In The Line Of Fire Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1280x536 | 4471.02 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x300 | 1495.63 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x244 | 658.14 MiB | divx | |
|
320x132 | 265.87 MiB | ipod | |
|
320x132 | 393.19 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
An assassin on the loose. A president in danger. Only one man stands between them...
Frank Horrigan is a secret service agent who keeps thinking back to November 22, 1963, when, as a hand-picked agent by President Kennedy, he became one of the few agents to have lost a President to an assassin when Kennedy died. Now, former CIA assassin Mitch Leary is stalking the current President, who is running for re-election. Mitch has spent long hours studying Horrigan, and he taunts Horrigan, telling him of his plans to kill the President. Leary plans to kill the president because Leary feels betrayed by the government — Leary was removed from the CIA, and the CIA is now trying to have him killed. After talking to Leary, Horrigan makes sure he is assigned to presidential protection duty, working with fellow secret service agent Lilly Raines. Horrigan has no intention of failing his President this time around, and he's more than willing to take a bullet. White House Chief of Staff Harry Sargent refuses to alter the President's itinerary, while Horrigan's boss, Secret Service Director Sam Campagna, is supportive of Horrigan. As the election gets closer, Horrigan begins to doubt his own abilities, especially when Horrigan's colleague Al D'Andrea is killed by Leary. But Horrigan may be the only one who can stop Leary.
| Clint Eastwood | Secret Service Agent Frank Horrigan |
| John Malkovich | Mitch Leary |
| Rene Russo | Secret Service Agent Lilly Raines |
| Dylan McDermott | Secret Service Agent Al D'Andrea |
| Gary Cole | Secret Service Presidential Detail Agent-In-Charge Bill Watts |
| Fred Dalton Thompson | White House Chief of Staff Harry Sargent |
| John Mahoney | Secret Service Director Sam Campagna |
| Gregory Alan Williams | Secret Service Agent Matt Wilder |
| Jim Curley | President |
| Sally Hughes | First Lady |
| Clyde Kusatsu | FBI Agent Jack Okura |
| Steve Hytner | FBI Agent Tony Carducci |
| Tobin Bell | Mendoza |
| Bob Schott | Jimmy Hendrickson |
| Juan A. Riojas | Raul |
| Wolfgang Petersen |
7.20 out of 10 (19934 votes)
Visitor Reviews
No doubt Wolfgang Petersen's best work
posted on 28 Jul 2009I have the courage to predict that "In the line of fire" will remain in the books of movie history as Clint Eastwood's last movie under the guidance of another director, in this case Wolfgang Petersen. Since this one Clint has directed every film he's starred in and I'm sure he will do so also in the future years. But I guess you'll never know for sure what's going to happen.Nevertheless, there's no doubt brilliant cooperation of Petersen and Eastwood gave birth to German director's finest achievement. What would be a better movie from him? Unfortunately I haven't seen "Das Boot", it might be better. But let's see, "Outbreak" was a pretty nice little flick but not far as good as this. "Air force one", his other "presidential thriller" wasn't even half as good and effective as "In the line of fire". I don't think if it's even necessary to mention his amusing fantasy movie "The Neverending story". Well, I liked it when I was a kid.But hey, "In the line of fire" is so different from anything he's done before and after, I mean it's something phenomenal. The fantastic role of Secret Service agent Frank Horrigan is alongside with William Munny ("Unforgiven"), Luther Whitney ("Absolute power") and Steve Everett ("True crime") one of the most memorable of Eastwood's classic performances of the 90's. John Malkovich is also magnificent in perhaps his most famous and celebrated psycho role.Screen chemistry of these two incredible actors is enjoyable to watch and dialogue is marvelous - especially in the phone call scenes. "In the line of fire" has huge amount of splendid moments. Scene where Clint is hanging on the edge of the roof and points his gun at Malkovich's mouth who's only trying to help him is a classic and so is the elevator scene in the end of the film. If you still haven't seen this excellent, exciting and highly suspenseful motion picture I can only state that you've missed one of the most terrific thrillers of the early 90's. So do something about it and do it fast. 10/10.
