You don’t decide to go on holiday abroad and just get into your car to go. You need your passport, you need to pack your case. You need to know how to get there, what you need to know to get there and you need to know your next and preferably your final destination. Okay, you could just drive, but you’d need to know to which airport or seaport or border crossing point. You’d need to know which road gets you there at the very least. You’ll need to search for somewhere to stay if you’re on the road too long. Don’t forget that fuel for your car. All of this is planning.

You can have a loose structure. Many people work this way. They may not know the ending, but they have a perspective of where they’re headed.

You can have a definite structure. Some writers spend as much time on getting their structure complete as they do on the actual writing. They break down every scene with minute detail so their journey is accurate.

Which structure is the right way? There isn’t a simple answer to that.

Blake Snyder uses his ‘Save The Cat’ fifteen beats plan to show you the way from fade in to fade out. There’s no doubting the concrete planning to his structure matches the needs of any Hollywood successful movie.

Michael Hague’s six point stage structure can also be matched and plotted across most major movies.

John Truby’s twenty-two step story structure is another devoted plan. It creates master plans used by many on our tiny planet.

These are just examples (but the very best) of many options available to you.

At the end of the day, they are all versions of the three act play. We all know from school that you need a start, middle and an ending. It’s how all stories run if they’re successful. It’s what you put into those three acts that become the plans set out by our screenplay writing experts.

1. In act one you’ll have the introduction to your problem, your main star or two with an opportunity presenting itself to your protagonist.
2. They’ll enter act two when they set off on their voyage. Here they progress and change their plans until they reach the mid point of your movie; the point of no return.
3. The stakes get higher now before they reach a major setback. Act three takes them in to the final resolution, the big climax as they find out how it all ends followed by the after effects.

No matter what you do, don’t let structure stop you from writing. It’s better that you put pen to paper (well, use your computer) and write regularly and then worry about structure later, than to start with structure as a means to procrastinate to stop you essentially, from writing.

Let us know how you get on with structure – which way works best for you?

Need help getting your screenplay ready to show to a reader, producer, studio or agent? Check our screenplay analysis service first. No second chance to make a first impression!

Before you go on that first interview you do your research on the prospective company. Before that first date you check with your friends as to what you’re wearing, where you might go and whether you should be early or late. Before you show the studio producer your new screenplay you get it checked for quality first, yes?

Unfortunately, most newbie screenplay writers don’t realize that if they fail to make the right impression, the reader of their treasured work of art will aid global destruction by filing your screenplay in the trash can before getting to page ten.

Your work of art must meet industry standards for format and presentation or they’ll know you’re a new writer. You may think that it’s great to use a special color cover with dazzling sprays of glitter, but the industry will sense your amateur status and may not even open the front cover of your last six month’s work.

That’s why you need someone to analyze your screenplay correctly before you present it. You need to make sure your first impression has the best possible chance.

A script ‘doctor’ will start by looking over your format. Is it exactly as required by the industry? Is the length right; is the indentation correct? What’s the grammar like; what’s the editing like? Did you mean for a character to change their political preference half way through?

The doctor will check for weaknesses and strengths checking your story structure by checking the plot, the theme, the protagonist, the antagonist, the dialogue, the characterizations, the tension, the character arcs, the resolutions, the conclusions, the commercial potential, and whatever you specifically ask for. You might want the ending to be stronger; just tell the screenplay analyst what you want looking at.

General coverage gives the writer a single sheet in the Hollywood standard; all that studio executives will see after staff readers will have analyzed the screenplay first. If it doesn’t pass this stage it won’t even get read by someone higher up the food chain that counts. It’s usually backed up by a couple of pages of useful notes of how to make some suitable changes to improve the overall quality.

Extended coverage provides the same as general coverage, but then takes the comments much further with in-depth notes and suggestions concerning story and plot, structure, characters, action, dialogue and writing.

You might just need help with your treatment – the document that explains your story in a few pages for the investors. Almost certainly that’s another one chance operation.

