Review of In the Line of Fire (1993) by Meritcoba — 13 Aug 2017

Third attempt to write a review. With all the pop ups this is getting to be a chore.

Did you read any reviews before watching this movie or rating or even reviewing this?

I did. I think that my feelings are best captured by Hello Texas11 onThird attempt to write a review. With all the pop ups this is getting to be a chore.

Did you read any reviews before watching this movie or rating or even reviewing this?

I did.

I think that my feelings are best captured by Hello Texas11 on IMDB, but I am somewhat more benign towards the movie. Basically this is a movie that goes by the numbers and serves the usual tropes. And it does so without twists. The good part of this movie is that it is well made and has a few good actors to carry it. Most of the credit goes to John Malkovich and somewhat less to Clint Eastwood. The latter mostly reprises his Dirty Harry role, but more of a burned out kind. Rene Russo and Dylan McDermott are doing their best in their supporting roles. Russo gets the lesser role as the prospective romantic interest for Eastwood.

The main issue is that there is nothing remarkable about this movie. Hello Texas11 describes it as an attempt to be a mix of the Manchurian Candidate and Silence of the Lambs, but never getting to the depth of both movies. I would agree even though Silence of the Lambs seems somewhat unfitting. But the thing is: it tries to put Malkovich in the scary killer role and it fails in making him scary. What we get is a run of the mill thriller, well executed but mostly forgettable. There is no depth, nothing captivating and in the end nothing to take home with you.

I can imagine more interesting movies: the Manchurian candidate being one of them.

This is therefore a mundane thriller that doesn't tickle the fancy: a six at best.