Genres

Visitors Review

Doc_Who 2013-05-21 13:49:11

awesome remake !cool ,awesome stars, great cast!!

This movie is an awesome remake of the original by the same title. Themoviewas cool,despite the fact, I hate new ones!All of the cast was awesome . It has great cast and an awesomeplot!!The main plot is a man is poisoned and he has to solve his own murder ,neateh?!Dennis Quaid is the man who is "D.O.A"(in other words Dead OnArrival).He finds help with his friends, but everyone is now asuspect!!Dennis's character has several hours to find out who poisonedhim.The movie is quite fast and full of action. You can see two other bigstarsin Meg Ryan(City Of Angels,Courage Under Fire) and Daniel Stern(HomeAlone,Very Bad Things,Bushwhacked) in supporting roles in this awesome ,coolremake of a classic movie!!

2013-05-21 05:07:20

D.O.A. [Blu-ray]

This review is from: D.O.A. [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) Not a bad remake of Film Noir: D.O.A. Dennis Quaid and Meg Ryan turn in good performanaces in this film noir story of a man trying to track down who killed him. Quaid plays a professor that you wouldn't think had any enemies. Somehow he is poisoned and he must try to figure out who did it before he dies. Well worth purchasing. The Blu-ray quality is good and the movie is well worth this price. If you liked this be sure to see Body Heat [Blu-ray].CA Luster

kenandraf 2013-05-17 03:56:06

Very bad remake

Great story and great lead actors (Quaid and Ryan) but the movie suffersfrom bad directing,bad screenplay and bad script.The lead actors do theirpart but could not save the movie at all.Too bad because this could havebeen a good 80's style Hitchcock suspense/mystery/thriller.Ryan looked soyoung and fresh in this one though.An ok look for big Ryanfans.....

seymourblack-1 2013-05-16 14:50:38

Dex's Frantic Race Against Time

This remake of the 1950 classic film noir of the same name cleverlyutilises a combination of old and new elements to create anentertaining 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 thebasic premise of the story has been retained and will also enjoy theblack and white sequences at the beginning and end of the movie whichprovide a stylish homage to Rudolph Mate's film. Those not familiarwith the original will also find it an enjoyable mystery which involvesmurder, jealousy, campus politics and a very unusual motive for murder.University professor Dexter (Dex) Cornell (Dennis Quaid) goes into apolice station to report his own murder and as his story is recorded onvideo tape, it becomes clear that he's been poisoned with a slow actingsubstance which left him with less than 48 hours to track down hiskiller 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 hewas doing. His despair became even greater when one of his mosttalented students, Nick Lang (Robert Knepper) died after falling from ahigh building and his wife Gail (Jane Kaczmarek) pressed him to goahead with action to speed up their divorce. Dexter then reacted byseeking consolation in the local bars where he met Sydney Fuller (MegRyan) who was one of his students who had a crush on him. The couplethen got drunk together and went back to Sydney's place.Next morning when Dex woke up feeling ill, he knew he was sufferingfrom something more serious than a hangover and checks at a localclinic confirmed that he'd been poisoned. There was no antidote whichcould help his condition and so, knowing that he didn't have long tolive, he decided to visit Gail who had been involved in an affair withNick. When Dex found her dead body, the police immediately suspectedhim of murdering both her and Nick. Dex took an opportunity to escapefrom the police and then decided to force Sydney to go with him to theplaces they'd visited the previous night, to try to discover who'dmurdered him.During Dex's frantic race against time he learned more about Nick'scomplicated family background and together with Sydney escaped theattentions of a vicious assailant who pursued them with a nail gun. Theidentity of the murderer surprises Dex but the motive proves to be evenmore shocking.Directors Rocky Morton and Annabel Jankel employ an interestingcombination of stylistic influences which work together veryeffectively. The use of high and low angle shots, close-ups and tiltedcamera angles are also especially successful as they reflect the senseof chaos and confusion which prevails through certain passages of theaction.This is a film which features good performances from Dennis Quaid, MegRyan and Charlotte Rampling and has a premise which gives its story anatural sense of pace and urgency. Add to this a number of twists andnumerous moments of suspense and humour and the final result is anintriguing mystery which is great fun to watch.

