Genre: Paranoid Thriller
Premise: A man becomes entangled in a secret society that forces him to murder.
About: Finished with 5 votes on the 2009 Black List. Will star Nicholas Cage, Guy Pearce, and January Jones. Shooting right now. Directed by The Bank Job’s Roger Donaldson and produced by Toby Maguire’s production company.
Status of project: Production
Status of this draft: Unknown
Writer: Robert Tannen (Story by Todd Hickey & Robert Tannen)
Details: 106 pages (undated)

Forgive me for not expecting more out of Nicholas Cage these days. Since the guy seems to be having more money problems than all seven degrees of Kevin Bacon, I figure his choices are motivated more by bags of money than his desire for challenging material. Even before our country’s gold stash had deteriorated to a point where even Michael Moore had to make a movie about it, Cage was dangling precipitously on the wrong side of quality. Most of the movies he’s been making seem designed for the 1980s direct to video market. I mean, was Banqkok Dangerous a real film? That was a joke, right? Needless to say, I wasn’t jumping at the idea of reading The Hungry Rabbit Jumps. It was more like a slow crawl, hoping someone would spot me before I made it and pull me back. But this furriest of escapades turned out to be a pleasant surprise. Maybe Cage hasn’t given up afterall.

Our hero, Nick (a little presumptuous weren’t we?), is a teacher at an inner city school. He’s a good guy who occasionally takes his wife, Laura, a violinist in the local symphony, for granted (don’t we all?). This will end up costing him, however, as when Nick skips out on drinks with Laura and her friends, she’s assaulted, raped, and nearly killed on the way to her car. Nick is immediately haunted by his selfishness and is horrified that this monster, whoever he may be, is still out there, roaming the streets.

Later, however, Nick is approached by a mysterious man named Simon. Simon gives Nick a choice. He can wait for this to play out in the creaky inefficient justice system, or he can deal with it here and now. All he has to do is say the word, and the man who raped his wife will be “dealt with.”

Oh, there’s only one catch. There may or may not be a point in the future where these people – whoever they are – will call on Nick to do something for them. Most likely, Nick will never see them again (yeah right) but in case “bad guys” shows up on his caller ID, the implication is, he should answer. Nick is told to take solace in the fact that if he is called upon, the task will be easy (double yeah right). Still fresh off the emotional devastation of his wife’s assault, Nick hears himself saying ‘okay’ and a half an hour later, the man who raped his wife is brutally murdered.

Cut to 18 months later.

Nick is now the exact opposite of his old self. He’s obsessed with his wife’s safety. He’s around her as much as possible, and when he isn’t, he’s constantly phoning her and making sure she’s okay. But that’s not the only obsessive component to Nick’s life. Nick still remembers what Simon said about needing help one day. As a result, Nick is a 24 hour bucket of nerves. He’s constantly on the lookout, convincing himself that he sees the men that were there that night, the men who may or may not be a part of this vigilante justice organization.

Turns out Nick’s instincts rock. Simon indeed strolls back into his life and reminds Nick of that little favor he owes. And just like he promised, it’s a harmless one. All Nick has to do is kill a man. If he chooses not to? Well, Nick may find himself the unwitting victim of someone else’s “favor” they owed. If it makes you feel any better, Simon points out, the man he’s supposed to kill is a horrible human being. But for some reason that doesn’t brighten Nick’s spirits. As he tries to decide what to do, and hide this secret second life from his increasingly suspicious wife, he slowly unveils the secrets of an organization that takes justice into their own hands.

One of the strengths of Hungry Rabbit Jumps is the predicament it puts its main character in. Never forget that the audience loves to watch your main character make choices. Choices are when we truly learn about a character. The more difficult you make the choice, the more entertaining it is watching them choose. Ideally, you’ll put your character in a position where both choices are “wrong.” For Nick, that moment is when he’s told, “either kill for us or we’ll try and kill you.” Nick can either a) kill a man, get caught and later executed, b) run away, fearing for the rest of his life that the organization will find him, or c) fight back and try to expose these men. Each choice presents its own set of problems and you can’t wait to see which one Nick chooses. The answer to that one choice will tell us more about Nick than 15 scenes of dialogue ever could. Never forget that.

