Skip to main content

You’re damn right I’m upset. I find out I’m a murder victim and a suspect all in the same day.

D.O.A.
(1988)

(SPOILERS) There’s an assumption that all originals are superior and so remakes are necessarily inferior. And, to be fair, it’s usually true. There are exceptions to the rule, usually where the original wasn’t really all that much cop to begin with. A case in point is the 1950 D.O.A. It’s an enjoyable film noir, with a blinding premise, but it was never among the top rank of its genre. No desecration took place when this ‘80s remake came long. It’s he loosest of remakes anyway, lifting the title, opening scene and method of poisoning. I readily admit that I loved this movie when I first saw it, every thunderously scored, excessively directed minute of it. The passage of time shows it off in less complimentary light, but it still has the edge on the Rudolph Maté picture.


Rocky Morton and Annabel Jankel, the (then) husband and wife director team responsible for Max Headroom, one of the ‘80s most iconic characters, have since fallen into infamy. More than that, they’ve disappeared off the map (Jankel moved to commmercials and returned to TV). The chief reason for this was the disaster that was the Super Mario Bros. movie. It was a flop enormous enough to be a career-ender, even without all the tales of woe from the production. An indication of how highly I rated D.O.A. at the time; I voluntarily saw Super Mario Bros. at the cinema, fully aware of all the terrible reviews it was getting. Much as I’d slate their the Nintendo movie, I still kind of like what they did here.


There’s nothing subtle about D.O.A.; it’s full of crazy angles (Dutch would be an understatement), affected and self-conscious framing (I particularly like the shot that starts on a water cooler) and hyper-kinetic editing (it’s a wonder Bruckheimer never rang them up). But it works for the material. I don’t for a moment think the duo decided the only way to “do justice” to the excesses of the script was to treat the movie as a whole in kind. If they had that self-awareness, they would never have approved the highly literal, electric guitar solo score from Chaz Jankel (one of Ian Dury’s Blockheads). It hits every cliché on the nose as if this really is the second coming of film noir, but dragged through an MTV studio en route.  On the occasions he’s going for the subdued and atmospheric, Chaz’s score is quite effective, but most of the time it verges on aural feedback (and then there’s the occasional montage sequence; best not to dwell on those).


Nevertheless, Morton and Janke’s insanely adrenalised momentum is nearly a perfect marriage with Charles Edward Pogue’s almost wilfully ridiculous script. Who knows, maybe Pogue was taking his cues a bit too earnestly from the original. There, the accountant protagonist notes how unlikely the train of events were as all he did was notarise a bill of sale. Here, Dennis Quaid’s Professor Dexter Cornell mocks the murderer with “That’s what this is all about? Some kid’s lousy homework?” But the motivation of the murderer is the least of the script’s problems. Pogue takes a “the more red herrings the better” approach, and the aggressive silliness of the plot detours nearly derail the whole movie.


Dex: You’re not going to make me drink that, are you?
Elaine: No Dex, you already did.

But who knows, maybe Pogue had in mind a commentary on the frequently daft plots found in pulp fiction? His previous work suggested a tendency to the heightened with two (underrated) Sherlock Holmes scripts for a couple of Ian Richardson TV movies, and horrors Psycho III and The Fly (the latter was extensively rewritten by David Cronenberg). This is a movie that takes pains to lay out the all the different suspects in the first 15 minutes, with some of the most torturous exposition imaginable (most unfortunate is Jay Patterson’s Graham Corey, who not only has to go through Dex’s writer’s block backstory but must also announce how desperately hard-up he is and thoroughly pissed off that Dex didn’t approve him for promotion… so it won’t be him wot dunnit then). We are helpfully shown all the different places Dex takes a drink (he’s a big one for the sauce). Why, it even establishes that there are some tar pits on campus. You just know that will be important later, because why else would a university have tar pits with a bridge over the top (can you imagine the student casualty rate?)


