BroadcastChic
Excellent, a Must See
Breakinger
A Brilliant Conflict
Patience Watson
One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.
mungosmungo8694
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.
LouisRenault
In the original, the main character and the premise are established in a few minutes. The plot moves along briskly and as O'Brien tries to find out who did it and why, you are as interested to learn the answers as he is.Here, for more than half an hour you have no idea what the picture is all about; at one point it crossed my mind that it might not be any sort of remake at all. How is this half hour spent? In establishing that Quaid's character is someone who could live or die and you couldn't care less either way.Learning form other reviewers that the denouement is a colossal letdown comes as no surprise; I couldn't say myself because I couldn't be bothered to watch it through.Meg Ryan is gorgeous and Quaid gives a solid performance, but apart from that it is hard to find much good to say about this.
Michael_Elliott
D.O.A. (1988) * 1/2 (out of 4) The title pretty much sums up this remake of the 1949 noir classic. This time out Dennis Quaid plays a teacher going through the worse period of his life as he can't get a book published and his wife is leaving him but things get even darker after being poisoned and learning that he's got less than 24-hours to life. In that time he decides to try and track down the person or persons who poisoned him along with the help of one of his students (Meg Ryan). The original film is one of the all-time great classics but many movies were getting remade during the 80s and many of them were quite good (THE THING, THE FLY, THE BLOB) but others were less than memorable and that's where D.O.A. falls. Many people considered this one of the worst films of the years and it's hard to try and fight that because this is one pretty lousy movie from start to finish. This is really one of those mysteries that's quite annoying because everyone you meet is a red herring and not once did I ever feel as if the screenwriters had a good idea as to where they were going because the entire storyline just seemed like one big mess and in the end they could have had anyone be the killer and it wouldn't have made any less sense than someone else. I won't reveal the ending but it's quite laughable and you can't help but really be mad that you've wasted so much time with the picture just to get to this conclusion. Directors ***** try to add some style to the picture but this never works and quite often it's just as annoying as everything else going on. There are some fancy camera moves and some quick edits but they add nothing to the picture. The opening and closing sequences are in B&W and I'm guessing this was done to try and give the viewers a throwback to the old days but it does nothing to enhance the film. The film actually contains some fine actors but none of them are given much to work with. Quaid, one of my favorites, pretty much sleepwalks through the picture and it never really appears he knows what to do with the character. Ryan is pretty bland in one of her early roles and the shocking thing is that she has no chemistry with Quaid. Daniel Stern, Charlotte Rampling and Jane Kaczmarek round out the supporting cast. One of the most annoying things about the picture is its soundtrack, which features some great tracks but these songs really don't mix well with the story or anything going on. I'm not one that goes against remakes but this here is one that can be skipped. Check out the original instead.
alaskamark-1
Interesting plot but painfully dull. The script lacks... lacks acting. To me this film compares with "Made for TV" type movies. I was lucky to survive the film without falling asleep in my popcorn. I watched this film with my family. It is fairly safe to watch with your kids. (only 1 semi sex scene)If you wish to see a young Meg Ryan...check out this movie. Very 80-ish. You will like this movie if you like the combination of depressed people at Christmas, booze, super glue and tar. Or maybe you are like me... and have have a higher standard for acting in films. However I did like the way the movie began and ended! Mark.
