House of God by James McClung - Horror - A trio of grad students touring the French wine country are taken in by a brotherhood of kind monks. However when it comes time to leave the monastery, the students discover that the monks are not all they seem. 95 pages - doc, format 8)

I scrapped my usual balls-to-the-wall approach to horror for something a little more gothic. My main goal in this was to develop strong characters and create a build to the final few scenes. The first two acts are a little slower in order to be more subtle and atmospheric. But, of course, this is a horror movie so there's some blood in this as well that should satisfy you gorehounds. There're some religious themes throughout the script but my intention was to write a horror movie and not some religious commentary or to deliver some sort of egotistical message.

If it sounds too weird, I guess you could think of this as a Misery-meets-The Wicker Man type thing with a little spoofing of Sideways and, for those who read it, some Abattoir as well.

Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Hey James,

You got the format down pat. It read very well, your descriptions were clear and it wasn't over-written. I understand you were taking a bit of a "slow burn" approach in terms of pacing, and it worked. At 93 pages it's a nice, breezy read. Nice, gothic atmosphere.

My one problem remains in the characters. They didn't feel developed enough to me. Francois was the exception - I really liked his arc. Otherwise I didn't feel connected with the characters, the three protagonists in particular. Sure, we learn about their jobs and why they're in France, and their basic personalities. But I wasn't interested in them. The main character felt too passive during the majority of the story, which made his sudden turn into violent hero at the end seem a bit false.

Also it seemed to end a little abruptly, but maybe that was the point?

All in all it's a nice little horror movie with some great torture scenes, but the characters weren't compelling enough for me.

Thanks, Redeemer.

It seems I have the same problem I had with my last script in regard to the characters and I have to say, I still don't understand. I gave the main characters their own personalities, interests, hopes, dreams, views on life, and backstories and still, one of the characters I found to be lesser developed turns out to be the one that readers can relate to. I don't understand it. If it's a character arc, I can see the problem. I still haven't made enough of an effort in regards to that and honestly, didn't try in this one. I'm trying to master "static" character development before the "dynamic." But otherwise, I'm in the dark. What does it take to gain the sympathy of the audience?

Nevertheless, I'm glad you liked it and pleased to see I pulled off the gothic atmosphere and the "slow burn" pacing as you call it. Most of the films that inspired this one took a long time to build before a suckerpunch of a climax. And yes, I do agree the story ended abruptly. Most of my scripts do. I've always thought a film should end when it's over and not carry on with "hero walking into the sunset" type cliches. I may integrate an alternate ending into a rewrite depending on how it fits into the context of the rest of the story.

Thanks again.

pg4 -- nice pulp fiction reference :)

pg5 -- little formatting error, bottom of the page has two speakers smushed together without the line of white space between them

pg16 -- so far so good, you have some good natural dialogue flowing from the characters and it seems like I'm already learning a little bit about each one.

another minor formatting thing -- i dont know if this is neccessary but dialogue spills onto a new page and you don't have a CONT'D or anything. Maybe you don't need it but i always put them in my script. Maybe you should check up on that and if you need them add them in. If not, then yeah, leave as is.

pg 33 -- Marty says "i dont think there's wrong with that" i think you mean anything wrong with,
also this line is good, i was wondering why they didn't think his hospitality was a little over the top so its good that you are catering to the doubts the reader will have, it makes for a more compelling and realistic story

one little complaint i have is where the conversation about god comes in... it seems almsot too conveniant that they have that discussion right before they find the monks and the monastry.. i know it's ironic and it probably would work for most people but i think it would fit better after they meet the monks
EDIT: something that is really funny about that, i was just reading the line where Jimmy says that he needs to hear his mom's voice when at school and my mom just called me on my cell phone haha so i guess that changes my opinion that coincidences can happen like that, still if there's another spot for the conversation then maybe movie it (maybe the second wine tour to lione)

pg 48 -- come down.... do you mean calm down? that makes more sense to me

pg57 -- i think hes kind of angry with the smashing of the chair, to me it seems too soon to be breaking someones furniture when you're a guest...you haven't given him any real reason to act like that... for all he knows they could all be somewhere where they can't hear him, maybe he tries something else that is a little less destructive rather than jumping right to him smashing stuff to get out

secondly with the porridge, he eats it way too easily, have him try to open a window and think about pouring it out but the window but it's locked too or something. Basically make him seem more hesitant to eat it and try to find someway of getting out of it. He's locked in a room with a bowl of something, I know I would do all I could to not eat it as I'd be pretty sure there's something in it

pg61 -- good line with the "you must follow their example as i cant allow them to follow yours".. again it makes the story realistic as you've actually thought out a good motive for why the people are doing this

okay, sorry for the lack of comments towards the end, i am at work doing this so i wanted to read through the end somewhat faster before i had to leave... i will give you more detailed comments on the ending part some other time... i didnt notice much wrong with it though

anyway, i enjoyed this story. It was very well paced and i actually had no problems with the characters. Like you said, they all had their own back stories and I felt like it could have happened to anyone as they were just normal kids making mistakes anyone could make. The biggest problem with this story though is it's too much like Hostel. I know you were worried about it when you had the idea and you went your own way with it but I feel that the way to market this would be as some kind of torture horror movie and the hostel similarities would come out immediatly until people saw it and judged it as a seperate piece and not a rip off. It's a shame really as you did a much better job than Eli Roth did, you have better characters, a more realistic situation and I cared for your people. They weren't crazed sex maniacs, they were college kids trying to get an appreciation for what else is out there. So, very well written story. I don't know what to suggest to help you improve your characters as like I said I had no issue with them.
I hope my comments helped, like I said, I will add more detailed comments on the end some other time

-Matt

About the characters... it's certainly subjective. How I feel about the characters certainly isn't going to be how everyone else feels.

I just don't really feel enough was done with them. They had a lot of conversations with each other but, to me, it never felt like anything was accomplished with that. Their conversation about God established their beliefs, yes, but to me it never felt like anything grew from it.

I would try to make Jimmy, our hero, more assertive. As supporting characters Marty and Dana weren't bad (and, let's face, they're in the story to die). Jimmy just seemed very blank. You know? He's an artist, but I didn't see a lot of dimension to him. Give him more to do, make him more assertive and decisive. Maybe add some more personality quirks. Something like how Marty was obsessed with grapes. It would give Marty and Dana more to react and respond to, and hence those characters would be beefed up in the process.

