Na linii ognia

Wolfgang Petersen shifted perfectly from a legible author's manuscript to a somewhat uniform American style. From my point of view, it's too bad, even though I'm still a little hesitant when watching the film In the Line of Fire. It is really good, albeit in a way a routine, stylistic exercise on the topic of "I'm a wacko, I want to kill a powerful person (the President of the USA) and a typical good hero is standing in my way". If the wacko had not been portrayed with characterless cold-bloodedness and inhuman coldness by John Malkovich and the good hero by Clint Eastwood, weathered by the wind and life, this drama would have been just a pawn in a huge crowd. But the gambit of Frank Horrigan and Mitch Leary is truly worth it. The film has strong emotion, and it is unpredictable, captivating and supportive. Petersen's film stands and falls with him. Meaning that it tends to stand rather than fall. An excellent spectator experience even the third time around. (14.07.2004)

Great old-school work. The Eastwood / Malkovich exchanges send chills down your spine. Not much action - Clint was a bit too old by the time they made this - but Petersen keeps you sitting on the edge of your seats. Yum. (26.06.2016)

Smarter than it seems at first glance. According to the cover and visual aesthetics, it looks like Clint Eastwood is playing another one of his tough American heroes who always comes out on top, but that's not the case. In The Line of Fire is now a classic thriller with outstanding performances and a solid screenplay, which benefits primarily from the believability of the plot and the excellently sketched main characters. Eastwood plays a notably down-to-earth, gruff, and outdated agent accompanied by memories of an unpleasant past, while John Malkovich portrays a precisely calculating killer. Well-crafted dialogues, excellently paced tempo, and several decent action scenes. The whole film carries itself in an exceptionally realistic manner, which ultimately works to its advantage. Thoughtful, austere, and made with maximum dedication. (26.01.2014)

As part of Mr. Douglas's extensive schooling, I was forced to watch In the Line of Fire four times in two weeks in order to do the required formal analysis, and the result far exceeded, in a good way, my initial reluctance to watch Rene Russo when I can look at Andrea Veresova's Instagram. Fortunately, this isn't about Rene Russo, it's about Clint Eastwood and John Malkovich first and foremost, the parallel development and escalation of the relationship between two hostile players in their joint long-distance run, at the end of which there are only two options: a living president or a dead president. Don't be under any illusions, it's clear from the start how everything will turn out, but I tip my hat all the more to Petersen, who plays out the conflict between the two rivals so engagingly, keeping the viewer under constant pressure of curiosity and suspense thanks to a perfectly balanced narrative structure, the progressively heightened motivations of the lead characters and the thoughtful twists and turns or the regular alternation of intimate and intensely edited converging sequences, that I could manage a fifth or sixth screening. Morricone does his standard excellent job, Eastwood has perhaps never been more likeable and John Malkovich is Mr. Bad Guy, he really gives me the chills… (27.01.2017)