There are some formatting flaws if you plan to shop this out.
Your descriptions can be more succinct and less prescriptive. Unless there is PLOT SPECIFIC reason to specify a 1994 red Accord, just say "his economy car". If you're making this, be as specific as you like. If you're not, the art director will use whatever car is on hand. You can suggest but sometimes being too specific doesn't pay off. If you need an antique 70s car driving down the street in 2000, it needs to be important.
Keep your dialogue crisp. In your exchange below, there is LOTS of redundancy. This slows down the pace on the screen.
Code:
TOM
Jesus.
LEO
Hey, hey, you know what saying I live by.
TOM
No, I don’t.
(confused)
Live by?
LEO
Abide by, function on, whatever.
TOM
(skeptical)
Which one?
LEO
“Ask and it will be given to you.”
This could be reduced to:
Code:
TOM
Jesus.
LEO
You know what sayin' I live by.
Tom's head cocks, eyes squint as Leo takes a sip of his water.
TOM
Which one?
LEO
"Ask and it wll be given to you."
He smiles at Tom.
You have lots of description but most of it is non-visual.
Code:
[I][COLOR="Blue"]Amidst the sea of tiled floor [/COLOR][/I]is a two-person booth by the
window, and seated at is:
Tom, [I][COLOR="blue"]weeks before his car crash[/COLOR][/I], wearing dull office clothes.
He has ordered a [COLOR="Red"]salmon-and-vegetables plate[/COLOR], [I][COLOR="blue"]something you’d
expect a guy like him would eat[/COLOR].[/I]
Across him is his friend, LEO, 22, a guy [I][COLOR="blue"]we can tell is
trouble with a capital T. Erratic and shoot-first-think-later
philosophy just dripping from his tongue[/COLOR][/I]. Finishing his third
[COLOR="red"]Heineken[/COLOR].
Again this can be more simply written as
Code:
Tom wearing his dull office clothes sits in a two-person booth by
the window with [COLOR="red"]bland dinner plate[/COLOR]. Seated across from him is
LEO (22) whose mannerism show swagger as he downs his third
[COLOR="red"]bottled beer[/COLOR]. Leo's lips curl as he sucks in his breath poised to
say something.
Again, the thing that trips most screenwriters writing spec scripts for sale, is that they think they're writing novels. Producers are buying stories. And when they buy the story, they often will re-write it match THEIR visual imagining. The script is a blueprint. It doesn't require all the interior design. While it's not necessary to eliminate all references like to Heinekin or salmon-and-veggies, just be clear when it's important and when its not. To show a brand, you need permission.
Page 4 has a very long back and forth between Tom and Leo. It will be boring as hell on screen. Again, there is lots of excess verbiage that can be cut. You want the dialogue to sound natural but you also want to be concise. A working guideline is to break dialogue after 4 or 5 lines with action. There are exceptions but it is a workable and gives a more efficient flow. Your story should be discernable from the action descriptions if all the dialogue were cut.
Also, don't direct from inside the spec script. You wrote: "We close in and look down to his phone, which lies on the floor of the ruined car." How the director chooses to realize that shot is his/her concern, not yours. You can hint as writer in a spec script: "Tom looks down at the phone on the floor of his car as the seconds tick down." Again, what a writer/director can get away with is different than a straight spec script writer. No "FADE IN", "CUT TO BLACK", "EXTREME CU", etc. Transitions and camera directions are frowned upon.
Unless you are making this yourself, these issues would be enough to cause some readers to stop reading. I'm not saying that the story and premise are bad. But there are lots of scripts to be read. Yours need to look clean and professional. While I'm reading between the lines to give you feedback, an agency reader has no reason to do so.
Code:
Moments after he ran back to the stairs after seeing the dead
corpse being dragged, he is now kneeled down in the lit area
amongst the shadows, looking at the machine, which is
standing there.
The above passage (p. 14) is written for the reader. It's not what the viewer sees. What the viewer sees is: "Tom kneels in a lit area and looks at the machine in the shadows."
Overall, the story seems interesting but I started losing interest around page 28. The problem is the script has lots of format flaws that, in my opinion, would cause it to be passed. The dialogue is too wordy. The action statements are absent. These are your opportunities to provide "shot cues" and acting subtext. The descriptions are too oriented towards a "reader" and not the "viewer". I think it also needs more character development. If you take time to clean it up, I think it has potential. It still needs polishing.
Good luck