Pogue makes a few nods to the original with the “toxic luminous solution” used to poison Dex (radium chloride in this instance). Presumably he also thought it was fair game to repeat Edmund O’Brien’s habit of “wittily’ stating that he’s dead (but not, geddit?) as often as possible. So Quaid (who is very good throughout; he’s only let down by occasionally atrocious dialogue – occasionally very witty too – and as heroic professors go he’d have made a good fit for a younger brother of Indiana Jones) is force-fed lines such as “I’ve been dead for four years now… It just took a little poisoning for me to notice” and “Why did you kill me?” (gotta love that one). On the plus side, Dex is a classic Quaid wise-ass. So, when characters incessantly tell him that he gave up, he has some witty rejoinders (“Well at least they were my laurels”). He professes how unlikely it is that his “Mark Twain lecture drove someone into a homicidal rage” and Pogue surely named a character Cookie just so his protagonist could deliver the line “It was your Cookie who crumbled at the memorial service”. The actor really should have invoked star’s privilege not to deliver the Arnie-esque pay-off line when he blasts the bad guy, though (“Perish!”)


Pogue’s theme of “You know, you’re never more alive than when you’re on the edge of death” is lifted straight from the original, but he really could have finessed it a bit. Every time it is (frequently) spouted, it takes the form of pure cheese dripping forth from the dispenser. Poor Meg Ryan. She’s in her loveliest phase here as slightly dappy student Sydney Fuller (she dances to Billy Idol in a nowt but a towel, and has made a slip for a party with the letters “Freudian” glued to it). But she is condemned to suffer the worst dialogue indignities. Line such as “I wanted to spend the night with you, not eternity” and “This is life. Right here, right now. Take it” would take down even the greats. Sydney is even a bafflingly good sport about having Dex superglue himself to her.


The supporting cast must also soak up dialogue gems and disasters of. Brion James, shockingly, turns up as a detective (a good guy!) but spouts pure (definitely self-conscious) hard-boiled cliché. His partner Jack Kehoe offers a critique of one of Dex’s novels (“Thematically a little dated, but the prose style holds up”). Robert Knepper and John Hawkes were so young (although still a fair bit older than the genuine articles) that they play students. Christopher Neame is served the most giddily daft role, as Charlotte Rampling’s butler/brute Bernard. He delivers a succession of cutting quips, including “Okay, then. Infer this” as he hits Dex for correcting his use of English. Another groan-worthy classic is his response to Dex’s “I’m psychic”; “Then you know what’s going to happen to you”. Daniel Stern keeps on popping up looking ever so slightly uneasy. Which isn’t really all that surprising given his newly discovered and boundless aptitude for murder.


If the whole exercise had been played more tongue-in-cheek, the movie might have become a cult classic. As it is, it’s an overtly stylised time-passer; a remembrance of the days when Dennis and Meg were sympatico, when a college professor could smoke in class (he could?!), when nail guns had enormous range and when the ‘80s weren’t something to be ashamed of (actually, they always were, I made that last bit up).


Morton and Jankel clearly had no shortage of ideas for shots. They just didn’t necessarily need to use them all in one film. From a character seen from the other side of her fish tank (it’s in the wall), to Quaid’s silhouette on a sweltering street (cue montage), to point-of-view blurry hallucinations, to vertiginous zooms up and down buildings, to fans blowing tinsel, this is unapologetically off the leash. Oh, and there’s also that fade to black and white as Dex approaches the inevitable. Actually, although the slow loss of colour is vaunted as occurring throughout, it’s only evident in the opening scene and the climax.


Oh yeah, the tinsel. For some reason D.O.A. is set at Christmas. There’s no rhyme or reason to this (the picture was released in March); it’s in no way integral to the plot. Maybe Pogue did it purely to include an admittedly decent reindeer joke. D.O.A didn’t do all that well at the cinema.  After five-odd years, realisation appeared to be dawning that Quaid was box office poison. For what reason, I don’t know. I was never aware of this at the time, since I thought most of his movies were pretty good.


It’s only 25 years since this remake, which was 38 years after the original. Probably about time for another incarnation. In some respects this one is a more traditional whodunnit than Maté’s, with the necessary suspension of disbelief such plots require. But for all its overkill, D.O.A. 2.0 is actually a fairly respectable remake.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.