First of all, skeptics of the world, "In the Line of Fire" is not another JFK conspiracy movie.
The many references to the untimely demise of the president are included only for their symbolic value, and for the character development of Horton, played by the revered cinematic veteran Clint Eastwood.
In his first production since his Academy Award winning "Unforgiven," Eastwood plays a secret service agent in this movie directed by German Wolfgang Petersen.
Horton is known among his colleagues as a "dinosaur," having been in the department long enough to have been assigned to defend President Kennedy on that fateful Dallas afternoon in November 1963.
Despite earning a legendary reputation for toughness over the years, Horton's career, confidence and personal life were never quite strong enough to overcome his apparent failure to dive in front of the fatal shots purportedly emanating from the book depository across the street.
Enter John Malkovich as the antagonist. Known in the movie under a multitude of aliases, he seasons the picture with psychological intrigue, adeptness with materials from the files of 'MacGyver' and some good old David Koresh-grade irrationality that propels him beyond your run of the mill Hollywood wacko.
Horton, incessantly haunted by the indelible memory of President Kennedy's assassination, becomes fixated on preventing Malkovich from bringing down the latest American leader.
Although the theme of Malkovich's character exposes some serious deficiencies in the plot (he wants to kill the movie's fictional president in such a way that Horton again fails traumatically), the onscreen challenge Malkovich poses to Eastwood does much to pique a viewer's interest.
Perhaps even more interesting, though, is the role played by Eastwood. Although his aura is ever-present, Horton is not the invincible cowboy that Eastwood has portrayed in other films.
It is evident that the character possesses numerous weaknesses, both physical and emotional, perhaps making Eastwood more interesting, but certainly more realistic, than the austere, stalwart 'Dirty Harry.'
This uncertainty about Horton's capabilities provokes numerous moments of nailbiting, if not alarming suspense.
Furthermore, the film effectively balances its political commentary with Schwarzeneggarian humor and precious moments of sarcasm.
All of these qualities, coupled with the fact that Eastwood had few enough sentimental lines that one could easily filter out his acting (or lack thereof), make "In the Line of Fire" Eastwood's most enjoyable movie to date.
