I'll post the scene(s), granted I can find them both - but I'll keep the dialogue from both Dawn of the Dead versions simple: When there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oykvs8ePij8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWGtZ9Oqcwc

It's notable because there are no real answers to why the dead are coming back to life, but the notion that man has sinned himself until the cup runneth over is pretty darn scary as it turns our world into a living dead hell.

Here's THREE versions of Take your stink in' paws of me you damn dirty ape! From the original and remake of Planet of the Apes and last summer's Rise of the Planet of the Apes - all three on one video clip! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6keNoXzee1M

All three of these are presented in different contexts: inferior man responding to superior ape, superior ape responding to inferior man, and finally superior man responding to inferior ape.

All right pardners, I'm up fer a challenge as much as the next cowboy so saddle up while we pick apart one of the most iconic moments in Western cinema... TRUE GRIT NED PEPPER: I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man! ROOSTER: Fill your hands, you son of a bitch! ORIGINAL: http://movieclips.com/8LSTi-true-grit-movie-bold-talk-for-a-one-eyed-fat-man/ REMAKE: http://movieclips.com/QWVe-true-grit-movie-bold-talk-for-a-one-eyed-fat-man/ Here's my take... as much as the Coen boys have shaped my entire worldview of the cinema, I can't abide their choices here. This isn't to say I didn't enjoy their take on True Grit. Their depiction of the west was, to be sure, appropriately grimy and unromantic. But they took what was a ROUSING moment in the first film and turned it into a relatively pedestrian action sequence. Also, Wayne's reading of the line has more humor and panache... Bridges just seems pissed off. But then the two really shouldn't be compared, ultimately. The focus of the original was Rooster (not surprising since it was a Wayne vehicle.) Mattie Ross took center stage in the remake. Both versions serve the story well.

Oooops, should also note: in the original, it's a profound moment because it's the first time the apes hear a human talk - in Rise, which doesn't really qualify as a remake, it's inverted by being the first moment we hear Caesar speak.

Alfie 2004 ALFIE: It's been said that clothes speak the international language. And I have to admit, I'm a bit of a fashion whore. Unfortunately, today I've got work, and I have to tone it down a little bit, but that's all right. Gucci. End-of-summer sale. Very understated. And I can easily spice it up with... What? No, no. I know what you are thinking. If you ooze masculinity, like some of us do, you have no reason to fear pink. Smashing. Now, in the cologne department, most men overdo it. Americans practically spray it on with a crop-duster. My rule: Nothing above the neck, though I do like a little splash on Big Ben. You never know where the day may take you. Almost forgot. New word for the day. ''Ostentatious: The attempt to attract attention to oneself.'' Who? Me? Oh, blimey. I'm so rude. I haven't introduced myself. - I'm... MRS. SCHNITMAN: Alfie? ALFIE: There you go. Alfie. MRS. SCHNITMAN: Are you the little elf that left these mocha bonbons on my doorstep? ALFIE:No, no, no. You must have a secret admirer, Mrs Schnitman. MRS. SCHNITMAN: You are such a doll, Alfie. But I'm supposed to be on a diet. ALFIE:Oh, on a diet? MRS. SCHNITMAN: A diet. ALFIE: You? MRS. SCHNITMAN: Yeah. ALFIE: Now, I don't mean to be forward, Lu, but you should know by now that a full-figured girl like yourself - is every guy's secret fantasy. MRS. SCHNITMAN: Stop it. ALFIE: So she's a tub of lard. The ship's already sailed, so why not make her feel good about herself, right? Oh, Lu? MRS. SCHNITMAN: Yes, angel? ALFIE: I'm working the night spot, and my apartment is a horror show, so I'm sorry if I keep you up - with the dust-busting at 2  a.m. MRS. SCHNITMAN: Oh, don't you worry. - I'll give it a quick straighten. ALFIE: Oh, no, no, you don't need to that. MRS. SCHNITMAN: Nonsense. I like doing things for you, Alfie. ALFIE: I'm a blessed man having you in my life. MRS. SCHNITMAN: Thank you. ALFIE:Keys are in the usual spot. Alfie 1966 SIDDIE: Watch your ring with my stocking ALFIE: Move over a bit then...get your knee off the steering wheel! SIDDIE: I can't I'm stuck ALFIE: Here, look out, I'll do it.SIDDIE: Ooh, that hurt.ALFIE: I told you before to be careful where you put your legs!SIDDIE: I was only trying to be helpful.ALFIE: I can help meself...(to camera)Oh, hello. They never make these cars big enough do they? Well, you all settled in? Right, we can begin. My name is --SIDDIE: Alfie!ALFIE: Alfie. I suppose you think you're goin' to see the bleedin' titles now. Well you're not, so you can all relax. SIDDIE: Alfie! ALFIE: Here, what time did your old man say he'd be waiting for you at the station? SIDDIE: Oh never mind about him. ALFIE: That's just who I am going to mind. Never spoil a good thing. That's a thing you women can't get into your heads. Come on now, enoughs as good as a feast. SIDDIE: Oh, you sure changed your tune ALFIE: Well that horn put me off. I hate a noise at a time like that. (to a dog) Oh hey mate. SIDDIE: Here, don't forget your napkin. Do you know what thought the fist time I saw you put your handkerchief over your shoulder? ALFIE: What? SIDDIE: Thought you were going to take out your fiddle and play. ALFIE: Well I come from a musical family, don't I? Here. SIDDIE: What? ALFIE: Mind you don't catch cold. SIDDIE: I've had a lovely time, Alfie. ALFIE: A married woman, see. They're everyone of them in need of a good laugh. It don't never strike their husbands. I always say make a married woman laugh and you're half-way there with her. Course, it don't work with a single bird. Start you off on the wrong foot. You get one of those laughing you won't get nothing else...Here, just listen to it. It was dead glum when I met it tonight. I listened to all of its problems then I got it laughing, it will go home happy. Why the change? This is a funny example because both versions "tell" by having the protagonist break the third wall. But at identical moments, the important title sequence, the 1966 version pulled from the first few pages of the book and shows the protagonist in a direct action. Whereas the 2004 uses more character exposition to allude to the actions of a man the audience will get to know.

