In the Line of Fire (1993) (R)

In the Line of Fire (1993) (R)
Directed by Wolfgang Petersen
Starring: Clint Eastwood, John Malkovich, Rene Russo, Dylan McDermott

Daddy Says:

In the Line of Fire stars Clint Eastwood as Secret Service agent Frank Horrigan. Haunted by his own past, as part of the Presidential guard around John F. Kennedy on the fateful day of his assassination, Frank is determined to not make the same mistake he made all those years ago. Lately, he's been doing his undercover job of catching counterfeiters, but when a would-be assassin makes a threat on the President's life, Frank wants back in the game, determined to stop the bullet -- this time.

One of the great things about this film is how Eastwood isn't afraid to show that he's aging. When he asks to be put back on Presidential guard duty, his superiors frankly tell him that that's a job for a much younger man. Whether Frank is running alongside the President's limo in a parade, or chasing down suspects, he really does look like he could collapse at any moment. But because he's played by Clint Eastwood, he also has that determined look, the one that says no matter how much this hurts, I'm going to prevail.

John Malkovich makes a wonderful villain/assassin. I won't spoil the surprise, but when we find out why he's able to get away with as much as he is able to it somehow makes perfect sense. That the person explaining it to us is played by an uncredited Steve Railsback, who played Charles Manson in Helter Skelter, also makes perfect sense.

The only negative I can see in the film is an unnecessary romance with Rene Russo's fellow agent character. Eastwood is nearly 25 years older than her in real life, and it makes for a somewhat uncomfortable plot thread that I think the movie could have done without. Still, this is wonderfully entertaining.

Rating for In the Line of Fire: ****3/4.

Daughter Says:

In the Line of Fire could have been really great, but I just didn’t enjoy this movie as much as the last Clint Eastwood movie I watched. I didn’t understand some of the parts in this movie such as the romance. The relationship between Eastwood and Russo didn’t affect the rest of the movie whatsoever. I could understand if they went deeper into the relationship. If they wanted to put it in there at all they should have made it so either the bad guy targeted Russo and Eastwood make a mistake, causing more trouble than needed. Or they could have made it so the President was clearly targeted but instead of protecting the President he tried to protect Russo. But noooo, instead they just left it at these two have an attraction toward each other. I’m starting to think that some movies just put it in there so it lets them reach a larger group of people. (New genre: Action/Romance/Clint Eastwood movies.)

There were some good parts to this movie, believe it or not. I enjoyed the plot of the movie a whole lot. The intense setting involved with Eastwood trying to catch the terrorist that’s trying to blow the President’s head off. I must praise John Malkovich for making a very good bad guy out of the story. He was beyond creepy during the movie. I enjoyed watching that a lot, but even he couldn’t save this movie.

If you are looking for a classic Clint Eastwood movie don’t get this one. If you are looking for romance with drama don’t get this one. If you are looking for an action-suspense type of movie then you might (and I mean might) want to check this one out. So I don’t really suggest this movie for anyone looking for a good time. But it’s up to you really.

Rating for In the Line of Fire: ***.