Genre: Offbeat Comedy
Premise: When a man’s cat is impaled by an arrow, he will go to the ends of the earth (or at least his town) to find the killer.
About: Hey, it’s List Week. Murder Of A Cat made last year’s Black List, and it looks to be the writers’ breakthrough screenplay. Before this, they were slapping together short movies that had about as much of a chance turning a profit as a Delgo sequel. Now they’re writing an animated King Kong movie for Fox Animation that will tell the famous story from the vantage point of the big ape. Oh what a difference a great script makes!
Writers: Christian Magalhaes & Robert Snow
Details: 109 pages (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

Truth? I love murdered cat stories. I actually have – believe it or not – a cat murdering comedy idea of my own! It’s nothing like this, and actually, now that I’ve read “Murder Of A Cat,” I probably won’t write it, since this is clearly the best cat murder story ever told. But there’s something inherently funny about a cat being murdered, right? Right?? Or maybe not? Hmmm…we’ll have to get Bohdicat’s take, as he’s our resident cat expert. As for Christian Magalhaes and Robert Snow, I don’t know who these guys are, but I have a feeling after their King Kong flick, they’re going to have quite an impact on the comedy scene. The sense of humor on display here is just so…out there.

30-something Clinton Moisey isn’t living the life of luxury. Actually, scratch that. He isn’t living YOUR idea of the life of luxury. He is, possibly, living his. Clinton lives with his mother and runs a barely profitable yard sale business on the weekends. He has two loves. Building his own action figures and his cat, Mouser.

Mouser’s getting up there in age, and Clinton is very obsessive compulsive about Mouser’s health. If his fur so much as feels weird, it’s off to the vet. Clinton’s mother thinks he’s crazy (and he might be – he is considering taking his cat to a cat psychiatrist) but hey, Mouser is his best friend in the entire world. He wants to make sure he’s okay.

Well, Mouser isn’t okay the next morning. That’s because Mouser’s DEAD. Sprawled out on the street with an ARROW through his belly. Clinton is devastated, but also really angry. Whoever did this isn’t going to get away with it. They’re going to PAY.

After finding a few “missing cat” flyers throughout the neighborhood that have a cat displayed who looks mysteriously like Mouser, Clinton follows the leads to a girl’s apartment, breaks in, and finds pictures of Mouser all over the place! This crazy woman has been stalking his cat and planning to kill him for ages! The apartment owner, Greta, comes home, and the accusations start flying. But after they calm down, the two realize that the cat was “moonlighting,” living with both of them at the same time. And just like that, the potential suspects have doubled.

Clinton, who’s not exactly a charmer around the ladies, reluctantly enlists Greta to help him find the killer. The two trace the arrow back to a unique crossbow sold at the Walmart like superstore Greta used to work at AND that put Clinton’s comic book store out of business (or so he believes).

The central suspects include the freakishly weird Yi Kim, a 19 year old Asian who loves magic, and Alistair Ford, the recently divorced owner of the Mega-Store. Clinton breaks into the store and sees both suspects moving merchandise inside the packages meant for the crossbow that killed his cat. So there’s obviously a bigger plan going on here. The problem is, Greta starts to think they’re in too deep and wants out, which leaves Clinton to do it all on his own. Which is fine by him. Cause Clinton Moisey WILL find out who killed Mouser. Through hell or damp cat litter!

I thought this script was pretty much awesome. It’s a hard tone to describe and it’s definitely not going to be for everyone but if I were pushed to come up with a description, I would say it’s a cross between A Confederacy Of Dunces and Eagle Vs. Shark. I mean obviously, Clinton is heavily influenced by Ignatius J. Reilley. He’s eccentric, deluded, and socially unaware. Every time I come across a character like this (The Most Annoying Man in The World, Zach Galifianikias’ character in Due Date) I kick myself for not writing them myself. These characters are always funny.

And the fact that his best friend in the world is a cat, that he lives with his mother, that he runs a yard sale, and that he believes Ford’s Megastore put his comic book store out of business (Ford Megastore doesn’t even sell comics) – I mean this is 50% of the work here – coming up with a memorable interesting main character for your script. Murder Of A Cat definitely has that.

And the script itself is so damn funny. The totally bizarre Yi Kim randomly performing magic tricks on you (pulling cigarettes out of your ear at the most inopportune or inappropriate moments). At one point Yi is close to dying and in between sputtering breaths, performs his favorite cigarette behind the ear magic trick, cause, you know, he just has to. And the script contained the biggest laugh of the year for me – yanking out the Braveheart reference – when during a nightmare immediately after Mouser’s death, dead Mouser, cast in dramatic blue light, turns to Clinton and whispers, “Help me.”

And it’s clever. I’ve seen just about every way possible of putting a man and woman together who don’t want to be together in a movie, but I’ve never seen two people brought together by co-owning a moonlighting cat that was murdered. Who thinks of that??