A better kind of thriller
posted on 28 Jul 2009(Spoiler, maybe...)"In the Line of Fire" has quality. It's an exciting thriller, with a great cast and with an intelligent story to back up their excellent performances. To say that Eastwood never "has been better" (Maltin review) is taking it way too far - but it is still a very honest, believable and interesting performance. Malcovitch, well... he can embody the creepiest characters imaginable, and he does an enviable job of it here. It's not so darn unpredictable, but that doesn't matter much. The issue isn't if Leary is going to succeed in killing the president, it's about Horrigan's chances for redemption. Malcovitch's creepy guy Leary and Eastwood's hard-*ssed Horrigan and the interaction between them is drive enough for this movie, and the suspense comes rather from that.
Easily one of Eastwood's best
posted on 23 Apr 2009"In the Line of Fire" is a magnificent movie! I can't imagine anyone other than Clint Eastwood in the role of Frank Horrigan, a Secret Service agent with a haunted past. John Malkovich gives, in my opinion, the greatest performance of his already stellar career. Nominated for 3 Oscars, including a Best Supporting Oscar nomination for Malkovich, "In the Line of Fire" is one of the best movies of the 90's, and one that needs to be seen. I highly recommend this movie!
This is a great movie for comparison with the earlier DIRTY HARRY series.
posted on 06 Mar 2009It is always rare to see a great performance by a good actor, but rarely does one have the chance to compare an actor performing virtually the same character after he has really aged in life on film.In a phrase, I could hear Clint saying, "Make My Month", instead of "Make My Day, Punk!"I just bought the DVD to preserve this film in my library.
Wolf tooth
posted on 01 Feb 2009Clint Eastwood is a pro at playing two versions of himself and versions of himself. First he was The Man with No Name, then he advanced himself from 'High Plains Drifter' to 'Outlaw Josey Wales' to 'Unforgiven'. Here he plays a version of his lesser self--Dirty Harry.This is your only spoiler warning...Petersen resembles John Woo in that he is infatuated with his adopted country. This is his 'Face/Off', complete with typical typecasting. Like so many other films, this one keeps trying to change gears to mask dead ends in the script. Unfortunately, 'The rooftop chase is a stepping stone from 'Vertigo' to 'Matrix'. Ennio uses a similar cue from 'Untouchables' for the scene to show he sees the obvious reference. This is Petersen's first use of Air Force One.Clint's partner gets killed. Who'd have thought?Final Analysis = = Cinematic Dud
Frenetic, intense cat and mouse thriller set to a chilling tone.
posted on 06 Dec 2008`In the Line of Fire' is a tense paranoiac thriller. There are many good things about it, but at times it isn't realistic. If a guy was really trying to assassinate the President, it's unlikely that he would phone the bodyguards, drop hints for them, or constantly draw attention to himself. Then again, this is a film, and it's that aspect that makes it all the more exciting. The movie follows along the lines of the age-old `cat and mouse' genre. But this follows in a sometimes repetitively episodic tone. What surprised me the most was the brutal violence that occurred in several scenes (e.g., when the stalker follows the bank clerk home).There are good performances all across the board for the most part. Clint Eastwood is convincing as the burned-out bodyguard, though the romantic sub-plot with Rene Russo is absolutely un-necessary. Not only that, but there's no chemistry between the two and the romance seems forced. John Malkovich received an Oscar nomination for his part as the stalker/killer. His performance is good, even if it is something of a stereotype. Rene Russo is OK, but doesn't get quite enough time to flesh out her character to the max. The same applies for Dylan McDermott. The only other real problem I had with the film is the fact the only part that is really relevant is the last 15 minutes. The sequences that lead up to it are engaging, but predictable. The climax has the distinctive `Hollywood' elements, but it is still a satisfying conclusion. `In The Line of Fire' certainly isn't a political thriller, but it does what it promises to do and is at it's when it isn't taken seriously. My IMDb rating: 6.5/10.
