For the month of May, Scriptshadow will be foregoing its traditional reviewing to instead review scripts from you, the readers of the site. To find out more about how the month lines up, go back and read the original post here. The first week, we allowed any writers to send in their script for review. Last week, we raised the bar and reviewed repped writers only. This week, we’re doing something different. I read a lot of amateur scripts. Some through my notes service, some through contests, and some through referrals. I wanted to spend a week (or maybe two) highlighting some of the best scripts I’ve come across. All these scripts are available. So if you’re a buyer and it sounds like something you may be interested in, then get a hold of these writers through the contact information on their script before someone else does. Monday, Roger reviewed a cool script from Michael Stark titled, “Treading On Angles.” Yesterday, I reviewed our first female writer of Amateur Month, Lindsey, and her script, “Blue.” And today I’m reviewing the sci-fi’ish thriller/procedural, “Nine Gold Souls.”

Genre: Procedural Sci-Fi/Contained Thriller
Premise: A fallen psychiatrist who used to cater to the world’s most intelligent minds is asked to help investigate a murder in a secluded government operated Victorian mansion where nine of the smartest people in the world reside.
About: For those of you looking for the first truly undiscovered unrepresented talent here on Favorites Week, you’re not going to find it in Dave. He’s been writing for a long time. But I read Nine Gold Souls over a year ago, before Dave found work on NCIS: Los Angeles, which puts the script in line with what we’re trying to do this week. Plus Dave has never sold a screenplay, which I hope will change after they read this.
Writer: Dave Kalstein
Details: 114 pages

Nine Gold Souls has a golden premise, one of those concepts you try to catch up to after the light turns green cause you just have to take another look. While yesterday’s script is the one I’d bet on most likely becoming a movie, Nine Gold Souls is the first script I’d take into development if I started a studio.

The story follows ex-psychiatrist Jake, a former golden boy whose patients included many of the smartest people in the world. If Bill Gates needed a psychiatrist, Jake is the first person he’d call. But that was a long time ago, and these days, Jake is a self-medicating candidate for A&E’s “Intervention.” Although the details aren’t revealed to us yet, we get the sense that a lot of it has to do with the day he found out his teenage son was autistic. Here Jake is, one of the smartest people in the world, and his offspring is considered barely functional by society.

Just as Jake’s at his lowest point, he’s approached by the U.S. government. They need his help. Tucked away inside a remote mountainous area, unknown to the public, is a huge Victorian mansion. Inside that mansion are nine of the smartest people in the world, and one of them has just been murdered. Hush-hush “dark science” government projects don’t exactly rely on local law enforcement, so they need Jake, one of the smartest people in the world, to help them. The idea is, he’ll come in, question the residents of the house, and see if he can’t find out who the killer is. If he does, they’ll get him back his license.

So Jake is flown into this isolated world where he meets the eight remaining occupants. Among them are beautiful sisters Charlotte and Emily, bookworm-ish Newton, the mysterious Pascal, the “dandy” Edison, and the 16 year old polymath, Mozart. These are, of course, code names the government has assigned them to protect their identities. Soon Jake learns that before the murder occurred, the group was working on a top secret project. But what was it? Unfortunately, since each of them only knows of their own specific task, they can’t say. But this has just turned from a “simple” murder investigation into something much bigger.

As Jake continues his investigation, one murder turns into two, and two into three. Jake is so consumed with finding the cheese, that he doesn’t realize he’s walked into a mousetrap. Will he get out alive? Will he find out what’s really going on here? And how does it tie into him? Heh heh heh. You’ll have to read Nine Gold Souls to find out. :)

First thing I noticed about the script was the slight twist on the contained thriller genre. A lot of these CTs play inside dirty gritty worlds. Nine Gold Souls has more of an upscale feel to it – 9 of the smartest people on the planet stuck in a stately Victorian mansion – the only way in or out by helicopter. When you hear that confusing cliche of Hollywood wanting something “the same but different,” this is what they’re talking about. We get one of these contained thrillers that have been doing so well lately (same) but framed inside a mansion full of geniuses (different).

The opening scene here is also amazing. A good opening scene can focus a tired reader immediately, and this one doesn’t disappoint. We’re hanging out with a group of weird but frighteningly intelligent people in a mysterious Victorian mansion. One of them is murdered. Then we pull away to find out the mansion is in a barren field surrounded on all sides by mountains. As a reader I sit up after that and go, “Okay, you’ve got me.”

