Review of The Most Dangerous Game

It's time to play the game. 'The Most Dangerous Game" in fact. Directly adapted for film at least eight times, though only twice under its original title, this 1932 movie directed by Irving Pichel & Ernest B. Schoedsack is the very first film version of the 1924 short story by author Richard Connell of the same name. Like the book, the movie tells the story of a big game hunter, Sanger 'Bob' Rainsford, (Joel McCrea) being hunted for sport, by another big game hunter, named Count Zaroff (Leslie Banks) on a jungle island. However, unlike the book, this RKO Pictures' film change the plot, somewhat around, when they added, female character, Eve Trowbridge (Fay Wray), and her brother Martin (Robert Armstrong), into the mixed to tag along with Rainsford. This big change from the source material is a hard watch for me, as I never like, the idea of Count Zaroff being alright in hunting down, people that he views are not a challenge to him. After all, what contest is he getting off, on, if he's killing drunk fools and helpless women! I get that, his character is a social Darwinist, but it always seem like his character was a man, looking for a real fight. Man Vs Man. It just doesn't seem right, to see him, picking on helpless people. Another thing that bug me, about the movie, is the fact that many of the sets and looks, are taken from previous films. I hate that Count Zaroff's castle looks like something out of 1931's Dracula. I also hate the fact that film was shot at night on the 1933's King Kong jungle sets. It's just way too jarring. Even, the fact, Count Zaroff looks like actor Bela Lugosi in 1932's White Zombie & his assistant, Ivan (Noble Johnson) seem a little too similar to the zombies-like henchmen in that film is distracting. White-face, anyone! Despite that, I do like how the style of the assistant was later used for Ygor in 1939's Son of Frankenstein, played by no other, than Bela Logosi. So that was nice. I just wish, the writers kept Zaroff, as General than a Count. It's seem to me, that Leslie Banks was acting like an over-the top- Count Dracula rip-off. Another thing, that kinda bug me, is Fay Wray's character. She adds nearly nothing to the film. Her own purpose is to weights the hero down. I hate that, she always has to be rescue by Rainsford. It's like watching 1933's King Kong, all over again. Unlike the book, it seems to me, that Rainsford was never really given a fair fight in this movie. Three days is cut off, as a day. Despite that, Joel McCrea was alright as the hero role. His character was kinda a jerk, but at least, he wasn't the 'All-American Boy Scout' mode that most films, at the time, would portray their main characters. I like the fact, that his character survived a shipwrecked, rather than falling overboard like a fool. It's a nice important. Better than the novel's idea, of getting him, on the island. I also like how the movie didn't go with "The Hounds of Zaroff", titled like the novel. I always felt that, 'The Hounds of Zaroff' title, sounds like a Sherlock Holmes's 'Hounds of Baskerville' rip-off. I'm glad, they went with 'Most Dangerous Game', instead. I'm also happy that this movie was released before the Hays Code was widely enforced. As a result both Joel McCrea and Fay Wray were able to get away with wearing relatively little clothing in comparison to other films of the era. Even the violent in the film, seem a lot more graphic than most films at the time. However, some of the trophy room scenes were cut in the final version, as the studio felt like, seeing a few more heads in jars and mounted stuff sailors was a little too much for the audience. I just wish, these shots would one day, be released to the public. Even seeing, Robert Armstrong playing a drunk bum, was controversial. At the time this film was released, Prohibition was still in effect, but the law was widely ignored. Producer of the film, Merian C. Cooper was strongly critical of alcohol use and of the glamorization of drunkenness in movies. Another great message is the conflict between, reason vs instinct, the effects of war, and how the color red even shine in the darkness. Even with the strong moral message of the film, within a few years, the film was considered indecent and too revealing. It was barred from re-release and was not shown publicly for several decades. Until, the failure of the original copyright holder to renew the film's copyright resulted in it falling into public domain, meaning that virtually anyone could duplicate and sell a VHS/DVD copy of the film. Therefore, many of the versions of this film available on the market. However, some of them are either severely or badly edited and/or of extremely poor quality, having been duplicated from second- or third-generation (or more) copies of the film. Overall: While, not a lot of people have saw this movie. Its basic concept has been borrowed for numerous films and episodes of television series. Even if you haven't saw this film, you see, the movie themes live on, with films like 2000's Battle Royale, 1987's Predator, and 2012's The Hunger Games. In the end, while this film might be a little dated action. It's still worth checking out. You would find out, you had never slept in a better bed, after watching this film.