven A-list actors and dissect their last starring role. I know some of you are going to whine about the actors I left out but with 25 A-List Actors, I had to cut a few folks. These eleven represent the actors whose roles I know best and therefore can give the best breakdowns of.

Also, I am quite aware that actors sign onto movies for reasons other than the character itself. I think it’s a safe bet that Leo wanted to work with Christopher Nolan bad enough that he would’ve made a movie with him as a deaf librarian trapped in a meat locker. But even in cases such as these, it’s likely that the actor shaped the character into a part he wanted to play. So that character is still relevant to this discussion. Let’s not waste any more time. Here are ten stars, plus one, with the last role they chose to play and why.

Actor: Will Smith
The movie: Seven Pounds.
The part: A gritty role where a man wants to commit suicide to donate his organs to seven needy individuals.
Why he likely chose it: At first glance, this part simply seems like an opportunity for an actor to emote. He gets to cry, he gets to look depressed. It’s a serious role that on the surface gets an actor some street cred. But if we dig a little deeper we find something interesting: Smith is playing a role where he sacrifices himself to save others. Can you think of a more heroic act than sacrificing your own life to save other people? This may sound crazy but actors have big egos and what better way to massage that ego than to play God, which is what Will Smith is doing here.

Actor: Denzel Washington
The movie: Book of Eli
The part: A loner delivering the last bible in a dangerous post-apocalyptic world.
Why he likely chose it: Actors like to be the badass. They like to kick ass. And they like to look cool doing it. What’s cooler than a loner who cuts down his attackers in samurai-like stylistic flourishes? But that’s not the only thing going on here. Denzel’s character rarely speaks. Now younger actors always want a lot of lines. They equate more lines with more screen time. Older actors, particularly A-listers, like to occasionally tackle roles where they have very few lines, the reason being that it stretches their acting muscles. They have to act with their eyes and their bodies, which is much harder to do. Oh, and not to be outdone by Will Smith, did you notice that Denzel is also playing God? He’s delivering the bible in order to save the world. How much more heroic can you get?

Actor: Tom Cruise
The movie: Knight and Day
The part: A mysterious super-agent who must include a woman on his mission when he mistakenly involves her.
Why he likely chose it: First of all, actors love to play spies. The reason for this is that spies are inherently conflicted. They’re always lying to everyone. They’re always having to keep secrets from the people closest to them. That inner struggle is very appealing to an actor. On top of that, Cruise’s character is a cape short of a superhero. He’s capable of superhuman feats – jumping on cars, leaping out of planes, killing dozens of enemies without breaking a sweat – What actor wouldn’t want to play someone so badass? And the cherry on top? The role allows Cruise to be charming and funny, creating the ultimate movie star role.

Actor: Brad Pitt
The movie: Benjamin Button
The part: A man who ages backwards.
Why he likely chose it. Well in this case, we know exactly why Brad Pitt chose this role, as he’s talked on record about it numerous times. He chose the role under the stipulation that he get to play every single part, from Benjamin in his 80s to Benjamin as a baby. In the end, Fincher didn’t let him do this – but you can bet he told him he’d be able to. Out of all the characters I’m covering here, this one is probably the most unique, but it’s clear why Pitt chose it. It’s the ultimate acting challenge – playing a person at every age of their life. What actor wouldn’t be interested in that?

Actor: Angelina Jolie
The movie: Salt
The part: A CIA officer who’s accused of being a Russian spy.
Why she likely chose it: Again, we have another spy role. So the reasons for choosing it are similar to Knight and Day. The conflict of lying to those closest to you. The fun of performing superhuman acts of heroism. Indeed, it’s not surprising that Cruise was once attached to this role. It’s also of note that the actress gets to play a female part that isn’t typically cast for females (and in this case, was actually written for a man). I think that appealed to Jolie in an “I can do that too” way. The one difference between this and the Knight and Day role is that there’s no humor here. But that’s because Jolie doesn’t have a sense of humor. :)

