Jim Lion (West Hollywood)

Okay, I think the humor here is hilarious, and only rarely falls flat (mostly in the third act, when the tone should shift a little). This is the sort of script that looks risky to the casual reader, I suspect, but nevertheless it's also the sort of script that can catapult an actor into A or near A-list status. For Jason Statham, it's right up his alley. He'd be playing to his base if he took this job.

That said, the opening scene doesn't work very well because of one simple error. The diner in which the initial hit takes place feels deserted. Empty. It should be a crowded place. Packed with people. Make this change and it suddenly feels right.

In a few of the early scenes, the characters spend to much time saying hello. Unless the hello has subtext (these don't), don't bother. Cut them out and jump into the conversation without it. Also, and this is my last gripe about the way the story starts, I think the idea of a "quick" hit job to a professional hitman doesn't ring true. I doubt there's any such thing as a "quick" hit job to a pro. To a common thug, maybe.

Up until the point when Nick gets assigned as the ride-along to Lou, the characters frankly felt generic. Here's the thing. The script works as humor precisely because the characters are generic. Nevertheless, in these opening pages, you need a little more oomph to show us something more about these characters. Particularly Nick. Perhaps the mob boss can bitch and moan about what a pain-in-the-ass it is to have to do a favor for his nephew. Set Nick up a little better, since he's so crucial to the story. Give him more of a back story.

It might help to play up the whole rushing against the clock to pay the babysitter angle a little more. It's funny for a hitman to worry about this, and it would give a little more impetus to the first act.

Oh, um, when Nick pukes it IS a little out of character (since he's really a pro) and it also would leave DNA evidence for the cops.

Once we get past some of the problems with getting this thing started, it really sings. I had at least four laugh-out-loud moments, and that's a new record for me. In a way, this things screams "independent movie" that gets made on a budget and breaks wide into a general release hit. A little like "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels".

I think we need a clearer idea (particularly during the long second act) about what Lou cares about most.

I think Lou should know more about Tony's regular haunts. You know, where does he like to hang out. He should check out those places first, and then, when he comes up empty, that's when he should ask around and dig deeper for the secret hideout.

When Lou goes into his own apartment he says, "anybody here?" I should think at this point he'd care more about his daughter, and would call out her name.

The movie quote gag runs dry after the first time. It's a little too self-conscious. You can fix this easily. Make it a character flaw for Lou. He has no real life of his own, so he channels movie quotes as a way to adjust. This makes him a little pathetic, but that's the whole point.

Question: why does Nick pretend to be an amateur after Lou has already concluded he's a professional killer? Example - Nick: Lou, what do I do? Lou: How about shoot them? Nick: Okay.

On page 50, Nick says, "I gotta stick to the head shots." But he's talking to himself. I don't think this plays well. Perhaps if he said something funny to the guard...

The same thing happens when Lou comes across a muscle-man. He says "Seriously?" but is it to himself or the enemy. I've seen this joke so many times, in so many ways, going back to the first Indiana Jones movie, that I think you need something fresher here.

Not sure about Nick convincing the female guard (Tony's daughter) to fight him mano-a-mano. It seems a little contrived. Fortunately he gets his ass kicked anyway, so it works in the end. If she's so tough, maybe she never has a gun? Maybe Nick throws the knife at her, and she catches it, then comes after him bare-handed. I'm just saying it's something to consider.

When Lou traps Tony, why doesn't Tony kill him right away? He needs a better motivation, or less opportunity to kill Lou, IMO.

The line, "Let's get out of here," is probably the most overused bad line in movie history. It's so old and overused that it's actually made it onto a few trivia questions as the answer to the question, "What is the most overused bad line in movie history." Try to think of something better.

When the tables are turned, why doesn't Lou kill Tony when he has the chance?

Final gripe: Lou wasn't present when Nick whispered something in his daughter's ear, so Nick cannot credibly refer to it when he reveals himself to Lou. You'd be better off with some combination of a flashback reminder of the original whisper scene, and by putting Lou in the room when it happens.

PS On page 61 Lou talks to himself again. I don't think that's working here.

I know there's a lot of recommendations to change something or other in your script. Don't take it the wrong way. I love the story and the characters and the humor.

This script has numerous little problems of execution, but overall it keeps on pumping. I think you have to like historical stuff to go for this one, but I bought into it entirely and was never disappointed. Just a little disgusted when all the children died. Didn't see it coming. I like your characters, particularly Chester, who seems like a clever combination of Igor (from Frankenstein) and Gollum (from LOTR). The Rat Catcher and Burgermeister also have good subtext.

Here's a few tactical things I think need to be addressed:

The transition from Friar Kristoff as an old man, and then into the dream sequence and his days as a young man isn't clear enough. IMO you need a cleaner, clearer way to transition directly from old Kristoff to young Kristoff so we know we're visiting the past. His past. I didn't pick up on this until around page 70. Perhaps if you also did something to develop his relationship with young Peter in the opening scenes you could find a way to work this in a better transition.

There are some problems with changing verb tenses from present to past within individual paragraphs, or from one sentence to the next. You should do a pass just to check for and fix this stuff.

