Quoted from KevinLenihan Dustin, you allow your unfounded arrogance and to get in the way of learning something. That's the real shame of it. Do you actually suppose you can learn nothing from anyone else? Your original comment about having John, your protag, "save the cat" by stripping and donating his clothes to charity, aside from demonstrating your hyper sensitivity to criticism, demonstrates your shallow understanding of what it takes to make a character relatable. For example, John, in those opening pages, might do something completely obnoxious, something that is very uncharitable. Maybe there is a beggar on the streets with a cup and a sign "will work for food" and John puts his half eaten sandwich in the cup.  Some audiences could find this repulsive, but in theory other audiences could find it relatable. As I said, in Ferris Bueler the kid is lying to his parents and pretending to be sick, not exactly save the cat stuff, but we relate to him for it. In The Hangover, one of the characters is engaged and obsessed with pleasing his fiance, but under the influence of unplanned narcotics he marries a hooker. This is more of a situational predicament, but it still makes the character more relatable. Now, you can have a story, as you do, where a regular guy just happens to have really bad stuff happen to him. But then what is the purpose of the first 6 pages of this story? If you are going to go that route, why not just have the guy walk through his bleak neighborhood, get home, we meet his wife, and then the intruders come in on page 2 or 3? Those 6 pages are prime real estate where you should do 2 things: first, make John either more interesting or relatable, as I have said; second, work more purposely on the bond between the guy and his wife so that when sh!t happens there is more at stake. As it is you waste that space with Xbox, urination, toking, etc. I am a fellow amateur, so don't take offense to this, but that is amateur use of those pages. Most of us are here to learn, and that's how feedback helps, should you ever become open to it. Now let's talk about your confusion on where gratitude is proper. This thread is on YOUR script. When someone spends time on your script, and gives you remarks, whether you agree with those remarks or not, you begin with these two words: thank you. Then if you wish to politely disagree, that's fine, and a little give and take on things can be helpful to everyone. That's how we learn. Let me see things from your perspective for a moment. You believe I misinterpreted your response to my comments on your script. Other readers seemed to have had a similar interpretation as I did, but if your response was intended to be respectful, then from your perspective we misunderstood. Even under that perspective, your reply should have been this: 'I regret that you have misunderstood my response and I want you to know I am grateful for the time you spent on my work". Considering the war going on in your thread before my review, you should have been particularly grateful that I took a very honest and productive approach. But your very first post just comes off as being a wise a$$. Now perhaps cultural differences or some other communication factor led to a misunderstanding, but that could have been avoided if you began with these two words: thank you.

Sorry for not be submissive enough for you Kevin. I believed I was grateful enough when i said thank you... although my initial post was made too quickly and it was too late to do a full edit. I made a whole new post for you where I said thank you and better explained what my previous comment meant. Seems to be a thing around here where *certain* people get all twisted up by how hard thankyou has been said to them. If I say thank you... then that should be enough.

Your advice isn't new to me. I've read it in books... in fact i read it everyday. That's what i mean by cover to cover... I read them over and over again. Not only that but I have already been told the same thing by other screenwriters. Hence my joke on the character going from unlikable to just not caring about him at all. Indeed, in my follow up post I acknowledged this to you and agreed it is something I could change... i likewise agreed when scott said it before you and countless screenwriters before him.

I know the rules and am choosing to break them on this occasion... I know a viewer will sit through 5 minutes of boring conversation so long as something epic happens at 6 minutes... in fact if I was making the film, I'd milk it even more. I also believe that it is enough to see what happens to this guy for the viewer to want to know what will happen next. And what happens next will be satisfying enough for them. It has everything they require. It's realistic because I know these people.

This is also my first script. Despite the interest I doubt it will sell.. but i am more than happy to have garnered interest in it as that shows me that I am doing something right. Nobody sells their first script. In the script I'm writing or rather finishing now... it is very much Hollywood format as that is the market I'm aiming for. Everything will happen like it is supposed to. I've even had pro notes made on it showing me exactly where the strengths and weaknesses are and what i need to do to improve it.

You're a bandwagon jumper, Kevin. Although you gave an honest review at first you then chose to ignore good sense and firstly accused me of not saying thank you to your friend dreamscreamer. You didn't double check to see if I hadn't... you simply popped yourself onto the back of the wagon. After that i lost all respect for you, and your respect matters not a jot to me. Keep it and your 'honesty'.

