Note: This is a “script-as-film” review, where I review the screenplay through watching the film. I have not read the actual script for “Monsters.”

Genre: Horror/Drama/Sci-Fi/Love Story/Indie
Premise: (from IMDB) Six years after Earth has suffered an alien invasion a cynical journalist agrees to escort a shaken American tourist through an infected zone in Mexico to the safety of the US border.
About: This sleeper film emerged out of Cannes with a lot of buzz, due in part to Slash Film’s religious coverage of it. One of the main factors contributing to the buzz was the rumor that the film was shot in several countries with huge special effects shots for under 15 thousand dollars. It just didn’t seem possible, but that Rodriguez-inspired rumor gave the project enough legs to land a theatrical release. Although people keep telling me the budget is way off and that even director Gareth Edwards admitted the figure was wrong, I haven’t been able to find any official quotes from him online confirming it. Edwards, who both wrote and directed the film, said his goal was to make “the most realistic monster movie ever made.” He possesses a unique talent in that he’s been a long time visual effects artist, mostly for British TV. A good quote from his interview below: “Creativity is being stupid enough not to realize you can’t do something.”
Writer: Gareth Edwards

These are my favorite stories to follow in Hollywood. Young filmmakers who say “fuck you” to the system and go ahead and do everything the establishment tells them they can’t do. Neil Blomkamp did it last year with District 9, but Gareth Edwards is taking it to a new extreme, approaching a movie with top notch visual effects and 1/100th the budget of that hit film. I don’t know how you can’t be inspired as an artist by this story.

Monsters takes place in the very near future.  Five years ago, a satellite fell to Mexico with some kind of bacteria on it. That bacteria grew, eventually becoming a family of huge monsters, which are now terrorizing the country. Andrew Kaulder is a sort of cranky selfish photojournalist on the hunt for an elusive photo of people who were killed by one of these creatures. One money shot could pay his salary for an entire year.

But Andrew gets a call from his publisher informing him his plans have changed. He must escort Samantha, the recently injured daughter of a newspaper magnate, to a crossing point so she can get back to America. Even though, technically, it gives him a better chance at getting the shot he wants, he’s pissed off about this interruption.

When the two meet, it’s clear that they’re from different worlds. Him a financially strapped pessimist who does everything himself, her a humanitarian whose father has all the money in the world.

Because of their differences, they don’t have much to talk about, so we spend a majority of the time following them through lush forests and dying South American towns. It’s during this time that best line of dialogue is uttered. Disgusted by his profession, she asks him, “Does it bother you that you profit only when bad things happen to people?” And he responds, “You mean like a doctor?”

Eventually they get to the crossing point, which consists of a ferry that will take them around what’s known as the “Infected Zone.” It’s here where the bulk of the monsters are. Naturally, some complications arise, and the two find themselves having to traverse *through* the Infected Zone, where we can only assume, many monsters await them.Will they make it to America?  Will they die at the tentacles of one of these beasts?  You’ll have to watch to find out.

In many ways, Monsters isn’t a screenplay. And I don’t say that with any cynicism, but everything about this movie seems to be generated from the mind of a director first and writer second. Indeed, the entire film is one big stream-of-conscious travelogue, as we watch our characters drift from town to town, house to house, meal to meal, simply…existing.

If you like long shots, not a lot of dialogue, played against a haunting beautiful score, this movie is definitely for you. But there’s no denying that story-wise, the film is lacking. Part of that is due to the limited budget, but most of it is due to ignoring basic storytelling principles.

First, what they did right. The script has a clear goal – get to America. So the narrative as a whole is focused. The characters are also aptly conflicted. The last thing Andrew wants to do is escort this rich girl to America. Samantha, on the other hand, is getting married, inserting a nice barrier between the two when he starts to fall for her.

But that’s where the good stuff ends. Basically, the hook of this movie, what we’ve come to see, is these two having to travel through the Infected Monster Zone to get to America. But it takes us waaay too long to get there, which would be okay if there was enough story to keep us interested in the meantime. But the first 45 minutes of this film is running on a treadmill, with shots of our couple at hotels, checking out the local towns, eating, getting drunk, talking about their pasts, repeat repeat repeat.

There’s simply not enough new happening to keep our interest.

