Mike I went back and had another look at it, thinking it could be from fuzzy brain while drinking my morning coffee.

This is what you wrote that confused me...

Cap picks them up and deals out five cards to himself and Hoyle.

***He picks up his hand, and he is holding a six, seven, eight, ace, and three of mixed suits.

1 six, 2 seven, 3 eight, 4 ace, 5, 6, and 7 three mixed suits. LOL!

Maybe you might want to say which suit each card is as with the number.

I think he means and a 3, all of the cards are mixed suits.

I noticed that you mention the man's name, then when he goes to see cap and the others, you call him The Tall Man again. Once you've established his name, you don't need to go back to th tall man just because he's introducing himself to new characters. We, the reader have already met him, so we know who he is.

By random I mean, it didn't seem to flow with the rest of the script. MAYBE I missed subtly hints to his real image, but it was out of place to me.

You got it, five cards, all mixed suits.  Probably should have written that clearer.


The going back to the Tall Man, was probably a mistake on my part.  When I did the name switch I probably missed one.


With the ending, I tried to make this as more of a twilight zone type script, and there are some subtle hints throughout, although nothing too obvious, that helps clarify the ending.  Thanks for taking a look at it.

This was excellent! Hoyle came off as suave and sophisticated the moment he appeared and one Cap decided to play with him, I had a feeling things weren't going to end well so the suspense throughout was great. I enjoyed the ending and the dialogue was spot on as well. Very few problems here although I'm sure someone's already mentioned Hoyle being introduced as Tall Man. I also think Atlantic City was brought up a few times too many. It's quite obvious what Cap's plans are after the first conversation. I enjoy poker as much as the next guy but some of the card jargon was a little confusing as well. But I suppose these guys are big time players so it wouldn't be appropriate to dumb down their dialogue just for people who aren't big time card players. Other than that, really solid short you've got here. Good job.

Also, I believe that they play Texas Hold Em in professional poker areas, such as Atlantic City. So it would be contradicting to have them play 5 card stud.

Quoted from TheUsualSuspect Also, I believe that they play Texas Hold Em in professional poker areas, such as Atlantic City. So it would be contradicting to have them play 5 card stud.

Really?  I was under the impression that casinos didn't limit themselves to only one kind of poker.  I'll have to look into that.

I could be wrong, but I know that that is the main problem that many people had with the film "SHADE".

PART ONE OF REVIEW

CONTAINS *** SPOILERS ***

Okay Mike, here's the review as promised..

Like I originally said in my previous post you've got a very good story here, I like the fact you set up the situation and use this in early dialogue which you also pay off at the end.

Your dialogue is pretty good for the most part but there are a couple of lines I'd reduce here and there just to make it a little snappier.

Your characters, particularly CAP is well thought out and he sure has a mean streak which comes through very well - he's also greedy but we won't go into that.

I would like to read more about the other characters around the card table when you open the first scene and me thinks you flash past this bit a tad too quick. If you spent a little more time describing the characters around the table, describe it like a flowing camera as it glides round the table you'd pull me in more. This way you could go to each of the card players one by one. You could open up at the end of a game, each of the card playes holding their hand and as a device glide slowly to each character in turn, show their hand by describing this to the reader but at the same time this would be a great moment to describe your character bio for that character. Then move around the table to the next character and repeat the same and so on and so forth.. This would be a cool opening and at the same time would enable you to describe all the characters and set the scene all in one scene. Sure it would be a longer scene but this would improve it many fold in my opinion.

Once you have described all the characters in the card game around the table we would be in a better position to appreciate the rest of the unfolding drama - just an idea Mike, a suggestion to stimulate your creative juices..

What I mean, rather than call them PLAYER #2 and PLAYER #3 give them names and bios this would sure lift your script some..

Quiet a few of your action descriptions have emotions in them and some need to be clarified as a reaction to an event.

On PAGE #1 for example:

The other three men throw down their cards in disgust.

The above implies that all three men are in a single shot and although I have no problem with this I do with your description of "Disgust" it's a throwaway line like a writer would end line in a sentence in a novel or short story.

Now if you write it like this for example:

One after the other, Player #1, Player #2 and Player #3 each in turn throws their cards down on the table with a look of disgust on their faces.

I appreciate that it's a longer description but you really need to describe what can be photographed and next you're giving the actors cues how to react and personally I reckon this is the best way to write it. Only an example but I should at least adopt writing your scene descriptions in this manner because they are not only photographable but they read better too..

PAGE #2

You did it again:

Player 2 scratches his head in wonder.

I appreciate you want to write economical but you need to describe the character's behavior as a reaction to whatever preceded it.

I would write it like this for example:

Player #2 scratches his head an expression of wonder in his eyes.

The reason I've used "eyes" is because people’s eyes widen when they see or hear something amazing but to describe it like this gives the actor a cue what you actually mean - the key is "expression" i.e. facial and eyes..


