Review: In the Line of Fire

Long-serving Secret Service agent Frank Horrigan (Clint Eastwood) was there in 1963 when Kennedy was shot, and hasn’t ever quite shaken the sense of failure in all the years since. Out of the blue, he starts getting calls from a would-be assassin who goes by the moniker Booth (John Malkovich), who claims he’s going to assassinate the current President unless Frank can stop him. Frank’s a lot older now obviously, and has a hard time convincing people he should be on Presidential security detail. However, his communications with Booth ultimately see his boss Sam (John Mahoney) find reason to keep his long-time friend on the gig, despite strong opposition from arrogant head of Presidential detail Bill Watts (Gary Cole) and even the President’s Chief of Staff (Fred Dalton Thompson). So the game of cat-and-mouse is on. Rene Russo plays Secret Service agent Lilly Raines, Dylan McDermott is nervy Secret Service partner Al, whilst Patrika Darbo and veteran William G. Schilling (best known for TV’s “Head of the Class”) are key people Booth ingratiates himself to during his plot. Tobin Bell has a cameo as a crook Horrigan and Al try to bust in an undercover operation early on.

One of the best thrillers of the 90s (to say the very least), this crackling 1993 Presidential assassination flick from Wolfgang Petersen (“Das Boot”, “The NeverEnding Story”) still holds up 25+ years later. In fact, I think it’s second only to “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” as Clint Eastwood’s best film as either actor or director. 1993 really was a strong year for films, with this, “The Fugitive”, “Philadelphia”, “Groundhog Day”, “Tombstone”, “Schindler’s List”, and the underrated “Demolition Man” all standing tall among the best films of the decade, some even all-time greats. There’s an awful lot of people here doing some of their best work actually, including Dylan McDermott (one of the best ‘Standard Clint Eastwood Law Enforcement Partners’), Tobin Bell, and especially an Oscar-nominated John Malkovich as one of cinema’s finest villains. The 90s really were a good decade for crackerjack thrillers, but thrillers with more than decent scripts behind them to go with the action. This is one of the more exemplary of exemplary examples, coming from a name you’ve probably never heard, Jeff Maguire (the Richard Donner time-travel flop “Timeline”).

The cast really is excellent here, with the aforementioned Malkovich leading the way as one of cinema’s coldest, most calculating and interesting villains. Some will say the actor got a bit typecast after this, I say he’s just damn terrific at what he does. He’s terrifyingly convincing as a the intelligent wannabe assassin. It’s a brilliant performance, his voice alone has a chilling quality that I can’t quite put my finger on the reason why, but it’s there nonetheless. I actually love how Petersen obscures our full view of Malkovich for much of the film. We all know who is playing the part, but with Malkovich the voice creeps you out enough anyway. Make no mistake though, it’s not just the voice. Malkovich plays a dead-eyed sociopath pitch-perfectly, and without forgetting to also be entertaining (Something that Tony Hopkins was also able to do in his brilliant Oscar-winning turn in “Silence of the Lambs”, overrated as I feel the film might slightly be). He gets a particularly droll bit involving a couple of dickhead duck hunters you can’t help laughing at, even if you know you shouldn’t. In my view, Malkovich and the filmmakers have created the most complete and convincing fictional depiction of an assassin in movie history.

Eastwood is Eastwood, but more lively and entertaining than in any other film he appeared in from the 80s or 90s as far as I’m concerned. The film isn’t entirely able to satisfactorily account for the star’s age. The character needs to be old enough to have served JFK, but he’s clearly way too old to even be considered for his job now. However, it’s the kind of thing you just need to let go of in order to enjoy the film, and for this film I was more than happy to do that. He’s not a great actor (he’s a star), but he’s the right one for this.

Rene Russo as was usual during the 80s and 90s plays a fairly stereotypical role, and plays it expertly. She was always capable of more in my opinion (“The Thomas Crown Affair” remake was an ill-fit for her, and her every scene suggested she knew it too), but she’s great to have around here nonetheless. It’s always great to see John Mahoney on screen, whilst Gary Cole makes for an effective ‘Arrogant prick who gets to be wrong about everything’, whilst future presidential candidate Fred Dalton Thompson is also effective as another wrong arrogant prick character, albeit a slightly more measured one as the White House Chief of Staff. One of the most affecting turns comes from poor Patrika Darbo, who as a chubby girl who picks the wrong guy to be flattered by, is immediately worrying. If there’s any dud in the cast, and it’s more the character than performer it’d be the strange cameo by Steve Railsback. His CIA character just doesn’t seem to fit here and shouldn’t be here. It leans a little too far into overt Oswald territory for an assassin who identifies more with John Wilkes Booth.

Would this film work this way today? Not from a technological standpoint, no. You’d have to make significant changes to counter for the changes in our society over time. However, I’m not willing to call the film ‘dated’. I find that a pejorative term, and I don’t believe a film being of its era is necessarily a bad thing or makes it unable to be enjoyed outside of that era. That’s absurd. The film is expertly done. If you don’t believe me, watch Eastwood’s own directorial effort “Absolute Power”, a political thriller that does everything wrong that Petersen and co get absolutely right here. It’s a wonderfully professional job, everyone from top to bottom in production was firing on all cylinders here. The music score by the great Ennio Morricone (“The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”, “For a Few Dollars More”, “Once Upon a Time in the West”) deserves a special shout-out, it sounds a little like his work on “The Untouchables” at times, actually.

Some might wince at what they perceive to be Eastwood’s character’s sexism towards the Russo character here, but I (admittedly a heterosexual white male) think such an accusation would be way off base here. It’s obvious at least to me that it’s meant to not only be funny, but also deliberately showing Eastwood’s character as a man behind the times.

Crackling pacing, great performances, unforgettable characters, a strong music score. They don’t make ‘em like this anymore, folks. Great movie entertainment from real pros. If you don’t like this one, subjective opinion or not, I think the answer lies more with you than the film.

Rating: A