H. Daniel (SC)

I tend to do a lot of point-by-point reviews, but a) don't have time today, and b) you clearly know how to write, so I trust you to comb through for the grammar/format issues.
This is the first genre or YA script I've seen here that could really work without major changes. I agree with a couple other reviews that there's too much direction/blocking. Leave that to the folks that actually MAKE the film. Cut everything you can cut and still provide enough context for people to follow. Also simplify language in the stage directions. I tend to do the same thing, but that's one point just about everyone makes. Less is more, in terms of directions.
Dialogue: very good, but not great. A few "Mighty Morphin" groaners in there. But kids like that kind of stuff, so I don't know.
You've got a lot to work with. I would think about giving each character a bit more personality--something that makes each of them identifiable as an individual, as well as quirks and qualities that kids will relate to.
Keep developing. I dig it.

I'm going to preface this as I should preface each of my reviews, by asking that you take NONE of this personally. As someone who takes reviews personally, I know how hard it is, but keep in mind I know how hard you must have worked, and what appears below is an attempt on my part to give you helpful feedback, rather than a useless pat on the back for a job well done. I wish we didn't have to rate, but we do, so I should also point out that I've yet to give anyone five stars, and just about everyone gets three. So there you go. With that in mind, read on, if you'd like.
First, the good: I think there's a concept that could be successful in here. It's a neat little twist on the switcheroo plot, and the addition of the whole football/soccer thing is a nice touch. There are a few particular moments that really work, in terms of humor, but I really do think the script needs an overhaul, and it has to do with general tone, and your commitment to setting a mood and sticking to it. But I'll get to why I think this is in a moment.
I think the whole “miracle drug” that makes athletes twice as good could work, but needs tweaking. I get why the coaches would be interested, but the schools? I’m not sure a school would sign up for their kids to be guinea pigs, even for a million bucks. And if they’re doing it without the schools knowing, why give the schools anything at all? It would make a lot more sense if the coaches were blackmailed into it, or it was a million for each of them. Regardless, it seemed like a strange setup. But audiences are generally happy to overlook a weak central conceit, if the specifics work in relation to it. (Take practically the entire romantic comedy genre, for instance.) Then again, the whole "exchanging lives" conceit seems to be a stretch, too.
BUT the further I read, the more I realized (hopefully correctly) that this is meant to be a kind of "hyper-stylized reality" flick, a la Tarantino. Which brings me back to execution.
My big, global suggestion is this: you need to decide if you want this to be "something that might--just might--happen" or "something that could never happen, but what if it did?" There seems to be a fine line between these, but the answer is going to dictate how I would advise moving on from here, because right now, it seems to go back and forth, and for it to work, you have to do a line-by-line rewrite with the direction you choose firmly in mind.
In short, as it stands now, there is way too much zaniness for it to be remotely plausible that this would happen. But there's too much that would be boring or unnecessary if you want this to be something that takes place in some kind of heightened reality (again, thinking of Tarantino here).
It was tough to read, because I kept wanting to (and do, below) point out things that were implausible, and would be jarring if this is supposed to be realistic. But it's just not out-there enough to be truly entertaining in its sheer ridiculousness. Just my thoughts.
Below, I've made some general notes, followed by some thoughts about specific scenes and/or lines. Hope this helps.
*General (Hopefully Helpful) Plot notes
A lot of this seems like the strangest episode of Wife-Swap ever. Not sure if that was what you were going for, but it kind of hit me over the head. Repressed, proper English family (but with lots of love). Kooky, cussing American family (but with lots of love). Kind of obvious. Although I did like some of the American/British differences. They're just kind of cookie-cutter. Again: fine if you're going for over-the-top, which would call for caricatures. Not so good if you're shooting for sympathetic, round characters.