Then there’s the details. Details are what tell me whether a writer’s really thought their story through or not. For example, Magalhaes and Snow knew that the ridiculousness of this premise was going to hinge on how much we wanted Clinton to find the killer. So the night before Mouser’s killed, they give us a brief scene, less than half a page, right before Clinton goes to bed, where Mouser is sitting on Clinton’s stomach, and just purring at him. It’s a quiet, tender, loving moment. And it sells the drive and the determination that Clinton has for the rest of the movie.

The only reason Murder Of A Cat didn’t score an impressive was because the love story sort of fell apart as the script went on. The story is set up for Clinton to learn to connect with real people, and not live in this fantasy bubble where your only friend is a cat. I thought that was a great message to explore. He loses the love of his life, but gains something much more important (real human emotion) as a result.

But Greta keeps disappearing during the second act, sending Clinton to do most of his work solo. For that reason, when the final act has the two come together, it doesn’t ring true, because they haven’t been around each other enough to sell it. It’s not a huge issue, but it is an issue.

Outside of that, I really liked Murder Of A Cat. It’s quirky and unusual and possesses that pivotal story trait all readers love – unpredictability. It’s definitely not for everyone. If you don’t like Eagle Vs. Shark or have never read A Confederacy Of Dunces, you might be mumbling the equivalent of, “Damn that Carson. Why the hell does he think this is funny???” But if you’re into weird humor, take a chance on this one. I bet you’ll like it.

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

What I learned: Some commenters have recently pointed out that you need to set things up in your first act so you can pay them off in your second act. Here’s a good example. We set up that Clinton HATES Ford’s Megastore. He believes it’s the devil and that it destroyed his Comic Book business. For this reason, when he finds out that the arrow that killed his cat CAME from the Megastore, there’s more at stake with him having to go there. There’s a history between him and the place. That gives those store scenes so much more weight than if the store HADN’T been set up. And all it took was a couple of lines in the first act!

Genre: Comedy
Premise: A 20-something publicist uses today’s social networking tools to track down his old tutor, who he was in love with as a kid.
About: Lauren Pemberton, as far as I know, did not sell. It did, however, make last year’s Hit List. While The Black List compiles the industry’s favorite unmade scripts, there are usually only 25 spec scripts on the list. Most of the scripts are adaptations and assignment work from big time writers. The Hit List compiles ONLY SPEC SCRIPTS, so it’s a better indication of who your direct competition is. Lauren Pemberton finished somewhere in the middle of the Hit List.
Writers: Isaac Aptaker & Elizabeth Berger
Details: 119 pages – undated (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

So I was watching The Social Network the other day and afterwards, I needed a pick me up. It’s a really good movie but man, everybody in it hates each other, backstabs each other, is a big meanie to each other. Friends are discarded like Cabbage Patch Kid card dobules. There’s just this overall sense of selfishness and evil. I figured I would either have to book a weekend to Disney World or find a social network script that reminded me there was still good in the world. On that end, Lauren Pemberton seemed like the perfect fit. A script about dating in the social-networking era. Or stalking in the social-networking era. Either way. It sounded like it would lift my spirits. So did I “Friend” Lauren Pemberton?

It’s 1999 and little 14 year old Josh Mintz is in lurv with his 17 year old Latin tutor, Lauren Pemberton. Lauren is pretty, smart, funny, and curvy in all the right places. Not many people can make Latin interesting, but Lauren Pemberton seems to be one of the select few.

As most 14 year olds would probably do, Josh begins to romanticize his time with his hot tutor. A smile here or a comment there, and Josh believes that Lauren might be falling for him. So when she invites him to her house for their last lesson, Josh assumes it will be to make love. Or kiss or something. So when he gets there early and finds her banging the star quarterback, well, he’s sort of devastated.

Cut to 12 years later and Josh has completely forgotten about Lauren Pemberton (yeah right). The dude is a star publicist now and his burgeoning career has him focused and happy. Until one day while screwing around on Facebook, the infamous “people you might know” sidebar suggests a little someone he should friend named “Lauren Pemberton.” Josh knows he shouldn’t, but he friend requests her anyway, then spends the next 48 hours checking his account every 12 seconds to see if she accepted. Hey, don’t judge. You know you’ve been there. (Oh Gina Johnson. Why didn’t you ever accept my request?)

Lauren finally accepts, but without a message, and in the script’s best sequence, Josh spends every waking second of the following weekend tirelessly going through everything ever written on Lauren Pemberton’s page. He learns every possible thing about her. The only problem is that Lauren has a boyfriend. So when that finally changes and the magical words, “Lauren Pemberton is not in a relationship” appear, Josh prepares the tried-and-true planned accidental meet-up at a bar Lauren’s going to.

The problem is, when Josh gets there, there are a couple of other guys who have ALSO spotted Lauren’s new “available” status, and they too are trying to nab her. So as Josh tries his “accidental” run-in, the other guys follow suit, and it all looks strangely suspicious. But even more suspicious is that after not seeing any of these guys for years, Lauren, who appears to be the most popular person in the universe, agrees to hang out with all of them the very next day.

