In The Line of Fire is a suspense-filled thriller about the Secret Service. In contrast to the film Murder at 1600, which I also recently viewed, the Secret Service here is portrayed in a much better light; having a responsibility beyond covering up for the President and his family. Clint Eastwood portrays aging Secret Service agent Frank Horrigan. In the beginning of the movie we see him at work undercover in Counterfeiting Investigations. Dylan McDermott is his new partner, Al D'Andrea. A tip leads them to the apartment of a man we will later know as Mitch Leary. In that apartment, Frank finds a haunting reminder of his failure to protect the President as a young agent: clippings of the Kennedy assassination. There are many other clippings as well, all leading them to believe that another kook is on the loose with designs on trying to assassinate the current President. Unaware that this is no kook, but a psychotic killer who is watching them, Frank and Al leave the apartment to come back later with a warrant. When they do, it has been cleared of everything except a clipping showing a young Agent Horrigan with his head circled in red pen. John Malkovich portrays Leary, and this is one of his best roles as he leads Agent Horrigan in a game of cat and mouse. Leary is a former CIA assassin who wants to make one last strike against the government he is angry with. His intention is to kill the President, knowing he will die as well. This means nothing since he knows his own agency has tried to kill him already. But the game is the thing for Leary and he enjoys taunting Frank with his past failures. The fact that Agent Horrigan has to sit there and listen to it as other Secret Service agents attempt to trace the taunting calls is very believable, so we are not wondering why he doesn't just hang up. The telephone conversations between the two men build the suspense throughout the film. Both Eastwood and Malkovich manage to convey the building tension between the characters when these conversations take place. At times Horrigan seems to be cracking under the relentless emotional abuse by Leary, while at others, we see Frank managing to break through the emotionally cool exterior of Leary. It is a thrilling game of cat and mouse as each side in this battle seems to have the upper-hand at different times. Agent Horrigan also has a reputation as a bit of a renegade, which is what made his new partner so uncomfortable in the first place. Other agents in the field do not want to work with him, and through a series of set-ups by Leary, his reputation is further eroded. Only the Director, portrayed by John Mahoney, best known right now as Frasier's father, seems to really believe in him, and yet he keeps trying to do his job. Horrigan is moved from the President's Detail after repeated requests by the Agent in charge (Gary Cole as Bill Watts), the White House Chief of Staff (Fred Thompson as Harry Sargent) and, finally, the President himself (Jim Curley).Rene Russo portrays Agent Lilly Raines who is part of the President's Detail and also ends up being a romantic interest for Agent Horrigan. Their romance is believable, even as they move through the clichés of his sexism of dismissing her as a secretary at their first meeting, as well as his arrogant attitude and reputation. Lilly seems to know what is going on inside Frank. Having been burned romantically by another Agent, she has sworn off romance on the job. When she sympathizes with him at various times it does not have the feeling of pity, but pure compassion. Lilly believes in him, but can see both sides of the argument. Wolfgang Petersen has done an amazing job directing this film. Where it could have easily fallen into the usual predictability and clichés, he has managed to instead craft an exciting thriller. Credit also must go to write Jeff Maguire, especially for the dialogue while Leary and Horrigan are on the telephone. Eastwood and Malkovich are fantastic in these roles - it is as if it were written specifically for these two men. The only drawback I would have to say is the predictability of the movie. As soon as Al talked about his wife and taking his kid to school in the first scene, I knew he was going to bite the dust at some point in this movie. There are some parts that are that terribly predictable. However, the movie works despite these parts - a great credit to the cast and crew. The visual imagery especially around Washington D.C. was stunning as well. It almost felt like a travel documentary and made me want to visit! The monuments and parks looked absolutely pristine and perfect. On the DVD there are a host of Special Features. Included are the usual Cast and Crew bios, and trailer, as well as the ability to view the film with a running commentary by the Director. The Deleted Scenes are: -- a scene of a woman trying to pick-up Agent Horrigan in the Piano Bar -- a conversation about a practical joke Frank played on a supervisor -- a conversation between Frank and Lilly prior to his being assigned to her team before the President's trip to Los Angeles -- Agent Horrigan watching news coverage of him roughing up a bellman in the hotel lobby -- another conversation in the Piano Bar, this one with Lilly about being assigned to protect Fidel Castro. There is a nice piece called The Ultimate Sacrifice where Wolfgang Petersen and Executive Producer Gail Katz discuss getting the cooperation of the Secret Service. They tell how former Director Robert Snow became their Technical Advisor. He then discusses the Secret Service and its duties. Another short piece talks about the Secret Service's Counterfeit Investigation division. There is another short piece about the special effects which mostly consist of digitally inserting images into different places. In some spots, actual clippings of John F. Kennedy had a young Clint Eastwood digitally inserted into them. At other times we see how campaign rallies were created to appear larger than they were.Finally, there is a great documentary Behind the Scenes with the Secret Service. It was very interesting to see how much goes into being an agent and what training takes place.