The first half of the second act is excellent as well. I love how we not only unfold the mystery inside the mansion, but unfold Jake’s mystery as well. And when (spoiler!) Jake finds out there could potentially be a cure for autism in the house, well, that’s when things really heat up. Of all the things you can do to help your story, creating a determined and highly motivated main character is somewhere near the top of the list. And that’s exactly what Jake is.

As much as I loved this concept though, I think the execution needs work in places. And Dave knows this. He sent the script as a work in progress and that’s how it feels at times, especially in the second half.

The big observation I had was that he needed to go further with the characters. He needed to make them more unique, more radical, more memorable. What we have to realize is that, at its core, this is a character-piece. We may have walked through the door because of the pitch, but we’re not staying unless the conversation is riveting. And the only two characters that noticeably stand out are Jake and Mozart. Everyone else was interesting but they weren’t memorable in the way that, say, the characters from “The Usual Suspects” were memorable. And I remember telling him this. When you have a character dominated piece, you want to think like an actor. You want to build characters that actors will die to play. Not *want* to play. But the kind they’ll rob, pillage, and maim to play. Each one of these characters has the potential to be that kind of game-changer. But they’re a mix of too conservative and too tame in this rendition.

Despite that, you can’t put Nine Gold Souls down til the final page and I just love love love the upside this script has. I can’t imagine someone not wanting to take a crack at developing it. It’s just a really cool idea.

Script link: Nine Gold Souls

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

What I learned: In Nine Gold Souls, one of the characters dies early on (after Jake gets to the house). However, the scene didn’t resonate with me because I didn’t know the character that well. This is actually a common practice in screenwriting. The less interesting/complex a character is, the earlier on you kill them off. Why? Because you don’t want to waste your cool characters. The more interesting a character is, the longer you want them around. But I think it’s a mistake to rule out killing your interesting characters early and here’s why. First, you can really shock an audience when you kill off a well-developed/compelling character early. Go watch Scream if you don’t believe me. And two, we as an audience lose our sense of security when a well-developed character dies. Afterwards we think, “Jesus Christ. If *they* can die, then *anybody* can die.” It lets your audience know that you’re not playing by the rules, and that anything can happen. So don’t always be predictable and kill off your characters in reverse order of how interesting they are. Shock us every once in awhile.

For the month of May, Scriptshadow will be foregoing its traditional reviewing to instead review scripts from you, the readers of the site. To find out more about how the month lines up, go back and read the original post here. The first week, we allowed any writers to send in their script for review. Last week, we raised the bar and reviewed repped writers only. This week, we’re doing something different. I read a lot of amateur scripts. Some through my notes service, some through contests, and some through referrals. I wanted to spend a week (or maybe two) highlighting some of the best scripts I’ve come across. All these scripts are available. So if you’re a buyer and it sounds like something you may be interested in, then get a hold of these writers through the contact information on their script before someone else does. Yesterday, Roger reviewed a cool script from Michael Stark titled, “Treading On Angles.” Today, I’m reviewing our first female writer of Amateur Month, Lindsey, and her script, “Blue.”

Genre: Indie Dramedy
Premise: In 1998, at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, a high school girl becomes a local celebrity when she produces a line of dresses based on the famous blue dress Monica Lewinsky wore while having “relations” with the president.
About: When I read this script almost a half year ago, Lindsey was a struggling writer who’d been battling the industry head first for a number of years. This story probably would’ve been better had she still been stuck on that path. But a couple of weeks ago somebody else finally recognized Lindsey’s talent as well. I’m happy to announce that Lindsey just signed with Energy Entertainment. Congrats Lindsey. You deserve it!
Writer: Lindsey Rosin
Details: 104 pages

So of all the scripts I’m reviewing this week, if you made me bet on which one I thought was most likely to become a movie, this is the one I would choose. It may be a small story, but it’s the kind of story that the indie circuit was designed for (heh heh, get it? “Designed?”). Reading through this a second time, I could actually hear the Sundance buzz from a few years from now. I’ll get into why I liked it in a moment. First, let me tell you what it’s about.

It’s 1998 and Zoey Ressler is a naïve idealistic 16 year old coming into her body. She has no idea how beautiful she is, and in her world, the only thing that matters is love. Or, at least, the idea of it. Zoey lives in a family with her sexy but slutty older sister, Rose, and her loving mother and father, Corinne and Victor, two parents who the honeymoon never ended for. Zoey seemingly has a pretty sweet life.

