When a distrusting security consultant finds a phone and inadvertently reads a text containing a random set of numbers, he must quickly uncover their meaning when he’s made a target by a mysterious group who seem to be able to predict his movements.
I would cut “random”… we don’t know if it’s random or if the numbers means something so it’s better not to state that they’re random.
I would cut “inadvertently” because it’s irrelevant.
You say “quickly” but you could tell why exacltly (or just avoid it).
I say this very often, I don’t know if it’s just me, but I hate the word mysterious in a logline: you should build the mystery not tell the reader that it’s a mystery. What makes this “group” mysterious?
“When a distrusting security consultant finds a phone with a text containing a set of numbers, he must understand their meaning to escape the attacks of people who are be able to predict his movements.”
I’m sure that when you will dig you story a little more, the logline will become more readable and smooth.
How does the consultant know that the the numbers aren’t just random numbers, that they are meaningful and he must decrypt them?
It seems to me that his being “distrusting” may be necessary to the premise, but it is not a sufficient grounds for the audience to buy the premise. He could be distrusting and wrong. The audience needs to be given a logical, empirical reason to believe that his suspicion is warranted. Ditto the logline reader — well, this one. What is the cause-and-effect relationship between the numbers and the attacks that gives the consultant probable cause to be believe they are linked?