Actor: Johnny Depp
The movie: Alice in Wonderland
The part: The Mad Hatter
Why he likely chose it: First off, you’re playing an iconic character. Every actor wants to play an iconic character. But outside of that, Depp’s reasoning was probably similar to Pitt’s. It’s another “ultimate acting challenge.” In general, actors like to play characters who are mad/insane because it allows them to go crazy with the character. Well The Mad Hatter’s the ultimate version of this. He’s got “mad” right there in his name! So to be able to have the latitude to go batshit crazy and challenge every fiber of your acting muscles is, indeed, the ultimate challenge. Also, a character this wacky and different doesn’t usually present itself in mainstream fare, so when it does, actors want to snatch it up. (see also: The Joker)

Actor: Leonardo Dicaprio
The movie: Inception
The part: A criminal who builds dream worlds in order to steal from others.
Why he likely chose it: More than most actors out there, Leo values the character arc. He wants to dig into a character and resolve some internal problem just as much as he wants to resolve the outer one. Indeed, it can be argued that the inner journey here is more important than the external journey. Cobb must come to terms with the loss of his wife before he can achieve his goal. Huge portions of Inception are given to his character battling this problem – most of which were ordered by Leo himself. Also of note is just how tortured Cobb is. Tortured characters always appeal to serious-minded actors as a lot of actors are tortured in some way themselves.

Actress: Sandra Bullock
The movie: The Blind Side
The part: A well-off wife who takes in a troubled homeless teenager.
Why she likely chose it: To this day, I don’t know why people liked this movie. I also have no idea how the role won Bullock an Oscar. The character isn’t a particularly complex one other than that she speaks with a southern accent. What I can gather is this. Women are more inclined to help those in need than men. For that reason, I can see why this role would appeal to Bullock. She gets to save someone who otherwise wouldn’t have been saved. Ahhh, wait a minute. Maybe there’s more to this than meets the eye. Not unlike our friend Will Smith in Seven Pounds, Bullock is *saving* another human being. Maybe roles really are a chance for actors and actresses to massage their egos and play God. Before I get hit with a blind side myself, it should be noted that women rarely get offered roles where they’re not dependent on a man in some capacity. So actresses are going to jump on these roles when they pop up.



Actor: Steve Carrel
The movie: Dinner for Schmucks
The part: An obsessive clingy mouse taxidermist.
Why he likely chose it: In most comedies, there’s the straight guy and there’s the crazy guy. The more innovative you make your crazy guy – the more likely an A-list comedian is going to want to play it. Remember, there’s not as much range in comedy as there is in other genres, so comedians often play the same role over and over again. They yearn for something different. This role is different in that it’s not a character who’s overtly funny (a la Jim Carrey in Liar Liar) but more weird. Getting to play someone strange and “off” is probably a big draw to a comedic actor, because the character has more going on than the typical “Look at how funny I am!” character.

Actor: Matt Damon
The movie: Green Zone
The part: An officer in Iraq looking for WMD’s.
Why he likely chose it: It’s no secret that Matt Damon is a political guy. He forces it down your throat whenever he opens his mouth. So I’m guessing that was a big factor in why he chose this role. He basically gets to live out his dream – being the guy who *literally* discovers that there are no WMDs in Iraq. But that’s not all that’s going on here. There’s another trait that A-listers love in a character: The “My way or the highway” character. Characters that stand up to authority or refuse to follow orders will always appeal to actors because most actors are rebels themselves (they all rebelled against more conventional career choices when they gave acting a shot). You’ll notice that a lot of Matt Damon characters are like this, starting all the way back with Good Will Hunting.

Actor: Ben Stiller
The movie: Greenberg
The Part: A formally suicidal man who moves into his brother’s house.
Why he likely chose it: A lot of our funniest actors are also the most tortured. Judging by the roles Stiller plays outside the comedic arena, I’m guessing he’s one of these people. Greenberg is all about a character who hates the world around him, hates the people around him, hates his own life. He complains and whines about the most mundane of societal etiquettes. My guess is that Stiller is using this character as a surrogate to deal with similar feelings and frustrations. Indeed, a lot of actors use their roles as therapy, as a way to tackle things that they haven’t been able to resolve in their personal lives.