But let’s be honest here. Hungry Rabbit Jumps isn’t the Godfather. It does sort of have that direct-to-video feel to it. The thing is, it’s an exciting direct-to-video feel. The pages turn faster than a flip book and the twists and turns, while occasionally cheesy, satisfy the same dirty side of you that occasionally needs to binge on a bag of barbeque Ruffles or a Sunday Night mini-marathon of Jersey Shore. You definitely feel filthy afterwards, but it’s satisfied filthy, like you’ve gotten away with something you’re not supposed to.

If you want to get nit-picky, Hungry Rabbit definitely provides you with some ammunition. This organization has been operating for years essentially by employing non-killers to kill. Since it’s hard enough to kill someone if you *do* know what you’re doing, throwing clueless suburbanites into the line of fire and having them come away unscathed for countless years isn’t realistic. People are going to get caught. People are going to spill the beans. But the thing about “Hungry Rabbit” is, it establishes a tone that conditions you not to worry about these petty details. It’s a fun surface-level thriller and just like all surface-level thrillers, if you dig too deep, it probably doesn’t add up. Even North By Northwest has some fatal logic holes, right?

Hungry Rabbit Jumps was a nice little diversion and definitely worthy of its five votes on the Black List.

Script link: Hungry Rabbit Jumps (This script is meant for educational purposes only. If you are the writer or copyright holder of this script and would like it taken down, please e-mail me at Carsonreeves1@gmail.com and I will do so immediately)

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

What I learned: I learned that therapy sessions have become a place for writers to cheat. By that I mean, you’re never supposed to have your characters say exactly what they mean. It results in the dreaded feedback that your dialogue is too “on-the-nose”. Why is on-the-nose dialogue considered so terrible? Well A) it’s much more interesting if your character talk around their feelings and b) people rarely say what’s on their mind, so when they do it doesn’t feel realistic. Yet I realized something as Nick and his wife were in couples therapy, working through their reaction to the assault. As they bickered with the therapist, he simply said, “Talk to each other.” And they proceeded to tell each other *exactly* how they felt. They got to speak those “on-the-nose” lines that are considered a dialogue death sentence . And yet it didn’t feel fake or forced because it made sense within the context of the scene. It’s a total cheat, but it’s a great tool for you to use if you need it. (Like any tool though, don’t *overuse* it)

Genre: Comedy
Premise: A liberal New Yorker realizes he isn’t as open-minded as he thinks he is and sets out to make a black friend.
About: This finished with 10 votes on the 2009 Black List (same as Balls Out). I don’t know much about these writers but I can tell you this. Adam Cole-Kelley wrote for my brother’s favorite show ever – Cash Cab. It’s a show where a cab picks you up and asks you Jeopardy like questions, allowing you to win money before you get to your destination. While home for Christmas I watched somewhere between 20-30 episodes of it. The writers have another project called “The Misadventures Of Fluffy” which is being produced by Eddie Murphy.
Writers: Adam Cole-Kelly and Sam Pitman
Details: 108 pages (August 6, 2009)

Can’t we all just get along? And joke about each other a little? With our races and cultures and societies being so different, you’d think we’d be able to poke fun at each other every once in awhile. If we get too serious, if we completely lose our sense of humor, don’t we become an automaton society of politically correct robots? Hey, I’m white. I can’t dance. I’m not happy that my white brethren can’t dance either but darnit if I can’t laugh at it. Just to give you an idea of how ridiculous our over-sensitivity has become , I went over this paragraph 23 times to determine if it was in any way offensive. I decided that it was, but I’m still trying to figure out to whom.

