Three friends become entangled in a series of mind games as they argue over what they should do when a local Sheriff comes looking for the woman they find murdered in their isolated cabin

wilsondownunder:
>> but you?re certainly being a jackass

That is my defining characteristic and character flaw, alas!

I apologize for the tone of my earlier post.

But not the substance.

Regards and best wishes.

I can't comment as to whether you're stupid or not but you're certainly being a jackass

wilsondownunder:

I submit that the logline is no place to play "mind games" with script readers, producers, directors, agents or actors. We have got 5 seconds, 10 at the max to correctly inform -- not confuse them -- and hook their interest. Leaving them confused or wondering on any one word is the kiss of death, all the excuse they need to reject ours idea and move on.

Not then: the casual flow of the dramatic logic in your logline seems to be:

1] three friends find a body;
2] the sheriff comes by;
3] he suspects them. (ergo that is the motivation, the trigger, the only explanation for them to become...)
4] " entangled in mind games"
5] in order to prove their innocence.

Item 3] is the plot trigger for the mind games. It explains why they get "entangled in mind games." But it's not there, not explicitly stated in your logline. I have to infer it.

(I also have to infer 5]. But if I didn't have to infer 3] if 3] were explicit then 5] would be covered.)

Now if I've got this much of your logline wrong, then either:

1] Your logline isn't clear.
or
2] I am a stupid jackass who can't figure out the "obvious" doing a 5-second, cold reading of your logline.

If you opt for 2] how confident are you that your logline will not encounter more jackasses like me in the industry stupid enough not to see "the obvious"?