The script noticeably sputters when they get to the crossing point and negotiate a price for these very expensive ferry tickets that take them around the Infected Zone to safety.  Now normally, after negotiating for these tickets, our characters would hop on the ferry and go. Instead, because the story has to be feature length, the ferry isn’t leaving til tomorrow, so we spend an entire extra night here.  When they wake up, they realize their tickets are stolen, forcing them to have the EXACT SAME NEGOTIATING scene that they just had, which comes off as super sloppy.

There’s another big hole here as well. Once the ferry leaves, they now decide to go with the other option, walking through the Infected Zone to get to the American border. Why do the characters need to get back to America so badly that they knowingly walk through a foreign forest known as “The Infected Zone” where GIANT KILLER MONSTERS ARE WAITING TO KILL THEM??! There’s no reason why they can’t just wait a couple more days for the next ferry and go around the zone safely.  In these situations, you have to write in some impending life or death situation to justify such a drastic action as knowingly marching into your own death makes no sense.

The characters also act oddly at times. For example, videos of these monsters apparently play on TV 24/7, so everybody’s seen them and know what they look like. When our characters, as well as their seasoned veteran escorts, are camped out square in the middle of the Infected Zone, they hear this loud guttural monster-ish drawl. After hearing it, everybody looks around at each other, confused, and our hero says, “What was that?” I mean, come on. It’s a FUCKING MONSTER! You’re in the Infected Zone! I don’t know.  Little details like that are easy to catch in the script stage.  So I don’t like when they slip through.

Now we have to be realistic here. This is a movie with two characters and a 4-man crew. There aren’t a lot of things you can pull off with that kind of minimal fire power. But whenever you’re writing one of these low-budget shoot-it-yourself movies, one of your jobs is to recognize that issue, and build more drama, more conflict, more twists and turns, into the human relationship, to make up for the lack of money and options. I think the problem here is that that’s what Gareth thought he was doing with the alien effects shots, but out of all the alien scenes, there’s really only one where I felt the characters were in any danger (when they were in the van).

Okay, elitist screenwriting rant over. Time to give credit where credit is due.

I don’t care if this movie was made for $15,000 or $500,000 (like some are reporting). It’s an amazing filmmaking achievement. The cinematography is GORGEOUS. The score was the best score I’ve ever heard for any inde film at this level. The lead actress was really good. The lead actor was solid. The effects are all astonishing for this budget level. To get these performances under these conditions with this filmmaking approach was truly inspiring. I mean Gareth has a huge ace in the hole with his visual effects prowess – but even if he hadn’t had that, he still shot a movie that looked great, that didn’t resemble any Hollywood product and that, despite all my criticisms, was different. And that’s what this new-new type of Gurerilla filmmaking 2.0 allows you to do. It allows you to make the movie YOU want to make and actually have a shot at getting it distributed.

Script-wise, this didn’t work for me, but movie-wise, I think there’s something here, if only for the inspiring story behind the film.  It’s tracking at around 70% at Rotten Tomatoes. You can wait for it to come to theaters on October 29th, or watch it on demand right now.  If you see it, tell me what you think. 

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

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

What I learned: I am about to tell you something that may be the most important screenwriting advice anyone has ever told you……Okay, that’s an exaggeration (but it sure sounded good). Seriously though, the fastest way to advance in this industry is to write and direct your own material. Monsters is proof positive of that. Now sure it has some flashy effects, but every writer brings unique talents to the table. You have to find out what those are, write a script that takes advantage of them, then go shoot it. Tarantino focused on his dialogue. Rodriguez focused on production value. Kevin Smith wrote every funny thing he’s ever thought of and crammed it into a script. And these days, you don’t even have to drum up the money for a full feature. All you need is enough to shoot an innovative short and if it takes off online, there are people willing to offer you film deals. So what the hell are you waiting for? Go shoot something. Just make sure that afterwards you come back to Scriptshadow.

GANGSTA
One of the scripts getting a lot of heat lately is Tales from the Gangster Squad at Warner Bros. Some people tell me the script is awesome and others tell me it hasn’t even been written yet (IMDB lists it as “out to writers.”) The script chronicles the LAPD’s fight to keep East Coast Mafia types out of Los Angeles in the 40s and 50s. It was out to Ben Affleck after The Town’s big opening weekend and is now out to Darren Aronofsky, who is deciding between it and Wolverine 2. Apparently the reason Aronofsky lost the Superman job to Snyder was because WB’s brass knew he’d nitpick at the script for another two years, time they weren’t willing to spend.

