MovieChat Forums > North by Northwest (1959) Discussion > Probably brilliant at the time, but does...

Probably brilliant at the time, but doesn't stand up to modern movies

posted 15 years ago by ryanmatch
285 replies | jump to latest

Every Wednesday I head over to my dad's for dinner with him and my brothers. I bring over a movie for us to watch after dinner, and lately I've been going down the imdb top 250 list to try and find movies that none (or almost none) of us have seen. This is the 2nd "old movie" that I brought over, the first being The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. Both disappointed all of us. Especially given the very high rating here on imdb.

My dad says that this was cutting edge back in the day, but laughingly admits to how dated it is compared to newer movies. Same with the Eastwood picture. Watching these is like watching old sports games from the 50's where the average football lineman was around 6'0" 250, or the average 40yd dash time was 5 sec, etc... the greatest of an era might not even make it to the pros of today. That's how I feel about these movies, NxNW in particular.

This felt like an early James Bond movie, or maybe a Bourne movie. Yet, everything about it is slower, less exciting, less entertaining. No exciting fights, minimal stunts, obvious set-pieces (we watched it on bluray, which after reading the forums here seems to magnify the obviousness of old sfx).

There's also just something about the way people talk and behave in old movies versus new. The dialogue is stilted and fake. Everyone is prim and proper, no swearing, etc...it's the type of acting you would expect in a play rather than a window into real life.

Getting into specific scenes, the plane scene was laughable. It was like someone thought, "What would be the most difficult way to kill someone? Oh, I know, try to run him down with a prop plane, which would cause the plane to crash and kill everyone inside. Or wait, let's try to gun him down while flying at 200mph instead of doing a drive-by or waiting in the field with a rifle." And then it crashes into the tanker truck which isn't even moving at the time they crash into it? Wow.

I think this movie's rating is held up by nostalgic memories of people seeing it as kids and how impressive it was back then. If you put this movie in a room of 20-40yr olds who've never seen it or heard of it, it would fall off the top 250 like a rock. But hey, maybe that's true of all old movies, and the rating system is supposed to be relevant to the time the movie was made. If that's the case, and someone going down the list is simply looking for the best movies ever made, then most old movies should be skipped because people have just gotten better at making movies and have more tools available to them now. Much like a 1950's Cadillac, what was great then, wouldn't even sell today.

6/10 rating from me. Watch it to say you have, but wouldn't watch a 2nd time.

p.s. I really liked 12 angry men, which is probably one of the only old movies I thought was good. Maybe because it's all just in one room and psychology is the same today as it was then.

[–] TravisChaplin 11 years ago

To the OP
From what I gleaned from your post was that you didn't enjoy this and many other older films because they lack modern sensibilities. According to your point of view technology, acting styles, and overall styles in filmmaking have changed and those changes have left the older styles of filmmaking irrelevant.
If that is an accurate reflection of your opinion ( correct me if I'm wrong) then I'm sorry, but you have totally missed the point. Great filmmaking isn't about old or new sensibilities, just as it's not about big or small scale. Great movies are great because they are well crafted and that never changes. The crop dusting scene is well crafted because it is engaging and immersive based on everything that has built up to that point.

The acting styles were different back then, but that doesn't negate the quality of the performances. Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda's style of acting were very much born from performing on the stage and definitely wouldn't fly today. But that doesn't make them bad actors, in fact, they were great actors. Just look at the scene in It's a Wonderful Life where Jimmy Stewart is at the end of his rope and desperately prays to god, or the scene in Grapes of Wrath where Henry Fonda returns home only to find that his old preacher has lost his faith. There is so much emotion encapsulated in those scenes, their out of date acting styles don't change that. On the other hand, take a look at a performance by Charlton Heston who even in his day was considered to be a very hammy over actor. But look at actors today such as Christian Bale, who is great, and look at actors such as Kevin Sorbo, who is terrible. There is good acting and bad acting. Styles and eras of acting don't play as much of a part in the quality of the performances as you're making them out to be.

Obviously personal taste is an element when you are judging the quality of the movie. I, for instance, am far more partial towards horror films than romantic comedies. If you simply said that older films aren't your taste, then I wouldn't have a problem with what you said. But when you say that the quality of a film is poor simply because it is not modern, then it does come across as sounding very superficial.

[–] chefjoseph 10 years ago

Here we go again. It is truly pointless to argue with someone whose view of films is all about technology and not at all about what makes one successful artistically. Sad really. Enjoy living in your soulless, Illiterate, sub-mental infinitely superior "Modern" world, where 95% of new films are CGI filled video games which bear LESS resemblance to today's reality than NBNW did in 1959.

BTW: A friend who teaches in the Cinema Studies department at NYU recently showed this to his class of 19-20 yo's most of whom were truly wowed by it's wit, sophistication and craftsmanship.

[–] ajukoor 10 years ago

Well, if I compare North by Northwest to most of the modern films that has better stunts and more coreographed action scenes and better cgi then that's all to compare - stunts, explosions, shaky cam fight scenes. But no story, no characters, no humor, no mystery. The predictable twists with older movies are because all of the newer films are copied them. Doesn't that say something about the modern filmmaking? Why NBNW still stands as an entertaining film and is appreciated by many people (and not only by those who are nostalgic - I'm 27 myself) is because it's characters, and the subtle humor that is so rare in modern movies. It's easier to blow shait up and drop 10 F-bombs in a minute than concentrate on the characters and subtlety. I think I'm not the only one who is getting really tired of this CGId crap fests they feed us in the cinemas nowdays.

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 10 years ago

The movies today are awful . . . too gimmicky . . .

[–] ajukoor 10 years ago

Not to mention. . . NO IMAGINATION

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 10 years ago

Agreed . . . for quality films one must go back to the classical period . . . the stuff we're getting today is celluloid junk!

