Conference bookie::movies

    But why in the "line of fire" topic?  ;-)

    i want to apologize to the person who wrote reply 243.2 made a 
    mistake, and did a reply instead of a write in 243.1. yep i 
    am just learning about notes and now have gotten the info.
    from the moderator on what to do
    
    thanks
    jeff albert 
    ps: so calm down

    Jeff,

    Since you're just starting out, I take it easy with ya...

    When you see a: ";-)",  that means a smile and wink (kind of on its
    side) which implies the comment was made lightheartedly with no
    malice intended...

    No problem here, I was calm, and kidding around.

    Chip

    Glad someone put an entry in here.  I've been waiting weeks for
    In the Line... to be released... Will be seeing it this weekend.
    Read and saw some key scenes in Premiere magazine.... Also
    "Entertainment Tonite"  had Clint and Rene Russo  in a clip...
    they look hot!

	I must of been in the right frame of mind 'cause I have
	to give this one a 10 out of 10!

	Great plot, great acting, great great great ....

    I also liked this one...it was suspenseful, although at times very
    predictable.  John Malkovitch(sp) was EXCELLENT...Clint was great
    too...I'd recommend it...
    
    9 out of 10
    
    				Donna

    EXCELLENT!
    
    The pace of the movie moved things right along.  Clint is in top form,
    and did a very good job with this 'over the hill' secret service man.
    
    John M. played a great psycho - I'm really not a fan of his...maybe
    its those beady eyes, but he was in his element here.
    
    9/10
    
    Joyce
    

re                       <<< Note 243.8 by 5235::J_TOMAO >>>

>    EXCELLENT!

Agreed, I think it will be #2 behind Jurassic Park for this summer.
I'd have given it a 10/10 if Renee Russos' (sp) role had been a little
better written and less stereotypical
Spoiler warning

This is supposed to be a professional Secret Service agent, and the main
plot twist is having her ripping her clothes off in a futile attempt at
getting at a guy old enough to be her father (maybe Grand Father)? The 
beginning, with her giving as good as she got (verbally) was a lot more
believable than the dropping the guns, cuffs ........ on the floor was! 

I've enjoyed everything Clints has done since Rawhide, but lets leave out
"sex" scenes with his female costars. Or better yet, how about a scene with a
fifty or sixty year old actress/character?

Regards
Barry
  

    Comment on spoiler...
    
    
    
    Well Barry thast why I couldn'y give it a 10/10 but that scene in the
    bedroom had on of the better one-liners from Clint.
    
    After they are all hot and heavy - she gets a phone call and has to
    leave - Clint says....aw shit now I have to put all the stuff back on
    again....
    
    :^)
    
    JT

    Nicely done movie, a bit of a different role for Clint. And a realistic
    one, I read somewhere that they (the producers) had an ex-Agent hired
    on as a Consultant, and that many of the agents at JFK assasination
    eventually quit, became heavy drinkers, or both...
    
    I'd give it a 7 or 8 out of 10.
    I may even go see it again..... 

  I saw this on Saturday night. My impression is that this is Clint's
  best movie. 

	Keith

    
    I'm not a Clint Eastwood fan at all and I really enjoyed him 
    in this movie.  It's the only time I've seen him in a movie
    where he doesn't seem to take himself so seriously, except for 
    Bronco Billy.   I also thought Malchovich was excellent as the 
    killer.
    
    Adam  

    
    *Best* line of the movie...
    
    
    "...You're a dinosaur!" said to Clint from his supervisor...  
    
    This was especially funny for me, because being psyched all day to see 
    this, I kept repeating the "You're a dinosaur, Callahan!!" line from the
    Dirty Harry movie to people...

    This was pretty good.  Not quite as good as Unforgiven, but that's
    because I thought Unforgiven broke some new ground in its genre.  Line
    of Fire broke some new ground for its genre, namely sticking
    a "youngified" Clint Eastwood in those films of Kennedy getting shot.
    Clint also seemed less laconic, less steely-eyed, and less, well, 
    Clint Eastwood-ish in this film, all for the better.
    
    I really liked John Malkovich as the unhinged stalker of the President. 
    Malkovich, a damned fine actor, gave some depth to the usually shallow,
    typecast role of Eastwood's adversary.  I think Malkovich's "...so show
    me some goddamned RESPECT!" speech was one of the finest rantings to
    come from a villian in today's films.  :)  I would even go so far to
    say that his performance is Oscar-worthy.
    
