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 14 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.

[–] Robbmonster 14 years ago

I read much of this thread, but it was just going on too long.

Just a few points...

First of all, comparing ANYTHING that is separated by almost 50 years of technical evolution is inherently unfair. In 1959, just like today, the filmmakers did the best they can with what they had. If CGI had been around in 1959, I PROMISE Hitchcock would have used it, and the action sequences would have felt a lot more modern. But CGI was still about 30 years away at that point, so it's a moot point.

Also, audience expectations have changed, as has the emphasis of what the storytellers want to do. I certainly agree with the point that North by Northwest is like proto-James Bond, but the emphasis with the James Bond movies was different from the word go. With the Bond films, right from the start the emphasis was on action, stunts, and gadgets, while in North by Northwest, the emphasis is very much on story and dialog.

That is where the emphasis was on almost ALL movies pre-1960. The action sequences were secondary to the story, the action pretty much just thrown in for a bit of excitement here and there. If you consider the dialog to be 'stilted and fake', it's important to remember that films back then were still more influenced by stageplays than anything else. As a result, the dialog tended to feel stagey. In modern times, the average blockbuster is more influenced by television than anything else, and the short attention spans that television has spawned. Modern blockbusters tend to be very pandering affairs, short on story and character, but filled to the brim with the ever-patronizing 'Giving The People What They Want'.

Lastly, people have not gotten better at making movies since the 1950's. What's gotten better is the technology that goes into making them. Stories in the 1950's were limited to what could be achieved with the technology of the time, so writers had to focus on things like dialog, story, and character, annoying little factors that most films tend to ignore and gloss over with pretty (fake) scenery and big explosions. Writers today and literally write whatever they like and it can be achieved on film. Unfortunately, this often leads to a lack of restraint on the part of filmmakers, the main reason why the blockbusters today tend to lack any sense of restraint and realism. Seems to me that almost everything seen in modern action movies was pitched in a writer's meeting with the classic 'wouldn't it be cool if...' line.

Today, special effects and 'excitement factor' are far more scrutinized than story and character. In 1959, the opposite was true.

I've already said more than I meant to...

"It's just a movie" is no excuse for treating us like idiots!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwRqc0KSkJ0

[–] movieghoul 14 years ago

Hitchcock's career is remarkable in that he started in the slient era, was a pioneer in the use of sound, and then color. He used 3D. He used wide screen. Adn if you look at the films he made in the (and his) 70s, Frenzy and Family Plot, the dialogue is less stagey and more realistic, again following the times. He would certainly be using modern technology if he was around today.

That said, he always maintained that technique was always subordinate to telling a good story, so if he made an "action blockbuster", his would be different from most of those today in that respect. His films would likely be more like the Bourne films than anything else that's recent.

[–] tronfunkinblow 14 years ago

I think Ryanmatch is exactly right. He isn't insulting the movie, he doesn't show any subtle hints of bias, like he's trying to personally attack the film. He just wasn't satisfied with the dated aspects of it.

I watched for the first time last night and enjoyed it, but throughout the film I kept getting that nagging feeling of the movie being a little too old to hold up, much like I think Ryan's family did.

There are certain people blindly defending the movie who need to relax, and realize they're biased and wouldn't admit Ryan was right even if he concretely was. I see this all the time in life, with almost anything. People get nostalgic, people become so resentful of anything from the modern day that classic films appeal to some no matter what and some people like to think they're classic film buffs. What? You don't like (Hitchcock movie from the 50s/60s)? What, do you like Transformers and buddy comedies?!

I enjoy older movies and newer ones. I've always dug plot and story, dialogue, acting, and special fx and visuals and action has never done much for me. I love 12 Angry Men, Rear Window and many other classics. However, much of what made those movies great and watchable today is that the settings are simple, and the films hold up on psychology and dialogue, which doesn't change much through the decades. Hell, they usually get worse. NxNW's settings, plot intricacies and mystery elements have been improved upon today, and naturally it will show it's age. That's just a fact of life. Rarely do people like admitting this but the 50s car example I think was a good one. I think of some movies like athletes from the 50s and 60s-great then, but would get absolutely bullied nowadays. Just as sports evolve, movies evolve too. They're going to get better whether we like it or not.

But if there's one thing I've learned in life, and this crosses almost all borders-the old thing is always better than the new thing to most people. No matter what. I think it has alot to do with us feeling like we'll be harshly judged if we think the new thing is better. And lest ew be judged less of a buff than the guy next to us, that's just horrible! Blah...that's just lying to yourself.

Great for their time doesn't equal great across the board. It's how much time changes that defines certain films.

[–] JJC-3 14 years ago

You can not take a movie made in the '50's or '40's etc. and try to compare the technical features to a movie made in the current era, that is 100% ludacris.

Also if you are going to point out perceived "plot holes" as a basis for a film not holding up for the "test of time" well I got some real shocking news for you all, every film has at least one plot hole or more.

