Genre: Drama
Synopsis: An upper-class New York family of five bratty sisters must fight for their father’s inheritence.
About: Taxonomy of Barnacles is an adaption from the novel of the same name.
Writer: Amy Lippman adapting Galt Neiderhoffer’s novel.

Now I’m going to go on a little rant here so hang with me. I hate book adaptations. When you adapt a book, you’re writing a screenplay to adapt a book. When you write a screenplay, you’re writing a screenplay to write the screenplay. It’s natural, organic, and the only thing you have to worry about is telling a story. Adapting books, your first priority is to find a way to tell the same story but in screenplay form. So you’re fighting a battle even before you place a word on paper. This is very evident in screenplays like Taxonomy of Barnacles, where 6 characters are being jammed down your throat in the first 3 pages and FIVE of these characters have names that start with the letter “B”. A screenplay rule for as long as there have been screenplays is to give your characters distinct sounding names to make it easy for the reader to differentiate between them. Five characters all having names that start with “B” is absurd. Especially when you meet them all at once. I had to keep going back and checking who was who. It was incredibly annoying. And this is just a minor problem with adaptations. The big one is that old problem of having to tell 100% of the story in 10% of the space. But I digress.

The movie begins with four rich bratty sisters, Benita (10), Beth (20), Bridget (24), and Belinda (15), (we’ll meet Bell – 27 – later) complaining about everything from school to life to boyfriends. We’ve got a roomful of complete brats and it’s hard to like a single one of them. After 10 pages I wanted to nail these girls to my door and throw darts at them til they bled to death. So far so good.

But then Barry Barnacle (God does this author like the letter B), their father with a hard-on for Charles Darwin , comes home to inform the girls that he’s decided to use their inheritance money to have a room at the Museum of Natural History and Art dedicated in his name. He’s giving the girls one last chance to convince him that they’re “worthy” of the inheritance. If they somehow achieve this feat, one of them will get it all. That’s right: only ONE of them. And thus Barry infuses their lives with his own little Charles Darwin experiment. Survival of the fittest indeed.

Can I just say? THANK GOD! I was so worried this was going to be some novelized version of Privileged about a bunch of snobby rich girls bitching about how difficult it is to be rich (I’ve never actually seen Privileged but this is what I assume it’s about). Now we actually have a story. Bravo. I’m on board. But dammit. This means I’m going to have to learn these girls’ names!

It’s actually a nice setup, as each of these girls must now face their deepest flaws and see if they can overcome them. Bridget never finishes anything she starts (her boyfriend Trot wants to set a date to get married but she’s reluctant). Beth won’t even interact with a man. Belinda can’t think for herself. And there’s something wrong with the other one too. Is Bartha her name?

But Barry is a peculiar character. He cheated on his wife. He resents having all girls. He’s disappointed in Bell for leaving her husband, even if the man was a compulsive cheater. So this “prove you’re a good person” bit doesn’t hold much water when you think about it. It’s kind of like gutters in Los Angeles. They’re not really equipped to handle a lot of rainfall. When Bell claims she doesn’t want the half of the money she’s entitled to through her divorce, Barry is the first to tell her to take it. So the man who’s trying to teach her a lesson about being entitled tells her she’s entitled to half her husband’s fortune? Uhhh, what?

The most compelling storyline is Bridget, who left her previous fiance, Billy, unannounced. Then Trot, her current boyfriend, the only person in the story with any actual working blood in him, finds out that Bridget’s gone back and slept with Billy. He confronts them both and tells her he can never be with her again. Billy lies and tells Trot that Bridget won the inheritance, in order to prove to Bridget (in an effort to win her back) that Trot’s been in this for the money all along. Trot changes his tune once he finds out that Bridget won the money, and ole Billy’s point is proven. The problem with this is – TROT’S THE ONLY PERSON WE LIKE IN THE WHOLE GODDAMN SCREENPLAY. Now you just made him an asshole like everyone else.

The rest of the story is fun. Beth finds out she’s a lesbian. Belinda tries to marry a punk rocker to rattle her father (who she dumps because he ends up being jewish – which wouldn’t have rattled her father at all). All Benita wants is her father’s appreciation. And what we find out, in a rather touching finale, is that their mother committed suicide because of depression. Barry needed a way to rationalize it, and used Darwin’s theory of Survival Of The Fittest to explain it away – hence his peculiar obsession with the theory.