Death At A Funeral 2007 DANIEL: Just straight through there and to the left please. UNDERTAKER: Would you like to... DANIEL: Who's this? UNDERTAKER: Pardon me? DANIEL: That's not my father. UNDERTAKER: Oh shoot, we've taken the wrong one. Uh, I'm really sorry about that sir. We'll go back and get it. DANIEL: Jesus. Death At A Funeral 2010 BRIAN: Would you like to see before, you know...? AARON: Yeah. AARON: Brian, who's this? BRIAN: You know, I asked myself the same thing when my dad passed? I said, who is this man? AARON: No, no Brian. Who's this in the coffin, cause, that's not my father. BRIAN: Are you sure? AARON:Are you asking me if I'm sure I know what my father looks like? BRIAN: No. People make mistakes some times in grief, Aaron. AARON: Look at the damn body man. BRIAN: Oh shit. AARON: You got Jackie Chan in there! BRIAN: Okay, listen-- AARON: Come on, Brian. You know what my father looks like! BRIAN: We are very scattered today. This type of thing almost never happens. Almost never happens? BRIAN: I said that out loud? AARON: It's not Burger King, you can't just mess up my order. BRIAN: Please just clam down, I think I know where he is. AARON: You think? If my dad's not in this coffin in one hour, then you have to take his place -- you got it? BRIAN: Don't worry, I'll get him back. I promise that. He's in one or two places, I think it's the second place. Listen, okay, guys. Let's pack this up. Close this, let's go, let's get out of here. Wait a minute, before we move -- okay, did I get my keys? No, they in the car. I left the damn keys in the car. Let's go guys, I think it's on. Seriously, why? Sometimes more isn't better, it's just more.

Wrong place. Sorry.

