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.
Genre: Drama/Love Story
Premise: (from IMDB) A penniless girl in the 1930’s is taken in by a circus freak, and even as he falls in love with her, she begins to launch a career in the circus herself.
About: Flora Plum has been in development for many years and almost went into production with Jodie Foster directing, and Russell Crowe and Claire Danes starring. The project then fell apart because Russell Crowe fucked up his shoulder. That one unfortunate ill-timed accident sent everyone racing off to other projects and Flora Plum was abandoned like a discarded peanut shell under the rafters. Steven Rogers has been around for quite some time, penning a lot of love stories such as “P.S. I Love You,” “Hope Floats,” and “Stepmom.”
Writer: Steven Rogers
Details: 103 pages – 1999 draft (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).
Man, it has not been a good week for screenplays here at Scriptshadow. Well, I guess Fright Night got some good reactions, but this is the third script this week that I wasn’t into. I guess it’s only fair as we had to balance out last week. But I did hold out some hope for Flora Plum. It’s been around for awhile and I’ve heard good things about it. But the problem here is that once you read that other circus script (of course I’m talking about “Water For Elephants”) this feels like the JV version. In fact, you could tell where this script went wrong in a lot of places just by comparing it to Elephants.
I’ll give this to Flora Plum: it’s different. Set in the 1930s, we begin with documentary interviews of various circus members recalling Flora Plum, who, from their various recollections, we conclude to now be America’s sweetheart. But that doesn’t stop most of them, such as Opal, a flirty dwarf, from recalling her as somewhat of an annoying bitch. In fact, there seems to be an almost disdain for this woman from everyone interviewed, and of course this builds our anticipation to meet the girl ourselves.
Indeed we meet Flora Plum just as she arrives in town. She’s fresh-faced and naturally beautiful but lacks any definable talent and may be a little on the clutzy side. Luckily she’s the hardest worker you’ll ever find and dangerously determined. More than anything, she just wants to be a part of something, and in her eyes, the circus is her calling. Of course, throw a gorgeous knockout into a sea of freaks and you’re going to see some jealousy. Which leaves us to wonder if those earlier interviews were the truth or simply a bunch of frekazoids with an axe to grind. I mean, could this sweet girl really turn into something as hideous as they say?
After Flora gets settled in, she meets and takes a liking to Jake, otherwise known as “The Beast.” Jake is covered in hair from head to toe, to the point where he makes Robin Williams look like he has alopecia. Jake is clearly talented, but has chosen a very esoteric long-winded routine for his act. This man is Jean-Luc Goddard to everyone else’s Michael Bay. The owner of the circus, Herbert Little, eventually gets fed up with the bizarre act and cancels it, relegating Jake to the humiliating position of “sideshow.”
This part of the screenplay was the strongest, as it not only pushed the story forward, but gave us a glimpse into the politics and cut-throat world of the circus. On the outside, they all seem cute and cuddly, but underneath the dome, everyone’s trying to one-up each other. Greed, jealousy, and the bottom line dictate who gets onstage and poor becomes a victim of this ideology.
But Jake’s downfall is cushioned by the burgeoning support of Flora. She’s the one person who loves Jake’s strange act and probably the only one who believes in him. This leads to an intense friendship and before long Flora comes up with a plan. They’ll create an act together – a sort of “Beauty and the Beast” – and work their way back into the main lineup. As the circus moves from city to city, the two train day in and day out, which of course brings them even closer. However, expert acrobat Patrice, the stud of the show, starts making moves on Flora, going so far as to invite her into his act. Flora is then torn between the beastly Jake and the handsome Patrice. Does she stick with the long shot, or go for the sure thing?
In order to keep the story moving, Rogers wisely throws Blade Devin into the mix. Devin has the best circus in the region and he’s actively searching for a new act. Word has it that he’ll be at their New York show and whoever shines the brightest, that’s who he’ll pick. It isn’t just Flora, Jake, or Patrice who are gunning for the spot, but everyone in the circus. But the bigger question is, who will Flora choose to perform her act with? Jake or Patrice?