There’s a humorous subplot about a nest of rare eagles living out on the ledge that Barry’s been trying to get rid of for years (but Animal Activists groups have prevented him from doing so). Again, there’s some Darwanism going on here – will the birds make it? But I think the biggest strength of the script is watching these little bitches battle each other for the gold. Making us dislike them from the get-go was a calculated move, and now we revel in their misery. And it’s so wonderfully written (save for the noted problems) that even without a character to root for, you’re desperate to find out how it’s all going to end. I see Taxonomy of Barnacles as the movie I had hoped The Royal Tenenbaums would be. As it is, it’s probably too obscure to be made into a film. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be.

What I learned from Taxonomy of Barnacles: The power of a strong theme can really unify your script. Everything in Taxonomy stems from Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and it works superbly.

Synopsis: Guy with amnesia wakes up on a train. The train may or may not be a target in a terrorist attack. Sci-fi.
About: Source Code is very much like the Denzel Washington vehicle “Deja-Vu”. But, you know, actually good.
Writer: Ben Ripley

Wow. Wow wow wow wow wow. I absolutely freaking LOVED this script. Loved it x a million. I’m a sucker for sci-fi. But sci-fi that makes you *feel*? I’m so down.

Source Code is about a guy who wakes up on a train, having no memory or idea how he got there. He stumbles around, observes the other passengers, trying to find something, anything, to remind him why he’s here. And then…the train BLOWS UP. Our main character is dead. Boom. Welcome to Source Code.

Moments later we wake up in a strange lab only to realize that, a la Deja Vu (a way inferior movie), our main character is actually being sent back in time digitally 3 hours prior to find out who blew up the train. Before he can process this, he’s sent back again, to the exact same moment where the movie started. He has 17 minutes to find out who’s responsible before the train blows up again. Confused and disoriented he starts to study the passengers one more time. Which ones look suspicious, which ones look innocent, all the while trying to figure out what the hell he’s doing on this train. 17 minutes later – BOOM! The train blows up. Time to start over again.

Obviously, we’ve seen this structure before in movies like Vantage Point and Run Lola Run. You know, where you keep going back to the beginning of the same experience. I’ve come to dislike this structure and here’s why: The story’s never moving forward. You’re stuck in neutral. I tolerated it with Run Lola Run because it was a visual experience. And even though Vantage Point introduces you to a new character every time we back up, it still feels like we’re going nowhere. I remember the groans from the audience the third, fourth, and fifth time we went backwards in that movie.

But Source Code never gets old. There are a couple of key devices the writer uses to keep us interested. First, he creates an extremely likable female character. She sits across from the seat our hero is always warped into. And so amidst all this terrorism chaos, you’re intrigued by their relationship. Each time, he learns a little bit more about her. And the more we learn about her, the more we like her. It gets to the point where he actually reveals to her what’s going on. She, of course, thinks he’s crazy (wouldn’t you?). But because of the incremental information he gains each time through, he’s eventually able to convince her. And yet each time, she dies, so when he goes back in again, he has to start all over again. A “serious” take on the Groundhog Day premise. And because you know that this moment doesn’t exist anymore, that she’s already dead no matter what he does, it becomes this tragic love story. How can he save someone who’s already dead? His orders are to look for evidence so they can stop the terrorists. But all he wants to do is save this girl. To save everyone on this doomed train. He simply refuses to accept that he can’t do anything.

The second thing the writer does that Deja Vu did NOT do (a great screenwriting tip to keep in mind), is create a story outside the virtual train ride whereby the terrorists who struck the train (that morning) promised to strike 3 more times throughout New York that day. Which puts an amazing amount of pressure on our protag to find out who did this so they can prevent the subsequent terrorist attacks from happening. This works great. I thought about the movie had this device not been used and realized it wouldn’t have been nearly as exciting (if at all).

I can’t stress how perfectly executed this script was. No scene was wasted. Everything was go go go. I have no doubt that the similarities to Deja Vu have thrown the chances of this thing ever getting into production into jeopardy. But let me make a plea to whoever owns this property: MAKE THIS MOVIE. Cast an up and coming actor. There are only a few locations. Very cheap to make. Then spend a ton on marketing. It will open with 10 mil but word of mouth will carry it. This can be a sci-fi classic.

[ ] trash
[ ] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[x] genius

What I learned from Source Code: Increase the tension and stakes of your action script by adding an impending “time bomb” (in this case three potentially devastating terrorist attacks). The critical difference between what made Deja Vu stupid, and Source Code awesome.

About: Tis an artsy film with a nod towards The Squid And The Whale. Totally out of left field and a unique read.