INT. POOL HALL, FRONT - NIGHT

A TALL MAN in a black suit, carrying a briefcase, and wearing a fedora, stands in the doorway of the pool hall surveying the land.  There isn’t a soul in the place except for a bartender.

You could improve the forward flow of your script by the use of Action Verbs so this provides the reader with a sense of movement and forward action like so:

INT. POOL HALL, FRONT - NIGHT

A TALL MAN in a black suit, carries a briefcase, and wears a fedora he stands in the doorway of the pool hall and surveys the land.  There isn’t a soul in the place except for a bartender.

I wouldn't have thought "There isn't a soul in the place except for the bartender" is photographable and I would re-write this so the shot communicates exactly what you mean like so:

INT. POOL HALL, FRONT - NIGHT

A TALL MAN in a black suit, carries a briefcase, and wears a fedora. He stands in the doorway of the pool hall and surveys the land.

The bar is empty, at the far end of the room a BATRENDER.

The two sentences are in fact two shots. The first is the man entering the building showing what her wears how he looks and what he is carrying etc. But the second sentence is his POV shot what he sees and should be on a separate line to communicate this fact. Like I have done in my example above..

Also on PAGE #2

The tall man stiffly walks over to the bar, and takes a seat.

The above action description could be improved some like this for example:

The Tall man, stiff and upright, puts one foot before the other and steps over to the bar.

You'll find it reads much better. I've also replaced "Walks" with "Steps" because "Walks" is over used way too much by writers and I agree with those who find alternatives based on the mood and intension of the character within the scene etc. Yes I have used "steps" but you could easily substitute this will "slides" or "shuffles" or maybe something more sinister, depends what you want to communicate in this action description.

I can find lots of these in your script. I'm not criticizing just pointing this stuff out so you can see it for yourself with the hope you can see the benefit of writing like this yourself. Sure reads better and makes for a more pro looking script..

PAGE #2

The bartender begins preparing the drink.

Here's another example of how to improve the above line:

The Bartender prepares a drink.

Says the same thing but in the present tense. Reads better too..

You could take your time here and show the bartender actually preparing the drink and if so then you could describe what he is doing and show us what he is doing before he goes to his next line. Sure would look interesting on the screen.

PAGE #3

He finishes preparing the drink and places it in front of the tall man.

Again this action description is in the past tense and doesn't have the forward movement or present tense feel to it and could be improved. Here's an example again:

The Bartender places the drink on the bar and slides the glass towards the Tall Man on the opposite side.

Now the above action description read just like you would see on the screen and expect it to look..

Just observation is all..

PAGE #3 again..

The tall man places his briefcase on the bar and opens it to reveal that it’s full of money.  The bartender’s eyes light up.  The tall man takes out a one hundred dollar bill, and places it on the bar.

Now there's nothing actually wrong with the above action descriptions but you have made the mistake of bunching them up in one shot. Here's an example of how you can split these up by inserting a close up:

The tall man places his briefcase on the bar and opens it.

Inside the open briefcase it is stacked full of paper money.

The bartender’s eyes light up.

The tall man takes out a one hundred dollar bill, and places it on the bar.

Now you have four shots.

#1 Master scene/shot placing the briefcase on the bar.

#2 Close up inside the case.

#3 close up of the bartender showing his eyes light up.

#4 back to master scene/shot Tall man takes money out of case and hands this to the Bartender.

The above reads like it should in a script and translates into shots.

Also on PAGE #3

The tall man closes the briefcase, picks up his drink, and heads toward the back room.  The bartender watches him walk away, picks up the dollar bill, and inspects it.

CONTINUED:

REVIEW PART TWO

CONTAINS ** SPOLIERS **

The above are bunched again and should be split to show these as separate shots.. Like so:

The tall man closes the briefcase, picks up his drink. He moves away from the bar heads toward the back room.

The bartender watches him walk away then picks up the dollar bill, and inspects it.

This reads much better now and we can see these descriptions are separate shots.

PAGE #3 again..

INT. POOL HALL, BACK ROOM - NIGHT

Cap laughs as he collects yet another pot.


INT. POOL HALL, BACK ROOM - NIGHT

Cap places his cards on the table this reveals a winning hand. He leans over to the center of the table to grab the money in the pot. As Cap gathers the money he lets out a sneaky laugh under his breath.

The above reads better, the action also read like a camera shot.

You have FADE IN: and FADE OUT: on PAGE #6 and I would remove those and find an alternative solution to describe the passage of time..

LATER is good.. This would also imply to the director who makes this flick that there has been a passage of time.

If the two other card player characters are not there after that passage of time I would write some dialogue to talk about them being gone and why just so the audience can hook into the fact they lost their money and split. I know I mentioned the opposite when you said something similar in your critique of my MAN WITH A PROBLEM screenplay but in this script we are in a card game and the passage of time needs to reflect the fact and why the two other card players have split. This would confirm this very fact for an audience..