Dustin, as usual you are off the rails. If I was a bandwagon jumper my first post would have looked much different now, wouldn't it?

I will admit to skimming through your second response. Your first response, which seems to have been consistent with your general instinct, was to be a smart ass and just leave it at that.

After that you didn't seem worth taking seriously except as diversionary entertainment.

Trust me, no one was looking for submissiveness here, certainly not me. I love a good joust now and then. You confuse common manners and courtesy with submissiveness. You should thank your reader and then politely argue your points. I would do no less to you.

You say my advise isn't new, but yet your remarks revealed considerable lack of comprehension. If I remember correctly, Snyder implores that we make our main characters likable. Even if for argument's sake I grant you that relatable and likable are the same thing, my advice was still rather different that Snyder's. My suggestion was to make the character either relatable OR interesting.

For example, Phil in Groundhog Day is distinctly not likable. But he is interesting. And that's enough to hold our attention.

Also, I am not a rules guy. I don't judge a work on rules. I evaluate it on whether it seems to work. When it does not work, I look for reasons why, and sometimes certain rules help. But you have to look at each script.

I didn't mind that the home invasion came at page 6, and actually that's a good spot for it. But the few pages preceding that plot point felt like filler of the worst kind. There was nothing remotely interesting about anything that happened or about the characters. If it was a program, the channel would have been changed.

Also, when I went through the 6 pages of home invasion, though competently written, there was nothing compelling. Part of that was due to John's blandness, to the fact that nothing about him in the first 6 pages made him interesting or appealing.

Those are things as a writer that you should want to know. I've been reviewing scripts here a long time, and I do give it my best to get into what works or what doesn't. Doesn't mean I am right, but certainly I am not following some model. You added filler before your first plot point, you seem to have recognized as much, and I succeeded in pointing that out to you.

Let me look at one thing you just said, since I have a minute to spare. " I know a viewer will sit through 5 minutes of boring conversation so long as something epic happens at 6 minutes."

Yes, but you might be drawing the wrong conclusion. True, your plot point at the 6 minute mark will shake things up and get the story going, and the audience will grant you space before that. But "boring conversation" is not what you are shooting for. This is precious space to be used for character building or for establishing character bonds.

There are other things you have do if you don't like my suggestion on making John more relatable OR interesting. For example, you could do some more gritty world building in the neighborhood, show us something interesting. I don't recommend that direction, but it's a possibility. Or you could begin be introducing us to the bad guys, build them up a bit, or make THEM interesting. Star Wars begins with Vader, not Luke.

There really is only one rule: keep the audience interested.

Note: I did not accuse you of not saying thanks to Dream. I advised that you begin your response to a reviewer with Thank You. In your first response to my post, there was no hint of that. Instead there was sarcasm about Save the Cat. That's where you lost me. After that it was hard to take you seriously. Which is too bad, because you seem reasonably intelligent. The issues seem to lie elsewhere.

Quoted from B.C. Just to back up what Kev and other's have been saying about character intro's. In Harry Brown, I think it's established early on that Michael Caine's character is an elderly war vet, who visits his dying wife in hospital and occasionally likes a pint with his one mate in the pub. We like him early on, (maybe because it's Michael Caine?) and are already rooting for his vengeance after the aftermath of what we can guess will come at the hands of the bad kids.

You give an example and then suggest that the only reason people liked him was because the protag is played by Michael Caine. Simple fix for my script then is to have Michael Caine play the main part. Aside from that I'm not exactly sure what it is to like about just any old guy that happens to be a war vet. The war means nothing to most people today. In fact, he being old is a barrier we have to get over. An old man getting revenge is not as realistic as a younger guy doing so. It can fly... but it doesn't work as well.

Quoted from B.C. In this script, yeah -- all we see is light drug use, X-box,  guy who doesn't wash and a wife that won't shag him.  Not all that engaging early on, I guess, in terms of this being cinematic or visual.

That is not all you see in this script. Also the last time I checked, crack was a pretty serious drug. Rape is also a serious event. So are mental breakdowns, so is psychosis... so is murder. You point to the first 5 pages where there is boredom... and it is there deliberately. It's a set up. I want the viewer to get bored... and I don't think 5 minutes is enough considering the graphic nature of the rest of the film. I want the protag to be an ordinary working man... that's a relationship... as Kevin is talking about. It's easy to relate to a character depending on a multitude of different factors... he's a normal guy, that's relatable.