The Diversification Of Noah Miller is bringing black and white race relations into the 2010’s. It’s been a while since we tackled this issue in a comedy. I think the last time may have been the critically acclaimed box-office smash hit, “Guess Who,” starring former movie star current Twitter-celeb/camera pitchman Ashton Kutcher. Although we races may have many differences, I think one thing we can all agree on is that Ashton Kutcher’s career is the most perplexing in Hollywood history. Never before has someone with so little talent had so much success. But I’m getting off-track here. Cole-Kelly and Pitman take race comedy into the contemporary world by adding something very 21st century… the bromance.

Poster for the 8-time Oscar winning film

In fact, The Diversification Of Noah Miller is so similar to “I Love You, Man,” that I wasn’t sure if this was a bromance movie about race, or a race-related movie that happened to include a bromance. I suspect that that was the big challenge. The angle of your story warrants you to explore race-related issues, but because those issues are so likely to offend, you can fall back on the easier less divisive comedy of the bromance, even though it’s comedy we’ve kind of already seen before.

Our hero, Noah Miller, is a simple family man – a white middle class liberal food critic. He doesn’t stereotype. He’s open to all types of people and cultures. He’s ecstatic that Obama is our president. But despite Noah’s proclamation that he’s worldly and cultured, the reality is he doesn’t have a single black friend. Every person he hangs out with is white (and Jewish). As his wife waves it off, this single fact begins to weigh on Noah. Is he a big hypocrite? A liberal in name only?

So Noah sets off to try and find a black friend. One day, while flagging down a cab, he meets Rashon, a nicely dressed handsome black man, basically the African-American version of himself. So desperate is Noah to make Rashon his friend, that he later travels to Rashon’s neck of the woods to deliver him the $3 umbrella he left in the cab. Rashon thinks it’s bizarre but the two strike up a meaningful if strange friendship.

The 80s hit. Would this movie be considered racist today?

The script is meant for a slightly older audience, as a lot of the issues and situations the two encounter tend to be family related (they both have wives and are raising small children). So in that respect, “The Diversification Of Noah Miller” is a welcome diversion from the many raunchy dirty comedies that litter the Black List.

As for the comedy itself, there are a couple of moments that do push the boundaries. For instance, Noah comes to where Rashon works but doesn’t know what the exact address is. It comes down to two stores – a coffee shop and a Popeye’s. Watching him mentally battle to overcome any preconceived stereotypes and pick the right store was a pretty ballsy choice. There are also some scenes with his four year old son, who inadvertently makes some choices at pre-school that paint him as a racist. Outside of that though, Cole-Kelly and Pitman play it pretty safe.

I think what disappointed me was that there weren’t enough scenes that took advantage of the premise. This resulted in some comedic scenes that felt like they were straight out of another movie. For example, there’s a scene where Noah invites Rashon to one of the restaurants he’s going to review, but in order for Noah not to be spotted, he must go undercover. He chooses to dress up as a woman, and we get a kind of strange sequence where Rashon appears to be on a date with the female Noah. Rashon is then spotted by a friend of his wife, who gets angry that Rashon may be cheating on her, and all I could think was, “What does this have to do with the premise?” This is supposed to be about a man who, because of his own insecurities, is desperately trying to make a black friend. The dressing up like a woman stuff felt like a cheap laugh that had nothing to do with that.

The original far inferior “Guess Who” (sarcasm implied)

The other problem I found with the script was the lack of a clear goal for the protagonist. What exactly was Noah after here? If the point of the story was for him to become friends with a black person, when do we know he’s accomplished this? They seem to be having a good time as early as page 30. So, in essence, he’s already accomplished his goal. Movie over. If you look at “I Love You, Man,” they did a great job clarifying where the movie was going. The goal was for the main character to find a best man before his wedding. Having that “ticking time bomb” gave the story a purpose and a clear finish line. I was never sure when we were supposed to consider Noah’s journey a success or a failure.

But I do want to commend Cole-Kelly and Pitman for taking on such risky subject matter. Most writers don’t have the balls to go there (including myself). As silly as it sounds, it’s a very relatable situation. Lots of people are open to building friendships with other races but the reality is most cultures tend to stick with the flock. That crossover gets harder as you get older. So I can see an audience responding to this. At the moment though, the comedy feels a little light and the plot unfocused. This particular draft didn’t grab me.