LET THE RIGHT ONE IN THE DIRECTOR’S CHAIR
Tomas Alfredson who directed the amazing ORIGINAL “Let The Right One In” has decided to make his next project the Philip Reeve children’s novel, Larklight. The setting sounds like a children’s utopia, with Victorian-era alternate universes and renegade space pirates. Alfredson will first tackle the espionage thriller, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.” The very busy Steve Knight, who wrote one of my Top 25 favorite scripts, is penning Larklight.  I’m not a betting man, but I’m willing to throw down 50 bucks that this is the first book in a trilogy? 

CRUISE – NICHOLSON
You know I only saw A Few Good Men for the first time six months ago? I don’t know why but I was just never interested in watching it. My thoughts afterwards? Pretty good film. And really solid screenplay. Well, Cruise and Jack may be back together again thanks to a script titled “El Presidente,” about a secret service agent assigned to protect a bumbling ex-president. Dan Goor, who writes on the underrated (and not yet canceled as far as I can tell!) Parks and Recreation, wrote the script. This sounds like it might be funny. If you have it, please pass it along.

SKIPPIDY WILLIS-AH
Writer Skip Woods has penned a script titled “Ten,” that Bruce Willis is interested in. I don’t know much about the project other than that it’s a drama. Woods is high grade though, penning X-Men: Origins, The A-Team, and the new Die Hard 5 script. If you have any more info on this script, please contact me. :)

WIZARD OF RAIMI
The other day we talked about Sam Raimi’s super sci-fi Independence Day like project he was thinking of directing. But Sam has now officially committed to another reimagining of The Wizard of Oz, this titled “Oz The Great and Powerful.” The script is being rewritten by David Lindsay-Abaire, who wrote the animated film, Robots, and the upcoming Dreamworks project, “The Guardians,” about Santa Clause banding together with other holiday creatures to take on the Bogeyman. If Sam’s going to do an Oz project, why not the script that won the Scriptshadow Screenplay Contest?  Come on Sam!

Genre: Comedy
Premise: When egomaniac magician Burt Wonderstone’s partner quits, Burt finds himself trying to rediscover his magic mojo solo, all the while fending off an edgy magician with a new style of magic.
About: Chad Kultgen wrote the original spec that sold a few years ago. Those who have been on the site for awhile may remember Kultgen wrote “Dan Minter: Badass For Hire.” Kultgen is also a novelist, having written two books, The Average American Male and The Lie. Jake Kasdan, who directed Walk Hard, Orange County, and the upcoming Cameron Diaz comedy, “Bad Teacher,” will be directing. Steve Carell is attached to play the lead. This is said to be in the vein of Zoolander (although it reads a little less broad to me).
Writers: Chad Kultgen (Story by Chad Kultgen & Tyler Mitchell), Revisions by Jonathan Goldstein & John Francis Daley and Jake Kasdan.
Details: March 17, 2010 – 114 pages (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

Steve Carell for some reason is abandoning The Office next year and the TV world is abuzz with who’s going to take his place. If you’re like me, you’re thinking, how is it possible to replace Steve Carrell in The Office? Well guess what? It’s possible. I have a name for you. How ‘bout a little someone called Ricky Gervais!? He would not only fill Carell’s shoes, he’d bust out of them. Gervais is the only choice where you’d actually upgrade the Dunder-Mifflin’s boss position. I mean what’s Gervais done lately anyway? He hasn’t broken out as a movie star. He knows the role can turn people into stars. He still hasn’t caught on with the American audience – what better way to do it than here? He owns the damn show so it would be as easy as saying, “Me.” I don’t know why they don’t just announce this now. I mean it’s a match made in Heaven.

But back to Carell. He’s attached to a billion projects but this looks like it will be his first post-Office role and you know what? It’s perfect for him. I don’t know what it is about this guy but whenever you read a character imagining Steve Carell’s face, it instantly becomes funnier.

Burt Wonderstone is half a world-famous magic team with his long-time best friend Anton Lovecraft. The two have been performing magic since they first learned to shave, and discovered that the power of magic could lift them out of the Dungeon of Dorkville, of which they were they were the king and queen.

But things have changed in the last 20 years and now Burt and Anton don’t get along with each other. Sure they still smile and put on a good act, but as soon as those curtains drop, they’re like a bitter old married couple praying for a divorce.

One day Burt happens upon a public taping of some guy named Steve Haines (a clear take-off of David Blaine and/or Criss Angel). Haines is non-descript, awkward, and, well, boring. But when he cuts his own face open and peels back the skin to perform a magic trick, the nearby crowd goes wild. Burt doesn’t know why but he feels threatened.

