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.

[–] uwisplaya 13 years ago

What an absurd original post. Doesn't stand up to modern movies? Maybe the OP is 13 years old or something? I'm only 24, but I remember thinking similarly to the OP until I was about 16.

As it stands now, North By Northwest is one of my all-time favorite movies, and quite easily. The wit, romance, fast pace, amazing score, great acting, and obviously great directing from Hitchcock make this just truly an amazing film to behold.

"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. "

I think that quoted paragraph from the OP really sums up his naivety, utter lack of taste in film, and hopefully very young age (I'm only 24, but c'mon, this is an obvious masterpiece).

[–] Mantiso 13 years ago

TC is nothing new. Just another kid who either 1) has no knowledge or taste in the history of films. 2) has to rebel against what is popular.
Like many before him, he will grow up and realise what an idiot he was. We've all done it to some extent.

[–] PillowRock 13 years ago

2) has to rebel against what is popular.

More specifically, I would say "has to rebel against what is popular with their parents". It's very common thing in the age range when teens (or sometimes early 20s) are asserting their independence from their parents.

I remember seeing Chris Rock do a whole routine built around how when he was a teen he always dismissed Ella Fitzgerald as horrible old people's nostalgia music; then he got closer to 30 and had the revelation that Ella was actually very good, and found himself digging through his parents' basement looking for all of those old albums. The same thing often happens with movies.

[–] ryuheikitamura 13 years ago

I haven't seen North by Northwest yet, and I came here to get the opinions of people on the movie before watching it but I hate to burst your bubble about The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. All of my friends are in their twenties and absolutely love the Man with No Name Trilogy as they are timeless classics and excellent movies.

[–] deadbunny28 13 years ago

uoiehgsiuhgsipuohgpousigopi WHAT? And let me just put in defense Bourne movies suck...the only redeeming qualities they have were all stolen from this movie...AND WHO IN THE HELLIBUT DOESNT LIKE THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY...omg theres no swearing equals boring har har har, slow means not entertaining yep yep...WHERE DA HECKS IS DUH SPECIAL EFFECTS AND CGI SETS MANG...people like you are why everyone says are generation is MTV attention span ADD apathetic imbeciles...p.s. i'm not really that mad, i just found your taste in movies highly amusing so i thought i would poke a little fun...ur more than welcome to flame back, but just know this post was in jest...kinda...

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] deadbunny28 13 years ago

wait umm i didnt say anything about football, but i got a notification that u replied to me?...well anyways, i agree that football in the past was more entertaining...actually nevermind on that too, cus now i see u mean "soccer" not "football"...i know us in the states are different...

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JimVertigoRM3 13 years ago

Doesn't stand up?!?!! Obviously, you have little or no understanding of what makes a good movie. I can name 20 modern films off hand that NBNW is 20 times better than. lol....

[–] Yolas 13 years ago

As a 25 year old from Istanbul, Turkey, I loved the film. Yes, it's not comparable to modern films in terms of technical stuff like fight choreography, explosions etc. Regardless, this film is great for what it is. Not because it has flashy stuff like modern films, but because it's very well written and acted, direction is superb, it's fun and takes you to 1950s for 131 minutes. I mean look at Cary Grant, he's a proper lead actor. Handsome, cool, serious and funny at the same time. Not like babyface girlish actors such as Di Caprio or Brad Pitt. As a film, this is great. But if you're looking for mindless cgi explosions with poor acting and story, you should look somewhere else.

[–] westal_sage 13 years ago

Well there's no accounting for taste - I think that saying was invented for people like you. I bet you really loved the "new star trek" movie. Purposefully not capitalized.

[–] ajapam34 13 years ago

One thing the OP said that I actually agree with

"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."

That is quite a ridiculous way to try to kill someone. I LOVED the movie though. I was lucky enough to catch it in theatres in October. I thought it was funny, thrilling, charming... just fantastic overall.

[–] jmrwacko 13 years ago

I don't understand the OP's assessment of NbNW. The plausibility argument is silly because the movie is meant to be an implausible, lighthearted adventure, in much the same vein as a film like Indiana Jones, but with much better cinematography and dialogue. This film is in an entirely different genre than films like Casino Royale. There's absolutely no tragedy. The female lead doesn't die, the villains aren't super human, the plot doesn't take itself too seriously. It isn't at all an art house film, and you don't have to be any older than 15 to enjoy it to its fullest.

Also, this movie looks amazing, especially with the God's eye shots. Check your eyes.

[–] jal_90 13 years ago

I haven't read many of the replies of this thread, but I also think, although I guess it's for different reasons, that North by Northwest is overrated.

