Reviews of Red All Over 7

• 
  RE: Red All Over
  A review of Red All Over
  by **DELETED ACCOUNT** on 12/21/2009
  Hey Adam - So, huh. That was a pretty good darn read, especially seeing how much I enjoyed the similar tone to “No Country For Old Men”. You certainly have a gift for great dialogue (with the minor exception of a few stilted monologues) and the action kept on moving at a nice clip. Structurally, very solid, no issues there. I want to bring up tone again, just because I think... Hey Adam -
  
  So, huh. That was a pretty good darn read, especially seeing how much I enjoyed the similar tone to “No Country For Old Men”. You certainly have a gift for great dialogue (with the minor exception of a few stilted monologues) and the action kept on moving at a nice clip. Structurally, very solid, no issues there.
  
  I want to bring up tone again, just because I think this was the biggest strength of this piece. It’s hard to nail that stuff in the bud and keep it consistent, but you did a wonderful job with it.
  
  Superb ending also. Those little touches make a tremendous difference for me - very poignant.
  
  My only real issue with this piece comes down to motivation. I had a real hard time buying a few things throughout the script. Two big examples…
  
  - Killing everybody off for Tire Rims. Meh. That just comes off as “The hell”? Why can’t the stakes be bigger here? Or is this something in line with that homesy, folksy tone you got going on? Or did I miss something with Terry? I didn’t get this.
  - Why is Warner such a killing nut? What gets him going with the killing? Either I missed this or it just wasn’t there.
  
  Anyways, enjoyed the read. I think with a bit of fine-tuning, you could really zip this into a nice little piece. Also, I agree with your revision in getting it down a few pages - I think that will help a lot. Best of luck! read
• 
  RAO
  A review of Red All Over
  by jayelveejr on 12/21/2009
  A red journey well worth taking. First and foremost, most scripts have problems that need to be addressed or that need work. I don't think there is any perfect script. But, for a reader like myself, I really love it when I get one that is a page turner. This screenplay is a page turner, no two ways about it. It has so many good things in it that it's too bad it doesn't hit... A red journey well worth taking. First and foremost, most scripts have problems that need to be addressed or that need work. I don't think there is any perfect script. But, for a reader like myself, I really love it when I get one that is a page turner. This screenplay is a page turner, no two ways about it. It has so many good things in it that it's too bad it doesn't hit a home run. I was very impressed by this, really was. I think, however, you have thrown in too many elements and have some lapses in logic that hurt the overall impact. I'm giving you a good on this because I read it in one sitting, couldn't stop reading. Great characters for the most part that fit within the confines of your story. One could argue that you have way too many characters and things going on but that is not a major flaw in my estimation. Where this fails, however, is in the focus of your story. I only jotted a couple of notes as I read because I was really into this script. Overall, I'm giving you a good on this because it was very entertaining. On a logic level, maybe about a 5 out of 10 though as there are things in it that don't make sense. You compare this to No Country and there are elements in here that kind of resemble them. Certainly Warner is like a step child of Bardeem's character Chigurgh except for one thing ... Werner just talks too much. In fact, this script has quite a bit of dialogue, some of it is not bad but there is still too much and I think could use a cut or two. I have to say, even with all these flaws, I was still impressed. I even love your title. Now, if you could only work on this and take it to the next level, this could be really good, especially for this genre.
  
  Although you have a well written and eye-opening start with the massacre, it didn't make sense to kill all these innocent folks. They easily could have taken the trucks and not have to murder everyone in sight. At first that didn't bother me but as I finished, I kept wondering why? Remember, almost each murder in No Country, save for a couple, is about bad guys getting killed. That film opens with the aftermath of a bloody massacre but that was for a drug deal gone wrong and in this Werner and Randall kill all these folks for nothing. Wonder if you can re-write it so they don't do this. If anything, this type of massacre will call attention to themselves on a grand scale. Then the story is about the revenge for Terry having killed their folks. Okay, that's a good thing but here's where the focus is off a bit.It's part a road movie, part a revenge tale, part a corrupt cop tale and part a manhunt. It's like it's main theme is all over the map. Now, as I stated, Werner is a good character and very menacing but I think you need to cut down on his dialogue.
  