Zoey works at Swirlies, a mall-y-ish ice cream shop, where she’s secretly enamored with 21 year old Jimmy, either a drop-out or entrepreneur, depending on who you’re having the conversation with (if it’s Jimmy, he’s an entrepreneur). Zoey is finding herself more and more attracted to boys, but doesn’t quite know how to finagle her crushes into relationships. As a result, she spends a lot of time at her mother’s struggling thrift store, where she occasionally sews together a dress or two.

And then one day everything changes. Major news outlets break the story that Bill Clinton has had sexual relations with an intern named Monica Lewinsky. It’s a shocking accusation and, as everyone knows, becomes the only thing that anybody in the world talks about. It’s a particularly confusing time for someone like Zoey, who sees the world only through her black and white idealistic filter. “Cheating” is not in her vocabulary.

But soonafter, Zoey reads a story where Monica Lewinsky claims to love Bill Clinton. It’s a particularly relatable situation for her, and the next thing you know, Monica becomes a sort of pseudo-role model for Zoey. So when it’s revealed that Bill Clinton, um, well, let’s just say it, splooged on a blue dress of Monica’s, something clicks in Zoey. What if she made a blue dress, claiming it was the exact same dress-type that the president famously…splooged on?

Now you have to remember, a picture of the dress Monica Lewinsky wore was not immediately released at the time. So nobody knew what it looked like. This is what allows Zoey to create a beautiful blue dress, promote it at her mother’s store as “The Monica,” and see if it sells. Well, it sells all right. And soon, she’s making a whole batch of them. And they’re flying off the shelves like White House pancakes. The dress becomes such a sensation, even the local media covers it.

This, of course, raises Zoey’s profile at school, and soon she’s being noticed by the cool girls and pursued by Mr. Popular, Nick Conway. Then, just when things seem to be reaching an apex, a series of setbacks at school, home, and in the Lewinsky scandal, shatter her idealistic notion of love. “Blue” is about a naïve girl who falsely designs a famous blue dress for a role model she probably shouldn’t have. But it’s also a coming-of-age story about a girl who’s hit with the realities of an increasingly loveless world.

I can’t exactly explain why I liked this script so much but I’m going to try. First, it just has this honesty about it. While at first the idea of a girl dedicating her skills to making a cum-stained blue dress based on a media phenomenon sounds far-fetched, a second look shows that it’s not as “out there” as you think. I don’t know about you but when I was 16, I didn’t exactly place the right people up on a pedestal either. My role models were a sorry bunch of you-know-whats but you wouldn’t be able to tell me that at the time. So the fact that Zoey idolizes Monica for the wrong reasons is a very “teenage” thing to do. This naiveté is also what makes her such an endearing character. Even though we know she shouldn’t be doing what she’s doing, we find it cute, so we root for her.

But the real strength here is the way Lindsey takes on a full cast of characters and breathes life into each and every one of them. I warn young writers all the time: Don’t fuck around with ensemble pieces! It’s too hard to write multiple unique and compelling characters. Focus on creating one dynamo character as that alone is a daunting challenge. There’s nothing uglier than flipping back and forth between characters that are thinner than an ipad.

But that just doesn’t happen here. Between Zoey, the parents, the sister, the boyfriend, Zoey’s best friend…all of these characters came to life for me. They had a pulse. Why? Cause they were DOING things. They weren’t waiting around for the main character to show up in their world. You got the feeling that their lives existed whether Zoey was around or not. There’s this notion of “negative space” that I’m not going to get into now but basically it’s the idea that your secondary characters are still doing things when they’re off-screen. Some teachers will even tell you to write the scenes for the off-screen characters that the audience will never see. It’s a great exercise because it instills the notion that each character is the star of their own movie. This might be Zoey’s story, but it doesn’t mean we couldn’t find a compelling movie surrounding her father, or her sister. I really got the sense that Lindsey understood that, and we reap the benefits of it.

I don’t have many complaints. There’s one, which I won’t go into because it’s a twist that happens later on and I don’t want to reveal it. It’s the only thing that doesn’t feel like a natural extension of the story. And I told Lindsey how I felt but she gave me her reasons why she did it and I do sorta understand where she’s coming from. But outside of that, I just thought this was a great little story. And even though this is a HUGE statement, I suspect we’ll be seeing “Blue” on the big screen someday.

