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.
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.