The boys have their strong points and weak points, but at least they seem like you had ideas of them as actual people on your mind. The girls, though, all seem like total stock characters. They also all seem completely, totally, and utterly sex-crazed. No particular line I’m thinking of, here. It’s just that their only function seems to be as eager receptacles for the boys’ fluids.
The Royal Family, in my opinion, doesn’t belong, and all the subplots involving them (including the choir bits) add nothing, and stick out. I’d cut any and all reference, including the little sister’s obsession.
Simon is an interesting touch. I like his presence, and what you end up doing with him. (Although you end up using his “transformation” to further reinforce the stereotype that the only way he can get over his issues with loss/food is through surgery, or an imaginary pill, or athletic prowess.) But Vinny is just TOO cruel to him. You miss a great chance for Vinny to get to know him and develop sympathy for him. Even if you end up going the “hyper-reality” route, there’s no reason you can’t do this. Just a suggestion. It would make things rounder, and humanize Vinny and Simon both.
The limo drivers…have they met? What purpose do they serve? Has someone slipped something into the water? How would they still have their jobs at the end? Their presence, as far as I can tell, serves only one purpose: to remind the viewer this is all taking place in some sort of sex-crazed alternate reality.
Which brings me to my last point, which I also mention a number of times below. This whole script has a really pronounced preoccupation with sex. And it seems to be a kind of unhealthy, sub-adolescent , preoccupation, to boot. There’s a LOT of homophobia (and/or homoeroticism, depending on how you handled it) for a movie not really about homosexuality in any significant way. And again, all the girls seem to serve only one purpose: to alternately tease, lust after, and/or indulge these sex-crazed boys. It’s all just...too much. In my opinion, it’s WAY too much. But I think it’s overboard, even for a movie pitched at sex-crazed teenagers. It’s distracting and gets in the way.
I don’t advise much on formatting or presentation, since I’m no expert, but: you use a lot of flowery (or just confusing) language in your scene descriptions. Everything I’ve heard/read says to say only what’s necessary for the director and actors. If you can’t see it or hear it, and it’s not absolutely necessary, cut it. Example: tone down the flowery language. Words like "humanity-mover" "hoards" "recoil" "mince-meat" "valuable assets." Some of them (“recoil,” as often as not) don’t even seem to be used correctly. Again: if you can’t see or hear it, CUT it. I come to screenwriting from a background in prose/fiction, so I tend to do the same thing. It’s hard to get used to, but it makes sense.
Watch slang. "Package" for genitals, for instance, could be a lot clearer. The main thing (outside of dialogue) is clarity, not your way with language. Be clear. Just a thought. In American football, they play on "fields" not "pitches."
"Molest" is used to describe players congratulating each other. Change this. "Molest" is something criminals do to small children. "Hug" or simply "congratulate."
Apostrophes do not go before the "s" if it's plural. p. 10 "curtain's covering these windows" should be "curtains covering these windows." Elsewhere, too.
Finally: what the Hell is a "scooby-snack," in the context of your film? You use the term often, and without introducing it, but it seems to be some kind of inside-joke. If I can’t google it and have it come up as the first match, you need to define it. Honestly, since it doesn’t actually appear in the dialogue, I’d remove it. You don’t need it, and it’s just superfluous.
*Nitpicking – keep in mind that I started reading expecting it to be an “it could happen” script. So a couple of the specifics (especially early) might not apply. But since I wrote them down, I figured I’d include them. Also try to keep in mind that I’m not bothering to make many positive notes because if it works, it doesn’t warrant a note, since it isn’t something you need to change. The notes are overwhelmingly negative because that’s what actually HELPS. I spent a fair bit of time with your script, and didn’t see the point of spending even more time telling you what works. You clearly think a lot works, or you wouldn’t have posted. Again: nothing personal.
p.2 The gun going off and nobody acting like it’s a big deal. I've been in Schipol. It would be a big deal. Nobody (inside or outside) would shrug it off. You've established this movie will not be taking place in recognizable reality. If that's your goal, you've achieved it.