CONCLUSIONS
One of my biggest weaknesses as a writer is not seeing my story through an actor’s eyes. I just try to write the best story possible. That’s a problem because your script usually doesn’t get sold or made unless it has an A-List attachment. So you have to ask yourself when writing a script: Is this a role an actor would want to play? I’m not sure we can make any universal conclusions here, but I did pick up on some trends that might help us answer this question.

First of all, the role has to be challenging in some capacity. True, many of these actors are slapping down product in the middle of the summer where mediocrity reigns supreme, but that doesn’t mean they want neutered down roles. These thespians have gotten to the top of the heap by playing dozens if not hundreds of characters. They’re looking for something new and different. Brad Pitt plays a character not only at many different ages in his life, but plays those ages on a reverse timeframe. That’s challenging stuff. Denzel Washington plays a character who rarely speaks, who emotes only with his eyes and his actions. That’s a challenge. DiCaprio operates in a dreamworld where he’s imprisoned his wife. Every time he then goes into that dreamworld, he’s faced with a sea of conflicting emotions.

Next up, I think your character needs to be heroic. A lot of these characters are saving other people. I hate to state the obvious but actors are very egotistical. They want to play God and save others. There’s nothing more heroic than that. Just remember, heroism doesn’t always mean stopping an asteroid from hitting earth. It can mean delivering the last bible across a post-apocalyptic U.S. It can mean committing suicide to have your organs save seven other people. Whether you’re saving a nation or saving others, look for ways to make your characters heroic.

The last thing I noticed was that characters should have something going on inside of them as well as outside. Running around shooting people is fun but it’s not stretching any acting muscles. You gotta give’em some toys to play with upstairs. Benjamin Button has an ongoing physical transformation as well as having to deal with the realities of being different from everyone else. Denzel Washington gets to shred people into sushi yet must learn to open himself up to others. Tom Cruise gets to fly around on cars but still must learn to be selfless before he can find happiness. Note how in two of these cases (Cruise and Washington’s) the internal stuff is tied to the character arc and in Benjamin’s case, it’s more of a general internal battle that never arcs. That’s fine. Whether you’re arcing your character or not, at the very least, give them some kind of issue they’re struggling with internally.

Now by no means is this a conclusive study. The sampling is too small. I encourage you to look at some of your own favorite actors, the ones you envision playing heroes in your scripts, and break down their last ten roles like I did here. See if you can find any patterns in their choices. That could be the key to making them say yes to you.

The most important thing I take away from this is, before you write a single word in your next screenplay, ask yourself if an A-List actor would be interested in playing the hero. I believe this is such an important element to a saleable screenplay that from now on, I’m adding a new feature to my reviews. If the script I’m reviewing has an A-List attachment, I’m going to discuss why that A-Lister probably took the role. Now what are you waiting for? Get back to writing.

Last week kinda sucked. Nothing even remotely captured my interest. But this week promises to be much better. We have a project with Hollywood’s new bad boy attached. We have an article by yours truly about one of the top 3 things that determine your screenplay selling. We have a really funny comedy that caught me by surprise. And on Friday I review a script that may get an impressive. I haven’t determined what to rate it yet but it’s easily the purest fun I’ve had reading a spec in awhile. Also, we’re going to introduce a new feature in the reviews which will be revealed in that Wednesday article. So I’m anticipating good vibes this week. To start us off Roger’s found himself a copy of a recent Relativity pick up…Goliath. Take us away Roger!

Genre: Action-Adventure, Historical
Premise: When the Mycenaean army surrounds Jerusalem, a young shepherd must accept his divine destiny as king if he wants to save not only his family, but the nation of Judah. But first, he must defeat the elemental force of violence known as Goliath.
About: Goliath sold to Relativity Media back in July. I’ve never heard of the writers before, so I assume they’re tyro scribes and that this is their first big sale. I did some poking around and learned that they were quarter-finalists in the 2005 Scriptapalooza Competition with their script, Our Man Lilburne, and that McKay was a semi-finalist in the 2006 American Zoetrope Screenplay Contest with The Halloween Party. They’re repped by Kaplan/Perrone and UTA.
Writers: John D. Payne & Patrick McKay

This script mysteriously appeared in my hands the other day, and somehow, made it to the top of the pile. I hadn’t heard of it, but was immediately intrigued. I’m no scholar on Judah or the Old Testament, but you could say, from an early age, I’ve always been interested in King David. See, I was raised in the South, and for much of my early life, my parents made me go to Sunday School. I’d rather not get into my thoughts on religion or faith on this forum, but David has always fascinated me. I’ve read a lot about him; I’ve read a lot of stuff written by him. And, I’ll just leave it at that.