Writer: Ann Cherkis

Man Under is a rather odd story about a family from Yonkers that’s all sorts of fucked up. Stephen, the father, lives in the basement and refuses to talk to his family. Miriam, the mother, is a beautiful librarian who dreams of collecting first edition books she can’t afford. Wally, their geeky teenage son, is so used to getting bullied that he’s actually bored of it. And Joy, the fellow-geek daughter, is so obsessed with “cock” that she sneaks a peek at male porn whenever she gets a chance. The family has basically given up on being a family.

I’m not really a “wacky family movie” kind of guy. But this script had so much depth to the characters that it made up for a lot of the things in the genre that I usually hate (don’t get me started on Little Miss Sunshine!). The film that most comes to mind when reading Man Under is The Squid And The Whale. However whereas that movie forces its depression down your throat for the sole purpose of wanting to depress you , the depression here stems from an actual event – a subway train the father was driving hitting and killing a suicide jumper – what is known as a “Man Under”. The event destroys the father and sends him into a deep depression, ultimately taking the rest of the family along with him. One death, five lives lost .

But then the family receives a mysterious trunk in the mail that contains dozens of old but fashionable (in a quirky retro way) clothes. On a whim, everyone (sans the father) decides to throw on an outfit and head into Manhattan. Once there, they’re spotted by a strange but beautiful photographer, who asks to take their picture. When the photographer dies three months later, the picture becomes semi-famous, and the family finds themselves becoming mini-celebrities.

Each family member uses their mini-celebrity to pursue things they were previously too afraid to, and each storyline that results is quietly interesting. Wally asks out the hot girl. Joy starts dating a man twice her age. Miriam develops a relationship with a fellow book lover – a woman – that teeters on romance. And Stephen? Well, he’s still haunted by that horrible day. But even he finds redemption. That’s one of the unique aspects I liked about the script. Usually the “coming-of-age” story centers around a single person. Here, it tackles an entire family.

Man Under does what any good story should. It introduces you to a cast of characters you’d never find in your day-to-day life, and makes you want to follow them. I don’t think the narrative here is mainstream enough to propel the script to the big screen. But it’s a wonderful character study, and something you might enjoy reading if you have a couple of hours.

WHAT I LEARNED FROM MAN UNDER

The power of a unique character holds a lot of weight. Coco is a 14 year old girl obsessed with ballet so as to help forget the memory of her sister. Joy is a geek obsessed with sex. Wally isn’t scared of bullies. He’s bored with them. Sherman has given up on his family. Miriam is a beautiful librarian who hasn’t thought about accentuating her beauty until now. I haven’t read a single character like any of these people in any screenplay I’ve ever read. Remember that when writing your characters.

Info: 20,000 Leagues hit the spotlight when it was revealed that the man who made the worst movie of last summer – Da Fresh Prince – was interested. While I’m one of the first people to defend Smith as a movie star (how can you not like the guy?), Hancock fucking sucked. Stupid-ass mid-movie “twist”. Arrgh, I’ll never forget how quickly I went from loving to hating that flick.

Writer: Craig Titley

Draft: July 2007

Anyway, first things first. I don’t know jack shit about 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Apparently it was some big Harry Potter like book back in the what? 17^th Century? The title completely underwhelmed me. The first thing I thought of when I heard it was…old. Dated. Not relevant. Like something that people 50 years ago might’ve been interested in. That and one of the worst movies to ever grace the screen was set on water – the hurts-my-brain-to-even-think-about-it-still “The Perfect Storm”. Well, now that you mention it, pretty much anything Marky Mark is in sucks. But back to the script. What else was I gonna say about it? I hate the sea. I think it’s stupid. Blah blah blah. But you know what? Even though I was fully prepared to hate this script, 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea was pretty damn awesome.

20,000 starts off – I believe, at the turn of the 20^th century – with the mystery of an underwater “beast” that has been stalking boats, taking bites out of them, and leaving them to sink to the bottom of the sea. But only in spots where it’s 20,000 leagues. Otherwise it leaves them alone. NED, we’ll just call him Jack Sparrow 2.0, is reluctantly recruited by an old army buddy to hunt the beast. He’s joined by Aronnax, a scientist and Julie, a hot girl. She has some other ties to the story but let’s call a spade a spade shall we? She’s a hot girl.

They go out looking for this beast (how you go looking for a beast in 1,000,000 square feet of water I’m still not entirely clear on) and eventually find it. But the beast is not a beast at all! It’s an underwater ship! Essentially a super tricked out mega submarine called “The Nautilus.” Back before submarines were even built yo! The ship is being captained by Nemo. Which means that this entire time they were actually trying to….Find Nemo. There, I said it.