Like sfpunk said, he ate the porridge way too quickly. I thought he'd do something like pretend to eat it, pretend to pass out, and then when the monks came in, there'd be a scuffle and he'd try to escape, but then be overpowered. It felt too easy to me.

It's still very well written and mucho violento, I must reiterate.

Thanks for the comments, Matt. I'm really glad you cared about the characters in the script. Character development was really important to me writing this so I feel like I did something right. I really appreciate it.

About the conversation about God, I can understand how it seems too convenient that they would be talking about God before arriving at the monastery but, as you said, it's also ironic and irony is very important to me. Similar instances have occurred in my previous scripts (in Abattoir, it's the content of the characters' documentary and in Kiss Of The Locust, it's one character's personal philosophy on nature) hence it's become a trademark of sorts that I'm kind of proud of and hope to continue with. Also, the conversation where it is now helps develop the characters more from the getgo and foreshadows coming events.

I agree about Jimmy breaking the chair. Now that I think of it, it's kind of out of Jimmy's character. The cut to's in that sequence indicated the passage of time (I never use them otherwise) so he's been in the room pretty much all day but I don't think that changes things. I'll be sure to fix that.

The Hostel similarities kind of bum me out, especially since I thought of the idea for this before I even heard about Hostel. But I think this script stands alone and I'm extremely proud of it, especially since Hostel had a lot of hype surrounding it that it didn't really live up to.

Reedemer,

I can understand about Jimmy coming off as passive. I'll think about making him more assertive and having a few more quirks. In a way, though, he is supposed to be like that. Jimmy's main concern at the beginning of the script is to make sure both of his friends have a good time. He doesn't like confrontations, constantly strives to make everyone happy, and always looks for the best in people. Hence, it makes sense that he'd be a little passive. At the same time, that's his fatal flaw and basically the reason why the characters spend so much time at the monastery and, ultimately, end up in the circumstances they do. I'm very proud with the way his character turned out. Nevertheless, I always take feedback into consideration and yours is no exception.

I agree with both of you guys about the porridge. That was kind of a hard situation for me as I wasn't really sure what I, myself, would do in a situation like that. It is a little too easy as is. I'll definitely be fixing that up in the rewrite.

Thanks again for the feedback, guys.

Hey James.  I buzzed through this one pretty quick.  I didn't have a lot of time to spend on it, but my curiousity got the better of me.  And it reads pretty quick anyway, you know?

You are developing a nice touch for bloodshed haha.  And these characters are improved from those in KOTL -- at least the version I read.  I did come away with a handful of comments:

(SPOILERS)

*  Marty would definately not eat the type of grapes they make wine from.  The skins are very, very tough, and they are not at all palatable.  Nothing at all like the grapes you find in a grocery store.  Now I see this comes back a couple of times.  It is a credibility flaw that you definitely need to address.  Sorry, but you must go back and fix every scene where you have somebody enjoying these grapes.
*  I see where you are going with the God conversation, but it really does come out of nowhere, which makes it awkward.  Try to imagine a smoother transition.  At least have them driving by a quaint old church first, or something, to help this conversation evolve naturally.
*  I'll agree with the previous "porridge" comments, too.
*  Luc calls Jimmy a "whelp"?  Let's try to find something a bit stronger, eh?
*  The ending is a little abrupt.  One more scene, like, emerging from the monostary into the sunlight, might be enough.

At the end, I am really surprised that the blood was not incorporated into the wine somehow.  I was certain you would go there, and personally, I think it is a lost opportunity that you did not.  Consider that -- these monks putting blood in the wine -- and see if you don't like it.

Also, after all your agonizing over the title -- now that I have read this -- I think your title is just great and you should keep it.  Another nice addition to the small library you are creating, James.

Thanks for the comments, Bert. Glad to see you thought the characters were improved as well. I think I'm getting the hang of developing them.

At first, I was worried I'd have to change the way the characters find themselves at the monastery after reading your first comment. But then I thought I could use those tough, nasty grapes to my advantage in the same scene.

I suppose I could throw in a car with a bumper sticker or a cross on the mirror to pass the characters' car in order to initiate the God conversation or something to that effect.

I was thinking about incorporating the whole blood-in-the-wine bit but I thought it might be too campy. With this and my last feature length, I tried to push the violence to extremes but still keep it disturbing and realistic as opposed to playing it for laughs. I think blood in the wine might push it over the edge into camp. Then again, there're a few instances that could've done that already. I hope not but if that's the case, so be it. I have no regrets.

I see the next episode of Starbuck Starr is "coming very soon." I'll be sure to read it when it arrives. I was wondering when the next episode would pop up.

And BTW, the two week wait was indeed worth it. At first, I wasn't sure if it was but there were several instances where I knew exactly how something should be phrased or spoken. I'll be taking this approach for the rest of the scripts I write.

James,

This one flowed nicely, although I absolutely hate Bert right now, for beating me to the punch regarding wine grapes vs. produce grapes...:)

Some Spoilers

In the beginning, Jimmy is talking about, from what I gathered, not being able to get into a school, but a few pages later he's referring to the group as grad students.  Did I miss something there?

I think there could be a better term used for Renard than "leader".  I know that's what he is, but I think there could have been something more "monk-like".

I myself, didn't have much of a problem with the way you developed the characters.  I mean, this is a horror flick to a certain extent, right?  Most horror flicks, you're lucky if you even remember a characters name.

I too, found the ending to be a little abrupt, and I think there's somewhere you could go without giving off that "walk off into the sunset" feel to it.  Maybe just a phone call to Mike would do the trick.

My one beef with this, would be lack of a hook.  People have mentioned the pacing, and I think that it's fine considering the character development going on, but I think there needs to be something in those first few pages that REALLY grabs the reader.

Overall, a nice well rounded script.  Just grab the reader early on, and it'll be excellent.

Thanks for the comments, Mike.

About Jimmy's scholarly status, he's a student in the English department of his college. He wants to transfer to the art department but can't because of his grades. Make sense?

I've got enough comments on the ending to convince me to wrap it up less abruptly. I think the abrupt ending worked in my last two scripts but not in this one as this is somewhat a departure in style.

I agree about the lack of a grabber earlier in the script. Opening scenes are somewhat problematic for me since I don't care for the kind of explosive Blade-esque openings that appear in most movies. I prefer to start off with something more subtle so as to better build up to the first major plot point. Sometimes I start off a little too subtle. In the first draft, the opening scene took place in a torture chamber with Francois being tortured offscreen but I felt it was a little too "on the nose" (I believe that's the phrase). I didn't want it to be too obvious that there was something wrong with the monks but I wanted the audience to be thinking about it. I'll try to think of a better opener.