What I'm saying Mike is only write stuff in your scene descriptions what can be photographed. If you write that the two other card players are not there anymore this is something you will not be able to photograph you need to explain this in dialogue..

PAGE #7

Cap puts down the rest of his hand, which is made up of assorted worthless cards.

The above is a literal description not a photographable one. How would the audience know if the cards are "worthless" or not? You can only inform the audience is they are "worthless" or not by a character reacting to the hand. Sure you can describe the cards which are placed on the table so the camera can photograph the cards and show them on screen but if the cards are worthless this must be said by a character.. Indeed in your next line CAP says "And shit!" so we know this is a worthless hand. Try not to write it in your scene descriptions, these are literal not photographable.

PAGE #8

Cap picks them up and deals out five cards to himself and inferno.  He picks up his hand, and he is holding a six, seven, eight, ace, and three of mixed suits.  He looks up at Inferno, who is completely stone faced.

The above seems jumbled and bunched and could be separated to make better sense of the shots. Like this for example:

Cap picks up the deck and deals out five cards to himself and inferno.

He picks up his hand, and he is holding a six, seven, eight, ace, and three of mixed suits.  He looks up at Inferno.

Inferno's face is expressionless - stone faced.

Again, this description has been split into three shots and works much better for it.

PAGE #8 again..

Cap picks up his two cards, a five, and a nine, giving him a straight.  Inferno throws another fifty on the table.

Again the above description could be split so you don't have to stick to a master scene or master shot. You could do this for example:

Cap picks up his two cards, a five, and a nine, giving him a straight.

Inferno throws another fifty on the table.

The above two lines of description can now be a medium shot or a close up so you're giving the director the opportunity to choose either and or one of the other.. Always a good idea to imply if you can and you can by choosing to describe a character's facial expression or a reaction and then the director would probably plummet for a close-up.. It's all implied in how you write these things..

Okay, I reckon I've done enough of this. I think you get the picture of what I mean..

There's not much wrong with your dialogue, it works well with the unfolding drama, there's some good through-lines and there is conflict within the text too which enable the story and drama to move forward, so this is good.

I'm not too sure about the ending. I remember you're previous revision of this script and now this revision which shows the INFERNO character where his suit turns to red and he then magically captures poor CAP somehow in the pack of cards. And you also mention that two other cards contain two other famous missing personalities but I'm not sure this works. Plus this is only an 18 page script and it would stand a better chance of getting made if you didn't hinder yourself with special effects which are very costly and expensive.

It would be far more practical and cheaper to have INFERNO just removes his hat to reveal he has a pair of horns, far more realistic.

Same with the actual denouement, sure you can have CAP disappear in a cliché puff of smoke but again I'd choose something simple but something which will be equally as effective in communicating the punch you want. If you do choose something more simple and basic it'll be less expensive to make and you may actually get a filmmaker interested in filming this cute little tale.

Don't take what I've written personally here Mike, they're only suggestions offered in the hope these help in some way for anther re-write..

Overall you have a great little story here with a couple of good main characters. You could improve it some by improving the descriptions of your minor characters, your shots descriptions, adding Power Verbs and maybe changing the ending so it reads a little more believable I reckon you'll be on to a real winner..

Well done Mike..


Kev

Hey Kevan,

Thanks for taking a look at this.  The version currently posted is somewhat newer than the one you read and reviewed (Secondary players have names, Inferno's name has been changed, and I've fiddled with the ending), but I definitely agree with some of your suggestions for action verbs and what not.

In recent works I've been trying to use words like "saunters", "shuffles" etc. instead of just walking, and have made a concious effort to stop my characters from "beginning" to do things and just having them do them.

There's a REALLY alternate version of the script in my comp files that I probably won't be uploading, but have been thinking about switching it around to make an entirely different script altogether.

Yo Mike. Cool script.

I've played poker before, and everything that has been said about poker in the script has been covered here.

This flowed well and had a very cool ending. I would have liked a hint (or maybe I just didn't pick it up) near the start that Hoyle was the kind of guy he was. I suppose his name was a hint.

Well done.

Hey Tommy,

Thanks for reading, and the "super bump".  Glad you enjoyed it.

I have to admit that I get a little nervous when I see these older scripts jump back up.  Not because they're bad or anything, but the writing is considerably different than what I do now.  If memory serves, this was the first short I ever submitted here outside of an OWC (my first script overall was a feature), and I was really just getting into writing.

I wanted Hoyle to have a little bit of mystery to him, making him seem like any other gambler, or even Cap's "mark" until the story progresses and you really start to wonder about him.  I always thought of this script as something you might see on The Twilight Zone.

Anyway, thanks again for checking it out.