Wizard-8 In case you are wondering, I *did* see the original 1950 "D.O.A." movie years ago, and I remember that I enjoyed it. Much more so than this unnecessary remake. While it's not the worst remake I have seen, it is burdened by flaws that will be noticeable to even those who haven't seen the original version. For one thing, there is the portrayal of the central protagonist. He comes across as a kind of a jerk both before he is poisoned as well as when he knows he is dying and is trying to figure out who the culprit is. Another problem with the movie is that it is pretty easy to figure out who the culprit is as well as that person's motives - all you have to do is look at who is near the top of the cast billing and realize that that certain person seems to have no other purpose in the movie. The direction is stylish and effective at times, but more often than not it is loud and garish, and ends up being very distracting. Even if you dislike black and white movies (unlike myself), this is definitely one time where you'd be more satisfied with the original movie rather than this remake.

Spikeopath D.O.A. is directed by Annabel Jankel and Rocky Morton and adapted to screenplay by Charles Edward Pogue from a story by Russell Rouse and Clarence Greene. It stars Dennis Quaid, Meg Ryan, Daniel Stern, Charlotte Rampling, Jane Kaczmarek and Christopher Neame. Music is by Chaz Jankel and cinematography by Yuri Neyman.A loose remake of the 1950 film noir of the same name, the story finds Professor Dexter Cornell (Quaid) staggering into a police station proclaiming that he is dying because someone has poisoned him. Told in flashback by Cornell, we see the events that led up to the point he was poisoned, but not who did it, and then track the frantic Professor as he tries to solve the who done it mystery before he keels over and dies.Not as bad as the poor box office returns suggest it is, D.O.A. is still very much a frustratingly shaky experience. Lifting only the basic idea of the 1950 movie, the makers stamp their own mark on the premise but add too many red herrings to the already fishy stew. Some plot developments are daft, as is the casting of Meg Ryan in the key femme role - seriously she is just too cookie cute and homely for this material – while the motive reveal is a bit much to swallow. Yet there's still a lot to enjoy and sample here for the neo-noir faithful.Visually the picture is stylish and appreciative to its noir roots. Opening in black and white to set the story in motion, Jankel and Morton then infuse the film with angled shots and frame distortions. Shadows often come into play, with Venetian blinds and roof rafters impacting, while the addition of a spiral staircase late in the day is most pleasing. Quaid is ever watchable in what is a tricky role that calls for him to garner sympathy whilst not being likable! While elsewhere Stern and Rampling provide good characterisations, even if as written the roles are too small given the importance the characters have to the plot shenanigans.A bit over cooked on the page, and basically a race against time thriller dressed up in neo-noir clothing, D.O.A. is still none the less worthy of a viewing. 6.5/10

seymourblack-1 This remake of the 1950 classic film noir of the same name cleverly utilises a combination of old and new elements to create an entertaining thriller which, although designed for 1980s moviegoers, still has a strong appeal to contemporary audiences.Fans of the original will particularly appreciate the fact that the basic premise of the story has been retained and will also enjoy the black and white sequences at the beginning and end of the movie which provide a stylish homage to Rudolph Mate's film. Those not familiar with the original will also find it an enjoyable mystery which involves murder, jealousy, campus politics and a very unusual motive for murder.University professor Dexter (Dex) Cornell (Dennis Quaid) goes into a police station to report his own murder and as his story is recorded on video tape, it becomes clear that he's been poisoned with a slow acting substance which left him with less than 48 hours to track down his killer and to find out why anyone would want to murder him.Dex had written some successful novels but when writer's block set in, he'd become disillusioned and progressively lost interest in what he was doing. His despair became even greater when one of his most talented students, Nick Lang (Robert Knepper) died after falling from a high building and his wife Gail (Jane Kaczmarek) pressed him to go ahead with action to speed up their divorce. Dexter then reacted by seeking consolation in the local bars where he met Sydney Fuller (Meg Ryan) who was one of his students who had a crush on him. The couple then got drunk together and went back to Sydney's place.Next morning when Dex woke up feeling ill, he knew he was suffering from something more serious than a hangover and checks at a local clinic confirmed that he'd been poisoned. There was no antidote which could help his condition and so, knowing that he didn't have long to live, he decided to visit Gail who had been involved in an affair with Nick. When Dex found her dead body, the police immediately suspected him of murdering both her and Nick. Dex took an opportunity to escape from the police and then decided to force Sydney to go with him to the places they'd visited the previous night, to try to discover who'd murdered him.During Dex's frantic race against time he learned more about Nick's complicated family background and together with Sydney escaped the attentions of a vicious assailant who pursued them with a nail gun. The identity of the murderer surprises Dex but the motive proves to be even more shocking.Directors Rocky Morton and Annabel Jankel employ an interesting combination of stylistic influences which work together very effectively. The use of high and low angle shots, close-ups and tilted camera angles are also especially successful as they reflect the sense of chaos and confusion which prevails through certain passages of the action.This is a film which features good performances from Dennis Quaid, Meg Ryan and Charlotte Rampling and has a premise which gives its story a natural sense of pace and urgency. Add to this a number of twists and numerous moments of suspense and humour and the final result is an intriguing mystery which is great fun to watch.

Boba_Fett1138 This is a movie that tries hard but it doesn't quite takes the cake. The movie tries to put in many different successful thriller elements but the movie is nothing more than a mixture of styles that weakens the movie as a whole- and with a flawed and simple story in it.The movie is quite short and this is definitely notable in its script. The concept is quite great and it showed some good potential but the story is at all times kept rather simple and short and the movie its story mainly falls from one coincidence into the other, which really doesn't make this the most credible movie to watch. It's just too much of a series of unlikely events, even for thriller standards. Things just don't add up and the weak climax, that is more ridicules and lame than clever or credible, also doesn't help much. The movie its story gets poorly developed, which also makes the movie lack in some good tension or mystery.Yet the movie is a fairly well known movie in its genre, which seems odd, since it's definitely no text book example of a good thriller, even though all of the formulaic ingredients are present. It probably has to do with the fact that the movie has a good and well known cast. Dennis Quaid and Meg Ryan are the main leads of the movie and like always they are great together. They also used to be a real-life couple for years, till Russell Crowe broke up their marriage in 2000. However problem in the movie is that they're just an unlikely couple to team up. It just seems odd to me that a college professor would team up with one of his students, in the final hours of his life, to solve his own murder. But this is probably also the direct result of its poor story development that falls flat in the end and in which nothing quite adds up. On a positive note, Daniel Stern was good in a serious role.The movie tries to be noir, or at least an homage to film-noir, by using black & white images and certain camera-positioning (strangly only at the beginning and ending of the movie and not the movie entirely.) but also with its 'mysterious' story and characters. After all, the movie is also a remake of a real classic film-noir from 1950, by the same title. The end result however doesn't deserve to touch the genre with a 10 feet pole. It becomes nowhere close of being in the same league. This is due to the poorly developed and just weak story but also because it tries to bring in several '80's movie-making elements, which just doesn't work out. Oh and mixing film-noir style with '80's musical is always a bad idea! It should be a rule; if you pay homage to film-noir, don't ever put 'modern' music under it. Further more also the typical '80's action editing works really lame and makes the action sequences look even cheaper and clumsier than they in fact really were. Also the black & white images don't look right because they don't seem to use proper lighting for it.One of this typical thrillers that is only watchable once.6/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/