If you’re a producer who would like to read the script please contact Jennifer Graham at Management 360

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

What I learned: If you are doing a period piece, even if that period piece is from a few years ago, GET YOUR DETAILS RIGHT. There were a couple of things here where I said, “I don’t know if they had that back in 1998.” For example, there was an IM’ing scene. So I did a quick check on Wikipedia and I found…that AOL IM’ing *did* arrive around 1996. So Lindsey was safe. But it reminded me of all the period scripts I read where writers DON’T do their homework. They have characters texting back in 1993, charactres googling back in 1997, and the WORST is when characters use phrases that nobody would’ve used at that time. Nobody said “That’s tight,” back in 1989 people! This may seem trivial, but it’s an indication that you don’t care enough about your story to get the details right. And the second a reader feels like you don’t care, they’re going to stop caring too. It happens ALL THE TIME when I read scripts.

For the month of May, Scriptshadow will be foregoing its traditional reviewing to instead review scripts from you, the readers of the site. To find out more about how the month lines up, go back and read the original post here. Last week, we allowed any writers to send in their script for review. This week, we’re raising the bar and reviewing repped writers only. The caveat is that they cannot have a sale to their name. The idea here is to give aspiring writers an idea of the quality of writing it takes to have a professional manager or agent take an interest in your work. Monday, Roger reviewed the Western, “Quicker Than The Eye.” Tuesday, I reviewed the 80s’esque comedy “Duty.” Wednesday, I reviewed the JFK thriller “The Shadow Before.” Thursday I reviewed another thriller called “Skin.” And today, I take on a Rom-Com. Rom-Com nuts unite!

Genre: Comedy/Romantic Comedy
Premise: A recently broken-hearted man returns to his hometown to have a guys weekend with his (also recently broken-hearted) best friend, only to find out that his ex is in town doing the exact same thing, forcing them to avoid each other at all costs.
About: Our fifth and final script of Repped Week. David DeGrow Shotwell & Steven Michael Walters are repped by APA.
Writers: David DeGrow Shotwell & Steven Michael Walters
Details: 106 pages

So I decided to save my favorite script of the week for last. And this one was a bit of a surprise, because it started off like any other “Guys get together and talk about chicks” script. The setup was too obvious and the characters bordering on thin. The comedic sidekick, in particular, was hogging the spotlight, and he felt more like his own movie than he did part of a movie. I’m not a fan of this because I don’t like sacrificing story for laughs. I always think story should come first, even in a comedy.

So I’m going to go on a tangent here and you have to join me because it’s Friday and shit gets crazy on Fridays. I call characters like the one I mentioned above “Last Comic Standing” characters. And let me explain why. I went to a party one night long ago and this guy approached me and he said, “Hey man, how’s it going?” And I said, “Fine.” And he replied, “Yo, have you seen the kitchen in this place? I’ve seen closets with nicer sinks.” I thought that was kind of a weird way to start a conversation, but it’s not like I knew anyone else here, so I couldn’t run. He followed that up with, “And what’s up with the hills in this town? I feel like I’m a rat in a maze. I’d rather get stuck in the Sahara Desert than the Hollywood Hills, you know what I mean?” No, I didn’t know what he meant. I also noticed the guy was wearing a big plastic smile while he spoke. This was starting to get creepy.

“And this beer. Helloooooo. I’ve tasted cow urine better than this!” This weirdo proceeded to give me two minutes of the most random observations you could think of before it finally hit me. He was a stand-up comedian! He was trying out his “act” on me! Going out and testing his material on “the real world.” He never let me talk or respond or engage or anything. He just made his jokes and waited for me to either laugh or not laugh.

I bring this up because this is the “Last Comic Standing” approach I see in so many bad comedy specs. The story is almost non-existent. It’s just an excuse to put a character “up on stage” and let him riff through a bunch of scenes. There’s no connection to the story, to the other characters, to the plot or to the theme. As a result, the audience feels a bit like I did talking to that nutcase at the party. Like they’ve been given tickets to a Saturday afternoon show at the Laugh Factory.

A screenplay is about creating a universe and having your characters live and breathe within that universe. If it ever feels like that universe is put on hold so your hero can do his Rodney Dangerfield impression, the illusion of the story (the “suspension of disbelief”) is gone. And since most production companies are looking for stories and not stand-up acts, it’s best to adhere to this principle.

