Narrow Margin (1990)

Hitchcockian is a word that could describe this 1990 thriller, itself a remake of a '50s suspense movie. NARROW MARGIN has all the ingredients that we recognise from the master's movies: a train setting; two killers in endless pursuit; a tough-talking heroine and an ordinary man turned hero. Unfortunately, another word I could use to describe this movie is "bland". "Soulless" would be a third.It's not that it's bad – it isn't. It's well made, certainly, and technically proficient, let down by only a few lacklustre special effects (such as the superimposed woman in the 'tunnel' scene at the film's climax). Director Peter Hyams was by this stage an old hand at this sort of movie, and he'd already delivered a successful film with a very similar plot, albeit with a sci-fi setting, in 1981's OUTLAND. Another positive is Gene Hackman playing the male lead. Hackman is, like Sean Connery before him, very good at playing an every man hero relying on his wits and abilities to keep himself alive. Without Hackman, this film would have been a lot less entertaining. He's not enthralling here as he has been elsewhere, but his subdued, mannered performance is spot on and he makes his dialogue come alive.It's what the film's lacking that works against it. Although it's a suspense movie, there's little suspense built up here. I can't blame the photography, which makes full usage of claustrophobic inter-train settings and the Canadian wilderness; I can't blame the plot here, which moves nicely along with just the right number of twists and action scenes. The supporting cast isn't half bad, either; M. Emmet Walsh is always a pleasure, even in a truncated turn like his one here; and James B. Sikking is unmissable too. I suppose one of my problems lies with Anne Archer, whose hard heroine is far from likable; she bitches and moans almost the entire running time, even though she's the one the plot hinges around.Even now I can't put my figure on what I don't like about this film – it just wasn't anything I could get worked up over. I love the premise, have enjoyed its execution in such varied fare as BREAKHEART PASS and UNDER SIEGE 2, but I could work up no excitement over this. I just feel that the director's heart wasn't in it – and what's left is a perfunctory outing in which everyone's just picking up the pay cheque.

The minute Gene Hackman entered the picture, this was a totally different movie. The murder had to take place, and we had to see the setup that led to it. But this turned into what seemed like an episode of a humorous TV murder mystery. Hackman did a great job and gave us plenty of laughs, even though this wasn't a comedy. Once he and Anne Archer's reluctant witness got together, it was almost a romantic comedy with two mismatched partners. And the action just kept on coming. Along with the two fine performances of the leads, we had plenty of memorable characters. J.A. Preston's demanding district attorney, Emmet Walsh's edgy detective (who didn't stay around long, which was a shame), and an older man who gave up his suite so Caulfield and his "pregnant" wife could have their privacy. Doogie Howser's father did a great job as the main bad guy. And the woman whose name I don't remember who hoped for a romantic relationship with Caulfield.We were always on edge as we wondered what would happen next. And there was the real excitement of action on top of the train cars. And beautiful scenery in western Canada.I mentioned Hackman's comic abilities, but he did an amazing dramatic performance in one scene as he made it clear why he was going to so much trouble to make sure the bad guys got justice, if they could. There are so many moral dilemmas.It was a worthy effort.

This film was almost constantly annoying. The main character, supposedly an ex-Marine, manages to get his hands on actual guns several times, which might well have evened up the odds a little in his attempts to escape the assassins sent to kill his charge, so of course the screenwriter inserted bits of business each time to let the "hero" screw it up. He loses one gun whilst he stops to preen himself in a mirror, t'other whilst he tosses off a quip evidently meant to display the screenwriter's facility with Bondish repartee, and is so stuck on himself that he fails to notice when the obvious decoy on the train makes goo-goo eyes at him, ignoring countless real hunks in the process, and so sets up the mandatory denouement in which the decoy (quelle surprise!) acts out the perfect "villain taunting the hero" scene and is vanquished mid-taunt, whilst Bond... pardon... one or another of the Marx Brothers, utters the perfect quip, which in real life would have allowed the decoy to escape and kill both witness and the main character, but of course it doesn't, since the screenwriter couldn't let that happen, so it didn't, but only through brute force, wrestling a happy ending out of a bloody mash-up.I don't mind a little suspension of disbelief, but I prefer honest slapstick to whatever the heck this was.

I just happened to be watching this movie when it came on late night on TBS and I wasn't really sure what I was getting myself into, but after reading about the plot, I figured 'what the hey' and just give it a shot. Needless to say, I wasn't disappointed at all.After some ominous music, followed by very creative opening credits, we join the story of Carol Honeycutt who is an editor for a publishing company on a blind date with Michael Tarlow, a defense attorney. Michael is obviously a man with lots of secrets but Carol gets to know him quite well and they seem like an even match. However, after getting a phone call in his hotel suite, they adjourn to his room together and Carol decides to get a glass of water from the next room. Unbenowst to her and Tarlow, they have a surprise visitor: Leo Watts, a reputed crime boss with ties to organized crime. After some chit-chat, Leo reveals that he knows that Michael has been 'skimming' from him and Michael 'breaks down' and confesses that he did it and he intended to pay him back. Leo seems like an understanding fellow at first when he tells Michael that he's to return every penny that he took from him and then ties will be severed. But as they near the door, Leo says, 'Michael, I lied' and Leo's associate Jack Wooten pulls out a gun and viciously executes Tarlow, much to Carol's horror. Knowing that her life is on the line because she's a witness, Carol high-tails it out of there, making sure to cover her tracks the best she could.Enter Robert Caufield, a Deputy DA who has been after Watts for years and when he learns that Carol was a witness to the slaying of Michael Tarlow, he jumps at the chance to bring her back to testify (but is met with resistance from his superiors who for some reason, don't want him getting involved). None the less, he and Detective Benti head up to her cabin in Canada and do their best to persuade her to come back and assist them with putting a notorious crime lord behind bars, but to no avail, Carol refuses to cooperate. What was suppose to be a simple 'search and retrieval' assignment soon falls to pieces though when high-tech professional assassins show up and start gunning the cabin to pieces. After Benti is killed and their chopper destroyed, Caufield and Honeycutt flee the cabin in a Bronco pick-up truck down the mountain and to a train station where they will board the first train headed to Los Angeles. Unfortunately, the killers board the train too and are intending to earn what their boss has paid them to do: to eliminate any loose threads. For the next several hours, Caufield and Honeycutt will have to put each other's lives in their hands as they try to outrun, outmaneuver and outwit their adversaries in a lethal game of 'step on or get stepped on'.I was completely blown away and amazed at this film and many people are saying that the first version is better than this remake. I saw the first one and in comparison, the remake has a lot more going for it. Not only do we have nail-biting suspense, but we've got action and great performances by Gene Hackman and Anne Archer. The interesting part is the internal struggle that these two have to go through: besides the killers on the train, Hackman's character must try and convince Archer's character to do the right thing because even if they escape the killers today, Watts would just send more hitters until Honeycutt was dead. Anne Archer did a swell job playing the sharp-tongued Carol Honeycutt who won't cooperate out of fear that she'll be killed but decides to do the right thing when the killers begin to close in on them. The atmosphere of being in a train with no means of escape and no way to tell friend from foe created a claustrophobic setting for the film. It was very impressive and you spend a lot of time rooting for Caufield and Honeycutt to come out on top. They have no weapons, no cellular communication, no backup...they are totally on their own and must rely on each other in order to stay alive.Narrow Margin is a terrific film with an excellent cast...if you haven't seen this one yet, you don't know what you're missing! :)