I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

ridiculous rating

From my favorite movies..

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

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.

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

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.

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.