When I started “The Rebound,” I was immediately worried about this. The plot follows Stan, a recent LA implant who’s been dumped by the love of his life. Stan’s best friend Jeff, who’s never grown up because he’s a Toys-R-Us kid, has just booked Stan on the next flight back to their hometown so they can compete in a Guitar Hero contest that weekend (for Jeff’s band “Whore Parade Route”), and Stan can experience a little hometown healing.

We’re thrown into Jeff and his buddies talking about banging bitches and getting ready for their big Guitar Hero performances. Jeff has also just broken up with his girlfriend, Kara, and wants to win the competition so he can bang as many “groupies” as possible. It’s all Jeff all the time and since the story (a Guitar Hero tournament?) is thinner than plywood, it just felt like an excuse to have a bunch of funny conversations.

However, as soon as Stan gets into town and he learns that Cathy (his ex) is also in for the weekend, the script starts to formulate. Stan’s upset, because this was supposed to be a weekend of healing. And Cathy isn’t thrilled because now she’s going to be tempted to talk to him. The goal then becomes to avoid each other so they don’t fall back into a situation they know will never work.

So Stan runs into an old girlfriend from high school and Cathy meets a sophisticated older guy with all the qualities Stan doesn’t have. These two become foils for what we ultimately want to happen, which is for Stan and Cathy to meet up and get back together. But the longer the story goes, the less likely it is that that will happen. We’re essentially watching a movie where the two main characters never meet. It’s sort of a cross between Swingers and Sleepless In Seattle.

There are a few things that really make this story work. First, it has a natural ticking time bomb – the weekend. I like the way it’s slyly placed there but never addressed. We just know that when the weekend is over, these two go back to their own worlds and that’s it.

Also, we really like Stan and Cathy. They’re both honest, funny, endearing people. For that reason, as the script goes on, we become more and more attached to their situation and want them to get together. In fact, I kept checking the pages numerous times going, “Page 60?? And they still haven’t seen each other??? What if they don’t see each other at all??”

But where “The Rebound” separates itself from the amateur ranks is in how it addresses its secondary characters, namely Kara and Jeff. They start off being the goofy comedic sidekicks, but eventually learn something and change into better people. In amateur comedy scripts, you never see this. All of the supporting characters are usually flat and boring because they’re exactly the same at the end of the movie as they were at the beginning. In other words, they’re just there to do their stand up routine and get out. It was really refreshing to discover that Jeff was more than a few silly lines.

My only real complaint here is that the first 30 or so pages indicate a more juvenile story than it ends up becoming. Once we got into the actual relationships (Stan meets his girl and Cathy meets her guy), the script hits its stride. This might need a few rewrites to bring out every scene’s full potential, but I could definitely see this as a movie.

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

What I learned: Whenever you have a straight man in a comedy, you usually contrast him with a goofy/extreme sidekick character. Sean William Scott’s character in Role Models. Spike in Notting Hill. Any of the 3 guys opposite Jason Biggs in American Pie. From my experience (and this isn’t always the case, but mostly), secondary characters who are the same at the end of the movie as they were at the beginning, are boring. Just because someone is a comedic sidekick doesn’t mean he can’t or shouldn’t be explored on a deeper level. In the end of Notting Hill, Spike learns to take love more seriously. In Role Models, Scott learns to actually give a shit. And in American Pie, all of the supporting players overcome their individual flaws by the end of the film. Take a look at your comedy script. Do your supporting characters change? Do they learn anything from this journey? If not, consider changing it so they do. It will make your script a lot better, and it will show readers you know what you’re doing.

For the month of May, Scriptshadow will be foregoing its traditional reviewing to instead review scripts from you, the readers of the site. To find out more about how the month lines up, go back and read the original post here. Last week, we allowed any writers to send in their script for review. This week, we’re raising the bar and reviewing repped writers only. The caveat is that they cannot have a sale to their name. The idea here is to give aspiring writers an idea of the quality of writing it takes to have a professional manager or agent take an interest in your work. Monday, Roger reviewed the Western, “Quicker Than The Eye.” Tuesday, I reviewed the 80s’esque comedy “Duty.” Yesterday, I reviewed the JFK thriller “The Shadow Before.” And today I’m reviewing another thriller called “Skin.”