    Rene Russo is pleasant to look at but doesn't convincingly add much
    more to the film that someone for Eastwood to verbally parry with.  I
    very much liked whoever played Eastwood's partner (his character name
    and the actor's name eludes me)--it was unfortunate he didn't get as
    much screen time as Rene Russo.  (I guess it would be a harder film to
    sell if Clint spent all his time flirting with his partner instead of
    Russo :)
    
    All in all, a pretty good film.  Suspenseful, well-acted and
    well-executed if you can forgive predicatable stereotypes of some of
    the supporting cast and a few obvious plot turns.
    
    *** out of ****
    
    kim

    Clint's partner: Dylan McDermott. Don't remember his character's name,
    though -  Dan, maybe?
    
    McDermott was Julia Roberts' husband in Steel Magnolias (and also
    personal love interest during that time).
    
    Catherine
    

    I enjoyed this movie (ahhh, air conditioning!), Malkovich was
    extraordinary, but was irritated by one nit..
    
    Normally I don't care from nits, but this one happened twice, and was
    somewhat relevant to the plot, so...
    
    Clint hanging off edge of building, Booth says "Take my hand."
    
    Later, Booth hanging off edge of elevator, Clint says "Take my hand."
    
    Seems to me, that this should not be a choice for the person hanging,
    because they must leggo with one hand to grab on. Far better I think
    for the person above to simply reach down and grab an arm first. Once
    grabbed, the hanger is then in a better position to grab back, since he
    is secured in two places while doing so.
    
    Come to think of it, this may be a common plot device. But if somebody
    I knew was hanging that way, I would immediately grab one of their
    arms, rather than simply proffering a hand.
    
    On another topic, I thought it would have been worth revealing at the
    end whether Booth really had been screwed by the CIA (whether they had
    sent his friend to kill him as he said), or whether he was merely a
    nut, as the CIA creeps claimed.
    
    Neil

	Re: .17

	[spoiler warning]


> Seems to me, that this should not be a choice for the person hanging,

	I thought about this too, especially after seeing this
	film the second time.  My guess is that they (the
	characters) deliberately did it the way they did because
	they wanted the other to feel dependent on the other.
	And in the case when Clint did it, he didn't really care
	if the bad guy died or not, he was giving him a last
	chance to kill himself.

	What I thought was phoney was Clint's partner breaking
	a steam pipe on the "side" of a building.  Why is a
	steam pipe on the outside of a building for?

    >Seems to me, that this should not be a choice for the person hanging,
    >because they must leggo with one hand to grab on. Far better I think
    >for the person above to simply reach down and grab an arm first. Once
    >grabbed, the hanger is then in a better position to grab back, since he
    >is secured in two places while doing so.
    
    >Come to think of it, this may be a common plot device. But if somebody
    >I knew was hanging that way, I would immediately grab one of their
    >arms, rather than simply proffering a hand.
    
	Excellent observation...  I was thinking the same thing as I was
    	watching the movie, it doesn't make sense to the normal average
    	person who wants to help another person in trouble.  In thinking
    	about it, I came to the conclusion that these individuals are not
    	"average" normal people.
    
			Juan

    I thought this was an excellent movie, and this is *not* normally the
    type of thing I enjoy.  
    
    What I enjoyed the most was Clint Eastwood's character.  I liked the
    way we got to know what he was like as a person.  Also, he made the
    character very charming.  (Eastwood has a *great* smile!  I've never
    seen anybody else look so good over the age of 60.  wow.  I'm
    impressed.)   :-)
    
    It was very fast paced and interesting.  As others have said,
    Malkovitch was excellent in his role.
    
    I, also, found it *extremely* scary.  When it was over, I turned to my
    daughter and said, "Now, *that* is scary.  Jurassic Park was just a
    joke compared to this."   
    
    I'm not afraid of finding dinosaurs hiding behind the furnace, or the
    washer, but crazed killers aren't extinct yet.
    
    Also, I enjoyed the performance by the actress who played the bank
    worker (the one with the pet german shepard).  She also had a small
    role in Leaving Normal last year, and was good in that, too.  I don't
    remember her name.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .-1
    
    The last movie I saw before this one was Jurassic Park, and the same
    thing occurred to me. During Jurassic Park, my primary reactions were
    "Oh what clever plastic robots", or "Mmm, nice animation." But
    frightening? Poo.
    
    In this movie on the other hand, 
    
    ..several examples of how just the barest hint of menace is more scary
    than an overt action, one of the best being the subtle change in
    Malkovich's eyes when the bank lady chirped "But there's no New Brighton
    High in Minneapolis!"  Just the slightest twitch--Yipes!
    
    Then when he appeared at the screen door, all calm and polite. Brr.... 
    And this was before we even knew what he was capable of. 
    
