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.

[–] [email protected] 14 years ago

I'd say you were playing devil's advocate, but I'm sure the devil could afford a better lawyer.

[–] insomniax2 14 years ago

It's 1am and i've just finished watching it for the first time.

What can I say? I loved it! Apart from the abrupt ending, everything was perfect for a film from its era.

If nothing else you should apreciate that the man has style!

[–] arman0612 14 years ago

It was brilliant at the time and it is still brilliant nowadays. For many reasons which have already been explained in this board and many more.

[–] Marmadukebagelhole 14 years ago

It's got laughs, sex and action.

What else do you need?

I'd like to know what this "standard" of modern movies is that old movies have to be compared to. Should be the other way around of you ask me.

[–] Sidadressage 14 years ago

Sorry,
I love this and other "Older" movies. The "Current" movie crop with people like Jack Black are a pathetic waist of any REAL film lovers time!

JPC

[–] HoneyBakedHam 14 years ago

"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. "

This is exactly what I think of most trash that comes out today. 90% of movies are like this. You are probably not used to seeing a movie where 75% of it is not explosions, CGI and special effects. Back then everything was acted and the cast would make or break the film.
Ill take North by Northwest over crap like Knight & Day any day of the week IMO

"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."

As a first time viewer, its ranking in the 8s is justfied. Again people cant expect to see their first ever old movie and expect to "get it" and im in that age group too btw

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RubyHypatia 14 years ago

Movies have evolved over the past several decade. Yeah, we expect more action in our action flicks, but often the kool splosions can be overdone. This wonderful movie directed by the brilliant Alfred Hitchcock and staring the very talented Cary Grant does look like it's proto-James Bond. These old movies are a treat to watch. At the same time, the fight scenes nowadays are more spectacular, though sometimes over the top. When judging a movie, take into consideration the time period.

[–] HoneyBakedHam 14 years ago

Ive bought this up as a typical movie cliche before, but a lot of fight scenes in action movies and the such look very rehearsed as if they know what the next moves are going to be and as if the actors have been trained by the army in hand to hand combat, or like a black belt in any given martial art.
Older movies have far more realistic fighting

[–] franzkabuki 14 years ago

"Older movies have far more realistic fighting".

That´s generally not true at all - in my experience it´s more like the older the film the more fake looking the violence. Even such a celebrated piece of hand to hand combat as the one between Sean Connery and Robert Shaw in From Russia With Love features a few quite obviously - and laughably - staged instances (such as terribly mistimed attempts to jump on the prone opponent etc).

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] HoneyBakedHam 14 years ago

That seems odd because every newer movie I watch with a fight scene just looks rehearsed. Every pub fight, street fight fiction or non fiction just seems to be a variation of punches, blocks, throwing things at the opponent, throwing the person your fighting, and to put it simply cliched. Just because they look better doesnt mean they are more realistic. It makes them less realistic. Fights are generally not meant to look like a choreographed art timed to near perfection. It makes it look nicer but certainly not real. Maybe thats more appealing though ;)

Maybe its the way movies are now, because it is, but it could also just be a different perception. Each to their own anyway :)

[–] franzkabuki 14 years ago

I don´t know which films or fights you´re talking about, but if usual folks i.e. amateurs are meant, then you may have a point there. Although I´m not sure a "rehearsed" look is necessarily worse than obvious fakery. One does however expect a James Bond to be an accomplished martial artist who would not make such clumsy moves as he´s occasionally seen doing in the older entries of the franchise.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] drystyx 14 years ago

Actually, older movies do have more realisic fighting. New movies cater to people who have never seen a fight, and think you can break someone's neck with a little yank.

The older movies had fight scenes that had to be believed by people who actually had a few fights, or at least saw them. Today, most fights are just "talk", and I've witnessed phantom fights that never even took place being spoken of later by people who swore someone was beaten up.

The newer movie fights look like Choreography. The worst era was probably 1970-2000. Directors are starting to get back to realism now. We see stumbling, tripping, pushing, things that really happen when people fight. Fights in bars look comical when choreographed. Drunks fall over and fight poorly. When they show drunks fighting like they're sober, I change the channel. That is completely stupid to the max.

But even fights with sober people are too choreographed. Even fights with soldiers, who are trained to an extent, are too choreographed. They look stupid, and don't look a bit realistic.

Lets not bicker about who killed whom

[–] LoganT 14 years ago

I'm twenty and just watched this movie for the first time. I have to agree with the OP, I don't think it holds up. Let me preface this by saying that just because I wasn't really a fan of this movie doesn't mean I hate old movies. Or that I only like movies that have explosions and car chases in it. The most action oriented movie that I last watched was Inception, and I liked that film because of the story not because of the action. After I watched Inception I watched Memento, a movie that isn't an action film and greatly enjoyed it more than this film.

Art is subjective, I can't explain the reasons for disliking the movie, other than I just didn't. My biggest issue with North by Northwest is that I honestly never felt that the characters were in any harm. I dont know why I felt that way, I just did.

There's some great old movies and some great new ones. Just as there are some not so good old movies bad new movies.

[–] HoneyBakedHam 14 years ago

To be honest, its fair enough if it just didnt appeal to you. But surprising that you liked Inception as most Golden Age Hollywood movie lovers (myself included) that Ive spoken to thought Inception was pretty overrated (different story though ;))

Im not defending it either, its not Hitchcocks best work.

[–] LoganT 14 years ago

I can see why people find Inception overrated, it doesn't make it bad though. I don't think NBNW is a bad film, just overrated in a sense.

[–] rorysa 14 years ago

North By Northwest: A+
Inception: B+

[–] mikro-1 14 years ago

I could not agree more with you OP. My exact same sentiments! I do think that some of the elements of North by Northwest that by today's standards might be clichéd and would be mocked by movie reviewers today were perhaps quite innovative at the time.

[–] generalusgrant 14 years ago

Who cares whether North by Northwest is "dated?" (An opinion I disagree with, but that's another story). It's one of the best films ever made and there are NO stars today who are as effortlessly brilliant as either Cary Grant or James Mason. Nor is there a director today like Hitchcock.

I can see an immature and fairly stupid 20 year old not appreciating the brilliance of the movie. But that's why they're young and dumb. The movie is a masterpiece.

[–] LoganT 14 years ago

Why do you have to be immature and stupid to dislike this movie? It's almost as if people who love this movie feel insulted if another person dislikes it.

[–] mikro-1 14 years ago

Well hello there, cranky old man. The movie may be brilliant, but that has to be one of the dumbest defenses of North by Northwest ever written on IMDB. For the record, how old do I need to be to criticize the movie? Can I come back here in 50 years and tell you I still don't like it? Or is it an incontrovertible fact that NbN is the greatest movie of all time and anyone who doesn't know is young and stupid?