  First thing off the bat, it's original plot is based on a total coincidental scene. How did Werner and Allen know that he would be picked up by Terry and Cliff at the pawn shop? And, even if they did, how were they to know that Terry wouldn't have said, forget it fella, we're taking you in for questioning? I suppose you wouldn't get the ball rolling if not but I just thought, too much of a coincidence. I did like the twist where Allen is in on it (and for his selfish reasons throughout) but I kept thinking. How lucky were they that Terry fell for it and ... also to have two cops say, ok let's go do this on our own. That seems like a lot to swallow especially after knowing these two guys just murdered dozens of innocent folks. For them to go off just felt off.
  
  I thought the whole banter between Randall and Tessa was very well written but I also thought he was lucky to find himself a girl that would jump in the sack so quickly. She falls fast. And would a woman this beautiful not already have a fella and why would she pick on him? Felt like a plot contrivance which is only there to justify the ending of the film.
  
  I'm not sure I love the whole reason for Kathy to be in on this story. I get what you were going for but wondered if you took out the whole angle in the love triangle if that wouldn't hurt you in any way. Kind of like you over complicated a plot that needs to be simpler.
  
  Okay, something I wondered about that made no sense to me. Why does Werner force Harriet to go into the men's toilet to get the bag? Here you have Werner and Randall, besides leaving a high body count and knowing they're being hunted, they parade around, go to diners and such without so much as caring that they are being seen. Yet, why then does he have her go get the bag? It's not like he can say, I don't want anyone to see me? Didn't make sense. In fact, didn't make sense for Harriet and Marshall to go along with them. And I'm wondering if you really need Harriet and Marshall to go along. I was thinking Harriet was going to end up killing Werner but that never plays out. You might think about getting rid of them in a draft to see if it doesn't matter as well. Besides, I like when Marshall tells her to stay put and he's going after them, I even wondered if he was ex military or something but then he gets killed as well so I kind of missed the point. I would think Werner and Randall could have taken their car and tied them up or something, or even killed them. Goes against Werner's character. At times, he would kill anything in sight but other times I wondered why he kept adding to the mix with characters. Just a thought.
  
  Oh, and I jotted this down, minor thing but when Allen goes to the store and holds up the guy with the shoe...I would think the guy would be more scared. Plus he keeps telling Allen, hey I've seen you already...not a good smart thing to say if you think a guy is robbing you? He may think twice about leaving you alive. I did like how he tells him to rob him so he doesn't get in trouble but I feel that guy was unrealistically brave.
  
  Take this as just a suggestion but one thing I think you could work on to cut down the excess in this is to remember the old adage of screenwriting: come in late into a scene and leave early. Some of your scenes feel too long or rather, you show us too much. I would go through and see if you can cut out some of them by starting them later than you do and leaving earlier. This would not only tighten down your script and make it leaner but more to the point. I recall a scene when officers show up at one of the stores to talk to the clerk and then the detective shows up and we are in essence given info that we already know. I think you can cut down on some of these investigation scenes and stay with your main story of Werner and Terry. I don't know if you ever saw Stephen Frear's The Hit starring John Hurt and Tim Roth. In that one, Hurt and Roth kidnap Terence Stamp and they are in turn chased by a detective played by the great Spanish actor Fernando Rey (best known as the bad guy from The French Connection). ANyway, Rey is hot on their trail and investigates places they've been to already except Frears does one brilliant thing: Rey doesn't utter a word during these scenes. No dialogue. He shows us the same scene, Rey talking to the witnesses or looking at a corpse, the crime scene, but with no dialogue. I wonder if you use something like that here, maybe not altogether silent but only have a couple of words? SInce the hunt is on, do we really need to see a cop questions a guy we already saw about what already happened? I kept thinking about Rey's scenes in The Hit and wondered if that couldn't be done here? I mean you have a great actor in a role and he doesn't say a word. Now that takes guts as a filmmaker but why does it feel like the perfect choice? Because I kept thinking, man Rey has to say a word soon but I believe his only line is at the end when he yells out John Hurt's name! Now that is gusty filmmaking! I wonder if it really would work here. ALso, I may have mentioned this but what separates Werner from Chigurgh is that he talks so much! Go back to No Country and see how many lines Bardem really has,not many, it feels more menacing when one of these villains talks less and talks through his actions.
  