Jonathon Dabell 2013-05-14 00:24:53

Remake of a classic which just doesn't even come close to the required standard.

D.O.A has a good premise, borrowed from a 1950 film of the same nameand a 1969 film entitled Color Me Dead. But beyond the premise it failsto develop into anything worthwhile. The script mistakes ludicrousnessfor cleverness; the directors peculiarly seem to think they're making apop video rather than a film; and Dennis Quaid puts on a weird grin andraises his eyebrows maniacally as if he's auditioning as a JackNicholson impersonator. It's good for a laugh but, since that wasn'tthe original intention, it's hard to rate this as a worthwhile film.English lecturer Dexter Cornell (Quaid) is a bitter, bored shell of aman. Formerly a great author, he never recovered from the criticalfailure of his fourth and final novel and vowed never to write again.Without the drive of writing to fill his life, he gave up on everythingelse too, including his marriage and his dedication to the job. Whenpupil Nick Lang (Rob Knepper) apparently commits suicide after handingin an assignment, Cornell hits the booze to get over the shock. Butsoon thereafter, he learns that he has drunk a slow-acting poison, andthat within 48 hours he will be dead. So close to death, he finallyfinds a renewed purpose in being alive.... as, aided by student SydneyFuller (Meg Ryan), he desperately attempts to solve his own "murder".It's such a good idea that one can hardly imagine how it could fail.But it does. It really, really does fail in a big way. All thepointlessly fancy camera angles, all the inappropriate musical scoring,and especially the jaw-droppingly stupid solution to the mystery,conspire to ruin the film. D.O.A stands for "Dead On Arrival", andthat's the perfect adjectival phrase for the entire film. Some day,this wonderful idea for a film might be used once again to bettereffect, but for now you'd be best advised to stick with the 1950version.

2013-05-13 12:48:03

Cheesy

Given that this is dated, watching it from a 2012 perspective, it starts out like a pretty intriguing film. However, what really lets it down, is the un-believeability of human reactions the characters display. It ruins it. For example, the main protagonist has been poisoned, and is dying, yet he's full of energy, fight, glib remarks and BS. Doesn't ring true. The girl - Meg Ryan - is kidnapped, glued to Quaid, dragged out in a nightdress, shot at with a nailgun, and her reaction is little more than a girl who has broken her nail. Doesn't ring true. Emotion in movies has come a long way since the 80s, but even then movies were done better. If you find the idea of a young Meg Ryan showing a bit of shoulder attractive, you may find something other than the plot to be interested in. I didn't find either worth the time. Cheesy movie - watch something else.

LouisRenault 2013-04-28 15:40:58

Don't waste your time

In the original, the main character and the premise are established ina few minutes. The plot moves along briskly and as O'Brien tries tofind out who did it and why, you are as interested to learn the answersas he is.Here, for more than half an hour you have no idea what the picture isall about; at one point it crossed my mind that it might not be anysort of remake at all. How is this half hour spent? In establishingthat Quaid's character is someone who could live or die and youcouldn't care less either way.Learning form other reviewers that the denouement is a colossal letdowncomes as no surprise; I couldn't say myself because I couldn't bebothered to watch it through.Meg Ryan is gorgeous and Quaid gives a solid performance, but apartfrom that it is hard to find much good to say about this.

tostinati 2013-04-28 08:09:16

Watch-able but overdone --Spoilers

This film takes a lean, mean original and attacks it from the standpoint ofthe 80s/90s block-buster/Splurge Culture aesthetic, piling set pieces highas if more is more, and way too much is never quite enough.The first D.O.A., which was once some pretty over-the-top stuff, seemspositively spare, Bergmanesque, compared to this late 80s Hollywood BaroqueGarage Sale. Upholstered over the simple frame of the original film: abloody, violent wife murder sub-plot; a nail gun attack in the dark; a carwreck into a nasty, burbling, all-engulfing slime pit with everyonescrambling to escape; a new motive for the protagonists murder, something orother about professional jealousy among writers (talk about yourself-referring script); and a diffuse, wha-happen new arty ending.As watch-able as the film is, it is a little overdone. I guess when youaren't sure whether you can do one or two things really well, the best thingto do is crank out two dozen things, and hope at least a few of them willstick in the audience's mind. And why treat a movie like a short story --everything toward one effect -- when you can make it like one of thosesprawling 1200 page literary developments, the kind the drugstoresells?The music, again, irritates here, seeming jarring and incongruous in severalplaces. And long, slow, lazy Tangerine Dream style synthesizer blares andwails, while evocative of a certain mood are also, perhaps even more,evocative of the early-mid 80s. 7 stars. I like this Quaid; he works in the role. After seeing it, I wouldsay it is hard to imagine anyone else in Hollywood at the time playing thischaracter with the right mix of vulnerability and neartoughness.

