Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Martin Bradley Richard Fleischer's "The Narrow Margin" was a great little B-Movie and a classic suspense picture. Peter Hyams' remake is hardly in the same class but it's no disgrace either. It's glossier and done on an altogether larger scale and it makes superb use of some spectacular Canadian scenery. This time it's Anne Archer who is the witness to a killing and Gene Hackman is the Deputy District Attorney trying to keep her alive so she can testify against Mafia boss Harris Yulin. It keeps its train board setting and Hyams builds suspense very nicely in this reasonably claustrophobic locale. Those fine character actors J.T. and M Emmett Walsh are also on hand though they are dispatched much too early for my liking. Not a classic, then, but very enjoyable nevertheless.

Lee-Anne Phillips This film was almost constantly annoying. The main character, supposedly an ex-Marine, manages to get his hands on actual guns several times, which might well have evened up the odds a little in his attempts to escape the assassins sent to kill his charge, so of course the screenwriter inserted bits of business each time to let the "hero" screw it up. He loses one gun whilst he stops to preen himself in a mirror, t'other whilst he tosses off a quip evidently meant to display the screenwriter's facility with Bondish repartee, and is so stuck on himself that he fails to notice when the obvious decoy on the train makes goo-goo eyes at him, ignoring countless real hunks in the process, and so sets up the mandatory denouement in which the decoy (quelle surprise!) acts out the perfect "villain taunting the hero" scene and is vanquished mid-taunt, whilst Bond... pardon... one or another of the Marx Brothers, utters the perfect quip, which in real life would have allowed the decoy to escape and kill both witness and the main character, but of course it doesn't, since the screenwriter couldn't let that happen, so it didn't, but only through brute force, wrestling a happy ending out of a bloody mash-up.I don't mind a little suspension of disbelief, but I prefer honest slapstick to whatever the heck this was.

writers_reign Much has been made here of the fact that this is yet another remake of a film widely considered to be a classic. On the whole I am not sympathetic to remakes of even non-classics simply because most of the films that inspire fond memories reflected that period in which they were made - how would Laura or Ninotchka for example look if remade today - and it is totally impossible to replicate 'feel'. On the face of it this remake is absurd: The black-and-white original made a virtue of necessity; it was a 'B' picture with a 'B' budget so Fleisher shot it all in a confined space and juggled the camera angles to great effect. The woman (Marie Windsor) was the wife of the gangster and hard as nails, not, as here, a more or less innocent bystander who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. By opening it out, creating a whole new exposition about the blind date we just lose valuable time that could have been concentrated - as in the original version - on the claustrophobic laced with danger train journey. The remake is not without the odd thrill but if both versions are freely available I can't see anyone settling for the remake.

elshikh4 It's good as average thriller from the 1980s, but it allowed some nasty questions to hang around in your brain such as : what could've happened to such a picture with another director who wasn't once a respected director of photography like (Peter Hyams) ?!, or if the same script had been given to (James Cameron) or (John McTiernan) ? Actually they might've exploded everything to reach the most extreme limit by making one critical climax after another !Maybe what allowed those questions is the style of the movie itself altogether. Yes, it's a low tune, low budget kind of movie. But, it's nice one. In fact, the problem is mainly in us. We want all the movies to be just one movie (the most successful one in our time) and it's impossible not because the history doesn't repeat itself only, but because that would distort all the movies also ! Here it's fair without any crazy Action or CGI's companionship, and It's great to see (Gene Hackman) in anything. True that this rule has some exceptions, but this movie is not one of them. I think this time I have just the screenwriter to blame not to utilize some parts to make it more hot and perhaps that's the reason why this movie seemed more like a TV production or as one had been made by the 1950s' standards. It's not big, not loud, though not bad. So try to think of it as a clever intermission between (Rambo) and (Die Hard), or as a peaceful version of (The Gauntlet) however in a train, or as a solid old fashion kind of thriller.