I didn't feel, for example, that the love relationship was well-explored at all, and most of the jokes fell flat. In that sense, you can argue that it's what was intended to be at its time and that we shouldn't judge it by modern standards. That would be perfect if I didn't know examples of other classic authors who are truly timeless at their work: Chaplin, Keaton, Wilder, even most of Hitchcock I've seen has aged really well, it's just this one which I find kind of uneffective nowadays.

And the question about the plausibility of the plot is crucial because it determines which percentage of the story the spectator "buys" or believes. I don't say being realistic, but being believable (they are different concepts, eh). And the fact that the main character learns everything so fastly and is able to solve every situation with such an experienced efficience sucks me out of the mood of the movie several times.

I don't think it is a problem of being "old" at all. It's the content, not the date it was aired after all what in the end makes a movie age well or badly. As said, there are 20's films which have kept their qualities much better than this one.

Anyway, it's a rather decent 6.5-7/10, which is because I find the movie interesting, with some good qualities, but they don't qualify for a top position in my opinion.

By the way, people speaking about how people who don't appreciate this film are just not mature enough, do you even believe in your speech? If you do I must say I'm really worried about your cultural health.

My ratings: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur23142724/ratings

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

Can´t help but wonder what those "modern standards" might be, according to which the works of Chaplin or Wilder are ´not´ dated whereas NBNW is. The "plausibility of the plot" argument doesn´t really cut it because firstly, I wouldn´t say the contemporary movies are necessarily that much more "plausible" than before - even if and as they try and work extra hard to cover that up - and secondly, since when is that some ultimate measure to determine a movie´s quality in the first place? It´s fiction and should be viewed accordingly; as something that makes its own rules.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] jal_90 13 years ago

Please be kind and read my post more carefully.

I don't say there has to be a "modern standard" but that North By Northwest in my opinion hasn't aged well. In fact I don't dare to wonder how it might be, because in the end that responds to a subjective view always. In the case of this movie, I don't laugh at its comedy, I see what is supposedly funny but it doesn't amuse me. Maybe I am overusing that "badly aged" excuse over the most reasonable option that the movie is just flat and uninteresting in that aspect regardless of the context, but I can't help but believe that maybe in other situation it would have made a bigger effect on me.

Also, I talked about believable situations, AKA emotionally effective, or more likely, capable of creating empathy. The Hitchcock movie has me outside of the main character, always. If that is not a measure to determine the quality of a movie, when there are far more weird/absurd/surrealistic character portrayals which end up making an impression on me because they are better depicted and I can get to understand them, in their way, then I don't know what it is.

Fiction makes its own rules, right... but the one who decides to accept them or not is the viewer, and in this case I have my serious reticence. Following your logic I wouldn't even be able to complain about anything because, uh, everything is created with a purpose.

My ratings: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur23142724/ratings

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

"I don´t say there has to be a "modern standard"".

Since a reference to some "modern standard" in regards to the presentation of humour and romance in film is made, one concludes such a thing must indeed exist according to the one making the reference. And apparently, the movies of Wilder & Chaplin are better at living up to that standard. If that is a misunderstanding then, well, I guess I apologize.

"It doesn´t amuse me".

Personally, I do find NBNW generally amusing although far from laugh-out-loud funny - which isn´t a problem since it´s not a comedy. And one shouldn´t necessarily expect the romantic angle to be explored in great depth anymore than one expects it in a Bond film (which NBNW strongly resembles).

"If that is not a measure to determine the quality of a movie/-/, then I don´t know what is".

Really? As far as I´m concerned, being "inside the main character" - to use your parlance - is rather low on the list of priorities according to which to judge a movie.

"Following your logic I wouldn´t even be able to complain about anything because, uh, everything is created with a purpose".

That´s not what I said. Rather, you were apparently complaining about NBNW´s plot not being "plausible" - yet it is quite pointless to expect a Hitchcock movie to make perfect sense or to fully conform to "real world" standards (which isn´t to say his narratives are completely outlandish, though).

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] jal_90 13 years ago

"Since a reference to some "modern standard" in regards to the presentation of humour and romance in film is made, one concludes such a thing must indeed exist according to the one making the reference. And apparently, the movies of Wilder & Chaplin are better at living up to that standard. If that is a misunderstanding then, well, I guess I apologize."

Then again, it's you who talked about a "modern standard". I don't even know what it would be, and even if there is. I said the film didn't age well. Simply. Which means I don't recognize the context. And when I say I don't recognize -just to avoid future misunderstandings- it means I'm not involved in any way, as a spectator.

"Personally, I do find NBNW generally amusing although far from laugh-out-loud funny - which isn´t a problem since it´s not a comedy. And one shouldn´t necessarily expect the romantic angle to be explored in great depth anymore than one expects it in a Bond film (which NBNW strongly resembles)."

