The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

The acting in this movie is really good.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Blistering performances.

This is a must see classic for all who love classic films. In a time when big game sport was the top most sport for the elite this movie was ahead of its time by giving audiences the view of the hunted. The question on the boat asking how you would feel if you were the animal being hunted says it all. If you don't know what the movie is about you would venture at this point to guess that it is about a crazed man who has lost the thrill of hunting animals so he takes it to another level by hunting people. He sets up traps in the sea to catch his prey, like a true hunter. Then game on! I would love to see this gem remade... I'm curious how different the public would react since big game hunting is now so controversial.

The Most Dangerous GameIn the 1980s, the most dangerous game you could play was called: Lawn Darts.Thankfully, the only metal-tipped projectiles flying in this action-thriller are bullets.When his ship runs aground, big game hunter Rainsford (Joel McCrea) is marooned on an island where the sole inhabitant is a Russian aristocrat, Count Zaroff (Leslie Banks), who welcomes and introduces Rainsford to other survivors (Fay Wray, Robert Armstrong).Count Zaroff is also a huntsman and invites Rainsford to participant in his favourite sport: hunting humans. When Rainsford refuses, he first ends up prey to Zaroff's pack of wild dogs, and later to the Count himself.Shot on the same jungle sets as King Kong and featuring most of its cast and crew, this zippy black-and-white adaption of Richard Connell's seminal short story of survival is engrossing, engaging and highly entertaining.The worst part of hunting humans, however, has to be wearing their urine.Green Lightvidiotreviews.blogspot.ca

I don't know if this was the first movie adaptation of the 1924 short story by Richard Connell, (also called "The Hounds of Zaroff"), but it certainly was an effective one. I recall reading once that the sets used for the picture were also used simultaneously for filming the following year's "King Kong", so all the while as Rainsford (Joel McCrae) is being pursued through the jungle I'm expecting some sort of errant dinosaur to pop up. There was that one scene with the crocodile but Rainsford must have known it wouldn't bother him, he and Eve Trowbridge (Fay Wray) just walked right by it.I thought the picture could have done a better job of establishing Count Zaroff's (Leslie Banks) trophy room. It's too bad the longer preview version isn't available, the trivia notes for this movie indicate that scenes were removed for giving movie audiences the creeps back in the day. Of course anything goes today, so it would be neat if the discarded sequences managed to show up again.Early on, the Count establishes that the world is divided between two factions - the hunter and the hunted. It's an interesting concept to dwell on, as today it manifests among nations through the aggressive use of force. Not to get sidetracked, Zaroff pursues his quarry with deadly efficiency, but Rainsford is not one to give up easily. I thought the little traps he set for the Count were fairly clever, proving that the prey was every bit as cunning as the hunter.I had to chuckle a bit though near the end of the story as I thought about an earlier mention that the island was 'no bigger than a deer park'. As Rainsford and Eve made their way out of Fog Hollow and approached the giant rapids, I thought to myself that this was a pretty large deer park.There's somewhat of a 1961 remake of this story with a movie titled "Bloodlust" which has an unintended comic element that fortunately didn't manifest in this story. In "Bloodlust" there are four potential victims for the mad hunter and a much more detailed trophy cave for his victims. But the thing is, in any scene where the hunter is in conversation with his intended prey, they could have easily jumped him to end the story right then and there. In this version there's a lot more suspense and intrigue before Count Zaroff meets his defeat and quite literally goes to the dogs.