  Okay, overall as I stated I'm giving you a good because this was such an entertaining read. Problems, yes, but still a very fine piece of screenwriting. Nice job and best of luck. read
• 
  Lots of Great Elements, but it feels like you're making two different movies
  A review of Red All Over
  by lostboy6987 on 12/19/2009
  IN GENERAL I think there’s a lot of great potential in this screenplay, and its well on its to being a movie that I’d love to see. You start and end with a I really liked the flavor your screenplay has. The locations, the characters, the way people speak – it has texture to it. Well done. You set up a world in which, from early on, we see that anything can happen. Killing... IN GENERAL
  I think there’s a lot of great potential in this screenplay, and its well on its to being a movie that I’d love to see. You start and end with a
  
  I really liked the flavor your screenplay has. The locations, the characters, the way people speak – it has texture to it. Well done.
  
  You set up a world in which, from early on, we see that anything can happen. Killing so many people in the opening, and then killing Cliff, really made it clear that no one in this screenplay has a character shield. Clint’s death especially was shocking but effective. I liked how you ended the film with a really surprising revelation from Terry, and then an explosive ending where almost no one emerges without blood on their hands.
  
  I like how you unfold multiple storylines; this script held my interest all the way through. It did get a little confusing (how the police were investigating two different gas stations, for example), but overall the way you’ve constructed this was fairly clear and kept me guessing: I was guessing whether Warner and Randall would get caught, but also, what choices each character was going to make.
  
  I think that you could cut out the love triangle without losing much. I didn’t really care about, or feel like I knew, any of the three people involved in that love triangle, and it really only served to make the story more confusing for me. I’d find a different way to establish that Harlishan is crooked.
  
  Lines I liked:
  -Page 12, good line: “You couldn’t catch a dog if he was shittin’ on your shoe.”
  -49: Like the line “Don’t want you dyin’ of something natural.”
  
  
  WHY THIS FELT DISJOINTED TO ME
  I feel that it’s torn between being ‘No Country for Old Men’ and a Lifetime drama. You push just about all of your characters towards violence, creating a white-knuckled and gritty view of the world.
  
  At the same time, however, you have elements in this script that make it feel melodramatic (the love triangle between Kathy, Harlishan, and Manitow, the flashbacks of Warner seeing his father die, the romance between Tessa and Randall). At some points this script really felt like a lifetime movie.
  
  I guess this is what I’m trying to say: ‘No Country for Old Men’ was, to me, a film about the greedy, irresponsible, and extremely risky actions normal people will take when you throw a whole lot of money and Anton Chigurh into the mix. You definitely have some elements of that here, and they work. Much like in ‘No Country,’ you present your characters will almost no introduction; we see a thumbnail of who they are, then we see what they do. With the possible exception of the Tommy Lee Jones character, I felt no emotional investment in anyone in that movie, nor did I need to.
  
  Where your film departs from ‘No Country’ is that you’re also making a movie about these characters emotional issues, and how they’re deciding what their past means to them. With those elements, the film becomes a human drama where, I think, we need to be emotionally invested in these people. To create emotional investment, we need to know more about Randall and Warner then “They have crappy jobs in a factory and their parents were killed by a cop when they were young.” We need more emotional context, at least for Randall, Warner, and Terry, if you intend to make this a human drama where we are emotionally invested in your characters.
  
  
  CHARACTER ISSUES
  I never really understood why Warner was so willing to kill people. I wasn’t clear on how much of a sociopath he was. On page 81, he’s trying to justify his actions to Hariett, explaining how it was Terry’s fault Luther died. Also, he is on a clear and pre-meditated path to retribution, and in the final confrontation between him and Terry on the clearing, Warner is again justifying his actions. If he has enough sanity/morality to be justifying his actions, how is he so willing to kill just about anybody.
  
  There were a lot of little things about characters/character interactions that I think you could make more detailed and specific.
  -Tessa and Kathy are both, essentially, sex kittens. Felt a little misogynistic to me.
  -The relationship between Tessa and Randall moves too far too fast. On page 74, Tessa and Randall are talking like they’ve known each other for a very long time; it sounds like they’re hinting at long-term relationship-building. They might be under the spell of infatuation, but it still seems pretty hasty and unnatural for them to already be talking about their relationship as anything more than one magic night. Also, the fact that they sleep together after on very brief flirtation makes it me feel like this is primarily a physical relationship, so their emotional connection didn’t seem real.
  -I think you could add mannerisms or on-screen actions to Manilow and Harlishan’s characters that would differentiate them. All the cops (except Terry) kind of blurred together for me.
  
  
  PLOT HOLES
  I think there are some elements of your plot that are pretty illogical, at least to me. It starts with the massacre at the start of the film. If Warner and Randall want two million dollars, isn’t there an easier way to do it than killing every single employee in a factory. And they’re doing all this work, killing all these people, for…tire rims.
  