The cost of hiring a script doctor isn’t high, especially compared to the returns possible after selling a screenplay. The cost of not hiring that analyst might mean rejection and no financial return whatsoever. In terms of real money, this could be the greatest investment you can make in your profession.

You may not like the opinion the script doctor gives you, but it will a genuine and informed opinion, one to help you move your screenplay from just average to standing a much higher chance of success.

For professional script doctor screenplay analyzing, to see what it’s all about and what it costs go to http://filmandmoviemaking.com/screenplay-analysis/

When you need help with getting your screenplay ready to show to a reader, producer, studio or agent, check out our screenplay analysis services first.

4 stars****

Everyone else and I really mean everyone else, has absolutely panned this movie, but I’m going against the majority: I enjoyed it. It wasn’t Shakespeare, but then I didn’t anticipate it might be.

Sure the plot was stretching the imagination and most of the cast (except the lead, Al Pacino) appeared to be in their first acting lessons; nevertheless it was an enjoyable ride.

It’s unfair to link 88 minutes to the marvelous 24 hours. 24 was in real time (helped along with advert breaks and recaps so we only actually saw 37 minutes of each 60; we didn’t have to see the actors going to the bathroom, for example. The 88 minutes started 20 minutes into this 108 minute film, so we were going to see real time and AL didn’t make a bathroom break. If it’s your last 88 minutes on the planet you might need that room a few times and in real life you wouldn’t stay working in unsafe locations, especially as it was obvious from early on that one of his students was the killer and you’d keep away long enough to stay protected.

However, this is a Hollywood movie and still we need to be bombarded with screenplays that are written with accurate storyboard points so we know what will happen, when and why. The ending has to be cheesy, everyone smiles and the cast must get their specific character arc and plot success at exact moments. The screenplay writer Garry Scott Thompson managed that operation, but that forced him into areas and actions you wouldn’t want to go to if you had 130 minutes, alas he has just 108 minutes.

I was embarrassed by some of the acting in this movie; that’s down to the direction and actually declaring ‘that’s a wrap’ when he should have said ‘cut, another take’. Some characters were underdeveloped due to time constraints. We were following AL around, not his students, so they didn’t get the chance to glow. Alicia Witt wasn’t given the best lines of her career to interpret but unlike other film reviewers I found her opening up to her boss and declaring long lost love/lust for him matched the predicament she was in; he might be murdered very soon.

There wasn’t time to develop the characters enough so I was slightly confused at who was who, but the eventual killer did leave enough clues on the way that Agatha Christie would have been proud of. The red herrings and the sleuthing provided the enthusiasm required by the audience. If Agatha is allowed to have as many red herrings as she wants and can allow almost all the cast to act as potential suspects, then so can 88 minutes; but of course no-one is as good as Agatha at the thriller/murder set up and development.

I found the opening scene highlighted exactly the type of killer on the loose we were to be chasing. I’m sorry other reviewers wanted a PG movie, but the killer’s methods highlighted how guilty the guy waiting for death row, was.

We had a little flesh as a good looking lady moved into the shower. We were treated to a standard issue lesbian moment and we were convinced that all twenty year old students always fall for their 60 year old lecturer.

The male student that was visiting the killer in jail was obviously far too weak to be the new copycat killer, so I don’t see why he was even in the frame as an alternative possible killer. The clues were all there folks.

I found the film entertaining, with enough to make you keep your brain turned on for clues, yet not so that you’d need a top university degree to understand what happened.

The last five minutes of the movie mirrored exactly what Hollywood expects from its screenwriters these days. There was no twist to suddenly find out Al’s character did the killing himself, just as they were trying to frame him. The protagonist always solves the problem at the end; he/she always smells of roses while others die in any outrageous manner. It met the Hollywood screen writer’s detail of specification screenplay writing.

I know a film works when I discuss it in detail at the end, with my movie examination partner. If we’re enthusiastic about the discussion, I know it deserves a good result. Sometimes we have nothing to say. This time we enjoyed talking through the clues.