Glad to see someone else thought the characters were well developed. I feel like I accomplished something. It'll be a challenge to do the same thing in my next script within the first 20 pages or so but that's a long ways away to be thinking about. I got three feature length scripts on this site already and I'd like to spend a good amount of time improving them before moving on to something new.

Thanks again for the comments.

this was a pretty good script.  I loved the royalle with cheese line, plus the ren and stimpy references, and the rip on the oscar's and Golden globes(I'm guessing you're not a Brokeback mountain fan).  I think the characters were in depth enough for a horror script.  I liked Marty,  he had the best lines, and francois was ineresting, his story about his famly I thought added some real demention to him.  I think Jimmy and Dana were a bit flat.

I felt it started a little slow, but once things got moving it was pretty exciting.  The whole "Do you believe in God" convorsation felt kinda tact on, I think this would work even better with out it.

I liked the tourture scenes at the end(God I must be a sick bastard), There was some really good gore.

all in all it was a good read.  keep up the good work.

This was a pretty good read. I wanted to know what was going to happen and eagerly continued through it. As with all things, I can't pass up a few comments here and there. Don't want to just butter you up.

The Jacque character who provided the expositional backstory to Renard kind of came out of no where and disappeared into it as well. Might be a better thing if he had a purpose for letting this info out. Perhaps the kids could have been speaking to him about other things and just let slip about the monastery. This would help to improve him as a character rather than just a mouthpiece for someone else's backstory. I mean, it is pretty obvious we're talking about the same person despite the doubts the kids have. Maybe Jacque could be the frenchman filling the glasses and the kids talk to him briefly about something else, even how he came to be serving the wine and that leads into the backstory variously interspersed with the story about Francois. Francois' tale isn't important in this scene since we (the audience) know it already. Jimmy is just relating it to his friends. However, if Jacque is serving wine he knows to come from the monastery and has heard the monks speak of Renard and when the kids comment on their staying at that same monastery, that would be a more appropriate spark to the conversation of Renard than "Excuse me, but I'm a stranger who eavesdropped on your conversation and want to tell you a story that might or might relate to you." By making Jacque more useful, it takes away the "my, that's convenient" factor which is not so dramatic.

Another comment is Jimmy's unbelievable resilience at the end. He gets tortured horribly and yet after a few moments of recovery, he is ready to take on the big guys. We need his weakness to be used against him more. Sure, he'll still win in the end, but it has to be really, really difficult because he is in pain and bits of his flesh have been ripped out and he is likely leaving a blood trail all over the place.

Why is Marty killed? He gives in and says he'll join, but the torture continues. Why? Was he not sincere? Not believed? Luc hard of hearing?

When Renard comments to Francois about his wife dying in the torture chambers, this is a totally different story than Francois told "us" earlier. Perhaps some sort of reaction from him either indicating his regret of this allowance, or shock of perhaps he didn't know...I think the latter would be better. Maybe Renard told him his wife drove off without him, but Renard secretly killed her while he tortured Francois. Francois would want vengeace for a moment, but Renard would still kill him.

I feel like the story need a denouement of some sort. You end with Vincent carrying off Jimmy, but I want to know how this turns out. It's a personal preference, but I hate it when movies just end like this. I mostly enjoyed THX-1138 until the final shot, and I said "WTF?!?! Is that it?" Feel that way here too. I want to know if Jimmy is all right or not. We need to know if his character was improved through this adventure, and that question is never answered. What did he get out of this?

Some character things to think about. You have three main characters who get into their strange situation. Jimmy is your lead, and he should have a need of some sort. I get that perhaps he needs to feel appreciated somehow, since he seems to feel that way. When he goes into the monastery, he finds something there. Appreciation. This leads to his downfall, and that's where the story ends. He beats the monster, but what about his flaw? What did he learn?

Dana and Marty support Jimmy and for the most part do this well enough. They have a God discussion where the three of them reveal a sort of agnosticism of God. The question is how does this lead to their deaths? Obviously, their deaths were beyond their control once they returned to the monastery, but what about their characters made them come back? You've got to find the point where they still had a chance to save their hides and place the big decision moment among them and show why they are going to die, and how Jimmy brought about their deaths by his decisions. I think Jimmy should be designated driver the second day, and return to the monastery even though the others don't want to. They can't stop him because they aren't driving. Their lives are out of their control. Some things to consider when digging back into it. Figure out their characters really well and what they really need out of life. It will help them in the story.

Overall, excellent read, and I wish you the best on future improvements.

Thanks for reading, Drexel and George.

George. For the most part, I agree with what you've said. I'll certainly try to expand upon Jacque's character and I think Jimmy's desire for appreciation is a good idea. I'll try to explore that more in the rewrite.

A few things...

I definitely thought about the effect the torture would have on Jimmy after he's let go. I tried to have him gradually recover over the course of the third act. In the torture chambers, he can just barely walk even with the support of the walls. When Francois comes back into the picture, he's able to regain himself some with Francois' help. He's able to recover some more in the fermenting room then once he reaches the first floor, he's just kind of stumbling everywhere. His confrontations were supposed to be clumsy as well. I somewhat based his actions off what I'd learned in high school about the 19th century New York riots where people were able to escape to safety even after they had been severely beaten because they were being fueled by their instinct to survive. Jimmy is a bit more coherent than those people since he's still able to think and express himself but instinct is definitely playing a part in his actions.

Marty dies because Luc does not hear him giving in. He does hears him say "wait" and hears him say something before trailing off in shock but interprets it as him continuing to resist. That's why he dies.

Renard killed Francois' wife when he was tortured into the sect. He knows this the whole story. Francois tells a different story to the protagonists because at that point, he's still very much under Renard's thumb and won't say anything that'll reveal his plans.

I'm adding an extra scene to the ending. I've heard enough from everyone to know that's what I need to do. In that scene, it's confirmed that Vincent's intentions are good. However, I don't want to have everything spelled out. Meaning I don't want to have some cheesy scene with Jimmy in a hospital and Mike coming to visit him or anything like that. Plus I'd have too many questions to answer at the end like what happens to Mike's car, does Vincent drive it, what's Vincent decide to do with his life, what's he do with the robes if he has nothing else to wear... trivial things that will just make the ending tedious. This new scene confirms that Vincent is leaving the monastery and that Jimmy's probably going to be okay. I think that's enough.

