In The Line Of Duty by Isaac Brooks (Jerdol) - Thriller - A police officer tries to investigate a bombing, but runs into many difficulties.  Someone doesn't want him to finish his investigation, and is not above threats, blackmail or even murder. - doc, format

This is my first script ever, and as such I would greatly request feedback.  The synopsis is rather vague, but because of a twist that occurs in the plot it's very difficult to elaborate on the plot.
The main problems I saw with my script were issues of character development and linearity (especially in the beginning).  So reviews on those aspects of the script would be especially appreciated.

If you don't want to give a lot away in a synopsis, then a logline is more ideal. All a logline provides in (in less than 30 words), the protagonist (general noun only) has big end of act one event or something done by antagonist happen to them causing them to go on journey in act two or worst case scenario will happen to them.

They are very hard to write and take more practice than writing an entire script. A writer tends to be very wordy which is how we can put our thoughts on paper, but forcing us to condense our 100+ page masterpiece into 30 words or less is total hell.

First of all - *SPOILERS*

Isaac - I see this is your first script, so I know you must be eager to read a review or two. I don't have a lot of experience writing or reviewing, so I don't claim to be an screenwriting expert, but I hope my critique will be of some help.

I guess I'll just be blunt to begin with: I didn't really like the script. I didn't hate it, but it was a bit of a struggle to get through. Fortunately, the format is 95% correct and spelling and punctuation errors are few and far between. Basically, it's the storyline, or lack thereof, that killed it for me.

Before I get to plot issues, I'll talk about your writing style.

Like many writers, you tend to overwrite some things and underwrite others. You often overwrite your action paragraphs, using 2 or 3 sentences where you could have gotten by with one. Also, your dialogue is too wordy and unrealistic at times. But you underwrite your character descriptions, often giving little to no information.

Here's an example, your first paragraph:

Quoted Text EXT. CITY SLUMS, 1:38 PM - Day The camera opens up to an abandoned street in what�s obviously a filthy neighborhood.  ARNOLD BROWN and STEVEN MADSEN are walking down the street, gruffly holding DRUG KINGPIN and dragging him along with them.  They are lightly bruised; he is quite wounded and appears not to be conscious.  Arnold and Steven are talking among themselves as they walk .

A few points:

-I don't think the specific hour and minute are needed.

-"the camera opens up to" is unnecessary, since the first scene you describe would naturally be what the camera sees first. You don't need "what's obviously" either.

-Who are ARNOLD and STEVEN? I don't know anything about them, just a name isn't enough if you are introducing these characters for the first time. Age, race, dress, and build aren't all needed, but one of them would help. I prefer not to name characters in action paragraphs until that character's name is spoken by another character. Of course, that's not always feasible, but I try.

-"DRUG KINGPIN" really doesn't tell us anything about the character. What's a Drug Kingpin look like? How is the audience (not the reader) supposed to know he's a Drug Kingpin? You do this a lot throughout the script.

Personally, I would've done it like this:

Quoted Text EXT. CITY SLUMS - AFTERNOON An abandoned street in a filthy neighborhood. Two SUITED MEN, bruised and dishoveled, drag a badly beaten and semi-conscious THUG through the street.

That's pretty much all you need. You don't need to say they are talking, it'll be obvious when they do it.

Anyway, my point is your action needs to be a bit tighter and you need to be more clear about who your characters are. Just a name on the page doesn't cut it. The audience in a theater can't see a name. An easy way to do this is have the characters refer to eachother by name, especially the first time they are introduced.

Plot issues, some general, some specific, in no order:

-First, the main character (or so I thought) George Hamilton. I have to admit I laughed when I read this name. You see, George Hamilton is the name of a rather well known actor, or at least he used to be well known. He's still alive and working. I suggest changing it. Now the character himself seemed to be, well, boring. He doesn't have a strong personality like a "hero" should. He is unauthoritative and way too nice.

-Way, waaaay too many phone conversations! Same with driving.

-Hamilton seems to get all his info by just asking other people, rather than finding it himself.