The script mentions that the rats of Hamelin had been bothering the town for a year, yet I was under the impression the Rat Catcher had just arrived. You're telling, not showing with this bit of information, and it doesn't matter to the story. I'd drop it, or shorten the time frame.

As to the Old Bog Witch - she's interesting, but I think you should introduce her earlier. Perhaps she smells the villainous Rat Catcher when he arrives, or from her perch in the nearby woods, and therefore knows that evil is afoot. This way we suspect something, and when she appears around page 20 it doesn't come as a complete surprise.

At one point the Rat Catcher says that he never lies. Since he's possessed by the devil, and the devil is the "father of lies", one would think this claim is itself a lie, as it should be because he always lies. But if he admitted he always lies, he'd be telling the truth, and thus not always lying. But if he's not always lying, then the statement that he always lies is actually a lie. It could go in circles like this and drive someone nuts. I thought you could have done more with this, but then again it may interrupt the flow to dwell on clever conundrums.

On page 35 Chester starts to hit the rat cages, and then a few lines later he starts to hit the rat cages. Really? Twice? This is probably one of those artifacts that appear after a rewrite when you didn't catch every little thing that had to be changed. Also on page 36, the description of Chester and the rats gets repetitive. There should be some development in the conflict between Chester and the rats, or perhaps some escalation of the level of agitation in the animals.

On page 49, when the thugs beat each other to death you gave away the result a little too soon. You told us they were beating each other to death before they had actually done so. I would suggest finding a better way to describe this action so the reveal when the smoke clears comes with some dramatic surprise.

That's about it. Overall a good job. I'd make a point of watching this movie if I had the chance. I'd want to make it if I had the money.

This one feels like a first draft. I suspect you enjoy assembling the logistics of a story - determining who lives where, who goes where, who they meet, etcetera. The script spends an inordinate amount of time paying attention to these details, and when the characters talk they talk about these things. Some writers also dislike conflict (in real life) and so they avoid writing about it. In this script every character is unfailingly polite. Everyone says hello and goodbye. Everyone tells us where they're going and what they're about to do, and so on and so on. Even the slightest hint of conflict is quickly dispatched from the story, so it ends up reading like a logistics plan, or the way someone might block out a stage play.

It's not enough to sustain reader interest, but you can build on it. My first recommendation - condense everything to twenty pages, because you almost have enough for a first act here. After you do this, try to think about subtext. Get rid of all the on-the-nose dialogue. You have only one scene with any real, identifiable subtext - the day after the night Kristi and Mike get drunk and almost have sex. The awkwardness in that scene felt real. Most of the rest of the scenes in the whole script feel like the mundane stuff of life that real people do when they're busy making other plans. Since we get no sense of those other plans from the script, we're left with the mundane.

A few technical observations. Try to avoid the passive voice, and reduce the emphasis on progressive. In the first case, this means try not to use the verb "is" and in the second, try to reduce the number of sentences that start with words that end in "ing". When first introducing characters capitalize their NAME (30) and put their age in brackets. Use only one additional sentence for character description. We don't need all the minutiae on what people do from moment to moment. Simpler, broader strokes would improve the flow of the script. As a general rule with any dialogue - enter late and leave early. We rarely need to hear anybody say hello or goodbye unless you want to bring out something dramatic in a first meeting, such as when a character meets his girlfriend's parents for the first time, for instance.

I think in reworking this script, and focusing on dialogue and subtext, you need to first give every character a goal and make sure these goals are all different, and figure out what stands in the way of each goal. With all the logistics out of the way, your (apparently) natural inclination to focus on this stuff can evolve toward more compelling story-telling. One more note - don't tell us what anyone is thinking. You can tell us what they're feeling, but only if we can visualize it.

From the start I felt myself drawn into the darkness of this script, and at times kept on the edge of my seat. It all feels authentic and uncontrived. The writer really knows what he's doing with this kind of material.

A few of the clues were easy to figure out, and so it felt a little predictable to have to wait for the reveal. Like when the killer left Bible verses written in blood, or carved on the victim's bodies. Given the use of crucifixes for the killings, that was an obvious clue, and I felt at the time that the characters should have known it right away. Also, the moment Devon got trapped in the old shack I guessed immediately that the "Man" was Billy. Don't know if I've been around too long and seen too many movies. Perhaps it would not be as obvious to your casual 20-something moviegoer.

One change I would suggest - the initial scene between Devon and Marley at the church didn't add anything to the progression of the story at that point. I understand you need to establish a relationship with Marley, but I felt like more had to happen to justify that first scene.

There were a number of spelling and grammar errors. What exactly is a stalicyte? It reads like a mispellling of stalagtite or stalagmite. Also, you used the wrong tense for words in many sentences. Like this one: "Marley is lay, limp and stunned, sweating." I should be something more like: "Marley lies, limp and stunned, sweating." There were a number of examples like this. Also "pughes" should be spelled "pews".

Overall, I think you just need to find the right producer. You could almost take this script and go right into production with it tomorrow. The real question here - is it too dark? Does it need a more redemptive ending? It all depends. This movie could work as well as "Saw" did, but most moviegoers want to the chance for a healing to take place, even if it results in a missed opportunity. IMO your ending lacks this one crucial element. Find a way to work it in, and you get five stars (for what its worth).