Deadline Oct. 15th: TV Festival Submissions (Pilot or Spec)

WILDsound Festival's avatarWILDsound Festival

SUBMIT your TV PILOT or TV SPEC Script
Voted #1 TV Contest in North America.

Deadline: TV PILOT/SPEC Script Festival – Get FULL FEEDBACK. Get script performed by professional actors
http://www.wildsound.ca/tvscreenplaycontest.html

Watch WINNING TV PILOT Screenplay Readings
http://www.wildsoundfestival.com/tv_pilot_readings.html

Watch WINNING TV SPEC Screenplay Readings
http://www.wildsoundfestival.com/tv_spec_readings.html

READ 100s of testimonials for past submitters –
TV Screenplay Testimonials from the WILDsound Festival

This is most excellent. I loved the thorough feedback, and some of the fixes or easy and some require a little more thinking but regardless, I’m glad to be getting your feedback.
– David Baugnon, (The Messiah Project)

Thank you for your encouraging words and for this great chance you are giving me. If I had to rate your feedback, I would give it 110 over 100 !! In fact, it is thanks to your previous feedback that I was able to improve this piece: even when they are harsh, your…

View original post 593 more words

Deadline Oct. 15th: Novel Festival Submissions (1st. Ch., Novel, Transcript)

WILDsound Festival's avatarWILDsound Festival

1st CHAPTER or FULL NOVEL CONTEST
Get full feedback! Winners get their novel made into a video!

DEADLINE: 1st CHAPTER/FULL NOVEL Festival. Get your story performed at the Writing Festival. FULL FEEDBACK on all entries.
http://www.wildsound.ca/book_contest.html

NEW OPTION: Or, just submit for an actor performance reading transcript of your novel (any 5 pages of your book). Great way to promote the sales of your book if you’re already published. (see examples on the video playlist below)

Watch the Recent Winners. At least 3-10 winners every month:
http://novelwritingfestival.com

Thank you. thank you for your honest & detailed appraisal of my work! It is extremely helpful & insightful.
– Michelle Desgagne
The Distracted Yogi, Novel

I appreciate WILDsound’s committee feedback on the first chapter/prologue submission of my memoir Am doing a rewrite to address your recommendations and, per your suggestion, will send back my revised submission as soon as possible.
– Danielle…

View original post 529 more words

1957 Movie Review: KRONOS, 1957

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

KRONOS,  MOVIE POSTERKRONOS, 1957
Movie Reviews

Directed by Kurt Neumann
Starring: Jeff Morrow, Barbara Lawrence, John Emery, George O’Hanlon, Morris Ankrum, Kenneth Alton, John Parrish
Review by Kevin Johnson

SYNOPSIS:

A scientist possessed by an alien lifeform controls a massive, energy-consuming machine, leaving a few choice scientists to stop him and the machine before it absorbs all the earth’s energy

CLICK HERE and watch 2009 MOVIES FOR FREE!

What is WILDsound?

REVIEW:

Not all B-movies are relegated to automatic mediocrity or downright awfulness. While The Black Scorpion left a lot to be desired, Kronos, on the other hand, seems to showcase what a more competent and clear-headed, low-budget film can accomplish. It still has its flaws of course – what B-movie doesn’t? – but it masks them rather well for an intriguing story.

Part of what makes Kronos works is the lack of explanation for a large part of the film. Weird stuff happens, strange things are witnessed, characters act oddly – but by not over explaining them, there’s a better overall sense of tension developed. Also, the need for a sexualized female is competently done, even if the typical “swimming on the beach” scene is bluntly out of place.

An alien “spirit” arrives in the midst of a desert and possesses an innocent person, who manages to break into an astronomy lab and possess Hubbell Elliot, a scientist who works there. He uses long-distance telepathy to communicate to a huge, monstrous, metal spacecraft, which crashed into the Pacific near Mexico. It sucks and absorbs all the energy thrown at it, and even drains a power plant dry of its energy. Fellow scientist Leslie Gaskell and his partner Vera Hunter has to figure out how to stop the mechanical beast as well as stop the possessed scientist from completing his plan.