Quoted from B.C. I've written a few Brit scripts aimed at this similar market.

How many have you sold?

Quoted from KevinLenihan I didn't mind that the home invasion came at page 6, and actually that's a good spot for it. But the few pages preceding that plot point felt like filler of the worst kind. There was nothing remotely interesting about anything that happened or about the characters. If it was a program, the channel would have been changed.

I already acknowledged that in one of my posts where I stated that I could delete the beginning entirely, shorten the middle, get rid of the work place scenes, and get rid of the dog.

Quoted from KevinLenihan Also, when I went through the 6 pages of home invasion, though competently written, there was nothing compelling. Part of that was due to John's blandness, to the fact that nothing about him in the first 6 pages made him interesting or appealing.

I thanked you for that statement and agreed with it. Your problem stems from the fact that you jumped onto a bandwagon in believing that I am disrespectful to reviews. You made a quick judgement and it was wrong.

Quoted from KevinLenihan Those are things as a writer that you should want to know. I've been reviewing scripts here a long time, and I do give it my best to get into what works or what doesn't. Doesn't mean I am right, but certainly I am not following some model. You added filler before your first plot point, you seem to have recognized as much, and I succeeded in pointing that out to you.

Yes as stated it was done deliberately... however I'm also willing to acknowledge that it hasn't worked. I have never said otherwise... only stated my reasons for doing it in the first place.

Quoted from KevinLenihan Let me look at one thing you just said, since I have a minute to spare. " I know a viewer will sit through 5 minutes of boring conversation so long as something epic happens at 6 minutes." Yes, but you might be drawing the wrong conclusion. True, your plot point at the 6 minute mark will shake things up and get the story going, and the audience will grant you space before that. But "boring conversation" is not what you are shooting for. This is precious space to be used for character building or for establishing character bonds. There are other things you have do if you don't like my suggestion on making John more relatable OR interesting. For example, you could do some more gritty world building in the neighborhood, show us something interesting. I don't recommend that direction, but it's a possibility. Or you could begin be introducing us to the bad guys, build them up a bit, or make THEM interesting. Star Wars begins with Vader, not Luke. There really is only one rule: keep the audience interested.

Thank you for your thoughts, despite what you may think I appreciate you taking your time to share them. They will likely come in handy with any rewrites I have to make if I manage to sell the script. Seems this industry is more about meeting the right people at the right time than anything else.

Dustin, you seem to be trying to be reasonable, I appreciate that. You have some ability and we all benefit by having the more intelligent people we can find...to look at scripts and discuss story. We don't have to all like each other, but we benefit by working civilly together.

I do want to point out that Basket left you 3 courteous replies in this thread. The first 2 were ignored, as far as I can see, and then when you decided to respond to his most recent, it was defensive, which is ok, and then dismissive(based on your last question), which is not; and lacking in any of reciprocating courtesy.

Like your script, it's an easy fix. Just be polite and grateful, even if you feel annoyed at the criticism. Because there is one thing that is worse than criticism. And that is having no one look at the work.

I hope you accept my remarks here as well intended and sincere, and best of luck with this and future projects.

Quoted from KevinLenihan Dustin, you seem to be trying to be reasonable, I appreciate that. You have some ability and we all benefit by having the more intelligent people we can find...to look at scripts and discuss story. We don't have to all like each other, but we benefit by working civilly together.

I'm never one to hold a grudge. I sensed a change of tone from you, so I changed mine to match

Quoted from KevinLenihan I do want to point out that Basket left you 3 courteous replies in this thread. The first 2 were ignored, as far as I can see, and then when you decided to respond to his most recent, it was defensive, which is ok, and then dismissive(based on your last question), which is not; and lacking in any of reciprocating courtesy. Like your script, it's an easy fix. Just be polite and grateful, even if you feel annoyed at the criticism. Because there is one thing that is worse than criticism. And that is having no one look at the work. I hope you accept my remarks here as well intended and sincere, and best of luck with this and future projects.