The title made me curious.

Did someone write a script about David and Goliath? Or just Goliath? My first thought was, “Wow, this is probably really lame.” So I cracked it open and my expectations were immediately shattered. This thing boldly opens. It feels like a movie with no credits. Just the sickening crunch of bone and a body hitting the ground and being dragged to a mass grave full of dead gladiators. There’s a scarred behemoth responsible for all these deaths, and we meet this war machine as he makes quick work of three of the ancient world’s most bloodthirsty combatants.

These writers aren’t fucking around.

In two pages, they destroyed the pre-conceived notions I had about horrible faith-based movies and the images burned into my brain from Southern-fried Sunday School and those flowery illustrated bibles and their stories therein. It’s a trachea-extracting intro that reads like it was written by a veteran scriptwriter. It felt like one of those cut-scenes from God of War where a Cyclops, a Heavy Metal-inspired nightmare of flesh, is just flattening men with his big club. Because of those first two pages, I was hooked.

I needed to know more about the vision contained within the next niney-eight pages.

Who is Goliath and what does he want?

Other than being a monstrous giant whose flesh is marred with tally marks of all his worthy kills, he has the mind of an archaic philosopher who knows that he’s the personification of violence. Like the Joker in The Dark Knight or Chigurh in No Country for Old Men, Goliath is a force of nature that this region of the ancient world reverently fears. While religious texts might say his height is anywhere from six and a half feet to nine-feet tall, imaginations must wonder if the giant’s mass was some type of physical anomaly.

I like how the script handles the origin story. It’s twisted, a hint of the supernatural melded to the motivation of revenge. It’s mythic.

The mentor in the script says, “He is more a curse than a man. One created by our people.” During the Judean conquest of Canaan, a regiment of soldiers defiled the sole survivor, a beautiful woman. “Eight months later, she died in child birth, bearing a son three times the size of a normal child.” Goliath had not one father, but a hundred. He was forged with their hatred in his mother’s womb, and he lives his life as an honorable killer, preparing.

Preparing to exact justice for her dishonor.

And the ultimate target for his revenge?

The future king of Judah.

David.

I don’t get it, Rog. What makes David so special?

You’re not the only one.

Even his own family doesn’t understand his significance. He’s one of many shepherd’s sons, the runt of the litter who, compared to his brothers, is always overlooked. His own mother mocks him for not being ambitious. In fact, he spends most of his time out in the pasture playing his harp instead of tending the flock.

While young David may not find favor in the eyes of men, in the eyes of his God it’s quite a different story. In the bible, the story goes that the Israelite God no longer favored their current king, Saul. So the prophet Samuel comes along and chooses the least-likely of Jesse’s sons, David, and proclaims that this is God’s choice for king. Out of all the men in the Judaic bible, David was a guy who became known as a “man after God’s own heart”. He became such good friends with the Almighty, that God, in the New Testament and presumably for the rest of eternity, referred to his own son made flesh, Jesus Christ, as the Son of David.

That’s how big of a deal the guy became.

Goliath is interested in David because he knows he will prove a challenge. To a monster that has never met his match, he is interested in fighting a guy who supposedly carries the protection of a god. In slaying David, he will slay an entire people — the Judeans who defiled his mother. And, in doing so, he will humiliate and mark the death of the Judean god.

Enough scriptural context! What’s the damn plot?

Some Mycenaean emissaries, on the warpath to kill David, who according to prophecy threatens their empire, recruit Goliath into battle. Since he finds the practice of killing for money deplorable, he joins the Philistine Dagon-worshippers not for riches but for the chance to face a worthy adversary.