I don't know about Jimmy "learning" something at the end of the story. This is one, possibly the only, convention of "good" screenwriting that I disagree with. Character arcs are fine and something I want to learn how to do more effectively but I don't feel obligated to have a moral to the story. I'd prefer for people to draw their own interpretation from what I write. Just my two cents.

Otherwise, thanks again for the comments. I think the rewrite will be much improved.

P.S. I've been meaning to read The Fempiror Chronicles for some time now. Usually I haven't had the time especially since it's such a big series but my spring break starts at the end of this week so I'll finally have a chance to check it out.

Quoted from James McClung I don't know about Jimmy "learning" something at the end of the story. This is one, possibly the only, convention of "good" screenwriting that I disagree with. Character arcs are fine and something I want to learn how to do more effectively but I don't feel obligated to have a moral to the story. I'd prefer for people to draw their own interpretation from what I write. Just my two cents.

Now, what a character gets out of a story does not necessarily have to be "And the moral is..." The real key is that Jimmy gets something out of the experience. And if Jimmy gets nothing, the audience should. It's not a convention of screenwriting is so much as it's a staple of all writing. When a character begins a journey of any kind, there should be some kind of character development throughout the tale that leaves the character someone different...hence the term "character DEVELOPMENT." Without that development, what's the point of the story? No, it doesn't have to be a moral. Think back to every film you've seen and through the story, the characters tend to change somehow as it progresses. I'd give an example, but I don't know what a good film to use would be...

I get what you're saying, George. There're a lot of things Jimmy could take away from this experience but most of them are negative and possibly life-scarring. I guess the one thing that could change Jimmy for the better would be that he learns not to betray his other instincts just to satisfy his need for appreciation (since I'm planning to tie this need into his reasons for returning to the monastery as it would give his friends more incentive to do so as well). Problem is I'm not sure how I could integrate this into the script without coming off as sappy.

This point of this "staple" is somewhat alien to me since I don't watch films expecting them to have a point. I can see the point of character arcs as it's interesting to watch characters change over the course of the story but characters learning a lesson or taking up some ideal doesn't seem important to me. Nevertheless, I'm always willing to learn. Perhaps I should look into this some concept some more.

Most people don't watch movies to have a point. they are there to entertain. But in order to be satisfied with the entertainment, the characters need to have done something. If that doesn't happen (*cough*most-modern-horror*cough*), then you leave the story feeling cheated. If it does happen, you don't take away the point; you take away that you just watched a good movie. No, oh God please don't do anything sappy. It should definitely be subtle, and yet complete.

I'll give some examples and hope they come across:

In American Beauty, the growth of the lead character is shown when he picks up the picture frame near the end; not a word is spoken, but you just know.

In The Godfather, Michael goes from Marine poster child to the new Don Corleone. Major growth and his not necessarily for the better.

In Lord of the Rings, Frodo wants an adventure, gets it, and learns to appreciate the simple life of the Shire while he's gone only to find it isn't enough after all when he comes back.

In none of these do you get the "moral of the story" but you feel the character's growth through the adventures. That's all you need. Just to know that some growth occurred. For Jimmy, this would likely come out during the climax against Renard somehow, or maybe during a conversation with Francois before they try to leave, or just before Vincent carries him off. Doing it during the denouement is too much.

Thanks George. I'll give it a shot.

Since my last post, I actually thought of a horror movie that had character development of this kind: Alien. At the begining of the film, Riply's character is completely by-the-book and follows all the rules but at the end, she's reckless and ends up blowing up the Nostromo in an attempt to destroy the alien. I know there're other horror movies that have done this as well. Is this the kind of thing you're talking about?

Another example (of character development in a genre film) would be River from the movie Serenity. At the beginning she's a semi-insane prophet with no control over her mind or her powers, and by the end she's confident, powerful, and in control.

Two absolutely perfect examples. Another prime one that I think is just perfect is Will Smith's character from I, Robot. Whatever you think of the movie, his development works admirably. At the beginning, he believes robots are mostly useless and cannot be trusted. During the climax, he is forced to trust a robot and rely on his own robotic implement in order to save the day. Not only that, but he needs to trust a robot to do the one thing that caused his to distrust robots to begin with. It was the development during the story that allowed him to turn around his beliefs and allow him to save the day.

Quoted from Redeemer Another example (of character development in a genre film) would be River from the movie Serenity. At the beginning she's a semi-insane prophet with no control over her mind or her powers, and by the end she's confident, powerful, and in control.

That works too except that's the kind of thing I'm trying to avoid. I'm much more interested in people's degeneration rather than positive evolution. The Hills Have Eyes did this well. I know pretty much every horror movie involves civilized people turning into psycho killers but THHE is one of the only ones that did it in a realistic manner.

Anyway, I think we're getting a little off topic (on a thread about my own script, no less). I'm only contributing because we're talking about some good stuff here.

You can degenerate as well. In War of the Roses, neither side gave in and they both lost. The difference here is the audience got something out of it. The Godfather is also a possible example of degenerative growth. I don't think going from a Marine to a crime boss can be called positive growth. It definitely works both ways. Depends on what you want to do.

Sorry we got off the topic of your script, BTW. Hope this was a useful discussion.

Here goes, I'm writing this as i read..

-Marty seems kind of cliched, as a character - comic relief guy who gets killed first...
lets see if you prove me wrong

-Page 9 - a grape falls directly into Marty's hand? Maybe I read the description wrong...

-Page 15 - Ren and Stimpy are always right...

-Page 28 - By "ectended amount of time" do you mean, a few mins, like three, or like ten minutes? If so, you've got to make this add to the page amount of the script.

-Page 30 ha ha. That would be pretty creepy to be subtely forced by creepy monks.

-Page 33- I'd be quite scared to swear in a monesry (or church or cathedral, or a priest's house, etc)

wow. Just wow. That was...great. Much more gory than I expected. I excepted gothic horror, and I got that, but the last thirty (?) pages really suurrised me.

Best of all, the character were unique, although Marty was kind of cliched.

Second best of all, the gore ACTUALLy made me cringe reading. That must be a good sign.

I kind of felt sorry for Dana when she died. Good sign,

Last of all, I thank you for increasing my fear of religion.

I can't say the stuff about the grapes, I honestly didn't know that.

Thanks for the read, Ben.