Screenplay help & tips from www.FILMandMOVIEmaking.com is all about looking at ways to make a great first impression with your screenplay when your script lands on the desk of the most important person in the world (after your family, your friends and your dog) – the person who will say either yes (recommend), maybe (consider), or no (pass) to your script.

This is all about helping you become a better screenplay writer. The best.

They may be a studio reader; they might be an actor who agreed to read your script as he may like to star in a movie with what he learned from your pitch; they could be a funding house; they possibly will be … and the list goes on.

You only get one chance to make that first impression. Spend time ensuring that both the presentation, but more importantly, the content, is the best it can be, to give yourself a fighting chance. Make simple amateur errors and your two year’s hard labour may not get read, it may not get read past page two and it may find itself in the trash waiting for the shredder.

This is all about you becoming a better script writer. The best

We’ll:

• suggest formatting – how to present your screenplay, the software choices.

• look at plot substance and control

• discuss structure – which methods work and which fail

• how to move from an average script to a master award winning screenplay writer

• use of dialogue – when talking normally is better than prose

• scene management – watch how your scenes flow

• the hero (protagonist) – do you believe in him/her?

• the adversary (antagonist) – do you want them to be defeated?

• motivation and desire – who has the greatest amount?

• Copyright – get it prepared early and more importantly, the right way

• and of course, much more, with many suggestions from colleagues in your chosen field

Please feel free to add your comments so others can learn screenwriting through the help and tips of the many knowledgeable writers where just a small tip or a little suggestion of help can make that difference between the ‘Yes’ and the ‘No’.

This is all about you becoming a better script and screenplay writer. The best

Well, no.

The experts say you should study films before taking your own skills to the next stage and that’s exactly what I’ve done. I’ve been going to the cinema to see how the business works to its conclusion. So much has happened in getting a big movie to the screen.

I’ve also been studying short movies on Atom Films. They have a great variety with a consistent high standard. I’ve been plowing through many dramas and when time arrives, I’ll write some reviews so we can compare notes.

I’m ready to move on to the next stage now. I’m filling in the treatment so I can go on to the script.

I hope the great films I’ve seen recently has given me the inspiration I need, without giving me too many ideas about plots, characters, action and dialogue.

4 stars****

Jason Statham emerges in a role that appears written for him. It almost certainly wasn’t, but if you want a bank robber and/or small time criminal in London circa any year from 1965, then Jason is your man.

Yet again, another Brit movie that hits all the high notes; the Brits are certainly making quality movies these days. No gloss, no glamour, real life people and sets.

It helps to have two genius writers carve the screenplay. Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais have a dazzling track record in both television and screenplay writing. The writing is superb throughout mixing good pace with comedy in precarious circumstances.
Check out Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais at http://us.imdb.com/

This tale, which you’d think was a farce, is from a real account where a number of small time criminals get the inside information on a large bank job from a two timing (part criminal and part friend of MI5) Martine (the excellent Saffron Burrows). It appears there wasn’t a lady in this role in the real version, but this is movie world time where anything can change from factual life, a book or a documentary to suit the movie, the screenplay and the audience.

One of the real surprises is Soho porn king Lew Vogel, played by David Suchet. While David has always been an excellent actor, I always, always, imagine him as Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot. He takes this role and makes it his own and it’s the first time I forgot he was the great sleuth.

The team of villains isn’t used to such a high tech job – tunneling into a bank from a local shop – and blunder from difficulty to crisis which they solve so effortlessly. They only fold by using walkie-talkies for communication which a ham radio fan delivers to the police. Calamity doesn’t help the police though, without giving anything anyway here.

The only reason we fall short of 5 stars here is due to Malcom X’s character here supposedly from Trinidad, but using a highly polished Jamaican accent. The director should have taken the actor to Trinidad for a holiday first.

You’ll end up encouraging the ‘baddies’ who become the ‘goodies’. You’ll want them to get away with the escapade.

