All Reviews

I read once that when you write a script you have to please 3 groups of people before the script is considered a success. Some would argue that you really only have to please yourself, but that's not true if you're looking for a significant audience. That's really what we're all after here really, is to find a significant audience for a piece of work and to make some money.

So you ask yourself, is this a film people will want to pay to see? And more to the point, is this a film A LOT of people would pay to see?

Back to those 3 groups, as a way to simplify that question down to steps, I think about pleasing these groups in the following order:

1. The READER of the script.

You want people to like the script. You want to write it with quick fast prose that eases the reading. These readers have to dig through tons of manuscripts and so any excuse to drop the script into the slush file is taken. Bad grammer, bad format, long boring passages.

That being said, I think your script "Whodidit?" nails this first group successfully. I LOVED this script as a reader...it had good quick description, fast paced and interesting dialogue and fun characters. You got to the meat of the story right from page one and your grammer, spelling and format is just about perfect. Home run, so far. I've read a lot of terrible scripts in my time, this is not one of them. From the get go, 5 pages in, I know...this guy knows what he's doing. After that I can breath easy and just enjoy the ride. Very EASY, FUN read.

Now, if this first step is successful the reader will pass this on to the next group...

2. The FILMMAKER.

This is the next important group to please, because this is where the writer initially gets paid. If a filmmaker reads the script and likes it whammo blammo, they get behind it and shoot the film. (Obviously, I'm over simplifying this step, but for the sake of the 3 group scenario, just go with me) Let's look at the script from the filmmaker point of view. They aren't looking for just a quick fun read. If they are like me, they are an independent low budget filmmaker looking for a script that's going to be interesting but easy to shoot, meaning inexpensive. That translates to few characters, few locations, no explosions...

As a filmmaker, I LOVED this script even more. After reading this I was dying to make this film. It would be fun, quick and inexpensive. Great characters, that were all unique and the dialogue clicks by at a pace that would make Howard Hawks proud. It crackles with personality and keeps the story moving. A low budget film with virtually one location can be very expensive, look at more recent films, Buried and Open Water. Both were done very successfully. Of course, there's 12 Angry Men...

In the age of MTV and Da Vinci Code (strange pairing I know) I think the script effectively switches scenes back and forth without staying in any one scene for too long and there are no lengthy monologues to lull anyone to sleep.

My favorite scene by the way was on page 22. Harry says, "Yeah, whatever. They got naked and made funny noises. You do the math." I laughed out loud. Then down the page he says, "What happened to my good cop? I got no good cop now?" I laughed again! I can go through reams of scripts and not laugh once, and you got me twice on one page... There's also a good film noir moment when the bad cop repeats, " I'll drop you down a flight of stairs for a month."

Step 2, in my eyes, successfull! You made me want to make the film right now, damn it...so good job, so far, on to the next group...

3. The Audience of the film (viewer).

Now this is a pretty important group and we want this group to be the biggest of the three groups, so that everyone involved with making your script into a film makes money...so they come back and want your next script.

As an audience for the film, this is where it gets subjective...this film is in the vein of a great Agatha Christie or Sherlock Holmes (more Agatha cause they solve the case through the interrogations and not through science, so maybe Perry Mason is more appropriate), I found that I was your target audience again! I LOVE Agatha Christie and Perry Mason so, I was there all the way. Now for someone looking for an adventure around the world shootups in Paris and all that, this wouldn't be your cup of tea.

I could appreciate the simplicity of this piece, One room, many suspects and all that. I really dug the atmosphere of the interrogations and never seeing the faces of Good Cop or Bad Cop. For crying out loud, if someone could make a movie with Ryan Reynolds in a box for 2 hours then this movie is a shoo in.

So Group 3 is successful in my eyes. This was my cup of tea.

Although, I thought it would have been hilarious if the Tax Woman was the culprit, with all the implications of Death and Taxes and all that. I did figure it our from the introduction of the (Deleated due to spoiler)...reminded me of A.A. Milnes "Red House Mystery" right from the start. On page 32 I thought the cop was trying to trap him by the "But Philip found out" line but realized that you meant to write "Van" instead of Philip. But even figuring it out early didn't bother me because I read a ton of mysteries...like I said it's my cup of tea.