During the times when he’s not battling with the other two suitors, Josh learns that Lauren wants to be a TV cook, but she has trouble finding an angle to make herself unique and usually ends up swearing at the camera and being flustered whenever she tries to cook something. In swoops publicist Josh who convinces her to embrace her idiosyncrasies, and what do you know, all of a sudden she starts to shine.

This, of course, brings them closer together, and finally puts Josh in his dream position – to be “in a relationship” with Lauren Pemberton.

Lauren Pemberton is a breezy little comedy with a fun vibe and its share of laughs. The script is well-written and better than a lot of comedy scripts I read. This isn’t amateur hour here. Aptaker and Berger know what they’re doing. However, Lauren Pemberton violates a huge pet peeve of mine, that pretty much ensured I wasn’t going to like it. What is this pet peeve? Making characters do things or act certain ways that they never would in real life, in order to move the plot forward.

The exact moment the script lost me was after Josh walked into the bar to meet Lauren, and the two other suitors showed up to do the same thing. I actually thought it was a genius little development to screw up Josh’s plan, but I thought it was just going to be for that scene. When I realized these guys were going to be permanent foils, I was really bummed, cause, in my opinion, it devalued the central driving force of the story (Josh’s pursuit of Lauren) and turned it into a broader sort of ongoing Three Stooges routine.

But what really bothered me was that from that point on, things just started happening because the plot needed them to. For example, we establish that Lauren has a billion friends on Facebook and is the unequivocal star of this bar gathering, the person everyone wants to be around. Why then, upon meeting these three guys she hasn’t seen in years and doesn’t know anymore, does she flippantly agree to go to lunch with all of them the very next day? Doesn’t she have plans? Doesn’t she have gobs of friends already? She doesn’t even really seem that happy to see them. More surprised. So the fact that she just says, “Sure, let’s all hang,” has the stink of “movie logic” to it. It’s happening cause the writers need it to happen to move the story forward, not because it would happen.

Not to mention, Lauren sees three guys she hasn’t seen in years, right after she broke up with her boyfriend, and doesn’t seem to pick up on the fact that they’ve obviously been stalking her. Again, this is a “writer’s hand” decision. Even though almost every woman in the world would pick up on this in real life, the writers can’t have that, or else the movie can’t move forward, so they defy logic and just make Lauren clueless for those couple of minutes and not suspect a thing.

This continues when Lauren just starts hanging out with these guys, going to their events, their speeches, their shows. For this extremely beautiful charming funny woman who every person wants to be around, she apparently didn’t have any life or any friends before this as she’s been able to completely clear out her schedule to only hang out with these three men.

This is topped off by a character goal that also defies real world logic. Josh’s plan is to have sex with Lauren so he can finally forget about her and move on with his life. This doesn’t make sense on any level at all. Josh is not a player. He doesn’t fuck people and move on. Josh has been in love with Lauren ever since he was 14. There is no evidence to suggest that having sex with her would allow him to move on from her. If anything, it would make him like her more. So the premise itself is shaky. It’s just there so that there’s a movie, not because it would happen in real life.

I’m making this script sound terrible and it really isn’t. But like I said, that conceit – things happening only because it’s a movie – is a huge pet peeve of mine. Longtime readers of the site know this. So Lauren Pemberton had an uphill battle with me from the start. That said, the script came to me recommended, and already a few people have e-mailed me to tell me how much they liked it. So I think if you don’t have that same obsession with movie logic as I do, you might enjoy this. Personally, I just wanted to believe what was happening more.

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

What I learned: Making characters do things they wouldn’t normally do solely to move the plot along is something I have a huge problem with. Now some of you may say, “But Carson, this is a comedy. Loosen up.” True, it’s a comedy, but it’s not a farce. It’s based in the real world. For that reason, it needs to play by real world rules. Let me offer you a scenario. Let’s say I hate Chinese food. Knowing that, if it’s Saturday night and I’m going out to eat, what is the food I’m least likely to eat? Chinese, right? Okay, now let’s pretend I’m a character in a movie. Same thing. My character hates Chinese food. However, in this movie, the girl I’m supposed to eventually meet and fall in love with at some point in the story works at a Chinese restaurant. So the writer of this script, in order to get his romantic leads together, has me decide, “You know what? Maybe I’ll try Chinese tonight.” My character goes to a restaurant he hates, meets the lead female in the story, and the movie is on its way. This is a rather clumsy example but you get the point. The writer has just made a character act completely illogical in order to push his story along. You can get away with this every once in awhile. But if you keep doing it (Lauren doesn’t realize the guys are stalking her, Lauren hangs out with them the very next day even though she barely knows them, a super popular woman had no friends before this and can now spend every waking moment with these guys, guys hang around each other who don’t like each other) the reader starts to sense an artificiality to the story. The thing is, all it takes is a little extra effort to fix these logic problems. For example, instead of having ME book a reservation at the Chinese restaurant, have my friend who’s joining me book it and not tell me until I get there. That way you get me to the restaurant and it still makes sense.

