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


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.

reply

This is Hitchcock's most critically acclaimed movie right behind "Psycho," and some even consider it the definitive Hitchcock movie. I think of North by Northwest as just the opposite - a movie to measure all other movies against. When I consider the directing, the pacing, the sets, the locations, the acting - particularly Grant - and Hermann's score, and put them together, I consider North By Northwest the standard for mystery/thrillers, action and adventure. The crop dusting scene is an iconic image in cinema lore.

By the way, imdb's 250 uses a mathematical formula instead of opinion. Right now City of God is #18 and Casablanca is #19. That doesn't mean City of God is better than Casablanca, but it's higher according to the formula.

trex&shaq

reply

Right. And in particular it is the standard by which to measure films that mix action and comedy.

reply

imdb's 250 uses a mathematical formula instead of opinion

Well, it's a weighted average of individual users' opinions. It's still opinion based.


This is Hitchcock's most critically acclaimed movie right behind "Psycho,"

It is very highly regarded. However, if you're looking for Hitch's *most* "critically acclaimed" movie, that would be Vertigo. There's a web site called TheyShootPicturesDontThey that takes all of the critics and industry lists and polls that they can find and uses each one as a single vote in a sort of meta-poll. That seems to me to be a reasonable proxy for a movie's total level of critical acclamation. The last time that I looked, Vertigo was # 2 overall on that list.

reply

If you think the way people talk and act in movies now is like "real life", you're not very perceptive.

-----
Reason is a pursuit, not a conclusion.

reply

First off, I'd have to say that if you guys are watching pre 1970 films with the expectation that they not be dated, that's not a very intelligent decision on your part. All films date eventually, some date well, some not so well. The things you don't like about it, too slow, not enough action, not enough stunts, etc. are some of the things I like about it. Not focusing so much on action allows for other things like pacing, dialog, and character to be developed better. I love old films because they're like a time capsule. They represent a time when people actually had attention spans. You're wrong about thinking only older folks love old films. Many young people love them too and since a lot of these films have become widely available on dvd in the last two decades, they've attracted whole new generations of fans. There's always going to be people who think old = bad. It's not just young people either, I know older people who are really only interested in seeing new films and see the old ones as outdated. I suppose that's just a matter of taste but in no way, shape, or form are old movies inferior to new ones. I'd take North by Northwest over just about any modern action/thriller.

reply

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.
That's a flawed analogy in my opinion. Players from that era may not have the speed and size to compete with modern players, but that doesn't mean they weren't great athletes and that watching old games can't still be entertaining. With films it's more about filmmakers working with the styles and culture of their time rather than being somehow inferior to modern filmmakers. Or to put in another way, a great football players from the 40s or 50s may not make a pro team today because they may just lack the size and speed. But a great director from the 40s or 50s could probably adapt to modern times and still make great movies because great story tellers are timeless.

reply

In a so-called "dash" faster is undeniably ´always´ better. In film, who´s to say what´s good or bad or proper; sometimes the fat, slow dude stands to get all the glory. A remarkably dumb comparison.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

The mistake in my opinion lies with expecting a film like North by Northwest to be similiar to films like the Bourne series, just because they're both considered thrillers by many people.

You have to look at films from different eras as basically being in different genres. The whole idea of a "genre" in the first place is to just lump stuff that has common characteristics together--it makes thinking about/analyzing/conceptualizing those things easier, it makes it easier to seek out stuff you like or dislike, etc. Well, artistic styles are strongly attached to their eras, and necessarily so. Artists are always influenced by other artworks, and they're influenced by all kinds of social facts at the time they're creating their work. These things "evolve" over time just like anything else does. So works from a particular era have significant stylistic (or genre-related) differences to works from another era--even if they're both "thrillers".

Going from The Bourne Identity to North by Northwest requires just as much of a difference in the way you approach the films mentally as going from Hobo With a Shotgun to Ramona and Beezus does. It would be stupid to get upset with Ramona and Beezus, or to think that it's necessarily inferior to Hobo With a Shotgun, just because it doesn't have enough action or violence, and it would be stupid to get upset with Hobo With a Shotgun, or to think that it's necessarily inferior to Ramona and Beezus, just because it's not focused on positive family values, etc. They're different types of films. You can't expect the same things from them. You need to treat films ostensibly in the same genre, but from different eras, in just the same way.


http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

reply

Of course it's "dated", this film was made over 50 years ago. One day "Transformers" (which was terrrible) will also be considered "dated". As far as I'm concerned anyone who is a fan of today's films, and can't at least acknowledge classic films has no sense of true culture.

Today's films are not that original. "Disturbia", for example, is a remake of "Rear Window", along with 90% of films made today. Just like "Body Heat" has the same plotline as "Double Indemnity". Most of their storylines are ripped from older films. Having better technology doesn't improve the film since most young actors can't even deliver a line. Today's directors are focused on who has the largest explosions or best fake tans than quality.

Your age generalization is wrong as well. It's embarrassing enough having to be apart of this generation in the first place. I'm only 20 and grew up watching Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Most people in our film school prefer the classics.

Karina Licursi ~

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]