Boba_Fett1138 2013-04-24 05:42:17

Doesn't quite work out but still a perfectly watchable thriller.

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 elementsbut the movie is nothing more than a mixture of styles that weakens themovie 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 thestory is at all times kept rather simple and short and the movie itsstory mainly falls from one coincidence into the other, which reallydoesn't make this the most credible movie to watch. It's just too muchof a series of unlikely events, even for thriller standards. Thingsjust don't add up and the weak climax, that is more ridicules and lamethan clever or credible, also doesn't help much. The movie its storygets poorly developed, which also makes the movie lack in some goodtension or mystery.Yet the movie is a fairly well known movie in its genre, which seemsodd, since it's definitely no text book example of a good thriller,even though all of the formulaic ingredients are present. It probablyhas 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 likealways they are great together. They also used to be a real-life couplefor years, till Russell Crowe broke up their marriage in 2000. Howeverproblem in the movie is that they're just an unlikely couple to teamup. It just seems odd to me that a college professor would team up withone of his students, in the final hours of his life, to solve his ownmurder. But this is probably also the direct result of its poor storydevelopment that falls flat in the end and in which nothing quite addsup. 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, byusing black & white images and certain camera-positioning (stranglyonly at the beginning and ending of the movie and not the movieentirely.) but also with its 'mysterious' story and characters. Afterall, 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 thegenre with a 10 feet pole. It becomes nowhere close of being in thesame league. This is due to the poorly developed and just weak storybut also because it tries to bring in several '80's movie-makingelements, which just doesn't work out. Oh and mixing film-noir stylewith '80's musical is always a bad idea! It should be a rule; if youpay homage to film-noir, don't ever put 'modern' music under it.Further more also the typical '80's action editing works really lameand makes the action sequences look even cheaper and clumsier than theyin fact really were. Also the black & white images don't look rightbecause 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/

Boba_Fett1138 2013-04-23 16:51:23

Doesn't quite work out but still a perfectly watchable thriller.

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 elementsbut the movie is nothing more than a mixture of styles that weakens themovie 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 thestory is at all times kept rather simple and short and the movie itsstory mainly falls from one coincidence into the other, which reallydoesn't make this the most credible movie to watch. It's just too muchof a series of unlikely events, even for thriller standards. Thingsjust don't add up and the weak climax, that is more ridicules and lamethan clever or credible, also doesn't help much. The movie its storygets poorly developed, which also makes the movie lack in some goodtension or mystery.Yet the movie is a fairly well known movie in its genre, which seemsodd, since it's definitely no text book example of a good thriller,even though all of the formulaic ingredients are present. It probablyhas 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 likealways they are great together. They also used to be a real-life couplefor years, till Russell Crowe broke up their marriage in 2000. Howeverproblem in the movie is that they're just an unlikely couple to teamup. It just seems odd to me that a college professor would team up withone of his students, in the final hours of his life, to solve his ownmurder. But this is probably also the direct result of its poor storydevelopment that falls flat in the end and in which nothing quite addsup. 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, byusing black & white images and certain camera-positioning (stranglyonly at the beginning and ending of the movie and not the movieentirely.) but also with its 'mysterious' story and characters. Afterall, 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 thegenre with a 10 feet pole. It becomes nowhere close of being in thesame league. This is due to the poorly developed and just weak storybut also because it tries to bring in several '80's movie-makingelements, which just doesn't work out. Oh and mixing film-noir stylewith '80's musical is always a bad idea! It should be a rule; if youpay homage to film-noir, don't ever put 'modern' music under it.Further more also the typical '80's action editing works really lameand makes the action sequences look even cheaper and clumsier than theyin fact really were. Also the black & white images don't look rightbecause they don't seem to use proper lighting for it.One of this typical thrillers that is only watchable once.6/10