Soon Haines is everywhere, performing “tricks” like not going to the bathroom for five days in a row. Burt insists that Haines is not actually performing magic – just hurting himself. Unfortunately, no one’s listening. When he and Anton’s own crowds start disappearing, it’s clear they have to change their magic to cater to this new type of crowd, something Burt refuses to do.

After a particularly disastrous show, Anton’s finally had it and quits the team, leaving Burt all alone. Burt responds by taking his act solo, but isn’t bright enough to incorporate Anton’s absence, therefore doing the exact same show, reading both his own and Anton’s lines as if Anton’s still there (this was my favorite scene in the script). Soonafter, he’s canned, and  when the economy comes crashing down, Burt’s latest trick is that he’s broke.

Burt must then reconnect with his love of magic, reconnect with his best friend Anton, and find a way to defeat the annoying poser Haines. Can he do it all without self-destructing?

Burt Wonderstone is an interesting script to study because it kind of eschews traditional structure yet still finds a way to work. The story favors a lopsided first act, whereby we witness Burt’s downfall for 60 full pages – in other words half the script. That means the actual plot (Burt trying to resurrect his career) doesn’t kick in until the mid-way point, which, in most cases, is way too late.

Why this drawn out act doesn’t spin the script out of control may be a matter of opinion, but I have a couple of theories. First, as I’ve mentioned before, we love train wrecks, especially if they’re funny train wrecks. We enjoy watching a character self-destruct, especially if that character deserves it, and Burt Wonderstone does.

But there’s also this almost imperceptible lovable quality about Burt. We do care for him. And because we care for him, there’s a part of us that wants to see him redeemed.  We wanna take the mixed-up guy by the shoulders, shake him, and say, “You’re better than this!” 

It’s a fine line the writers walk, because if he’s too much of an asshole or too selfish to others, they run the risk of us not liking him. But the writers keep us just enough on his side to root for a comeback.  

I also thought Steve Haines was a brilliant character. They probably could’ve made him even more of a villain, but who doesn’t want to punch David Blaine and Criss Angel in the face? This is a device I always recommend when you have a hero who isn’t overtly likable. Make it so we hate the villain beyond belief. The more we hate him, the more we’re going to side with our hero.

The script is lucky it’s so funny though because there are a few problems here. We were talking about the lack of development in female characters yesterday, and Burt Wonderstone is a prime example. I don’t have any idea what Nicole, the assistant, is doing in this movie. There’s no conviction to her character, nothing to make her stand out, and because she’s not a love interest, she ends up falling through the cracks.

I’ve found in general that readers tend to get confused when you have an attractive female lead that isn’t a love interest. If you don’t do something between her and the main character, the audience, conditioned by thousands of movies, gets antsy, and in some cases angry. That’s not to say every woman in every movie should be a love interest, but if she’s not, she needs some other distinctive characteric – something going on – to justify her purpose in the screenplay, and Nicole doesn’t have that.

Anton also gets lost in the mix . I got the feeling this script was exploring the theme of friendship and what really matters in life (the people around you), yet Anton disappears for something like 50 pages, then pops up like the gopher in Caddyshack.

The ending feels like a November landing at O’Hare as we have a scene that feels like the climax, only to have a second climax appear ten pages later. They might have been between drafts here which would make it understandable. It was just kinda messy.

And yet, through it all, this script won me over. It’s a funny premise, a funny character, and has a ton of funny scenes. The scene with Burt and Anton in the glass box above the casino has the potential to be an instant classic. Good stuff here.

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

What I learned: You want to avoid flashbacks in your movies because they stall your story’s momentum, or even worse, reverse it. But the one genre immune to flashbacks is comedy. I don’t know why but as long as they’re funny, we don’t seem to mind them. Just be careful not to overdo them. The flashbacks in Burt Wonderstone, showing how Burt and Anton got into magic, were fun, but probably went on for a little too long. Get to the flashback, make the joke, convey any information you need to convey, then get out.

GEEKY HAPPINESS
Deadline Hollywood reporting… So it looks like Watchmen director Zack Snyder has been brought back into the WB fold to direct their next Superman film. This stays in line with rumors that the character is going dark, a reality many Superman purists are not happy about (I kinda like it – the character needs a fresh take). Completing the geek orgasm, Peter Jackson is negotiating to direct the Hobbit films, something we suspected all along. The question is, with all this union jibber-jabbery, WHERE are the films going to be shot?