Wait, what? It's not a comedy? Please tell me what is it instead. About it's effectiveness I won't talk because I think it's clear that we are in a very subjective topic.

About the romance, let's just put this: I don't believe it. If Hitchcock wanted to simplify the relationship, it's his problem, not mine. And by the way, I wasn't looking for anything specially deep, nor for a thorough exploration of characters. There's no need to explain everything to be eloquent, or to inspire something about the relationship between two people, but just enough narrative skills. Which I think the script lacks.

"Really? As far as I´m concerned, being "inside the main character" - to use your parlance - is rather low on the list of priorities according to which to judge a movie."

So you don't care about empathy? You don't care if a movie doesn't make you feel what it is supposed to? Ok, we must have diametrically opposed views. I have to admit my first priority is always the characters, even before the story itself. But assuming that everybody is going to face the view of a movie with the same expectancies is absurd. Hence probably our lack of understanding at some points.

"That´s not what I said. Rather, you were apparently complaining about NBNW´s plot not being "plausible" - yet it is quite pointless to expect a Hitchcock movie to make perfect sense or to fully conform to "real world" standards (which isn´t to say his narratives are completely outlandish, though)."

No. No. I am saying again and again that I don't care if the story could or could not happen in the real world, do you think I would be able to enjoy fantasy films instead? I am saying that Hitchcock offers me a world of interactions and I can't get into it.

My ratings: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur23142724/ratings

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

"It´s you who talked about a "modern standard"".

Quote from your post to which I initially responded: "You can argue that it´s what was intended to be at its time and that we shouldn´t judge it by modern standards". A case of selective memory on your part?

"Please tell me what it is instead".

Adventure/suspense thriller above all. With a touch of comedy, sure.

"About the romance: I don´t believe it".

Why not? Either way, I do (what´s there to believe?) and so seem many others. So it is probably still more like your problem perhaps.

"You don´t care if a movie doesn´t make you feel what it is supposed to?"

Not all movies are intent on - or depend upon - making the viewer empathize with the protagonist to any particular degree. If a film is aesthetically accomplished and/or intellectually/emotionally captivating, empathizing with some character(s) isn´t necessarily a concern at all.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] jal_90 13 years ago

"Quote from your post to which I initially responded: "You can argue that it´s what was intended to be at its time and that we shouldn´t judge it by modern standards". A case of selective memory on your part?"

Ok, now it's clear. You know, when I said "modern standards" I meant the situation we have today, which is different from 1959 and will make some points more attractive than others at the time. However you understood this as a fixed rule, which I repeatedly said it doesn't exist.

"Adventure/suspense thriller above all. With a touch of comedy, sure."

Fine. I think it's comedic part is far more than "a touch", but whatever.

"Why not? Either way, I do (what´s there to believe?) and so seem many others. So it is probably still more like your problem perhaps."

Oh, really? I know it's my issue however I have tried to justify it, what do you want, something that changes your opinion? Why not, why not... Just because the majority says something it's good doesn't mean one has a problem for not enjoying it.

"Not all movies are intent on - or depend upon - making the viewer empathize with the protagonist to any particular degree. If a film is aesthetically accomplished and/or intellectually/emotionally captivating, empathizing with some character(s) isn´t necessarily a concern at all."

But Cary Grant is the main character. He is somebody that will be with us in the whole story. So it's a bit difficult to keep the interest on one movie if you don't care about what happens to its main character, isn't it? I said I have my preferences in movie rating. Like everyone else here. That doesn't mean I don't have other things in account. Heck, my grade for this is a 7/10, not a 1 or 2. I like it, to a point. But it lacks some things that for me are essential.

My ratings: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur23142724/ratings

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

"However I have tried to justify it".

Well, you say Hitchcock has "simplified" the romance - which is, to an extent, true of course - and that you don´t find it "plausible". To my mind though there´s nothing particularly IMplausible for a woman to fall for a guy who looks and acts like Cary Grant... ´especially´ if you´re inadvertently sending that innocent dude to his death. Might build some sort of a guilt driven emotional attachment, I think. In fact, the Grant/Saint relationship seems a lot more plausible than some of the other things that happen in the movie (that said, I don´t really see how is Grant "able to solve every situation with such an experienced efficiency" as you wrote previously - looked more like a smart amateur rolling with the punches & essentially bumbling his way through the movie).

"Just because the majority says something is good doesn´t mean one has a problem for not enjoying it".

Not necessarily a "problem" in the strict sense of the word; just making a point that most, apparently, do not see NBNW as uncommonly "dated" compared to other stuff of its era.

"But Cary Grant is the main character. He is somebody that will be with us in the whole story".

