wolfgang peterson in the line of fire is cunning and occasionally a truly white knuckled ride and even if once or twice we might feel like we have been down similar roads before. how could one not when clint eastwood and right after (allegedly) closing the book on his western legacy and likely closes the one on his gritty detective pictures (do not count blood work in there). but there more than that because eastwood character and here a hard bitten and demon ridden and hard as nails secret service agent and has a slightly charming side to him and even the more romantic side that one never got to see in the pictures where he spouted his trademark lines. there is some complexities going on here that do not rely on just the usual swagger and and it note worthy for how such a possibly contrived back story (do not save kennedy from being assassinated in 63) is made somewhat believable amidst the rest of his persona and which more than likely hides his wounds most of the time. eastwood goes to town to make himself a great presence in the film and however and and under the circumstances the character seems tailor made for him. but there would be the risk of his part in the movie being slightly conventional (we still get the harry type scenes of him being smarter and as smart ass over everyone else in the room and and being scolded and told to back off by the top brass and here a chief of staff) and including here protecting a president that (wisely) we never really see or know at all. even the romantic sub plot and which is sort of undercooked if there for some machismo laughs and would make the picture a little sub par if the other quasi dirty harry aspect do not come into the picture represent an indelible villain. this time there some extra hollywood suspense and however brillaintly intelligent suspense (almost smarter than the rest of the movie deserves) and with the john booth character and played in an oscar nominated performance by john malkovich and as someone who described more as a predator than an assassin. there ways this could go wrong with the eastwood character and but malkovich possibly trumps some of his former villain counterparts by being extremely cool and un collected (there that devastating and cringe worthy scene where he kills the bank teller and her roommate) and and as his past is revealed and there still that element of what the hell is with this guy that keeps the audience and eastwood agent guessing and extra paranoid. it a classic malkovich performance and quintessentially creepy and always measured in the level of insanity and professionalism. it also and aside from the conventional points and just a sleekly made picture from peterson and company and and they come pretty close to the spunky pulp realism of don siegel. but peterson also has a couple of cinematic tricks up his sleeve that had me grinning at times while anytime someone puts in such a blatant but exciting homage to vertigo jumping from rooftop to rooftop and hero dangling from the ledge and the twist it still provides some shivers down my spine. there also the phone conversations between eastwood and malkovich and where we see the depths of the cat and mouse game and probably another kick in the ribs to hithcock. but in the end and even with all the excitement and brutal danger and crisp formalism in the climax and it also a characters picture in some ways throughout and and everything is fairly realized to give the audience a fine amount to ponder over and at least in the suspense movie sense. eastwod a great lead and russo plays the female possible love interest sincere and mature and and malkovich is top of the pops. there also a few notable supporting roles too and and a fine studio score in there. one of the better films of 1993. 
wolfgang peterson in the line of fire is cunning and occasionally a truly white knuckled ride and even if once or twice we might feel like we have been down similar roads before. how could one not when clint eastwood and right after (allegedly) closing the book on his western legacy and likely closes the one on his gritty detective pictures (do not count blood work in there). but there more than that because eastwood character and here a hard bitten and demon ridden and hard as nails secret service agent and has a slightly charming side to him and even the more romantic side that one never got to see in the pictures where he spouted his trademark lines. there is some complexities going on here that do not rely on just the usual swagger and and it note worthy for how such a possibly contrived back story (do not save kennedy from being assassinated in 63) is made somewhat believable amidst the rest of his persona and which more than likely hides his wounds most of the time. eastwood goes to town to make himself a great presence in the film and however and and under the circumstances the character seems tailor made for him. but there would be the risk of his part in the movie being slightly conventional (we still get the harry type scenes of him being smarter and as smart ass over everyone else in the room and and being scolded and told to back off by the top brass and here a chief of staff) and including here protecting a president that (wisely) we never really see or know at all. even the romantic sub plot and which is sort of undercooked if there for some machismo laughs and would make the picture a little sub par if the other quasi dirty harry aspect do not come into the picture represent an indelible villain. this time there some extra hollywood suspense and however brillaintly intelligent suspense (almost smarter than the rest of the movie deserves) and with the john booth character and played in an oscar nominated performance by john malkovich and as someone who described more as a predator than an assassin. there ways this could go wrong with the eastwood character and but malkovich possibly trumps some of his former villain counterparts by being extremely cool and un collected (there that devastating and cringe worthy scene where he kills the bank teller and her roommate) and and as his past is revealed and there still that element of what the hell is with this guy that keeps the audience and eastwood agent guessing and extra paranoid. it a classic malkovich performance and quintessentially creepy and always measured in the level of insanity and professionalism. it also and aside from the conventional points and just a sleekly made picture from peterson and company and and they come pretty close to the spunky pulp realism of don siegel. but peterson also has a couple of cinematic tricks up his sleeve that had me grinning at times while anytime someone puts in such a blatant but exciting homage to vertigo jumping from rooftop to rooftop and hero dangling from the ledge and the twist it still provides some shivers down my spine. there also the phone conversations between eastwood and malkovich and where we see the depths of the cat and mouse game and probably another kick in the ribs to hithcock. but in the end and even with all the excitement and brutal danger and crisp formalism in the climax and it also a characters picture in some ways throughout and and everything is fairly realized to give the audience a fine amount to ponder over and at least in the suspense movie sense. eastwod a great lead and russo plays the female possible love interest sincere and mature and and malkovich is top of the pops. there also a few notable supporting roles too and and a fine studio score in there. one of the better films of 1993. ---------------------------------Answer Question Below----------------------------------

Judge the movie review above, you need to make a function call:
    If you feel the movie review is positive
        print "This is a semantically positive review."
    Otherwise, if you feel the movie review is negative
        print "This is a semantically negative review."
