Indeed, the story is well-crafted and intricate enough to maintain suspense throughout, and Clint Eastwood and John Malkovich deliver notable performances, but, ultimately, the movie does not have quite enough action to stand out among the plethora of contemporary thrillers. Although there are few flaws in the movie, it simply lacks the necessary features that distinguish the good from the great, that make respectable films classics.
The Movie
The movie follows a rather archetypal game of cat-and-mouse as Secret Service Agent Frank Horrigan (Eastwood) leads the hunt for an assassin who is suspected of plotting an attempt on the President’s life. Several other archetypes factor into the story, including Horrigan as the wizened, old-fashioned agent whose peers think he has passed his prime, disliking his methods and doubting that he can still get the job done; Horrigan as the aging veteran tormented by previous failures who has become a bit paranoid of allowing the same tragedies to occur again; Horrigan as the hard-nosed detective who catches the eye of an attractive young fellow agent; and the ingenious criminal who taunts his pursuers with his intricately crafted plans, simultaneously seeming too cocky to be successful but still presenting the protagonist(s) with the exceedingly challenging task of unraveling the clues in time to stop his plans for destruction.
Although the story is not quite so simplistic that it can be broken down into a few familiar archetypes, elaborating upon these archetypes should provide an adequate outline of the story. To start, the first archetype is self-explanatory: Horrigan is the oldest active Secret Service agent and, as such, many of his fellow agents feel his methods are a bit out-dated. To his credit, Horrigan is still an effective agent; but his somewhat old-fashioned methods are often not the subtlest and his self-assured attitude sometimes rubs others the wrong way.
Moreover, as the potential danger of an assassin presents itself, Horrigan’s methods and personality begin to make him a liability to the Secret Service. Beyond the flaws of his old-fashioned approach, his style becomes tinged with a bit of paranoia, sparked by his fear that another President might be assassinated during his tenure. (He is the only active agent who was on detail when President Kennedy was assassinated.) This paranoia only becomes keener as would-be assassin Mitch Leary (Malkovich) taunts Horrigan, exploiting the tormented agent’s fear of a second failure all the while eluding Horrigan’s desperate efforts to stop him.
While his somewhat sporadic behavior during the early stages of the investigation costs him some credibility, Horrigan’s stellar reputation allows him to stay on the Leary case, while love interest Agent Lilly Raines (Rene Russo) does her best to keep him as close to the President as possible. Still, many involved feel Horrigan is too much of a liability for a president campaigning for reelection, and he finds himself forced to walk the thin line between protecting the President’s life and protecting the President’s image. Of course, you’ll have to watch the movie for yourself to find out if Horrigan is able to resolve these myriad conflicts. (You know, catch the bad guy, get the girl, ride off into the sunset – wait, maybe that last one is from another Eastwood movie.)
As I said, a foundation built upon some familiar archetypes doesn’t necessarily make for a simplistic story, and, as the somewhat elaborate explanation above might indicate, the movie finds creative ways to rework such archetypes in order to make them tolerably unique but still recognizable. Moreover, the movie certainly deserves praise for maintaining suspense and unpredictability throughout, as, despite the use of archetypal features, the viewer is still uncertain how the conflicts will resolve and anticipation and tension build appropriately throughout.
The aspect of the film most responsible for the its suspense is the rivalry between Horrigan and Leary, with each character intricately crafted to be the other’s foil. Both trained by the government to flawlessly execute the most crucial tasks (Leary was formerly an assassin with the CIA), the two are not so much opposites as they are two sides of the same coin, the proverbial yin and yang, two halves of the whole, each incomplete without the other. Each needs the other and the challenge that this adversary presents. Again, this is a somewhat archetypal relationship, but it is developed thoroughly and made unique with some original touches.