Father Of The Bride 1950 STANLEY T. BANKS: I would like to say a few words about weddings. I've just been through one. Not my own, my daughter's. Some day, in the far future, I may be able to remember it with tender indulgence, but not now. I always used to think that marriage was a simple affair. A boy and a girl meet, they fall in love, get married. They have babies, eventually the babies grow up meet other babies and they fall in love and get married. And so on, and on, and on. Looked at that way, it's not only simple, it's downright monotonous. But I was wrong. I figured without the wedding. And you fathers will understand. You have a little girl, she looks up to you. You're her oracle, you're her hero. And then the day comes when she gets her first permanent wave and goes to her first real party -- and from that day on your in a constant state of panic. If the boys swarm around, you're in a panic for fear she'll marry one of them. If they don't swarm around, why of course you're in another kind of a panic and you wonder what's the matter with her. So you don't worry about it. You say to yourself I've got plenty of time to worry about that, I'll just put off thinking about it. And then suddenly it is upon you! It was just three months ago, exactly three months ago, that the storm broke here... Father Of The Bride 1991 GEORGE BANKS: I used to think a wedding was a simple affair. Boy and girl meet. They fall in love. He buys a ring. She buys a dress. They say, "l do." I was wrong. That's getting married. A wedding is an entirely different proposition. I know. I've just been through one. Not my own, my daughter's-- Annie Banks-MacKenzie. That's her married name-- MacKenzie. I'll be honest with you. When I bought this house years ago, it cost less than this blessed event in which Annie Banks became Annie Banks-MacKenzie. I'm told that one day I'll look back on all this with great affection and nostalgia. I hope so. You fathers will understand. You have a little girl an adorable little girl who looks up to you and adores you in a way you could never have imagined. I remember how her little hand used to fit inside mine, how she used to love to sit on my lap and lean her head against my chest. She said I was her hero. Then the day comes when she wants to get her ears pierced and wants you to drop her off a block before the movie theatre. Next thing you know, she's wearing eye shadow and high heels. From that moment on you're in a constant state of panic. You worry about her going out with the wrong kind of guys, the kind of guys who only want one thing. And you know exactly what that one thing is because it's the same thing you wanted when you were their age. Then she gets a little older and you quit worrying about her meeting the wrong guy and you worry about her meeting the right guy. And that's the biggest fear of all because then you lose her. And before you know it, you're sitting all alone in a big, empty house, wearing rice on your tux, wondering what happened to your life. It was just six months ago that it happened here. Just six months ago that the storm broke. Why the change? It's not only that perms are now eye shadow. The differences in these monologs isn't in the information parlayed. It's in the tone. There's one line which illustrates this tonal divide. Stanley's "tender indulgence, but not now." versus George's "I'm told that one day I'll look back on all this with great affection and nostalgia. I hope so." Stanley Banks wants to give you a report, tell you the truth, the facts of life. But the warmth of George Banks, whose speech is much more about how he views his daughter than how she views him, rings of nostalgia for the little parts of life. One has changed his mind, the other has changed his heart.

A personal favourite: the little known Zero Hour! (1957) and it's 1980 remake/send-up Airplane! This video puts scenes from the two films side by side: Airplane vs Zero Hour!. It was revelation to me to find out that Abrams and the Zuckers didn't pull Airplane! out of thin air: Zero Hour! was a straight-up drama thriller. Watching the video of the scenes side-by-side, it's amazing to see how the ZAZ team elevated, undercut, extended, and/or subverted the original material to bring out the comedy.

Not exactly a remake, but this is clearly the same scene. HEAT -- http://youtu.be/7oTNNjRuqbE (starts @ ~00:42) L.A TAKEDOWN -- http://youtu.be/auTi6hrceyI

There's also the obvious Gus Van Sant PSYCHO. Not really sure there's much to say about the dialogue of both. I think it is a great study in what is ultimately problematic with remakes. Found a nice clip that has a side by side comparison of the arrival at the Bates Motel. http://youtu.be/Mzarpt8IiqY I was looking for a side by side comparison of the shower scene -- I remember Gus Van Sant's version cutting away to clouds randomly. The problem with remakes is fans of the original expect the same experience as the original -- and let's be honest, if that's not the plan, why do a remake at all? This is arguably one of the "truest" remakes ever put to film. It's also one of the seemingly most pointless (although I do find it very interesting as a case study). I, personally, prefer remakes where the director does his own spin on the entire story, differentiating it from the original movie, while still keeping the original's heart and soul. (Check out THE STEPFORD WIVES remake to see what I mean about a remake losing it's heart and soul). But in Psycho's case, with such a strict adherence to shot for shot copying, it's actually the director flourishes in the remake that I find the most infuriating. It's like Gus Van Sant is saying, "Hitchcock your movie is perfect. It's so perfect that I'm going to shot for shot remake it, I humbly bow down to your greatness -- EXCEPT I think you should have cut away to clouds during the shower scene. Here, let me just fix that for you." The little changes are magnified exponentially. My favorite remakes tend to be modernized versions of older films. OCEAN'S ELEVEN, THE THING. They feel more like adaptations of the original than straight clones to me.