[–] ajukoor 10 years ago

Not even celluloid. It's gone digital mostly. How awesome is that?

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 10 years ago

Yes, that comfort zone that film allowed, that too is gone . . . so sad . . .

[–] jellyree 10 years ago

Goodbye

[–] You_R_A_Loser 10 years ago

You hit the nail on the head

It doesn't stand up...yes for it's time it was a breakthrough...set the tone for James Bond films but now a days this movie is simply week

Like take a model t pure s h it by today's stands but you at least respect it for its role in automotive industry

Same with this film

[–] You_R_A_Loser 10 years ago

I agree

OP

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

The OP is typical of boobs who think anything "old" (and where do you draw the line between "old" and "new"?) is bad. Obviously he and his kind of attention-deficit-disorder dolts know nothing and can learn nothing.

He gives himself away by complaining that North by Northwest doesn't have any good stunts or chases, the dialogue is "stilted", people don't even swear, and so on. Yep, all the hallmarks of great filmmaking. Oh, and we can make films "so much better today".

Right, which is why we have so many literate, dynamic classics about Transformers, Terminators, vampires, zombies, Ouija boards and other intellectually stimulating subject matter, featuring plenty of stunts, blood, nudity, swearing and best of all, lots of sequels so we don't have to think about anything -- all those original improvements that mark today's cinema and require only glazed eyes and a blank mind to appreciate.

Yep, now we have modern, well-made, new films to take the place of crap like It Happened One Night, Stagecoach, Casablanca, The Lost Weekend, Gentleman's Agreement, Seven Samurai, La Strada, On the Waterfront, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Vertigo, Rio Bravo, Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Godfather and thousands more films that involve silly old-fashioned stuff like character, dialogue and plot and actually ask the viewer to engage the film with some measure of what used to be called "thought".

Maybe if we digitally removed Cary Grant and substituted Arnold Schwarzenegger, and instead of a crop duster had him blasting a couple of dozen attack helicopters firing missiles and at the same time shooting a bazooka at 40 or 50 police cars, all while breaking 20 or 30 bad guys' spines, cracking their heads, or snapping their arms and legs in two, the OP would find something to enjoy in that otherwise pitifully lame piece of junk, North by Northwest.

[–] hirschleger 10 years ago

hobnob53 most of the films you listed are better than north by northwesth .i like old and new movies .it is tough to make movies now! dont get angry i think north by northwesth is a god movie i gave it 8/10 .

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

hirschlager, it's not a question of which individual movies someone likes or dislikes. There are people who don't like North by Northwest or the other movies I mentioned, and while I may personally disagree about some specific film, in the end it's all a matter of taste.

The problem is that the OP condemned NBN not for itself but because it's an "old film". While he complained about a few specific things in this movie, his real issue was simply that he doesn't like what he calls "old films". (He dismissed The Good, the Bad and the Ugly for the same reason.)

It's part of his broad and irrational dislike of anything he considers an "old film". I don't know where he draws the line between what he considers "old" vs. "new" but it's pretty clear this is a person with no knowledge or understanding of motion pictures, someone who's unimaginative, absolutely clueless about anything made before he was born and, as a result, capable of making what is on its face an irrationally sweeping and stupid statement that throws a hundred years of films in the wastebasket because they don't have the qualities he calls "modern".

(Oh, excuse me, he does claim to like one old film, 12 Angry Men, because of the timelessness of its characters. Yes, so unlike every other old film ever made, and so much like "new" films.)

Bottom line, he simply condemns all older films en masse, without thought or exception and on absolutely idiotic grounds -- that older films are worse than modern ones because we can do things so much "better" today, that the dialogue, pace, technical aspects, etc. of older films are basically by definition laughable and unrealistic. This shows his shallowness and an obvious inability to appreciate anything that isn't moronic, computer-generated eye-candy or doesn't feature swearing and explosions and mindless action or has scenes lasting more than a minute.

There are good and bad films in every generation. To simply say that all "old films" are bad is as ridiculous as saying that all "new ones" are.

Of course, what he's too limited to grasp is that 20 years from now the films he calls modern (and are therefore good) will be old, and younger people as limited as himself will be condemning the stuff he likes for the same reasons he now slams films he thinks of as "old". What goes around comes around.

About your statement,

it is tough to make movies now!

Yes, it is. So what? It's always been tough to make movies. It was tough in the 1920s and 30s and 40s and 50s and 60s and 70s and 80s. That's just the perpetual nature of the business. Your observation isn't unique to today, has nothing to do with anything the OP said, and certainly doesn't justify his views.

[–] hirschleger 10 years ago

you make some valid points ,maybe i dont understand the macking of films but you are wright but there are younger people like 15 -16 year old who like older movies . mi two favorite movies are a tigh it is The Good the bad and the ugly and Fight club what are your favorite movies ?

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Let's just say my favorite movies are older than The Good the Bad and the Ugly and a lot older than Fight Club...which I hated! Like you, I'm a product of my era, and generally I prefer the movies I grew up with -- mostly from the 40s, 50s and 60s. But I like lots of newer films too.

[–] StevenSmithNYC 10 years ago

This movie is subtle it depends on the audience to pay attention and think.

Sorry to have to tell you this, but Bourne movies are trash compared to this. Just because they aren't texting and everyone doesn't have a tattoo you can't compare them to this masterpiece. You think in 50 years people are going to be watching Bourne movies? That should answer your question.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DracTarashV 10 years ago

For all the action the Bourne films provide, Matt Damon sure is boring to watch compared to these old Hollywood stars.

Anyway, the OP is wrong... period.

Hey there, Johnny Boy, I hope you fry!