Michael_Elliott 2013-04-22 18:29:16

Stick with the Original

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 worseperiod of his life as he can't get a book published and his wife isleaving him but things get even darker after being poisoned andlearning that he's got less than 24-hours to life. In that time hedecides to try and track down the person or persons who poisoned himalong with the help of one of his students (Meg Ryan). The originalfilm is one of the all-time great classics but many movies were gettingremade during the 80s and many of them were quite good (THE THING, THEFLY, THE BLOB) but others were less than memorable and that's whereD.O.A. falls. Many people considered this one of the worst films of theyears and it's hard to try and fight that because this is one prettylousy movie from start to finish. This is really one of those mysteriesthat's quite annoying because everyone you meet is a red herring andnot once did I ever feel as if the screenwriters had a good idea as towhere they were going because the entire storyline just seemed like onebig mess and in the end they could have had anyone be the killer and itwouldn't have made any less sense than someone else. I won't reveal theending but it's quite laughable and you can't help but really be madthat you've wasted so much time with the picture just to get to thisconclusion. Directors ***** try to add some style to the picture butthis never works and quite often it's just as annoying as everythingelse going on. There are some fancy camera moves and some quick editsbut they add nothing to the picture. The opening and closing sequencesare in B&W and I'm guessing this was done to try and give the viewers athrowback to the old days but it does nothing to enhance the film. Thefilm actually contains some fine actors but none of them are given muchto work with. Quaid, one of my favorites, pretty much sleepwalksthrough the picture and it never really appears he knows what to dowith the character. Ryan is pretty bland in one of her early roles andthe shocking thing is that she has no chemistry with Quaid. DanielStern, Charlotte Rampling and Jane Kaczmarek round out the supportingcast. One of the most annoying things about the picture is itssoundtrack, which features some great tracks but these songs reallydon't mix well with the story or anything going on. I'm not one thatgoes against remakes but this here is one that can be skipped. Checkout the original instead.

honesty 2013-04-22 00:23:18

Stylish, slick and suspenseful, a compelling whodunnit

This is a whodunnit in the Hitchcock tradition. You are kept in the dark assuspects come and go.Dennis Quaid is supurb as Dexter, a man doomed to die and Meg Ryan excellentas his babe.There is not much not to like in this little suspense and all the pieces fitneatly together the way they should.You won't be sorry you watched this one if you like suspense.

alaskamark-1 2013-04-14 02:29:17

interesting plot.

Interesting plot but painfully dull. The script lacks... lacks acting.To me this film compares with "Made for TV" type movies. I was lucky tosurvive the film without falling asleep in my popcorn. I watched thisfilm with my family. It is fairly safe to watch with your kids. (only 1semi sex scene)If you wish to see a young Meg Ryan...check out thismovie. Very 80-ish. You will like this movie if you like thecombination of depressed people at Christmas, booze, super glue andtar. Or maybe you are like me... and have have a higher standard foracting in films. However I did like the way the movie began and ended!Mark.

ljison 2013-04-13 18:20:46

Not bad, but no match for the original 1950 version.

It borders on 80's schlock, though after seeing so many worse films thisonehas edged up a few notches. It has it's moments and some nicecinematography, though I wouldn't recommend it for other than late nightboredom viewing.

2013-04-13 10:11:32

not exactly hitch

Although I liked this film, it's probably because I was an early teen when I saw Quaid and Ryan together in Inner Space. This remake is NOT directed well; it's perhaps the sloppiest directing job I've ever seen. Chemistry is nice between Quaid and Ryan again, but it kind of creeps you out that there's supposed to be an age difference here (I really don't agree that Meg is convincing as a 19-22 year old), and Stern is as menacing here as he is in Home Alone. The script is fairly predictable even if you haven't seen the original, and in general the point of this movie was to showcase the two main stars, not to make a good remake of a good but weird old movie.

