Front page
FilmJerk.com
Archive
This blog tracks script reviews for upcoming films, aggregating links to the latest written. Compiled by Chris Faile, of FilmJerk.com.
![[Powered by Blogger]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uxNxqdOIuslXYjQK8SQcrQtXgBC2MjEsNh0FZtNmyTXKyAp5ExfHT91CgWeNhO1sESB4F8FIqcprnWLFDd4_B5P3fvUvcH538bYK6M-tGw=s0-d){kind=small}
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Seeing as how I haven't posted here in more than 18 months, should probably point you in the direction of my new blog: "Hard, Cutting". While it focuses a great deal on entertainment, it's more of a grab-bag on what's going on.
So, this is more or less retired. But, last chance, since a lot of people still seem to be checking this out...i you're interested in helping out with this blog, please drop me a line at cfaile@gmail.com.
So, this is more or less retired. But, last chance, since a lot of people still seem to be checking this out...i you're interested in helping out with this blog, please drop me a line at cfaile@gmail.com.
Saturday, March 13, 2004
A new script reviewer, by the name of "T.H." checks into the game at Screenwriter's Voice, with a review of this May's "Van Helsing". No information is given on the draft date or at what stage the script was at that he reviewed.
His review is summed up thusly, and what we've all been hearing for a while, albeit from insiders' whispers: "If you're a fan of [Stephen Sommer]'s work, you'll enjoy it, without a doubt, but for those hard-core genre fans looking for something new and memorable... move along, there's nothing to see here. There's simply not an ounce of originality in the Van Helsing script, and by the time it appears on movie screens this May, the only thing that will be fully developed is a lot of computer effects and money shots, a fully realized visual treat riding on the flimsiest of stories...it's a not-so-subtle variation of Men in Black or Hellboy."
Definitely a script reviewer I'm anxious to hear from again, he has a nice clean writing style that I like.
His review is summed up thusly, and what we've all been hearing for a while, albeit from insiders' whispers: "If you're a fan of [Stephen Sommer]'s work, you'll enjoy it, without a doubt, but for those hard-core genre fans looking for something new and memorable... move along, there's nothing to see here. There's simply not an ounce of originality in the Van Helsing script, and by the time it appears on movie screens this May, the only thing that will be fully developed is a lot of computer effects and money shots, a fully realized visual treat riding on the flimsiest of stories...it's a not-so-subtle variation of Men in Black or Hellboy."
Definitely a script reviewer I'm anxious to hear from again, he has a nice clean writing style that I like.
Thursday, January 29, 2004
I need to get caught up on a number of reviews that have hit in the past 2 months, but let's get the big news out of the way first: In a first for FilmJerk.com, the site features two script reviews today on the same film, Mike Judge and Etan Cohen’s forthcoming feature “3001.” These reviews come as it was announced this morning that Luke Wilson (2003’s “Alex and Emma” and “Old School”) has been cast as the central character Joe Bowers, playing a man who goes to sleep only to wake up 1,000 years in the future. Shooting should begin in mid-April. The column begins here and it links off to the two separate reviews.
Of the two reviews, my own view of the script is probably closer to Darwin's and that this would make a better animation feature than live-action. The set designers for the film have a tough job ahead of them here-- this could come out looking extremely cheesy if not done right.
Of the two reviews, my own view of the script is probably closer to Darwin's and that this would make a better animation feature than live-action. The set designers for the film have a tough job ahead of them here-- this could come out looking extremely cheesy if not done right.
Saturday, November 29, 2003
El Mayimbe of LatinoReview.com checks in with a script review of "Mexicali" (located here, the script is written by Christian Gudegast & Paul Scheuring and dated August 2nd, 2002). Probably my least favorite script reviewer out there right now-- most likely because he peppers in phrases like "this script was so dope" and "I don't f*** around, my script gathering skills are on point" throughout his reviews.
Anyway, the film focuses on a successful businessman and his new wife on their honeymoon, who subsequently witness a drug deal gone wrong. When his wife is shot and then disappears, the businessman must now figure out a way to get her back and then the both of them back to the U.S.
His opinion of the film, you ask? El Mayimbe: "I've been tracking this script for the longest because I think it's a dope story...I hope MGM doesn't f*** this script up because it was fine to me as is. A page turner full of suspense and "Oh s***" moments."
It's actually a good read if you treat it as satire. Otherwise, it's pretty sad commentary on critical analyses these days.
