Why so much hype?

Truly Dreadful Film

Admirable film.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

This is basically the same exact film as the original The Most Dangerous Game (1932) - only a few changes involved in this remake... and the casting isn't as good either. I highly suggest the original 1932 film over this one... the changes in this remake kinda mess up the original idea to a degree. Now if all you can get a hold of to view is this remake then I will say it's worth watching.Might I suggest a LOOSE remake: Bloodlust! (1961)?! It isn't a carbon copy of the the 1932 nor this 1945 close remake. It doesn't pretend to be Most Dangerous Game - but it's simply a LOOSELY made remake. Bloodlust! makes enough changes to give us a different story along the same vein where A Game of Death is faded carbon copy of the original film.I like Bloodlust! better than this 1945 film. This 1945 is so close to the 1932 original (made only 13 years later) that it's makes you question RKO why did you bother to remake the sublime original into a faded copy? No A Game of Death is NOT an awful film - it's pretty good - but why did RKO bother making this remake when the original film is so much better?! 5.5/10

A Game of Death (1945)A legendary big game hunter is shipwrecked and lands on an island where a reclusive man and his motley crew of servants has been trapping humans and hunting them like wild game. A great idea, and this movie is pretty good at making an entertainment about it.It's not helpful to jump to the obvious, I suppose, but for those of us who have seen the two major versions of this sordid and contrived tale, the original short story is much better. In fact, the "The Most Dangerous Game" (as the Richard Connell story is called) has wit and drama and surprise, and an economy of telling, that makes it a classic and very readable still.So this 1945 version of "The Most Dangerous Game" falls short partly because it doesn't want to be as chilling and scary as the story. For one thing, it adds a shade of romance to the thing which cheapens the real essence of the conflict. When our hero, played by John Loder, arrives he finds a pretty young woman (Audrey Long) and her brother are captives there from an earlier wreck, and so we all know the brother is expendable and the man and woman are likely to win the day and drive off in the sunset at the end.Which ruins the point. The original has a tension of survival built in. It really does turn around the notion of the hunter becoming the hunted. The crazed hunter in this case, since it's 1945, is a German named Erich Kreiger (played by the very American actor Edgar Barrier, who came out of Orson Welles's Mercury players, and who played Banquo in the Welles MacBeth a couple years later). While we are name dropping, the director is the young Robert Wise, who it might be said never made a bad film in his life, and who had his own start as an Orson Welles tagalong. Even here, where the thrust of it is watered down, there are so many visually terrific parts it is a thrill to watch. In particular are the night shots of the pursued couple in the jungle, with moving camera through the weeds presaging the more famous running shots of Kurosawa's "Rashomon." In fact, the whole movie is very well made and edited, clearly an intelligent technical achievement. On that level, you can watch it with real pleasure.And the plot will just carry itself along. If you like this at all you should find the Joel McCrae and Fay Ray version from 1932, called "The Most Dangerous Game." It was shot partly on the "King Kong" sets at night when the more famous film crew was at home in bed, except Fay Ray, who of course was the heroine in both. It's essentially the same idea, with Max Steiner music, and it was here that the brother and sister were added to the Connell plot. You can also look for the very good Richard Widmark version, which has a very different feel and intention but ends up with the same hunter becoming hunted scenario, called "Run for the Sun" (1956), currently streamable on Netflix.

While some may consider a remake of THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME pointless, the fact is the story is one of the most popular in modern American fiction and was certainly worthy of another cinematic stab. Contrary to some modern commentaries, A GAME OF DEATH does not feature Nazi characters. The antagonists are certainly German (the Russian Zaroff has become the German Krieger with a henchman, Pleshke, played by Scandanavian actor Gene Roth (the Stooges' friend "Mr. Borscht"). Noble Johnson is back, this time as a mute Islander in pseudo-pirate garb and he is, indeed, seen also via stock footage in his original characterization as Ivan. The narrative is expanded slightly by giving Rainsford an early opportunity to outwit Krieger and a thrilling sequence featuring the hunting of Trowbridge (this time played by Russell Wade). Edgar Barrier's characterization is certainly less boisterous than that of Leslie Banks, but it is no less valid. Similarly, John Loder matches Joel McCrea's paint-by-numbers performance as Rainsford. Audrey Long is lovely, but she conveys absolutely none of the terror that Fay Wray characterized in the original and that is, perhaps, the most serious flaw in this version. The manner in which Miss Trowbridge joins Rainsford on the deadly hunt is fatally offhand and puts a serious dent in the tension of the piece. The sets are fine, certainly worthy of RKO's designers and the old staircase tapestry is back and in full view. Paul Sawtell's music is original (there are no reprises of Steiner motifs) and that is a good thing. A final shot of the lovers smiling is very much out of place and does leave the viewer with a bit of a wince. Overall, though, I recommend seeing A GAME OF DEATH as an exercise in cinema archaeology if nothing else. Oh - and that famous shot of the shark attacking the boat captain, which many have speculated is "negative" in the original because it was cut by censors and then restored incorrectly - well, it's negative in this version too and, I think by design. It's a night scene and the reverse printing gives the effect of the shark attacking in black water. By the way, for those interested in the trajectory of distributorship, the 16mm print I acquired was an NTA print from the 1960's. Heretofore I was unaware that NTA had custodianship of this (and, I assume, THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME) after RKO's rights had expired.

Why RKO felt the need to remake The Most Dangerous Game 13 years later eludes me, but they did and really did so poorly. This film bears little resemblance to its forerunner except in the basic plot, which it even has the temerity to change in all the wrong places. Director Robert Wise, early in his career, has little to work with here. The script is shallow, the sets and budget very small...so small in fact that most of the chase scenes and scenes with dogs are from the 1932 version of the film. In point of fact, very little has been added here at all, except some third-rate performers(with the exception of Edgar Barrier in the Zaroff role) and some tedious and plotting scripting and direction. Noble Johnson is back...yes he was in the first film..and they even use footage of him from the earlier film looking completely different. Why? Oh well...I guess it was not suppose to be anything real good...and to be sure it does not even come close to being good. Do yourself a big favour and watch the original. That is a masterpiece!