It's time to play the game. 'The Most Dangerous Game" in fact. Directly adapted for film at least eight times, though only twice under its original title, this 1932 movie directed by Irving Pichel & Ernest B. Schoedsack is the very first film version of the 1924 short story by author Richard Connell of the same name. Like the book, the movie tells the story of a big game hunter, Sanger 'Bob' Rainsford, (Joel McCrea) being hunted for sport, by another big game hunter, named Count Zaroff (Leslie Banks) on a jungle island. However, unlike the book, this RKO Pictures' film change the plot, somewhat around, when they added, female character, Eve Trowbridge (Fay Wray), and her brother Martin (Robert Armstrong), into the mixed to tag along with Rainsford. This big change from the source material is a hard watch for me, as I never like, the idea of Count Zaroff being alright in hunting down, people that he views are not a challenge to him. After all, what contest is he getting off, on, if he's killing drunk fools and helpless women! I get that, his character is a social Darwinist, but it always seem like his character was a man, looking for a real fight. Man Vs Man. It just doesn't seem right, to see him, picking on helpless people. Another thing that bug me, about the movie, is the fact that many of the sets and looks, are taken from previous films. I hate that Count Zaroff's castle looks like something out of 1931's Dracula. I also hate the fact that film was shot at night on the 1933's King Kong jungle sets. It's just way too jarring. Even, the fact, Count Zaroff looks like actor Bela Lugosi in 1932's White Zombie & his assistant, Ivan (Noble Johnson) seem a little too similar to the zombies-like henchmen in that film is distracting. White-face, anyone! Despite that, I do like how the style of the assistant was later used for Ygor in 1939's Son of Frankenstein, played by no other, than Bela Logosi. So that was nice. I just wish, the writers kept Zaroff, as General than a Count. It's seem to me, that Leslie Banks was acting like an over-the top- Count Dracula rip-off. Another thing, that kinda bug me, is Fay Wray's character. She adds nearly nothing to the film. Her own purpose is to weights the hero down. I hate that, she always has to be rescue by Rainsford. It's like watching 1933's King Kong, all over again. Unlike the book, it seems to me, that Rainsford was never really given a fair fight in this movie. Three days is cut off, as a day. Despite that, Joel McCrea was alright as the hero role. His character was kinda a jerk, but at least, he wasn't the 'All-American Boy Scout' mode that most films, at the time, would portray their main characters. I like the fact, that his character survived a shipwrecked, rather than falling overboard like a fool. It's a nice important. Better than the novel's idea, of getting him, on the island. I also like how the movie didn't go with "The Hounds of Zaroff", titled like the novel. I always felt that, 'The Hounds of Zaroff' title, sounds like a Sherlock Holmes's 'Hounds of Baskerville' rip-off. I'm glad, they went with 'Most Dangerous Game', instead. I'm also happy that this movie was released before the Hays Code was widely enforced. As a result both Joel McCrea and Fay Wray were able to get away with wearing relatively little clothing in comparison to other films of the era. Even the violent in the film, seem a lot more graphic than most films at the time. However, some of the trophy room scenes were cut in the final version, as the studio felt like, seeing a few more heads in jars and mounted stuff sailors was a little too much for the audience. I just wish, these shots would one day, be released to the public. Even seeing, Robert Armstrong playing a drunk bum, was controversial. At the time this film was released, Prohibition was still in effect, but the law was widely ignored. Producer of the film, Merian C. Cooper was strongly critical of alcohol use and of the glamorization of drunkenness in movies. Another great message is the conflict between, reason vs instinct, the effects of war, and how the color red even shine in the darkness. Even with the strong moral message of the film, within a few years, the film was considered indecent and too revealing. It was barred from re-release and was not shown publicly for several decades. Until, the failure of the original copyright holder to renew the film's copyright resulted in it falling into public domain, meaning that virtually anyone could duplicate and sell a VHS/DVD copy of the film. Therefore, many of the versions of this film available on the market. However, some of them are either severely or badly edited and/or of extremely poor quality, having been duplicated from second- or third-generation (or more) copies of the film. Overall: While, not a lot of people have saw this movie. Its basic concept has been borrowed for numerous films and episodes of television series. Even if you haven't saw this film, you see, the movie themes live on, with films like 2000's Battle Royale, 1987's Predator, and 2012's The Hunger Games. In the end, while this film might be a little dated action. It's still worth checking out. You would find out, you had never slept in a better bed, after watching this film.