"Mitch, you got a date with my a**!!!!"
posted on 03 Dec 2008"In the Line of Fire" has to be Clint Eastwood's best non-"Dirty-Harry" film ever, even though you see shades of Clint's trademark character contained in "ITLOF". This film has enough suspence and action to keep you to the very edge of your seat. Not only the phsyical content is great, but the performances were outstanding. Eastwood's tough and stiff as always, playing a secret service agent suffering from painful memories, Dylan McDermot plays the weary sidekick, Rene Russo is the agent who yanks at Eastwood's boxer shorts (Sondra Locke, eat your heart out!!), and John Malkovich plays probably his best role yet as the mind game-playing psycho who taunts Clint.Like I said before, there are a lot of "Dirty Harry" elements in this picture, like chases on rooftops, sidekicks to our main hero, the madman character (with Malkovich does like how Andrew Robinson did in "Dirty Harry") and the showdown between our hero and the main enemy. Without a doubt, "In the Line of Fire" is the best suspence film for decades. If this flick doesn't recharge your batteries, you're probably dead!
Making It Personal
posted on 16 Oct 2008Back when I was working person, I remember having a really obnoxious client to deal with who insisted on making everything on a personal basis. I was telling him things that my agency could do and could not do and he firmly believed I was personally out to do him out of what was rightfully his. I swear but I was thinking of this guy as I watched John Malkovich and Clint Eastwood in their battle of wits.In The Line Of Fire casts Clint Eastwood as a veteran Secret Service Agent who was on the job in Dallas as a young man when John F. Kennedy was assassinated. He's had his doubts ever since and been given to drink and his life at one time was a real shambles. He's gotten back on the White House detail now and when a potential assassin's landlady rats on her tenant to the Secret Service, it's Eastwood and partner Dylan McDermott who draw the case.But the assassin is no ordinary crank case. He's a professional at his job, trained by and used by the Central Intelligence Agency. John Malkovich earned a deserved Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor. He lost that year to Tommy Lee Jones for The Fugitive and I'm not sure, but that I thought Malkovich was better.Oddly enough Malkovich might have been better off, but he saw Eastwood as the agent in charge breaking into his apartment while on the job and he insisted on making the whole thing personal. He calls Eastwood throughout the film and taunts him. And after a while what Malkovich says and does causes Clint to get real personal. The presidential assassins we've had in our history have been lucky amateurs, unless you believe in some of the conspiracy theories about some of the assassinations. A guy like Malkovich, a professional with a real or imagined grudge, is the most dangerous kind of foe.Others to note in the cast are Fred Dalton Thompson as the White House chief of staff (and would be president in real life), Rene Russo as another agent who falls for the Eastwood masculine charm, John Mahoney as the Secret Service head, Gary Cole as the White House head Secret Service guy, Gregory-Alan Williams as another agent and Jim Curley and Sally Hughes as the President and First Lady.But when Malkovich is on he owns In The Line Of Fire. The climax with him and Eastwood is unforgettable.
Super thriller/redemption matinée
posted on 19 Sep 2008An assassination thriller in the mould of Day Of The Jackal, In The Line Of Fire has the added twist that Eastwood's old-timer bodyguard Frank Horrigan is troubled by past failure on the job. The chase becomes personal as John Malkovich's reptilian assassin Leary taunts him over this neurosis - with the rather clunky exception of the love of a good woman (Russo's Lilly Raines) nothing's going to set Frank's mind at rest than taking Leary down personally.Malkovich is a volatile presence - not simply combustible on screen but often a changeable actor too. This is one of his good films, focused and playing director Petersen's game. Eastwood is too old but a) the audience don't care, cos it's him and b) his age is written into the script, not only in the narrative but also as a recurring joke. Pretty much as you'd expect but well-handled. 7/10
I Can't Look Away
posted on 27 Jul 2008'In the Line of Fire' is one of those Hollywood films that shows up on tv quite a bit, but although I've seen it a few times, I usually end up sitting through the whole thing again. Why? - It's GOOD!
Clint Eastwood is great as usual, and the character he plays is interesting and more fleshed out than usual. The character, Secret Service agent Frank Horrigan, is haunted by the fact that he was on the detail that failed to protect President Kennedy in Dallas, and now he's forced to match wits with a professional assassin that is openly declaring that he will kill the president. However, the film doesn't make him a depressed, brooding, and obsessed character. He's charming and personable, and is realistic as a guy that has experienced a lot in life and is comfortable in his own skin. He's even quite convincing when he flirts with the pretty younger agent played by Rene Russo. The killer, played by John Malkovich at his best, is cerebral, deliberate, and enjoys playing high stakes games of life and death. He even goes by the name of another presidential assassin, John Booth. The film is consistently enjoyable, and it delivers all the goods - suspense, action, romance, and drama - all in their proper amounts. It's a fun film that is really helped by the great actors in it!