Genre: Crime/Drama
Premise: An ex-cop just out of jail seeks revenge on the partner who set him up.
About: Brian Helgeland is an example of having to pay your dues before you make it to the big time. Many may know him as the writer of L.A. Confidential, Mystic River, and Man On Fire. He also scripted the currently in pre-production behemoth, Cleopatra. But did you know Helgeland’s first credit was “A Nightmare On Elm Street 4: The Dream Master?” And that he followed that up with 976-EVIL. Then the Friday the 13th TV series? New screenwriters don’t realize that there is a progression to most screenwriters’ careers. You start at the bottom and work your way up. Sidney Grimes is a spec script Helgeland wrote to direct himself. It ended up on last year’s Black List.
Writer: Brian Helgeland
Details: June 14, 2010 draft – 117 pages (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

I have to admit, I used to lump all these cop/crime flicks in together with each other. They all seemed to hit the same beats, have the same look, follow the same story. They, along with cops in general, just didn’t interest me. Then one day I realized it’s almost impossible to write two screenplays in a row without, at some point, having to write a cop character. Movies – at least the interesting ones – tend to be about things going wrong in some capacity. And if things are going wrong, cops are going to get involved to try and make it right.

And here’s the problem. If you try and fake it? If you base your cops on all the cop movies or cop TV shows you’ve watched, your cops are going to come off as really lame. That’s because you’re basing your character on entirely fictional elements. If you want to write cops that feel real (or write any job that feels real) you have to dig in and do the research. Read a few books about what a real cop’s life is like. Watch some TV shows or documentaries about real cops’ lives. Once I started doing that, I not only began to write better cops, I began to respect the complexities of their job. And I found a new appreciation for stories like “Sidney Grimes.”

Now I pay particular attention to specs from writers like Helgeland. Helgeland’s one of a handful of elite screenwriters who can’t make the 3 block trek to his local In and Out Burger without being offered a million dollar rewrite. The guy could easily make millions upon millions every year writing for others. So to gamble his time away and write something of his own? Something he has no guarantees will be bought or made? He must think that script is pretty damn special. And I want to know why he thinks that.

Title character Sidney Grimes has just gotten out of prison. Sidney used to be a cop. But through bits and pieces of conversation we gather that he was doing some bad shit on the side and eventually got caught for it. We also learn that Sidney had a sick wife, real sick, and that while he was in prison, she died. So yeah, it ain’t exactly tea and strumpets at the Grimes household.

After Grimes reclaims a stashed gun at his old home, he walks into a backyard barbecue, and coldly kills his old partner, Ray Childress. Word on the street is that Ray was the real one doing the dirty work and that he set Grimes up. That – my friends – is how you take advantage of your new found freedom.

Grimes meets up with his best friend, Roman Cahill, who’s also a cop, and who also had a beef with Childress. Needless to say, he’s pretty happy Grimes whacked him. And now he wants to work with Grimes again. Just like old times. Work with him? How can they work together? You can’t exactly rejoin the police force after using it to stock your own personal drug emporium. Well, Cahill actually runs a side business ROBBING BANKS. Sweet!

In this sea of corruption, there are a couple of good guys. There’s Lisa Bell, a hot little number, and her straight-as-an-arrow partner, Fowler. Naturally, these two work for Internal Affairs. And they suspect that Grimes is the one who killed Ray Childress. They just can’t prove it yet. So Bell and Fowler trail Grimes (and Roman), slowly piecing together just how deep the rabbit hole goes. Problem is, Grimes does some piecing together himself. And he may be surprised when the puzzle finally comes together.

Let’s start with the obvious. GREAT character name. Coming up with a name for your hero (or antihero) is the perfect way to define your character. I don’t even have to describe Sidney Grimes to you. You read that name and you immediately form a picture of him in your mind. That’s the power of a good name (and probably why Helgeland titled the movie after him).

Also, there’s something inherently compelling about corrupt cops. Remember, irony plays a big part in a lot of memorable movies. If you can create opposition between who a person is supposed to be and who they actually are, an audience is going to be drawn to that character. A cop is supposed to protect. So a cop that hurts others makes us feel unsafe. It’s why movies like Training Day and TV shows like The Shield are so popular.

The only problem with the corrupt cop route is that it’s been done to death. It doesn’t matter how wonderfully ironic a character is. If an audience is tired of seeing that kind of character, they’re gonna be bored.

So once you establish that irony, go back to what matters. The character himself. Try and make that character’s life as interesting, as compelling, as complicated as you can, so that they stick out on their own, so that they don’t need that “irony crutch.” It’s simply another extension of who they are.

Let’s take a closer look at Grimes. The woman he loved more than anything died. His good friend and partner betrayed him. The first thing he does when he gets out of jail is kill him. He’s closed off emotionally (because of his wife’s death). He’s less likely to trust others because of that betrayal. A main character in a movie like this has to have a lot of conflict going on inside of him. And Grimes is practically the definition of the word “conflict.” That’s what separates this script from its competition.

