Thanks for the comments, much appreciated again.

The film kind of plays out from two separate?perspectives, I don’t want you to think I have overcomplicated the plot because that’s not the case.

In the second act, the terrorist character essentially becomes the antagonist and having put some thought into how I should approach the logline, I am now pretty sure that the terrorist is not, and never was, designed to be written into a protagonist role… Although he is the lesser of two evil characters who cross paths in the opening act of the film, this basically becomes his inspiration to fulfill his role as the antagonist in act 2.

The protagonist, (a female who inadvertently comes into contact with the terrorist and essentially overcomes his attempts to victimize her, sending him spiraling?into even further resentment for humanity and feeling even weaker and isolated – cementing his decision to cause the attack, however only due to his own inabilities), is introduced in Act 1 but her primary input to the film leading up the conflict with the antagonist (terrorist) is reserved for Act 2.? However thinking about it, it creates a formula … Act 1 sets up the existence of the story and the fundamental motive behind it., ACT 2 leads toward the conflict between the two (by now) most established characters…

However as I may have mentioned before, the film is non-linear to an extent. It starts?as an epilogue, so the audience essentially sees the resolution play out from the start and that concluding scene is interwoven throughout the Three (consecutive, linear) ACTs of the film, which delve into deep personal observation of our main characters until they eventually encounter one another?at the end of ACT 2. And during that ‘interweaving’ final scene, our female protagonist is directly encountered by the ‘evil force’ (i.e the conwomen) who inspired our primary antagonist in ACT 1.