2013-04-12 22:09:40

Not one of megs best!!

Lots of running around yelling, going nuts. Just very unrealistic. I would never go to see the movie at the theater. She has done much better quality movies. Neither she nor Quaid exhibit any acting talent in this movie

2013-04-08 13:54:56

One of the best videos that I have ever seen!

D.O.A. has got to be one of the best movies ever created! Not only was it beautifully acted by Dennis Quaid and Meg Ryan, but it was so intense that there was never a moment where you would consider turning it off. Quaid plays an English professor that has been given a deadly poison that gives him only 24 hours to live. He decides to spend the rest of his time alive finding his killer. From accusing one of his students (Ryan) to thinking that it was another one of his students lovers, it keeps you wondering the entire time who did it. With plenty of action and romance tied into this cunning adventure, you will never regret giving D.O.A. the chance it deserves in your video collection.

classicalsteve 2013-04-07 21:15:48

Plot about as convoluted as figuring out your Alternative Minimum Tax: Enjoyable but kind of wacky

I don't know which pushes the limits of cerebral capacity more:figuring out your Alternative Minimum Tax or the plot of this movie.The opening shot in black and white is certainly an eye-opener. (Theopener apparently references the film noir classic of the same title,D.O.A., 1949-1950, but the 1988 offering is not a remake) Prof DexterCornell, played by Dennis Quaid, stumbles into a police station toreport a murder. The first question of course is who was murdered towhich Quaid responds with his memorable but simple answer, "I was."Quaid plays an English professor-novelist who says, at some point, thatEnglish professors don't inspire the kind of passion to be victims ofpremeditated murders, which is I guess the point of D.O.A.: not evenEnglish professors are completely without risk. But don't let thismovie fool you. Being an English professor is sort of like flying, it'sone of the safest ways to travel.The rest of the movie is a flashback entirely from Cornell's point ofview in which the events leading up to his entry into the policeprecinct are retraced, which turns out to be two days. The movie shiftsback into color, and we are taken back to the morning of two days agoin Cornell's writing class. The first hint of a plot is an unpublishednovel written by one of Cornell's students, Nick Lang. Cornell hadpromised to read the work but delayed. After class, when Cornell isdashing off, presumably to another class or a meeting, Lang runs afterhim through the halls begging him to read his work. At one point, thestudent says he will kill himself if the prof dislikes his novel. Acouple of scenes later, guess what? Lang is turned into mush,presumably having killed himself by throwing himself from an undergraddorm window. Cornell's office just happens to be underneath, and thebody hits the window before becoming a human pancake. (I have neverheard of student dorms being above professor's offices on a collegecampus, but that is one of the many strange coincidences that permeatethis film.) The incident does not stop Cornell and one of hiscolleagues from celebrating in his office shortly thereafter.But this is just the beginning. A whole back-story about Lang emergesabout him having been put through college on the tab of an olderwealthy lady who shot a prowler-thief in her house 20 years previous tothe events of the movie. As an interesting twist, it turns out Lang isthe son of the slain thief. On top of that, Cornell's marriage isending. He gives his soon-to-be ex-wife a toy Ferris Wheel and shegives him the divorce papers, a rather odd exchange of Christmaspresents. They attend a university social function where he makes adrunken fool of himself. But to add to the twists, the event issponsored by guess who? The lady financing the late student-writer.It is never fully explained exactly what Cornell writes. We gather hehad 4 or 5 successful books, probably novels, but has had nothing forthe last four years. But what he is good at is the bottle. He goes to abar and encounters a young woman who turns out to be the daughter ofthe lady of the student who killed himself. It's starting to sound likethe nursery rhyme "The Old Woman Who Swallowed a Fly." The girl isdragged out from the bar by one of the lady's henchmen leaving Cornellto his own devices. But he is not alone. He ends up drinking himselfinto a frenzy with one of his students, played by Meg Ryan.Next morning, he wakes up in Ryan's freshmen women's dorm room. One ofthing about this movie: Quaid keeps waking up in places after havingconked out. Luckily, he did nothing that would be reported in thegossip column of the university newspaper and jeopardize his tenure.But he feels worse than having a hang-over. He drags himself to theuniversity hospital only to find that he has been poisoned. The lethalchemistry has been absorbed by the body enough that he only has 24 to48 hours to live. And now he has to find out not only the who but thewhy. Sort of like a Clue game for geniuses, DOA has many pieces of thepuzzle, and Cornell has to figure out their arrangement before he fallsover for the last time, and not just from the numerousshaken-not-stirred martinis. Martinis and poison go well together toaccelerate the demise of the poor victim. When the pieces start fallinginto place, they are like nothing you would expect.The film moves a mile-a-minute, with people getting knocked over thehead with things, people chasing through tar pits, and of course ashort episode at the compulsory carnival. Seems like suspense moviesfrom the 1980's until the mid-1990's always have a scene where theprotagonist is stumbling through a carnival or bizarre of some sortlate in the evening to add to his already dazed-and-confused condition.Some of the action is a bit unbelievable but what saves it are the fineperformances of all the leads, particularly Quaid who keeps you wantingto find out with him what is really going on. Certainly not the bestmovie of its type, but it has a look and feel all its own. So take abreak from trying to figure out your Alternative Minimum Taxdepreciations and check this film out.