Flora Plum wasn’t a bad script. I think if I never read Water For Elephants, I might have liked it more. But comparing the two you can see this script’s faults a lot more easily. Let’s start with the most important element – the love story. Flora Plum has the beauty and the beast thing going as well as the love triangle. But Water For Elephants had forbidden love going for it. Our hero didn’t just fall in love with a random act. He fell in love with the CIRCUS OWNER’S WIFE, someone he couldn’t have. Not only that, but that owner is a raging terrifying psychopath. We genuinely feel like if he finds out that his wife is with this guy, he’ll kill him. So the stakes are through the roof. Here, Flora and Jake’s relationship is pretty much in the open. The only thing at stake is feelings, which can work if we really love the characters, but still, it didn’t come close to the tension and undercurrent present in the Water For Elephants relationship.
Another problem is that the love triangle here doesn’t work. It’s never clear to me if Flora even likes Patrice. And most of the time, she’s overtly uninterested in him. Incidentally, Patrice is no different. One second he seems content with trying to steal Flora from Jake, the next he doesn’t know who she is. And not in a “stuck up” way. He literally doesn’t seem to know who she is. The whole storyline was just way too inconsistent. And since it was never clear where all the characters stood, it was hard to get a handle on what was going on.
What really set Elephants apart, however, was that even though there were a million interesting characters to choose from, it always focused on the right ones. Flora Plum, unfortunately, drops us into storylines we have no interest in watching, and so the narrative keeps getting chopped up by insignificant secondary scenes. For example there’s an “aging star” character who’s watching her limelight fade who I could care less about. After awhile, I began to treat these moments like commercials. I’d watch them begrudgingly hoping for the main show to start back up again.
I think the script does some things right. It has some charm. There are places where the relationship between Jake and Flora really shines. I could imagine Russell Crowe, full on make-up with the wolfman hair and everything, staring into Flora’s eyes, sad and desperately in love, and really see it working. The script had one of my favorite lines I’ve read in a script in a long time. Jake is asked, after his performance, how his act went. He replies. “The act was a success. The audience was a failure.” There’s also a late story twist which caught me off-guard and worked quite well. I feel like the elements are here for something special.
But in the end, this just doesn’t pack the firepower Water For Elephants did, and no matter how hard I tried to judge it on its own merit, I couldn’t get past that.
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: This is a rehash “what I learned.” I was trying to figure out why this wasn’t pulling me in the same way Water For Elephants did. There were a lot of reasons, but the main one? No villain. There’s no true villain here to root against. In Water For Elephants, you have a ruthless terrifying villain that with every fiber of your being you want to see our hero destroy. You’d be surprised at how much better a villain – any villain – can make your story. So if you choose not to have one, make sure it’s for a good reason. The lack of one here really hurt the story.
It’s not often that I really take a script to town. After reading as many scripts as I have, I have way too much respect for writers to tear down their babies just cause it makes for a good review. However, every once in awhile, I let a script have it. Enter M. Night! Sure, this is an older script, and one that’s already been reviewed on the site by another reviewer, but my buddy Colin over at Take 148 has been doing an M. Night review marathon and wanted me to finish it off for him. So head on over there and check out my review for “Labour Of Love.”
Genre: Crime Drama
Premise: (from IMDB) A newly-released ex-con seeks revenge upon his mentor who framed him for a crime he didn’t commit.
About: I said I had an Oscar winning screenwriter this week but I just remembered Up in the Air lost out to Precious at the Oscars, so I guess I don’t. Still, the co-writer of Up In The Air is easily one of the hottest scribes in town, having over 15 projects in development. That’s a nice bump for a guy who just a year ago had only two produced credits to his name, “The Longest Yard,” and “Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning.” Turner’s used his newfound buzz to not only get this latest script sold but attach himself as director. The project’s been getting a ton of heat and is said to have Eric Bana and Collin Farrell attached. Turner doesn’t believe in screenwriting books or seminars (“If you’re being taught the same skills as [everyone else], then what’s the point? Find your own answers,” he says.) However, he’s a huge reader, still reading a screenplay a day. As a young screenwriter, Turner wrote a dozen screenplays before sending any of them out.
