A Game of Death

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.

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!

Game of Death, A (1945)

** (out of 4)

Robert Wise directed this RKO remake of their 1932 classic THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME. This time out, world-known hunter Don Rainsford (John Loder) washes ashore on a strange island where he learns that its owner Erich Kreiger (Edgar Barrier) likes to hunt humans for sport. You know it's never a good sign when a remake borrows footage from the original film but that's not even the start of the problem with this film. You certainly can't blame the studio for trying their hand at another version of the story but there was so much set against this film from the word go. For starters, that 1932 film is a flat-out classic and one of the greatest and most gruesome action pictures you're ever going to see. With the Hayes Office in full force by 1945 that meant the story had to be toned down and this really kills a lot because you haven't a shot at building up any atmosphere and even worse is that this remake doesn't contain that creepy and raw energy of the original. It also doesn't help but Wise seems to be all wrong for this material. Even though the subject matter had to be toned down that's not a reason for everything to be so lifeless. There's really no chemistry between the cast and when the final hunt does happen it's more boring than anything else. There's not an ounce of energy to be found anywhere and that's a real shame because the story itself is so good that it really shouldn't take too much to get it on the screen. Of course, another major problem is that the 1932 film had such a wonderful cast that it would be nearly impossible to try and match it. I thought Loder was pretty good in the lead but the screenplay really doesn't give him too much to do in terms of acting. Barrier isn't nearly as perverted or creepy as Leslie Banks but he has a few interesting bits. Audrey Long is pretty bland as the female on the island and Russell Wade doesn't do much as her weak brother. At just 72-minutes the film goes by at a rather good pace but the entire time you're just sitting there wishing that you were watching the original.

It is not widely shown in the great director's filmography, and I can't explain why. It is the remake of a classic from the previous decade: THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME. But that's not a reason, despite the "copycat" scene for scene filming, I admit. As Roy Boulting will do one decade later in RUN FOR THE SUN, the Nazis, fierce Nazis, are the villains in this adventure film. It is not Bob Wise's best, of course, especially if you consider the rest of his filmography, but it should be named on the same level as THE BODYSNATCHER or BORN TO KILL. CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE is also a Wise's gem which not legions of movie buffs talk about. Anyway this one is pretty good, even with an used story which will be over and overused in the future by dozens - if not more - of directors and screenwriters, novelists.... It is forbidden to neglect the view of this film. From RKO pictures. And available on You Tube.