Skip to main content

I like my side of the courtroom. The pay’s not so good, but the air is a lot better.

Narrow Margin

(SPOILERS) A lean, efficient little thriller, as you might expect from consummate journeyman Peter Hyams. As you might also expect from Hyams, Narrow Margin is unable to make that extra bound into the arena of a truly great lean, efficient little thriller. Nevertheless, this is quality B-material, with Gene Hackman doing his marvellously meat-and-potatoes darnedest to save a witness from hitmen on a train to Vancouver.

Carol Hunnicut: Protect me? You’re the one who put me in danger.

I’d suggest Hyams is permanently underrated, but I’m not sure that’s exactly right. It’s more that his talents are underappreciated; as a filmmaker, he was a craftsman rather than an auteur, despite invariably writing, directing and lensing his films. Hence working twice with Van Damme during a difficult ’90s stretch. And then Arnie, who thoroughly dissed him. But Arnie’s always one to blame his tools. Hyams had a strong – as in solid – run during the ’80s, The Presidio aside, and this represents the last of those. Yet Narrow Margin was underseen at the time and perhaps hasn’t undergone the re-evaluation it deserves.

Hyams decided to remake Richard Fleischer’s The Narrow Margin (1952) after seeing it on television one night (apparently Howard Hughes liked the movie so much, he once planned a redo with a couple of big stars). He follows its loose template of a cat-and-mouse on a train journey in a bid to shepherd a witness to safety. Here, though, rather than a mob boss, we have Anne Archer’s wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time blind date Carol Hunnicut witnessing JT Walsh’s mob lawyer being offed by mobster Leo Watts (Harris Yulin) and accompanying goon. She goes to ground until Hackman’s deputy DA Robert Caulfield digs her up. In Canada. Inevitably, he isn’t the only one on her trail, and before long they have fled to a train bound for Vancouver, hitmen in hot pursuit.

Caulfield: What does somebody who likes the train look like?

The movie absolutely relies on the pre-cell phone age and such concomitant ruses as cutting all communications en route. Hyams also introduces several plot turns less than deftly. It’s obvious as soon as Caulfield tells his cagey boss (JA Preston, of Hill Street Blues fame) of his scoop in front of associate Kevin McNulty that this is a red herring, that the boss is a good guy and it’s McNulty who will do him a wrong ’un. Which he duly does when Caulfield later confides in him. Later, Caulfield strikes up conversation with a widow (Susan Hogan), his suspicions focussed on the morbidly obese passenger (BA “Smitty” Smith) who has been watching him. Naturally, the widow is the “third man” on the train, while fatty turns out to be railroad security.

Such unvarnished plot mechanics don’t really don’t dent the greater well-oiled engine, though. Hyams knows how to keep up the suspense, and he couldn’t have a more serviceable lead than Hackman. It’s the kind of role you might imagine Harrison Ford in, albeit Ford would have passed on it as a little routine (he was still a few decades from Firewall). It might have been better to reveal Caulfield was a decorated marine earlier in the proceedings, as there’s a whole action sequence in a washroom where you’re wondering how come a lawyer’s so handy (and even knowing how come he’s so handy, it fails to explain his ability to dive to safety through a tiny window).

Caulfield: First you’ve lost your briefcase and now you’ve lost someone. You guys ought to be more careful.

Sadly, Archer isn’t very well catered for; she was so indelible as the wife in Fatal Attraction (a role with some memorable agency), yet she appeared consigned to playing the other half subsequently (Mrs Jack Ryan) even when she wasn’t (here). Mostly, though, this lack of characterisation is indicative of how stripped back Hyams’ show is. It’s all about Caulfield dodging and interacting with the bad guys, led by Nelson (James Sikking, also of Hill Street Blues but a Hyams regular since Capricorn One). Sikking’s marvellously unphased, steely menace makes him a worthy opponent for Hackman.

I’m usually in favour of movies knowing when to quit, but it’s curious that Hyams sets things up for Caufield and Hunnicut to be met by the mob at the station yet opts to wrap up with an abrupt voiceover phone call once the rooftop climax is over. Of which, Hogan’s fate is pure cheese and more suited to your average Arnie movie of the period than a thriller attempting a semblance of verisimilitude. The perfunctory ending almost suggests someone nixed a budget spend somewhere.

Narrow Margin came from Carolco during their peak period. However, while they had seven releases in 1990, of which Total Recall was by far the biggest hit, most of the rest (including the costly Air America) bombed or underperformed. To be honest, they probably shouldn’t have been surprised Narrow Margin did little business. Not only is it staple B-fodder that stays true to its roots, but Hackman headlining at this point was absolutely no guarantee of a hit. Far from it. Put him in a supporting role (No Way Out, Postcards from the Edge) or Oscar bait (Mississippi Burning) and you’re away, but give him in an ’80s-style thriller – or melodrama – and audiences didn’t want to know (Misunderstood, Twice in a Lifetime, Target, The Package, Loose Cannons and Bat*21 all stiffed). It was Unforgiven that really gave him a second wind of strong parts until he retired.

