In the Line of Fire Reviews

To be honest, it has been a while since I have seen this flick and maybe I should re-watch it at some point. This movie was actually quite a milestone. Indeed, it would be basically the last time that Clint Eastwood would play the lead in the major motion-picture directed by someone else than himself (eventually, almost 20 years later, he would finally work for someone else again for ‘Trouble with the Curve’ but it was something rather minor). Back then, Rene Russo was still on the A-list and, together, they had some really good chemistry. Anyway, back to our main feature, it was some perfect material for Eastwood and it is rather difficult to imagine another actor for this part. Concerning John Malkovich, he was maybe not your typical flashy over-the-top psychopath but that made his character ever more compelling to behold. On top of that, even though it might seem to be a fairly standard and generic tale, it was actually rather realistic, at least for this genre, and above all, it was terribly effective. To conclude, even though it was probably not a real masterpiece, it was still a solid and really entertaining thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre. 

In the Line of Fire still remains the indomitable king in the realm of political action-thrillers. It may seem that a majority of the basic plot elements appear somewhat proverbial to a mainstream audience (i.e. an aging law enforcement officer who's passed his prime, a bureau reluctant to trust the aging officer, a psycho killer who establishes communication with the hero, the psycho killer endeavouring to get into the head of the aging protagonist, etc), but with the impeccable Clint Eastwood in front of the camera and acclaimed director Wolfgang Peterson at the helm...In the Line of Fire is far from ordinary.

The movie is a supremely crackling political thriller featuring intricate and artistic direction, an intriguing screenplay, and it moves at a feverish pace from one fascinating plot point to the one succeeding it. Clint Eastwood may have been in his early 60s when the cameras rolled for this film, but it's the greatest modern Eastwood actioner since the original Dirty Harry. In fact, In the Line of Fire confidently positions itself in the league of Unforgiven as well as other classic Eastwood westerns. The film benefits mostly from the meticulous script by Jeff Maguire that contains intelligent scenarios and witty dialogue. Every shot in itself is a work of art, created by a director who excels at his craft.

Veteran Secret Service agent Frank Horrigan (Eastwood) has passed his golden years. Back in the 1960s, he was personally picked by John F. Kennedy and was his favourite Secret Service agent. But on November 22 1963, Frank failed to react to the bullets that blew Kennedy's head apart. His failure to protect the president has haunted him for decades. 30 years later Frank is doing undercover work to bust counterfeiters for the Treasury Department. Frank and his new young partner Al (McDermott) are assigned to investigate what appears to be a routine, commonplace threat to the current president's life. But the man behind the threat begins calling Frank at his home. He shares his thoughts with Frank and boasts of his intentions to kill the President of the United States. The alleged assassin calls himself "Booth" (Malkovich) in honour of John Wilkes Booth (who killed President Lincoln...just in case you didn't know). As communication between the two intensifies, Booth begins to torment Frank in relation to his failure to take a bullet for the president back in the 1960s. Driven by his determination not to let another president die, Frank quickly finds himself having to confront his inner demons to catch Booth and prevent the proposed assassination from coming to fruition.

The theatrical release date for In the Line of Fire was between The Firm and The Fugitive, not to mention that the film was also sandwiched between the two significant Eastwood tentpoles of Unforgiven and A Perfect World. Out of these aforementioned films, In the Line of Fire and Unforgiven are the best of show: each film respectively marking a return to form for Eastwood, with a western (like his breakthrough performance in the western A Fistful of Dollars) and an intense action-thriller (similar to the original Dirty Harry).

Jeff Maguire's remarkable screenplay earned an Oscar nomination, and rightfully so. The intelligent script tracks an extraordinary game of cat-and-mouse of superlative quality. This thriller is certainly a cut above the pack, due mainly to Maguire's outstanding script. There's a high amount of realism and detail in the storytelling. The depiction of the Secret Service is thoroughly accurate. The methods shown are apparently quite precise. Most impressive are the surprising plot twists of which there are plenty. The characters are realistic as well. What could have been a two-dimensional slate of characters are instead given astounding depth. The psycho villain in particular is bequeathed with comprehendible motives and a fascinating personality. Probably the only drawback would be a number of clichés. It's mostly forgivable though, because a majority of these clichés were invented by this film.

German director Wolfgang Peterson is probably most recognised for the critically acclaimed Das Boot. Following In the Line of Fire, Peterson went on to direct such films as Air Force One, The Perfect Storm, Outbreak, and several others. He crafts his movies with wonderful filmic merits present in each shot. The final showdown is probably the strongest 15 minutes in the flick. It's suitably intense, nail-biting and clever. You will be kept on the edge of your seat until we're allowed to breathe again.
Probably the main highlight of the film is its terrific score courtesy of composer Ennio Morricone. Morricone's music constantly sets the tone to great effect. With a great editor handling great material shot by a great cinematographer, the only touch making it better is the tingling sound of Morricone's music.

The remarkable characters are performed by an above average cast. Clint Eastwood hasn't lost his touch. Some compare this film to the original Dirty Harry, and with good reason. If the name of Frank Horrigan was changed to Harry Callahan, it could have worked as a fitting farewell to the trademark action hero. The only thing missing would be the wisecracks and badass attitude. Despite that, there are a lot of Eastwoodisms to be found. One of the most interesting Eastwood moments is when he's making love to Secret Service agent Lilly Raines (Russo). They attempt to remove each other's clothes and the irritatingly excessive hi-tech equipment...and then Lilly is called away. "Damn!" Eastwood finally says, looking disappointed and annoyed. "I've got to put all that shit back on, damn it!"
John Malkovich was nominated for an Oscar for his electrifying, career-best performance as the villain. He does a sneeringly terrific job, pulling off multiple appearances as his character creates new disguises for himself. Malkovich has the look of a cool, calm killer as he relentlessly murders people without hesitation and only rarely losing his temper. When on the phone to Eastwood's character, he's menacing and chilling. Apparently to add further credibility to the frequent phone conversations between Eastwood and Malkovich, they were filmed for real.

The rest of the cast are given the unfortunate task of working in the shadow of two tremendously talented actors. Rene Russo is likeable as always in her performance as the committed female Secret Service agent. The only real drawback of the film is in Russo's character. Not that her performance was faulty, but the way she was written is slightly disappointing. Being a love interest for Eastwood doesn't fit. In addition to the baffling age gap, it appears to weaken and cheapen the supposedly solid character. All other cast members do their job effectively.

Overall, In the Line of Fire is a fantastic political action-thriller that moves at an invigorating pace and provides solid entertainment for its 125-minute duration. The film benefits from top-notch moviemaking in every aspect. From directing to cinematography, editing to scoring, sound effects to visual effects...the faults are too scarce to notice. It's been a number of years since the film's initial release, yet it has hardly dated. Perhaps the digital insertion of Eastwood into old JFK footage is a little obvious, however little else is flawed. The film may not encompass the outlandish action of Con Air or Peterson's later Air Force One, but nevertheless the film stands confidently on its own merits.

9.2/10