Here is basket's first post to me:

Quoted from B.C. I opened this script up last night and read the first ten pages. I was going to post some feedback, but decided to wait to see how the thread played out.  What I feared might happen has happened. I, like others, am not sure why this script is here if the author isn't looking for feedback from other writers in order to aid future rewrites.   Being from the UK and a resident of a Council Estate, there was a few things that I was going to bring up that I feel need addressing, in terms of the story 'world' and also some the behaviour of the characters that are introduced early on. I was also going to mention a few things about the spec market in the UK, which may have also added some value.   However, since the author has producer interest, and seemingly their word is gospel, it doesn't seem that peer reviews are going to be of value.  Which is a shame. On a side note, Kevin's and Dreamscale's advice is actually very sound. No matter where this is set, and no matter what regional market this is aimed at, taking on board their comments might actually improve the story.

I'm not sure what about that post would make me want to respond to it. It is all what he 'was going to add'


His second is the one I responded to, as he has only made 2 posts in this thread, not three... and his second, by his own admission, only to reiterate what had already been said by others.

I will respond to anyone that replies with a modicum of respect and is deserving of a response. There's no need to make a whole post about how you're not going to offer the advice you were going to offer. Just don't respond.

Dustin, I can now see that my first reply was terribly vague, and in turn that has resulting in you thinking I was being disrespectful. I apologize for that. It was not my intention. I will whole heartedly admit that internet forum etiquette isn't probably my strong point.

In retrospect, I guess my first post was just to the test the water to see how a review of your script might possibly benefit you, and if indeed you wanted any help. I am cautious by nature (even when posting anonymously on the internet) and like to avoid conflict.

To answer your question above, I have not sold any of my screenplays.

I won't clog up your thread any longer.  Good luck.

Thanks for all the work with the title change, Don... much appreciated.

this script has had several drafts since being listed here. There is now some redemptive qualities added to the final act and the protag is pro-active earlier.

The latest draft came about with help from the attached Director who has been busy punting this around the UK film scene... and he's (we've) been making some waves. One story consultant believes this script to be better than Nolan's following. Of course, I wouldn't expect anyone here to think that... nor even believe I'm telling the truth... but I'm happy with it all the same.

One thing that isn't liked is my new title... Repercussions... but after analysing the story for a while now, I can't think of a more fitting title. Indeed, the complaints about the title have been that it is too on the nose. Shouldn't a title be on the nose? Seems to me, that it should.

Well I took a look at this… a few days ago.

Here are some random thoughts, as always, to be taken with a grain of salt. I don’t know anything. Some things may have escaped me so pardon. I’ll just be rambling on and using other movies to better paint what I’m trying to say. Excuse the typo’s, I’m doing this in one sitting.

First off, your new title “Repercussions” is a lot better than the old one “Birth of a Psycho”, IMO. “Birth of a Psycho” sounds like direct to video movie. “Repercussions” sounds more serious. It’s a much better fit for a gritty drama.

I’m a sucker for revenge movies, so this is more or less up my alley. I don’t know why, I think there is just something inherently masculine about revenge movies that it connects with guys. Most people want to see bad guys get their comeuppance. So I feel this is a good topic to write about, as people want to see these kinds of movies and they are quite sought after on the premise alone.

In reality I can’t really think of a lot of revenge movies I’ve liked. Maybe “The Virgin Spring”, “Rolling Thunder” come to mind. I’ve always really wanted to like the “Death Wish” movies, but I never could, as I think they’re not very good. Even though I have a lot of love for Chucky Bronson.

Problem is the topic of revenge is kind of narrow, especially personal revenge stories, loss of a loved one and the like. Most aspects have been covered. There isn’t really anything new you can do. You can just try to focus on aspects that others haven’t focused on in the past as much and expand on those. I thought this script was pretty standard fair. Pretty straight forward story that on screen would lean on the brutality of what transpires. Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing… just saying. I actually think there is quite an audience for these kinds of movies.

Movies that usually try to dwell on psychological aspects on revenge often get pegged as boring. Instance, I remember watching  a British revenge movie called “Red Road” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0471030/) a while back. Even though the movie was fine, nothing special… it was actually kind of dull to be honest. It was more or less an unconventional, revenge drama, it did have a point and was trying to show something, it had depth. But when you try to show psychological processes and what people are going through you usually show that without dialogue. Silence equates to thought and suffering a lot better. Putting your head down and tilting it to the side, holding it like that in silence has a lot of implications and people project depth onto scenes like that. My point was, even though that was an okay movie I doubt you could sell that script as a spec. Something like yours has more of a shot to get made if you’re not an “name” writer. Because of the dynamic of it all.