And if "fight 'em up scenes" are your "make or break" for a movie then your movie criteria for greatness is questioned in my opinion. Cause tons of the current movies use gratuitous violence to sell their product. And yeah I can already anticipate your answer with all the gangster films of the 30's, and that isn't the same cause the bad guy always paid for his crime in the end. That is not a certainty in today's movies.

Also as many "garbage films" as were made in the "old" era there are many more made today where the actors/actresses have much more freedom to pick and choose.

In the old days studios had iron clad contracts with the actor/actress and would churn out movies on an assembly line regardless of how good they were. The actor/actress had no say at all.

And you aren't going to try to even attempt to compare any current director to Hitchcock or any current actor to Cary Grant, Cause you can't, they are way above all who are out there today. And only Bogart is above Grant.

And to say any different is laughable.

[–] tronfunkinblow 14 years ago

Seriously? It's laughable to consider any current actors or directors better than Grant or Hitchcock?

The only laughable thing is how hopelessly devoted you are to them. A good case could be made for many of the actors or directors of today. Just like in 50 years when someone comes along who I don't have an affinity towards, who is equally talented, I probably won't like admitting they're as good as "my guy". I'll just have to deal with it.

Hell, I think Grant wasn't even the best option for the role. I wish James Stewart took the role, but to think there's no current actor who can do what they did is naive and ignorant.

[–] movieghoul 14 years ago

Hell, I think Grant wasn't even the best option for the role. I wish James Stewart took the role, but to think there's no current actor who can do what they did is naive and ignorant.

-------

Well, Hitchcock himself would disagree on that. Stewart badly wanted the role but Hitchcock rebuffed him with all kinds of excuses.

[–] icd_98 14 years ago

I've always wanted to make a post like this but I've been too lazy to type it out (or deal with the ensuing flame war). Kudos for stealing the words right out of my mouth.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] movieghoul 14 years ago

ryanmatch:

So have you and your dad taken in Knight and Day yet? Has to be at least 10 times better than NBN, cause it's new, right?

Actually, you'd better hurry, because it might not make it into its second week.

[–] Megn1 14 years ago

I would like to thank the original poster for his honesty. Your comments are very valid and if people could just see through the sheep mentality of the imdb ratings system, we would have a much more accurate top 250. Many great unseen films will never be in the top 250 and they deserve to be. Many people call it "blasphemy" to critisize "great" movies and directors, and its refreshing when someone like you shares their opinion honestly and illuminates it with valid reasoning.

[–] Godfather-114 14 years ago

You know its funny, I hate DaVinci paintings because they're no where near as great as photographs.

"Do you know how hard faking your own death is? Only one person has ever done it. Elvis."

[–] drstrangelove19 14 years ago

you sicken me

[–] Godfather-114 14 years ago

Me?
I was being sarcastic...

"Do you know how hard faking your own death is? Only one person has ever done it. Elvis."

[–] qofreason 14 years ago

I think this is a fair-minded review. A lot of people overlook the fact that an ounce of image is worth a pound of performance. Viewers who do not go in worshiping Hitchock and Grant will probably come emerge with a MORE objective opinion.

Some films simply do not hold up.

The score is incredible, but this production is amateruish by today's standards. Killing someone with a plane? Micheal Bay's more realistic. Look at how Grant drives drunk. How does Grant know he can just steal the car downstairs?

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.

And because they show the faces of real-looking men.

[–] Godfather-114 14 years ago

Do you know why Hitchcock chose to have him be almost killed by an airplane? Or have the assassins ride with him and his MOTHER in an elevator? Or have such a wild and insane plot? Please, there are some very fantastic essays and books on the topic of this and other Hitchcock films. You would do well to read them. Also understand why people even go to the movies. If we wanted realism we would look next door.

Concerning Michael Bay: 2 things, first what about ANY of his films is realistic? Second: theres no accounting for taste. Films are art, a form of self expression. HIS films are blockbusters. (Which are art in their own right but lets face it, they get made to make money. Hitch's films got made to tell a story, to capture emotion, to let us escape.)

"Do you know how hard faking your own death is? Only one person has ever done it. Elvis."

[–] qofreason 14 years ago

Do you know why Hitchcock chose to have him be almost killed by an airplane?

Why? Please explain. Knuckle-dragging troglodyte that I am, I just assumed Leahman & Hitchcock included it for reasons of suspense. In the commentary, Leahman says the intention was to make Thornhill's death "look like an accident," which is ridiculous. He goes on to say his reaction to the scene was "ooh, that's a mistake" because someone from the plane fires bullets. Obviously, how could it be made to look like an accident if someone is shooting at Thornhill? How easy would it have been to just have a car run him over, as the truck almost does? But I'm sure you have deep answers you've gleaned from vaguely referenced essays.