The special effects unfortunately do not live up to the quality that one would expect from films of this time period. The budget was cut right before filming began. Yet given what they were stuck with, one still might be mildly impressed. The Kronos design is simplistic enough, and it took me a while to realize that the generic box-like shape with the odd-looking antennae was supposed to be a battery. Still, a little more creativity for some visual appeal wouldn’t hurt. What’s way off, however, is how the machine moves. Four up-and-down poles pump like pistons work around a spinning drill-like device somehow creates motion, which is just impossible. (The use of animation for the long shots of Kronos is even worse).

Speaking of which, I don’t know much about science or power, so it’s interesting to see the plot delve somewhat deeply into pseudo-scientific explanations to progress itself. The actors and writing definitely assist to clarify what audiences wouldn’t understand. But even with the mumbo-jumbo, it still seems rather far-fetched, just a number of random words to confuse the viewer to make it seem like they know what they’re doing.

It works though; as mentioned earlier, the film is very intriguing by controlling out plot points are divulged. In addition, actor John Emery is quite good (in the haming-it-up sense), playing the possessed scientist, struggling to maintain his humanity as the alien inside forces him to do his long-distance bidding. In fact, I personally thought his were the best scenes in the movie.

Also impressive is the surprisingly pro-environmentalist, anti-atomic weaponry commentary throughout the script. While nothing too much on the nose or overly overt, there are a few moments, a few key lines that question America’s excessive consumption of energy and power (is Kronos essentially us, making America our own enemy?), and the quick-to-jump trigger finger hovering over the button to launch nuclear weapons. Instead of using such power against those enemies, which will only strike back, perhaps it would be better to use that power to benefit our own people. It suggests this, anyway.

Kronos is certainly one of the better sci-fi B-films from the 50s, and with its short running time, it’s a good one to sit and enjoy, especially with Neumann’s steady handle on the material and direction. If you’re looking for a good one that represents the average-made sci-fi 50s film – the “Fifth Element” of the 50s – Kronos is for you.

 

 

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

1957 Movie Review: THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN, 1957

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN,  MOVIE POSTERTHE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN, 1957
Movie Reviews

Director: Jack Arnold

Starring: Grant Williams, Randy Stuart, April Kent, Helene Marshall
Review by Kevin Johnson

SYNOPSIS:

A man is exposed to a freak radiation cloud while on vacation, causing him to gradually shrink.

CLICK HERE and watch TV SHOWS FOR FREE!

What is WILDsound?

REVIEW:

I was actually rather surprised by The Incredible Shrinking Man, which began typically like the average B-film but dovetailed into a dark yet intrinsic inspirational tale without the classic Hollywood revisioning. It is a film that espouses more novel or short story-like elements than cinematic ones.

Since this is based on Richard Matheson’s novel of the same name, and since he also penned the screenplay, it’s to be expected. But the lack of specific changes to make the film more engaging to audiences, such as happier ending and a satisfying explanation of the shrinking, is rather audacious, especially taking in account the time period. This gives the film a deeper resonance now, but I can’t imagine audiences being too receptive to it back in 1957.

When a happily-married couple is vacationing on a boat by themselves, the husband (a overly-dashing Grant Williams) is exposed to a random radiation cloud, causing him to shrink daily. He and his wife hold out hope that a cure will be found in time, but Williams soon becomes a celebrity freak show, and then, a miniscule prisoner in his own basement.

Williams’s size changes are accomplished by a judicious use of large props, camera angles, and efficient editing. I was rather impressed by the accuracy and details of the oversized household goods, and crafty camera work is a long dead art, replaced by CGI and green-screens. Which is why I was disappointed with the use of projections in some scenes; but, to be fair, they were used for the more complex scenes, such as when Williams battles the spider.

The sets rival that of some modern-day films, most notably Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. Both movies exercise a swath of campy elements, but Honey, I Shrunk the Kids mixed its miniscule fear with a childlike wonder; The Incredible Shrinking Man strove for a more overly-serious, overly-dramatic venture into the undersized unknown. It does get rather ridiculous, with Williams narration over his predicament delving into bad epic poetry, and one can’t help but notice how grim he gets within five minutes of his situation. Considering man can go a few weeks without food, did he REALLY need to go through hell-and-high-water to reach a cake? And, really, was the spider THAT much of a threat?

