Rainey Dawn 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

MissSimonetta As a remake of The Most Dangerous Game from 1932, A Game of Death (1945) suffers greatly in comparison. It simultaneously clings too close to the original picture, reusing lines, scenarios, and even footage, coming off as a largely shot for shot remake, and when it does add new elements to the story, they only drag down the pacing and economy of the movie. We have a whole fifteen minutes of dead screen time, where the characters know the villain's intentions and make a plan which ultimately fails. It's boring and pointless.There's little style to the proceedings: everything is over-lit and lacks the proper horror atmosphere. Everything is watered down and there is no strong sense of suspense. The best parts of the climactic hunt, such as the cinematography, are taken straight from the 1932 film.None of the actors top the original cast. Not that anyone is especially bad, but they're all rather bland and seem to phone things in.The biggest difference is that Game was made after the Hayes Code started to be enforced in 1934, while The Most Dangerous Game was a pre-Code picture through and through. The hero in that film is almost as violent as the villain and the violence depicted is rather graphic for the time, unlike the bloodless stuff here. The original also makes the antagonist plans to subject the heroine to the proverbial "fate worse than death" much more explicit, though some of that is still present here in a more subtle manner.A Game of Death is not a terrible movie, but seeing as it offers no fresh take on this story, it feels stale and pointless. You're better off with The Most Dangerous Game or Run for the Sun from 1956.

bkoganbing 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.

Michael_Elliott 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.