    
    By the way, cute throwaway line at the end..
    
    "The President's sending his limo to pick you up."
    "Good, I like public transportation."
  

    Yes, Clint did do his own piano playing....
    

Re .-2, 

Spoiler 

I wondered about it too. Leary must have been so sure he could escape
detection for her murder that he felt he could do it just to eliminate any
suspicion of his bank transaction. Not the strongest plot point, I think. 

But having done so, I don't think Leary deliberately led Eastwood to the
murder. He only teased Eastwood with veiled references to both sets of murders,
because at that point he thought Eastwood was so far behind in "the game" it
wouldn't matter. I thought of it as him giving Eastwood some "hints", to make
the game more interesting.

Eastwood only caught up by deciphering the phone number to the bank (SNELLUM
LA), a clue that Leary did not help him with and did not know he solved. Only
then was Eastwood able to make the connection to Minneapolis (even then, only
by the luck of seeing the photo of the murdered woman in a Minnesota sweat
shirt) and thus to the identity of the assassin.

It took a combination of a hint from Leary, a bit of detective inspiration
about the phone number, and a piece of pure luck to catch him in time.

Neil

    again, <spoiler>
    
    
    I was under the impression that Leary had deliberately left the scrap
    of paper with the "encoded" phone number ("SKELLUM") under the bed in
    his Washington hotel room.  But maybe you're right.
    
    -Stpehen

re: .25

<spoiler warning>

    
>    I was under the impression that Leary had deliberately left the scrap
>    of paper with the "encoded" phone number ("SKELLUM") under the bed in

I dunno.  Wasn't that when Clint and his partner almost caught him?  Seems
like he (Malkovich) made a habit of getting away fast, daring the Secret
Service to catch him.  So i don't think that was deliberate.  (Plus, SKELLUM
would never have made any sense without the UKELELE reference (to Clint).)

The only dubious plot point to me was why Leary had the collage in his room
at the beginning that made the landlady call the Secret Service...

								paul

    	Good, but certainly not great. Dialogue was *really* stiff although
    Malkvitch was great in his role.
    
        It *really* dragged in  a lot of parts but the ending was very
    well done. Scary? What movie were you watching?

    re .27, well, personally, *I* think the idea of crazed, lunatic,
    killers, such as Malkovitch, being on the lose, and willing to kill
    innocent women, in cold blood, to be extremely scary.  YMMV.
    
    I thought the movie was very fast paced, and didn't think it even came
    close to dragging.  I was on the edge of my seat, and completely
    captivated the entire time.  Also, I didn't think that any of the
    dialogue was remotely stiff.  It sounded very natural to me.  But, each
    to their own.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna - what's YMMV?
    
    NAZZ

    I'm betting it's "Your mileage may vary."
    
    Leslie

    re .30, that is correct.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

I saw 'In The Line Of Fire' on Friday night when in opened here and I was
impressed definately my favorite film this summer.

The Observer Newpaper in its review said "...the best film this year..."

It was very enjoyable, humourous in parts and compulsive viewing.
I can now go back and read the spoilers because they won't now.

Oliver

    I caught this movie last night and I found it to be excellent, with an
    original plot and superb acting...a definate must-see.
    
    
    					Ian

    EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT MOVIE! I LOVED IT! A must-see-twice!
    
    Clint is definitely growing as an actor. He's not afraid to take roles
    now which show chinks in the armor of his otherwise ironclad
    protagonists. One of the best, most convincing moments of the movie was
    (spoiler)
    
    when he had just been ordered to San Diego, and he stands in the
    Presidential suite remembering Kennedy and Dallas, and almost breaks
    down and cries.
    
    Suspenseful? Definitely, and in a very believable way! Scary? Well... I
    know that I was scoping out the other moviegoers as we were leaving,
    looking for resemblances to Malkovich.
    
    Hanging from the various ledges and being asked to "give me your hand"
    would be a bit unrealistic, even for guys in good shape as these were,
    unless they were mountain climbers. This is especially true when Booth
    is shown hanging from the edge of the scenic elevator, from the place
    where the windows have just been shot out. I might expect a fella to
    cut his hands in that situation. The biggest stretch, though, was that
    a hanging Clint could casually reach with his free hand to point his
    gun at Booth. And the biggest problem is that, being in a position to
    eliminate this acknowledged and highly dangerous threat to the
    President, having obsessed on Kennedy's death and wondered whther he
    could have stopped it, he did not just blow Booth away right there.
    (the ending was different: at that point, Booth was no longer a threat
    to the president, and thus not to Clint's professional pride).
    