Prior to this, reaching his three-foot stature made him an object of the media, a spectacle for prying eyes and curious voyeurs. His inability to handle such attention is remedied, at least for a while, when he meets the most beautiful midget in the whole world! No, it’s a generic Hollywood pretty face clambering over the same oversized props at our protagonist. Needless to say, it is somewhat uncomfortable watching such an obvious misrepresentation of the life (and physicality) of a small person, but the 50s didn’t care too much in the way of political correctness – except for the Hayes code, which seemed to discourage a budding romantic relationship between Grant and the “midget.” After all, we wouldn’t want to showcase something as evil as sympathetic adultery, now would we?

Shrinking Man works its strongest points as a polemic, at the points where the narrator and leading man discuss the emotional and spiritual toll the incident is taking on him. And, again, it pushes way too much into the over-dramatic, but in a way, it works, especially when he comes to the realization that his shrinking will not stop. After losing his wife, livelihood, and even his identity, he avoids certain madness with a casual, cool, and serene acceptance of his fate, of acknowledging God’s role in all this, in his gradual decent into the atomic, which, in some metaphysical circles, reflect the very nature of the elliptical universe itself. By becoming small, he becomes large. By dwindling into nothing, he becomes part of everything. (The speech at the end spouts it better than I do.)

The Incredible Shrinking Man certainly over-dramatize its story and over-sexualizes its characters; from the swimsuit-clad wife at the beginning, to the attractive circus midget in the middle, and to the Amazonian garb Williams somehow sports when stalking his basement-jungle, the movie does little to present any problems with showcasing perfect bodies. But the technological aspects of the film are well done, and its novelistic readings are impressive. While the latter may be better served in book format, it was still brave to fit such deep, dark overtones in the film. That’s something on which The Incredible Shrinking Man should be commended.

 

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

1957 Movie Review: GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL, 1957

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRALGUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL, 1957
Movie Reviews

Directed by: John Sturges

Cast: Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, Rhonda Fleming, Jo Van Fleet, John Ireland
Review by Jarred Thomas

SYNOPSIS:

After the long career of lawman that made him a legend, Wyatt Earp decides to quit and join his brothers in Tombstone, Arizona. There he would see them in feud with Clantons, local clan of thugs and cattle thieves. When the showdown becomes inevitable, the help will come from Doc Holliday, terminally-ill gambler who happens to be another Wild West legend.

REVIEW:

The O.K. Corral is one of the most legendary moments in history that epitomized the lore of the old west. This event solidified the legacy of Wyatt Earp as well as Doc Holliday and as most talked about moments in time, it was immortalized in literature, stories, TV and film adaptations. In 1957, John Sturges took an interest in the popular history and cast Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas in the lead roles.

This was the second of the seven films Lancaster and Douglas starred in together. The two became a famous Hollywood pair which usually involved Lancaster getting top billing over Douglas. An interesting note however is that despite their professional relationship the two weren’t exactly friends, at least that’s how Douglas felt towards Lancaster.

He was not as good of a friend with Burt Lancaster as was often perceived. The closeness of their friendship was largely fabricated by the publicity-wise Douglas, while, in reality, Lancaster was often cruel and dismissive to Douglas. In an interview, Douglas stated that he never really thought Lancaster was a good actor, that’s not to say he thought he was bad, just not particularly good.

He said, “John Wayne was a great star. But he always played Wayne. Anything else he didn’t regard as manly. Now someone like Burt Lancaster is just the opposite. The living proof that you can be a sensitive actor and macho at the same time.”

Whatever their feelings, the two made quite a formidable team on the screen and Gunfight at the OK Corral shows just that. The film explores the friendship between Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday who are both known not only for their infamous reputation but their friendship rooted in mutual respect. Their relationship is some ways mirrors that of the professional relationship between Douglas and Lancaster.

The climax of the film centers on the epic gun battle. The actual gunfight took place on 26 October 1881 and lasted a mere 30 seconds, resulting in three dead men after an exchange of 34 bullets. Compared to this adaptation, the movie gunfight took 4 days to film and produced an on-screen bloodbath that lasted 5 minutes.

Of course for the purpose of entertainment and story, there are embellishments to what actually happened. But that’s okay since no one really knows what happened anyway and those watch are just looking to be more entertained than informed. I can’t help but think about that famous line from the “Man who shot Liberty Valance” in which the reporter said, “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” Sturges created an excellent and fun film, and the two leads are great in their roles, working well off each other and providing some compelling characters. If you’re a fan of westerns, you’ll enjoy this film.

GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

1957 Movie Review: FUNNY FACE, 1957

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

FUNNY FACE, 1957
Movie Reviews

Directed by: Stanley Donen

Starring: Audrey Hepburn, Fred Astaire, Kay Thompson, Michel Auclair
Review by Jayvibha Vaidya

SYNOPSIS:

Jo Stockton’s bookstore is invaded by the glamourous team at Quality Magazine for an impromptu photo shoot and is forced to be a subject in the photos. When photographer Dick Avery notices her ‘funny face’ and recommends her for ‘The Quality Woman,’ Jo’s life is changed as she is forced to choose between her intellectual life and the glitzy fashion world.

NOMINATED FOR 4 OSCARS – Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume and Writing

REVIEW:

“Your empathy is a little one-sided for me, baby.”

Opening with a camera tracking through a stark white room and into a world of pink, Funny Face begins with a mission: find the next ‘It’ woman; a woman who is so fashionable, she’s “not interested in clothes.” Editor of Quality Magazine, Maggie Prescott (Kay Thompson), has an idea for a photo feature: plop a glamourous model in a Greenwich Village bookstore and watch the intelligence jump off the page. But the shop clerk at the bookstore is not impressed. Opinionated and appalled, Jo Stockton (the lovely Audrey Hepburn) refuses to allow the photo shoot to happen, but in a flurry of taffeta, shouting and flashbulbs, photos are taken – with her as an involuntary model. Noticing her beauty, photographer Dick Avery (Fred Astaire) encourages Jo to be the “Quality Woman.’ Jo reluctantly accepts the magazine’s offer in order to fulfill her dream of traveling to Paris to meet her idol, the philosopher Emile Flostre (Michel Auclair).

Arriving in Paris, Jo is immediately caught up with the Beatnik culture, talking to fellow intellectuals about the philosophy of Empathicalism (putting oneself in another’s place, emotionally). But she’s reminded that she’s there to do a job – and she does so reluctantly. With Dick behind the camera, directing her through the gorgeous backdrop of Parisian architecture and culture, Jo’s pictures turn out stunning. As Jo and Dick spend more time together, arguing about principles, values and materialism, they naturally begin to fall in love. But on the big night, when Jo is required to appear and unveil a new fashion line, she hears of Professor’s Flostre’s presence at a local café. Running to meet him, she loses track of time until Dick arrives and drags her away. In an amusing scene, Jo and Dick get into a heated argument and she pushes him into the stage set, destroying all the props and sets just as the curtain is pulled back in front of international press.

Utilizing two of the 50’s biggest stars, the film succeeds in showing the skill and talent of Astaire and Hepburn. While Hepburn’s singing is not as perfect as her contemporaries, her voice is clear and sweet. Her modern dance number in the café has become one of the most famous scenes in the film. Hepburn dancing is remarkable, displaying control, grace and fluidity. Astaire’s voice is simply lovely and his dancing is laid-back and loose; a pleasure to watch. And while the romance between Jo and Dick is believable, the chemistry between them seems more like old dear friends, than two people who find themselves in love despite their vastly different lifestyles. But there is a kindness between them that makes the audience root for their union; both actors are incredibly charming.

Written and arranged by George and Ira Gershwin, the songs in the film are sweet but not entirely catchy. The performers do well in each song, with “Funny Face,” “Bonjour, Paris!” and “He Loves and She Loves” as highlights. The musical numbers mostly work because of the locations in which the characters traipse through. Gorgeous parks, streams, Paris landmarks and stylized sets serve as back-drop to their musical moments. The look of the film is quite beautiful as the filmmakers choose to play with colours; using negatives, sepia tones and freeze frames to heighten certain images. Costumes are by the famously talented Edith Head with Ms. Hepburn’s high-fashion outfits by Givenchy (a designer to whom she was extremely loyal). The dresses drape beautifully around Hepburn and each outfit compliments her beauty, making her character’s modeling career entirely believable.

