Gene Hackman is razor-sharp and in fine form here as a Deputy District Attorney who accompanies frightened murder witness Carol Hunnicutt (Anne Archer) on an eventful train ride through the wilds of British Columbia. You see, Carol had watched from the bathroom while mobster Leo Watts (Harris Yulin) and one of his many henchmen (Canadian character actor Nigel Bennett) rubbed out her blind date (the too briefly seen J.T. Walsh). Caulfield (Hackman) tracks Carol down, but these many henchmen are right on their heels, and turn up on the train. Said goons are confident that it's only a matter of time before they find her, although one supposed thing that Caulfield and Carol have in their favour is that the bad guys don't know what she looks like.

Veteran filmmaker Peter Hyams, well known for diversions like "Capricorn One" and "2010" remakes the 1952 film noir classic with surprisingly engaging results. It doesn't quite have the same stark atmosphere, or sense of menace, but it still displays some genuine tension, has some terrific action set pieces (especially on top of and outside the train),and also has some pretty amusing dialogue by Hyams. Hyams, who's served as his own cinematographer since the early 80s, does tend to under light scenes at times, a common element in his work. But he gives it some great pace; even though this version runs about 25 minutes longer than the 1952 one, it doesn't meander and gives us a number of compelling scenes. Particularly strong are conversations between Hackman and James B. Sikking (a regular in Hyams' filmography),who plays one of the goons, and between Hackman and Archer. The latter does a wonderful job of humanizing her, since it is possible that some people might not find her sympathetic enough before that point.

Hackman is always fun to watch, and he makes for a solid hero. Archer is a delight, as usual. J.T. Walsh has one of *his* most sympathetic roles in a movie (he was often relegated to sleazy, white-collar criminal types),and he of course is great. So is M. Emmet Walsh, even if he's also under utilized as the detective who accompanies Caulfield to Carols' hideout.

Ultimately, this movie version doesn't pull off its twists as well as the 1952 version, but it has enough entertainment value to make it well worth a viewing.

Eight out of 10.

This remake of the 1952 noir classic The Narrow Margin has a lot more budget attached to it and some of the Clint Eastwood classic The Gauntlet tossed in as well. Like Charles McGraw in the original and Eastwood, Gene Hackman has to bring in a witness who can nail big time mobster Harris Yulin. Nail him for murder one.

Hackman and cop M. Emmett Walsh locate witness Anne Archer up in the Canadian woods in a really remote spot. But the bad guys are on to them and Walsh is killed. The two make it to a southbound train for Los Angeles, but unarmed they are sitting ducks for the contract killers sent to get them. Hackman and Archer really have to use their wits to out think these people to stay alive.

Hackman who has an edginess to his screen persona which makes castable as both good and bad guys with various shades to their character. Narrow Margin is one of the few films you will see him in as a thoroughgoing good guy.

What Archer did is unfortunately be in the wrong place at the wrong time and what Yulin did wrong is be on the scene of a murder he ordered the hit for of J.T.Walsh a mob lawyer who stole from him. They didn't know she was there, but find out soon enough. Archer is the perfect portrayal of a witness who just wants to run and hide. As for Yulin, he forgot that successful crime families like the Corleones use a lot of buffers.

Good tension that doesn't let up for a second once Archer is located and she and Hackman board the train.

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.