They are then taken captive, because apparently Nemo’s got all sorts of fucked up shit in his past and he ain’t happy. People be killin his wife and kid n shit! And so Jack Sparrow 2.0, Hot Girl, and Scientology Dude, all try to figure out what the hell it is they’re inside. Eventually they’re brought back to a secret Volcano City (think Zion) and told that Nemo here is searching for a secret lost city (a city even more secret, apparently, than a Volcano City!). This then becomes the main thrust of the film, and the three core players (Finding Nemo, Jack Sparrow 2.0, and Hot Girl) find themselves bickering and backering, none of them sure whether to kiss or kill each other.

And it’s all pretty damn entertaining to be honest. Jack Sparrow 2.0 is funny as hell. He spits out one-liners that are actually funny instead of being retreads of old lines we’ve heard a thousand times before. Finding Nemo has a dark and brooding quality that keeps him mysterious. And even though I can’t see Hot Girl, I know she’s hot. So whenever she gets all saucy and bothered with one of the men, it’s extremely sexy. I totally wanted to bang her. Wait a minute…what am I talking about again?

Ah yes, the script makes great use of well-researched history, co-signing lore and myth into an entertaining backstory. If anyone’s researched the Sumerians, they are one of the earliest cultures to display knowledge of mathematics and…other smart people stuff. And 20,000 Leagues makes the assertion that the Sumerians knew these things because they were taught them by an even more ancient civilization which was…wait for it…swallowed up by the ocean. I’ve heard some theories about how there was a civilization right here on earth tens of thousands of years ago that was actually more civilized than our own. And even though it’s pretty far-fetched, who’s to say it didn’t happen?

Okay, now that you think I’m batshit crazy, let me finish up by saying this would make an awesome movie! The Nautilus is cool as hell. The characters are all entertaining. The set-pieces are original and action-packed. And most important of all, it’s a good story. Sure the ending had some confusing action. But that’s literally the only problem I had with the script. And I usually can’t even get past page 5 of a big-budget script. So stop dragging your…err, gills New Line. Or whoever’s got this property – and go ahead and make this movie. It’s going to make, like, a bagagillion dollars!

Info: I must admit I know very little about “Men” other than with that title it could be about anything.

Writer: Allan Loeb

TOBY is an attractive 40 year old ad exec who has the perfect life: the sexy Manhattan condo, one of the rarest cars in the world, a job to dream for, and of course, Amy, his beautiful wife. One night during a business dinner Amy informs him that she’s been sleeping with another man. The two separate and Toby proceeds to find out where the the man lives, befriends him, and yes, actually moves in with him. (Is it just me or would “Moving In” be a more appropriate title for this premise?)

Men was a hard one to get a handle on because the first 15 pages were so steely, so devoid of any humor, that you’re left scratching your head when 30 pages later the script turns into a Jack Black movie. I think the writer might disagree with me here but any script that contains your main character throwing on a Gorilla mask to prevent his wife from recognizing him – even playing off her questions with a series of grunts and nods, is pretty darn broad.

But once you figure out what kind of story you’re being told, it’s not half-bad. Toby moves into “the other man’s” place (Ryan – an artsy surfer bohemian type) which provides some pretty funny moments. Toby listens in on phone conversations with Ryan and his wife. He dolls out bad advice to Ryan. He must listen to Ryan describe having sex with his wife. You know sooner or later he’s going to get caught, and it’s fun watching him squirm his way out of situations before the gig is up.

One of the problems here is buying into the idea that someone would actually do this. Move into someone else’s apartment and pretend you’re another person to get your wife back? Even if you get past this, are you really going to believe that Toby would hire Ryan in an attempt to give him less time with his wife, and inform everybody at the office to go along with it?? That’s risking like 700 lawsuits when Ryan finds out. I maybe could have made this leap if the script had introduced a broader tone. But like I said, it starts out very serious. Once you establish your universe, you can’t just change the rules when you feel like it.

My biggest problem with Men though is that I never really knew any of the characters. Toby was the most developed. But even with him I didn’t know his hopes, his dreams, what it is that made him the man he was. And Ryan, the lover, was basically a cardboard cutout of every bohemian surfer-type you’ve seen at the beach. There was nothing unique or interesting about him. It left me wondering why Toby’s wife liked this guy at all. And because the script ultimately becomes about the friendship of these two “Men”, knowing who they were was pretty important, wouldn’t you think?

Having said that, Men was a breezy read. I wasn’t disappointed in the experience. Just a little confused at times. I hope in the rewrites they fix the tonal problems and beef up the characters . But even if they do, I still have a hard time seeing this get to your local cineplex.