Malkovich is excellent....
posted on 03 Jun 2008This is one of the few movies of this type I have reviewed, and enjoyed. While Clint Eastwood is his usual self, the overall story works well, even in the limits of Washington D.C.The theme: An assassin is tracking the president, and there is only one person who may save him.It cannot be easy to make a film which audiences enjoy these days, involving this arena. This film succeeds on several levels. Eastwood is his usual underplayed hero, wanting to save the President since the Kennedy era. He does well in this role, as does his foil, Reneee Russo ( an FBI agent) Overall well-done and suspenseful with extra stars for Malkovich. 9/10.
A very good Clint film
posted on 25 May 2008Course, I quote from 1996's "My Fellow American's": "Why don't you go rent "In The Line of Fire" again".This is a very good film.Clint doing another good job with his role.What WAS NOT needed was brining in a possible romance with his & Russo's characters. Unnecessary. Just because we have a woman character film maker makers HAVE to put in a romance.This did nothing to the film, why could they not just be co-workers? Course, repeat scenes we have seen before in films, Clint's partner getting killed. A new idea should have been used. Like him getting hit by a car in a foot chase, something like that.Meaning let us be original.John Mahoney was also good, although his part was not big.Over all, a very good film.
the not-quite Dirty Harry for the 90s; a sinister blockbuster
posted on 10 Oct 2007Wolfgang Peterson's In the Line of Fire is cunning and occasionally a truly white-knuckled ride, even if once or twice we might feel like we've been down similar roads before. How could one not when Clint Eastwood, right after (allegedly) closing the book on his western legacy, likely closes the one on his gritty detective pictures (don't count Blood Work in there). But there's more than that because Eastwood's character, here a hard-bitten, demon-ridden and hard as nails secret service agent, has a slightly charming side to him, even the more romantic side that one never got to see in the pictures where he spouted his trademark lines. There is some complexities going on here that don't rely on just the usual swagger, and it's note-worthy for how such a possibly contrived back story (didn't save Kennedy from being assassinated in 63) is made somewhat believable amidst the rest of his persona, which more than likely hides his wounds- most of the time. Eastwood goes to town to make himself a great presence in the film, however, and under the circumstances the character seems tailor made for him.But there would be the risk of his part in the movie being slightly conventional (we still get the 'Harry' type scenes of him being smarter- and as smart-ass- over everyone else in the room, and being scolded and told to back off by the top brass, here a chief of staff), including here protecting a president that (wisely) we never really see or know at all. Even the romantic sub-plot, which is sort of undercooked if there for some machismo laughs, would make the picture a little sub-par if the other quasi-Dirty Harry aspect didn't come into the picture: an indelible villain. This time there's some extra Hollywood suspense, however brillaintly intelligent suspense (almost smarter than the rest of the movie deserves), with the "John Booth" character, played in an Oscar nominated performance by John Malkovich, as someone who's described more as a predator than an assassin. There's ways this could go wrong with the Eastwood character, but Malkovich possibly trumps some of his former villain counterparts by being extremely cool and un-collected (there's that devastating, cringe-worthy scene where he kills the bank teller and her roommate), and as his past is revealed, there's still that element of 'what the hell is with this guy' that keeps the audience and Eastwood's agent guessing and extra paranoid. It's a classic Malkovich performance, quintessentially creepy and always measured in the level of insanity and professionalism.It's also, aside from the conventional points, just a sleekly made picture from Peterson and company, and they come pretty close to the spunky pulp realism of Don Siegel. But Peterson also has a couple of cinematic tricks up his sleeve that had me grinning at times; anytime someone puts in such a blatant but exciting homage to Vertigo- jumping from rooftop to rooftop, hero dangling from the ledge, the 'twist'- it still provides some shivers down my spine. There's also the phone conversations between Eastwood and Malkovich, where we see the depths of the cat and mouse game, probably another kick in the ribs to Hithcock. But in the end, even with all the excitement and brutal danger and crisp formalism in the climax, it's also a characters picture in some ways throughout, and everything is fairly realized to give the audience a fine amount to ponder over, at least in the suspense-movie sense. Eastwod's a great lead, Russo plays the female possible love-interest sincere and mature, and Malkovich is top of the pops. There's also a few notable supporting roles too, and a fine studio score in there. One of the better films of 1993.