They ravage the countryside around Jerusalem, slaughtering the Judeans and blinding David’s pal, Ezra. David rescues his buddy and they flee into Jerusalem, which has protective walls but is a city that makes the modern slums of Jakarta seem like a five-star resort.

At the House of Judges, the leaders of the twelve tribes are freaking out. Although they outnumber the Mycenaeans ten-to-one, they are a nation divided because they lack someone who can unite and lead all the tribes into battle. It’s a siege and they know they’ll only last so long before everyone in the city starves to death.

King Saul, a porcine man that the Judges don’t respect, decides to visit the enemy camp via royal chariot to inquire about their demands. King Saul suspects that they’ve come to take the Ark of the Covenant (the ultimate war trophy), but instead, he discovers they have an odd request.

It’s disarming.

Grant Goliath unfettered access to their city so he can find the boy who would be the king whom threatens their empire.

What if Saul refuses?

If anyone interferes with Goliath, after three sunsets, the Philistines will crush Jerusalem.

So Goliath is released into Jerusalem, where he goes on a killing spree, executing any and all young shepherd boys that might be David.

Goliath’s only opposition is a secret society of paladin warriors, a band of Dirty Dozen-like soldiers led by Caleb, whose sole purpose is to protect David. There’s a crazy chase through the city as Caleb rescues David and introduces him to The Order of the White Stone.

David can’t believe the news that he’s the rightful king of Judah, and wishes to go to the desert and find Samuel so that he can nullify the prophecy. David is just a shepherd. He doesn’t want this responsibility.

His first order of business is to rescue his family, so he convinces the Order to rescue his family from the House of Judges, which doesn’t go all too great. Goliath chases them through Underground Jerusalem and a shit-ton of people die valiantly whilst trying to protect David.

Goliath chases David into the desert, where more people die. David eventually learns about his true destiny from Samuel the Prophet, and there’s a chase back into Jerusalem and a quest to retrieve pieces of the sacred tablets from the Ark.

Along the way, there’s a crown jewel of an action sequence that has a lot of fucking lions in it.

The script builds up to the famous duel between our two main characters, and yes, it is a doozy. Combining the intimate scale of the mano-a-mano fights in Gladiator and the Let’s Revolt attitude of Spartacus, the final pages are pretty darn satisfying.

Does it work?

Indeed, it does. The pacing is that of a chase movie, and the set-pieces seem like they could belong in a Jerry Bruckheimer movie. It’s a fun read. The theme is pretty epic, familiar but universal, but what makes it shine is the execution. For someone who has read the bible, it was fun to see the writers create a sort of Old Testament primer.

My only gripe is that it lays the Joseph Campbell on pretty heavy. I mean, as a scriptreader and writer, I prefer it when this stuff is more subtle. If it’s possible for formulas to be on the nose, then stories that use prophecy as a major plot device are a prime example. We’ve seen it a thousand times. A literal prophecy declaring that some ordinary person is going to become a hero and save the world?

C’mon! It’s familiar, which is good, but sometimes there’s too familiar! When someone in the general audience can think, “Oh, like in The Matrix?” Then you’re in too familiar territory.

And, unfortunately, all of the Order of the White Stone stuff falls in this realm. It works, but as a reader, I’ve seen it one billion times. I see something like that and I see the writers revealing the gears turning in their heads. They reveal their secrets, methods and reference material whenever that happens.

Luckily, I got thirty-three pages into the script before that happened, and it was the only part that felt like a miscalculation. Why not go for something more fresh?

This sounds kind of like a faith-based film. Is that assumption correct?

Thanks to that Mel Gibson snuff flick that came out a few years ago, Hollywood discovered that there’s a huge market for faith-based movies. Hell, it’s proven that many of them don’t even have to be good, as long as their audience connects with the message. Which may be good enough for the seventy-year old Georgia couple who purchases tickets for Fireproof, whom have no idea that Kirk Cameron used to star in a classic tv show where his best friend was a character named Boner (Boner!), but to the rest of us who rolled our eyes at The Blind Side, we may demand something more, I dunno, good.