p. 4 Who tongues posters? This is just strange.
p. 4 "Stephen rolls his eyes." Who the Hell is Stephen? This is his first appearance. I went back through the first pages, to see if I'd missed him. Nope. This is the first mention of someone named Stephen. This screams "nobody has bothered to proofread this script."
p. 5 "Pull his football pants down?" This is just bizarre. I don’t think this has EVER happened on an American football field. Ever. I watch a fair bit of soccer, too (although mostly international-level) and haven’t seen it there, either.
p. 18 "find some babes?" Maybe it's just me, but I've never heard an adult use this word.
p. 20 Someone paid to send two limos to get them, and they're sharing BEDS?
p. 21 the whole weird double-decker bus scene. This is where my issues with the girls started. So here we learn that they're incredibly horny, as well as sexually frank. Fine. They also use lots of metaphors, despite clearly being comfortable talking about sex in front of other people’s grandmas. Fireworks? gardens? I don't get it. Is it common for people to go around trying to set fireworks off in people's gardens?). Oh, and they eat strangers' groceries off the floor of public transportation? Who does that?
p. 22 Who are the "three bleary-eyed men?" If they're Edgar, John and Stephen (who we've still never actually been introduced to), why not identify them as such? If we can see the blearyness of their eyes, how do we not know it's them? Are they wearing masks?
p.23 Never heard it described as "Darwin's theory of the fittest." It's usually "Survival of the Fittest."
p.24 Okay. So I'm just now SURE it's got to be a farce. Like, grindhouse-level, "this could never happen in real life" farce.
p.24 This script is quickly accumulating a whole lot of weird homoeroticism. Men sharing beds. Boys mock-shagging. When they’re not pulling each other’s pants down in public. Just saying.
p.25 "100%" of what? "Strength and energy reserves?" How do you quantify that?
p.27 "Huge feet embedded in papers." This just seems like not only an unnecessary work, but the wrong word. "Embed" means something very specific. Are his feet really “[fixed] firmly and deeply in a surrounding mass?” Is he going to need pliers to get them out? If not, change the word. This, again, is the type of thing that jumps out at the reader, and is likely to give anyone temped to put the script down to have an excuse to do so. Honestly: I almost did. Right here. But I didn’t…
p.30 What football coach has his own secretary? Most coaches are teachers, as well, let alone full-time coaches with support staff. What if she had to find him, from the front office, and it was clearly not the first time?
p.42 The "what if" and "no regret" bit isn't moving, or funny, or particularly inspiring. It doesn't connect.
p.43 "Vinny's stuffs a fork" I know it seems small, but misplaced apostrophes drive some people (myself among them) crazy. It’s basic grammar. Overall, your script is pretty clean, but it makes me wonder why I’m reading it this closely, if you can’t be bothered to.
p.46 Do brothers and sisters talk like that in front of their mom in England? I'm trying to figure out what this bit accomplishes. It’s just kind of gross.
p,48 The obsession with male genitals continues. It's everywhere, man. Are you trying to break a record?
p.50 The response to Simon, and then his apology ("Truly I am.") Seems forced, out-of-character. Plus, the language is nothing any American teenager would ever say. It’s stiff, formal, and unnatural.
p.54 "Well don’t put yourselves out for a welcome, will you?" Never heard/seen this before. Might be a saying, but don't think it's a Texan one. Just an observation.
p.55 "his's" Apostrophe weirdness. Again.
p.57: The relationships between adults and kids stands out, to me. Eleanor/Simon and Vinny/his mom. They're all, like, buddies with each other. Not parental at all.