TIME TRAVEL WILL NEVER GET OLD
Summit continues to spend their Twilight money, their most recent option being a sci-fi novel titled “Tempest” by Julie Cross that hasn’t hit shelves yet. In what seems to be the norm for these pre-bought Hollywood book deals, the book will be the first in a trilogy about a 19 year old man who witnesses his girlfriend’s murder just before jumping back in time. Are these book deals the new spec scripts?

CAMERON CROWE
Cameron Crowe is gearing up to direct “We Bought A Zoo,” a script of his based on the book by Benjamin Mee. It’s a real-life story about a guy who buys a run-down zoo in the English countryside, only to experience some unforeseen family-related problems. Matt Damon, Thomas Hayden Church and Amy Adams are said to be onboard. I have the script and love Crowe but his last script, the Volcano-Satellite romantic comedy, left me colder than an Alaskan ice cube. On the plus side, this project sounds more interesting.

BELOW THE SURFACE
Writer John Kelly has given his spec script “Below The Surface” some air, as it will be directed by Xavier Palud, director of “The Eye.” It’s about a group of scientists who are sent off to a remote island to investigate the disappearance of another team. I don’t know why but I always love this setup. I remember being there opening day for Event Horizon. Boy did that not turn out well. Here’s hoping Below The Surface does better.

ALL GOOD THINGS
This is the first time I’m hearing about this Ryan Gosling – Kirsten Dunst film based on the real life disappearance of the wife of real-estate heir Frank Durst. I love the last two roles Gosling has chosen and think he’s becoming a solid indication of good material. So if you have this one, please send it to me! :)

DO THE BEST WRITERS RESIDE ON TV?
Over at The Big Picture blog, they have a quick article on Aaron Sorkin and some post-opening Social Network thoughts. Sorkin talks about taking the job because it was more like a TV project in that he could write it and know it was going straight to screen. He admits that that’s the reason he likes working in TV more than movies, and that these days, all the best writers write in TV for the same reason.  Do you agree?

Genre: Drama/Coming-of-Age
Premise: A dysfunctional group of friends living in San Francisco post-college find that making it in the real world isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
About: This script finished with 9 mentions on the 2006 Black List. Not knowing anything about the writers, Susanna Fogel and Joni Lefkowitz, I did some research after reading the script and found out they’ve recently written the remake script for Little Darlings for J.J. Abrams. The original movie starred Tatum O’Neal and Matt Dillon and was about two 15 year olds from opposite sides of the tracks competing to see who could lose their virginity first (someone called this movie a hit – but it’s not officially available on anything other than VHS). They also have another project in development with Elizabeth Banks in the lead based on the book “What Was I Thinking?: 58 Bad Boyfriend Stories.” It Is What It Is is listed as in development but doesn’t seem to have any movement right now.
Writers: Susanna Fogel & Joni Lefkowitz
Details: 120 pages – Sept 25, 2006 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).

Black List Time Machine! I took the Black List Time Machine back to 2006 to find this gem. Those early years unfortunately didn’t benefit from the Scriptshadow/widespread script reading presence, so many have since been forgotten. Do not shed a tear though cause I’m bringin’em back baby!  

I’ll admit though, when I started reading this and realized it was a 20-something “trying to find our way in life” flick, I groaned. I actually like the idea of these films. Leaving institutional life for the first time and realizing  all the promises that were made to us weren’t even close to true is a right-of-passage we’re all familiar with. But most writers take the subject matter to the self-important extreme, and we end up following a lot of depressed 20-something losers complaining about making the rent.  Borrr-innnnggggg.

Well I’m happy to say that “It Is What It is” is one of the best versions of this format I’ve read since Happy Thank You More Please. Sure it gets a little self-important at times, but the characters are all well thought out, the situations interesting, and the dialogue fresh. And oh yeah, it’s funny too!

There are four main characters here. We have the quirky semi-alcoholic Eliza, who’d really love to be a photographer but is stuck designing tween underwear for Forever 21. We have the unlucky-in-love trust fund baby Grant, our Jeff Goldblum character from The Big Chill – who no matter how hard he tries, can’t ever seem to get out of the “friend zone” with women. We have stiff-as-a-board Barry, whose disdain for spontaneity explains his desperation to be a lawyer. And we have Jules, a slutty tomboy who invades on our friends’ tight knit circle.