Genre: Thriller
Premise: A New Orleans tax lawyer finds himself mixed up in the world of rare animal smuggling after investigating the death of a homeless man with the same name as him.
About: Our 4th script for Repped Week. Brannstrom is managed by The Radmin Company.
Writer: Johan Brännström
Details: 104 pages

Of all the scripts I’ve read these past couple of weeks, this one has the most potential, and I’ll tell you why. The majority of thrillers I read these days are about some guy from the future running around trying to escape the bad guys. Or a CIA agent being swindled by the government and/or some secret organization. And I’m not saying that’s bad. I’m reviewing a script next week that falls under that category. But I think the thriller genre has become stale lately, and this trend needs to change. “Skin” is the first thriller I’ve read in awhile that really tries to approach the genre from a different angle. It’s about a tax attorney wrapped up in an exotic animal scam. That’s about as far away from the future and the government as you can get.

And for about 55 pages, everything here was clicking. The setup was intriguing, the twists were original, the subject matter was fresh. The problem “Skin” runs into is that it’s playing in a sandbox as rare as the animals it dramatizes. There aren’t a lot of “zoological thrillers” out there to use as reference points if your plot starts running amok. And, unfortunately, for the second half of this screenplay, there’s a lot of “amok” running around. And “Skin” never quite recovers from it.

Still, there’s something really neat about this idea. It’s just “out there” enough to be different but not so “out there” that it alienates you. The closest movie I can think of is the underappreciated “The Freshman” with Matthew Broderick and Marlon Brando. But that was a comedy. So while I think Brannstrom runs out of rope here, it sure was a fun rope to climb on.

Robert Deville is a tax lawyer in a still devastated New Orleans. As a result, his clientele can be quite diverse. “Sumo” Suma is his latest defendant, a trader in the lucrative rare animal business. He’s currently trying to get a tax write-off on an extremely rare yellow turtle, but the judge doesn’t think the turtle exists.

So off Robert goes to get proof of this turtle at a local zoo, when he runs into a strange non-talking homeless man, who, after a quick “conversation,” hands the missing turtle over to Robert. Hmm, that was weird. Why would this man have the turtle? And who is he? Before Robert can get answers, the homeless man shoots off.

Later the next day, Robert finds out that the homeless man committed suicide. And not only that. But the man had the same name as him! Whoa, this is getting weirder by the second. Naturally curious, Robert decides to do a little digging, and finds out that this man hasn’t always been homeless, and may have been employed as recently as a couple of weeks ago. His curiosity turns out to be a devastating mistake though, as he comes home later that day to find his wife brutally murdered.

Exacerbating the problem, his wife’s father, a powerful judge, believes that Robert is the killer, and tells all the policeman in town to shoot first and ask questions later. Within 24 hours, Robert’s on the run with no one to turn to. And it’s not lost on us that Robert’s situation is starting to look a lot like that other homeless guy, the one with the same name. What’s going on here? And what does the trading of all these rare animals have to do with it? Robert better find out soon. Or he could be the next person who “committed suicide.”

There’s a lot of good in this script, and most of it comes from how the mystery is set up. Every twist adds more pieces to the puzzle, and we’re just dying to figure out how they all fit together. Brannstrom’s biggest strength though, is how he creates tension in his chase scenes. He makes sure his hero is in a bad situation. Then he makes it worse for them. And worse. And worse. There’s a scene in a Bingo parlor for example, where Robert’s pretending to be one of the players, and the cops come in looking for him, and just one thing after another goes wrong (i.e. the person playing in front of him turns around and recognizes him), so it was really fun watching Robert continue to escape these impossible to escape situations. In general, all the chase stuff was top notch.

Where this story falls apart though, is when Robert meets the wife of the homeless man who was murdered. From their very first meeting, something felt off. Robert has never met this person before, yet just seconds after meeting her tells her her husband is dead. Her reaction? Nothing. She doesn’t cry or get upset or anyting. But that’s not what bothered me. Because maybe she hasn’t seen her husband in a couple of years, or maybe they’ve grown apart, or whatever. What bothered me was that Robert just assumed he could hit her with this and start asking questions about who he was. The scene just had no truth to it.

If you’re going to tell someone their husband is dead, you’re going to do it very carefully. And you’re definitely not hopscotching into the details of his life after a 15 second cool down period. You’re going to ask if they need to sit down. If they need a minute. And odds are, they’re going to need a lot of minutes before they can say anything. So that one single scene really changed the way I saw the script. Because up until that point, people were acting realistically. Now I started to wonder if “Skin” was falling into that tragic trap, where a writer is making choices solely because it’s convenient for the plot.