So you all are out to prove me wrong, huh? Think you can come up with 7 great ideas of originals and remakes, with dialogue, and video? Well... Looks like you'll do it! I never doubted you for a second!

Our introduction to uber-villain Max Cady, 1962 and 1991 versions.... 1962 MAX CADY: Hey daddy, where does Sam Bowden hang out? JANITOR: In there, sir. Court is about over, I think. 1991 GUARD: Ok Cady, moment you’ve been waiting for. GUARD 2: Any people coming for you, Cady? Cady shakes his head. GUARD 3: What about your books? MAX CADY: Already read ‘em. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCpZ0siSFZs Take-away: The dialogue reflects the different conception of Cady in each version. Mitchum's Cady is more realistic and low-key, like the movie. People don't notice him at first. He's ingratiating (when it serves him) and the first words in the movie are his. In Scorsese's more expressionist remake, Cady is a larger than life figure and terrifying from the get-go (the complete ABSENCE of taunting dialogue and cat-calls from the other convicts as he walks out is significant here). Everybody watches him since he's dangerous. He's more obviously obsessed and since he's got everybody's attention already, doesn't talk until three people have addressed him. 1962 - directed by J. Lee Thompson, screenplay by James R. Webb, based on the novel THE EXECUTIONERS by John D. MacDonald 1991 - directed by Martin Scorsese, screenplay by Wesley Strick, based on the screenplay by Webb and the novel by MacDonald.

Seems you've already posted one too! http://gointothestory.blcklst.com/2010/06/great-scene-manhunter.html RED DRAGON vs MANHUNTER I was fishing around for the Hannibal Lecter scenes, but seems they've all been taken offline. (Actually wouldn't be surprised if it was this site that tipped them off lol. Looks like you chose the same clips I was looking for). I really like these. Brian Cox laid down the definitive Hannibal Lecter. Hopkin's best version of Lecter is Lambs, which almost seems to be channeling Cox's performance. Not really much more to add, as your post covered the majority of the content. Bullet point comments-- *) Red Dragon is the cartoonish version of Manhunter. Everything's bigger and splashier, but not necessarily better. *) I think red Dragon suffers from a very similar problem the Gus Van Sant PSYCHO does. It's simply a rehash. There's nothing new. *) It feels like Edward Norton is copying a performance rather than inhabiting a role.

CAPE FEAR is probably a great example. I don't really remember enough of the dialogue from the original to compare them. The thing that sticks out to me with CAPE FEAR is that I like both films, which is unusual for me. If anyone wants to dig into this one, be my guest. Don't really have time, otherwise I'd put something together.

I'm with you, James. I can think of a lot of remakes, but I'm having trouble finding quotes x2 plus video. If anyone has the resources, some comparisons I'd love to see: Pépé le Moko (1937) vs Algiers (1938) with Charles Boyer and Hedy Lamarr - When Walter Wanger produced Algiers, the American remake, he tired to have all copies of "Pépé le Moko" destroyed. Fortunately, he was not able to do so - The DVD (Criteron Collection?) of Pépé le Moko has an extra that compares the film with the remake. (No one happens to be sitting on a copy, do you?) Some critical moments towards the end, particularly the final scene are changed, and I wish I could throw the clip up and share it here. (I'll keep looking.) - If you don't know the movie, it's not only fantastic, but Pépé le Moko was the inspiration for Pépé le Pew, and the character of Inspector Slimane clearly influenced Captain Louis Renault in Casablanca. Le Samouraï (1967) vs Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (1999) - These films provide a very different contrast: the Jean-Pierre Melville original is almost silent, whereas the characters in the Jim Jarmusch remake almost never stop talking. (I'm trying to find a clip from the original to compare to dialogue from the remake.) I'd love to ask the people who contribute so regularly to the daily dialogue: how on earth do you do it? Do you start with a clip and then track down the dialogue or vice versa? I'd love any pointers you can share.

> I, personally, prefer remakes where the director does his own spin on the entire story, differentiating it from the original movie, while still keeping the original’s heart and soul. (Check out THE STEPFORD WIVES remake to see what I mean about a remake losing it’s heart and soul). I couldn't agree more, James, on all counts. Scott, I hope you'll weigh in on remakes through the course of the week: what for you are the hallmarks of a good one? The pitfalls? Would you take on a remake assignment yourself? Are there any films you're dying to remake? And are some films so sacred that they shouldn't be messed with? I.e., if a director when on a binge of remaking Billy Wilder films, how would you feel about it?

