In the Line of Fire
3/4
Starring: Clint Eastwood, John Malkovich, Rene Russo, Dylan McDermott, John Mahoney, Fred Dalton Thompson
Rated R for Violence and Language
The best villains know the heroes as well as they know themselves. They know their weak spots (their wives/girlfriends, their kids, past mistakes, and so on), and they know how to stick a knife in the wound and twist it. Any man can kill someone. It takes a special breed of psychopath to punish the hero as he races against time to prevent a tragedy.
Frank Horrigan (Eastwood) was once "the best and the brightest" in the Secret Service. He was JFK's favorite agent until he failed to take a bullet for the President. Now nearly washed out, he is doing undercover work with his new partner, Al D'Andrea (McDermott). Then he gets a call from a creepy man (Malkovich) who knows all about him, and reveals that he plans to kill the president. Horrigan must play the man's game in order to trap him before history repeats itself.
Thrillers are always better when the hero and the villain are on an even playing field. That happened in "The Silence of the Lambs" (in a strange sort of way) and that happens here. Horrigan is smart, but so is the would-be assassin, a man named Mitch Leary. Leary likens their relationship to a game, and it really is. This is a high-stakes game of cat-and-mouse, only the mouse isn't the prey.
Eastwood has been more of an icon rather than a traditional actor like Daniel Day Lewis or Sean Penn. That's not such a bad thing, since we all love our movie stars. Eastwood can actually act, and when Horrigan reflects on his past mistakes and his burgeoning relationship with Lily Raines (Russo), a fellow agent, we feel for him. John Malkovich wasn't the first choice for the role of Mitch Leary, but he is the right one. No one can play a creepy villain like him. Leary is dangerous, but he's also intelligent. To him, this is simply a game. He wants to win, but his motivation is merely boredom. He's doing it because he can. Rene Russo has a few stiff moments, but is usually pretty good. Dylan McDermott is too low-key, however. He's a character actor, not someone can hold a movie camera's attention for an extended period of time. And as a young rookie, he's not believable.
This is a departure for Wolfgang Peterson, who gained fame for his beloved submarine thriller, "Das Boot" (which I found to be overrated). Peterson works best in closed spaces, like in his masterful action-thriller "Air Force One." That doesn't apply to "In the Line of Fire," which jumps to more than a few parts of the United States. Peterson at times struggles to keep things moving, although there is some genuine suspense and some wonderfully inventive shots in the climax (the clip of Leary going up an elevator in disguise is a case in point). Unfortunately the climax is resolved in a cliched way (mostly).
"In the Line of Fire" is an effective thriller because it concentrates on the characters that inhabit it.
Starring: Clint Eastwood, John Malkovich, Rene Russo, Dylan McDermott, John Mahoney, Fred Dalton Thompson
Rated R for Violence and Language
The best villains know the heroes as well as they know themselves. They know their weak spots (their wives/girlfriends, their kids, past mistakes, and so on), and they know how to stick a knife in the wound and twist it. Any man can kill someone. It takes a special breed of psychopath to punish the hero as he races against time to prevent a tragedy.
Frank Horrigan (Eastwood) was once "the best and the brightest" in the Secret Service. He was JFK's favorite agent until he failed to take a bullet for the President. Now nearly washed out, he is doing undercover work with his new partner, Al D'Andrea (McDermott). Then he gets a call from a creepy man (Malkovich) who knows all about him, and reveals that he plans to kill the president. Horrigan must play the man's game in order to trap him before history repeats itself.
Thrillers are always better when the hero and the villain are on an even playing field. That happened in "The Silence of the Lambs" (in a strange sort of way) and that happens here. Horrigan is smart, but so is the would-be assassin, a man named Mitch Leary. Leary likens their relationship to a game, and it really is. This is a high-stakes game of cat-and-mouse, only the mouse isn't the prey.
Eastwood has been more of an icon rather than a traditional actor like Daniel Day Lewis or Sean Penn. That's not such a bad thing, since we all love our movie stars. Eastwood can actually act, and when Horrigan reflects on his past mistakes and his burgeoning relationship with Lily Raines (Russo), a fellow agent, we feel for him. John Malkovich wasn't the first choice for the role of Mitch Leary, but he is the right one. No one can play a creepy villain like him. Leary is dangerous, but he's also intelligent. To him, this is simply a game. He wants to win, but his motivation is merely boredom. He's doing it because he can. Rene Russo has a few stiff moments, but is usually pretty good. Dylan McDermott is too low-key, however. He's a character actor, not someone can hold a movie camera's attention for an extended period of time. And as a young rookie, he's not believable.
This is a departure for Wolfgang Peterson, who gained fame for his beloved submarine thriller, "Das Boot" (which I found to be overrated). Peterson works best in closed spaces, like in his masterful action-thriller "Air Force One." That doesn't apply to "In the Line of Fire," which jumps to more than a few parts of the United States. Peterson at times struggles to keep things moving, although there is some genuine suspense and some wonderfully inventive shots in the climax (the clip of Leary going up an elevator in disguise is a case in point). Unfortunately the climax is resolved in a cliched way (mostly).
"In the Line of Fire" is an effective thriller because it concentrates on the characters that inhabit it.
Comments
Post a Comment