The film jabs fun at philosophy, elite movements and phony intellectuals in a silly manner. Professor Flostre is a young charismatic man who recruits followers in a covert fashion, only allowing them access to him by making it on a list or idolizing him. When Dick and Maggie go ‘undercover’ as a spiritual band from Tallahassee, they encounter a depressed French singer, a weeping groupie and security around Professor Flostre. It takes a while for Jo to realize the foolishness of her idol and his followers. However, she does not falter in her belief in empathy, finally seeing a situation from Dick’s point of view. The film treats the world of fashion the same way, showing models who are unintelligent, fads as silly and people who take themselves way too seriously. The ending is slightly melodramatic and romanticized, but it fits with the conventions of a 1950s American musical. Fun and entertaining, the film wraps up with a happy ending in a gorgeously stylized last scene: the two lovers float by on a wooden raft trailed by swans.

Funny Face is a charming film made all the more charming by Audrey Hepburn and Fred Astaire. In their only screen pairing, they bring a light, sweet performance. Both ooze class and poise and are simply lovely to watch. Kay Thompson as Maggie Prescott has some of the best lines “She put herself in your place…you put yourself in her place and the two of you are bound to run into each other in somebody’s place!” Funny Face is one of Paramount’s great musicals capturing the absurdity of fashion and silly intellectual movements while showcasing one of most beautiful cities in the world.

 

FUNNY FACE

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

 

1957 Movie Review: FEAR STRIKES OUT, 1957

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

  MOVIE POSTERFEAR STRIKES OUT, 1957 
Movie Reviews

Director: Robert Mulligan

Stars: Anthony Perkins, Karl Malden, Norma Moore

SYNOPSIS:

True story of the life of Jimmy Piersall, who battled mental illness to achieve stardom in major league baseball.

Here’s what the critics have to say: 

Fear holds up well, and the climactic showdown between father and son offers a tremendously appealing resolution.

March 4, 2011 | Rating: A- | Full Review…
 —————

Fear Strikes Out rolls Frank Merriwell and Sigmund Freud into a ball and then lines it out for a solid hit.

March 4, 2011 | Full Review…
 Top Critic
 —————

Anthony Perkins, in the young Piersall role, delivers a remarkably sustained performance of a sensitive young man, pushed too fast to the limits of his ability to cope with life’s pressures.

March 26, 2009 | Full Review…
 Top Critic
 ———————–

Mr. Perkins plays the young fellow excellently, not only conveying the gathering torment but also actually looking like a ballplayer on the field.

March 25, 2006 | Full Review…
 —————–

It’s a little poky and tentative, but a promising start by the Pakula-Mulligan team.

January 26, 2006 | Full Review…
 Top Critic
 —————-

Absorbing, but rather clinical, in the rubber-gloves style of 50s television drama.

January 1, 2000 | Full Review…
 Top Critic

fear strikes out

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

1957 Movie Review: A FACE IN THE CROWD, 1957

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

A FACE IN THE CROWD, 1957
Movie Reviews

Directed by Elia Kazan
Starring: Andy Griffith, Patricia Neal, Anthony Franciosa, Lee Remick, Walter Matthau
Review by Jarred Thomas

SYNOPSIS:

A drifter named Larry “Lonesome” Rhodes (Griffith) is discovered by the producer (Neal) of a small-market radio program in rural northeast Arkansas and becomes an overnight sensation.

REVIEW:

Despite coming out in the 1957, A Face in the Crowd is one of the most relevant satirical films to examine the influence of rhetoric and those manipulated by corrupt fame hungry narcissists. Andy Griffith gives his most memorable and frightening performances in any work he’s done since or prior, dominating the film with his over the top character, Lonesome Rhodes. Neal, Remick, and Matthau round out the superb supporting cast in this captivating film by director Elia Kazan.

There is something hauntingly similar to the message the film addresses and what is going on today. Politicians are capable of influencing a mass of people, nation, the world, through simple word choices. Carefully used words that express a larger perspective can win over the minds on any individual, particularly those who take what they hear at face value. Lonesome Rhodes unfortunately, does not have monopoly on rhetoric as too often political leaders win votes simply by telling the people what they want to hear, rather than what they need.

However the rise of television has helped many to spread their word, message, thoughts or ideas to a larger audience, even more than radio. Kazan effectively conveys that notion through Lonesome who uses the medium to gather a following of dedicated listeners who simply adhere to his words because of his charm, not necessarily his point of view. Lonesome appeals to what they like, not what they need.