Keller: No one loves a fat man but his grocer.

Which is in no way to do Narrow Margin down; it’s that welcome movie that knows its range. It’s unpretentious, gets the job done and provides a thrilling ride. Bruce Broughton delivers a suitably tense score, and Hyams under lights effectively, creating a strong atmosphere (there’s a great shot early on of Archer silhouetted through the crack of a door). Any movie that kills off JT Walsh and M Emmet Walsh in the first twenty minutes is going to have its work cut out for it, but Narrow Margin manages to bounce back.

Popular posts from this blog

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

If this were a hoax, would we have six dead men up on that mountain?

The X-Files 4.24: Gethsemane   Season Four is undoubtedly the point at which the duff arc episodes begin to amass, encroaching upon the decent ones for dominance. Fortunately, however, the season finale is a considerable improvement’s on Three’s, even if it’s a long way from the cliffhanger high of 2.25: Anasazi .

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

I think it’s wonderful the way things are changing.

Driving Miss Daisy (1989) (SPOILERS) The meticulous slightness of Driving Miss Daisy is precisely the reason it proved so lauded, and also why it presented a prime Best Picture pick: a feel-good, social-conscience-led flick for audiences who might not normally spare your standard Hollywood dross a glance. One for those who appreciate the typical Judi Dench feature, basically. While I’m hesitant to get behind anything Spike Lee, as Hollywood’s self-appointed race-relations arbiter, spouts, this was a year when he actually did deliver the goods, a genuinely decent movie – definitely a rarity for Lee – addressing the issues head-on that Driving Miss Daisy approaches in softly-softly fashion, reversing gingerly towards with the brake lights on. That doesn’t necessarily mean Do the Right Thing ought to have won Best Picture (or even that it should have been nominated for the same), but it does go to emphasise the Oscars’ tendency towards the self-congratulatory rather than the provocat

Out of my way, you lubberly oaf, or I’ll slit your gullet and shove it down your gizzard!

The Princess and the Pirate (1944) (SPOILERS) As I suggested when revisiting The Lemon Drop Kid , you’re unlikely to find many confessing to liking Bob Hope movies these days. Even Chevy Chase gets higher approval ratings. If asked to attest to the excruciating stand-up comedy Hope, the presenter and host, I doubt even diehards would proffer an endorsement. Probably even fewer would admit to having a hankering for Hope, were they aware of, or further still gave credence to, alleged MKUltra activities. But the movie comedy Hope, the fourth-wall breaking, Road -travelling quipster-coward of (loosely) 1939-1952? That Hope’s a funny guy, mostly, and many of his movies during that period are hugely inventive, creative comedies that are too easily dismissed under the “Bob Hope sucks” banner. The Princess and the Pirate is one of them.

My hands hurt from galloping.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) (SPOILERS) Say what you like about the 2016 reboot, at least it wasn’t labouring under the illusion it was an Amblin movie. Ghostbusters 3.5 features the odd laugh, but it isn’t funny, and it most definitely isn’t scary. It is, however, shamelessly nostalgic for, and reverential towards, the original(s), which appears to have granted it a free pass in fan circles. It didn’t deserve one.

I’ve heard the dancing’s amazing, but the music sucks.

Tick, Tick… Boom! (2021) (SPOILERS) At one point in Tick, Tick… Boom! – which really ought to have been the title of an early ’90s Steven Seagal vehicle – Andrew Garfield’s Jonathan Larson is given some sage advice on how to find success in his chosen field: “ On the next, maybe try writing about what you know ”. Unfortunately, the very autobiographical, very-meta result – I’m only surprised the musical doesn’t end with Larson finishing writing this musical, in which he is finishing writing his musical, in which he is finishing writing his musical… – takes that acutely literally.

Who gave you the crusade franchise? Tell me that.

The Star Chamber (1983) (SPOILERS) Peter Hyams’ conspiracy thriller might simply have offered sauce too weak to satisfy, reining in the vast machinations of an all-powerful hidden government found commonly during ’70s fare and substituting it with a more ’80s brand that failed to include that decade’s requisite facile resolution. There’s a good enough idea here – instead of Charles Bronson, it’s the upper echelons of the legal system resorting to vigilante justice – but The Star Chamber suffers from a failure of nerve, repenting its premise just as it’s about to dig into the ramifications.