The scene then unexpectedly becomes a key turning point in a lot of ways, because the wife then becomes a central character, and eventually a love interest. Introducing a key character halfway into the script is always a risky proposition, but introducing the main romantic interest halfway into the script is almost impossible. This combination of a late-arriving character, a tough-to-buy love interest, and circumstances that make it nearly impossible to believe these two would be together, really hurt the second act. In short, it feels like someone told Brannstrom “You need a love interest here,” and he complied with them, even though he never truly bought into it.

Another thing I was hoping for was that the plot would hinge more on the rare animal element. That’s what makes the script different. That’s the worm that hooks us. So when the animals become more Beyonce’s background singers than Beyonce, I was disappointed. They’re actually a big McGuffin when you think about it. This is really about a group of back alley thugs orchestrating run of the mill scams. The animals could easily be substituted for anything: drugs, weapons, pirated DVDs, what have you. My point is, you don’t want to hint at an exotic mystery thriller, only to finish the story with something we’ve seen a million times before. You want to deliver on the promise of the premise.

But as I mentioned earlier, this script has a lot of upside. I would just keep going at this thing until I got it right. A fun read. Just gets way too messy in the second half.

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

What I learned: I’ve actually encountered this situation a lot lately, so I think it’s relevant enough to address in a “what I learned” section. Here’s the deal: It’s really hard to kill off your hero’s spouse in a movie, then try to give them a romantic interest later on. Think about The Fugitive. What if they would’ve added a love interest for Harrison Ford’s character? How wrong does that sound? Now there are circumstances where it can be done. For example, in Braveheart they do it, and it works because years have passed since his wife’s death. It can also work if a couple is having serious problems in their marriage, then the wife dies. Since we know the hero had already emotionally moved on, we buy into him hooking up with another woman. But if two people love each other, and one of them dies, and your script doesn’t have any large time jumps, it’s really hard to buy into that person falling for someone else. That’s why I always say, kill that person off before the movie starts if you can. That way you have romantic reign in the story.

For the month of May, Scriptshadow will be foregoing its traditional reviewing to instead review scripts from you, the readers of the site. To find out more about how the month lines up, go back and read the original post here. Last week, we allowed any writers to send in their script for review. This week, we’re raising the bar and reviewing repped writers only. The caveat is that they cannot have a sale to their name. The idea here is to give aspiring writers an idea of the quality of writing it takes to have a professional manager or agent take an interest in your work. Monday, Roger reviewed the Western, “Quicker Than The Eye.” Yesterday, I reviewed the 80s’esque comedy “Duty,” and today, I’m reviewing the JFK thriller “The Shadow Before.”

Genre: Thiller/Drama/Love Story
Premise: John F. Kennedy made a speech in Cork City, Ireland five months before he was assassinated. This is the story of the two weeks leading up to that speech.
About: This is the third script of Repped Week. Martin McSweeney is represented by Conrad Williams at Blake Friedman UK. This script is an adaptation of his own book, “Two Weeks In June,” which you can find here.
Writer: Martin McSweeney
Details: 113 pages

I’m by no means a Kennedy conspiracy freak. I watched Oliver Stone’s “JFK” when I was a kid but I was more consumed with the strange directing style of this off-his-rocker director than I was the actual movie. But it is a shady slice of American history and it’s clear the entire truth has never been revealed. So when the subject pops up in a concept, I usually take notice.

I was particularly intrigued by this premise, which wasn’t focusing on the actual assassination, but rather something that happened a full 5 months ahead of it. Could an event that took place in a small Irish city 8000 miles away from Dallas have had something to do with what happened on November 22nd, 1963? I didn’t know, but I wanted to find out. Strangely, any expectations of what I thought I was about to read were dashed within the first act. This Irish tale is a curious cross between a drama, a love story, and a thriller.

It’s June, 1963 in Cork City, Ireland. In two weeks, John F. Kennedy will be arriving to deliver a speech. It’s a turbulent period in Ireland, with a large portion of the population upset that the British keep sticking their noses in Ireland’s affairs. Since Kennedy’s speech is rumored to address some of these issues, and since the word is that it will be Pro-British, there’s a lot of fidgety Irish folk preparing for the worst. The IRA, in particular, is worried about the fallout if America publicly sides with Britain.

The Brady Bunch-sized Horgan family has lived in Cork City their whole lives. And the gem of the family is 19 year old Mary, a beautiful shop worker who, like most women of that era, is on the hunt for a husband. Unfortunately, her pursuits have led her into a disastrous date with Willy, a wrong-side-of-the-tracks type who, even though Mary has moved on, believes that the two are still together. A day in the life of Mary involves being on the lookout at all times, as she’s never sure where Willy is or what he’s capable of.

