Quoted from James McClung They have no reason not to trust the monks as at this point, they've shown them nothing but kindness and the interior of the monastery is supposed to appear more inviting than intimidating (as opposed to the outside).

It would be fine if it was "regular Monastery" but it went to "creepy monastery" at mention of the forbidden door.  Forbidden door=something to hide =evil=not gonna stay there.

You could get away with it, but to me there wasn't enough motivation, they're obviously well off enough to stay at a hotel if they're trekking across france planning to stay at hotels and wine tasting.  Thats just my opinion though, which isn't always right.

And I see your point with Jimmy and Francois, perhaps you could kill two birds with one stone by simpling utting out the plier part, thus negating the blood loss problem so much torture that Jimmy would agree.  After the hot oil he sees the locket, and figures out it's francois before having to agree.

But it sounds like you already started a re-write and got it figured out, so, good luck!

hi james just finished reading 'house of god'.  Again it was easy to read and the format was good, only a few minor grammer and layout errors but nothing to distracting.  I did have to re-read a few action paragraphs when i found myself missunderstanding a few things e.g. Renard pulled out Francois' tongue (at first i thought he had actually pulled his tongue off, which i thought was a bit far fetched, but i was wrong).
I wonder if a 50 year old would be able to lift and carry an unconscious body (dead weight) but this could be easily changed, say two people carrying the body.
For me the characters changed a bit thought the opening act but again this wasn't too bad and the only other small observation was that some of the dialouge seemed a bit out of place - leading the story like breadcrumbs.
To summarise though i enjoyed it and it was a very easy read.  I thought your story moved along really well and the dialogue, for the most part, was excellent.  I know when i'm reading an interesting screenplay when i start to picture it.
final word - very good mate.
oh yeah and the movie is 'HOSTEL' right. Lol

James,

I enjoyed this. I liked the characters and your writing is very good. Natural dialogue and good descriptive writing. I have a few thoughts on the story. Apologies if I'm repeating stuff you've already heard.

The hook at the start isn't enough of a hook for me. It's intriguing in a sense,
but it didn't immediately grab me and make me want to read more. It sets the tone,
and establishes setting, but it almost felt like an unfinished scene. I'm not a
horror fanatic, but most of the good horror movies I've seen have some kind of
shock up front, or at least a foreboding sense of dread. Your opening, as it
stands, is just a creepy figure walking along a tunnel. I'm wondering "who's this
guy?" but I'm not creeped out by his appearance. I'd consider showing something
about this figure to suggest who he is, and the threat he may pose, don't be afraid to throw in a body or two. That way, when our trio meet the monks for the first time you have more suspense. You know they shouldn't be talking to him, you cringe when they agree to go on a tour of the monastery because you know something isn't right. Just a suggestion.

Dialogue is good in the early scenes. The characters have natural speech patterns
and their conversations flow quite well. I found myself wondering how much of it
was relevant at times. I understand you're developing your characters, but it's
worth remembering that characters are defined by what they do, not just what they
say.

I'd be wary of pop-culture references. Ren and Stimpy works fine because it's
funny and it show's Jimmy's character. I don't think you need Marty name-dropping
movies though.

The religious conversation is good because it ties in with the story although as someone else mentioned, their fate was decided regardless of their religion, so it's never fully paid off.

I found the opening to be a little slow. I think you could get to the monastary
quicker. Either that or up the creep-factor in the opening 30 pages. I'm not
against the slow build-up, but given the genre (Horror) I'd expect to be scared at
some point during the 1st act.

Interesting history about Renard relayed by Jaques. Nice use of flashback. The
conversation that follows (arguing about whether to go back) goes on too long IMO.
I also think they need a more compelling reason to change their plans and go back
for another night, especially after their experience the previous night and the
story they just heard.

Tpo pg. 52 "You welcomed you"

55. Finally, the monks are taking some action. I feel this should have come sooner. We're over halfway through now and the plot should be well on its way, but it feels like it's only just kicked into gear. I do like the poison porridge though. Nice touch.

I don't think Jimmy should eat the porridge at all. I sure as hell wouldn't. It's an interesting scene you have here, but Jimmy would never give in and eat the porridge so quickly.

"Start small. His fingers perhaps." I like this

From this point on, the story moves at a good pace. The torture scenes are brutal, the action reads quick, and there's plenty of it.

Overall, I think you need to begin the story later, or add more scares in the opening half of the script. It's better to develop your characters through what they do, the decisions they make, the actions they take, not just through dialogue. IMO, screenplays should hit the ground running. Every time you have a long dialogue scene to establish your characters, the plot grinds to a halt. The trick is to keep everything moving and build your dialogue around the action. Try to avoid static scenes.

Once the story got going, it was very enjoyable, but I think you could cut a significant amount off the opening and fill out the middle with some rising conflict.

Overall, an impressive script that could be tightened up and become even better.

Thanks for the read, Mabuse.

SPOILERS...