  Really? Tire rims? What about robbing a bank? Or stealing cars? Surely killing thirty people and making off with four huge, conspicuous truckloads of tire rims isn’t the fastest way to 2 mil. Even if Warner’s not the smartest person in the world, he can think of something better.
  
  This comment does not mean, however, that I didn’t like your explosive start to the film. I did – it really started with a bang, set the tone early on, and that worked. But I suggest you rework the opening so that Warner has a smarter, less conspicuous plan worked out, but then that plan goes wrong and as a result, he and his comrades wind up killing 30 people before page 20.
  
  The next major issue is that it seems like Warner’s driving motivation is to take revenge on Terry. Okay. But when he steals the tire rims, how does he know he and Terry will cross paths? It didn’t seem to me like he was planning for himself and Terry to cross paths, but that happened, and suddenly it became the movie. Warner wanting revenge on Terry and Warner wanting the 2 mil seem kind of disconnected motivations, which made the story on the whole feel a little disconnected for me.
  
  After that, I was just surprised that Warner already knew all the police officers. Lines like, “You're a rotten excuse for authority, Carmichael Harlashin. Dirtiest cop I ever saw... Least till tonight,” (p. 111) really threw me off. How do these characters know one another?
  
  
  DIALOGUE
  In general, your dialogue is good, but you’ve got a lot of long monologues, many of which could be cut down to half their size without losing much. You’ve got many instances in which the dialogue is overwritten.
  
  An example: on page 84, when Warner is telling Harriett to go into the diner and get the money and Marshall is urging her not to come back, this conversation can end with Warner’s line, ‘I trust you understand the consequences.’ We know, Hariett knows, that Warner will kill her husband, or come after her. That’s enough. The following exchange between Harriett and Marshall is unnecessary and melodramatic, and can be communicated with a glance the two characters share.
  
  RANDOM LITTLE NOTES
  -Page 33 – wasn’t clear on the geography – where is the farmhouse driveway in relation to the farmhouse we see a few scenes later?
  -Page 45 – Don’t entirely get what’s going on here. Why are the cop and elderly woman meeting on the side of the road? If she wanted to report it to someone in person, wouldn’t she go down to the police station instead of pulling off to the shoulder and flagging down a passing cop?
  -The dialogue in general is good, but you’ve got lots of monologues, many of which could be cut down to half their size without losing much. In scenes like the exchange between Kathy and Harlashin (page 68), as well as Warner’s monologue outside to Terry outside the farmhouse, the overwriting makes it sound melodramatic. This feels like a script that, if anything, should be sparse.
  Tessa and Kathy both have quite a bit of sex kitten to them. Hot, but also not quite full-bodied characters.
  -Page 70: If a hotel employee sees someone hanging from a window, I don’t understand why they wouldn’t immediately go and get the manager. That’s something you can’t just overlook.
  -Example of overwritten dialogue
  Page 96 – Allen’s monologue. Is Allen lying to Manitow about his history with Warner? It was my understanding that their paths crossed at the department store hold-up, and they both thought that was the first and last time they’d see each other. But here it sounds like Allen’s being honest.
  -I was really surprised by Terry’s revealed back-story on page 105 read
• 
  RED ALL OVER - REVIEW
  A review of Red All Over
  by damiz7o7 on 12/19/2009
  CHARACTERS: Loved Warner especially. He just didn't give a f***. One of those villians that are loved by the viewers. I was kinda irritated at Terry's cowardice throughout, but by the end I was saying, "Damn, coward" outloud. PLOT: Comparisons to "No Country", but otherwise highly original plot. Loved the twist with Terry. By the end, I wanted to cheer for Warner,... CHARACTERS: Loved Warner especially. He just didn't give a f***. One of those villians that are loved by the viewers. I was kinda irritated at Terry's cowardice throughout, but by the end I was saying, "Damn, coward" outloud.
  
  PLOT: Comparisons to "No Country", but otherwise highly original plot. Loved the twist with Terry. By the end, I wanted to cheer for Warner, but with him killing all those other folks out of cold blood, it made me feel bad. Kinda wish Harriet would have been the one to blast him, but I guess that'd been a little too cliche, huh? I really liked the whole message with the bird at the end too.
  
  QUALITY OF WRITING: Amazing job here. Could really see everything in the scene. Made me go and rewrite some scenes in my own work.
  