The ending works very well – you’ll have to go see it to check that out. It may not be manifestly believable, but as it’s based upon a real story and one that was D listed (a press blackout) by the powers that be; for a change it’s right for the circumstance.

All in all, I was very well entertained.

4 stars****

I’m very pleased I chose to go and see Vantage Point. It was an outstanding entertaining movie.

Essentially we saw the film from various people’s perspective’s in ten minute slots with each one just giving us a little more information over the last. Only when we saw each person’s point of view were we able to piece together what actually happened.

Barry Levy completed a very difficult task with this script writing and he deserves a gold medal for his dedicated result. This is a very different slant in movie entertainment and is rarely used. Run Loa Run used this technique with pure excellence as well.

I like a movie to be entertaining; if it’s not entertaining in a purely visual manner then it needs to stretch my brain. This film achieved both. I really can’t stand wasting my time watching movies with very little script, plot or story, just being held together (if at all) by large special effects every nineteen minutes and seventeen seconds. I know that I won’t be entertained or even have to think. Some formula script writing in films lack any real glue and are just to show off a star actor who has just cost the production company $10 million or more.

Vantage Point was interesting throughout and only fails to get the 5 start award because the ending did leave a little much to believe when the revitalized bodyguard suddenly saved his president by just being in the right place at the right time with very little verification of how he got there. That aside, it is a very good movie and one I’ll rent on DVD at some time in the future as I expect I’ll see more the second time I watch it.

The timing didn’t help me to see the second film that I wanted to experience – Bank Job, so I’m hopeful it will hold over to next week. However, there was a second film – Shutter that did fit timings. I left after 30 minutes partly because Vantage Point had been so good that it was difficult for anything to follow it successfully. It started to weave a story that just didn’t interest me so I left early. I’m sorry if it was a really good film but it didn’t keep me needing to stay.

That proves why we all have personal tastes and just because I like one film doesn’t mean you will. However, the writing skills of Vantage Point started me thinking and it kept me highly entertained.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall is just out; the trailer looks good, but I’m not sure if it will maintain my interest all the way through. Website rottentomatoes.com scores it 85%, but it only scored The Bucket List at 41%; however, I really enjoy the marvelous performances from both Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman and the way the script guided us through their fun last few months to the inevitable ending, although we didn’t know who would die first or how they’d choose to end the movie – great film making in my eyes.

Bank Job scores almost 80% and features the excellent Jason Statham. British gangster and bank job movies are often done very well so this has to go high up my list.

Vantage Point sounds an interesting script from eight different points of view and a president shot who wasn’t the president. A score of 36% tells me that I might be disappointed, but the way the genre has been played around with shows great interest for a writer to look over.

With a score of just 6%, 88 minutes sounds like I should give it a miss, but a friend who’s opinion I respect has just told me that he’s watched it and thought it a great concept and maintained attention all the way through the film.

Anything Jodie Foster is in is sure to be very good and occasionally goes into the ‘amazing’ zone. Nims Island is a kid’s movie which is also for adults. I’ll take my daughter to see this one. The trailer tells me I know I’ve love the film. Anything with Jodie Foster or Jack Nicholson deserves respect for two of the world’s greatest ever actors. Michael Caine is also in that elite group, but his Flawless (63%) film isn’t out yet at my local screens.

I read the book that 21 is based on. It scores 31% so it might suggest that the book is better than the movie, but I will still see it. The difficulty with reading the book first is that you’ve then made the movie in your head and anything the director then presents you with is going to be different. Good different or just plain indifferent is yet to be decided.

The brilliant Juno (93%) is still showing so I might watch that piece of brilliance again. The script deserved the Oscar award; it was excellent throughout. I must get a copy of the script just for pure reading pleasure.

I enjoyed the trailer for Fool’s Gold (10%) but everyone tells me to avoid it. What a shame because the trailer made it look so much fun. Maybe it’s one of those films that is fun to watch, but you don’t need to turn your brain on too often. That doesn’t make it any less enjoyable.

