Fera Humana

A Game of Death is a remake The Most Dangerous Game (1932) in fact it's one of many remakes. This however is a very close "Loyal" one which though has tweaks could easily be confused with the original because of both the visuals, plot and actor choices.

Once again it tells the story of people involved in shipwrecks who find themselves taken in by a mysterious stranger on an island. Little do they know he is a hunter and his choice of prey, man!

It's a great premise and the movie once again does a decent enough job of telling the story. I do however think that 13yrs earlier they told the tale better.

Again this is fairly loyal, it's essentially the same movie just with couple of tweaks and structural differences. Ultimately it's the near identical so if you've seen the original you'll get absolutely nothing out of this.

Watchable stuff, but inferior to The Most Dangerous Game (1932).

The Good:

Well made remake

The Bad:

I cannot root for a hunter

Recycled footage

Too close to the original

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.

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

When I saw this unobtainable remake on one of the cable channels, I was immediately drawn in, which was the opposite of what I was expecting. Credit the director for this, as it may not have been possible if it had been by a less than skilled professional. He got the most out of the actors, and and the sets were believable. I give this movie high marks for production value and telling the story again, but just as compelling a way.

Utilizing many shots from the original The Most Dangerous Game and that RKO jungle set that so many classics like King Kong was shot on, RKO made a perfectly acceptable remake of that film now entitled A Game Of Death. Stepping into the leads that were previously done by Joel McCrea, Fay Wray and Leslie Banks are John Loder, Audrey Long, and Edgar Barrier respectively. All are suited to the parts they play, especially Barrier who is a wonderful Teutonic villain. In 1945 every other film had a Germanic type villain, they were so easy to hate.

The major change is from Robert Armstrong to Russell Wade as the brother of the leading lady. Armstrong certainly was far more entertaining as the dissolute drunken playboy. But Wade was certainly more of a challenge to the hunting skills of Barrier.

As we know the game that Barrier hunts for sport is man. Barrier is excited to find that one of the shipwrecked who visit the island is a noted Frank Buck type hunter in Loder. Like the original Loder proves to have just the right stuff.

If you liked the original, you'll find A Game Of Death suited to your taste.