I would consider just saying “unstable actress”. To me, “damaged” and “unstable” are almost synonymous and I think the point gets across.

I’m reading this as the actress has beaten up the journalist (I could be wrong and as the others have pointed out, it’s a bit ambiguous). If that’s the case, why would we root for her to get her daughter back? She’s unstable, damaged, and has violent tendencies. I don’t think any audience is going to want her daughter, an innocent, to end up under her care. Even if she didn’t beat up the journalist (and you should clarify what happened in the logline) she’s still characterised as damaged and unstable – hardly a winning combo for parenthood. I’m struggling to see how an audience could react favourably…

Is her ultimate goal to get her daughter back? If so then I would consider making the inciting incident the moment her daughter was taken away. The I.I. then directly relates to the goal – the character is trying to restore the balance she lost when her daughter was taken from her. There would be a clear arc from instability to stability and no parent would struggle to get behind someone who is trying to improve their life in order to get a child back. She can still beat up a journalist and it could still be part of the I.I. if you wanted, or it could be a road block on the way (act II climax?). This is more of a drama than a thriller and probably not the story you are trying to tell so apologies if this doesn’t help.

Why an actress by the way?

When social services take her daughter away, an emotionally unstable actress is given six months to regain control of her life and win her back.

Not the best by a long shot. “Regain control of her life” isn’t the most visual description but it’s a serving suggestion.

Most “Out of the Bottle” stories focus on the protagonist wishing for something selfish, righting wrongs in their own life. It isn’t until they get what they want that they realise that it’s actually not what they want at all. This is what results in the character’s arc. Ultimately, these stories usually end with the character being happy once the spell/curse/wish is removed so what happens once?it’s lifted? Does he actually achieve world peace (and it’s then taken away?) or does he realise that world peace is an illusion thus dispelling his naivety? Either way, I think there’s almost a disconnect between the inciting incident and the goal – as Richiev said, if he wants world peace wish for world peace. I get that it’s a “with great power comes great responsibility” kinda thing and there’s a nobility to his actions I’m just struggling to see Act III.

I wouldn’t say “trick”. He’s tricking them into believing he’s someone who he’s not but I don’t think that enables him to trick them into world peace. Plus, I want his good intentions and pluck to rub off on these miserable UN folks. I want him to genuinely succeed in convincing them. Reminds me a bit of “Being There”.

All that being said, I think this is great. I really like the idea of that naivety and purity making him think he can use this power for the greater good but finds it crashing down around him. I want it to be a darkly humorous look at mankind, verging on depressing, but so absurdly accurate it’s hilarious.

As far as the logline goes though, I think you need to hint at what happens next. Suggest the chaos that ensues if world peace is achieved or what happens to our protagonist if it’s not. I’d trim the explanation about how the wish works too, it’s not needed. CraigDGriffiths’ version works just as well.?