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.

[–] Cluey 15 years ago

I was 19 when I first saw this film. And I loved it. One of the best films I've seen. I'm 21 now and I watch it when I can.

Maybe it just wasn't your thing, I know some people I've watched it with found it boring. But you have to understand that good comedy, pacing and direction will ALWAYS stand the test of time. And this film does.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MycroftHolmes 15 years ago

Young people today are a little desensitized to pacing. Today's films, like Bourne which you mentioned, have camera shots that change every three seconds. To me , it's those films that are hard to watch. A fight scene that lasts five seconds has 47 different camera shots. It gives me VERTIGO to watch it.

What we have here is failure to communicate!

[–] moviewizguy 15 years ago

I completely agree with you about your analysis on old films in general. When I saw the film, I was left pretty disappointed. The plane sequence, which was made out to be one of the most infamous scenes in film history, was anti-climatic and slow as hell. There was little to get excited over it except the explosion when it hit the huge truck. The Mount Rushmore sequence was as unexciting as it could get. I also thought Grant's reaction to him getting kidnapped is oh so unrealistic to its core. Nobody would act like that in life. The performances felt stilted and forced and there was little suspense throughout the film. Overall, however, I thought it was mildly entertaining but not as good as everyone made it out to be. 6.5/10

[–] Hushpuppy_20 15 years ago

I agree with the OP and moviewiz above me. For something to be #32 of all time, shouldn't it be universally loved? Not just propped up by nostalgia and film buffs who are taught that "This is a classic" by the same nostalgic people? There are lots and lots of flaws with the films acting, pace, stunts, etc. The "romantic" scenes in the film had me checking my watch.

I guess the old-fashioned notion of Cary Grant being so irresistible that a woman fearing for her life would hop into bed with him just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Eve's character was annoying and cliche. She went from secret spy to helpless victim, as I predicted when she first appeared on the train. I dislike the demure proper way she carried herself especially her whispering "aw shucks I'm just a scared girl holding back tears" way of speech. I understand girls were expected to act a certain way back then but it doesn't help me appreciate it more today in 2010. Cavemen drawing on rocks were probably impressed by their work as well. I'm not comparing Hitchcock to a caveman, so save your outrage. Just the treatment of women back then always sours old movies for me.

Like everyone else, I agree that for its day "North By Northwest" was probably the most amazing thing ever put on film. Some of the shots (the opening credits on the building, various architecture and shots from the train) are impressive. But a few good scenes does not a good film make.

Older movies like "In Cold Blood" or "The Manchurian Candidate" hold up today. "North By Northwest" does not, in my opinion, and everyone who treats the original poster like he is a blathering idiot need to realize that not everyone has the same ability to suspend belief that you do.

[–] swanstep 15 years ago

@hushpuppy20. But, to return to the earliest discussion in this thread, NbNW is rated *very* highly by young people on imdb. The original poster, ryanmatch, thinks that that data is unreliable because imdb self-selects those who are biased towards the old. S/he'd literally only accept data that factored in the opinions of all those people who'd never watch it, who'd probably never in a million years (tho' not for any good reason) watch anything that wasn't a top-10 box-office film from the last decade.

Anyhow, you mention two (everyone here agrees, terrific) 'old' films that you think stack up better nowadays than NbNW: Manchurian Cand. and In Cold Blood. Let's use those as controls on our imdb data about NbNW:

NbNW: People 18-29 [32000 votes] score it (on average) 8.6, people 45+ score it 8.9, and overall it gets 8.6 - making it the #32 movie on imdb. The most enthusiastic group, albeit with a fairly small sample of 138 voters, is under-18 females who give NbNW (on average) 9.3.

MC: People 18-29 [10,407 votes] score it (on average) 8.2, people 45+ score it 8.5, and overall it gets 8.3 - making it the #131 movie on imdb. The *most* enthusiastic group again, albeit again a very small sample, is under-18 females.

ICB: People 18-29 [3203 votes] score it (on average) 8.0, people 45+ score it 8.2, and overall it gets 8.1 - putting it just outside the imdb top 250. Under-18 females are again incredibly enthusiastic.

What big conclusions may we draw? All of these movies are indeed holding up very well over time, with minimal generational drop-off. And, predictably - the Hitchcock/director-star effect, and the star-star effect of Grant are both real - NbNW is much more widely viewed by young folk than either of the others are.

Hitchcock and Frankenheimer (whose Seconds I only saw quite recently - how much things like Requiem for a dream and Pi had lifted directly from this staggered me!) and R. Brooks. One could certainly argue that between them they invented most of modern edgy/blow-your-mind/action/the-mind-is-the-scene-of-the-action cinema.

[–] PillowRock 15 years ago

For something to be #32 of all time, shouldn't it be universally loved?

There is NO such thing. Every movie will always have some detractors who didn't connect with it for one reason another. Any I *do* mean EVERY last single one.

especially her whispering "aw shucks I'm just a scared girl holding back tears" way of speech.

You may not have liked the way that she spoke. However, from that sentence I can only conclude that completely misinterpreted the character. Eve Kendall was pretty much the antithesis of a scared "aw shucks" type. That character was *much* closer to being "the kind of woman that your mother warned you about".

[–] rorysa 15 years ago

"propped up by nostalgia and film buffs who are taught that "This is a classic" by the same nostalgic people"

(1) I have loved this film since I was a pre-teen and not under the influence of "nostalgic people."

(2) I have over the years viewed this film with audiences obviously watching it for the first time who went crazy for it.

(3) You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gbenlcfc 15 years ago

What a load of nonsense. What you say is personal opinion and to suggest that a room of 20-40 year olds wouldn't enjoy it isn't true at all. I was 22 when i first saw North By Northwest and i was 16 when i first saw The Good The Bad and The Ugly. They're 2 great films.

You compare North By Northwest to early Bond and the Bourne films. Well, i've seen all Bond and Bourne films and North By Northwest is better than all of them. It's more exciting, it's more thrilling, it's certainly funnier. On the whole, North By Northwest is 2 hours of wonderful entertainment. That's more than can be said for most modern films. Cary Grant is a star and a better actor than most of the "stars" around today. If Hitchcock was around today, he'd still be making the best films in the world.

[–] gbenlcfc 15 years ago

I'm sorry, i didn't reveal my age. I'm 22.

[–] Teddybear_93 15 years ago

I'm 16. I'm a huge film fan and even have a film blog for when I get bored. I saw this film for the first time ever a couple of days ago. I think you are a wee bit stupid. I loved it but you're problem is it didn't have the pace you like from modern action films. I get that. If the reason you like films is for their action then I can appriciate why you may not like this. But Hitchcock was brilliant at making his films tense and not focusing on the dumb action. That's what constant explosions and chase scenes are. Dumb action. Hitchcock focused on the plot not adding action scenes for the hell of it. That's what you like, fair enough. But don't critisise this incredible film because it didn't drive the train of a cliff or blow up buildings.

philspointlessblog.blogspot.com

[–] zzdalym81 15 years ago

To the OP...taste in movies is subjective. I happen to be 29 and have loved this movie for years. Perhaps you just don't have the patience for the slower pace, and that's ok. I do think it is naive to suggest what those of us in the 20-40 age bracket will enjoy. I also would like to point out that a 1950's cadillac will run you quite a bit of money, so you are wrong about that one!

[–] netshopper-2 15 years ago

I just watched this film for the first time and I am 51. The restored 50 anniversary version on BluRay is incredible as are the special features. Spectacular is what I call it. In fact, most of the films of today are of poor quality compared to most I have watched from the 30s, 40s and 50s. I feel bad that your dad trashed this film to you. Bad dad.