-Why is Hamilton working alone on this supposedly big case? You introduce Brenda, yet she doesn't do much until after he is killed - which really pissed me off BTW. He's clearly the main protagonist for the first 3/4ths of the script, and you kill him off and switch to Brenda? Sorry, but BOO.

-The action starts way too late. I think everything up to page 70 or so should be condensed to the first 30-40 pages and then the action should really take off. Have George and Brenda dig up the dirt together, then kill her off instead, leaving George to solve the crime and avenge her death.

-Where are the villians?? There are bad guys out there, but they aren't around to intimidate or hurt anyone until way too late. The heroes are only trying to catch the culprits, not fight them off or prevent them from striking again. This is a thriller with no thrills. It all seems so bureaucratic.

-A few times you have a scene with two characters speaking then have the same two in the very next scene, yet in a different location. Many of those can be condensed to just one scene, in most instances.

-When Eric answers Benny's phone, why isn't George instantly suspicious of a guy who claims to have a desk right next to Benny? If he worked that close, shouldn't George have met him at some point? If Eric actually killed Benny instead of just answering his phone, that would show how dangerous Eric is.

-Roswell Kennedy assassination? That's the way you wrote it. I'm guessing it was an editing error.

-When you introduce Lisa it's not clear at all that she's Brenda's boss. I assumed she was a secretary at first.

-It's AWOL, not AWAL. Absent WithOut Leave.

-The FBI is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, not Intelligence. Perhaps you confused it with the CIA, which is the Central Intelligence Agency.

-The ending is really unsatisfying and doesn't resolve anything.

-Dialogue throughout the script is too wordy, and over expository. Show it rather than say it, if possble.

Okay, I know I'm forgetting some points I intended to make, but this is the gist of it.

Bottom line: Less talk, more action, and get it started faster. Get the antagonists more involved and make them dangerous. And please cut down the phone scenes, they would be very boring to watch.

I would rate this about a 2 1/2 out of 5. The board doesn't have half stars, so I rounded up.

I hope I wasn't too harsh. You stated in another thread you wanted, and liked to give, strong critiques, so I gave one. You have a story here, but it just doesn't get going, and when it does, it doesn't lead anywhere exciting. I hope my notes will be some help when you go for a 3rd draft, I'll gladly take a look at it when you post it (if you want me to, that is) Good luck!

Quoted Text Roswell Kennedy assassination? That's the way you wrote it. I'm guessing it was an editing error.

Actually, it was intentional; the character was making a joke by mixing the two conspiracy theory sources.

Quoted Text First, the main character (or so I thought) George Hamilton. I have to admit I laughed when I read this name. You see, George Hamilton is the name of a rather well known actor, or at least he used to be well known.

I found that out the day after I submitted the script

Quoted Text I hope I wasn't too harsh.

Definately not.  You underlined many of the problems I had with the script myself, and this will help me far more in writing a new draft than a sugar-coated critique.  Thanks for the review.

You're very welcome.

I just realized I didn't say anything very positive. For a first script, this is a good effort, and shows you at least have a solid foundation on which to build. I've read other first screenplays that were sooo much worse than this. Hell, I've read 5th screenplays that were much worse.

Do you plan to start a rewrite on this soon, or will you work on something else and post that when it's done? Personally, I would put ItLoD aside and work on something else for awhile, then come back to it later with fresh eyes. But that's just me.

Jerdol, for your first screenplay this shows a lot of potential but there are a few problems too. I'll try to keep my criticism constructive. I've been working on a script with a similar premise and I'm finding it tough going. From reading this, I see that you've run into some of the same problems as me.

SPOILERS BELOW

Overall Impressions:

Story: The plot kind of meanders along with much of the story explained through dialogue. I think the you need to use more action to move the story forward. The conflict is vague without a clear antagonist. If you were to set up an antagonist early on with "meanwhile back at the ranch" scenes, the story would be easier to explain.

Character: George is the only character that was really developed. As soon as I started to give a damn about him, you killed him off. This didn't have the impact that I think you intended. Sure, it was a surprise, but it left me feeling lost. It left us with some underdeveloped characters that I didn't really car about. The last third of the script suffered because of this.
Right off the bat, George didn't seem like the right guy to solve this case. He wasn't assertive enough and his investigating simply involves asking questions and being polite. He needs to take action and be assertive if he's to be the hero of your story. The chief's statement that he's "the best cop he has" doesn't fit with my interpretation of his character.
You do have some good scenes with George like when he's losing it in his house hearing the voice overs of earlier scenes. I started to feel for him at this point but I didn't see him as a strong protagonist.

