home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1990s
/
Time_Almanac_1990s_SoftKey_1994.iso
/
time
/
080993
/
08099929.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-04-08
|
4KB
|
94 lines
<text id=93TT0157>
<title>
Aug. 09, 1993: Reviews:Cinema
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1993
Aug. 09, 1993 Lost Secrets Of The Maya
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
REVIEWS, Page 57
CINEMA
Renewing an Old Duel
</hdr>
<body>
<p>By RICHARD SCHICKEL
</p>
<qt>
<l>TITLE: The Fugitive</l>
<l>DIRECTOR: Andrew Davis</l>
<l>WRITERS: Jeb Stuart and David Twohy</l>
</qt>
<p> THE BOTTOM LINE: Reimagined instead of recycled, an adaptation
of a '60s old TV show emerges as a first-rate thriller.
</p>
<p> A smart federal law-enforcement officer, his wit informed by
years of experience and buttressed by all the latest crime-fighting
technology; a cunning, daring criminal managing always to stay
just an infuriating half step ahead of his pursuer; a final
confrontation that begins at a large, celebratory public occasion,
proceeds to vertiginous grapplings along the edge of a big-city
high-rise and ends with justice done by the narrowest, scariest
of margins.
</p>
<p> Old news, you say. You've already seen and loved In the Line
of Fire. Well, here comes another movie that deploys similar
elements, including deeply satisfying star performances and
high-energy directorial craftsmanship. The difference between
them arises from a couple of simple role reversals. In The Fugitive
the criminal is actually an innocent man: Richard Kimble (Harrison
Ford), a surgeon falsely accused of murdering his wife. The
lawman--a U.S. marshal named Sam Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones)--is the character in the grips of a dangerous obsession, namely
to capture the eponymous escapee.
</p>
<p> The best measure of this movie's merits is that the cross-reference
that springs most readily to mind is another well-made current
movie. But everyone knows The Fugitive derives its title, protagonist
and basic situation from the 1960s television series in which
David Janssen, as the luckless Kimble, was pursued across many
years and many states by Barry Morse's implacable detective.
It was Les Miserables in prime time, and that overtone is lost
in this adaptation, which compresses the pursuit and confines
it mostly to Chicago. But the tension and realism that result
from permitting Kimble less running room amply compensate for
the diminishment of the original's romantic aura.
</p>
<p> Not all that was good about the old Kimble has been lost. He
can still spare risky time to help others, like a child being
ignored, at peril to his life, in an emergency room. He still
has the recklessness that comes to people who have nothing left
to lose (the most spectacular of his hair-breadth escapes is
a dive into the torrent coursing over a dam hundreds of feet
high). And he still has his own pursuit to pursue--of the
one-armed man whom he alone knows is his wife's actual murderer.
</p>
<p> Busy fellow, and nobody plays harried better than Harrison Ford.
He plays other things well too, notably in the scene in which,
as he is interrogated by the police, he comes to realize that
he is their chief suspect. Grief, outrage, incomprehension,
terror--what a rich mixture of emotions he registers in a
matter of seconds. Jones may have a somewhat simpler line to
play in the movie, but he is a marvelously incisive actor, and
he brings his character right up to the edge of the demonic
without falling into the psychotic abyss. He is playing the
role of a man playing a role--tough omnicompetence--and
the little flickers of ironic self-awareness he permits himself
as he judges his effect on others are delicious.
</p>
<p> Which brings us back to a final comparison with In the Line
of Fire. Both these movies are tightly wound duels between vividly
contrasting characters who match up only in the quality of their
intelligence. Both more than satisfy the most primitive demand
of the action genre, which is, of course, for plenty of action.
But unlike most films of their kind these days, they do not
feel machine-made. They take the time (and it doesn't require
much) for the digressions that enlist real concern--not just
in what's going to happen next, but in the fates of their characters
as well.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>