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

What I learned: Don’t have your characters do things because it’s convenient for the story. Characters should always stay in character and act logically. For example, Rashon’s wife, Kim, thinks Noah is sketchy. She doesn’t like him and is constantly telling Rashon he shouldn’t hang out with him. Then, a situation occurs where Rashon gets angry at Noah, and doesn’t want to hang out with him anymore. If Rashon and Noah aren’t hanging out, we don’t have a story. So in the very next scene Kim tells Rashon he should give Noah another chance. It doesn’t make any sense (to me at least) why she changes her mind about him *other* than that it allows the story to keep moving. Readers pick up on these things. Never make a character act irrationally just to move your story along.

Genre: Comedy
Premise: A guy decides to stalk his ex-girlfriend.
About: Carnes & Gilbert were on Variety’s “Top Ten Screenwriters To Watch” list of 2005. They sold “Stalker: A Love Story” to Paramount for 1.75 million dollars. The two also wrote Mr. Woodcock. More info here.
Writers: Michael Carnes & Josh Gilbert

For those of you who have read a significant number of scripts, you know how it is when you’re smack dab in the middle of something that just ain’t working. Now for those of you who read scripts casually, the reaction to such a situation is easy. YOU STOP READING. I don’t have that luxury. Quitting in the middle of the script means I just wasted 45 minutes and now have to start all over again. It’s for this reason that I can’t solely post positive reviews. And that’s too bad. Because I wish Scriptshadow could be a place of celebration and candy and rainbows and the occasional unicorn (no leprechauns though). I hold no ill will towards writers and I get no satisfaction from pointing out when something doesn’t work. But man, I have to be honest with you, “Stalker: A Love Story” was not good on many levels. And it really is confusing when you’re talking about a near two million dollar sale. “Am I missing something?”, you think. I’d assume the most common response to being stalked is feeling violated. And I felt very violated reading this script.

We definitely need more unicorns on Scriptshadow.

My basic complaint is this: The setup makes absolutely no sense. David and Amanda are in a relationship. Fine. Sounds good to me. But David, an architect, is a workaholic and isn’t very into Amanda. He doesn’t like to do things with her. He’s the kind of boyfriend you say something to and then, forever-later he looks up and slurs “Whah?” So to be clear: David loves his job and doesn’t love his relationship. Amanda finally realizes that he’s never going to change and dumps David. She’s through. How does David react? Eh. Shrugs his shoulders and says, “Oh well”, then moves on. Let me reiterate: David doesn’t seem to like Amanda at all.

So then we get a “Six Months Later” title and David is still happily plugging away at his job. In fact, things are going so well he’s just been offered a contract on a new building. Hooray. Once again, Amanda isn’t even a blip on David’s radar. He probably doesn’t even remember her name. One night while David is pulled out for drinks, he runs into Amanda’s friend, who informs David that Amanda is in a new relationship. And in a span of about 3 seconds, David decides that he’s always loved Amanda and is going to stalk her until he gets her back.

Uh…..WHAT???

How does this even make a remote amount of sense? I don’t like you. Now I’m infatuated with you?? I’ve seen Fraggle Rock episodes with more logic. It was so outrageous of a character change, I scrolled around to make sure I hadn’t accidentally opened another script. I can MAYBE see this working if David realized what he lost the second Amanda broke up with him. But six months later? After we’ve established he doesn’t even like the woman?? Someone had just sent me a one-way ticket to Bizarre-o World.

From that point on Carnes and Gilbert had no chance with me. If characters could just turn into different people without explanation, why not add wizards and dragons while you’re at it? But it was the missed opportunity of “Stalker” that ate at me most. Why didn’t the writers go for an edgier comedy? Having your main character be a stalker is something that’s never been done before in a comedy. You could’ve created something truly groundbreaking here, which is exactly what the title implies will happen. And I’m sure that expectation had plenty to do with my disappointment. But man, I feel like they really missed the boat. Instead of doing something different, this turned out to be one of the most standard of standard romantic comedies I’ve ever read.