Also, the coaches, especially with the whole bit where he paraded the boys around in front of the school. That would get any coach fired, in real life. And jailed.
p.58 Ambulance!?? What? Why?
p.60 Laura asks if "Vin will like them," but you don't indicate what "them" is, other than the boys being impressed ("wow").
p.63 "Top of the range" might be slang somewhere, but in America it's "top of the line."
p.69 the shower/toilet thing is a nice touch.
p.73 Maybe it's cultural, but the preoccupation with adolescent male sexuality, along with the attendant homophobia/homoeroticism is currently the most remarkable thing about the script.
p.74 the whole Emily/Vinny/superdong thing comes out of nowhere. Jarring. If it’s just for shock value, it doesn’t work. It just confuses things, and further objectifies the girls. Their presence in this whole script seems to be exclusively as objects of sexual frustration/gratification.
p.75 So he's not allowed at the pool because he's fat? That's just weird and illegal/unbelievable.
p.79 I actually know this one is a difference in English/American. We don't use "called" for names. "His name's Harold" would be more American.
p.79 Why the Olympic stadium? And HOW? (Not to mention that, logistically, it might be tough to arrange.)
p.81 First actual laugh, for me: "and your tits look funny"
p.83 "One too many times?" We only know of once.
p.90 "Coach? How would you rate this call?" Huh?
p.99 The first "ain't," if I’m not mistaken, and it sticks out. I'd suggest removing, just for consistency.
p.101 You’re obsessed with dicks. Maybe it’s a thing you were going for, and there’s a reason. But it’s not clear to me. If it was truly subconscious, I suspect your obsession is at a diagnostically-significant level. I’m kidding, of course, but only kind of.
p.101 "Young Simon." I'd replace with "Simon." They'd be familiar by now.
I hope you appreciate the notes. I think I spent longer reviewing your script than I spent writing my own. There are a lot of holes. You clearly have a grasp of a couple of your characters, as well as dialogue and grammar. And it seems like you’re really telling a story you think is a good one.
Good luck.

I really hate rating people's scripts, since it's so subjective, but there it is. Please don't take anything personally, but I've got some notes below. I hope you'll find them helpful.
First impression, having just finished it: the premise isn't bad, and could lead to something decent. The execution is shaky, though. It reads very much like a first draft, complete with typos and run-on sentences, some of which I'll address below. Beyond the specifics, though, I have a couple general thoughts...
The characters, to me, are a little uncomplicated to be believable, especially in a story like this, which is going to succeed or fail based on the viewers' investment in the characters. Ashley just seems like everything she does is just too... intense. I feel like she storms out of more rooms than she leaves politley. In each scene, she seems to always be 100% "in love" or "sad" or "confused" or "angry." The same goes for everyone else. Dad is 100% "disapproving/stern." Mom is 100% "damaged/helpless." Etc.
Real people experience things in shades of grey. They're ambivilent about things. This goes for everyone else, too. I just didn't believe that John would put up with her bullshit, honestly. The ulterior motive we find out at the end makes it somewhat less far-fetched, but I just found myself constantly wondering if anyone has ever been as patient as he is with a seemingly crazy girl he just met. No matter how hot a girl is, I don't know a single guy who would be so dedicated after seeing her in a coffee shop a couple times. Anyway, that's my biggest complaint. I just didn't beleive any of the characters were actual people. They seemed more like plot devices.
As for the plot: I agree with the other reviewer: Mike coming back just seems to be too obvious. If it happened in a movie I was watching, I would probably literally groan. I addressed my issues with John above. The whole arc could work, but doesn't as it stands. I just don't believe her Dad could do all the stuff he does, between the switched medical charts and bribing John. It's just too far-fetched. It could work, with some tweaks, such as a different motive for John and something more complicated to explain how he ended up at the wrong hospital for FOUR YEARS. Maybe 100 years ago, but in the 21st century, it would take a full-blown conspiracy.
On to the details...
Nine weeks to write and publish a book? Unless she was an already-famous author on the level of an Oprah or a Stephen King, it's completely unbelivable. Probably even if she were one of them.
"recall" books? I'm not going to get into how she already has fans and photographers. Doesn't work. At all. Sorry.
Dialogue can be unnatural:
"Did you set the alarm properly because I know how you are sometimes."
