>>>>>>>>>>That 10-4 reminds me of when we were kids. Any game we played that had scoring (table tennis, football, baseball etc), if the score ever hit 10-4, it was known as a 'Broderick'. You probably know why.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Er, that's a big negatory there AP. Was Broderick the guy who sang the song?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, I figured maybe you'd know. There was an old TV show in the late '50s called "Highway Patrol" starring Broderick Crawford. He must have said '10-4' 20 times in every show. In fact, every mimic I've ever seen who does his voice uses the '10-4' phrase liberally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I thought of that Broderick, too. Probably best known for his starring role as Willie Stark in the original version of "All the King's Men". I had high hopes for the remake, the one that hoped to duplicate the Oscar haul of the original, based on the cast and respect for Steve Zaillain based on some of his previous movies, but ATKM has been butchered by the critics and virtually ignored by moviegoers. A bomb. Looks like Netflix in a few months. I'll watch it based on the cast alone but with very, very low expectations. Like maybe I'll plan vacuuming, dog grooming, bill paying, and basement inspection on the same night.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's probably a topic in itself how movie projects that sound like sure things go off the rails. It must be endemic in the nature of moviemaking that even the best have skeletons in the closet. If you can think of anyone in the movie business with an unblemished record, I'm all ears.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The whole concept of remakes weirds me out a little. Obviously, the films that will get remade are the generally good ones. What that means is that the remake actors are trying to compete with icons. I don't honestly recall a remake that I felt was truly worth spending money on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, ok, 'The Big Sleep' with Robert Mitchum and Sarah Miles was a good movie, but was it better than, or even as good as the original with Bogart and Bacall? Not imho. I just don't see much point (from an artistic perspective - I certainly do from a financial perspective).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I mean, c'mon. Steve Martin and Bonnie Hunt as Clifton Webb and Myrna Loy?????
>>>>>
>>>>>Why the hell have they done a remake of the cult classic "The Wicker Man", with a US island instead of a remote Hebridean, Nick Cage for Edward Woodward? I mean, what can you better in this film (even the Brit Ekland writhing dance song that was repro'd beautifully by the Sneaker Pimps)?
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree. I can think of several good novels that deserve being made into a film, but they just keep remaking old classics. OTOH, IMHO the newer "Cape Fear" (talking of Robert Mitchum) was better than the old, but, say, "The Four Feathers" was, what, 7 times made into a major film (so I'm told, though I've only seen 2 of them) and the book is dull as dishwater, I think I've seen 3 versions of "The Alamo". It's as if the movie moguls think there's no more storied to convert.
>>>>
>>>>I agree wholeheartedly about 'Wicker Man'. When I heard it was being remade with Nicholas Cage (who I don't hate or anything), my heart dropped.
>>>
>>>And you've seen the original? I seem to remember seeing a US comedy film where the grab-him-and-burn-him scene was lampooned. Can't think what it was (or was it a UK TV series where they definitely did that I'm thinking of?)
>>>>
>>>>As for Cape Fear, that's only because nobody is as coldly evil as Robert DeNiro. Although, when Mitchum played Powell in 'Night of the Hunter', that is about as evilly sinister as it gets.
>>>>
>>>>And I'm still waiting for a remake of Citizen Kane starring Steve Martin as Kane. Or 'Maltese Falcon' starring Gary Coleman (as Sam, not as the falcon).
>>>
>>>People flip over Citizen Kane, some even saying it's the best film ever. I've never watched it. I couldn't get through the first 10 mins without dying of boredom.
>>
>>
>>"Some even saying"? It is almost ALWAYS ranked #1 in best movie polls. Maybe if the people who keep voting that way had only seen 10 minutes of it they might have a dimmer view ;-)
>
>It's hard to tell from that comment wheter you're agreeing with me or criticising my lack of patience/taste :-)
>
>Thing is: if I were given several films to see, to judge the best ever, and one failed to grab me within, say, 10-15 mins, I'd be tempted to skip over that and go on to the next (just like a job boss skimming a multitude of CVs - resumes). But a film that grabs you by the cahonies in the first minute, then runs with them - that's a different matter.
>
>Call me a pleb but one of my favourite films is "Predator" ;-)


I wasn't criticizing your taste, even if movies aimed at the cojones don't happen to be my cup of tea. Was just surprised that you damned "Citizen Kane" with such faint praise, especially not having seen it (other than the first few minutes).