Why This is Good

What was good:

The wallpaper-I know that sounds odd but see the movie and you’ll know exactly what I mean. The film is set in 1976 and the décor and clothes make the 70s look a lot more chic than they really were. The visuals throughout were quite stunning, and the intense patterns of the wallpaper framed the actors and added to the uncomfortable tension.

James Marsden-I think James Marsden is adorable, and the poor guy always plays the boyfriend of the leading lady who is really in love with someone else (see The Notebook, X-Men, and Superman Returns). I was excited to see him in a leading role, and I think he proved he’s leading man material, finally.

The story-Much of the story worked well, there were constant twists, turns, scares, and surprises. Going in we all knew the intriguing Twilight Zone worthy premise-press the button and get a million dollars, but someone you don’t know will die (incidentally this story was used in a Twilight Zone episode in 1986).  The ever unfolding story behind this weird experiment went places I did not expect or predict, and kept me guessing until the end. It also made me want to read the short story on which the film was based, as I’m sure it’s even better. The story was a little big for two hours, and might have worked better as a mini-series, but overall I give the writer credit for asking a question in each scene, and following each answer with another question leading down another bizarre path.

What wasn’t so good:

The dialogue-it was clunky, repetitive, and often on-the-nose. Cheesy and melodramatic, the story would have benefited from less of it, and a rewrite to take out all of the first draft lines that read like a bad play.

The complexity of the story-I’m all for a challenging, engaging, multifaceted story, and this certainly was one. But, as I said, it was a bit too big to be contained in two hours. The twists and turns sometimes went way too far, taking us in a direction that seemed important, only to end up meaning nothing, or remain unexplained. It hinted at grander, more exciting ideas (sequels, perhaps?) that it failed to address.

There were subplots that didn’t need to be there that bogged down the thrill and the pacing, and there were levels of corruption and conspiracy that were never fully explained. A suspense thriller is necessarily complex, but it needs to be streamlined enough to keep us engaged in the forward momentum of the main story, and not distracted by subplots and unexplained details and phenomena that leave us asking what that was all about, rather than focusing on the main story.

And while a million dollars is still a lot of money and was even more so in 1976, I found it hard to believe that this well-dressed couple residing in a beautiful home (please, that designer wallpaper is not cheap!) in a quaint suburb were so hard up that they would really be tempted to kill someone for money. (Spoiler Alert) The biggest monetary woe presented in the film was that the fancy private academy at which Cameron Diaz’s character worked would no longer allow their son to attend for free. Life is rough. Given that her husband drove a beautiful brand new Corvette Stingray to his job as a rocket scientist at NASA, I wasn’t too worried about them being out on the streets had they decided to forego the million dollars. Of course, that was part of the gimmick, that we humans are so awful we would sacrifice our fellow man just to have an easier time for ourselves. It just made me resent the characters, whereas if I had truly believed they were going to lose their house, or needed some sort of life-saving operation, I would have understood their choice.

The acting-Okay I know I said I liked James Marsden, and he did well with what he was given, but it wasn’t awesome. I can see why Allie, Jean Grey, and Lois Lane all had the hots for someone else. He was a little flat.  Cameron was a bit too weepy eyed and had the same facial expression throughout the whole film. Though I was also happy to see that she’s back to her voluptuous, natural-looking state. I personally prefer the curvy Cameron of The Mask to the emaciated teenage boy look she thought was attractive a few years back.

A big part of the plot hinged on how deeply this couple loved their son. And I knew they did because they were his parents and because they said so. But I didn’t feel this love, it wasn’t authentic. Nor was their love for each other. They had no chemistry, and a sad lack of sexual tension. They seemed to have an admiration, and a brother-sister fondness for one another, and like their love for their son, their love for each other was rooted in the fact that it was written in the script and to be expected, not because they really felt it.

Overall, I would say this film was good. I was literally on the edge of my seat throughout most of it, and intrigued enough that I may go see it again. If nothing else, it accomplished what all films should-it elicited an emotional response in its viewers-I wasn’t the only one who jumped out of my seat in shock at least once. Definitely worth seeing, but if you’re also facing hardships like having to take your son out of private school in these tough economic times, maybe wait until it comes out on dvd.

As with camera direction and transitions, writers love to use excessive parentheticals to dictate how each and every line should be read. And once again I would caution you to only use them in rare circumstances, limit to only a few in your entire script.

Using parentheticals to indicate action description within dialogue is a separate issue and a stylistic choice. I personally hate seeing that, and believe it’s better to put action description in the action description line. However, there are advocates of using parentheticals for action description who say that readers skim action description and mainly read dialogue, so it is better to keep the action description embedded in the dialogue so it doesn’t get skipped over. I know readers are busy, but I doubt they are skipping over all action description and only reading dialogue. But again, that is another issue.

In this post, my attack on parentheticals is when they are used to describe how an actor should read a line. The only time you need to do this is when the line is to be read in a way that contradicts what the words are saying. If the line is “I hate you” but it’s meant to be read with love and show that the character deeply cares for the object of this hate, it is okay to indicate in a parenthetical that the line should be read lovingly. However these cases are extremely rare, as even the most ironic of lines are within the context of the character and the story, and anyone following along would know how the line should be read. If something is to be read in a way that is completely incongruous to the character’s personality, background, and doesn’t logically fit in the situation of the story, maybe there is something wrong with the line. Actors are trained professionals and when it gets down to them reading their lines, they will use their own skill, as well as the director’s guidance, to decide how to read a line. Don’t assume you know how to do this better than they do.

Another person’s toes often get stepped on with regards to character, and that is the casting director. When describing your characters, do not put such detailed physical description into your script that it limits casting. And unless she’s a close personal friend who loves your script, do not state in the script or your pitch that a character is “an Angelina Jolie type.” Go ahead and envision the story with Angelina as the lead, but don’t put her in it, and don’t describe your heroine as “tall, sexy, athletic, with long dark hair, pouty lips, tattoos…” Unless it is pertinent to the story, avoid putting in hair color, eye color, height or weight. Sometimes it matters that a character is remarkably tall, or thin, or blonde, but usually it is preferable to describe the essence of their character, whether they are stunningly beautiful, awkward and shy, or strong and confident.