There are a lot of complications for our characters (as there well should be) and they start with Grant, who’s been desperately in love with Eliza since the Renaissance Era, but has settled into that horrible best friend consolation bubble hoping that one day she’ll change her mind. When she meets a guy on Myspace and falls head over heels with him, Grant realizes that that day isn’t coming anytime soon.

Barry’s about to embark on his prestigious law career which will finally allow him to pay back the mountain of debt he’s left behind when his longtime girlfriend tells him no mas. She’s concluded that he’s more boring than elevator music and just like that, a man whose whole world is stability, is no longer in a stable relationship. Everybody somehow convinces Barry to make a “bucket list” of crazy ass things he’d never do and finish it before he enters the corporate world. Get high, have a one night stand, that sort of thing. He doesn’t want to do it but peer pressure gets the best of him. 

Later on, Grant meets the tomboyish Jules, who’s in town to visit her feminist lesbian mother she has a Coke Zero relationship with. When Grant brings her into the tight-knit fold of the three amigos, it throws the delicate balance of this triple-friendship off. Barry immediately likes her, but Eliza sees her as a potential threat.

For a moment it looks like everything’s going to fall apart (story-wise) when Jules’ mother reveals she has a brain tumor and a one night stand from Grant’s past shows up telling him he’s the father of their child. I thought, “Uh oh, and into Hallmark Country we go!” But the writers, thank God, ignore the sappy trappings of the tumor stuff and the Grant-baby story actually turns out to be the engine for some great character exploration. 

The only two people Grant’s ever had sex with are Eliza, on a drunken college night, and this girl, this *beautiful* girl, who clearly took pity on him one random evening. At first Grant is horrified by the prospect of raising a kid, but as they wait for DNA results to prove he’s the father, Grant becomes addicted to the feeling of having another half, a half he’s dreamt of having his whole life.

But the girl only wants financial help from Grant – nothing more. Watching him cling to her when she won’t even give him the courtesy of PRETENDING she’s interested, is so difficult to watch I had to stop reading a couple of times. You feel so bad for the guy.

Eliza has a great storyline as well. She falls in love with this guy online, they have a whirlwind romance, and for the first time in her life, she’s able to break away from her friends. But after he casually mentions a female friend of his, she looks her up on Myspace (I presume we’d change this to Facebook) and becomes obsessed with her and her strange philosophical blog ramblings.

ISWIS has what I’m looking for in every script. It doesn’t go the way you think it’s going to go. There were so many times where I was like, “Oh boy, here it is. Now we’re going to blah blah blah,” but five pages later, I was proven wrong. For example, I was sure that once Grant met Jules, the two would get involved and he would use her to finally get Eliza to like him. But one scene later, Jules ditches Grant at the bar and starts making out with a random bartender, making me rethink everything. I loved it.

I can also always tell when I’m reading a script with a female author (and in this case 2). In most dude-written screenplays, the women aren’t complex in any way. There’s a particular script I cite to others where there were 11 male characters and 7 female characters. Each male character had a 3-line introduction. Each female character never had more than a 3-WORD introduction!

It never occurred to me how insulting this might be to a female reader until I read an amateur script by a woman who approached her male characters the same way. Each had a short curt boring description, while all the women were elaborately complex. I remember thinking, “God, is this how women think of us? As a five word stereotypical blurb?” I completely changed the way I wrote women after that.

I didn’t see any glaring problems here. The script doesn’t have an all-encompassing plot, so the characters’ journeys are the only thing driving the story, and I suspect that might make it boring for some, which I understand. While the tumor storyline wisely avoided melodrama, I think there’s a stronger more appropropirate choice for this story. And there are a few times where you wanted to slap these guys in the face for acting like their lives were just – so – horrible. You’re 26 and not in jail. Your life is fine.

This is updating Reality Bites with, I presume, a hip soundtrack to boot.  The difference is, this script is actually good. I liked it quite a bit and if you like these movies, you should check it out.

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

What I learned: This is why you should never include pop references in your work. One of the lines in the script is (paraphrasing)… ‘Ooh, someone’s just been watching the Meg Ryan boxing movie.” In that moment, I was totally taken out of the story. The Meg Ryan boxing movie? That film that was out for, what, 2 seconds in 2004? It just completely ruined the flow of the read and made me very aware that I was reading an old script. Hollywood doesn’t like old stuff. They like new stuff. They like the hot new script. So don’t give them anything that’s going to clue them in on your script belonging in the Museum of Natural History.