  OVERALL: Excellent job, Adam. You really got a hold on this craft. I truly enjoyed this a bit more than URBANITY. Yeah, I read that one too a while back.
  
  When I read your work I take so much from it.
  "Warner holds an understanding smile as blood creeps up his throat, to his lips."
  Really? Too awesome, man. Keep 'em coming.
  
  
  read
• 
  Review: Red All Over
  A review of Red All Over
  by gclifton on 12/16/2009
  As a lifelong cop, I find this story generally favorable in area of action, movement, and characterization. In terms of credibility, police procedural behavior, and mechanics, you sometimes drift astray. Reviewers are going to point out too many words in both dialogue and action lines. Some character dialogue is longer than the Declaration of Independence. That's not all bad,... As a lifelong cop, I find this story generally favorable in area of action, movement, and characterization. In terms of credibility, police procedural behavior, and mechanics, you sometimes drift astray. Reviewers are going to point out too many words in both dialogue and action lines. Some character dialogue is longer than the Declaration of Independence. That's not all bad, because you can usually scratch material easier than create more. For exp: Page 2: Why not: "machine loads it onto a pallet."(Note spelling of pallet)Skip the rest.
  
  Page 48: Character says "shit" on the radio and same is repeated later. The cops might be dirty, but you'd be hard pressed to find that on
  any police radio system -- at least one with more than one person on the air.
  
  Page 57: The protracted social conversation via radio re buying dinner, etc. is a stretch.
  
  Page 67: The detective is talking with his wife. Are they on the telephone or radio?
  
  When Warner and Randall show up at the motel, had they ditched the police uniforms?
  
  Page 85: Allen, gutshot a few hours earlier, overpowers the storeclerk with his boot. Maybe consider finding an iron pipe on the parking lot?
  
  The Conclusion: Granted, Randall is a nutball sociopath, but he murdered a score of people for the money, then walks away?
  
  Page 45: "There are no red lights in the real world," is pure doper fantasy reasoning, and a good line.
  
  This is a good plot with considerable original thought. Suggest you go back through this baby and delete twenty-plus pages of material, much of which is very good prose, but excess. read
• 
  Read All Over
  A review of Red All Over
  by maestro976 on 12/16/2009
  I'm always glad when a script I'm assigned is written by someone who has placed in contests or has other scripts on Trigger that have done well. It is a good sign I won't be reading absolute crap. So when I wasn't wowed by the concept/synopsis, I still figured there was a chance I'd be reading something good. This was backed up by the strength of the writing and the lack... I'm always glad when a script I'm assigned is written by someone who has placed in contests or has other scripts on Trigger that have done well. It is a good sign I won't be reading absolute crap.
  
  So when I wasn't wowed by the concept/synopsis, I still figured there was a chance I'd be reading something good. This was backed up by the strength of the writing and the lack of formatting/spelling errors (aside from the title page, which I won't mention.)
  
  The characters and dialog were good. Authentic sounding, not forced. A lot of times, cops and cop dialog can feel contrived, but for the most part you steered clear of that problem. I liked the father/son duo, and was sad to see Clint go. If I have any complaint here, is that Warner's grand world view seemed a little preachy at times.
  
  I think the strength of the characters goes a long way to making the story more interesting. Let's be honest, we've seen plenty of cop stories. But even a familiar story done well is a story done well, so kudos. I like the simple, smart police work and the lack of crazy twists and turns. (Alright, there are some twists towards the end, but you need that, right?)
  
  Structure is probably where you could use the most work. I'm no structure nazi, but the first act feels too long. My estimate puts the end of the first act around pg. 42. You could really tighten that up. You could probably loose a few pages by cutting down wordy descripts alone. It all works out in the end, but you could get us on the road a little faster.
  
  NOTES:
  
  Intense opening.
  
  Pg. 6 Chaulk full?
  
  Not exactly sure what kind of wheels the factory made. Rims?
  
  Pg. 7 How do they know who the perps are? Process of elimination?
  
  Don’t need to cap anything other than character 1st appearances and sounds in a spec.
  
  Pg. 17 Allen’s talking abou the perps like he knows who they are
  
  Pg. 22 Allen’s story a little convenient.
  
  Pg. 25 Clint’s 1st week on force. This strikes me as a small town Police force. Otherwise, I doubt father and son would be partners. So why does he need to make a big name for himself in a small town force where his Dad has pull?
  
  Pg. 38 Ociffer. Intentional?
  