dwasserm 2013-03-30 06:50:24

Where's Meg?

I rented this movie primarily because it had Meg Ryan in it, and I wasdisappointed to see that her role is really a mere supporting one. Notonlyis she not on screen much, but nothing her character does is essential tothe plot. Her character could be written out of the story withoutchangingit much.

ahmed elshikh 2013-03-29 20:09:00

Dead And Alive !

Well.. (Meg Ryan) was fabulous.. I've always dreamed of a similarclassmate or mate !, she was at the top of her loveliness, tenderness,sexiness. (Dennis Quaid) was at the top too.. He did some unforgettableefforts to the extent that I believed how he was this grieved sarcasticprofessor. (Annabel Jankal) & (Rocky Morton) made a fine job to sensethe oddity of the moment through solidly suspenseful atmosphere.In fact I'm crazy about such a plot which can make the whole worldcollapses on the head of its hero in only one or two days whatever thegenre is (Die Hard, 1941, Before Sunset, Hallo Dolly.. etc). Here it'sthe perfect thriller : How to find the one who killed YOU in just lessthan 48 hours ?!!! I said a genuine WAW when I knew that it had beendone firstly at 1950 !, it's a great formula for strong noir, sharpthrill, and one hell of a meaning too because – as in here - whenyou're living in a world has no trust in it among society of unfaithfulpeople to discover eventually that your closest friend is the one whoplanned to kill you..Then definitely you're dying ! But I think thismovie altogether didn't deliver ALL of this that well ..Why?It's technically glaring but maybe the script cared basically formaking hot pursuits and chases more than strengthening the deep conceptabout the end of a guiltless guy in such horrific dark world whereperfidy rules, or the poisoning of the intellectual in this savagelyviolent community where money owns souls. Actually the types of peoplewhich the movie presented didn't express that important motif. Howeverit seemed generally like an elegy of our modern life and its messagewas unmistakable especially with the main character at the end livinghis death literally : Try to find the ones whom really love you, try todo the right thing by finding and facing the truth early enough beforeit destroys you or others, and to be that active, cautious not thatblind all the time.. Or should I say all the time you've got !I'm in love with some scenes where everything was quite perfect :(Quaid) knows that he's going to die so he runs in the streets like ashadow with a screamer electronic guitar.. It was how to define"helpless" cinematically, the song at the bar (Too Much Sex, Not EnoughAffection) by (Timbuk. J) which refers to the absorption in materialismplus this whole scene and the smile of (Meg Ryan) at its end too, themoment when the wealthy wife finds out about the suicide of thestudent. It was fair work and what a sweet adventure they all done (thecrew, the actors, ..etc), there are interesting image and sound alongthe way and some talents behind them made (D.O.A) a worth watchingexperiment.All in all it's about being alive indeed not to be dead and alive inthe same time, AND that had been said in a movie was so alive at actionand suspense however not that alive intellectually, and finally it'salive work but close to dead when it comes to appreciate its realamusing time.