This: "A helicopter screams into view through the panes and automatic fire comes from it" In the film, we see the bullets tearing up the greenhouse before we even know that a helicopter exists. I haven't seen this movie since it came out but I remember that being a very powerful scene. The carnage comes out of nowhere, very suddenly, exactly as those on the ground would experience it, without giving us a brief "oh shit" moment to prepare by revealing the helicopter first. When I saw this movie, I knew nothing about it. I didn't even know about the big famouse spoiler in it. And what was most magical to me was, at the time I was very seriously into studying modern Irish history, the IRA, Sinn Fein, etc. So to walk into a movie cold and suddenly realize "holy crap, they're IRA" was spectacular. I saw Midnight in Paris last week the same way. All I knew was "Woody Allen. Owen Wilson. Paris." It's really the best way to see a movie. So, a low-level writing question: We are told time and again, using "-ing" verbs is a newbie mistake. "Sits" instead of "is sitting", "kicks" instead of "is kicking". And this scene violates that rule in almost every action line, just by leaving off the "is". To me, this is a more effective use of verbs than what the conventional wisdom demands. "John sits" says to me "John takes a seat". "John is sitting" says "John continues to be seated." So, from this scene, we could have had: Fergus whips... Tinker sits... Bullets whip... which would follow the rules, but is dry. Or: Fergus is whipping... Tinker is sitting... Bullets are whipping... which does not follow the rules and is kind of limp, but instead we have: Fergus whipping... Tinker sitting... Bullets whipping... which breaks the rules but is stronger, more active. It makes the action race. If I do like this script does and somebody tells me "-ing" verbs are bad, should I just ignore them and go with my gut?

Ray, I know about the "ing" thing among screenwriting instructor / maven / 'guru' types. Personally as long as it does not include the "is," I do not have a problem with it as long as the writer is using it intentionally to emphasize one key point: The action that is happening is continuous, extended action. Take the verb you highlighted: whip. If you are describing how a character produces a gun quickly, then this works: "Fergus whips out his gun." If you are describing how a character is in the midst of assaulting someone else again and again, how about this: "Fergus whipping Jody... leather against skin... blood splattering." It is a slight distinction and not to say that "Fergus whips Jody" doesn't work, too. But for me at any rate, "ing" verbs can infer continuous, extended action in contrast to non-"ing" verbs. On those occasions you really want to immerse the reader into the experience of that continuous action, I don't have a problem with an "ing" version of the verb. Just avoid "is" constructions. It's a pet peeve among readers I know, a sign of sloppy imprecise writing.

The cut to the exterior of the greenhouse getting shot up before we go to the interior and see the copter hovering above -- as Ray mentioned -- is one the most noticeable strongest changes in a scene that's remarkably like the scripted version. One other shot jumped out at me: Jude and her fella' kicking out the small panel in the wall. You don't see them crawl through, but as is, it creates just enough of a possibility that they could escape to make their appearance later in the story believable.