That said, “Sidney Grimes” did feel a little cliché at times. How could it not? It’s a cop flick. I could’ve done without the naked intense workouts to opera music (haven’t we seen that before?) And while the wife death did a good job of informing his character, I couldn’t help but feel like I’d seen too many similar backstories for characters like Grimes.

That leads to an unavoidable reality. On a macro level, Grimes feels a little familiar. But Sidney Grimes requires a micro look to appreciate. It’s the little details like walking into your old house (now occupied by a happy family) to grab your stashed gun. It’s your do-gooder female cop banging a random dude she could care less about to open her story. It’s Grimes begrudgingly trusting his old friend Roman again, despite his instincts telling him to trust no one. I wouldn’t say that Sidney Grimes is breaking any new ground. But it gets all the details right. And Helgeland really shows us why he’s one of the top dogs.

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

What I learned: Reality TV is your friend. Boy did I never expect to write that sentence. Did you know that 15 years ago, the only way for writers to research something was to GO TO THE LIBRARY??? Imagine that. Physically getting up and driving to the library to do research. Wow. I can’t even comprehend. These days, you have EVERYTHING at your disposal right at your computer screen. And one of the best places of all for research? Itunes. You can find a reality show for just about every profession out there. My two current favorites are The Police Women Of Maricopa County and Lockup (I have a female cop and a jail playing prominently in a screenplay). You get to see what their real routine is like, what they really talk like, procedures, how criminals really act. Not how it happens in the movies. This is a godsend as it adds a level of authenticity that ten years ago you just would not have been able to find without riding along with an officer or visiting a jail yourself. Take advantage of it!

Genre: Action
Premise: (from writer) Halloween night, 108 mercenaries seize Manhattan to hold it hostage for 48 hours and a PTSD suffering Iraq war vet must find redemption and save the day.
About: Every Friday, I review a script from the readers of the site. If you’re interested in submitting your script for an Amateur Review, send it in PDF form, along with your title, genre, logline, and why I should read your script to Carsonreeves3@gmail.com. Keep in mind your script will be posted in the review (feel free to keep your identity and script title private by providing an alias and fake title).
Writer: Sun-kyu Park
Details: 119 pages

I got two words for you. South Korea represent. Assuming we can classify South Korea as one word. It’s been awhile since we’ve seen a good action script. In fact, I don’t see many straight action scripts on the spec market these days at all. Or at least any that sell. I don’t know if companies figure they don’t need scripts for action movies anymore or the straight-to-video action market is so strong that nobody bothers making big-budget action movies anymore. That can mean only one thing. That the straight action film (Die Hard, Speed, Cliffhanger) is primed for a comeback. Is Siege Of Man that comeback?

To say that Siege Of Man starts off with a bang would be like saying Cameron Crowe casually enjoys placing his favorite songs in his movies. That is to say, a MASSIVE UNDERSTATEMENT. It’s clear after reading the opening sequence in Siege that Sun-kyu is disturbed, unstable, and insane. Lucky for us, because this has gotta be one of the more memorable openings to a screenplay I’ve read in a long time.

We’re in Baghdad. A group of soldiers prepping for another day in the heart of danger. There’s Max, a roguish photographer. There’s Joe, a blue collar corporal. And there’s Chang, a soldier just trying to make it through the day. The group is driving around the city when they’re surprise-attacked. There’s chaos and shooting and bombs and cars blowing up and pedestrians being used as decoys and even though these guys are prepped daily for these types of situations, this one is totally out of control.

At some point a man named Henri The Mercenary comes to them like an angel from the heavens and ushers them to safety. Or at least tries to. As they get to their helicopters, Henri doesn’t make it, is captured, and thrown inside a Baghdad movie theater. Just before he’s about to get tortured like no other human in history, a hardcore military man named Ash walks in and saves him. He tells him he’ll get him out of this mess, but only if he’ll help him do something.

Cut to a year later and we’re in Manhattan. Our boy Max ended up winning the Pulitzer for the pictures he took during that battle, while Joe is a drunken mess. A drunken mess who’s also a cop. Little do they know, Ash is prepping a hundred some mercenaries for some hardcore New York City takeover action. And oh yeah, it’s Halloween.

Within a 30 minute period, two of the bridges connecting Manhattan are blown to pieces. A couple of mid-sized blimps with multiple dirty bombs are sent up above the city. The internet’s taken out. Cell phones are taken out. And just like that, Ash has taken over New York City. He lets everyone know via speaker systems that if they don’t do as he says, they’re going to get their mouths washed out with dirty bombs.

Meanwhile, Max and Joe, who run into each other by coincidence, are tasked with figuring out what the hell’s going on and how to stop it. That’s not going to be easy since Joe is still pissed at Max for caring more about his stupid pictures than saving people on that fateful day. Luckily, they run into Army Sergeant Kirk, who helps bridge the chasm between them and give a more sound plan to saving the city. So what is Ash doing exactly? What is his plan? Click on the link at the end of the review to find out.