I've never been a Wesley Snipes fan - he's just not a name that usually will draw me to a film. However, I think he does a great job in the film Murder at 1600. Snipes portrays Washington DC detective Harlan Regis. In the beginning of the film, he is trying to figure out how to avoid being evicted when he is called to a very familiar Washington address to investigate a homicide. The eviction and a conflict with the North Koreans is going on in the background all during the murder investigation. It's not enough to have to deal with the usual complications of a homicide investigation, but what Regis is dealing with here is national security issues. His access to evidence as well as people to question is restricted by both the Secret Service and the National Security Administration. Who are they covering up for? His Secret Service liaison is Nina Chance, a former Olympic gold-medalist in sharp-shooting. Casting Diane Lane in this part was also a good move. She is a contemporary of Snipes here - not a love interest and not an underling. She is truly his equal and plays the part very well. The film follows Regis, Chance, and Regis' partner Detective Steve Stengel (portrayed by a subdued Dennis Miller) through their investigation. While there is some action, primarily this movie is filled with suspense. In the beginning, it was immediately apparent to me that the initial suspect was being set-up but who actually committed the murder eluded me until about three-quarters of the way through. Daniel Benzali also does a tremendous job portraying Head White House Secret Service Agent Nick Spikings. Along with Alan Alda as National Security Advisor Alvin Jordan, I never had a clear motivation as to whether they thought they were protecting someone or just trying to work their own agenda. Who was the good guy? Who was the bad guy? How much does the President know? Is he involved? This movie kept me in suspense very well. The sub-plot of his dealing with the North Korean crisis also played out good in light of recent events. Rather than charge right in to attempt to rescue thirteen men who were shot down while spying, he is attempting to negotiate, much to the chagrin of the National Security Advisor and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Should he be questioned about a murder that he may or may not have had anything to do with while having to deal with a crisis of global proportions? Many of the questions the film raised I could see being applied to the Presidency just as I've known it with the last two inhabitants of the White House. There are plenty of parts that are rather implausible. Just a look at the notoriety the Bush daughters gained with their illegal drinking makes me believe it would be impossible for the Secret Service to cover up the President's son beating up his girlfriend. The press knows about underage drinking but not a beating? I don't think so. I also thought the ease with which access was gained to the White House at the end was ridiculous, even if it was necessary for the plot. I was also somewhat disturbed by the portrayal of the Secret Service as an agency that functioned to cover-up for the President and his family. In the beginning, they seem to be primarily responsible for the framing of the initial suspect. Agent Chance goes along with this until Detective Regis rattles her by suggesting her silence will be responsible for sending an innocent man to jail. It seems like no other agents had a moral problem with sending an innocent man to prison. At the end, we know even though the murderer has been found and his evil plans thwarted, a cover-up will still occur. There is politics at play in keeping the citizens innocent about a lot of the scandals. However, I have to wonder how they will manage to keep people like Detective Regis and Detective Stengel from talking, since neither of them indicated all along that they play the political games.