Writer: Sheldon Turner
Details: 117 pages – January 9, 2010 draft (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 struggle to enjoy any movie in this genre.
So why am I reviewing this script? Because people have been knocking down my e-mail door ever since the project was announced begging me to review it. There are so many people fascinated with cops, fascinated with the FBI. I don’t know why but all these movies tend to blend into each other for me. Just like I was saying in my review of Drive, in order to get my attention with one of these movies, you have to do something really different, and while By Virtue Fall takes some interesting chances, they weren’t enough to sway me from my usual reaction to these kinds of films.
The story centers around two federal agents. The first is Matthew Vanetti. He’s the Golden Boy, the one with the bright future, the one who does everything by the book. Matt’s partner and good friend is Danny Sloan. Danny is a drunk, a fuck-up, a corrupt agent who can be bought with a hot cup of coffee and a jar of applesauce. The two live on opposite ends of the spectrum, with Matthew ready to marry his soul mate and Danny barely able to keep his marriage together.
Unbeknownst to Matt, Danny is selling federally confiscated firearms to the big badass in town, Jericho Trower. Somehow – though I still don’t know if Danny does it on purpose or not – the feds find out and think Matt is responsible for dealing the guns to Jericho, not Danny. As a result, Matt gets sent off to jail for five years, losing his job, his reputation, and even his girlfriend, who apparently only loves him until he’s behind bars.
The story then follows both characters in their respective positions. The former Golden Boy slowly descending into prison life, shaving his head, blanketing himself with tats, pumping himself up, while Danny the alcoholic stumbles into a series of lucky breaks and begins ascending the Federal ranks, getting back together with his wife, and becoming a big shot at the agency.
But Danny can’t shake what he did to his best friend and partner, and has a hard time sleeping at night. He knows that if Matt ever found out the truth, he would come after him in a second. Indeed, Matt is like a caged animal waiting to be let loose. He holds everyone accountable for the deceit that put him here, and when he gets out, he’s going to make them all pay.
Besides the subject matter not being my cup of tea, my big issue with By Virtue Fall is the thin plot. There’s no inherent goal driving the story here. We’re simply watching two people’s lives laid out in front of us and while I enjoyed the ironic turns for both, it was really hard to stay interested when neither of the characters were pursuing anything.
I suppose our interest is driven by seeing what Matt’s going to do to Danny and the others once he gets out, but I had trouble getting excited even for that. I mean, it’s not like Danny killed Matt’s wife and framed him for it. It’s a gun-selling charge. In the grand scheme of motivation, it never seemed like that big of a deal to me. I understand that if he was framed for something like murder that he’d be stuck in jail for a lot longer than five years, which would’ve upset the timeline, but it would’ve infused the character with a lot more motivation. It may have even opened up some new story possibilities. Matt’s framed for killing someone close to him. He gets a 50 year sentence. The only way to get revenge on the people who killed his [wife/son/whoever] is to break out. This would’ve added a lot of drive to the story. If Matt’s planning an escape, it makes him more active, which makes him more interesting, which gives the story more momentum, and that goal I was looking for.
That’s not to say there’s nothing to see here. I have a feeling that fans of The Departed (another script I felt had little driving the story) are going to like this quite a bit. It’s fun to watch the transformation of these men, especially Matt, who becomes a completely different person. And while there’s no clear character goal, I think Turner would argue that our desire to see these two finally square off in the end is what’s driving our interest. Indeed, he may have a point, and since I’m far from an expert on this genre, I’m not going to argue that.
You know one of the things I think I learned while reading this is that crime scripts have the unfortunate handicap of not reading well. There are always a lot of characters – a lot of people to keep track of – and there are usually a lot of double-crosses or intricate character interactions that occur as the script goes on. Onscreen, when you can see the characters’ faces, it’s easy to remember who’s who. But on the page, it can be really tough, so you’re always rereading things and going back in the script to confirm that what you think is happening is really happening. This happens every time I read one of these scripts, which may explain why I rarely like them.