As for the rest of the script, David turns to his Indian neighbor, Pumpang, for support. Pumpang is actually *the* most broken up about the dumping of everyone. He loved David and Amanda together and when their relationship ended, he spent days on end crying (as opposed to David – who didn’t cry at all). When David’s amateur efforts at stalking fail, Pumpang introduces him to a spy store, where the two buy all sorts of gadgets and listening devices so they can more accurately stalk Amanda. Now when I say “stalk”, I use that term very loosely. Because every stalking scene is played purely for laughs. There are no consequences or stakes to what they’re doing. We know that even if David gets caught, he’ll be fine. Without any sense of danger, none of the stalking scenes held any tension.

Anyway, David lets his co-worker, Karen, in on the whole plot. Karen has seen every romantic comedy ever made and is constantly using examples from them to get David to move on. It turns out Karen might be a bit of a stalker herself though when it’s eventually revealed she’s infatuated with David. Although she never felt like a real person so I couldn’t get into her. And to complicate matters, Amanda’s new boyfriend is also David’s client for his new building. Except it doesn’t really complicate matters at all. It just feels like an interesting coincidence. I’m trying to think if there’s anything else to the story but I’m coming up blank.

In the end, David gives a big long speech to Amanda about perfection. Her current boyfriend may be perfect. But David is imperfect, which, he points out, is exactly why she fell in love with him. Since the theme of perfection or even the hint of its importance was never once mentioned in the screenplay, this speech comes out of nowhere. Luckily for David though, it’s enough to convince Amanda, and the two live happily ever after.

Was there anything positive about the script? Well, I thought the title was great. It was the reason I was excited to read the screenplay in the first place. Pumpang’s obsession with getting David and Amanda back together was kind of cute. But in the end, there were an avalanche of negatives with Stalker. I congratulate Carnes and Glibert on a great sale. But for me, personally, I couldn’t get into it.

[x] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: There’s a scene in the middle of “Stalker: A Love Story,” where David is pressured into going to an Asian Massage Parlor. I won’t get into how many Asian massage parlor scenes I read in a week, but what upset me so much about the scene was that it had absolutely nothing to do with the story. In other words, you could’ve taken the scene out and nobody would’ve been confused as to what was going on. If your scene isn’t essential to the screenplay, don’t write it. And if you have a really funny scene you’re dying to put in your movie but it isn’t essential to the story, take the extra time and FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT ESSENTIAL TO THE STORY. Now you have a funny scene and it makes sense. Everybody wins.

Genre: Drama/Coming-of-Age
Premise: A thirteen year old outcast finds a mixtape that belonged to her deceased parents, accidentally destroys it, and uses the song list to find all the music.
About: Finished with 14 votes on this year’s Black List. Mixtape may have finished even higher had it officially gone out. If there’s a script that truly embodies the spirit of the Black List, this is it. It’s the “I’m a Loser, Baby” or “Paranormal Activity” of the screenwriting world, a script that found success purely through word of mouth. Stacy Menear, the writer, doesn’t have any previous sales or credits. The film will be directed by “King of Kong” helmer Seth Gordon. Playing the part of Beverly will be Chloe Moretz (“Hit Girl” in Kickass, as well as the lead in the remake of “Let The Right One In”)
Status of Project: Securing Financing
Status of this Draft: First draft
Writer: Stacy Menear
Details: 119 pages (August 14, 2009)

Whoa. If you had told me that one of my favorite scripts off of this year’s Black List would be an emotional drama about a 13 year old girl cobbling together random songs from a broken mixtape, I would’ve expected you to also inform me that you were a robot from the future sent to save mankind. I’m still in shock after reading this, as I’m amazed that Menear even attempted the story. Its subject matter is a literary mine-field, the kind of graveyard where scripts go to die. Over-sentimentality. Saccharine. Melodramatic. One wrong step and you can fall perilously into any of those. By blinking you could be My Sister’s Keeper.

