I'm really sorry to have to be the guy to rain on your parade, since there are a lot of people who really liked this, but it didn't really work for me, I'm afraid. Having seen the praise everyone else gave it I was expecting something exceptional, and this...wasn't. At least, not IMO.

Surely David would need some sort of proof that Edgar was telling the truth? I just think he accepted the whole situation too easily. I know you could argue that since he was really talking to a figment of his own imagination he didn't need that much convincing to do something he already wanted to do, but for me it still doesn't work. Edgar doesn't exist...so is this 'Will' guy even dead? Did David do that, too? You leave that loose end flappin' in the breeze at the end.

The writing and so on is fine, but it seemed to me that for the most part the dialogue was almost purely expositional and pretty nuts-'n-bolts; it did its job, but nothing more.

Everyone else seemed to like it, so clearly I'm in the minority here. But I never really got into this, despite wanting to like it. Whether people are born 'evil' or not is a question that intrigues me, but I never felt like you were addressing what seemed to be the intended core of your script. It just never felt dark, or engaging, or real, for me.

That all seems really harsh, but I'm just disappointed after the hype and praise others gave it. Sorry!

You're not alone, Jonny. Although I do feel it's one of the "better" scripts, it really didn't work for me either.

I would say it's easily 1 of the best 10 or so, but so much of it was down right dull, and the premise itself was pretty weak.

Hey, we agree on something, huh?  Cool.

Don't mean to bash this script in any way, cause my feelings are that it is pretty good, but not nearly as good as most are calling it.

Oh yeah. That's what I'm talking about. I was initially worried about this one when they started in on genetics, but it redeemed itself very, very well. It still feels a bit talky to me, but I liked the story as a whole and the ending was beautifully executed. I also liked how the question about the body upstairs remains unanswered. Is it there? Is it not? Did David actually kill him? Nicely done.

EDIT: As a follow-up to some other comments, psychological horror is a thing for me, so that very likely influenced my like of this one. I think the open-endedness of the end worked better than trying to tie up the loose ends. Sometimes leaving them untied does work. Since this questions reality, the question remains out there.

I liked this one pretty good!  Nice work.  

AS has been said, a little too chatty.  But I liked the cell phone in the alley.  And the homeless guy works, becuase hes someone who didn't deserve it.

My Number two most favorite so far!

I thought this one was put together fairly tight. Good structure, nice setup (and nice transition in the beginning). Talky for sure but it needed a certain amount of exposition. You can always argue whether David makes the correct choice or not but that's the choice he made. Some good twists in there but the reveal of Edgar in the end cheapened the story somewhat in my opinion. Whether he's God or the Devil is really irrelevant to me - it was more David's choice that interested me in this piece.

Quoted from sniper but the reveal of Edgar in the end cheapened the story somewhat in my opinion. Whether he's God or the Devil is really irrelevant to me.

I am surprised how many people are missing the point to this one -- and it must be driving the author crazy.

SPOILERS AHOY

Quoted from from the script ...These people have a psychological imbalance that causes them to create certain scenarios that only exist inside their minds as a way to justify their dark impulses.

Edgar never existed -- only in David's head.  David is one of the very types of people that he studies.

Bert, although that indeed may be the author's intention, it really doesn't make any sense, if you think about it.

Why in the world, all of a sudden, would this intelligent, well studied man, just flip like this?  Right after finishing his studies and writing a book?  Just doesn't make a Hell of alot of sense IMO.

I think that's why people "aren't getting it".

Now, I completely agree that people can be of a certain mindset to killing...and even contain such a thing as a "kiler gene", but I do not think that it just manifests itself all of a sudden.

People are either killers, or they're not killers, as in being predisposed to be able to kill.  There's just no reason whatsoever that this guy would decide 1 day he wanted to go kill a homeless guy and fuck the rest of his very successful life away.

That's my take at least.

Just to chime in here on this one.  I read something entirely different here.  I may be wrong but I just checked and it is a possible interpretation.