Any filmmaker who would DARE to remake a Billy Wilder movie has no business calling themselves a filmmaker. And if anyone were to touch "The Apartment," that's the day I move to a mountaintop in Nepal. I actually wrote a remake of "The Court Jester" to which Mike Myers was attached. To me, that was an excellent film to remake because it isn't commonly known to contemporary audiences, the original was not a perfect movie and had aspects that could be interpreted differently for current sensibilities, and it is a really funny story. Unfortunately the movie never got made. But I suppose there are people out there who feel about the original the way I feel about "The Apartment," thus fate has spared them having to move to Nepal.

> the original was not a perfect movie That's the crux of it for me, right there. I really don't want to see anyone mess with iconic movies, but when there's a movie that has 'good stuff' but failed somehow in the original execution, *and* can speak to a contemporary audience (as you pointed out), that's exactly what I want to see remade. In other words, don't dilute the original material: exceed and elevate it. And if it's unsurpassable, don't mess with it. And now I'm going to spend my evening pondering (/boggling about) what a Myers+Myers Court Jester might have been like... :)

Edward Norton was badly miscast in that one. As great an actor as he is, he's simply too callow to be convincing as a seasoned FBI investigator.

Hmm, well might as well bite the hand that feeds. They'll never read this comment, right? I was approached by a very wealthy person to write a sequel to "Some Like it Hot." He said he was in contact with Billy Wilder's nephew and had the perfect title for it "Some Like it Cold." So first off -- I'm a HUGE Billy Wilder fan. And this was heresy to me. But I'm also flat broke, so... it was easier to entertain the idea. Let's see where he's going. Second, terrible title. I mean, I get it. It makes it part of the series and number 2. But it doesn't mean anything -- unless maybe they were going to dress up as women in Antarctica? He said they had written a script, but it was all in German (this wasn't really shocking as he was German. And for some reason lent credibility to his claim that he knew Billy Wilder's nephew). His big problem was that they needed someone to help translate the script. He also wanted to modernize it because he felt out of touch with the younger generation. He also said people had read the script and loved it. But then he started pitching me scenes from his sequel. And well... here, let me give you an example. He said, so they dress up like women. I'm like, okay. I guess they would. It's a sequel right. He said, and they're getting mistaken for real women. One ends up with a guy who has totally fallen for him as the woman in drag. But they're being chased by mobsters, so they have to escape. At this point, I'm like... Okay... Kinda the same beats as the first one, but some sequels do that. He said, and at the end they're getting away and we have this great joke, you're gonna love it! The guy madly in love with one of the cross-dressers proposes to her/him. He can't take it anymore so he removes his wig and says, "I'm a man," to which the guy in love with her responds "Nobodies perfect." Then he said, "So what do you think?" Yeah.

There was a lot wrong with RED DRAGON lol. I like Ed Norton though. Fight Club, American History X, Rounders, Primal Fear. I don't blame him at all for Red Dragon. I'd blame Brett Ratner, but he's the only one really buying Action/Comedies right now :) So, hi Brett! Luv ya! XOXO