Nearly all films, of course, have such a character yet there´s a great number of great movies where the protagonist isn´t half as likable as Grant is here - look at stuff like Raging Bull fronted by a distinctly UNlikable Jake LaMotta who is only interesting as a case study in male insecurity. Or pretty much any film Kubrick ever made, for that matter.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] jal_90 13 years ago

Ok, it's almost done. We are always touching the pure subjectivity, and while you can't convince me just by explaining rationally why the love relationship is or should be believable to me, I can't word my feelings of indifference on it in a way that makes you consider it. Whatever.

Only one thing more, a little one:

"Nearly all films, of course, have such a character yet there´s a great number of great movies where the protagonist isn´t half as likable as Grant is here - look at stuff like Raging Bull fronted by a distinctly UNlikable Jake LaMotta who is only interesting as a case study in male insecurity. Or pretty much any film Kubrick ever made, for that matter."

Well, not only Cary Grant is meant to be likeable, which I think you agree with me on, but even those unlikeable characters make me feel something. I said empathy because, obviously, the movie doesn't drive you to hate Grant, but rather to enjoy his adventure. However it is perfectly fine to try another kind of connection with the characters... I won't take the example of Raging Bull (one of my eternal plan to watch films), but A clockwork orange could serve too as a movie that creates a strong feeling of hatred towards its main character.

My ratings: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur23142724/ratings

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ecarle 13 years ago

I have other posts in support of North by Northwest elsewhere in this 167! plus thread, but I have been reading this dialogue and it does interest me.

I am thinking of the comedy of the film.

I saw the film in revival screenings in the 70's and 80's. Full-house audiences pretty much all times. And I can tell you, "North by Northwest" gets LOTS of laughs. And all of the laughs are pretty much WITH the movie, not laughing at it.

People laughed at Grant's line about "the expedient exaggeration." They laughed at Grant's drunk driving and antics during his drunk driving arrest(lying on the table). They laughed at Grant's call to Mother("They poured drinks down me...no, they didn't give me a chaser.") They laughed when he told the woman "No I didn't borrow Laura's Mercedes." They laughed when Mrs. Thornhill said "Pay the two dollars."

And that's just the first half hour. And we're not talking chuckling, here. We're talking big guffaws. Applause. Delight.

Its a bit on the macabre side, but you know what got HUGE laughs? The UN murder scene, with each laugh bigger than the one before:

Townsend falls, Grant catches him, grabs the knife...pulls it out. LAUGHS.
People jumping up from different angles to "witness" the murder. BIGGER LAUGHS
Grant turns around with the knife in his hand and the photographer flashes a shot of him. THE BIGGEST LAUGHS...ROARS, APPLAUSE.
Grant starts warning folks off "Stay away from me," drops knife.

And laughs and applause and cheers all the way through the shot of him running out of the UN building.

I'm not sure how much that is all suppposed to "hold up today" but in its time, North by Northwest was practically a start-to-finish laugh machine that -- miraculously -- managed to maintain ever-building suspense, action excitement, and a certain amount of character empathy along the way.

More to the point, once upon a time "the movies" were meant as something to be enjoyed as a "shared public experience" with a crowd. They still are, to some extent, but far more people are watching their movies at home with family or alone, and even theaters are often half-empty because a movie shows on so many screens.

Anyway, back in the day, "North by Northwest" was one of the funniest, most exciting films ever made, and perhaps all we can enjoy today(some of us) is the memory of how that movie worked.

Other Hitchcock hits worked that way, btw. With an audience, for the audience. I experience similar audience reactions at Strangers on a Train, Rear Window and Psycho screenings(with screams in Psycho's case, too.)

[–] PatFilm 13 years ago

North by Northwest does stand the test of time, the arguments put forward by OP and jal are very feeble indeed.

It is one of those Hitchcock movies that still work today. I defenitely see it as a mystery/suspense movie with a light approach that doesn't mess up the tension that is being built.

A true example of great filmmaking by one of its greatest directors.

Its high rating it still justified (objectively speaking!!!)

my personal rating: 8,50/10

[–] jal_90 13 years ago

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion, you sure are too smart, don't blind me with your awesomeness.

I'm done for this. I can't reword again and again MY feelings about a show, it in the end turns quite repetitive and frustrating... not just for me but for those trying to convince me with perfectly understandable, but in the end also subjective reasons. So now it's time to thank -this time, sincerely- the great post of ecarle putting the movie in context and its comedy qualities at the time, and the points of franzkabuki, which I'll try to have in account in rewatch.

My ratings: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur23142724/ratings

[–] PatFilm 13 years ago

well jall thanks for your contribution!! Do try to rewatch it, you may be surprised :-))