As if that wasn’t difficult enough, Menear bases the story around music, which basically nuclear charges every one of those mines. Music is one of the hardest things to write about in a screenplay because a) the reader can’t hear the music, and b) a song you love very well may be a song the reader hates. Mention an old Richard Marx tune to a metalhead and there goes your audience. Looking at this script before reading it, I anticipated a 2012 like disaster (you can use either the movie or the expected disaster for that analogy – both work).

But Mixtape is anything but a disaster. It’s an anti-disaster. It’s an antaster.

Beverly Moody has it as tough as any teenager can have it. She’s an overweight poor 13 year old girl without any friends who lives with her ultra-conservative grandmother. In other words, she was born to be bullied. In one of the many instances you know you’re dealing with a unique writer, Menear doesn’t paint Beverly’s nemesis as the typical Adonis blond-haired jock you remember from all those 80s flicks, but rather a wickedly cruel boy in a wheelchair. A bully in a wheelchair? Talk about turning a cliché on its head. I knew I was in good hands immediately.

Moretz will play the part of Beverly

The only thing that keeps Beverly going is the threadbare memory of her parents, who died in a car accident when she was a baby. Her grandmother never speaks of them, and so all Beverly has to go on is a single picture of the two when they were younger. This picture is the source of much of Beverly’s confusion and misdirection. Her parents are the complete opposite of her. Hip, cool, punk-rockers – clearly music lovers and proud rebels. How did *she* come from *them*? Beverly wants nothing more than to find out the answer to that question.

One day, while rummaging through some old boxes, Beverly comes across a mixtape made by her parents. Excited, she throws it in an aging walkman, only to accidentally destroy the tape. All that’s left is a list of odd sounding songs from the most obscure bands imaginable. If names like Bikini Kill and The Quick don’t ring a bell, you better hold your breath. They’re actually two of the more popular groups on the list. Beverly decides that through hell or high water, she must find every one of these songs.

Eventually she teams up with a fellow outcast named Ellen, a Korean girl who just moved in down the street, and Nicki, the chain-smoking “freak” girl at school that everyone is both repulsed by and terrified of. Ellen’s got a computer, which allows them to locate some of the songs, and Nicki’s a walking music encyclopedia, which allows them to find songs that even the internet doesn’t know about. Throw in Anti, the aging hipster who owns a run-down version of a High Fidelity record store, and Beverly is able to peck her way through the list.

Seth Gordon will direct.

A side effect of this journey is her connection with the music, which, to her grandmother’s chagrin, starts to change her. Beverly starts to punk herself out, if only to get closer to these people she never knew. One of the great story touches Menear uses, is he places one impossible song on the list – a song listed as “The song that reminds me of that day in the park.” It becomes the ultimate impossible goal for Beverly. To find the single song that truly defines her parents,’ the song which will allow her to understand who they really are. But how do you find a song without an artist or a title? How do you find a song that you’ve never heard before? Watching and wondering if Beverly will ever find this song is both heartbreaking and riveting, as we end up wanting her to find closure just as much as she does.

As people struggle to compare this to something for reference, I think the obvious example is going to be Ghost World. However in that film, the girls were under the delusional perception that they were hip and cool. Beverly and her friends have no such delusions. They know they’re the outcasts, the losers, the wannabes. And it’s that angle that gives them and the script so much charm. They’re the true underdogs, and we desperately want for them to win.

There’s so many things I loved about this script. Like the contrasts. For instance, how this awkward nerdy girl had a pair of the coolest parents ever. Her attempts to change, to become like them, in order to understand them, and not quite understanding what she’s doing along the way. Like paying lip service without knowing how to sing. It works perfectly. Even the grandmother, who could’ve been a throwaway character, has a vested interest in the journey. She already lost one daughter to that lifestyle. Now she must watch idly as her granddaughter eases into that world as well, knowing that she’s helpless to stop her.