"I've been seeing Mike for 4 years I think I've mentioned him to you before!"
"I want to have a say in who she decides to date or marry or whatever! How is she going to know who's good and who's bad if I don't pick them for her!??"
"First off, I'm not drunk. I just opened the bottle before you walked over. I am a little woozy, but perfectly conscious."
Lastly, just-plain awkward elements...
1. John finds her address in the phone book? Do they still have those?
2. They have an answering machine? AND a plasma TV? Is this 1985 or 2012? Pick one and stick to it. It's jarring.
Consistency: Is Mike in her imagination or is he real? p 45 or so: does Mike live in the room or her head? he knows about the guy in the shop but not mom. I guess, since he turns out to be a projection of her unconscious, or whatever, it doesn't need to be consistent, but it jumped out at me.
HOSPITAL: weird, unrealistic. The beeping is audible in the waiting room? She can just barge in and barge out without anyone really objecting or, I don't know... ARRESTING her? She could have potentially compromised everyone's safety.
P 63 why does his not having read her books answer the question of whether they're good or not? then, the waiter returns after a couple pages?
p 93 why are there new clothes in the closet?
Anyway, that's it. I hope some of this is useful. Sorry if this seems harsh, but I find criticism more helpful than compliments, so I tend to focus on it.
Some advice: have someone read it, out loud, to you. Preferably a couple people. Buy beer/wine and cook some friends dinner. Stop when someone has a comment to make. A lot of this will be a lot more obvious if you're hearing it, rather than reading it.
Best of luck! Keep at it.
~Henry

First off, I hate to assign stars for a first-20 review, but I had to put something. I give you credit for the idea, and what appears to be decent pacing and structure (so far). So it's 4-stars, as far as those go. But it's 2-stars, so far, for the execution. From what I read, the characters don't reall jump out as being believable people. I think I see where you want to go (especially in light of the movies you reference in the synopsis), but for the kind of hyper-stylization that Tarantino or early Besson movies pulled off, it needs to combine the exaggerated cliches with a wit and vitality that are lacking here. Merci, so far, is one-note, not matter how many costumes she wears. The cops are all one-note. The detective, gangster, everyone: they're all ONE thing. None of them are round. Now, if you're going for grindhouse blood-and-guts, that's fine, but if that's the case, I think the body count needs to rise, too. (In fairness, if the script for Hobo with a Shotgun were posted, it'd only get 3 stars from me, too, so part of that is probably just down to taste.)
Some specific notes...
Based on what people have told me about my scripts, you should think about making some changes to keep things purely visual. On p 1 she rubs her thumbs together "in anxiety," for example. Think about cutting that so there's just "thumbs rubbing together," so the actor can fill in the motivation/feelings.
Also: blocking (e.g. "comb her body") is apparently a no-no. I've been torn apart for blocking. Personally, I like it, and it helps me fill in the gaps for the visuals that are obviously missing when reading a script. But I've been advised to keep it to a minimum.
There's some sturdy dialogue in here, in terms of establishing neccessary background, without resorting to over-obvious exposition. Some of it, though, can scan as wooden. Example on p 11: "Goodness no, Kevin. Today I feel a bit of exhilaration. I'm making a killing today. I need something to fit the mood." Read over it a couple times and ask yourself if anybody would actually say those words in that order. For me, the answer is "no." I can see what you're going for, but stiff dialogue is a pet peeve of mine, and can mar otherwise awesome films. Again, if it's intentional, go for it. (But again: if you're willing to sacrifice plausibility for effect, it should be AWEsomely implausible.)
Another note, re: believability: p 14 "a rap sheet for child molestation back in the mid-eighties." Laws in the US would prevent him working with kids. If he's got a sheet, he's not going to be working with kids. Period. Now, if he had a stolen identity, was related to someone who pulled strings, or something else that is mentioned, that would be another thing.