I wanted to enjoy this. I like Sheldon Turner’s writing style. It’s just for me personally, I wish there was more plot pushing the story.
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: One thing I’ll give credit to Turner for – he knows how to get big actors attached to his project. One of the things I’m paying more attention to these days is not just how to sell a script, but how to GET A MOVIE MADE. The quickest way to do that, obviously, is to write a part (or parts) that big actors want to play. A or B list attachments mean go-pictures and I think that’s what separates a lot of the top professionals from the rest of the pack. While story-wise, this script is light, it definitely has two characters that actors would want to play. Why? Well, the transformations of course. You have one character who’s a clean-cut do-gooder who transforms into a tattooed juice-head killer. And the other is a stumbling drunk who turns into a successful star for the government. Actors love shit like this, getting to play both ends of the spectrum, because it stretches their acting muscles. So I’m not surprised Farrell and Bana signed onto this.
Genre: Heist/Mystery/Comedy
Premise: Two sets of criminals try to rob a bank at the same time.
About: The follow-up script from the writers of The Hangover. The movie will star Patrick Dempsey, Ashley Judd, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Jeffrey Tambor, and even Mekhi Phifer, who I guess we can confirm from this casting still acts. Lucas and Moore are high-concept specialists, also penning big spec sellers “Ghosts of Girlfriends Past” and “Four Christmases.” The two had little success writing alone and bumped into each other while working for the producer of Beverly Hills Cop. After awhile they became the go-to guys for punching up scripts, working on properties such as “Wedding Crashers,” “27 Dresses,” “Chicken Little” and “Mr. Woodcock.”
Writers: Jon Lucas & Scott Moore
Details: 113 pages – Jan. 10, 2010 draft (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time of the film’s release. This is especially true with comedies. So 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).
Okay so I think I’ve made it clear on the site that The Hangover is the template you should be using to write your own comedy spec. Not the idea itself obviously (there’s enough stealing in Hollywood) but the approach. It’s an original concept. It fulfills the promise of the premise. It’s got a strong goal. The execution is perfect. It’s lean. It’s funny. It’s different. It has great characters. Etc. Etc. It pretty much does everything you wanna do in a spec. So I, like many others, have been waiting to see what the writers, Jon Lucas and Scott Moore, would follow it up with. That script is here, in the form of the bank heist comedy, “Flypaper.”
I’m trying to find a base point here while reviewing Flypaper, but the truth is, I’ve never read anything quite like it. This is a comedy, a heist film, a whodunit. It’s its own thing. That’s clearly its biggest strength – the script is original. The question is, in trying to be so many things, does it end up not being anything? Good question. And the answer may not be a happy one.
Tripp Kennedy, an “accidentally handsome” drifter who moonlights as a pickpocket, isn’t able to keep a job for very long. That’s because he has a super-intense version of ADD that severely affects his concentration. On this particular day, we watch him stroll into a bank and start hitting on Kaitlin, a gorgeous teller who’s about to marry an extremely rich man. Tripp senses there’s a disconnect in this relationship however, and pokes around for a potential way in.
The flirting is cut short when a group of men posing as construction workers whip out their guns and tell everybody they’re robbing the place. Except that this happens at the EXACT SAME TIME as two other men (low-rent hustlers who we’ll get to know as “Peanut Butter and Jelly”) whip out THEIR guns and tell everybody THEY’RE robbing the place. What? Two sets of criminals robbing the same bank at the same time??
After some initial arguments between the bad guys about who was here first, Tripp comes forward and suggests that they both rob the same bank. The big-timers can go rob the vault and Peanut Butter and Jelly can go rob the ATM machines. Everybody leaves happy.