Another movie I DID actually enjoy was an Austrian revenge movie called “Revanche” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1173745/). This was also a very slow moving movie. But I enjoyed it. It tried to focus on different emotions of different characters. One feeling guilt, the other a thirst for revenge. It focused on two characters and what they were going through in the situation they were thrust in. In the end one character decided not to go throw with his revenge plan, but in a way he kind of did. Those kinds of dilemmas and psychological states interest me and I like watching them on screen. Probably most will find these kinds of movie boring but I wish they would sink more into mainstream cinema. Sadly, I doubt it.

An aspect of your script I really liked and would like to see expended on is the taking away of the masculinity of the main character and the transformation his wife goes through after being raped. Not being able to watch her husband in the same way. He is no longer a protector, a provider. She saw him crumble and not defend her and is no longer able to look at him with the same eyes, with respect or admiration. Only contempt. She now realizes the state of her vulnerability and even more so because the person that was there to protect her from harm is quite helpless himself. So their relationship is ruined and will never be the same again.

I like those themes. They’re very real. I think you could expend on them a bit more. You did a good job on those.

I also like the co-workers talking shit at work and the scene with their boss putting them in place. Telling one, that it’s always the ones with the loudest mouths that crack first. I liked that, because I kind of believe it’s true.

Also probably my favorite scene was the one when they went to go get David and his wife walked in on them and said “Not in the house”. I really like that one. It was short and brutal. But I think you should cut the following scene with the mother and son. Where the son asks where did his dad go? The previous scene was powerful enough and stood on its own fairly well. I kind of think the scene with the mother and the son dilutes the previous one. And the impact of it is lowered. I understand why you put it in there. But I think you’re better off without it.

A lot of the first third of the script I’m sure will look more powerful on screen then it does on paper. It’s a visual thing. You need to see those things happening to grasp the impact and the awkwardness a viewer is going to experience. Kind of like “Henry: Portrait of a serial killer” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099763/). On paper, it’s just not the same, doesn’t pack the same punch.

I liked the thing with the DVD, bumping into him, testing him. That aspect was also really good. That it matters how you walk and how people perceive you based on the image of yourself you put forward. I’m currently writing a script and have worked in something similar.  Later on he walks with a different swagger to him, people don’t perceive him to be as vulnerable as before. I like that… but I also didn’t. I didn’t like it because it took the story in B-movie territory in my opinion. The transformation from weakling to vengeful and strong. That hits shades of comic books to me. B action movie type stuff. I would still make the character vulnerable and a bit of a pussy. Even though he’s dead-set on revenge and killing those three that made his life a living hell. In my experience people hardly change and I understand that this is a movie and the situation this particular character is in, but I still think he becomes too much of a bad ass. I think him fumbling around in moments of importance, not being so sure, having doubt about hitting the junkie in his house etc… would be a more interesting and realistic way to go.

Him being a “man on a mission” out for vengence type deal has been done a lot before. “Man on fire”, “The Man from Nowhere”, “Death Wish” so on. There was an Australian revenge movie that came out in 2008 called “The Horseman” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060255/) that got some buzz. It was pretty standard and straight forward. I guess people liked it for the brutality and simple plot. Unlike the previous movies I discussed, a movie like “The Horseman” has a better shot of selling and getting distribution because there was an audience for “torture porn like” movies at one point in time. I think that fad has gone down a bit. In many situations I think people don’t perceive the quality of the film but they want to focus in on a specific brutal scene and then that takes on a life of its own. They keep re-telling it over and over… and that scene becomes the movie. Much like Luis Bunuel’s  “An Andaluisian Dog”. Everyone just talks about the eye cutting scene. With brutal scenes you can create something, get creative and “shock” the audience, and then the movie gets remembered on that basis alone. It’s more about shock value than about storytelling. But it works.

I also wasn’t a fan of the visions/ imaginings/ apparitions (I don’t know what to call them) of Jason after the incident. It was too cartoony for me and took me out of the tone of the story. I like what you were going for. I just think it could be more subtly accomplished. Let’s say John is lying in bed, alone, in the house after the incident and he hears a noise but is afraid to check it out. He is suspicious about entering his own house. Or he walks down the street sees some young people sitting on the curb drinking… so he takes a detour, as not to pass by them, because he is in a state of fear. Something like that. That kind of situations give a better and more subtle sense of the emotional scaring the incident caused. The fear and uncertainty it has instilled. It’s not so in your face, yet you can accomplish them in a 2 min scene.