It's all in the execution (in more ways than one)
posted on 22 Sep 2007In the Line of FireIt never fails to astound me how a decent premise for a film can be ruined upon execution of it. (pun not intended) This was what struck me about 'In the Line of Fire'. The concept sounded excellent - a grizzled secret service agent (Clint Eastwood), still haunted by memories of his inability to prevent the assassination of President Kennedy is now confronted by another madman (John Malkovich) who also claims he intends to dispatch the current president by force. But of course Clint isn't willing to let Malkovich off the president so easily this time, and becomes even more determined to track down the madman and stop him.But unfortunately, the interesting story didn't turn out nearly as well as an actual film. The film is frequently far too obvious when it should have been much more subtle, when explaining things such as how Eastwood's character reflects on whether he would have been willing to die for Kennedy and Malkovich's character's backstory as to why he wants the president dead so much. These would have worked much better if the filmmakers hadn't tried to beat the audience over the head with these plot points, making them much less interesting. Also, whoever decided to put 63 year old Clint Eastwood in a love scene with 39 year old Renne Russo can only be described as sick and twisted, not to mention the two of them falling in love seems ridiculous due to their age gap. (Clint's best seduction technique seems to be winking every 5 seconds, which gets extremely annoying after a brief while) But apart from the terrible script and oversimplified characters, I was also astonished at for a suspense film how little suspense 'In the Line of Fire' actually contained. Again, the concept of the killer constantly phoning the hero, taunting him with clues and hints as to what he's going to do next must have seemed more original when the film was released in 1993, but for today's audiences, who have seen the concept executed much better in films such as 'Speed' and later 'Phone Booth', it really isn't as interesting as the filmmakers seem to think. And the fight scene at the end between Malkovich and Eastwood was one of the film's greatest letdowns, and seems to mainly consist of rude pushing back and forth. Of course, the absurdly predictable plot leads up to the required happy ending, another eye-roller. Eastwood is completely wasted in the role of aged secret service agent Frank Horrigan, playing off his patented tough guy persona and nothing else. He isn't a complete letdown, but it isn't at all difficult to imagine a more enthusiastic lead for the film. Renee Russo is also given almost nothing to do as the far too young love interest for Eastwood's character, complete with cheesy dialogue ("I can't believe I'm doing this!") and all. Dylan McDermott also has almost nothing to do other than yell a lot and look frightened as the necessary young naive partner to Eastwood's grizzled old mentor figure. It's Malkovich as the psychotic assassin who easily steals the film, coming across as genuinely creepy and chilling - his silky voice over the telephone was surprisingly off-putting. Overall, 'In the Line of Fire' comes across as a far too clichéd and predictable weak Hollywood action film and nothing more. There is almost no suspense created in the "suspenseful" sequences, and all the "plot twists" are far too predictable to ever be enjoyable. There is the occasional good element present (Malkovich's villain is a plus) but overall, there's no real reason to see "In the Line of Fire" - there are several other very very similar action movies that turned out much better.-5/10
it gets better every time i see it
posted on 16 Sep 2007this is a great thriller but its not the best eastwood film i seen.but malkovich is a real scary villan in this one,that he kills every one he makes conntact with.it loaded with endless suspense and thrills. i think this one is the best of 93.it was a little dramantic at some points but this film is a 2nd class thriller.
Malkovich shines
posted on 24 Jun 2007This movie is worth seeing just to revel in John Malkovich's virtuoso performance. For an entertaining theme evening -- the theme being film psychotics who wish, for money or passion, to do violent damage to the American president -- show this flick as a double feature with The Jackal starring Bruce Willis. Both of these movies have really creepy bad guys, extremely well portrayed (although Malkovich is the greater artist); both are well shot and have cute men and women that are fun to look at; both have lots of plot twists which, predictable or not, are fun to ride along with. Jolly good cheese, well served, nice and cold.