One thing’s clear. Sun-kyu can write. All you have to do is read the first 20 pages to see that. I thought I was in for a typical “American soldiers get attacked” Baghdad sequence when I started reading. And that’s how it starts. But where Siege Of Man is different is that it keeps going. And going. And going. And shit just keeps getting worse. And worse. And worse. As our heroes pull out their weapons to fight back and see nothing but a wall of pedestrians, it’s just terrifying. Particularly because cars are blowing up around them and men are shooting at them from rooftops. And they’re in the middle of the city and there’s nowhere to run. What’s so cool about this opening sequence is that you can SEE IT. You can see the movie playing out before your eyes. That’s a powerful talent to have as a screenwriter.

Here’s the thing with Siege of Man though. While Sun-kyu is great at writing action, the plot itself is confusing and the character development isn’t very good. This is a common problem many writers run into. They get an idea for a movie – like someone taking over New York – and they become really into WRITING THAT. But they never sit down and specifically map out WHY this would happen or HOW all the characters are involved. As a result, you get something that’s comprehensible but not enjoyable. All the dots connect, but with really weak lines – like the kind you get when using a No. 3 pencil.

For me it began with Ash. A cool bad guy. He wants to take over New York. I’m into it. But for the majority of the screenplay, WHY he wants to take over New York is kept a mystery. When you keep something that important a mystery for that long, you better wow us when it’s finally revealed. And I was definitely not wowed when I heard Ash’s plan. That’s because I still don’t understand it. Apparently, Ash is going to insert a virus onto the Fed’s mainframe, destroying the United States’ ability to move money. This will then – I think – result in worldwide chaos, and countries will start attacking each other. And then we’ll have World War 3.

I’ll try and say this as politely as possible but….what?

Next we have Joe and Max. I can’t quite put my finger on it but I was never interested in either of these guys. Despite experiencing that intense battle with them at the opening of the movie, I have no idea who they are. One has a drinking problem and is pissed at the other. The other feels guilty about his Pulitzer. It’s really barebones stuff and hardly complex enough to emotionally pull us into their journey. I was just watching Psycho the other day, and noticed how much Marion had going on as a character. We know she’s in a taboo relationship. We know she’s thinking about giving up her life to be with this man full time. She steals money to achieve this goal and leave her old life forever. She’s lying to everyone she meets from that point on. There’s a TON going on internally with this woman. You can practically see the conflict playing out within her every time she opens her mouth. Granted, Siege Of Man is an action flick and not a horror film, but I needed a lot more going on with my heroes.

Next we get into logic issues. In broad terms, if you don’t really think about it, the takeover sort of makes sense. The bad guys have blown up bridges, cut out the cell phone towers, and set up massive bombs if anyone does anything stupid. But Ash has around (I believe) 150 men at his disposal. 150 men would have trouble keeping order in Central Park. Manhattan’s small but it’s not THAT small. So this idea that enough bad guys were patrolling the streets to keep things in order didn’t fly.

The final problem is that the script just runs out of steam. This is what I was talking about yesterday with the second act. If you’re not exploring your character’s flaw, if you don’t have a couple of compelling relationships that need to be resolved, and if those aren’t coupled with an escalating plot, your second act is going to fall apart. Joe and Max do have a fractured relationship, but it’s pretty murky what needs to be resolved (Joe wants Max to acknowledge not caring during the Baghdad battle?). This forces Sun-Kyu to resort to Michael-Bay-itis, covering all these deficiencies up by MAKING SHIT EXPLODE.

The thing is, Sun-kyu knows how to make shit explode. He’s very visual. He’s imaginative. He knows how to paint the type of scene you’d want to pay ten bucks for on a Saturday evening. And for that, he should be commended. But here’s the weird thing about Hollywood. Yes, it’s true, that when a big-budget movie races towards production, producers could give two shits about logic and character development. In fact, most of them freak out and do their best to dumb down and ruin the movie as much as possible, which is why we get abominations like Transformers. However, when you’re an unknown writer trying to break in with a spec script? Those same things become incredibly important to producers. Ironically, they WANT character development. They WANT your plot to be intricate and logical and make sense. Is it hypocritical? Sure. But these are the guys writing the checks. Even though they’re going to turn your screenplay into an incoherent piece of shit a year and a half from now, right now, it needs to be perfect.

While Siege Of Man didn’t do it for me in the end, it’s the best writing I’ve seen in an amateur script in awhile. If Sun-Kyu keeps working at this and improving the non-action portion of his writing, he’s going to become a working screenwriter in Hollywood.

Script link: Siege Of Man

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me (but recommend the writer)
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: One of the reasons James Cameron’s films have grossed more money than any other writer’s films in history is that he’s the only action writer I know who cares just as much about character development as he does action. Watch any of his movies and you’ll see that. I mean, he gives the damn Terminator a character arc in Terminator 2. Let me repeat that. He gives a ROBOT A CHARACTER ARC. The truth is, most writers who love action aren’t interested in character development. And most writers who love character development aren’t interested in action. So think about it. If you put equal emphasis on both, you could be unstoppable. Just like James Cameron.