I get what you're saying about Marty. He is kind of a typical comic relief archetype. He's also a departure from the kind of characters I tend to use. Most of my characters are artsy/misfit types with strange interests. Jimmy likes cartoons and Dana's got her Euro schtick. These are the kinds of people I'm interested in since I relate to them and most of them are based off people I know. Marty's the closest I've come to a typical college student. Still, I added some things to his personality that set him apart from the archetype. Unlike your typical party animal, Marty's a sharp guy who can get deep if a conversation calls for it and despite the drastic differences between him and Dana, they're friends deep down and I'm quite proud of their "bonding" scenes.

The grape does fall directly into Marty's hand. I did that on purpose. I thought it was an excellent but subtle forshadow. There's a term "windfall" that means an unexpected twist of good luck. The term originates from an apple falling from a tree into someone's hand. The irony, of course, is that the apple falls because it's dead. Unfortunately, I had to get rid of it due to the deal with wine grapes.

Glad the gore made you cringe. I always try to make things nasty.

Thanks for the read.

You could still keep the grape bit in, though. It is good foreshadowing. Like, Marty doesn't know they're different from regular grapes (although, say, Dana does, but let's him go at it anyway) and then gets all disgusted when he tries it. And there's a fine analogy, too: the grapes are all harmless looking on the outside, but quite nasty on the inside. Quite like our killer monk friends?

The grape falling isn't a "windfall" if Marty can't eat it. I think it's better just to leave it out.

Thanks for the suggestion, anyway.

Hey James, just finished reading this, and I have some comments for you. Warning: I’m going to be brutally honest.

*SPOILERS*

What worked:

-You’ve got a decent premise for an horror feature here: a brotherhood of monks who offer their hospitality, but then want you to join them at any cost.

-Nice arena as well; the torch lit chambers and hallways are a nice and creepy place to have your characters running around while playing Hack & Slash with the monks.

-You said you worked hard on your characters, and it shows. You can instantly tell one from another; you avoided having the usual bunch of teens who sound all the same.

-Dialogue between characters flowed naturally.

-It’s clear you took some time to learn proper screenplay format.


What didn’t work:

1)I wasn’t hooked by the opening scene. You tried to open with something creepy and that’s ok, but… What is the opening scene telling to the audience? That someone is screaming, nothing more; we’ve seen that thousands of times. If you’re going to keep this opening, show the audience what’s going on behind that door. Show some monks doing some nasty stuff, although you don’t have to explain why they’re doing that, and keep it a mystery. Give the audience a little more to feel intrigued; someone screaming is not a mystery anymore. 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.


2)The first act is way too long. The first creepy thing that happens to your characters is reaching the forbidden door, and that happens by page 25. Way too late for a 93 page horror feature, IMO. You have to get them there much earlier. The Danas in the audience could enjoy the tour your characters take in the first 25 minutes… but what about the Martys? We should worry more about them because this is an horror movie and the theatre will be packed with Martys. Some suggestions:

.Cut the chit-chat. Friends in real life talk about movies for example, but in “reel” life they only talk about what moves the plot forward or reveal character.
.Nothing happens during their visit to the first winery. Cut that out. You can have someone mention that the winery they visited before was cool or something like that.
.Do we really need Mike in this script? Couldn’t  the car belong to Jimmy or Dana?
.Trim every scene to the bone, don’t show irrelevant stuff. I saw this problem not only in the first act, but in the whole script, and that leads me too…

3)Scene efficiency. I guess you’re familiar with the “Arrive late, leave early” rule. Scenes don’t begin when people arrive, they begin when things get interesting. And they don’t end when people politely said goodbye to each other, they end when there’s anything more to say that’s relevant to the story. I made some notes below in which I show you some examples of scenes that, IMO, could be shorter.

4)Not enough scary/creepy moments which are essential to this genre; they’re the heartbeats of these kind of movies. Once the torture begins, you’re alright, but before we get there your characters only have 2 creepy moments: the forbidden door scene (p.25) and the Jimmy gets locked scene (p.54). You need to come up with some creepy stuff to keep your target audience interested.

5)As I said earlier, format is good, but there are some minor details I think you can improve.

Here are some notes I made while reading the script.


P.1.
“FADE OUT
FADE IN”

This is directing and is frowned upon in spec scripts. You have many of these. I suggest removing all of them (except the first FADE IN and the last FADE OUT, of course). Anyways, if you decide to keep them, watch out the one in the middle of p.53; you wrote it the other way round (FADE IN/FADE OUT).

IMO, you don’t need to describe Jimmy’s exact clothes, just give us an idea of how your characters are dressed if that’s relevant to the plot (elegantly dressed, casually, etc) Trust the producer, he will hire very talented people to choose the right clothes for your characters.

“INSERT: SOMEWHERE IN THE FRENCH COUNTRYSIDE”

You meant SUPER? Anyways, your character’s dialogue in the next scenes give us that information, so maybe you don’t need this.

P.2.
“MIKE (O.S.)”
This would be V.O. Mike is not in the scene. Use O.S. only when the character speaking is present but off camera.

“MIKE (O.S.)
Cool, see you then.”

IMO, this is the last line you need in the exchange between Mike and Jimmy. Right after this, cut to Jimmy reaching the car. The audience will assume that both friends said goodbye and that Jimmy put the cell back in his pocket; no need to show this.


P.8 The first exchange between Jimmy, Marty and Diana had some witty dialogue which had me chucking. But it’s too long; more than 3 pages! Sorry, but you’ve got one of those infamous “talking heads” scene here. Try to trim it down.

P.18
“JIMMY
You speak English?”
Cut it. It’s obvious he does by now.

The Monastery tour: Sorry, but it’s too long. They show them nearly the whole place! If your characters (or the audience) don’t see anything creepy here (besides the forbidden door) you have to trim this scene a lot.


P.23
Vincent tells Renard they have visitors. You don’t need this scene; the audience can assume someone told Renard about the visitors.

P.27
“RENARD
Well?”
Right after that, cut to everyone eating in the dinning room. By seeing the whole bunch there, it’s obvious they said “yes”. Leave early.

Dinning Scene
Another 3 and a half pages of talking heads. Try to shorten it.

P.33
“(both laugh)”
This kind of stuff belongs to action lines, not parenthicals. You’ve got many of these.

P.40
“CUT TO:”
This is not the way to use a transition. Anyways, they’re not used anymore. Instead of CUT TO, you can write: INT. JIMMY´S QUARTERS – LATER
You’ve got many of these.