The relationship between the main character (John) and Chalmers seemed too convenient for me. I didn’t like that aspect of the story. I would imagine you set it up so you can have the OUT at the end and the scene with the two of them as well. I think people like that kind of stuff. It’s emotional, a person dies but it’s also inevitable in this case, so in a sense everyone wins. But I would like to have seen John facing more difficulties in getting rid of the three criminals. It went a bit too smoothly for my taste.
The thing with the young kid not raping John’s wife was a nice touch. It’s a movie trope that I like. You create sympathy for a bad guy, so when the main one takes care of him, we feel a bit bad. The main character gets shades of an anti-hero and sympathy is felt. It’s an effective thing IMO. I liked that.

If I were writing this script, I would kill Chalmers during the first “hit”. It’s unexpected and out of left field. Something happens when they try to kill Kyle or David and Chalmers dies. Maybe in an accident of some sort. I always like those kinds of things. It looks like the movie is setting up something and then… the rug is pulled from under you and it goes in a different direction. I think it would work here.
I also wouldn’t be against one the criminals escaping John and him giving chase and… then they accidentally die… get hit by a car… or even better… try to jump a fence and fall in a yard with a pitbull in it… and getting ripped to shreds. That’s brutal, karmic and John can get away with it.

Like I said previously I wasn’t a fan on how systematic they took care of those three. I would like to see a bigger sense of confusion and difficulty.
I always liked this ending. The one from “Death Sentence” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804461/) with Kevin Bacon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk8Tnhrzbmc

I would go with something like this, John dying in the end, sitting in Jason’s apartment, with Jason and his soon to be wife killed… him saying something. I’ve always been a fan of endings such as that.

Also, I think Jason’s rise up the social ladder was a tad “unrealistic”. I don’t know how much time passed from the incident with John to the time he tried to get his vengeance but Jason’s whole mentality and attitude seemed to have changed. I get what you were going for… the whole “tables have been turned deal”, but still, found it a bit out of place. I think you could work a similar angle a bit better.

I got a bit tired from typing, I wrote a damn rambling essay… so I’m gonna stop here.

I did enjoy the script. Especially the middle third of it. It was nicely written. There weren’t too much descriptions so the read went by fast and the story flowed. I read it in over an hour in one sitting.

I think I saw you said you’re trying to get this made on your own. Good luck with it. I think camera shots like the ones used in “The Wrestler”  (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1125849) would work for a movie like this. Over the shoulder shots. Handheld stuff. It would add grittyrealism. Also movies shot that way seem a bit dirty and unpolished which would be perfect for a story such as this IMO.

Good luck.

Thanks for the detailed review. I'm certainly going to tackle all of the points made before we make this next year. I value your opinion on this, especially with your knowledge of film. It's something I lack, although I know stories very well, my knowledge of film is relatively lacking so I can often veer into cliché and well-used story tropes and not realise it at the time.

I had enough of it being rejected, although everyone agrees it has potential, nobody wants to make it. It's aimed at a first time producer and they uhm and ah too much... plus, I genuinely feel I can do a better job of it. So, I'm going to be that first time producer. Hopefully start shooting as early as mid-way through next year. I do have two shorts to make before it, plus I want to polish a script ready for the big competitions this year, but this will definitely be started as early as I can next year.

Thanks for your help, much appreciated.

Quoted from DustinBowcot I had enough of it being rejected, although everyone agrees it has potential, nobody wants to make it. It's aimed at a first time producer and they uhm and ah too much... plus, I genuinely feel I can do a better job of it. So, I'm going to be that first time producer. Hopefully start shooting as early as mid-way through next year. I do have two shorts to make before it, plus I want to polish a script ready for the big competitions this year, but this will definitely be started as early as I can next year

I'm sure that process can be frustrating.

IMO, a movie such as this stands a chance of getting notoriety if you make the rape sequence brutal. I know that sounds horrible but when you think about it less than spectacular movies such as "Irreversible", "I Spit on Your Grave", "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" and to a lesser degree "Boys Don't Cry", they have gotten their reputations based on the brutality of the rape scenes in them. It's the first thing that sticks out about the movies.