However, this pivotal relationship between Horrigan and Leary may also be the greatest contributor to the movie’s most prominent flaw, a lack of action. Although the story very intricately develops the rivalry between Horrigan and Leary, all the while building suspense, there is no great outlet for the tension instilled in the audience, as the action scenes that would traditionally relieve this tension occur too infrequently and, even when action is present, it gets bogged down with the cerebral interplay between Horrigan and Leary. Ultimately, although the movie is able to maintain interest throughout via its suspense and unpredictability, the story and action still seem to unfold a bit too slowly for a thriller.
The only other noticeable flaw is the movie’s lackluster love story, which seems a bit extraneous and, honestly, a little creepy, as Horrigan is substantially older than Raines. However, I will admit that the love interest helps add a softer side to Eastwood’s character, making this character a bit better-rounded than those Eastwood usually portrays. This minor detail only further accentuates Eastwood’s performance, which is both noteworthy and commendable, as the role is undeniably characteristic of his career but still shows a willingness to expand his repertoire.
And while the remainder of the supporting cast (Russo, Dylan McDermott, etc.) gives good but not outstanding performances, Malkovich’s cool performance almost steals the show. With Eastwood and Malkovich both so perfectly conveying their characters’ emotions, motives, and mannerisms, it is difficult to say who gives the better performance, although it’s safe to say that the interplay between the two is certainly central to the movie’s success.
Special Features
While those interested in the Secret Service should find the special features satisfying, those interested in the movie will likely be left a little unfulfilled. Both the Showtime Special, ‘Behind the Scenes with the Secret Service’, and the pseudo-making-of feature, ‘The Ultimate Sacrifice’, contain a bit about the movie’s characters and themes, the actors’ training, the project’s production and development, and the crew’s efforts to ensure authenticity, but they are primarily features that focus on the Secret Service, its history, and its agents and their training.
One of the featurettes, ‘Catching the Counterfeiters’, also delves into the Secret Service, exploring its role in fighting counterfeiting, further conveying some of the organization’s history, and revealing some of the currency designs that prevent counterfeiting. The other featurette, ‘How’d They Do That?’, is a rather absurd piece about the photo/video editing methods used for the film that allowed the actors to be placed in footage from actual presidential campaigns. While I’m sure this technology was quite exciting in 1993, the intrigue has certainly not withstood the test of time, and the overzealous excitement of the man who explains the process makes the entire featurette come off as a bit ridiculous.
Finally, commentary by Director Wolfgang Petersen is available for the film, and there are a few deleted scenes that were rightly excluded, as they are not particularly entertaining or insightful and do not add much to the story.
Presentation
The movie looks clear enough in high definition and sounds robust enough in surround sound for one made in 1993, but, like the movie, the picture and audio quality are good but not spectacular. Similarly, the disc menu is fluid and easy to navigate, complete with moving video throughout, appropriate music, and a consistent theme, but, unfortunately, the menu design is far too standard for Blu-ray Discs from Sony. Although it is nonetheless well-crafted, a little more originality among their products would be nice.
I would also not object to a little more effort being put into the special features, none of which are in high definition. I don’t think the movie is quite good enough to justify buying it on Blu-ray simply of its own merits, so it seems if Sony was going to bother with upgrading it to Blu-ray, the little extra time and money required to upgrade the special features and, in turn, present a truly high-definition experience would have made the package a bit more appealing to consumers.
Overall
In the Line of Fire is a well-crafted and suspenseful thriller whose success derives primarily from the cerebral interplay between the characters portrayed by Eastwood and Malkovich, both of whom deliver memorable and laudable performances. Its archetypes allow the movie to stay relevant and entertaining even fifteen years after its original release, but, ultimately, the story lacks the amount to action necessary to make it as exciting as contemporary thrillers. While the movie is certainly notable for its suspense and unpredictability throughout and for the efforts of Eastwood and Malkovich, the story isn’t quite timeless enough, the picture and audio quality aren’t quite outstanding enough, and the overall package isn’t quite remarkable enough to justify buying it on Blu-ray. Although In the Line of Fire is a good movie, it simply can’t compete with contemporary thrillers.