Jacque´s scene:

Lots of problems here. Many relevant information thrown to the audience in a non-visual/expository dialogue scene. I would consider writing the baptize scene as a Renard´s flashback, if you’re very subtle about the baby’s death it could work. And it would be something very creepy to watch, much more interesting that hearing it from a total stranger. Heck, you could even open the script with that scene, it’s creepy and it reveals a very important moment of one of your main characters.

Whatever you choose to do, don’t make the audience hear all this information from a total stranger who just happens to pass by; they won’t buy it.

After hearing Jacque’s story, they decide to go back to the monastery. Sorry but I don’t buy this. I wouldn’t go back there, and you wouldn’t either! You have to come up with a good excuse for them to return. If you can’t, don’t let them leave. Make one of the monks to sabotage Jimmy’s car, or bring earlier the lockdown scene in p.54

P.49
Anyways, once they decided to go back to the monastery, cut directly to the dinning room. It’s implied that they started the car, drove, etc. I found a couple more of these, but I’ll stop. You get the idea by now.

P.59 “INT. TORTURE CHAMBER – JIMMY”

Very odd slug, try to avoid this. If I get it right, your characters are in different torture chambers. You could number them: INT. TORTURE CHAMBER Nº1, etc.

P.89
“JIMMY
They didn’t accept it! You tortured them! They were afraid! They couldn’t leave!”

It’s hard to buy that Renard alone could enslave all the others. I think you need more Renards to make this believable. There could be 10 or 20 evil monks like Renard. Of course, you would focus on only one of them, but the existence of the others will help the audience believe the whole picture.

P.92
“VINCENT
Vincent... I’m dying”

Maybe it’s Renard talking here?


Well, nothing more to add. Overall, while I belive this script needs some work, I think it´s got potential and you can be proud of this. I hope some of these comments were useful for further rewrites. Good luck.

Thanks for the read, Mr. Z. I appreciate you being "brutally honest." That's what I'm here for. My friends aren't going to be.

Thanks for pointing out the minor formatting errors. That's all going to change. Even the additional FADE IN/FADE OUT's. It is directing, I suppose.

I've already rewritten the scene with Jacque considerably and the opening scene has been scrapped for a new one. However I agree that the story of Renard's past could use some more visuals. I'll try to splice in a few flashback scenes (however not an entire flashback scene; it's supposed to be subtle after all).

The first act is very slow (as is the second IMO) but that's completely diliberate. This is supposed to start off feeling like a gothic thriller before I switch gears to something a little more gutsy (no pun intended). I think the first two acts moving slower than usual strengthens the impact of the third. I agree about a few scenes being trimmed but I don't think I'll be cutting anything out. Yes, there's a lot of "talking head" scenes in this. Again, this is deliberate. Personally, I don't mind characters taking a break from progressing the story to talk about trivial things. It makes them seem more like real people and not just, well, characters. Nevertheless, I'm not one to disgard advice before taking it into consideration so I'll give the script another once over and see if I can trim a few of the scenes down so they're somewhat more manageable.

Thanks again for the read.

I've just submitted a new draft. Amongst the changes are:

1. A new opening.

2. A new ending.

3. A character arc.

4. Re-written 'God discussion.'

5. Re-written 'Jacque scene.'

6. Re-written 'porridge scene.'

7. A few other changes I can't think of off the top of my head. Mostly line and formatting changes.

For those interested: the new draft is up.

good script, you have a great nag for horror scripts James, I think you pay homage to alot of old 70's types which has been done but not as well as this...great read....nice and smooth.

jake

Thanks for the read, Jake. Glad you liked it.

Glad you're planning on reading this as well, Chris. I was planning on reading Marigold myself. I've yet to read anything in the action genre.

I read your script as well and I have to say it is pretty entertaining.  I had a hard time at first wanting to like it because it reminded me so much of the film Hostel, which I hated with a passion.  However, you made this story much more interesting in the fact that the monks had a little more personality to them, rather than the businessmen in Hostel.  

I liked the three personalities of the protagonists, they seemed to mesh together very well.  The pacing was great, I am a big fan of build up horror films in lieu of non-stop killing from beginning to end.  I like to know who is being killed, and I if I should give a damn about them when they are being killed.  

As George said above, the character of Jacque seemed to be wasted.  I think he could have had a bigger impact with his information, but in no way did it take away from your screenplay.

The only real problem I had was Jimmy's Terminator like quality of eating injuries.  I am not looking at the script right now, but if I am correct, he was stabbed in the hip, calf, shoulder, burned on the chest, and lost his Achilles Tendon and was still able to fight back.  That seemed a little ridiculous.  Other than that though, it kept me reading and I give you a lot of credit for that.  You used the same formula as Hostel, but you did something different.  You made it worthwhile.

Great screenplay, James.  
  

Thanks for the read, Guy. I'm glad you liked it despite the Hostel similarities.

I completely understand what you're saying about Jimmy. It is a little unrealistic. His torture stays. I intended for his torture to be as severe as Marty's so people wouldn't think Marty got it worse because he's an atheist. Everything has to be an allegory with some people, you know? So I tried to keep my views on religion as ambiguous as possible. Also, I think it's much more satisfying for a hero to take down a villain after they've been brutalized rather than going in with even odds. I guess a could soften the other stuff a little since Renard could probably overpower Jimmy just as well without hurting him that much.

I'm still not quite sure what to do with Jacque. His role in stronger here than in the last draft but I still get what you're saying.

Thanks again.

i dont know what to say that hasnt already been said...

i really liked this. some of the torture scenes get a little carried away but hey its a horror flick!
Sure the Hostel similariteis are there, but who cares  - no one will remember that lame movie in two years anyway.....

this has way more potential with some further character development

Notes/Review
SPOILERS THROUGHOUT

1: A single toilet flushes IN a dingy public bathroom. Is a 'single' toilet really necessary?  I don't even know if there's anything but a single, but what do I know.

2: I believe that INSERT should be a SUPER.

12: The Brokeback reference...in 5 years nobody is going to know what the hell that means.  Now Ren&Stimpy, now everyone knows them, but Hollywood is making so many unforgettable films that you'd be safer cracking a joke from a film like American Beauty or Gladiator or something.

19: Something seems rushed here.  They're panicked, they're about to leave, Monk asks for their names and without hesitation they tell him.  May want to put some hesitation or an extra line in there.

