Le seul témoin

In Los Angeles, the editor of a publishing house Carol Hunnicut (Anne Archer) goes to a blind date with the lawyer Michael Tarlow (J.T. Walsh), who has embezzled the powerful mobster Leo Watts (Harris Yulin). Carol accidentally witnesses the murder of Michel by Leo's hit-man. The scared Carol sneaks out of Michael's room and hides in an isolated cabin in Canada.

Meanwhile the Deputy District Attorney Robert Caulfield (Gene Hackman) and Sgt. Dominick Benti (M. Emmett Walsh) discover that Carol is a witness of the murder and they report the information to Caulfield's chief Martin Larner (J.A. Preston) and they head by helicopter to Canada to convince Carol to testify against Leo. However they are followed and the pilot and Benti are murdered by the Mafia. Caulfield and Carol flees and they take a train to Vancouver.

Caulfield hides Carol in his cabin and he discloses that there are three hit-man in the train trying to find Carol and kill her. But they do not know her and Caulfield does not know who might be the third killer from the Mafia and who has betrayed him in his office.

"Narrow Margin" is a great remake of the 1952 "The Narrow Margin" by Richard Fleischer. When I saw this remake in the early 90's for the first time, I did not know the original movie. The story is well written and this remake is breathtaking with the action scenes on the roof of the train. Further, the lead actor is the Gene Hackman, one of the best actors of the American cinema. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "De Frente para o Perigo" ("In Front of the Peril")

It's odd to like an original film and then like the re-make equally so, if not more, but that's the case with this film. I have viewed both versions of this film at least three times apiece and thoroughly enjoy both.

Almost 55 years ago, this was a film noir called "The Narrow Margin" and in 1990, this re-make took off the "The" on the title. However, as is sometimes the case with remakes, some of the twists and turns of this thriller were also changed from the first film.

They didn't spoil it. I have no objection to the changes made here because the bottom line is entertainment, and that's where this movie excels. Plausible? No, but neither was the original, for that matter, and neither are a lot of suspense/ crime films.

What makes this re-run good, in addition to the great suspense, are several other things: 1 - Gene Hackman, one of the best actors of his generation and often overlooked in discussions of great actors; 2 - nice photography featuring some great train shots and the scenic Canadian Rockies; 3 - an interesting assortment of characters, some of which keep you guessing whether they are the good guys or the bad guys; 4 - a dash of humor thrown in here and there to break the tension.

In addition to Hackman, we see the sexy Anne Archer, who gives a nice film noir feel to the movie and we get some good supporting performances including two from guys with the same last name: J.T. and Emmet Walsh and one from a guy who plays one of the hit men: James Sikking. That's a name I'm not familiar with, but he has a scene talking to Hackman that is riveting.

The main fault of the movie at least to me, was the "Rambo" mentality in which I mean the villains have the good guy in point-blank, can't-miss range several times and....you guessed it: they miss. The action scenes in here are great but lack credibility, or this would be almost as good as it could ever get for a "thriller." I'm still tempted to rate it a "10" for the entertainment value alone.

If your memory is good, you'll recall that this is a remake of the B&W sleeper classic starring Charles McGraw and Marie Windsor called "The Narrow Margin," with most of the action taking place aboard the confinement of a speeding train. Their tough chemistry throughout made it very watchable indeed.

The remake has made a few minor changes in the story and expanded the scenery to include some lush images of Canadian forests and countryside to give credit to some photogenic Canadian wilderness from various angles.

The expansions mean the film isn't quite as taut as the '52 thriller with occasional dull stretches of talk, but the performances are so good that it doesn't matter too much. It still contains a spellbinding climax aboard the top of the train that includes some dangerous stunt work and a nice twist, as well as spectacular moments involving a helicopter.

Not bad at all, passes the time quickly and once the suspense aboard the train starts there's no turning away.

Perhaps not as good as the original, but still worth watching. Gene Hackman and Anne Archer do fine work at the head of a competent cast.

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.

Terrific action thriller with great actors. Unfortunately, they don't have much to say because the action takes over. There isn't much time to develop a character when you're being chased up and down a mountain. Still, this is a great example of the genre. I can't help but think that it would have been a lot more successful financially with younger, hipper stars. I also think that would have ruined it.

The direction is very matter-of-fact. Some movies like this reel you in with a definite "atmosphere", stylized to death. I'm tempted to say this movie has no style at all, but that would be a disservice to Hackman and Archer, who give it all the style it needs.