Dialogue: Is a mixed bag. There is some very good dialogue in here but unfortunately I found a lot of it to be expository and not too believeable. Your investigators didn't sound like homicide detectives. You use too much dialogue to explain the story. I'm having the exact same problems with my script so I know how difficult it is.

Brenda arrived too late for me to have any lasting impression of her. I wasn't rooting for her at the end because I didn't know her well enough to care. The third act sees several new characters introduced: Long, Hoyce, Brenda etc. By then it's too late for them to develop.

I made some rough notes as I was reading:

Remove time from sluglines. If the time is important, superimpose it.

Your first line of description has the word 'camera' in it. This is a little off-putting.

Brief descriptions of the characters would be nice. What does a Drug Kingpin look like? Who are Arnold and Steven? What do they look like? How old are they? For all I know they could be elderly men with walking sticks. We need a description.

"PARAMEDIC
You the officer in charge here?

GEORGE
No, I’m just leading the investigation."

This exchange rings false for me. In fact, George's dialogue in this scene is a little strange.

Things like "you know how to write up a report?" He doesn't sound like a homicide detective.

Pg. 6

"GEORGE
No strong leads, but there’s definitely fowl play involved."

Should be 'foul' play unless the bombing was committed by birds.

The whole scenario with "these guys looked like feds" is a little weird. Police officers don't make assumptions like that based on someones clothing. What does a fed look like anyway? Perhaps they find an FBI issue handgun or something.

Pg. 9 "I'm no expert ma'am" - George isn't sounding too professional so far.

"GEORGE
Oh, okay.  Should I- should I leave my phone number here or something?"

It really sounds like George doesn't know what he's doing. he's unsure of himself. He doesn't sound like a seasoned homicide detective.

The phone conversation on page 11 should either be INTERCUT or George's dialogue should be (v.o.)

I like the scene with the answering machine. Nicely done.

Why is the morgue woman surprised when George says someone might steal the corpse of the kingpin. Surely she would know that other corpses have been stolen.

"GEORGE
Ma’am, I’m – I’m not sure quite how to put this."

Again, George doesn't sound like a detective. He needs to be more confident. He should be used to this stuff.

I'll agree with Pete on two points, you have too many phone conversations,and George is simply being fed information rather than figuring anything out for himself. I think the exposition would be made easier if he had a partner.

You really can't kill George. He's the only character that's had any kind of development. It's left me feeling lost as a reader. I don't feel like I know any of the other characters. There's no-one left to relate to or care about.

"LONG
Me?  Well, I thought – isn’t there someone special to take car of cop murders?

Cochrin thinks for a moment.

COCHRIN
You know something, I don’t know.  When was the last time we had one?  I’ll check.  Until then, you’re doing the investigation."

Again, these guys should know what they're doing. they sound like they're bumbling through their work.

A lot of time is spent with your characters repeating information we already know. We need more action and less explanation. The final 30 pages is almost all explanatory dialogue.

I'll be honest with you. I lost interest after George was killed. The rest of the script is just dialogue with characters I don't really know. I didn't particularly care for Brenda, she appeared too late and was never really developed. Her brief relationship with George doesn't  explain her motives. there is no clear antagonist in the script, we need a figurehead, a bad guy, someone to point the finger at. The Hoyce character at the end was good, perhaps he could be introduced earlier.

I don't want to sound to harsh. For a first script this is a good effort. Far better than any of my early stuff. I think your plot was perhaps too ambitious. I'm discovering myself that these kind of stories are difficult to write. People always say write what you know. I'm guessing you don't know any homicide detectives and it shows. It's very difficult to make these people sound believeable. That was my main issue with this script. It never felt like I was following a professional police investigation.

You do have talent but I'm not convinced this was the right kind of story to attempt. It's a decent effort and some parts were very good but the story and characterization let down an otherwise well-written piece.