21: Luc and Francois say shtuff in French.  From what I get, that part probably won't be subtitled because it's actually pointless information for them to say that they're Americans in French.  The audience knows that.  I'd probably just cut those 2 lines and put something in like "Luc and Francois speak in French for a moment."

27: Use an OS for Renard since he's offscreen

39: Renard is asking what they're doing up, but my question is what is he doing up?

52: Renard: WE welcomed you into our home with open arms.

53: HA.  I love Mike's answering machine.

56: An electric pencil sharpener?  There haven't been any signs of electricity in the monestary at all, so how can he work it?  Unless this is some battery powered pencil sharpener which I'm unaware of.

79: His tongue hangs down on his robes like a necktie.  Hahaha.  The story has been moving along at a quick pace.   I didn't realize I was already on page 80.

82: Jimmy took a hell of a beating.  I just don't think he'd be able to get changed after going through something like that.

I read a couple of the other reviews so some of this may be repetitive.  You said that you were going for a slow buildup, and it shows.  The first 50 pages or so made this seem more like a dramatic piece than a horror flick.  In fact, I think this may have worked better as a dramatic piece which I'll get to later.  You need more of a hook in the beginning to get the reader more interested.  For the first act it's basically 3 friends drinking wine and meeting these lonely monks.  I think maybe if you starting with a religious bang, that would raise the interest level, since religious discussions seem to bring out the worst in people.

I compared the characters in this with your "Kiss of the Locust," and I was actually very pleased.  They weren't fantastic, but they did have alot more depth.  I actually think the characters in your shorts are the most enjoyable.  Maybe if you can adapt them to your features then you'd really be getting far.  

The dialogue was kind of extensive at times.  The part where Jimmy is talking about his art skills, he kind of just rambles on about shtuff, and one thing that I felt was incomplete was that his drawing talent didn't come back at any point in the story.  I was kind of expecting that somewhere else.  Another example is where they meet Jacque and he goes on and on about Renard.  Maybe some more buildup when they first meet him, then he can ramble.

And of course the gore.  Around page 55 or 60 the story just took off.  Loved the descriptions of the torture chamber and the torturing process.  I don't know how much of it you could actually film though.  Luc's jaw getting ripped off and "his tongue hanging like a necktie" may not go well with the producers.  I'd love to see it happen, but gore like that is very questionable with today's overly conservative and sensitive audiences.  

Also, Jimmy gets his ass handed to him on practically every page after 60, and here he is getting changed, and moving around, then fighting Renard.  I've never been tortured or anything, but it's just not that believable for someone to be able to move like that after being tortured.  But that's just me.  

Earlier I said this may work better as a dramatic piece.  Well, actually, this is kind of like two stories within one.  You could go down the religious corruption path and turn it into a drama, but you'd have to cut the gore out.  No pun intended.  On the other hand, since this is deliciously gorey, I strongly suggest you add more hooks in the beginning to keep this as a solid horror story.  

So overall I found this story to be very interesting and it did satisfy my gore hunger.  I like how you created this group of monks branched away from the Church and then you did a fantastic job with developing the side of religious corruption.  It could create controversy which is always a good thing.  I think you take two evils here and combine them into something fantastic.

Religion+gore.  How can you go wrong?  I enjoyed the story very much and my only real complaint is the lack of hooks in the beginning.  Otherwise, it was speedy and gruesome.  Well done

My review will probably be short but hopefully helpful.

Right from the start, we get to know the characters a little with the lenghty conversation they are having. It's good, sets the mood a little with the chat about religion.
I really like the setting, the vineyard at the church. There's a horror flick called "The Vineyard" in which a crazed old guy uses his victims blood to make his infamous wine. The idea was pretty promising but the delivery was bad to be kind. I wonder if this might go down the same direction, but actually deliver?

We shall see!

Its so far so good, Renard inviting them to dinner reminded me of the old Dracula movies, particularly Prince Of Darkness. This is a good thing.

The dialouge is also spot on, it's pretty amusing at times and also informal of what the characters are thinking without dragging. What I wouldnt mind seeing is a little more description of the rooms; creating a little more atmosphere. The description you give of the kitchen is good, it's simple effective and you can pretty much picture the scene. IF you could describe the other rooms earlier, like the dining room perhaps and the bedrooms, with that small ammount of detail it will surely benefit.

As soon as Francois begins to let Dana and Jimmy know that he's more or less not allowed to leave, they do not seem to really take in their situation. Although they are not stranded, they already have their suspicions and this would have convinced them a little more its probably not the best place to stay.

After the meeting with Jaque, and the new knowledge on Renard, I would certainly want to be leaving that place. Thankfully, Marty shares my wisdom!

Slight mistake on p 52. I think you mean "We welcomed you..."

The porridge scenario goes on a little. It's poisoned/ drugged and although Jimmy tries to avoid eating it, he ends up doing so. I like the idea of using porridge, but it also seems to take a while for the inevitable to happen.

It's good so far though, it really is at a good pace and the story does not drag at all.

In the torture chamber, Jimmy is shackled down and manages to say the F word five times ina row in different sentences. If I was about to be tortured, I certainly wouldnt be saying "Crikey" but if you maybe just trimmed it a little as it comes across pretty funny but takes away the edge a little. If it was intentional, it was amusing but I think less said would impact a lot more.

The torture scenes make me think that maybe Francois could have revealed unwittingly a scar earlier on? Perhaps he was "persuaded" to join the Monks, and not so willingly after all...Just an idea.

Oh, the Torturer is Francois. Kind of blows my idea away. I wasnt really expecting it, I was expecting him to come in and save the day. It seems predictable now I know but it honestly surprised me so well done for that!

Francois's apparent death, violent and probably warranted was well done with him looking at the locket of his daughter. Nice touch.

Jimmy must be bleeding like a fountain, the ammout of slices he's had is numerous but he keeps going. Glad you recognized this slightly by at least letting him cover up one of his wounds!

A good ending, really well done actually.
I enjoyed reading this James and you wrote it really well, the pace was good and never dropped once it really began. The first part, for me, was the most enjoyable. You had some good characters and a nice setting. Nothing was really rushed and I enjoyed the pace of what was happening. The second part, the torture scenes and the finale were good and well written also.

All the best with this and any future scripts you have planned,

Another great script, James. I especially loved the torture scenes.

Thanks for the reads, guys.

Greg - I agree with most of what you've said, especially about Jimmy's ability to sustain punishment at near the end. A couple people have already hounded me about so that's going to change for sure. I disagree about the Brokeback Mountain bit though. It's a film about gay cowboys (not that there's anything wrong with that :P). At the very least, people will be talking about it for the next five years. And I'm quite certain, I've seen a battery powered pencil sharpener before. Anyway, glad you enjoyed it.

Scoob - Thanks for the review. I'll get around to reading Season of the Devil at some point. I'd like to check out a few of the One Week Challenge entries though and I'm a little busy as it is but I'll get around to it.

Ghost - Thanks for the read.

I can't read it, some weird text is still coming up

James, I finally finished your script *I'm a busy, important person  :P* For the most part it was good.

POSITIVES:

* The dialogue was exellant.

* You really built strong characters with this one, the talk about religon was really good in here.

* Going into this I thought "Oh god pages 1-70 will be a snooze" but read to find exactly the opposite. Good job keeping it going.

* The kill scenes were great, as are all your kills. Good job *weirdo :p*

CONSTRUCTIVE CRITISISM:

* When the group met the monks they just decided to just go with some freaky guys with little discussion about it. Maybe they could drive off after politely declining and their tires go over some spikes or something..shit i dont know.

* Again they just decide to stay with these creepy monks they just met. It needs more discussion about it.

* You need more description about the gothic atmosphere. I just didnt feel it simply because you didnt describe it enough.

* Jimmy's weird ability to be completely fucked beyond repair and still fight is a lie. It bothered me that he had his achelies *i cant spell* tendon torn out and could even move. If that was me i'd been crying in pain on the floor like a little bitch.

Thats about it. It was a damn good read and obviously well polished. Congrats.

*** 1/2 out of *****

*yes i changed it to five stars...its easier that way.*

Hey James,

As promised - I've read House of God and written a review. Sorry for the delay, I'm having lots of things due for school (end of year), and it is hard for me to get through a feature length because of it.

Anyway, I liked it. The first half is a little slow and boring, but I see you already clarified that on the first post of this thread - but you've definately got the atmosphere right on, which is great.

The first half, I think, is the build-up of the characters. The only problem is, the main characters need to be a it more explained. But, as mentioned by Redeemer, the Francois was well planned out - I think you got the most out of his character - but maybe a little more about his wife and daughter could have been in there.

The dialouge was great, one of the best parts. This adds to the atmosphere, which is a key for a gothic horror script such as this.

Ha! And the torture sequences! The first half starts a bit slow, and then WHAM! Pieces of flesh flying all over the place! You put quite a few gore references in this, and also limited yourself - and this limit was perfect. Any more and it would've been a bit too much, less and it wouldn't have captured a shock effect. Without these parts, the screenplay would be a bit boring.

The formatting was nice. A few mistakes here and there, but nothing much. It also looks great transferred into PDF.

Anyway, good job with this. The stories and characters were well planned, nethertheless some flaws - which could be fixed easily.

I hope this review was of some use to you - and sorry again for the delays.

Curse! =]

Thanks for the review, Curse. Glad you liked it. Expect a review for #747 later today.

The reason I have never been to big a fan of the horror genre is that most of the movies in it can become so unrealistic taking many unbelievable liberties.  Unfortunately, your script was no exception,  of course, you can easily take care of these and get your script back on track, of course you don’t have to, because many people wouldn’t notice or care, and would just be enthralled by the gore and the action (Which was definitely, and I’m sure you have tons for that).

If you do want to fix up the stuff that is unbelievable (which I think you should) here are the major problems I found:  

1.The kids need further motivation to stay at the creepy monastery for dinner, and tons more to spend the night.  No one would spend the night at a creepy monastery for culture.  I know it is cliché, but perhaps a flat tire?  Then when they are in Lione and are contemplating going back, a promise is not enough motivation either, perhaps one of them accidentally left something important there, and since they are going back anyway they might as well spend the night.

2.Very little torture will make someone talk.  The kids would say they would join at the first twinge of pain.  Perhaps you could have them agree, but have the torturers no that they are lying and continue to torture them.  Ever read Orwell’s 1984?  There is a torture scene where someone (won’t ruin it for the non-reader) tortures Winston.  He admits to anything they want him to, but they continue to torture because they know he is lying.  Maybe you could model it after this.

3.Jimmy’s capabilities after being tortured are unreal.  If you have him tortured less, or differently, this won’t be a problem, but after that much loss of blood, he could not do nearly as much as he did.

Alright, if you fix those, and polish the spelling (I didn’t find any, but I’m sure there’s at least one), Grammar (places where you probably wrote one thing, and decided to change it and accidentally repeated a word or screwed up the tense) and format (adding or subtracting stuff would throw off your spacing), you’ve got a grade A horror script!

-Tyler
PS- sorry for being sort of late!

Thanks for the review, Tyler.

Not sure what to make of your first comment. I thought I was in pretty good shape in regards to the motivations of the characters staying at the monastery. 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). In staying, they don't have to spend their precious Euros on a hotel either. Also, I hate to bring up Hostel again (as the similarities between it and my own script are an unhappy coincidence) but real world backpackers commonly stay at hostels (real hostels, not Eli Roth hostels), which are essentially abandoned warehouses full of beds and shady roommates who could easily screw you over in more ways than one in the middle of the night. If real people stay at places like these, I don't see any problem with these characters staying with seemingly benevolent monks.

The second return was a little complicated at first but I think I got that covered as well. First off, Dana doesn't even believe the story and she's the one driving the car. Jimmy also finds in the monks what he doesn't find in his friends (appreciation), which is why he decides to return (thanks to George Willson for this bit ;)).

Your second comment is a bit more complicated but an excellent point, one I toiled over for some time while writing the script. With both Jimmy and Marty, I figured they'd be so overwhelmed by panic, pain, or impending shock initially that they wouldn't know what to say to their torturers to get them to stop. Also, with Marty, I tried to convey that he was somewhat confused as to why he was being tortured at all. I also figured they'd try to talk their way at least once before giving in. Still, your point is a solid one. Perhaps all this isn't enough to be realistic. I'll think about how to handle this one. One problem, however, is that if Jimmy even lied about joining, the torture would stop immediately since it's Francois who's doing it and who would stop even if he knew Jimmy was lying just because he doesn't want to torture him at all.

As for your last comment, you're completely right. I've already gotten a lot of comments about the aftermath of Jimmy's torture and have made a lot of changes already.

Thanks again for the read.

Any other takers? I'm pretty close to a hot thread ;D.

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! ;D