I'm currently working on a rewrite to be submitted soon. I've tried to let some comments accumulate before starting so I wouldn't be submitting new drafts every time I get a new comment. Makes Don's job a little easier, you know? Anyway...

Yeah, I know I've got a problem with opening scenes. I've always felt a build to the first event in a horror film is extremely important and a bombastic opening scene usually ruins any chance for a decent execution of that build. So I usually go for the subtle. Nevertheless, you need the hook so I've added a partially exhumed monk skeleton to the opening scene whom Renard promises to "make proud." I think it works better as a hook now since it's obvious the intentions of someone disturbing the dead can't be good. This the kind of thing you're talking about?

I understand the first two acts are slow but, as I've said before, that was entirely intentional. I wanted a big build for this one. Nevertheless I've reincorporated a scene of self-flagellation from the first draft into this one to "creep" things up a bit.

The porridge thing, I must admit, keeps coming back to bite me in the ass. I think I might just do away with Jimmy eating it and have Renard come in and smother him or something while he's trying to make an escape.

I agree with most of the other stuff you've mentioned and will definitely be considering it while rewriting.

Thanks again for the read. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Quoted from James McClung I've added a partially exhumed monk skeleton to the opening scene whom Renard promises to "make proud." I think it works better as a hook now since it's obvious the intentions of someone disturbing the dead can't be good. This the kind of thing you're talking about?

Yeah, that's the kind of thing I mean. That should establish the genre in the opening pages. Readers want to know what they're in for, and they expect to have an idea of where the story's going in the first 10 pages. Establishing these monks as sinister in the first couple of pages would add more tension to the later scenes where they meet the seemingly "friendly" monks.

I'm slightly torn here.  I hear what Mabuse is saying and maybe a little development of the monks early on would be good but only to offer a suggestion that they might not be as they seem.  If you give to much away i think it could be a real spoiler.  I like to be kept guessing.

Quoted from alffy I'm slightly torn here.  I hear what Mabuse is saying and maybe a little development of the monks early on would be good but only to offer a suggestion that they might not be as they seem.  If you give to much away i think it could be a real spoiler.  I like to be kept guessing.

I've been following what other readers had to say about this one and I agree with Martin here.

Remember that the script is a blueprint for a movie. I adressed the issue you raise in the review I posted a while ago.

Quoted from Mr.Z Don’t worry about spoiling that your monks are bad boys right from the beginning; is this script is produced, that’s the first thing we’re going to know from trailers and the marketing campaign.

Yeah, by all means be subtle about it. You don't want to give too much away, but you also want the reader to have a sense of what's to come. It all comes down to that old Hitchcock adage...

----

Hitchcock: There is a distinct difference between "suspense" and "surprise," and yet many pictures continually confuse the two. I'll explain what I mean.

We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let's suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, "Boom!" There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware the bomb is going to explode at one o'clock and there is a clock in the decor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In these conditions, the same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene. The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: "You shouldn't be talking about such trivial matters. There is a bomb beneath you and it is about to explode!"

In the first case we have given the public fifteen seconds of surprise at the moment of the explosion. In the second we have provided them with fifteen minutes of suspense. The conclusion is that whenever possible the public must be informed. Except when the surprise is a twist, that is, when the unexpected ending is, in itself, the highlight of the story.

Quoted from Martin Yeah, by all means be subtle about it. You don't want to give too much away, but you also want the reader to have a sense of what's to come. It all comes down to that old Hitchcock adage... ---- Hitchcock: There is a distinct difference between "suspense" and "surprise," and yet many pictures continually confuse the two. I'll explain what I mean. We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let's suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, "Boom!" There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware the bomb is going to explode at one o'clock and there is a clock in the decor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In these conditions, the same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene. The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: "You shouldn't be talking about such trivial matters. There is a bomb beneath you and it is about to explode!" In the first case we have given the public fifteen seconds of surprise at the moment of the explosion. In the second we have provided them with fifteen minutes of suspense. The conclusion is that whenever possible the public must be informed. Except when the surprise is a twist, that is, when the unexpected ending is, in itself, the highlight of the story.

Excellently stated, Mabuse! I almost always refer to Hitchcock's "bomb" philosophy when deciding whether or not to go with surprise or suspense. I try to keep a steady ballance between the two whenever writing.

As for my script, I've already integrated two new "creep" scenes into a rewrite. The opening scene is much better now. The other scene, involving corporeal mortification, I was always reluctant to include as I figured it lessened the effect of Jacque's story considerable. Then again, a baby getting killed does kind of up the ante. Nevertheless, I don't think I'll ever be secure in thinking I've made the right decision regarding that scene. As of now, I'm going to play it safe and keep it in. It's a creepy scene, which I was sure to keep subtle so that the gore would be saved for the end. Maybe someday I'll know exactly where it belongs.

I'll probably be submitting the new draft sometime this week. Not that I expect you guys to read the whole thing again but it's become sort of a habit to update the thread. And you never know who might decide to look at your script again, you know?

Thanks for the comments, guys. Oh, and hot thread status, baby! You guys rule!