An inner-city terrorist attack traps a disgraced former politician and an anarchist student protestor in an elevator on the 67th floor of a burning building with little hope of help. When suspicion of each other’s involvement in the incident arises, they are forced to re-examine their assumptions about each other and cooperate if they want to survive.

The film sounds like a buddy movie with two buddies who hate each other, but have to work together. Something like Hell in the Pacific, but in a burning building. Or perhaps a crossover between Hell in the Pacific and Die Hard (terrorists in a building).

However, what is the main action that they are expected to perform?

1. exit elevator
2. exit building
3. game over.

I would expect that step (1) would require some minor actions and (2) would have unexpected complications; perhaps terrorists are still in the building?

But there should be something more specific than "work together." "Work together" could be something as simple as one pushing the other up through the hatch above their heads -and then the film ends.

Note: You know that it's way to long for a logline, don't you? -58 words or so. (Bravo, Richiev, for doing a great job chopping it down!)

Richiev's version is a good rewrite.

But I think there are a couple of fundamental problems embedded in the premise.

1] The dramatic premise?sets up a false conflict, a false dilemma.? A true dilemma is one where characters are faced with two equally desirable or two equally undesirable choices and they must choose one of them .

The choices in this premise, to cooperate or not to cooperate, are not equal.? So they don't face a true dilemma.? When faced with? the immediate prospect of death, how realistic is it to believe that two people, of polar opposite political persuasions would not put their politics aside to work together to survive?

2] Loglines are about what characters consciously intend to do, not about unintended consequences that follow.? The two political foes don't consciously intend to "re-examine their assumptions";? that is an unintended consequence of having to work together to survive.

Richiev's version is a good rewrite.

But I think there are a couple of fundamental problems embedded in the premise.

1] The dramatic premise?sets up a false conflict, a false dilemma.? A true dilemma is one where characters are faced with two equally desirable or two equally undesirable choices and they must choose one of them .

The choices in this premise, to cooperate or not to cooperate, are not equal.? So they don't face a true dilemma.? When faced with? the immediate prospect of death, how realistic is it to believe that two people, of polar opposite political persuasions would not put their politics aside to work together to survive?

2] Loglines are about what characters consciously intend to do, not about unintended consequences that follow.? The two political foes don't consciously intend to "re-examine their assumptions";? that is an unintended consequence of having to work together to survive.