During the Kennedy/Nixon debate, people watching and those listening had two different opinions on who won the debate. Those watching on television believed Kennedy won because he appeared more calm, collected, more movie star like in contrast to the heavy, sweaty Nixon with the five o’clock shadow. Yet if you listened to the radio, Nixon was the clear winner. It’s this idea that is explored in Kazan film. Appearance is everything and sometimes the only thing. Lonesome Rhodes outer appearance is that of a kind, charming and charismatic man.

Underneath the surface, is a dark, angry hateful individual whose only interest in others is that of need, if he needs them Rhodes will manipulate them to his advantage. He can read people like most politicians, except Rhodes is a TV personality. A larger than life idea that people can respond to whether they agree with him or not.

After being discovered in jail by radio reporter Marcia (Neal) for his candor and crude yet amicable personality, Lonesome is given a job on Marcia’s radio show. Later, he extends his talents to television having his own show and becoming the spokesman for Vitajex, a drug product. Fame is now Lonesome defining quality; it’s everything to him and he seeks to hold on to it. People that work closely with him start to see his real personality come to light, and most are horrified.

It should be noted however that A Face in the Crowd is not about Lonesome Rhodes. Rather the ideas or people he represents along with the media responsible for helping to establish his career and influence on the American people, or people in general. Politicians, celebrities, and news anchors all have a level on influence in the world that greatly impacts the way people think, act, or decide, and not always for the best. A Face in the Crowd was well ahead of its time, and a culturally and socially significant film that echoes many of today’s issues.

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

A FACE IN THE CROWD

Full Review: 78/52 (USA 2017) ****

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

78/52 Poster
Trailer

An unprecedented look at the iconic shower scene in Alfred Hitchcock‘s Psycho (1960), the “man behind the curtain”, and the screen murder that profoundly changed the course of world cinema.

 

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

Film Review: HAPPY DEATH DAY (USA 2017)

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

Happy Death Day Poster
Trailer

A college student relives the day of her murder with both its unexceptional details and terrifying end until she discovers her killer’s identity.

Writer:

Scott Lobdell

 

HAPPY DEATH DAY is a teen horror sci-fi comedy in which a college student Tree Gelbman (Jessica Rothe) must relive the same day over and over again until she figures out who is trying to kill her and why.  The day is special because it is also the day of her murder, with both its unexceptional details and terrifying end, until she discovers her killer’s identity.  Why will this day stop repeating if she stops herself from being killed?  That theory is proposed by the script and other time loop movies like the recent BEFORE I FALL, and one should not argue with these rules established in film genres.  No one argues about garlic warding off vampires or sunlight destroying them.  As soon as Tree is killed by the man in a chuckling pig faced mask, she wakes up in the morning in the male dorm room of Carter (Israel Broussard) who took her home after she got sick at the party the night before.

Time loop films have became a genre on itself after the most famous of all, Ivan Reitman’s GROUNDHOG day with Bill Murray waking up everyday to the tune of  “I got you Babe”  by Sonny and Cher.  Another new rule is that the time loop always occur right after the death of the subject.  And it is assumed that if this death is prevented, the time loop will stop and life continues.  Oddly enough no film in this genre bothers to explain the origin of the time loop.  As in BEFORE I FALL, the lead character undergoing the time loop aims to be a better person as her are days repeated.  With this time loop concept, it is wise that the comedy element is added, as one can hardly take this incredible notion as a possible reality.

That said, Tree wakes up in the Carter’s room.  She leaves meets an assortment of characters as she walks across campus to her own girl dorm where she greets her roommate Lori (Ruby Modine) and Danielle (Rachel Matthews) the chief of her dorm.  While going to her surprise birthday party later in the evening, she is killed by the slasher in mask and awakes in Carter’s room again.  The process is repeated.

The good thing about time loop films is that for some unknown reason, no one cannot remember the exact plot of each film.  The most recent of these is BEFORE I FALL which is also about a teen girl undergoing the same demise.  The two films are very similar – both die and wake up the next morning; both are mean girls; both make the identical decision to become a better person.  While BEFORE I FALL is the film with a tighter narrative and arguably better film, this script by  Scott Lobdell is all over the place and contains a significant flaw in the identity of Tres’ killer being totally laughable.

However, as in all time loop films, HAPPY DEATH DAY is not meant to be taken seriously, credible plot or otherwise.  It serves its purpose to occasionally surprise and entertain and this is what these films are only good for.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NTaDm3atkc

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY