What a waste of my time!!!

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

I watched this about two weeks ago, and being a fan of the original, I always like to watch the remake and talk smack about the terrible changes they made. With that being said....This wasn't terrible. I really liked that even though the premise was the same (man gets poisoned, man goes to police to tell the story, movie unfolds in a flashback), I did not feel like I was watching the original movie after about the first 10 minutes of the film. Now the original is a noir classic, This movie though I would not say is a classic in the NEO NOIR category, it definitely is worth a watch.Quaid gives a slightly manacle performance that is fun to watch, and he does a pretty good job of holding the movie together. Some of the other cast members, well they work but their motives to me do not lead up to the results that are laid out, but this is a movie, so who cares? The production is spot on. The lighting is what I always imagine a noir picture to be. Fan shadows, lights through blinds, lit cig smoke. All the stereotypes that make a Noir a Noir are here. It does work and looks spectacular. This movie would be a great movie if you were to be studying lighting techniques.The end, I did see coming but it felt underwhelming. Noir is known for having some twist, or cool plot device that is set up without even knowing was set up, and then BOOM last ten seconds changes everything....not so much here.Is it as solid as the original? Well the original is a classic, but to me is a different movie, and other than the set up and the title, are different and should be judged on their own.I enjoyed it and will watch it again.

This so-called remake of the 1950 movie by the same name is probably less similar to said movie than Avatar is to Dances With Wolves... It shares the premise of a man learning he has a limited time to live, and tries to find out who poisoned him in that time. The settings, characters and execution is very different, though, and personally I much prefer this "remake" to the 1950 movie.I was especially caught by the cinematography and color effects, which I found quite unique. The main character is properly fleshed out, and likable, and his story is fascinating and told in an effective and well paced manner. I found the resolution rather predictable, but it didn't really take away from my enjoyment of the movie.

I'm a fan of the 1950's original and about 20 minutes into this remake I started to think this was going to be as good as the original but it wasn't. The motive for the murders was incredibly stupid. Two of the lovers in the movie turn out to be brother and sister-excuse me while I barf. The main character stops in the middle of the movie to have sex which doesn't make sense considering the situation he's in. If the film makers wanted a sex scene they should have put it earlier in the movie before the main character (Dexter played by Dennis Quaid found he's about to die and that he's accused of a crime. There is a reason for where the sex scene is at. Early in the movie Dexter isn't living life to the fullest so he's not interested in sleeping with Meg Ryan. I still feel it would make more sense for the sex scene to have either been cut or earlier in the film and the two siblings not to have been lovers.One of the dumbest parts of the movie involves a gun fight, a couple people getting killed and one person being run over all within 15 yards of a crowded carnival and yet NOBODY AT THE CARNIVAL NOTICES!!! Also in the scene is the tar pits the university where the movie takes place is built on. If you fall into the tar you sink to the bottom and in a matter of seconds. Not only is it hard to believe stuff would sink that fast in tar, but more importantly who builds a university on tar pits. I would say more about how stupid the end of the movie is but I don't want to put a spoiler in my post.

This review contains a partial spoiler.Shallow from the outset, 'D.O.A.' at least starts as if it might be a slick, entertaining piece of nonsense like Fincher's 'The Game'. It's central character(Dennis Quaid) suffers from a nightmarish sequence of events that appear to be setting up a twisted and cunning thriller. But the plot rattles along at too great a pace, leading to a dramatic twist not half way through, when the character learns that he has been poisoned and has only 1-2 days to live. And this, simply, is too big a twist to add casually to a story. Once this has happened, the film's only chance of success is if it treats the psychology of someone in this situation as its principal, indeed, its only subject matter: but 'D.O.A.' continues as if this was just a normal revelation like any other you might usually encounter in a thriller. The problem is two-fold: firstly, Quaid's actions don't convince as what someone is his situation would be likely to do; and secondly, even if they did convince, it's hard to care about what happens next when the most significant point of plot has already been prematurely resolved. The rest of the film is pretty standard fare for a film of this sort, but made more tedious than usual by the character's slightly-treated predicament, which logically dwarfs the events the film is interested in. Dennis Quaid, in the lead role, doesn't convince either as a burnt out professor or as a man who is destined to die: Meg Ryan is, as often, ditzy and annoying. Another negative feature is the ugly 80s soundtrack. Watch 'The Game' instead, which from similar roots remains tight and character-driven, whereas 'D.O.A.' drifts into developments that only undermine its own premise. As the premise is itself quite intriguing, it's a shame to see it drowned in a surplus of over-cooked plot.