All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Some things that were good about this: (1) When the group is first trying to get answers and look back to see the elevator they stepped out of is gone. (2) When it is revealed the money they have is dated 1943 and that shocks them all. (3) When Brenda recognizes her grandfather at the jazz club. (4) When they check into the 1940s hotel they are all hesitant to get on the old fashioned elevator in the lobby because who knows what could happen this time. (5) Bernie decides not to return with the rest of the group and it is revealed the company that was founded by him.
Some things that were bad about this: (1) They get they feeling they've been transported back to the 40s and even say 1943 and it turns out to be exactly 1943. Too direct. Couldn't predict that closely. (2) When they're all sitting at the club and start introducing each other. Too late in the story to do the whole character sketch/description thing.
Also the writing was extremely amateurish. The action needs to be tightened up, meaning the scene structure and descriptions, and the dialog wasn't believable at all. Also voice overs and flashbacks are terrible. Premise was interesting enough, even though its never explained why these four and why this happened to them.
Well, Mr. Arundel, thank you for reading my script. I see that as amateurish as it was, you happened to stick with it until the end. Some of the things you critiqued: 1.) They do NOT say 1943 directly. It is mentioned the building was built 1943 or so. And the money had 1943 on it. 2. The whole character description is in the beginning. In the story, they didn't think of introducing themselves, they where trying to figure out how to get out/back. In a crisis, you don't say (example) "My names Joe, I work in a factory", do you? I don't know who you are, but you certainly don't make a very good critique writer. You have to pay attention. I admit, I'm not perfect, but I do think I deserve a little respect. I'd really like to see what YOU have accomplished. I see you have posted a lot on here. Have a good day.
I was expecting a website and maybe a synopsis. Well, I'm not even going to begin to critique you in detail, because I am new at the screenwriting thing. But I will say I liked "Twins". Didn't care for Dog. Funny was alright, but I wasn't really drawn into either one of them subject wise. Your writing is really good, but I found it overly populated with explanations. Too much detail for me.
To review a script you don't need to be an expert, just give your opinion on a script, state what worked for you, what didn't, if you believe the story can be improved upon and how, and give examples where you can.
Be respectful and mindful that SS operates on a quid pro quo basis e.g., you get what you give. Be productive with your comments and supportive of each other.
@John, thanks for reviewing. "Twins" I think has the most commercial appeal. "Funny" good for contest/festival, and "Dog" probably for the art-house, hehe.
Someone has shown an interest in producing "Funny." These were heavy on action description because they were written from the heart and I wanted to be sure I could have as much control at least in this stage. If/when a producer/director gets a hold of it, they can change anything, so I at least wanted to say what was right while I could. Odd, cause I'm a fan of bare-bones writing.
From now on, the rest will be $comercial$ (well, we'll see about that....)