In the Line of Fire

An assassin on the loose. A president in danger. Only one man stands between them...

Action Drama Thriller
128 min     7     1993     USA

Overview

Veteran Secret Service agent Frank Horrigan is a man haunted by his failure to save President Kennedy while serving protection detail in Dallas. Thirty years later, a man calling himself "Booth" threatens the life of the current President, forcing Horrigan to come back to protection detail to confront the ghosts from his past.

Reviews

r96sk wrote:
I wish it was paced better, but 'In the Line of Fire' still makes for a good time. Clint Eastwood and John Malkovich is a great line-up and both are entertaining in this, the latter is just terrific at playing a loopy bad guy. There's a fair few well known peeps behind them, including John Heard and Gary Cole - it's a fairly strong cast. The story is an interesting one, though given that you'd expect the film to move along at a better pace but it kinda just walks through its 128 minute run time. It's not a drag or anything, but I definitely wasn't on the edge of my seat unfortunately. It's still a film I'd recommend, though.
Filipe Manuel Dias Neto wrote:
**Action, entertainment and verisimilitude together in a film that is better than many others, more regularly remembered.** This is a conventional American-style action film, where everything revolves around the unassailable and sacrosanct figure of the President. There are loads of films like this, such as “Air Force One” or “Olympus Has Fallen”, which may help to explain why it ended up so forgotten, despite being nominated for three Oscars (Best Editing, Best Supporting Actor and Best Original Screenplay). It's not a new film, but it guarantees action and entertainment, and looks very appealing to televisions and home market. In this case, the script focuses on the threat of a madman who is willing to do anything to assassinate the American president, and on the attempts of a veteran Secret Service agent to discover and prevent him. In a film where the plot does not reserve any surprises or innovation, predictability can be a problem. In fact, there's nothing here that we haven't seen before. However, everything is done very competently and the commitment of all those involved is quite evident. The whole story is fairly well written and, apart from a few minor flaws, comes across as solid and credible. Wolfgang Petersen's direction also makes a decisive contribution to the positive outcome of the final product. The cast contains several well-known names, but, unsurprisingly, it is Clint Eastwood who secures the lead role. And once again, the veteran shows us all the charisma he has. He really manages to balance his usual tough guy image with a fragility that his age accentuates and justifies. John Malkovich also did a good job. It's not the best of his career, but it was honest, credible and done with great professionalism. Rene Russo is the female standout, but in a movie with so much testosterone, she has little to do other than appear tough enough to keep up with those men and be the love interest of one of them. Technically, the film has several points of merit that deserve to be highlighted and analyzed. When I read a little about this film (I have this habit, to be able to understand certain details and clear up some doubts that arise when watching), I discovered that there was, on the part of the production, a concern with the details. To make things more credible, they even asked the Secret Service for advice. And whenever a film production takes into account the relevance of details to the verisimilitude of the film, we have a duty to commend such efforts. Cinematography is the dominant standard in films of the time, and the sets and costumes are also what was imagined. There are many well-executed action scenes, and some good special effects and visuals. Editing is also very good.

Similar