I loved the whole Pam-Polly exchange in splitscreen. That was great stuff.

Anyway this is becoming a book...so I hope this review has been helpful. Being a part of all 3 groups, I have to say, I enjoyed this script very much.

First off, the pace is really perfect. The momentum of the story kept me reading and I never felt bored or put off, which is great for getting people to enjoy your story.

The dialogue is excellent and the characters are all really fun to read and have their own personalities. The only thing I'd agree with some of the other reviewers on is the Cops start to blend together after about the midpoint.

Since the good cop in most of these stories is generally more of the vein of "just trying to get the answers", I'd say you could probably sprinkle in some more of the Bad Cop being abrasive or threatening. Early on he has some funny things to say, but after a while it felt like he wasn't being as pushy or snarky.

Speaking of funny, some really excellent comedic moments and funny pieces of dialogue.

The other thing I would say is that I did end up figuring out what was going on about halfway through. This actually didn't diminish my enjoyment of the script, but I think maybe when they are interrogating Nancy the second time, the stuff about Van saying his problems are going away gives it away too much. The cocaine stuff is perfect and sets in the right amount of doubt and clues, but maybe if you can somehow restructure the way Nancy tells this clue it might be not as obvious. And to be honest, if I was watching and hearing this scene, I'd probably not make the connection like I did when I read it. But just my two cents on that.

All in all, really enjoyable! I'd definitely watch this movie.

A well written story built around the interrogation of possible suspects. All the suspects have plausible motivations for killing Van, each with their own personalities that sets them apart. And their combined testimonies paint a well rounded picture of Van. Very easy to follow. Great dialogue for the suspects.

SOME ISSUES

- The Miranda Rights being read to Nancy in the beginning seemed out of place and awkward. Is it a scare tactic? They trying to trap her? They read her her rights, then she asks, smartly, if she is being arrested, and they ask her why they would arrest her. Did she kill Van?

I keep playing the loop of logic in my head: Read her her rights, see if she confesses. She asks if she's being arrested. They ask why they would arrest her, and if she killed Van. She says she didn't. The cop's plan is immediately foiled.

I keep thinking about this, about the cops coming up with the brilliant scheme beforehand, and when she doesn't bend, they're both thinking, "Drats!" I can see no other reason why they would read her her rights like that. They're not arresting her. She's a suspect, but I didn't think the police would whip out the Miranda Rights until they had something credible to charge a suspect with. If the cops want answers, why they telling her she has the right to remain silent? Don't they want her to talk? Don't they want answers? Right at the beginning, the intelligence of the cops are put into question.

- Which brings me to, what I thought, were the two most neglected characters in the script, the Good Cop and Bad Cop. They seemed to have their roles in the beginning, but about halfway through the script their personalities weren't nearly as strong. Much of their dialogue was generic questions or accusations.

Here's an exchange between Nancy and the cops, focusing only on the cops.

BAD COP (O.S.)
Tell us what happened.

GOOD COP (O.S.)
You need a drink of water?

BAD COP (O.S.)
That was your voice, Nancy. Was that rape?

BAD COP (O.S.)
Why'd you lie to us?

GOOD COP
Nancy, you told us before that you went into the apartment at nine thirty.

GOOD COP
You called nine-one-one at nine thirty two, Nancy. You said you walked into the apartment a couple minutes before.

BAD COP
What you forgot to tell us, Nancy, is that you went up to the apartment at seven o'clock.

BAD COP
Why'd you leave?

GOOD COP
Whenja leave?

GOOD COP (O.S.)
How long where you gone?

BAD COP (O.S.)
How much coke did you do?

BAD COP
How much cocaine did you snort up your pretty little nose?

BAD COP
We know Van bought cocaine and there's no cocaine in his body and there's no cocaine in his apartment, which means the cocaine was for you, Nancy.

GOOD COP
Is that why you passed out?

GOOD COP (O.S.)
He didn't pay his taxes.

GOOD COP (O.S.)
The I.R.S. was about to arrest him. He was scared.

GOOD COP (O.S.)
That's what he said? "After tonight, my problems are going away?"