I think something like The Book of Eli aspires to create a new standard for faith-based movies, or that’s at least the way I saw it when I read the script. When I watched the movie, I even remembered that Denzel associates himself with Christianity.

In any case, Goliath seems to be in the vein of this new standard, which somehow smuggles in a perceived truth in an original story that can appeal to even the most jaded movie-goer. It entertains first, and delivers a message second. It’ll draw in the Bible-thumping hordes and the sword-and-sandals demographic, and it’ll do so because it’s pretty fucking good action-adventure storytelling.

It’s probably more 300 than Braveheart, and script-wize, it’s more Galahad than Medieval, but Goliath will appeal to fans of all four. It’s a blood-and-guts Bible Story Remix, so don’t be surprised if it even appeals to non-fans who get their movie recommendations from some guy brandishing a bible behind a pulpit.

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[xx] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Smuggle in your message. Smuggle in truth. Your message, or your truth, is just your theme. Firstly, and above all, your story must be entertaining. And, it must be good. You’re telling a story, not an idea. You’re telling a story, not a theme. Whatever idea you have, whatever theme you have, hide it. Hide it underneath your story. Hide it in the hearts of your characters. If you aspire to be a screenwriter, you’re aspiring to work in Hollywood. In Hollywood, it’s like Martin Scorsese says, you’re gonna have to smuggle in the truth. You’re aspiring to work in a trade where commerce is the bottom line, not art. You’re gonna have to learn how to tell commercial stories. But rest assured at the irony: Usually, for a story to be commercial, it has to have a universal theme. If your story is entertaining, your theme is either eventually gonna reveal itself naturally, like all good metaphor does, or people are going to find it because they’re going to be searching for it. But, first, you have to reel them in and entertain them.

How did anyone survive without Scriptshadow on Monday? I think one guy wrote in from Germany saying he was going to kill himself cause I didn’t post a review. Or maybe he said he was going to kill me. Either way, I’m sorry but I really needed a break. I’ll try to make it up to you this week with a script from a very high profile comedy writing team and another script from an Oscar winner. Requests for the latter script have been flooding my inbox for weeks. I’m tempted to tell you how it went right now but what fun would that be? Heh heh heh. Roger Balfour isn’t going to make you wait though. Here he is with a review of Fright Night.

Genre: Horror
Premise: When a teenager learns that his next door neighbor is a vampire, no one will believe him.
About: Craig Gillespie is helming this modern retelling of this 1985 horror theater classic, that was written and directed by Tom Holland and starred Chris Sarandon, William Ragsdale and Roddy McDowall. Marti Noxon (Buffy, Angel, Grey’s Anatomy, Mad Men) has retweaked the story for a new generation. Leading the cast is Colin Farrell, Anton Yelchin, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Toni Collette and David Tennant.
Writer: Marti Noxon

I remember watching repeats of the original Fright Night on the local tv station, which is probably the perfect way to watch a vampire movie that plays as a sort of paean to the genre with its Horror Movie-obsessed protagonist and his Horror TV Host mentor. I re-watch it every October, as it’s perfect for Halloween not just because it’s a scary movie, but because it’s nostalgic. There’s a spirit in the story and performances that harkens back to Dark Shadows, Drive-In Creature Features and Christopher Lee Hammer Horror flicks. Just the perfect movie to watch on a cold autumn night when the neighborhood is decorated with jack-o-lanterns, skeletons and fake cobwebs.

What I learned: Teaser prologue. If you’re writing a horror story, whether it be a monster movie or a ghost story, it’s usually wise to kick things off with a quick teaser that hints at the menace your story will be about. In Fright Night, there’s a three page sequence that’s about a teenager trying to survive a deadly and mysterious attack on his suburban family by an unseen threat. We see glimpses of something tearing apart bodies. We see glimpses of something…not human. Your first act will be all about establishing your setting, characters, world and story. These things usually are a slow-build up, so it’s smart to kick things off with a short sequence that shows your monsters or ghosts without showing your monsters or ghosts. Build a tense scene showing something horrible happening at the hands (or fangs) of your menace, but don’t give it all away. Create mystery, move along to your story, then when it’s right, show your creature, monster or ghost in all their creepy glory.