Anyway, the film focuses on a successful businessman and his new wife on their honeymoon, who subsequently witness a drug deal gone wrong. When his wife is shot and then disappears, the businessman must now figure out a way to get her back and then the both of them back to the U.S.
His opinion of the film, you ask? El Mayimbe: "I've been tracking this script for the longest because I think it's a dope story...I hope MGM doesn't f*** this script up because it was fine to me as is. A page turner full of suspense and "Oh s***" moments."
It's actually a good read if you treat it as satire. Otherwise, it's pretty sad commentary on critical analyses these days.
Continuing on with the updates, here are very two very negative script reviews over at the rumor site AICN. And, hey, Moriarty actually writes a decent script review! (What was that about a thousand monkeys?)
First, Mr. Beaks takes the first look at the script for "Aliens vs. Predator" (located here). The script he reviews is written by Paul W.S. Anderson and includes revisions by Shane Salerno, with no script date given. A big tentpole for Fox, the film throws the fates of two franchises together, setting it in the current day.
As Mr. Beaks writes there, "Though there’s no shortage of Alien and Predator throw-downs in the third act, what I think will piss off the fans is the way this script thoroughly ignores the lore of the previous films...Granted, I wasn’t terribly enthusiastic about this project in the first place, but, if anything, I’m far more forgiving than the devoted fans on whose foreheads Fox will be thumping this mushroom bruise of a motion picture. This is a Viking Funeral for both franchises that will result in a quick payoff for the studio. Maybe that’s for the best."
The second is the umpteenth take on the script for M. Night Shayalman's "The Village" (fourth item down here, no script date given). Glomming on to the idea that the script that many have now reviewed is a fake one, Moriarty waxes poetic on the film's bleak prospects.
As he writes there, "Shyamalan wouldn’t pull one twist ending only to try to convince us of the same thing a second time, and then do the exact same twist again. He would realize how incredibly insulting that is, and he would come up with something far more clever...I have faith that this is all an elaborate prank, played on the Internet, by a storyteller who has something fun and original up his sleeve that he doesn’t want to see spoiled. At least, that’s what I’d be praying if I had money in this thing. Because if I’m wrong -- if by some chance this is the actual script that’s going to be used -- then a few things are apparent...this will be this director’s "Battlefield Earth" or "Showgirls," an epic miscalculation that gets stuck in the audience’s craw for a while, and it will take something really special to buy his way out of the cinematic doghouse this will earn him...this will infuriate audiences across the board. They’ll feel cheated, and they’ll be right."
First, Mr. Beaks takes the first look at the script for "Aliens vs. Predator" (located here). The script he reviews is written by Paul W.S. Anderson and includes revisions by Shane Salerno, with no script date given. A big tentpole for Fox, the film throws the fates of two franchises together, setting it in the current day.
As Mr. Beaks writes there, "Though there’s no shortage of Alien and Predator throw-downs in the third act, what I think will piss off the fans is the way this script thoroughly ignores the lore of the previous films...Granted, I wasn’t terribly enthusiastic about this project in the first place, but, if anything, I’m far more forgiving than the devoted fans on whose foreheads Fox will be thumping this mushroom bruise of a motion picture. This is a Viking Funeral for both franchises that will result in a quick payoff for the studio. Maybe that’s for the best."
The second is the umpteenth take on the script for M. Night Shayalman's "The Village" (fourth item down here, no script date given). Glomming on to the idea that the script that many have now reviewed is a fake one, Moriarty waxes poetic on the film's bleak prospects.
As he writes there, "Shyamalan wouldn’t pull one twist ending only to try to convince us of the same thing a second time, and then do the exact same twist again. He would realize how incredibly insulting that is, and he would come up with something far more clever...I have faith that this is all an elaborate prank, played on the Internet, by a storyteller who has something fun and original up his sleeve that he doesn’t want to see spoiled. At least, that’s what I’d be praying if I had money in this thing. Because if I’m wrong -- if by some chance this is the actual script that’s going to be used -- then a few things are apparent...this will be this director’s "Battlefield Earth" or "Showgirls," an epic miscalculation that gets stuck in the audience’s craw for a while, and it will take something really special to buy his way out of the cinematic doghouse this will earn him...this will infuriate audiences across the board. They’ll feel cheated, and they’ll be right."
Saturday, November 22, 2003
Re-emerging from some time off...
The first script review we look at is Guy Ritchie's "Six Shooters" (located here, this August 2002 draft is 123 pages) a project he abandoned "Revolver" for. Written by Stax at IGN FilmForce, the film is a lighthearted heist flick set during the last days of the U.S. Civil War and follows a quartet of Union soldiers who team with a sharp-shooting Richmond madame and a slave-turned-Confederate POW to plunder the riches of the Confederacy.
