A corrupt rural sheriff must find a senator's abducted daughter to bring a quick end to an FBI manhunt that could expose his ties to local drug trafficking.

Why do we root for him?

I think both Richiev and Valentin raise interesting points.

For me, one of the similarities between "Man on Fire" and "Silence of the Lambs" is that in both cases there is a strong emotional subtext/link between the protagonist and the victim. Both allude to the linkage in "Man of Fire", the bond that developed in the 1st Act between Creasy and Pita.

In "Silence of the Lambs", I interpreted the scenes of the trapped and terrified victim in the serial murderer's pit as connecting to the terrifying memories Clarice had of the lambs trapped and being slaughtered -- memories that Hannibal Lecter forced her to confront. (Which was sufficient dramatic justification for me for the scenes of the victim's entrapment and terror.)

In any event, I agree with and would amplify Valentin's observation that there needs to be a personal connection between the victim and the protagonist. Personal in the sense that the sheriff knows her or personal in the sense of a shared emotional conflict and/or psychic trauma.

In "Man on fire", the theme is different. It is about a relationship between a broken man and a lonely little girl. How she saves him emotionally. Denzel Washington is introduced as a wash up alcoholic. The little girl behaviour and incessant questions means that he can see a way back into humanity for him. There is love, trust and respect between the two characters. When she kidnapped, his motivation are personal. He goes back to being a killer, but this time he has a purpose and does not feel bad about it.
From the logline, the situation is completely different. Here, the sheriff does not know the kidnapped senator's daughter. He has had zero interaction with her before. So she can't be his internal motivation. He does not care about her, just about the concept of her. Hence the McGuffin.
One way to give him personal connection with the kidnapped victim would be to make her a surrogate. Maybe she remind him of his lost/killed daughter, but then what need to be shown is how he lost his daughter. Maybe he is a former FBI agent/police who got a kidnapped victim killed. Then again, we want to know how the previous kidnapping unfolded. In all cases, we would want to know why she is a surrogate, of whom she is surrogate and what happened to the original in order to understand him. It's not about the victim, it's about making things right this time according to the protagonist.

I disagree with Valentin. Take the movie 'Man on Fire' part of the reason we care that John Creasy "Denzel Washington" succeed in getting the bad guys (Even though he himself is flawed) is because we care about Dakota Fanning's character.

Instead of creating a "McGuffin" for him to save, create a real flesh and blood character the audience can care about.(But do it in as few scenes as possible because he's the the lead character not her)

When I read your logline, I immediately thought of the movie "Bad Lieutenant" by Abel Ferrara with Harvey Keitel. It is bleak, harrowing movie about an individual so far gone he can't see the good in people. He tries to redeem himself by solving the rape of a nun.
However from what you describe, it looks it more resemble its 2009 remake by Werner Herzog with Nic Cage (turning in one of his few good performances) . A good cop, turned bad and corrupt by circumstances who then tries to get out of a situation that is getting messier and messier.
Personally, I disagree with Richiev. To me the girl is a McGuffin. The less you show her, the better. That does not mean that you cannot show what she is risking to suffer. Past victims. Her finger as a proof of life.
From your logline, it looks like she is driving the events, but this is not her story. This is about the corrupt cop and his big choice. In "Silence of the lambs" the scenes with the kidnapper senator's daughter were the weakest of the movie. Also, in order to make her sympathetic, scriptwriters and movie directors tend to increase the suffering of the kidnapped victim. The classic approach "Look at how much she is suffering" that in some cases culminates with some torture porn scenes. However It may be counter intuitive with cinema being a visual media, but I find scenes where victims suffer mistreatment and even torture offscreen while their scream can be heard much more powerful than the ones with explicit visual.

Have you decided where the script is going to be based? You mentioned rural so. The bayou of Louisiana? Kentucky valleys?

Thanks for the encouragement, Richiev. I like the idea of the anti-hero doing the right thing too. Even if their motivation at first is to save their own ass.

Hear, hear. I agree 110%. Thanks for all of your input, dpg.

The best thing you can do is get the audience to care about the girl. Just a scene here and there. Then the audience will want the corrupt sheriff to succeed in his goal: Save the girl.

He may be a bad man, he may be corrupt, he may be doing it for all the wrong reasons, but he's doing a good deed.

To me, a bad person forced by circumstance to save the girl makes for a far more interesting story than a hero saving the girl.

I also think it's a intresting story (Y)

Hi, yes sure. I diddn't mean that he should be a "lovable cat man who makes the world a better place" just why we want to follow this guy's story? Hope you understundom what I mean :)

Don't get too down, this is a logline site. Sometimes loglines expose story flaws.

I personally like the idea of a corrupt sheriff having to do something noble to get out of being exposed as corrupt. To me that dichotomy makes a great story. but obviously, from the criticism it's not for everyone.

In the end, write the story you believe in. Good luck with this!

Thank you everyone for your feedback. I've discovered a problem I need to solve. I know the risk he takes by not acting (he goes to jail or gets killed), but I need to think about the risk he is taking by acting. A risk he might even be aware of. Thank you again. Everyone on this site is great.