Aha! I found one set of clips: Set-up: Pépé Le Moko (Jean Gabin / Charles Boyer) is a notorious thief, who escaped from France after his last great heist to Algeria. Since his escape, Moko became a resident and leader of the immense Casbah, or "native quarter," of Algiers. French officials arrive insisting on Pépé's capture are met with unfazed local detectives, led by Inspector Slimane (Lucas Gridoux / Joseph Calleia), who are biding their time. Meanwhile, Pépé begins to feel increasingly trapped in his prison-like stronghold, a feeling which intensifies after meeting the beautiful Gaby (Mireille Balin / Heddy Lamarr), who is visiting from Paris. His love for Gaby soon arouses the jealousy of Inès (Line Noro / Sigrid Gurie), Pépé's Algerian mistress, who betrays his plans to escape to Paris with Gaby to the inspector. The finale of Pépé le Moko (1937, France) Slimane: You see, Pépé, you showed up for our rendezvous. I knew I could count on you. Pépé: Not here, Slimane. Slimane: As you wish. I can't refuse you anything. Pépé: Be a sport, Slimane. I just want one thing. I can't escape. Let me watch the boat sail. I promise I'll stay right here. Slimane: I know I can trust you. Pépé: Gaby! (he stabs himself) Inès: Pépé! Pépé! Forgive me. The finale of Algiers (1938, US) Slimane: You see, Pépé, we meet at the appointed time. To tell the truth, I almost missed the appointment. Pépé: Not here. Slimane: As you wish. I can't refuse an old friend. Pépé: Let me wait here until it leaves. It's not much to ask. I can't get away. Slimane: I know I can trust you. Pépé: Gaby! (he runs) Gaby! Gaby! Gaby! Gaby! (he is shot) Gaby! Slimane: I'm sorry, Pepe. He thought you were going to escape. Pépé: And so I have, my friend. . . . Influence Pépé le Moko was remade twice in America, as Algiers in 1938 and as the musical film Casbah in 1948. English author Graham Greene in a review of the film stated "One of the most exciting and moving films I can remember seeing... Raises the thriller to a poetic level!" According to a BBC documentary, it served as inspiration for Greene's acclaimed novel, The Third Man. Algiers was one of the sources of inspiration to the screenwriters of the 1942 Warner Brothers film Casablanca who wrote it with Hedy Lamarr in mind as the original female lead. According to the Turner Classic Movie channel, Charles Boyer's depiction of the main character, Pepe Le Moko, was the inspiration for the Warner Brothers animated character, Pepe Le Pew. [Wikipedia] "Without its iconic precedent there would have been no Humphrey Bogart, no John Garfield, no Robert Mitchum, no Randolph Scott, no Jean-Paul Belmondo (or Breathless or Pierrot le fou), no Jean-Pierre Melville or Alain Delon, no Steve McQueen, no Chinatown, no Bruce Willis, no movie-star heritage of weathered cool, vulnerable nihilism, bruised masculinity-as-cultural syndrome." -- Michael Atkinson Criterion Collection Essay Dialogue Pépé le Moko was remade as Algiers shot for shot, with almost look-alike actors, as you can see in the two clips. The writing credits for Algiers list Henri La Barthe for his novel "Pépé le Moko" (as Detective Ashelbe), John Howard Lawson (screenplay), and James M. Cain (additional dialogue). Two things are interesting about the writing credits: 1. No credit is given to the writers of the original screenwriters of Pépé le Moko; 2. The "additional dialogue" credit is very interesting because while almost NO changes to existing dialogue is made, some scenes are "spelled out" more, as in the finale shown here. [As I noted above, the Jim Jarmush remake of Jean-Pierre Melville's 1967 film Le Samouraï as the 1999 film Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai also adds dialogue, in this case a huge amount, to "spell out" things implied in the original. Two examples do not a pattern make, but it sets me to wondering if American remakes of films from other countries are often more talky and on-the-nose-y than the originals.] Lost in Translation: the dialogue I've listed for Pépé le Moko is taken from the English subtitles, not the actual French. The French is sometimes longer (as is often the case with subtitles); it looks like the American screenwriting team may have been working off a print of the film or a subtitle transcript, not the original French script, based on how closely the English dialogue adheres to the subtitles. These clips show one of the biggest (and only) changes between the two versions: in the original, Pépé stabs himself rather than live without his beloved Gaby; in the remake, Pépé makes a run for it and is shot down by a rogue cop, followed by the last two lines of the film to tidy up the scene between Pépé and Slimane. I found it interesting that the Hollywood remake team chose to change the ending for an American audience, and felt the need to "explain" the ending in dialogue. (The American ending feels very spoon-fed to me compared to the French ending.) Likewise, in the finale of Algiers, Slimane refers to Pépé as "an old friend" and with his last breath Pépé calls Slimane "my friend". Their affinity isn't spelled out in dialogue in Pépé le Moko, and yet I find that their friendship comes out stronger through the acting in the original film without the crutch of exposition. One other note on the dialogue: the subtitles translate the French word "rendezvous" as the English loan-word "rendezvous" (which entered English from Middle French in 1591), but the American film replaces the word with "appointment". According to the Google N-gram viewer, "appointment" was used more than 8 times more frequently than "rendezvous" in American English in the 1930's, which may account for the rare divergence from the original film. I wonder, in addition, if the word "rendezvous" had romantic connotations to a 1930's American audience that would make it inappropriate for a meeting between two men? I also wonder, given how closely Algiers follows the shots of Pépé le Moko, whether the screenwriters didn't choose "appointment" over "meeting" to keep the syllable count the same and thus the timing of the dialogue the same.