I’m still trying to figure out why this script resonated with me so much when so many others like it fail. Maybe it’s the exploration of people through music. Maybe it’s the obvious love Menear has for his characters. Maybe it’s that he’s not afraid to put those same characters through hell. Whatever it is, it worked. I’d probably say this is the best script I’ve ever read about music. And that’s coming from someone who hates punk-rock.

This is one of those rare scripts that gets it all right. I have no choice but to put it in my Top 25. (by the way, here’s another take on the script)

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

What I learned: Although it’s not done here in Mixtape, I’m seeing it done more and more these days. Back in the old world, it was considered script suicide to list actual songs in your screenplay. For various reasons (mainly that the writer ain’t gonna be the one choosing the music when the movie comes out, but also who’s to say that the reader even knew what song you were talking about) it was one of those rules you simply didn’t break. But Youtube has changed all that. Nowadays, you can list a song with a note (“check it out on Youtube”) and allow the reader to instantly hear the song you have in mind. You still run the risk of turning the reader off if they hate the song, but now they at least know what song you’re talking about. I know I’m in the minority, but I’m one of those people who believes that as more and more people read PDFs on their computers and ebooks, that multimedia writing will become more common (which I favor). That means music, pictures, and videos embedded right there in the document. I’m interested to hear what you guys think of this practice? In favor of it? Or would you rather stay old school?

note: If you look to the Top 25 list, a few of the scripts near the bottom half have moved around. Some of these scripts just stay with me while others fade away, forcing me juggle them around. The Voices is up there too now.

Not all the Black List scripts smell like roses. Inevitably, you’re going to run into a script with some thorns. It’s not that the script is “bad.” I like to think of it as you and the writer have different gardens in mind. I’ve stepped into a few of these gardens. And not surprisingly, they’re all comedies. I say “not surprisingly” because this darn comedy genre is so stinkin’ polarizing. It’s inherent in its make-up. It’s probably why my dislike of 500 Days Of Summer (the movie, not the script) caused such a backlash in my Top 9 Movies Post. What others thought was hilarious and real, I found slow and plodding. You can’t spell plodding without “odd” though and my sense of humor is definitely that. I prefer the understated ambiguity of the humor in, say, Rushmore, to the loud demonstrative laughs you find in films like Wedding Crashers. The thing that always confuses me, though, is these comedies that *everybody* loves. Movies like The Hangover and Dumb and Dumber. Despite their wacky zanyness, they have uber-mass appeal. How do they do it? I guess when you’re able to answer that, you’re ready to open your own studio. For better or for worse, here are some Black List scripts that weren’t for me. Just opinions folks. Smother them in bowls of salt.

DOC AND HOWIE WHACK A GRANNY by Steve Leff
18 votes
Premise: “Two men, Doc and Howie, inadvertently kill an elderly woman when they neglect to help her carry groceries up stairs. The incident puts them in position to get closer to the woman’s attractive granddaughters, and they struggle with deciding whether to tell the women the truth about the circumstances under which they met.”
Is Doc and Howie Whack a Granny the “Dude, Where’s My Car” of this generation? (or maybe I should ask, is “Dude, Where’s My Car” really a remnant of a previous generation?) I’ll leave that up to you. As for me, I felt like someone looking for a Christmas party and stumbling into a Vegas Halloween bash. Vulgar for vulgar’s sake shuts me down faster than a bad sweet potato. By page 3 our characters are discussing the intricacies of low vaginas. By page 5 how ball sweat affects blowjobs. I’m not going to pretend like I’m above this kind of humor. It’s just not my thing. If there’s something to take away from the script, it’s that they nailed the title. And when you nail a title, you get a ton of reads (I mentally put it at the top of my read pile after going through the list). Despite my post-Christmas Scroogeish-ness on “Granny”, this was one of the higher rated comedies on the list and I can see it playing strong to a young audience. Check it out and let me know what you think.