This was one of those films I never thought I was going to see. The first few times I was exposed to The Siege, I always saw part of it and never the whole thing. After September 11th, with my husband being a New York City bus operator, certain scenes hit too close to home and it was relegated to films I'd wish I'd seen. With nine years gone and no longer living in the metropolitan New York area, I thought perhaps I would be able to finally seeThe Siege in its entirety.U.S. operatives abduct a bin Laden-like Sheik and religious leader believe to be responsible for recent bombings of U.S. forces in the Middle East. As his sympathizers retalliate inside the U.S. the results are devastating. What's even more devastating is the heavy-handed reaction by agents of our own government.Denzel Washington is FBI Agent Anthony Hubbard based out of New York City. He encounters CIA Operative Elise Kraft (portrayed by Annette Bening) while trying to flush out a potential terrorist cell operating out of Brooklyn. Fate has them together when terrorists take control of a New York City bus and blow it up for the cameras.Hubbard and his men believe they have tracked down the men responsible when there is another bombing in a packed theatre. New York City seems to be under siege as people are afraid to go out of their homes. When the FBI itself is attacked, the President declares Martial Law and the Army marches into New York.I could say a lot of this was prophetic, especially how Hubbard reacts to the use of torture as a means to get information. Thankfully, New York and the country did not descend to these depths after 9/11 although there were some people who responded quite similarly. They didn't care about people being snatched off the street, as long as it wasn't happening to them. The same is true here. I think watching this film in 1998 when it was first released and watching it after 9/11 are two entirely different experiences. I’d also dare say that if you watched it within the first year after 9/11 and lived in the New York City metropolitan area or Washington DC you would have a different experience. The story moves along quite well. At the time The Siege was made, it might have seemed sensationalized and hard to believe, I would dare say now it’s less so. It moves quite fluidly between the attacks and the catching those responsible and the public reaction; something that could have ended up disjointed. It doesn’t feel like there are two different stories going on which is the fear when working with a story like this.The acting here is first-rate and I do mean that. Tony Shalhoub is excellent here in a different role for him as an Arab-American FBI agent, Frank Haddad. I’m used to seeing him as a comedic character but he handles the serious roles quite well. Denzel is, well, Denzel. I have yet to see him disappoint and here he is compelling as he tries to do his job against the backdrop of what’s happening as well as his conflicted conscience. Willis is rather one-dimensional but he does it well. Bening is perhaps the most uneven but that works well for her character and what she’s immersed in. If you’re like me and you’ve avoided this film, I understand why and don’t blame you. At the least try the first few minutes and see if you can handle it. It took me nine years to be able to see it, and it’s well worth viewing.
I hadn't heard about this film when I sent for it from netflix. I just knew that my heartthrob, Kiefer Sutherland was in it and I hadn't seen it yet. There was a sweet surprise waiting for me in this film. I found myself glued to my seat, knowing that there was more going on than was being revealed, but not quite sure of what twists the plot would take next. Rebecca DeMornay portrays Derian, a former cop turned private detective. She is hired by Anthea (portrayed by Dana Delaney) to follow her wealthy & workaholic husband Michael (Sutherland) who she believes is having an affair. We learn through flashbacks that Derian left the force after becoming a bit too close to one of the suspects in an undercover sting and then watched him get shot. When she reports back to Anthea that Michael is not having an affair, Anthea then wants Derian to tempt Michael and see if he would - if The Right Temptation was placed in front of him. I have trouble believing that the character of Derian would be as stupid as she is, not once but twice. If she really was as good of a cop as her friend on the squad, Falco tries to paint her, she wouldn't have gotten involved with the suspect the first time. She also, as a quality private detective, would not have gotten involved with her client's husband. All that aside, this is a decent suspenseful film. There are plot twists galore once Derian falls for Michael. Neither he nor his wife are what they seem, and I really wasn't sure until almost the end exactly what was going on. Is he a husband who is the victim of an overly-jealous wife? Is she being betrayed and emotionally beaten down by a control-freak husband? Is Anthea the one having an affair and wants out of her marriage? The actors do a superb job with what has been thrown at them here, rising above the unbelievable plot points. I found this to be one of DeMornay's better performances, even if I had problems with the character. Dana Delaney portrays Anthea perfectly cold-hearted and calculating. Sutherland's portrayal of Michael is great because he keeps us guessing, never giving away through his body language or expressions what's really going on. I don't want to write too much of the plot since I want the surprises to remain should you decide to rent it. The movie is rated R for violence, sexuality and language. While I didn't find the violence to be all that bad, the sexual situations were pretty intense.
