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

While some may consider a remake of THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME pointless, the fact is the story is one of the most popular in modern American fiction and was certainly worthy of another cinematic stab. Contrary to some modern commentaries, A GAME OF DEATH does not feature Nazi characters. The antagonists are certainly German (the Russian Zaroff has become the German Krieger with a henchman, Pleshke, played by Scandanavian actor Gene Roth (the Stooges' friend "Mr. Borscht"). Noble Johnson is back, this time as a mute Islander in pseudo-pirate garb and he is, indeed, seen also via stock footage in his original characterization as Ivan. The narrative is expanded slightly by giving Rainsford an early opportunity to outwit Krieger and a thrilling sequence featuring the hunting of Trowbridge (this time played by Russell Wade). Edgar Barrier's characterization is certainly less boisterous than that of Leslie Banks, but it is no less valid. Similarly, John Loder matches Joel McCrea's paint-by-numbers performance as Rainsford. Audrey Long is lovely, but she conveys absolutely none of the terror that Fay Wray characterized in the original and that is, perhaps, the most serious flaw in this version. The manner in which Miss Trowbridge joins Rainsford on the deadly hunt is fatally offhand and puts a serious dent in the tension of the piece. The sets are fine, certainly worthy of RKO's designers and the old staircase tapestry is back and in full view. Paul Sawtell's music is original (there are no reprises of Steiner motifs) and that is a good thing. A final shot of the lovers smiling is very much out of place and does leave the viewer with a bit of a wince. Overall, though, I recommend seeing A GAME OF DEATH as an exercise in cinema archaeology if nothing else. Oh - and that famous shot of the shark attacking the boat captain, which many have speculated is "negative" in the original because it was cut by censors and then restored incorrectly - well, it's negative in this version too and, I think by design. It's a night scene and the reverse printing gives the effect of the shark attacking in black water. By the way, for those interested in the trajectory of distributorship, the 16mm print I acquired was an NTA print from the 1960's. Heretofore I was unaware that NTA had custodianship of this (and, I assume, THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME) after RKO's rights had expired.

Why RKO felt the need to remake The Most Dangerous Game 13 years later eludes me, but they did and really did so poorly. This film bears little resemblance to its forerunner except in the basic plot, which it even has the temerity to change in all the wrong places. Director Robert Wise, early in his career, has little to work with here. The script is shallow, the sets and budget very small...so small in fact that most of the chase scenes and scenes with dogs are from the 1932 version of the film. In point of fact, very little has been added here at all, except some third-rate performers(with the exception of Edgar Barrier in the Zaroff role) and some tedious and plotting scripting and direction. Noble Johnson is back...yes he was in the first film..and they even use footage of him from the earlier film looking completely different. Why? Oh well...I guess it was not suppose to be anything real good...and to be sure it does not even come close to being good. Do yourself a big favour and watch the original. That is a masterpiece!