Finally: p 22 bit about Jack killing his wife? The whole exchange doesn't make sense. What was a long time ago? I think you want Carson to be sympathetic, but it just scans as being disjointed.
Overall: Curious to see what happens, but not so curious to wade through another 75 pages of cliche and stiff dialogue. A little bit of tightening and polish, though, and I could see this easily appealing to the Dragon Tattoo crowd. Good luck!

First, I want to warn you this review is pretty harsh. Not because there isn't anything good about the script--some of the elements are very good. BUT. The things that need work obscure the things that COULD work, if that makes sense. Please take my review for what it is. A particular amateur's thoughts on your script. None of it is personal, and I hope some of it is useful.
Because it's a pet peeve of mine: look up "your" and "you're," and use them right. Please. Overall, grammar/punctuation were pretty spotty, and I'm sure my work has its issues, but the constant misuse of "you're" just screams LAZY. If it looks like you haven't bothered to proofread your own script, how is anyone going to be able to take it seriously?
Rant over. On to the actual review...
In a nutshell: I thought there were some good ideas here, but also a lot of cliche and sloppiness. I would probably have given it 2.5 stars, but it's not that I "don't like it" so much as I wasn't affected enough to like it or not like it, if that makes sense. Mostly, I was unimpressed by everything but some good lines of dialogue, here and there, and the commitment to seemingly everyone in the city being involved in the drug trade, on some level. My issue is that this kind of movie (thinking of Tarantino, here), where everything is larger-than-life, needs something... else. It needs to have either humor, a truly novel element, a relatable protagonist, or a 9-figure budget. This doesn't have any of those things. What it does have: a decent narrative arc, solid pacing, and all the requisite shootouts. So the good news is that the framework for a decent escapist thriller is there. The bad news is that the guts, in my opinion, need a lot of work.
From page one, I knew this was going to be a cliche-fest. Hard-luck kid, and mom's a layabout drunk who doesn't bother to take the empty bottles with her when she goes to the kitchen for a new one. She might as well be wearing a shirt that helpfully says "basically decent but so worn-down by life and booze that she's about to allow her good-for-nothing petty criminal boyfriend to beat on her son." We've seen it ALL before. If you can't write Tarantino-caliber dialogue, with all the in-jokes, slang, and meta-references, the characters actually have to seem like real people. NObody in the script seems real.
Plus: bottles of wine get expensive if she drinks that fast ($1/glass at least). If they're so poor, might she not drink liquor, or at least cheap beer, which is probably at least twice the bang for her buck?
Some specific notes...
p. 15: smashing mirror? Again: we've seen it SO MANY TIMES. It's shorthand for "so upset/frustrated/angry I don't know what to do." How many times have you, or someone you know, punched a mirror? I've literally never heard of it happening.
Some of the dialogue is great, but some is totally out-of-character. Not going to list too many, but an example follows. "You're going to drive yourself mad" from a dealer in the hood? Not buying it, unless the hood in question is in the UK a hundred years ago.
p 26: "rooms full of half naked women and piles of drugs?" Isn't this a nightclub, open to the PUBLIC? Unless they're out of the common area, it reads like a parody. And "PILE of coke?" It worked once, in Scarface. Nobody's ever allowed to do it again.
p 57 - storming raff's place - really? is this a WAR? why don't quentin and kevin both shoot the thugs in the back before both going upstairs? Also p 61 why doesn't Raff bristle at the suggestion he was involved with killing Ronnie? Why don't they join sides? For me, this is when the ridiculousness of it started to become a real problem.
Is Malic a Terminator? In various places, he "ignores gunshots," proves to apparently be impervious to physical harm, have a force-field of some sort, and despite all this, can't kill a 17 year old kid he's in a small room with. If this is going to be a parody, leave him in. If you want this to be serious, he needs to be at least theoretcially POSSIBLE, even if he's not actually believable.
p 70 - 73 Why not cooperate? It's not clear. If what he really wants is to see the guys
p 74 if this isn't a supernatural thing (or a spoof), malic should 1) be dead and not be invulnerable. disbelief: unsuspended.
p 77 are you kidding? they just let him go? come ON.