    Extremely minor nits, though. This is my favorite movie of the year. So
    there were some movie cliches. Think about it: what kind of movie would
    it be if *everything* that happened was unexpected? You'd have a David
    Lynch movie!
    				Jim

    I hated this movie.  I thought the characters were not developed at
    all (Especially between Clint and the female agent).  I thought the
    things that happened were very predictable, and I thought the end
    was weak.
    
    Spoilers
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    	 watched it with my wife, and guessed every move.  As soon as the
    partner asked to go away because he didn't want to die on the job, I
    knew he was dead.  (Based upon the movie, Clint gave him pretty bad
    advice and just seemed to 'forget' about it.)
    
    Clint also did a pretty bad job of being a SS agent.  He missed a big
    call, he went on the job sick, and he was poorly conditioned for his
    "job".
    
    The catching of the crook, following a lead about the magazine, was
    something a beat cop would have done, and he got lucky to see a 
    picture of the heavy girl wearing a Minnisota sweat shirt.  He
    wasn't a very good agent.
    
    I was bored.  John M. was the best thing about the movie, and he
    seemed to turn stupid at the end.  He went from the sharpest guy
    in the film to a dummy.
    
    *1/2 outta ****

    I rented this and _The Fugitive_ recently.  _The Fugitive_ seems almost
    all plot and no character; this is almost the reverse.  Fortunately, I
    liked the characters.  Horrigan was a not-so-stereotypical macho guy,
    which was nice.  Leary is a great role for Malkovich and he runs with
    it; he was the highlight of the movie.  But I'm getting _extremely_
    tired of the "dead meat" cliche.
    
    Worth renting.

Just watched it this weekend on rental, and have to answer some old spoilers...



    
>>    I was under the impression that Leary had deliberately left the scrap
>>    of paper with the "encoded" phone number ("SKELLUM") under the bed in
>
>I dunno.  Wasn't that when Clint and his partner almost caught him?  Seems
>like he (Malkovich) made a habit of getting away fast, daring the Secret
>Service to catch him.  So i don't think that was deliberate.  (Plus, SKELLUM
>would never have made any sense without the UKELELE reference (to Clint).)

I think Leary left the Skellum clue in the hotel on purpose.
They talk about it during one of their phone calls.  Leary says "Skellum's 
a dead-end" or something like that, acknowledging he knows they know.
The roof top chase ensues because Leary loses track of time when he gets mad
in his screaming "respect" speech, allowing them to trace a call he'd 
normally scramble.

> The only dubious plot point to me was why Leary had the collage in his room
> at the beginning that made the landlady call the Secret Service...

This was clearly planned by Leary as the first step of playing the game.
Note the landlady said the smoke detector went off "from crumbs in the 
oven left on."  Leary was staking out the apartment from across the street.
He also didn't know that Horrigan would be the agent to answer the call, but 
was delighted that it was, since it made the game all the juicier for him.
The picture with Horrigan was only highlighted when it was the second trip
for the Secret Service, when the apartmenty was cleared out.

Lastly, Leary had to kill the bank lady because if she got suspicious and did 
the  least bit of checking, the critical "Microspan" account would be 
compromised, and Leary's attempt to buy his way into some (any!) presidential
function would be too-long delayed.

- tom]

PS: Actually, this was a LOT like the Dirty Harry movies (Dirty Harry Does DC),
but enough smoother and more moderated to be more than a self parody.

  Just rented this one over the weekend.

  Even though his name was changed it was basically "Dirty Harry guards the
President" but I like Dirty Harry so it worked. John Malkovich makes an
outstanding heavy. 

  Lots of fun but don't go looking for any deep meaning.

  **** out of 5,
  George

    
    Just saw this on video for the second time and enjoyed it just as much
    as the first time.  A few thoughts come to mind after the form feed -
    
    spoiler alert
    
    
    The composite gun made by the assassin looked plausible. I wonder if it
    gave anyone the idea to try making something like this on their own?
    
    It seemed hard to believe how a whole office full of secret service
    agents would pour out of their office in the Treasury building every
    time there was a local sighting of the killer...
    
    The opening scene of the two agents working undercover vs
    counterfeiters was quite unnerving - now that I think about it that
    scene is reminiscent of the way the Dirty Harry movies would open with
    some sort of violent crime in progress...

    
    re spoiler
    
    
    
    I'm sure the gun thing is nothing new.  Guns made out of bits are
    old news (remember "day of the jackal?") and guns made out of
    enamel/epoxy have been around for a while (glock makes one that I know
    of)
    
    Still a scary thought though huh?