In the meantime all the hostages are stashed in a back room, including Tripp and Kaitlin, and proceed to argue about what the best way to handle the situation is. Should they try and escape? Should they just wait til the bad guys are finished? Well it turns out the bad guys aren’t the only people they have to worry about. That’s because our hostages start finding their cohorts murdered and stashed inside concealed places. One by one, the hostages are being offed, creating a triumvirate of chaos. Smart criminals, dumb criminals, and a homicidal maniac killer! Tripp, fashioning himself a modern day Sherlock Holmes, attempts to piece together the clues to out the killer before he or Kaitlyn become a victim.
Okay, so, where do we begin with this one? I wasn’t feeling it. The concept itself is pretty neat. Two sets of criminals try to rob the same bank at the same time. At first glance you’re thinking that could be funny. However, after that awesome opening – when both robbers announce their plans at the same time – you realize that that’s pretty much the highlight of the story. How do you keep the premise funny after that?
I think Lucas and Moore realized this so they tried to come up with a way to keep things moving for the next 100 minutes. This, obviously, is where the “killer within the bank” scenario came up. Here’s the problem with that aspect though: It feels like a completely different movie. The reason it feels like a completely different movie is because you don’t need the “dual-robbing premise” to execute it. You could just as easily have done this with only a single group bank robbery. For that reason, the two plots begin competing against each other, and the script never quite figures out which one is in charge.
This gets to the heart of my problem with the script. It’s never taking advantage of its premise. Everything that happens – all the comedy, all the story – has little or nothing to do with two sets of bank robbers trying to rob the same bank at the same time. I mean sure the two groups get into scuffles every once in awhile, but I wouldn’t call that cleverly exploiting the premise.
Tripp, likewise, is a character with problems that have nothing to do with the situation. He has mega-ADD. Okay, that’s an interesting character flaw, but how does ADD in any way play into a story about solving a dual-bank robbing heist? It doesn’t, which makes the flaw seem fancy and a fun character quirk, but ultimately empty. Look at Knocked Up for comparison. Seth Rogan’s character flaw, that he’s lazy and irresponsible, plays directly into the premise, because lazy and irresponsible are the worst things you could be if you were going to raise a baby.
There are some logistical problems as well. Nobody keeps an eye on the hostages and they’re apparently able to run around willy-nilly through the bank, which kept bringing up the question, why didn’t they just walk out the door and leave? I’m sure there was a reason for this – maybe the doors were locked or something – but because they had so much freedom, it just felt like they could do whatever they wanted, and that made their dire situation feel decidedly un-dire.
As is always the case with comedies, the humor here will make some people laugh and others cry. A big portion of the jokes are heaped on the criminals being obsessed over an online ranking system for bank robbers, to the point where every robber here is more concerned with upping their online ranking than actually stealing money. I know this is a comedy but we’re having trouble believing that this hesit means anything to anyone as it is. Robbers gunning for online rankings made the pursuit seem almost like a joke.
I must admit, however, that I loved when each set of robbers picked hostage “teams” like they were on a playground. This is exactly the kind of stuff I was looking for more of – comedy that stemmed directly from the premise. But this is the only joke I remember that did that.
Flypaper is the equivalent of trying to pack a honeymoon’s worth of clothes into a carry-on bag. There’s just too much going on. The competing storylines confuse the audience, the comedy doesn’t take advantage of its premise, and the stakes aren’t high enough for the robbers. My hope is that they have a specific vision based off of all the broad comedy here that somehow comes together when it hits the screen. Maybe they even cut out one of the competing storylines in the final draft. I hope it gets fixed cause I like Moore and Lucas as writers. I think the high concept comedy is struggling and these two are a couple of the only guys who still get it. This draft just wasn’t doing it for me.
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: A good way to create a comedic protagonist is to look at your concept and ask, “Who’s the worst person I could put in this situation?” So for Knocked Up, which is about responsibility, your main character is going to be extremely irresponsible (an unemployed loser). For Liar Liar, which is about truth, your main character is going to be a habitual liar (a lawyer). For Happy Gilmore, about the upper crust overly polite game of golf, your main character is going to be a loud-mouthed dickhead who hates the sport more than anything. That’s something I wanted to see with Tripp in Flypaper.
