I think this has all the makings of a fine story.  For me, the deep-voice male character is a little too mysterious / pseudo glamorous.  I think you squashed a big story into too few pages and after the OWC you might think about expanding it a bit.

Very, very clunky read with all the details and 'trying-to-be-clever' descriptions.  Those descriptions confused me for a long time.

In fact, in the opening scene, and for about the next eight pages, I thought the two men were gay, because you say the legs are doing their dance.  I took that literally, so I really thought they were dancing with each other.

Cutting out all the miniscule and unnecessary descriptions, ('Does she go in?') can really quicken the dull pace of the story, and make room for a full ending, or at least explain exactly what happened.  It's a little vague as it is now.  I think you might have ran out of room and ended the story a lot quicker than you wanted.  Cut out that clunkiness, and you might have had another two pages to work with.

And what is it with a ruck sack?  Lol.  I've never heard of a ruck sack before, and I've seen it in two stories right in a row now.  That's quite a coincidence.  Was part of the challenge 4 characters, 1 location, and a ruck sack?

- Mark

As I go:

Page 1:  Just give 'em names, yo.

Page 2:  Have started skimming description.  So much text...

Page 5:  I like the dialogue in this script.

Thoughts:

Plot's fine, what's the point?  I don't see it.  What do we learn from this?  What do the characters learn from this?  Why would the audience want to watch this?

Your characters are quite strong.  They just need something to do.  It's difficult to tell what your reason for writing this was.

Thanks for the fun read!

What an interesting opening shot: showing me the top of a table, no people around it. Next shot we are under the table and see two pairs of legs, I'm assuming they belong to the two men? I have no idea if they are wearing slacks or shorts. I don't know if they have shoes or socks but what I do know is that both men cross thier legs

  

Then you got me thinking about how could I see both pairs of legs. The two guys must be right next to each other. Otherwise it's a wide shot of under the table. But again, I ask: why see the rest of the room if I can't see the two guys?

Quoted Text The kitchen lies at the rear of the property, away from the road and next to a small garden. Simple and bright; except for the overflowing bin.

What?
If there's a garden or road to be seen out of a window, you should show, not tell me that. Right now it feels overwritten. Speaking of which:

Quoted Text INT. FRONT ROOM - AFTERNOON Dave glances at the appointment sheet, next client three o'clock. A check of the watch, Two fifty nine. The doorbell goes. He grins. Likes them on time. INT. FRONT ROOM - AFTERNOON He closes the door, client has gone. It's getting dark, time to switch the lights on.

Okay, aside from straying from the OWC guides, I'm going to lay down a gauntlet.
Think of the above scene visually as you wrote it. Then ask why did you write it to begin with when it isn't needed and also conflicting with the time of day?

* What would be the point of checking the appointment sheet? Checking his watch? This implies his client is running late and didn't call, not that his client gets there on the hour.

* It's 3:00 pm when the session which we never see, starts. Slug reads "Afternoon" when the client leaves. But..."it's getting dark".

In the next scene - kitchen- a time is given. "Just before five".
Think it over. Is it about to storm? How is the sky getting dark before five?

But it is a moot point. Better off just getting rid of the two scenes, for they add nothing and show nothing. It actually makes no sense for it to be there.

All and all, it takes some time to get going. I don't think it was terrible, but it seemed to be all over the place. When the reveal is that the first scene is actually the last, I'm very curious as to the reason the legs scene was needed in the first place---aside from being an interesting choice to open with.

50/50 on this. Didn't like it, but didn't outright hate it.

Hi Good job on setting the mood early. It worked well.

I agree that the script feels overwritten at times, and the dialogue was a bit stiff for my liking. Still, a solid effort. Good job

I thought this read well but like a few others have said there are plenty of examples of overwriting. It could be done better for sure.

I liked the characters and most of their dialogue, I found it quite intriguing. I also assume you are a fellow Brit just by the use of the word 'wankers'.

The final scene was a little too clunky for me, I didn't get a good grip of how it actually went down. The part in particular that got me was when Dave got the hammer and started swinging. Was he swinging at the figure (James?), the candle, the table, the client? I just don't know. Also why didn't the client just kill James when he saw him before?

As for the very end I assume it was Krystal and Dave who survived because they are the innocents of the piece.

Not too bad, but not great.

Arty.

Yeah, I got a vibe it was a Brit - a Brit writing Americans. There was something inexplicably inorganic and that's the best I can come up with. It was the overriding feeling when reading and I think that would account for some of the disjointedness.

The story itself wasn't bad, it just didn't grab me by the bollocks at any point. As ever, the writer's views will shed some light on the decisions made and tackle some of the comments.

First of all THANKS everyone for reading and reviewing.

It may not surprise most of you to find out this was my first ever short. The reality is that for most readers  it missed the target.

The feedback has given me lots of good things to consider. What is slightly annoying is that a  few of them I knew before submitting but didn't change. Hell, all good lessons.

As a first effort I wanted to tell a story, rather than a scene, if that makes sense. Now having  experienced the OWC, a simpler approach is wise, but I look forward to letting the mind wonder!

I still like the story and for those I "lost on the page", it is this. A well meaning but awkward man finds himself caught in a clash of two evil ( there is probably a better word)  men only because he rents a flat out to one, the rapist, who is tracked down by the vigilante killer. It about circumstance and fate, and not being safe in your own home.

It was  a day in the life of story and I am very grateful to Sandra for picking this up. It made my day to hear someone recount what I aimed to achieve.

The use of the radio was to part help the story (one location, four actors) but also provide an insight that the audience achieves at the end, namely we now know the rapes and killings were not connected before, but now they are.

I tried to push the visuals as the one location could become dull. Hence the cold (ice/breath), light/dark (candles), the use of each room and putting Dave into different rooms in varying circumstances. I wanted a sense of loneliness and vulnerability. Not sure it came across.

Once again thanks everyone, I really enjoyed reading, reviewing and sharing. I now have a much better idea about the OWC and look forward to the next.

Cheers. RD

Very incoherent. My thoughts are that your writing tries to reflect quick camera shots and in the process you lose sight of any story, which there isn't much of. I don't know who the rapist is, could be Dave for all I know. The logline read that Dave takes on a client when the story doesn't have much to do with the client and the client doesn't confide anything in Dave, the client directs Dave. Confusing lot. I was thinking there would be a mystery here.