83 Another movie that ends with a shootout, empty clips, and a fistfight? Jesus. Just once, it'd be interesting if when one guy ran out of bullets, the other guy had at least one left. It screams by-the-book. Again: fine if it's a parody, but I don't think that's what you're going for.
Sorry my review is so negative, but there's a lot wrong, on a page-by-page basis. Again, the framework is there, and the idea is novel enough that it could work. But in such an overdone genre, it's got to be REALLY good to not seem like "just another" one of the movies it's got so much in common with. Hope the notes helped. Looking forward to your review of mine.
~Henry

NOTE: The review (and rating) are for the first 15 only. I would have left the ratings blank, but AS won't let me.

First, the good: you do a great job of differentiating the characters. This might seem like a no-brainer, but I've seen a number of scripts up on AS that seem to assume just giving people different names, and assuming they'll be played by different actors, is enough. I can totally tell, even 15 pages in, that each of these characters will be presented like an actual person, rather than just an occupation, and I won't need to keep a cheat-sheet handy to remember who is who.
Also good: The tone is solid, and more importantly, consistent. I can tell this is going to be a story about "real" people who are involved in what looks like an exceptional kind of experience, rather than larger-than-life characters and exploding cars and whatnot. Not that one is better than the other, but it's important to set tone early and maintain it, and it looks like you're doing that.
You've got some solid patter between characters, but it's uneven. You establish relationships without resorting to in-dialogue exposition. I can tell Ross and Jerry are comfortable with each other, and know each other as more than coworkers. I can see Ross and Jameer have a friendly, but professional, relationship. I can tell Ross legitimately cares about his kids and Shakespeare.
punctuation, etc (unclosed parentheticals, missing question marks, &c.
So the Ross/Jameer axis looks promising, in terms of character presentation. This is done less-well with the cops, though. They're less round. There's the old codger nearing retirement, who tries to quit smoking, and tries to push the heavy lifting off on his young/eager partner. Taking a wild guess here, but I imagine he'll find himself pulled into this One Last Case, unable to let it go. The dialogue between cops is, similarly, a bit by-the-numbers, down to the good-natured jabs. ("Stray off reservation?") This isn't a deal-breaker, of course. Plenty of awesome cop movies are successful despite everyone being a stock character. And it looks like this is mostly going to be about Ross and Jameer. But giving the cops a bit more personality could only help.
As far as plot is concerned, I can see where you're going, but it's not bludgeonly obvious, so no points off for that. Half-Nelson did the whole junkie-teacher thing, but there's enough here to set this apart. I'm especially curious to see more of Jameer and Ross interacting. It's a relationship we don't see enough of in movies, and I've got my fingers crossed it doesn't become "tough-luck kid with potential can't overcome the circumstances he was born into," which is good even if that's exactly what happens, because it's evidence that I've got an investment in Jameer. My caveat is that it's a little easy to fall into a trap of painting him as TOO perfect, stretching credulity. You've got to scuff him up a bit, just as you're going to scuff Ross up. This script will work or not based on how well you stay away from black and white, and keep everything in "shades of grey" territory.
Oh, and a couple small suggestions... On page 12, Ross could appeal to how good it would look on college applications if Jameer were to join the squad and take them to a title. And I like the bit about Shylock being a Jew, the kids haven't read, &c. But the preceding lecture is way too "scripted" to be believeable. He just seems like a teacher that would know his kids better, and try to engage them from the start, rather than lecturing.
Overall, there's a lot of promise here. I'm curious to see what happens.
If you're interested, I'd be glad to swap whole-script reviews. There's a lot of strong character and dialogue, and potential for more, so yours is an opinion I'd value.