While focusing mostly on the script's content, Stax says that the film is a good one, "thanks to its action set-pieces, roguish anti-heroes, and quick wit, "Six Shooters" succeeds in being a charming and fun period romp, a sort of Lincoln's "[Ocean's Eleven]" or Civil War-era Kelly's "Heroes."
The first script review we look at is Guy Ritchie's "Six Shooters" (located here, this August 2002 draft is 123 pages) a project he abandoned "Revolver" for. Written by Stax at IGN FilmForce, the film is a lighthearted heist flick set during the last days of the U.S. Civil War and follows a quartet of Union soldiers who team with a sharp-shooting Richmond madame and a slave-turned-Confederate POW to plunder the riches of the Confederacy.
While focusing mostly on the script's content, Stax says that the film is a good one, "thanks to its action set-pieces, roguish anti-heroes, and quick wit, "Six Shooters" succeeds in being a charming and fun period romp, a sort of Lincoln's "[Ocean's Eleven]" or Civil War-era Kelly's "Heroes."
Friday, September 19, 2003
I've never been a big fan of Wes Anderson, although I really liked his "Rushmore." The rest of the resume I'm not as fond of: "Bottle Rocket" was not my cup of tea and I was bored to tears by "The Royal Tannenbaums." So I don't not like him, or like him...I'm just ambivalent about him. His upcoming feature, "The Life Aquatic," which I've read myself and is co-authored by Noah Baumbach, is pretty good for what it was. Not sure if I'll catch in it theaters, but I'll probably see it once it hits DVD.
But whatever, this is not about me or my likings. Let's go back in time to September 13th. My sitemate at FilmJerk.com, Edward Havens, also managed to finagle a copy of the script from one of his sources and, interestingly, two script reviews of the same project hit the Net on the same day.
Well, I'm going to take that back-- one fake script review written by AICN that is pegged as a real script review and the other the real deal. Ya see, based on what Moriarty of AICN wrote there, it's sorta obvious that he hasn't read the darn thing and one can see why he buried the "droolingly positive" review in between his droning on about how much he liked the filmmaker and his own problems on getting his own projects greenlit. Notice he gives two small paragraphs on the film's plot and no real analysis as well. It seems like more of a desperate plea for attention than anything else.
First, here's his "review" here. Go read that, I guess, and come back here to see how it's a fake. AintItCool.com loves pageviews, although I hear they've been dwindling in recent months.
You back? Good. Now let's tick down the reasons why it's a fake:
1) No draft date given. Those who review scripts almost always cite the date of the script, if it's available on the draft. If it's not there (ie. the cover page is missing), they often mention it as such. No citation here and that made me originally suspicious. Mori's 0 for 1.
2) Moriarty writes there that "Plimpton has money of his own, and agrees to finance a film about the search for the jaguar shark that killed Esteban, as long as he gets to go along and get to know Zissou on the journey." Not true. Ned was going along anyway to get to know his potential father and offered up his recent inheritence when Zissou does not get the grant money he was expecting. Strike two.
3) Moriarty writes that "At the opening of the film, Zissou is in shock as he premieres his new documentary." Zissou isn't in shock. He simply watches the footage without emotion, zilch, and this minor point is noted as such. Not shock. 0 for 3, but I'm not calling him out on strikes yet.
4) Moriarty writes that "the heart of the movie is the relationship that develops between Zissou and Ned, and the way it’s complicated by the introduction of a reporter named Jane Winslett-Richardson, from "Oceanographic Explorer." This
pretty much has to be Cate Blanchett, and she’ll be perfect. Watching Bill Murray and Owen Wilson compete for her, and watching how she wrestles with her own feelings for each of them... this should be a treat." Giant stretch here by Moriarty as Ned and Zissou don't compete for her. She keeps Zissou's attractions at bay, and develops a friendship with Ned without effort. And it's plainly said in the screenplay. So that's strike 4. Yer out.
As Moriarty said there, "I'm excited by the way I pictured the film as I read the script, but I'm more excited by the surprises I'm sure I still have in store when I actually see the world realized. All I got was a sneak peek, a little glimpse of what we'll all get later. But it was enough to tell you it’s going to be something special."