So, Vantage point has it for my Monday and if I can manage to get two films in one evening it’ll be Bank Job for spot two. Next week it must be Nims Island with said daughter.

It just goes to show you that some brilliant trailers can be made from poor films and average trailers can lead to great films. We’re all critics; I don’t need someone else to tell me what I’ll like or have an aversion to.

I also can’t help but see how the film was made; ask myself if the script is up to it and are the 3 acts, the 15 beats, the 22 point structure and the latest plots holes complete?

It’s all research mixed in with enjoyment, really.

We talked about the various film and movie making courses that were running locally. In particular, there’s a group who meet most Sunday afternoons (they’re not full time professionals yet and this is their free time) who are joining together to make a film.

Together they’ve devised the film plan and jointly they’ve now decided upon the foundation of the script. When it’s all ready they’ll sort out who will be in the crew and who will be in the cast. They’ll all be involved throughout all of the film. This is film school on a Sunday afternoon basis, as opposed to a year (or two) at a film school or a weekend with a film school expert, like Dov S S Simons or Elliot Grove.

It is great that people want to learn the ropes and see what the whole movie making process is about. With the purpose of techniques they may well see their way forward as producer, director, crew member, script writer or as an actor.

The world famous actress (oh why do we always call them actors these days to be politically correct?) told me she just wanted to go to auditions, get parts and then rehearse and finally, perform: be it on television, stage play or film making.

It was refreshing to hear that people like to be skilled in their own area of expertise and not spend most of their time crossing the barriers when they don’t need to. Some actors like to offer their advice on the lighting, the sound and the type of camera being used. Some crew always know how to act out a scene better than the actor!

Having the options are fine. It’s how you use them that counts.

No, I’m not going to utter the actress’s name as I might want to offer her a part one day and I wouldn’t want to compromise our conversations, past and future. I don’t need the $250 so bad I need call the local newspaper to tell them my story for today. Principals do count, you know. If we all had a few more then maybe those poor stories none of us are interested in (ha, ha) wouldn’t appear in newspapers, magazines and on the internet, but they do so often make good films, don’t they?

5 stars*****

To understand the culture behind Basic Instinct, you need to look at the brilliant writing of Joe Eszterhas. While others may argue about his bigger and perhaps (technically) better successes with other films, here at filmandmoviemaking.com we give this film a 5* rating because it scores high in every area.

Joe’s words flow from the page. What you see in the script is really what you see on the screen. I thought that by reading the script I might actually find out who did commit the murders in the film. I still don’t know. We are cleverly led in one direction, on to another probability and then just as we think we know, the script takes us back where we started – or does it?

Sometimes you watch a movie and think that writers have colluded with directors and just left in great pages of average writing in an otherwise great movie. Here, in basic Instinct, every single word has been crafted like Paul McCartney writing ‘Yesterday’. Not a single word out of place. Not a single word wasted. Not a single word in excess.

This thriller is brilliantly directed by Paul Verhoeven, who, on listening to his discussion about the film, is still so enthusiastic about his project, that he cradles it like a baby, marvels at it’s first steps, and is in raptures as she leaves home.

Sharon Stone made her mark in the industry with this film. She’ll always be regarded very highly for her performance here. She not only has her police counterpart on a short piece of string; we get the feeling she’s doing that with the audience as well.

The sex scenes are completed well, the nudity is without excess, but we are enthused enough to want to know more. It builds her character; it builds what those around her think of her. For its day the sex, nudity, lesbian relationship and club (real dirty) dancing were ahead of their time in a quality movie. Those standards may have been left behind now for much more ‘in your face’ images, but it stands the passage of time. It’s as fresh today as it was back in 1992.

If you’re a writer wanting to write a great script, study this film. If you’re a director wanting to learn those extra secrets in moving the script from storyboard to screen, study this film. If you want to see how an actor works the camera, the audience and the crew, study this film.