Fabulous Absolutely Fabulous Thriller, That Grips You Until The Very End, With Amazing Perofmances From Eastwood, Malkovich And Russo!
posted on 31 May 2007This is a fabulous absolutely fabulous thriller, that grips you until the very end,with amazing performances from Eastwood, Malkovich and Russo!. It is one of the finest thrillers i have ever seen, and John Malkovich, is really scary as the psycho, plus Eastwood is just wonderful here!. The Cat and mouse games between Eastwood and Malkovich were fantastic and, the finale is simply wonderful, plus the ending was kind of amusing. This movie has not dated at all, and it's one of the finest thrillers i have ever seen, plus you really start to root for Eastwood!. I'm not usually a fan of political thrillers, because they bore me however this one is a dandy, and i was absolutely engrossed throughout, plus Eastwood and Russo had fantastic chemistry together!.This is a fabulous absolutely fabulous thriller that grips you until the very end, and it's an absolute must see at any cost!, it is indeed one of the finest thrillers i have ever seen!. The Direction is brilliant!. Wolfgang Petersen does a brilliant job here, with amazing camera work, awesome angles, awesome shots during the action scenes, and keeping the film at an extremely fast pace!. There is some blood. We get a few bloody gunshot wounds. The Acting is Oscar Worthy!. Clint Eastwood is AMAZING as always and is absolutely amazing here, he is extremely likable, gruff, hilarious, had some awesome one liners, had wonderful chemistry with both Russo and Malkovich, and was just tons of fun to watch, this is him at his best!. (Clint Rules!). John Malkovich is also AMAZING here, as the main villain, he plays one of the most menacing villains i have ever seen and i loved his mind games, he was perfect for this part, and the scenes with him and Clint were great!. Rene Russo is gorgeous!, and is excellent here, she is extremely likable, witty had wonderful chemistry with Clint, and really did an excellent job!, she is one my favorite actresses. Dylan McDermott is good with what he had to do, he had good chemistry with Clint as well. Gary Cole plays the arrogant ass well. John Mahoney is good and was pretty classy. Rest of the cast do fine. Overall a must see at all costs, it's one of the finest thrillers ever made (in my opinion!). ***** out of 5
Heart-Pounding Thriller That Delivers
posted on 22 May 2007Clint Eastwood is bent on protecting the president from a crazed would-be assassin (John Malkovich, in an Oscar-nominated role) who is playing a deadly game of cat-and-mouse that will come to a wild and crazy end by the film's final act. The screenplay is really smart for an action film and Wolfgang Petersen proves again that he can direct films like this. Malkovich is truly frightening and Eastwood gives his usual bravura performance. Rene Russo, Dylan McDermott, John Mahoney, Gary Cole, and Fred Dalton Thompson are all superb in well-calculated supporting turns. 4 stars out of 5.
Malkovich shines in great crime thriller
posted on 12 Aug 2009on the narrative:.A fast energetic plot involving many engaging characters to make it consistent to conform to the thriller genre. Eastwood plays the part of the aging detective brilliantly as he is assigned to find an obsessed man who has his heart set on assassinating the president. At times there maybe too much information for viewers to contain with and it is a film where you must concentrate. However when focused it is really exiting with fast paced action, contrasts in characters, both good and evil. The sentimental values over the pasts of the characters are a great device to create emotion and I felt particularly touched at many points during the two hours. The beginning is sensational as viewers wonder who the villain is and what his agenda towards the president is. The plot remains consistent and very engaging throughout. There are many crime conventions encoded such as murder, robbery, violence, police and detective scenarios which all brilliantly from into this film. John Malkovich.The star of 'Dangerous Liaisons' brought such a powerful motive to this film as the evil cunning assassin that I was completely spellbound. Rarely have I seen a character of this creative charisma. Only Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the lambs matched this performance, the only difference in brilliance is that Malkovich didn't win an Oscar. Malkovich was simply amazing. His tone of voice, his attitude in being relaxed and yet inside frustrated made him a joy to watch from start to finish. The beginning is essential to the personality of his character. Viewers are not given a proper glimpse of him, only side glances through mirrors and binoculars which add to his tension and cunningness, making him one of my favourite villains of all time. Clint Eastwood (Dirty Harry) was also outstanding as the aging cop who also has a lot to contain with in his life as does Rene Russo in her role as the sophisticated secret agent. watch it if...you love the crime genre and mysterious villains