To some degree people like watching that stuff. I especially remember rampant discussion about who could sit through Irreversible. Stupid stuff like that. For some reason if you make a scene brutal like that people think of it as realistic and then they equate that to being difficult to film and then they equate that to art. The sheer brutality on film somehow ups the quality of the movie in most people's eyes. Especially genre fans.

I wasn't a fan of the British revenge movie "Dead man's shoes". But I can't point out the number of people that mention to me the scene where the mentally handicapped person is being harrassed.

So if you make that scene memorable, the movie is pretty much set IMO. You can have the main character do brutal things. Tone has been established, he gets carte-blanche. You can add a torture scene or whatever. Genre fans eat that stuff up.

In the end this is what you're looking to do. A brutal revenge movie. If you up some of the psychological undertones press the drama as to add depth or simulate depth, and you make it a bit less predictable I think you can have a winner.

In the original version of this the bad guys force John to perform cunnilingus on Cynthia after they've finished raping her as a final show of domination. I cut it though for fear of people saying it was to deliberately shock... but, as we all know, people are capable of far worse when given the power to do so.

I'll consider putting it back in. Depends how the actors feel as well. Plus the director etc... but you've made a good argument for putting it back.

Quoted from DustinBowcot In the original version of this the bad guys force John to perform cunnilingus on Cynthia after they've finished raping her as a final show of domination. I cut it though for fear of people saying it was to deliberately shock... but, as we all know, people are capable of far worse when given the power to do so. I'll consider putting it back in. Depends how the actors feel as well. Plus the director etc... but you've made a good argument for putting it back.

That's not bad. If you are going to spend 15-20 min on a scene. Make it something people will talk about.

Thinking about the ending. I would throw out a suggestion that just popped in:

Maybe you have John showing up at Jason's house and he walks in on Jason and his pregnant wife. He starts beating them and Jason starts telling him something like: "It only took me one day to make you into a man". "You couldn't do it on your own your whole life, I put you there in one day. I showed you the way John... say thank you".

Essentially, just press the "I know there is a man in there somewhere" theme you had going on. Just put an exclamation point on it in a mocking way.

Then John beats him some more and in a moment of furious anger he kicks Jason's wife in her stomach... and again and again. To pay him back. Telling him that he is going to kill him and his wife won't have his baby, ending his lineage. So his fuck'ed up children won't be able to walk this earth and do the shit he did to other people. Jason breaks down and cries... John kills him... then Jason's wife shoots John.

John sits on the floor dying next to her and he tell her something and then dies.

This way you have another theme. Violence just breeds more violence. It's a vicious cycle. Jason losses everything and John losses everything.

Plus you have one shocking scene in the beginning and one at the end. It balances out. Usually movies just have one shocking scene that's remembered. You can have two Someone kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach isn't something you see in movies. It's quite shocking and brutal.

Just an idea.

In one of my drafts John accidentally shoots Jason's girlfriend as it was a lot like you describe, with just pure hatred coming from John, hence Birth of a Psycho for the title. There was no redemption at all in the script. I did have a part 2 in mind also, where he was even worse, dealing with psychosis, voices etc. But talking with producers, directors etc, they wanted John more likeable, even had one suggest that I should make Chalmers the main protag. So I changed it.

I do like the idea of going back the other way. Those producers were trying to encourage me to write more like Hollywood, adding redemption and heroic qualities as they claimed that stood the best chance of funding. But my instinct is to write this bleak and keep it that way.

I'll definitely take your ideas into account in a few months time when I get to rewrite this. I'll also give you a story analyst credit when I make it as you've helped a lot with this story.

Stumbled upon a movie called STILL on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2531168/

The Synopsis made me think of your script:

Set in North London, 'Still' is a gritty and atmospheric thriller about the violent disintegration of a man and father. Tom Carver (Aidan Gillen) is a man stumbling blindly towards a crossroad in his life, thrown out of focus by the death of his teenage son a year earlier. He becomes involved in a feud with a teenage gang after a seemingly harmless collision with a young kid. As the feud becomes more horrifying, Carver's world starts to unravel forcing him to make decisions that will change his life forever.

............

Upon looking at the trailer, not so much. But still, might want to check it out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4erHTU8Ctzs