MovieChat Forums > Narrow Margin (1990) Discussion > 30 min. longer, 30 times worse than orig...

30 min. longer, 30 times worse than original


Look, I'm not a remake snob. Who cares if it's a remake, just remake it well. I might be exaggerating saying this is 30 times worse than the '52 version. But I may not be. You decide.

I understand why 71-minute movies aren't made any more, but Hollywood would crank out better crap if they did.

reply

I disagree. I am a "remake snob" and I thought it was pretty good. And I didn't mind the changes made because there would have been less suspense if it played out the same exact way it did in 1952.

Besides, no one could out "hard-boil" Marie Windsor in the original, so it's good they did some tinkering with the female characters rather than leave a pale comparison with the exact same material.

"Well, for once the rich white man is in control!" C. M. Burns

reply

I agree. I'm a remake snob too, but this was one of the very rare cases where a remake was an excellent idea, seeing how good it was, and how it was done. A thrilling, excellent movie, and a 90s favourite for me!

reply

I am also a harsh critic at remakes, however; I thought Hyam's film was a well paced, suspense laden film which I enjoyed more that the original.

reply

Sorry, I too thought the re-make was just fine...I own both versions.

reply

I really liked this film, and thought Gene Hackman kicked ass in the lead role.

------

Wait a minute... who am I here?

reply

In re-watching it last night, my only quibble was with the unintentional humor. The pregnancy thing, Hackman's "Toy gun! Haha!", beating up a bad guy pants-less, barging in on the huffy mother and son, "Not just your grocer loves ya".

Minus those awkward moments, a good film.

reply

I prefer the remake to the original as it has twice as much going on and is more exciting! The original is quite flat! Hackman is always good. Yes the humor is out of place, especially the toy gun bit! It always makes me cringe when Hackman goes into the cabin of the mum and boy and spends have the film in there stalling for time. And of course the woman knows what its like to loose her car!

The stunts outside the train are the best I have seen. It really does look like its Hackman/Archer climbing out the moving train and hanging on to the assassin. Although the way Hackman grabs the guys foot and makes him fall, and the way the guy ends up making himself be in a position to fall off is a bit weak. The editor needs shooting as the screen on the car Hackman drives fixes it’s self, then goes back to being cracked then fixed on a few occasions.

So it has it's faults like most films, but it's an entertaining film at that.

reply

Next to "Capricorn One", this is Peter Hyams' best film!

Connery, Moore, and Brosnan! Accept NO substitutes!

reply

I always preferred the remake and watched it 3 times at the movie theaters when it was released in Germany. Later I bought the DVD.
Watched the 1952 original version once on TCM, but IMHO Anne Archer has much more charisma than Marie Windsor.

reply

I disagree. The remake from "Narrow Margin" with Anne Archer was always my favorite version, IMHO it's so much more thrilling than the 1952 version.
Watched both today and this is the typical situation where the remake has a lot more suspense than the original.
I haven't watched the remake in at least 10 years and was amazed that it kept me on the edge of my seat throughout the movie again.

Same with "The Italian Job". I watched the remake first and liked it, then we watched the 60's version with Michael Caine and it's pretty boring compared with the very entertaining remake.
The original is not always the better version.

reply

The original is definitely much better.

reply

Agree with you Intuit -- the remake is only better if you prefer shoot-em-up-bang-bangs over real filmmaking, which the original "B" movie was: more complex plot, characterisation, themes, visual style, than the remake.

reply

agree

reply

Agree, it's an implausible Piece of Sheet

reply