  Pg. 38 What’s going on here. Terry obviously knows Warner. Give us that moment. A less attentive reader will miss it.
  
  Allen set them up? Pawn shop scheme seems a little elaborate in hindsight.
  
  Pg. 39 What happened to the old lady? They picked a random house for a meeting place and killed the owner?
  
  Is Clint’s death the end of the first act? At pg. 42, that makes your first act about 10 pages too long.
  
  Pg. 43 getting a little preachy, here.
  
  Maybe est. that Kathy is Harlashin’s wife earlier?
  
  Pg. 51 maybe give stockyard employee a name, so you don’t have to remind us who he is.
  
  Pg. 56 Why is Manitow flirting with Harlashin’s wife?
  
  Pg. 57 – CORD field
  
  Overall, a solid script. I had some random questions and nitpicks, which I noted in my notes. Otherwise, good job. Hope some of this has been helpful. Good luck with it. read
• 
  No country for old hotel owners
  A review of Red All Over
  by bthielke on 12/16/2009
  Good writing, real good writing. Not sure how I feel about the story. Had a no country for old men vibe where the bad guy gets run over by an old lady in a buick who doesn't know she left her blinkers on. Concept- very nihilistic shoot em up with a theme of there are no good guys. Story- A couple of huge questions. WHY did Warner go to all that trouble to get revenge... Good writing, real good writing. Not sure how I feel about the story. Had a no country for old men vibe where the bad guy gets run over by an old lady in a buick who doesn't know she left her blinkers on.
  
  Concept- very nihilistic shoot em up with a theme of there are no good guys.
  
  Story- A couple of huge questions. WHY did Warner go to all that trouble to get revenge on Terry. He's had tons of opportunities to kill him over the years. Why does he have to take 30 people down in the process? I think it's a central premise question that must be answered before the story is viable to me. Otherwise it's nihilism for the sake of nihilism. I thought the first two acts (until the scene at the canyon) had a good slow burn and a good pace. After that it seemed like it fell apart to me. Lots of plot contrivances (see below) unexplainable actions on Allens part (why leave the hospital), after getting shot twice including once with a shotgun a guy just don't get out of a hospital bed, sorrry. And the motivation for all that mayhem is just not up to the price that was paid by so many.
  
  Characters- No protagonist, and I think that's a problem. The only guy who had a chance to be one was Terry and he revealed himself to be a scumbag loser when he opted to shoot the old couple (even though no bullets). I guess you were going the old anti-hero route with Warner, but he was so cold hearted and so ruthless that you couldn't garner any empathy. Notice I didn't say sympathy. On some level if you make him an anti-hero you have to have the reader feel like you understand why Warner did what he did. You try to do that at the end, but after 125 pages of mayhem and cold-blooded killing of countless innocents, I can't buy it.
  
  Dialog- Pretty good except for when you had your characters go too long. Break these long blocks up or shorten them. Decent other wise but nothing that stands out.
  
  Format structure-- very good, mechanically flawless and no grammar/punctuation errors stood out.
  
  Overall- I think for this story to work, you need to make Warner way more palatable as an anti-hero, make us understand WHY he had to kill ALL those people just to get to Terry and give him his comeuppance. I didn't like the turn where Terry is a scumbag (good twist) but it doesn't serve your story dynamic in my opinion.
  
  Have a few page notes to follow.
  pg 1- how old is Farris, any description?
  
  pg 6- the second VO by Kathy- don't have her describe the massacre, just have her say something like. You just better get down there. Then let him see for himself. Make us feel visceral hate for what they did.
  
  pg 31- my thinking is these guys are way too careless. Randal gives his real name, they out in the open carjack someone.
  
  pg 40- so he's got the silencer on the pistol but uses a shotgun- Kaboom...that makes no sense to me.
  
  pg 43- warner's a little too talky here. cut this down some or show us what randall and terry are doing.
  
  pg 54-55 - I'm not visualizing this scene very good. Did Warner stay on the outside of the field and not know that Randall didn't kill Terry? Why would Randall get soft now?
  
  pg 74- Not sure how I feel about this random coincidence of Tessa being at the hotel. Seems a bit convineient for me.
  
  pg 78 - I never been to a hospital that had windows you could open. got to control the air inside. Another plot convenience.
  
  pg 96- Allen's dialog is way too long.
  
  pg 104- this choice makes no sense to me. If he kills the old couple, why in the hell would he then go and confess to the old murders. I'm confused. read