6/10
1932 meets 1945 - really
19 October 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't know A Game of Death existed until recently. I tried to watch it on YouTube, but all that popped up was 1932's Most Dangerous Game. There was a colorized version available, so I thought I'd watch this old favorite. Good thing, too. Because this morning I found the 1945 version. Having seen the two films, basically back to back, it gave me chance to compare them.

Game of Death is, through it's first third, an almost scene for scene copy of Dangerous Game. It then diverges until the final third, when it returns to the old plot. Virtually every external shot is taken from the original: the sinking of the model ship, including the view from the bridge, the persons diving into the water, and except for the new captain, Jason Robards, all of the folks eaten by sharks. Finally, it's Joel McCrea staggering ashore. At the castle we meet Nobel Johnson, now a pirate, but a cossack in 1932. The early Johnson lets the dogs loose, and dies in Fog Hollow, while the 1945 Johnson is at the other end of the hollow. Too bad they didn't try split screen. Only one dog is used in the new version; the dog pack is entirely 1932. The heroine has long blond hair, a big mistake. In one scene in the hollow, and another where the couple escape, it is clearly dark, short haired Fay Wray. The excellent waterfall sequence in 1932 is absent in 1945; it would have cost too much to duplicate.

Now, as to the 1945 version, the castle set is well designed, and probably used the doors from 1932. Lighting is flat, however. The direction of Robert Wise is adequate, along with the principal players. The 1932 Leslie Banks' Zaroff was better done, but the 1945 brother was much better than the awful drunk act of Robert Armstrong. The jungle set was excellent, but far less extensive than the 1932. Max Steiner's score should have been re-used; the 1945 one is only adequate.

In spite of all this, the film had its exciting moments, and, if seen without the original would fare much better for lack of comparison. The use of old footage makes the film look much bigger; an excellent example going cheap invisibly.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed

 
\n \n \n\n\n