c/o United Artists Corporation

In 2004, the Library of Congress selected the 1950 film “D.O.A.”—along with films like “Schindler’s List” and “Eraserhead”—for preservation as it was defined to be culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant. The Library of Congress did its job by ignoring the slew of remakes that followed the original “D.O.A.” thanks to an error in the movie’s copyright, which placed it in the public domain. Thank God I am not the Library of Congress and owe the public no such duties.

I never saw the original “D.O.A.” However, from reading about the film, it is immediately obvious how loosely its 1988 remake, also called “D.O.A.,” handled the material. The 1988 “D.O.A.” is not a noir film from 1950 that is praised for its significance by critics. It is an ’80s Hollywood thriller that is hilarious, romantic, and gripping for a clean and quick 97 minutes. 

Ironically, as a remake, the 1988 “D.O.A.” captures the ’80s perfectly. When my roommate looked over my shoulder as I watched clips of the movie which featured the era’s insane hairstyles and clothing, he said he was so glad that he didn’t live in that time. I’m different. I don’t just love the insane hairstyles and clothing. I love it all. I love the flashing lights and elaborate colors. The clubs are obviously filled with neon lights, but for some ridiculous reason, even a bathroom that the protagonist pisses in looks like a gothic painting. I love the use of Billy Idol’s “Rebel Yell” to transition between scenes and the fact that every scene is covered in smoke from cigarettes and the elaborate and gory use of blood. However, there is one very specific ’80s aspect that I love that the 1950s original wouldn’t dare to do: They set it on a college campus and made it about a writer.

Dennis Quaid expertly plays a witty, relatively young, tenured English professor who published four novels when he was younger. One of his academic rivals says that the first novel was brilliant, the second was strong, the third was a little careless, and the fourth kinda stunk. The whole thriller is later colored by the stresses of securing a professorship and becoming a star writer. This intersection could really only happen in the ’80s when colleges were both beginning to grant fewer tenure positions and when writers were still stars.

Dennis Quaid’s character is, in fact, such a star that a first-year student of his comes up to him after class and professes her love of his writing. This student is played by Meg Ryan and becomes a romantic lead, which only could have happened in the ’80s. Meg Ryan’s character is sweet and smart and well-portrayed. More importantly, she’s the only person who has any faith in our main character, and even she gets more than a little frustrated with him as events unfold.

Events do unfold here, and they do so very, very quickly. The movie adheres to a strict ’80s Hollywood thriller formula where a new twist to the plot has to happen every fifteen minutes. The formula also says that you should add up six of these twists and top them off with a couple minutes at the end for a conclusion, and so Hollywood pumps out thrillers purely between 90 and 100 minutes. I like unrestrained creativity as much as the next guy, but I can’t deny the formula’s effectiveness. I seriously can’t sit here and tell you that I was ever bored or that I wish the movie was in any way longer. In fact, it really feels like the perfect length. 

Call it a guilty pleasure. Call it a cheap waste of time. Call it an uncreative and derivative remake in a world that is only needlessly getting more and more of them. I don’t care what you call it, just treat yourself and watch the thing. A life composed of watching movies like these is, in my humble opinion, one worth living. 

Sadly, you can’t live that life without going out of your way to grab it. The movie is not on any streaming services at all. I am sure that there is some legal reason for it, but the reality of the situation is that they’re all just cowards. The only person who truly cares about getting you to see the thing is the owner of a YouTube account under the name “파이구루,”which is Korean for “Paiguru” according to Google Translate. The movie is posted under the name “죽음의 카운트다운 (DOA 1988 Dennis Quaid, Meg Ryan.)” Google Translate says that 죽음의 카운트다운 translates to “countdown to death” which is a much better title on YouTube. It only has 2.7 thousand views, but don’t let this scare you. The subtitles are the only things in Korean and you can turn those off. The video itself is in a clear 1080p, which is more than enough for me (720p being the lowest I’d personally go). 

If you don’t want to pirate it for legal and ethical reasons, I totally get it. I certainly can’t ethically justify my behavior. I am certainly screwing everyone associated with the film out of a rightfully deserved paycheck and really the only appropriate action with something like this is to take the streets to protest all the streaming services who dared think themselves above putting this movie on their service. (I think it would fit right in on Paramount+, which is actually in possession of many far worse thrillers.) So, if you won’t watch this movie, watch “Diabolique” (1996) or “The Vanishing” (1993) which are also remakes of films that were culturally, aesthetically, or historically significant but also far less fun.

Henry Kaplan can be reached at hrkaplan@wesleyan.edu.