After her rich husband and her lover are found murdered on her living room floor, a beautiful woman must prove her innocence to avoid being murdered by the police while in custody.

So the rogue cops have constituted themselves as a modern day “star chamber”. ?If they are her real antagonists, ?I think they need to be referenced explicitly in the logline. ?A reader shouldn’t be left to wonder, to guess on that point; it’s a key element (to wit, selling point) of the plot.

A logline should leave a logline reader wanting to know more in terms of what happens. But I don’t think a logline should leave a reader wanting to know more in order to make sense of the premise, to find it credible.

fwiw

Time and chance are wild cards in the marketing of a movie.

“Dirty Harry” and “Death Wish” were successful because of the zeitgeist of their time; cops who played loose and dirty with the rules and laws, vigilante-style justice played to people’s frustrations and anxiety that there was a break down in law and order (in the USA anyway), that ?normative police and justice procedures were ineffective. ?Too many of the bad guys seemed to be beating the rules of the system.

Today (in the USA anyway) I think it would be a lot harder for a movie with a “Dirty Harry” type cop character to get made.

Whether this particular “star chamber” ?premise can tap into a current zeitgeist of a mass anxiety, phobia or discontent, I don’t know. ?Maybe if the woman were an emigrant, an Islamic woman, it might play in Great Britain to current anxieties associated with Brexit. ?But I don’t know if kbfilmworks ?wants to tip toe through that mine field.

I throw that out there for what it isn’t worth because of another question Nir Shelter raised in an earlier post: ?what motivated the formation of a “star chamber” group of vigilante cops in the 1st place? ?What’s the origin story? And here is where I personally have problems with the credibility of the assumption that seems to underlie the premise.

My own conclusion based on first hand observation while working in law enforcement was that vigilante style “justice” in police work (aka: street justice) was usually motivated by 3 situations: ?1] Because of the victim’s race; 2] Because the victim was a serial offender, a thief, a pimp, a drug dealer with a long rap sheet who seemed to beat the system. ?He always made bail, always got off with a reduced charged and token time served. 3] Because of the victim’s race and rap sheet (And god help him!)

I don’t see any of the 3 situations reflected in this premise. ?There is no indication that the woman belongs to a minority, either racial and/or religious. ?There is no indication that she’s a serial offender. ?So I don’t see these why vigilante cops would have the motivation to take the risk of executing “star chamber” justice on her. Risk because they are operating outside the law; there’s always the possibility of them being caught, being fired, being jailed themselves. Why are they taking the time and risk to “try” and execute her when there are so many other suspects more “worthy” of their brand of justice?

fwiw