Luckily for Mary, she meets a dashing 30 year old American named Dean Reynolds. Although nobody knows what Dean does, a thick layer of charm and the non-invention of google keep the suspicions at bay. He seems nice enough. And he’s from America. So who cares what he does?

In the meantime, Mary is unaware that her two older brothers have joined the IRA. The Kennedy speech fears are reaching a fever pitch, and Cork’s IRA chief wants the brothers to deliver a letter to the local paper. The letter subtly warns Kennedy that if his speech is pro-British, there will be repercussions.

Cork City

Back to Mary, who’s quickly falling in love with Dean. So blind is this love that she doesn’t much notice when her pervert boss is severely beaten. And that old Willy character? Yeah well, he hasn’t bothered her much recently because he’s DEAD. Doesn’t take Einstein to figure out Dean may be connected somehow. The suspicious-o-meter hits car alarm levels when Mary’s brothers spot Brendan out in a secluded field with a souped up sniper rifle, taking down targets hundreds of meters away. Could Dean have been sent to Ireland to assassinate Kennedy?

When the IRA gets wind of this, they start sweating the same bullets Dean’s shooting. They just put a public letter out vowing that if Kennedy showed support for Britain, they would retaliate. But they didn’t plan on actually *doing* anything to Kennedy. Now, if things shake out the way they’re looking to, and Kennedy is harmed or killed, the IRA could be in some hot water.

So what’s the deal? Is Dean really trying to kill the president? If so, will he be able to before the IRA get to him? And how does this affect Mary? Dean’s expressed interest in marrying her after Kennedy’s speech is over. Is she in trouble too ? Hmmm. I guess you’ll have to read the script to find out.

The first thing I noticed about The Shadow Before was that it was an odd way to approach a thriller. I think that worked both for it and against it. “For it” because I love reading scripts where I have no idea what the next page will bring, and because the love story and the mystery are so heavily intertwined here, I was always wondering which aspect would dictate the next plot point. I mean, I knew we were going to end up at Kennedy, but I had no idea how we were going to get there. “Against it” because I had no genre to ground me. “Thriller” and “love story” are such odd genres to mix that I always felt off-balance. It’s kind of like taking your girlfriend to the gun range on Valentine’s Day. Something doesn’t feel right about it. I think the bigger issue here though is that the concept hints at a JFK thriller, so that’s what I was anticipating. Disappointment crept in when that anticipation was only partially met.

(non-specific spoilers from here on) Another issue The Shadow Before runs up against is that we already know no one’s going to kill Kennedy, because, well, it’s history! And that takes away a good amount of suspense. This is why I dislike the idea of prequels in general, and why I don’t like films such as 2008’s Valkyrie. The entire movie is geared towards a climax that we already know the outcome of. That takes away one of your most powerful tools, the element of surprise. But there are ways to make this foreknowledge work for you, and it’s all in how you handle the characters. In American Beauty, for example, Lester tells us he’s going to die at the beginning of the film. Yet we’re still riveted because we see each of these characters develop motives to kill him. There’s still a big mystery involved. WHO is going to kill Lester? The Shadow Before uses a bit of that magic itself, as it takes the focus off of Kennedy, and puts it on Dean. The central question becomes, “Is Dean good or bad?” Is he here to kill the president or save him? And what happens then, if the IRA prevents him from doing either of these things?

But I think whenever you base your concept around JFK, and specifically his assassination, you’re tapping into an audience that’s eager for tidbits about the conspiracy, especially when you imply that the conspiracy is dealt with in your logline. For that reason, it was a little disappointing that this was such a self-contained story.And what I mean by “self-contained” is there’s nothing here that makes you look at the real assassination, which happened five months later, in a new light. And the hook kinda hints that there will be.

Still, this is a very well-written script and an engaging character story. I enjoyed never quite knowing where it was going, and for that reason, I think it’s worth the read.

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

What I learned: Whenever you tell the audience your ending ahead of time, especially at the beginning of the film, you’re putting the primary load of your screenplay on your characters. Since we know where the story’s going, the only uncertainty left is the characters who take us there. For this reason, you need to be extremely strong with character development if you use this device. If you don’t know what a central character flaw is or how a character arcs or how to set up original and compelling relationships between your characters, I would stay away from this device.