CELESTE AND JESSE FOREVER by Rashida Jones and Will McCormack
12 votes
Premise: “A divorcing couple tries to maintain their friendship while they both pursue other people.”
This is the one script from the list that made me sit up and go “huh?” I didn’t get it at all. I can’t stand scripts with muddy setups and this one came in like Arnold Swarchenegger at the end of Predator. The beginning is a big montage. Although we watch Celeste and Jesse get married, they also get divorced. Except when their divorce happens it’s never mentioned. For that reason, when the real script begins and their friends yell at them in reference to their divorce, I had to stop, rewind, check the montage again to see where they got divorced. It wasn’t there. And that’s when I officially checked out. If the writers aren’t taking the time to make things clear, then why even bother reading it? But even if that’d never happened, the script has a very strange tone to it. Celeste and Jesse have all these inside jokes going on, which they laugh at but nobody else does. Problem is, we don’t laugh at them either. It’s like those two best friends at a party who only care about making each other laugh, and actually revel in the fact that nobody else knows what they’re talking about. Wonderful for those two. But to everyone else they’re flashing a big fat sign that reads: “You’re not invited.” I never felt like I was invited to this story.

BETTY’S READY by Jaylynn Bailey
11 votes
Premise: “After she discovers that her boyfriend is gay, a high schooler, determined to lose her virginity before she goes to college, pursues several possible ‘candidates’ before she finds love with her geeky neighbor, who has always loved her.”
More vulgarity, this time from Miss Jaylynn! I swear I’m not a prude but if in the first couple of pages a female character likens a smell to “day-old twat” I immediately know I’m not the audience for this film. I do find it strange though, that the scripts Hollywood seems to be favoring from women these days are the ones that take on an almost male-like vile-ness. I Want To Fuck Your Sister, Desperados, The Hand Job. I guess the idea of a girl being able to out-dirty the guys has a delicious shock value to it. However, none of this is the reason I didn’t dig Betty’s Ready. My problem was the character of Betty herself, who from the get go was fairly angry and bitter. I simply couldn’t identify with her.

GOOD LOOKING by Chris McCoy
8 votes
Premise: “In a future where dating services perfectly match soulmates, a man rejects the person chosen for him.”
Dreamworks bought this early in the year. I think there’s something in this premise, but it’s not quite there yet. In fact, I’d be interested if the voters read a newer draft of the script, as the one I read was the draft that sold. Funny story – as I started reading this, I realized it sounded familiar. After a few pages I said, “Hey, I think I already read this.” And indeed I did. I reviewed it all the way back in April!

ALLIES WITH BENEFITS by Elizabeth Wright Shapiro
5 votes
Premise: “The female President of The United States falls for her old college fling, the now Prime Minister of England.”
All the way on the other end of the spectrum from “Betty’s Ready” (and I guess partly contradicting my previous statement) is Allies and Benefits. This female-written script is as safe as a down pillow, and I think that’s its biggest problem. You know how even the best down pillows have the feathers sticking out that occasionally prick you? That remind you comfort can’t be enjoyed unless you understand dis-comfort? Allies With Benefits didn’t have any of those feathers. It was too smooth. It sorta reminded me of the pilot episode of Grey’s Anatomy (yes, I saw the pilot episode of Grey’s Anatomy!) but with world leaders as main characters. That’s something else I couldn’t get past. A president’s life is so out of the ordinary that unless the movie is written to specifically explore that unique life, it’s difficult to identify with them. Putting your leaders in a romantic comedy is even more daring because you have to balance this complicated ordered world they’re a part of with the fluffy romantic comedy conventions we expect from the genre. It’s like trying to slam peanut butter and mayonnaise together. Everybody likes peanut butter. Everybody likes mayonnaise. But I think the Canadians are the only ones who like them together. There are some cute moments here and it passes the poster test (you can see the poster to this movie without blinking) but I wanted more pricks. I wanted more dirt. Highly intrigued to hear what other rom-com lovers have to say about this.

note: If you’re looking for Black List scripts, they’re around. Ask in the comments section.