De Frente para o Perigo

Gene Hackman and Anne Archer star in a good thriller that has tense moments and wonderful Canadian scenery. The story is of a frightened woman who sees a man killed and takes flight to avoid having to appear as a witness to a murder. Hackman is the resourceful district attorney who convinces Archer to return to Los Angeles and testify against the killers. The rest of the picture details a game of cat and mouse between Hackman, Archer and their pursuers who see Archer as a loose end and are determined to keep her from the courtroom. The scenes of pursuit atop the moving passenger train have been done in other films but is expertly done here without becoming a cliché. The picture does have its flaws but is a diverting film and any movie starring Hackman is certainly worth watching.

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.

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.

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.

This film pops up frequently on the tube, and with good reason -- it's lean, smart, and superbly acted. Director Hyams makes the most of the claustrophobic train interior contrasting with the wide open Canadian wilderness. Gene Hackman has never been better. Tension is built through a series of one-on-one confrontations, each with electric undercurrents. The best by far is the gentlemanly chat between Hackman and James Sikking in the dining car. The standard "action-packed" ending is a bit disappointing. But don't let this stop you if you're into suspense films for the thinking person.