So I’m sitting there reading Sex Tape last week and it hits me. Even the high level professionals getting a million bucks a script struggle with their second acts. And then I really start thinking about it (always a bad thing), and it clocks me. Not only do they struggle with it. They FAKE IT. No seriously, they do. They don’t know how to get through their second act so they throw up a bunch of smokescreens and set pieces and twists and turns, all in the hopes that you won’t figure out that they have no idea what they’re doing. And hey, who can blame them? It really is a fucked up act. I mean the first act is easy. You set up your story. The last act is simple. You conclude your story. But if you’re not setting up and you’re not concluding, what the hell are you doing? And why does the most confusing act have to be twice as long as the other two? Well, I’m going to answer that for you. It’s time to figure out the dreaded SECOND ACT.

UNLESS YOUR MAIN CHARACTER HAS A GOAL, YOU WILL ALWAYS STRUGGLE WITH YOUR SECOND ACT
This is technically a pre-second act tip, but it’s such an important one, it’s worth noting. Your main character needs something he’s after (a goal). The reason for this is, much of the second act will be dedicated to your character’s pursuit of this goal. So if there’s no goal, there’s nothing for your character to do. There are exceptions to this rule just like there are exceptions to everything (The Shawshank Redemption and Lost In Translation do not follow this format). But for the most part, if you want to conquer your second act, giving your hero a clear goal is essential.

A MAJOR CHARACTER THAT’S BEING TESTED
Okay, here’s why most second acts fail: Because writers don’t realize the second act is about CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. That’s not to say there isn’t action in your second act. Or plot. Or thrills. Or horror. There can be all these things. But the bigger overarching purpose of the second act is to explore your characters. Once you realize that, you’re way ahead of everyone else. All of this starts with your character’s defining flaw – or “fatal flaw” – which is loosely defined as the thing that’s held your character back his/her entire life. Once you identify that flaw, you’ll create a journey to specifically test it over and over again. These tests will force your character to grow, which will in turn bring us closer to your character. So in The Matrix, Neo’s fatal flaw is that he doesn’t believe in himself. Therefore many of the scenes in the second act are geared towards testing that problem. The building jump. The dojo fight. The Oracle visit. The Subway fight. Each time, that lack of belief is being tested. And each time, he comes a little closer to believing. Now, note how I didn’t say it had to be your hero who had the flaw. Many times it’s a secondary character who does the changing in a story. So if you look at a movie like Star Wars, Han’s flaw is that he’s too selfish. That flaw is tested when he and Obi-Wan get in arguments, when he’s given the chance to save the princess, and when he’s given a chance to join the Death Star battle. Or Cameron in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. His flaw is that he doesn’t take chances in life. Virtually every scene in the movie is Cameron being given a chance to let loose, to “enjoy life.” Personally, for me, I think the best stories are when everybody goes through some sort of change. So make sure that your second act contains a healthy dose of character exploration.

MORE CHARACTER EXPLORATION – RELATIONSHIPS
Relationships are the other main way you’re going to explore character in your second act. Long story short, you’d like to have two or three unresolved relationships in your movie, and you want to use your second act to resolve them. Much like the character flaw I mentioned above, there’s usually a key issue in every relationship that needs to be fixed. Many of your scenes in the second act will be used to explore that issue. In Good Will Hunting, the three biggest relationships are Will and Sean, Will and Skylar, and Will and Professor Lambeau. Each relationship needs to be resolved. The key issue with Will and Sean is opening up. The key issue with Will and Skylar is fear of commitment. And the key issue with Will and Professor Lambeau is what to do with Will’s talent. In the second act, Good Will Hunting jumps back and forth between these relationships, continually hitting on these issues, pushing each of them to the breaking point. Now of course, how much time you spend on this will have a lot to do with the kind of movie you’re writing. Good Will Hunting is an unapologetic character piece. But I’m not sure I’d recommend intimately dissecting three separate relationships in a movie like 2012 or Taken. But that doesn’t mean you should abandon the practice altogether. Maybe you cut down the number of relationships explored. Maybe you cut down the depth or the time used to explore those relationships. But you should probably have at least two relationships you’re exploring in your second act.

THE MIDPOINT STRIKE
One of the problems with second acts is that they go on FOREVER! 30 pages longer than the first and third acts. No wonder they’re so damn cryptic. But you have a secret weapon at your disposal to fend off this pit of boringness: the MIDPOINT STRIKE! Please don’t go around using this term. I just made it up for this article. The midpoint is that point in the story where the audience is sort of used to what’s going on, and is starting to feel like they have a handle on things, and are therefore on the verge of getting bored. By WHACKING them with the midpoint strike, you can change all that. So in Star Wars, it’s when they get to Alderran and the planet has been destroyed! In Jerry McGuire, it’s when Sugar steals Cush away from Jerry at the draft. In Psycho, it’s when Norman has killed and disposed of Marion Crane’s body. In Avatar, it’s when they destroy Home Tree. You need something to JOLT the story onto a different path. If you don’t, the script gets too predictable. You have a lot of options with what to do with the midpoint strike. It can be plot based, character based, internal, external, a big twist, the death of a character. Anything that changes the game a little bit. So in Source Code, it’s when Coulter finds out that he’s dead (character based). Or in Star Trek (2009), it’s when they realize Nero is going to destroy Earth and they have to either rendezvous with the rest of the star fleet or take a chance and stop him on their own (plot based). You get bonus points if your Midpoint Strike ups the stakes. So in Star Trek, earth potentially being destroyed is a pretty big upping of the stakes, wouldn’t you say?