So, what we have here is an AICN writer who has seemingly checked the info that's out there on the various other news sites, packaged it together as a "script review" (making assumptions where needed) and fills out the column droning on about how Andersen is "one of the most interesting filmmakers working right now, the love child of J.D. Salinger and Hal Ashby" and his action-packed thoughts about how "Posthuman" can't get financing. Sad, but it's come as what many have expect from AICN these days. At best, the "peak" was given was probably a few pages worth and not anything to base a glowing review on. If only The Facer were still around...
For a real script review of "The Life Aquatic," check out Havens' review here.
But whatever, this is not about me or my likings. Let's go back in time to September 13th. My sitemate at FilmJerk.com, Edward Havens, also managed to finagle a copy of the script from one of his sources and, interestingly, two script reviews of the same project hit the Net on the same day.
Well, I'm going to take that back-- one fake script review written by AICN that is pegged as a real script review and the other the real deal. Ya see, based on what Moriarty of AICN wrote there, it's sorta obvious that he hasn't read the darn thing and one can see why he buried the "droolingly positive" review in between his droning on about how much he liked the filmmaker and his own problems on getting his own projects greenlit. Notice he gives two small paragraphs on the film's plot and no real analysis as well. It seems like more of a desperate plea for attention than anything else.
First, here's his "review" here. Go read that, I guess, and come back here to see how it's a fake. AintItCool.com loves pageviews, although I hear they've been dwindling in recent months.
You back? Good. Now let's tick down the reasons why it's a fake:
1) No draft date given. Those who review scripts almost always cite the date of the script, if it's available on the draft. If it's not there (ie. the cover page is missing), they often mention it as such. No citation here and that made me originally suspicious. Mori's 0 for 1.
2) Moriarty writes there that "Plimpton has money of his own, and agrees to finance a film about the search for the jaguar shark that killed Esteban, as long as he gets to go along and get to know Zissou on the journey." Not true. Ned was going along anyway to get to know his potential father and offered up his recent inheritence when Zissou does not get the grant money he was expecting. Strike two.
3) Moriarty writes that "At the opening of the film, Zissou is in shock as he premieres his new documentary." Zissou isn't in shock. He simply watches the footage without emotion, zilch, and this minor point is noted as such. Not shock. 0 for 3, but I'm not calling him out on strikes yet.
4) Moriarty writes that "the heart of the movie is the relationship that develops between Zissou and Ned, and the way it’s complicated by the introduction of a reporter named Jane Winslett-Richardson, from "Oceanographic Explorer." This
pretty much has to be Cate Blanchett, and she’ll be perfect. Watching Bill Murray and Owen Wilson compete for her, and watching how she wrestles with her own feelings for each of them... this should be a treat." Giant stretch here by Moriarty as Ned and Zissou don't compete for her. She keeps Zissou's attractions at bay, and develops a friendship with Ned without effort. And it's plainly said in the screenplay. So that's strike 4. Yer out.
As Moriarty said there, "I'm excited by the way I pictured the film as I read the script, but I'm more excited by the surprises I'm sure I still have in store when I actually see the world realized. All I got was a sneak peek, a little glimpse of what we'll all get later. But it was enough to tell you it’s going to be something special."
So, what we have here is an AICN writer who has seemingly checked the info that's out there on the various other news sites, packaged it together as a "script review" (making assumptions where needed) and fills out the column droning on about how Andersen is "one of the most interesting filmmakers working right now, the love child of J.D. Salinger and Hal Ashby" and his action-packed thoughts about how "Posthuman" can't get financing. Sad, but it's come as what many have expect from AICN these days. At best, the "peak" was given was probably a few pages worth and not anything to base a glowing review on. If only The Facer were still around...
For a real script review of "The Life Aquatic," check out Havens' review here.
Saturday, September 13, 2003
We've been a little busy with script reviews over at FilmJerk since the start of August, reviewing a total of 5 scripts: "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," a second look at "The Ladykillers," "White Chicks," "The Woods" and our most recent, "Resident Evil: Apocalypse."
Let's use five words or less to describe each, since I've got to go to a dinner in a little bit:
"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" (linked here, written by Charlie Kaufman)-- Great concept, poorly-written characters.
"The Ladykillers (linked here, written by the Coen Bros.) -- Brisk, enjoyable read.
"The Woods" (linked here, written by M. Night Shyalaman)-- Writer guessed ending early on.
"White Chicks" (linked here, written by a half-dozen people including Keenan Ivory Wayans)-- Major mess, beginning to end.
"Resident Evil: Apocalypse" (linked here, written by Paul W.S. Anderson)-- Okay at best, nothing unique.
