ElMaruecan82
On the surface, Wolfgang Petersen's thriller seems ("seems" underlined) to borrow elements from many cop thrillers: you've got the rugged and wore-down veteran with 'one failing mission' in the past to forever haunt him, a newly assigned sidekick and soon-to-be-love-interest, a nemesis efficient in being suavely creepy and even the Kennedy assassination to provide some realistic backstory. So, if you saw the "Dirty Harry" movies, "The Day of the Jackal", "Die Hard" and "JFK", "In the Line of Fire" will look familiar, only it doesn't, and it even manages to look fresh, original and irresistibly gripping. Anyone can be original, when you think about it, but making something new out of familiar elements, now that's a remarkable stunt to achieve. The credit goes to a few guys, but I won't start with the obvious ones. As a graduate in screen writing, I'm fascinated and enthralled by good scripts, and I believe these ones provide readings that are as exciting as novels or as watching the film itself. So, I never really bought that this film's script was worth an Oscar nomination, but one viewing in the 90's obviously made me overlook a few details. Watching the film again, it is an intelligently written movie, from Mr. Jeff Maguire.All right, you have a former Kennedy bodyguard who obviously failed in that sunny November Day in 1963, and a former CIA agent who plans to kill the President, but look how progressively the film gets deeper in these two characters, Frank Horrigan and Mitch Leary, both wonderfully played by Clint Eastwood and John Malkovich. It's not ex-bodyguard versus ex-CIA, it's more than that.You a man whose job consists on protecting and one whose job is to kill, but that's not all, these guy's professionalism rely on their willingness to give their own lives, it's obvious for the villain, but not much for the hero. The masterstroke of the plot is the way it dodges the phone-tracking device and allows them to engage in deep phone calls revealing that they have more in common than what they think, or what Frank thinks.Nourished by a similar patriotism, Frank and Leary are like the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde of America, and it all comes down to one question: how far would they go to achieve their destiny? And just when you think this is going too psychological, the script finds a way to confront these two living contradictions not through a conversation or a phone call, but through an action sequence. Let's not forget it's a thriller.The heart-pounding chase sequence culminates with the killer saving the life of the protector but who could have killed the killer; only it would have meant his own death. As Leary comments after, "the irony is so thick you can choke on it". The film is never overwritten, all these talkative moments are like the Greek chorus to a drama magnificently operated by two men, drama in the Greek meaning of the word: action. It's a cat-and-mouse, 'mano a mano' chase between two guys who will only come full circle with themselves at the end. We're absorbed by Eastwood's toughness, vulnerability and even little touch of self-derision, especially in his scenes with Rene Russo (who's more than the obligatory love interest) and by Leary, an efficient crossover between the Jackal, Hans Gruber and Hannibal Lecter.This is one helluva villain from a rightfully Oscar-nominated Malkovich, sociopathic, professional killer, master of disguise, as meticulous and perfectionist as a bottle boat builder. And it's because Leary has the edge over Frank that I loved watching Frank, trying to spot him, to predict his move and to eventually succeed, but the end is more important than the journey.In fact, I almost had a reservation about the way Leary waited a little before killing Frank. I thought this was a case of villain monologue and reading Roger Ebert, the late critic, who gave three and half stars to the film, admitted that there was no way such a killer would go to the higher place, instead of just running away. So, I watched the scene again, and from the way these two men were played, there was nothing gratuitous. Leary was willing to die after his failed mission, prison wasn't an option, and that makes sense. Secondly, there is no villain monologue, at that time, Leary knows he's just made Frank a hero, he saved his soul, his name, and wants respect before terminating him. It's easy to overlook that moment because we're focused on the double communication trick, another smart and creative bit from the writer.Frank is talking to Leary, while in fact, giving orders to Lilly (Rene Russo), but if we put ourselves in Leary's mind at that moment, we understand there's bitterness for having failed… but the satisfying consolation to have at least contributed to Frank's redemption. All through the film, Leary made a point of having spared Frank's life, even saving him, so even Frank's ultimate victory belongs to Leary.But you've got to wonder why a man who was so ruthless and flawless in his mission, never cut that loose end named Frank. The key is in his nickname "Booth", Leary doesn't admire Oswald, but Booth, a comedian with panache. Leary, like all the men who believe they have a destiny, creates his own narrative, and given how this President is not of JFK's caliber, Leary needs Frank, for the kick of it. When you think about it, if the villain was 100% professional, there would be no movie, and we would have been deprived from one of the most unforgettable villains of the 90's. Sure, there are John Doe, Hannibal Lecter, Keyser Soze but it takes several viewings to realize that "In the Line of Fire" has nothing to envy from the great 90's crime masterpieces. It is one of them.
view_and_review
Clint Eastwood is so adept at playing the over-the-hill badass--and this movie is no exception. "Unforgiven", in which Clint plays the past-his-prime gunslinger, is still one of my favorite movies (if you haven't seen it, shame on you).Here, Clint plays Frank Horrigan, a secret service agent that is the only still active agent to have been on duty when JFK was assassinated. That day plagues him and it becomes all the more relevant when he is dragged into a cat and mouse game with another potential president assassin, Mitch Leary (John Malkovich).As adept as Clint is at playing a golden aged hero, Malkovich is equally adept at playing a psychopath. The drama and intensity of In the Line of Fire was brought to life by Malkovich. Mitch Leary was a respectable bad guy. However ignoble is aim was he was going to achieve it in the most noble and sophisticated fashion. Mitch Leary was both cold-blooded and honest. He toyed with Frank Horrigan and the entire secret service but left tiny bread crumbs just to keep it interesting for himself and, by extension, the viewer. I so enjoyed the chess match between the two of them.Rounding out the starring cast was Rene Russo and Dylan McDermott. Rene played an agent and Frank's love interest (naturally) and Dylan played Al D'Andrea, the rookie. Their roles were inconsequential because the real show was Eastwood and Malkovich. I wish they'd done more projects together.
powermandan
Wolfgang Peterson is a well-known film director from Germany, best known for his action- packed, high calibre blockbusters. In The Line Of Fire is his first American thriller at the highest level. Peterson broke out in 1981's Das Boot, the best German epic ever. The Neverending Story showed his versatility and In The Line Of Fire cemented his legacy and best-known genre to tackle: a political thriller. Only Wolfgang Peterson could have made a movie this exciting.I have no interest in politics, but I found this movie to be thoroughly engaging and very fun. It is about a Secret Service Agent (Eastwood) who is haunted by his failure to save John F. Kennedy. A psychotic madman (Malkovich) toys with him, saying he plans on assassinating the current president. Eastwood does a job well-done in acting, one of the best he's ever done (I'd say). But John Malkovich steals the show in every scene he's in. I'm surprised the American Film Institute didn't put him on their list of 50 Greatest Villains. He's sure better than some that made the cut. Many political thrillers aren't really interesting to me. There's too much talk about the different parties and subjects that only avid news watchers would like. In The Line Of Fire is about battling a hit-man. The political bit don't get in the way at all. Since there's many subplots about the characters that tie together very well, the strength makes it outweigh most other flicks like this. To top it all off, Wolfgang Peterson gives us a picture with a direction that only the best can do. Any perilous thriller like this is a sure winner, but Peterson does more. He treats Malkovich's character like an actual monster. Similar to what John Carpenter did with Michael Myers in the original Halloween, we do not really see Malcovich's character into part way through the movie. He uses lighting and camera tricks to keep him a mystery, a thing. After a while, at the right point, he had to have been shown. Does Peterson stop his clever tricks? No. That is just when they begin.