THE BUILD (AND THE POWER OF OBSTACLES)
Here’s something I don’t think enough writers realize. A second act should BUILD. There should be peaks and valleys, sure. But overall, the audience should feel like we’re BUILDING towards something. In most screenplays I read, the second act does the opposite. It peters out. It sputters to the finish line. So how do you avoid this? By placing obstacles in front of your character’s goal, and by making each obstacle bigger and more difficult than the previous one. Here’s an analogy. Think of a video game. In most video games, the goal is to get to the final level and defeat the boss. Each level before that, then, is an “obstacle” to achieving that goal. And each level, in order to make getting to and defeating that boss harder, is more difficult than the previous. So if you look at Raiders Of The Lost Ark, all Indiana has to do at first is get to Cairo, walk around in a half-disguise, and look for the Ark. His obstacle is not getting caught. Pretty simple. But then he gets caught and buried in a cave. Now he has to get out. A slightly bigger obstacle. Then he gets out and has to destroy a plane and a bunch of Nazis. Bigger obstacle. Then he has to catch up with the caravan carrying the Ark and stop them. Bigger obstacle. Since each obstacle is more difficult, we get the sense that we’re BUILDING towards something. Now the truth is, this is an imperfect science, because sometimes you need to give your characters a breather, and you do that by throwing in a smaller obstacle. For example, while Luke and Han gunning down Tie-Fighters in the Millennium Falcon was a big obstacle, I wouldn’t say it was bigger than escaping the Death Star. Still, on the whole, your main obstacles should continue to get bigger and more imposing. This is what will create that necessary BUILD that makes a second act fun to watch.

BUILD BUILD – EVERYWHERE BUILDING!
Take note, the build is not relegated to the plot. It should be incorporated into your character’s fatal flaw and those unresolved relationships as well. That way, the story is building ON EVERY FRONT! For example, in Back To The Future, George McFly’s fatal flaw is his lack of belief in himself (hey, kinda like Neo). At first this flaw is tested when Marty introduces him to Lorraine at school. She’s more interested in Marty though, and George slinks away. Nothing is lost because she barely paid attention to George in the first place. Next, he asks her out at the diner. This time, there’s more on the line because he’s all alone and putting himself out there. In the end, of course, he’s gotta take down Biff AND ask Lorraine to the dance, the ultimate test of whether he finally believes in himself. We get that building sensation because each test had more at stake than the previous one. — Now on the “unresolved relationship” front, let’s look at one of the greatest rom-coms of all time, When Harry Met Sally. Their unresolved issue is trying to remain friends. At first they don’t really like each other so it doesn’t matter. But then they start hanging out, making that pact more difficult. Then they start dating other people, making it even more difficult. Then they start getting into serious relationships, making it even MORE difficult. So the act of trying to remain friends becomes more and more challenging by building the obstacles in front of that goal. As long as all the elements in your second act – plot, fatal flaw, relationships – are BUILDING towards a conclusion, you’re in good shape.

THE FALL
The end of your second act is when your character has tried everything. He’s overcome all the previous obstacles. He’s managed to keep his relationships together. He may even believe he’s overcome his flaw. But then all of these things (either bit by bit or all at once) should come crumbling down on top of him. He should lose the girl. He should fail to defeat the villain. He should fall back into his own ways. The last 10-15 pages of your second act is the steady decline of your main character, ending with him at the lowest point of his life. Neo unable to defeat Smith in the train station. Kristin Wiig losing her boyfriend and best friend in Bridesmaids. The Man In Black LITERALLY dying in The Princess Bride. The end of your second act should LOOK like it’s over for you character. That there’s no hope. And with that my friend, you’ve done it. You’ve concluded your second act and are ready to cross into the third.

There you go folks. Pat yourself on the back. I just want to leave you with one warning. What I’ve given you is the template for a TRADITIONAL SECOND ACT. One which includes a character who’s going after a clear goal. Unfortunately, not every movie follows this template. There is no character goal in The Shawshank Redemption. Will is not going after anything in Good Will Hunting. Ditto the characters in When Harry Met Sally. So it’s important to remember that while these tips give you a starting point for navigating your second act, there is no one size fits all solution. For example, there are no unresolved relationships being mined in the second act of Taken. Could there have been? Sure. Would they have made the movie better? Maybe. But the point is, every story is unique, and the big challenge will be putting yourself in enough screenwriting situations where you begin to understand which of these elements are needed and which aren’t. But hey, you’ve got yourself a starting point. Which is more than some of these professional writers can say. Feel free to leave your own Second Act tips in the comments section.