Edgar was trying to make David change his mind about the gene.  So he created a scenario where any man - even David - would kill.  And David does as expected proving himself wrong.  But unknown to David until the end, the gun is filled with blanks. He never actually killed the homeless guy,  it was all a set up.

Hmmm, that sure didn't come across in the script.

What is Edgar, then?  Maybe Edgar Winter's ghost?  I can't remember if it said anything about him being an albino or not...

Edgar is who he says he is

"I represent a large corporate law firm.
The specifics aren’t important, but your
research could prove very damaging to
some of their most important cases"

"A jury is not going to have much sympathy
for a person who is supposedly born evil,
Mister Sullivan. Part of their defence
strategies hinge on convincing the jury
that environmental factors contributed to
the defendant’s crimes. Unfortunately
your book seems to contradict that."

"We need you to testify in court. To
retract your conclusions in your book and
to convince the jury that genetics are
not the sole cause in the case of these
crimes."

This theory doesn't work or make any sense...

"BANG! A bullet hits him right between the eyes.

He drops to the ground like a sack of bricks.

He inches his way slowly up to the body, looks to make sure the guy is dead.

David looks at the dead body, then looks around to make sure nobody can see him. All clear."

He obviously killed the guy.  "We see" a bullet hitting him in the head, he falls down dead, David checks to make sure he's dead, etc.

And then, with Edgar, we have the following...

"David FIRES the gun point blank at Edgar.

The bullet hits the wall directly behind him.

Edgar stands there, unharmed.

David looks at the gun, taps the bottom of it a couple times.

FIRES two more shots right at Edgar.

The bullets fly straight into the wall."

So, this theory doesn't fly at all.  Next????

I'm with Bert's theory on this one. Edgar is a figment of David's imagination. We don't know David's background, but given how this one reads, it appears that David is schizophrenic. He sees and believes that Edgar exists right down to creating a believable backstory for Edgar. Granted, it's a sort of classic, and somewhat overused, movie device, but it is used enough to be able to give it almost a complete explanation. This was used in Fight Club, to name one film in particular.

So, it's possible that David's research was based off his subconscious knowledge that he possessed the gene he was researching. We tend to gravitate to whatever is closest to us.

So to me, this one made perfect sense. Jeff, I think you just enjoy punching holes. Nothing said that David was a well-balanced man to begin with. He has that facade on the outside, but what is on the inside? No one can really tell. To name another movie, in Raising Cain, you have a family man who suddenly snaps when all his other personalities start taking over, making him do strange and out of character things. The snapping is not as uncommon or strange as you might suppose.

SPOILERS!

I was confused starting from the interaction between Edgar and Dan to the end. What I think is confusing is that it has alot of twists which kind of don't make sense for this type of short. This is meant for a feature to explain alot of the story.

For example, when Edgar calls someone on the cellphone suggesting the corporation he allegedly works for is true, but then the double cross suggests that was a lie. Not surprise but who did he call? And then the blank bullets?

I would like to know whats going on. lol.

Edgar is the Devil. "I'll be seeing you soon"

The main character has developed a taste for killing whilst researching his book. It says so in the script.

The twist to the whole piece is that it has nothing to do with genetics. The Devil is behind it all (the people with the supposed killing gene gene talk about imaginary voices all the time, which turns out to be true.)

I think if the intention was that it was the genes, then he shouldn't start in an unknown basement. That suggests he's been brought here against his will.

The idea itself that it could be ambiguous and the whole scenario is in his head would work, but he's given a gun and a phone that isn't his...so the strength of evidence is on the side that it's real.

EDIT: I re-read it and I think Bert has it right. At least... that's what the author intends. I think the problem is that Edgar physically moves stuff about on the objective camera. If he is imaginary, he should just point at things that are already there. To move things on the camera suggests he has a physical presence.

I guess it can be read that way, though I took everything at face value. I think it would be interesting to hear from the author as to what he/she intended.