BAD COP (O.S.)
So he was celebrating with cocaine?

GOOD COP (O.S.)
When was this?

GOOD COP (O.S.)
Was he naked when you left?

GOOD COP (O.S.)
Where were his clothes?

GOOD COP (O.S.)
What was he wearing before?

BAD COP (O.S.)
What happened to the money, Nancy?

BAD COP (O.S.)
The money in the sock.

GOOD COP (O.S.)
You know about the money?

GOOD COP (O.S.)
The money's gone, Nancy.

BAD COP (O.S.)
You take it?

GOOD COP (O.S.)
Nancy, you got a receipt from the art store?

BAD COP (O.S.)
How was Van going to take care of his IRS problem?

BAD COP (O.S.)
He was going to bribe somebody? Is that what you're saying?

BAD COP (O.S.)
So he's going to bribe some rogue IRS agent.

GOOD COP (O.S.)
Only, the agent decides to kill Johnson, and keep the money.

BAD COP (O.S.)
Is that your story, Nancy?

A good line of questioning that drives the story forward, but the dialogue (with the exception of Bad Cop saying "pretty little nose."), could be interchanged between the two. There's nothing distinguishing between them. So much so, that I stopped caring who was the good cop and who was the bad cop.

Maybe you didn't want to focus on the cops? I don't know. But their presence takes up a huge chunk of the script. Giving them their own personalities by what they say could add another layer of interest to the script.

- The IRS agent. I didn't put two and two together until the agent showed up. I was enthralled by the story, keeping the clues in the back of my head, and nothing was really adding up until page 82. Flora's presence seemed so out of place. Why would the cops interrogate her? Then it dawned on me that Van owed money, he had a twin brother, the body had its eyes poked out...

From that page forward it was smooth sailing. The pieces fell into place.

The thing about introducing Flora, though, is that she is unnecessary. She draws attention to Van's money problems, something I already knew, so much so that dwelling on it seemed like a flashing red light over the rest of the script, saying, "Look! This is a major clue! Remember this!"

Also, I did not believe the cops would treat the IRS agent as a suspect. The cops were the ones who theorized an agent might be dirty and Philip recalled a conversation he had with Van about the IRS stealing his paintings, maybe. Not a lot to go on. Asking where she was, why she was in town a few days early seemed far fetched and adds nothing to the overall story. She has a scene and then is gone. If you took her out of the overall equation, you would lose nothing, in my opinion.

- The anticlimax.

The eye patch. Left eye, right eye! - Dead giveaway. And I only had to wonder, are those cops so thick headed to not notice the difference? If you take the whole "patch on the wrong eye" out, I don't think you'd lose anything.

The polygraph. It goes on for 15 pages. Having been subjected to a polygraph once, it's strictly limited to yes or no answers. Using it as a device to get answers or to give reminders to the reader is a bit of a cheat, and ultimately deflates tension from the story. The polygraph scenes can be trimmed down considerably. Perhaps if you tightened up those scenes, sticking to the crucial questions for the plot, it may serve to keep the tension going.

- The omission of evidence. I'm pretty sure the medical examiner gets finger prints from dead bodies as a part of their protocol. Wouldn't they have discovered that the majority of the prints around the apartment did not belong to the dead body, and that those prints actually belonged to "Philip"? The cops would say to "Philip", "Hey! For some reason, there are no prints to be found from the dead body in the apartment. We have your prints and we're gonna see if they match those found around the apartment!" Gah!

- A couple errors.

Pg 11) INT. LIVING ROOM -- NIGHT - Is this scene supposed to be taking place in the interrogation room?

Pg 33) GOOD COP But Philip found out.- I think they should be talking about Van finding out.

- The end came rather abruptly, but for this type of script, you don't want to play your hand until the very end, so I thought it suitable.

- As a suggestion: I followed the script easily enough, but I was wondering if maybe a setup in the beginning might be helpful. Maybe the two cops talking about the murder and their suspects just before Nancy is brought in. Something to anchor down the plot and establish the type of movie an audience is getting into right from the get-go. Not sure, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

- All in all, an enjoyable script that was easy and quick to read.