The script reviews above, respectively, are written by myself, Brett Myers, a scoop-generated submission, Edward Havens and then myself again. More to come soon as we reload!
Let's use five words or less to describe each, since I've got to go to a dinner in a little bit:
The script reviews above, respectively, are written by myself, Brett Myers, a scoop-generated submission, Edward Havens and then myself again. More to come soon as we reload!
Jean-François Allaire is back and promising two columns a week, which irks me. Doesn't he know I am a little behind on linking his latest. Since I last covered his work, he's given us two reader-generated reviews, one on "Shopgirl" and the other on "Starksy & Hutch."
Let's look at "Shopgirl" first (linked here, written by Steve Martin based on his novella). The film focuses on Mirabelle, an impecunious young artist who works as a shopqirl at Neiman's to make meager ends meet. She commences an affair with an older man, but their vastly different expectations inevitably cause them both much pain.
The scooper there, Miss Jones, writes that "Honestly, "Shopgirl" is the most boring piece of writing I have read to date. Well, it's not that boring, but the thing is quite wearisome. As a screenplay written by Steve Martin, I expected gutbusting laughter embedded in a somewhat decent storyline. Instead, all I got were a few sporadic chuckles at characters that were just barely on the verge of interesting. And, the storyline is so slow and unmonumental that I had to injest it in small pieces over the space of a week, if not longer. I literally had to force myself to read it each time, and once it was over, I felt utterly unfulfilled, cheated, unmoved, and unenlightened. The only sympathy I had for the main character, Mirabelle, was for how stupid she is. Actually, I can't say that I liked any of the characters. My sympathy for the script, however, runs deep."
Having myself read the book that the film is based on, sounds like she went in there with the wrong intentions. Not a bad thing, but the script and book are definitely good-- I like them each. It's not supposed to be something like "Bringing Down the House" or "The Jerk."
In the second review, webmaster John Shea looks at the script for the "Starky & Hutch" film, which was formerly a '70s TV show (linked here, this version includes revisions made by John O'Brien from Stevie Long's original submission).
There, Shea writes that "The script gets off to a great start with a montage for each of the stars as they talk about their view on crime. It beautifully brings each character into razor sharp focus and has great style and humor as well. Unfortunately, that's the script's high point. Now this isn't a horrible script but it's not going to get too many people excited. It's standard buddy cop fare... the script boils down to a good core in two solid characters, that floats in a sea of mediocrity. Give these guys a real world with something to do that is of reasonable scale and you could really have something. Leaning on supposed 70s cool just isn't enough reason to make a movie."
Let's look at "Shopgirl" first (linked here, written by Steve Martin based on his novella). The film focuses on Mirabelle, an impecunious young artist who works as a shopqirl at Neiman's to make meager ends meet. She commences an affair with an older man, but their vastly different expectations inevitably cause them both much pain.
The scooper there, Miss Jones, writes that "Honestly, "Shopgirl" is the most boring piece of writing I have read to date. Well, it's not that boring, but the thing is quite wearisome. As a screenplay written by Steve Martin, I expected gutbusting laughter embedded in a somewhat decent storyline. Instead, all I got were a few sporadic chuckles at characters that were just barely on the verge of interesting. And, the storyline is so slow and unmonumental that I had to injest it in small pieces over the space of a week, if not longer. I literally had to force myself to read it each time, and once it was over, I felt utterly unfulfilled, cheated, unmoved, and unenlightened. The only sympathy I had for the main character, Mirabelle, was for how stupid she is. Actually, I can't say that I liked any of the characters. My sympathy for the script, however, runs deep."
Having myself read the book that the film is based on, sounds like she went in there with the wrong intentions. Not a bad thing, but the script and book are definitely good-- I like them each. It's not supposed to be something like "Bringing Down the House" or "The Jerk."
In the second review, webmaster John Shea looks at the script for the "Starky & Hutch" film, which was formerly a '70s TV show (linked here, this version includes revisions made by John O'Brien from Stevie Long's original submission).
There, Shea writes that "The script gets off to a great start with a montage for each of the stars as they talk about their view on crime. It beautifully brings each character into razor sharp focus and has great style and humor as well. Unfortunately, that's the script's high point. Now this isn't a horrible script but it's not going to get too many people excited. It's standard buddy cop fare... the script boils down to a good core in two solid characters, that floats in a sea of mediocrity. Give these guys a real world with something to do that is of reasonable scale and you could really have something. Leaning on supposed 70s cool just isn't enough reason to make a movie."