While you're at it, can you tell me why one of the truck drivers stops to urgently explain to Grant the gas tanks are going to explode. Oh, and explain why the other truck driver closes the door?

In fact:
The whole mistaken identity was clumsy. The exposition involving Grant as the wrong-man-on-the-run by the CIA(?) was clumsy. The murder at the U.N. building and Grant foolishly grabbing the knife was clumsy. In this movie characters behave this way because the plot says they must. I think it's mentioned in the trivia section, but Hitchcock sat down with Leahman and had three ideas, one of them involving the U.N. building and another Mt. Rushmore. In other words, visual set pieces -- figure out a way to get from point A to point B. Today writers, directors and producers think of ways of blowing up landmarks.

Concerning Michael Bay: 2 things, first what about ANY of his films is realistic?

And just seconds earlier you claimed realism has no import.

Second: theres no accounting for taste. Films are art, a form of self expression. HIS films are blockbusters. (Which are art in their own right but lets face it, they get made to make money. Hitch's films got made to tell a story, to capture emotion, to let us escape.)

So Hitch's films didn't get made to make money? The trivia section says Hitchcock passed over Stewart because of VERTIGO'S poor performance at the box office. Never mind that VERTIGO is his best film.

I think you need to begin justifying your claims rather than playing a film snob. Of course, doing so you risk exposure.

North by Northwest is fluff. Call it fluff with sugar on top, but it treads in spectacle and spectacle can always be outdone.

[–] rorysa 14 years ago

The strangest part of your post is not your odd opinions, to which you are entitled, but the fact that you would obtain the DVD and listen to the commentary of a film you obviously dislike.

[–] Godfather-114 14 years ago

No need to call me names like 'film snob', stranger. I was merely trying to enlighten you on a movie you criticized without researching. So let us continue without that please?
Now let me address your points:

"Why? Please explain. Knuckle-dragging troglodyte that I am, I just assumed Leahman & Hitchcock included it for reasons of suspense. In the commentary, Leahman says the intention was to make Thornhill's death "look like an accident," which is ridiculous. He goes on to say his reaction to the scene was "ooh, that's a mistake" because someone from the plane fires bullets. Obviously, how could it be made to look like an accident if someone is shooting at Thornhill? How easy would it have been to just have a car run him over, as the truck almost does? But I'm sure you have deep answers you've gleaned from vaguely referenced essays."
Quite frankly, suspense was indeed ONE of the main reasons for doing the scene in that manner. Concerning Mr. Leahman's comments on the commentary I can say nothing, I have not heard the commentary (But I find it strange that you have seeing as how you dislike the film so much.) and do not know what context in which they were said. Concerning YOUR comments about my 'deeply gleaned answers'- find them for yourself. I'm not going to hold your hand through this as we go over the film scene by scene, analyzing every detail. A trip to the library or even a simple google search will do that work for you.

"In fact: The whole mistaken identity was clumsy. The exposition involving Grant as the wrong-man-on-the-run by the CIA(?) was clumsy. The murder at the U.N. building and Grant foolishly grabbing the knife was clumsy. In this movie characters behave this way because the plot says they must. I think it's mentioned in the trivia section, but Hitchcock sat down with Leahman and had three ideas, one of them involving the U.N. building and another Mt. Rushmore. In other words, visual set pieces -- figure out a way to get from point A to point B. Today writers, directors and producers think of ways of blowing up landmarks."
First off, stating your opinions about how a set of scenes was handled as fact isnt a good way to prove your point. (I apologize if I appear to have done so but I did not mean to.) Second: I am unsure what you mean by "clumsy" Please elaborate. Third: "Today writers, directors and producers think of ways of blowing up landmarks." Again, I may be misunderstanding and I'm sorry but what on earth does that have anything to do with what we are discussing. All thoughts on modern cinema aside(but we will get to that) I do not understand what you mean here with this seemingly irrelevant statement.

"And just seconds earlier you claimed realism has no import."
I believe you meant that I said 'realism has no importance', but nevertheless. You misunderstood me here: I didnt reverse my opinion. I was addressing the fact that you seem to enjoy movies for their realism (which is ok, its your opinion I guess...) and yet Michael Bay's movies are not very realistic at all. *cough cough* The Transformers films, Armageddon, Friday The 13th remake series, The Rock, The Island, and heres one more: Bad Boys 2 *cough cough*

"So Hitch's films didn't get made to make money? The trivia section says Hitchcock passed over Stewart because of VERTIGO'S poor performance at the box office. Never mind that VERTIGO is his best film."
Hitchcock's films made alot of money, but were not made to make money. In reference to Hitchcock's decision not to cast Stewart- Hitch thought he had made a bad film. It failed at the box office. He wasnt afraid to lose money, he had made lots over the years and was continuing to make more. He didn't want to make another bad film. He stated this often and I'm sad that you interpreted other peoples reports on his actions otherwise.

With all of that addressed, I ask you to do 2 things; First, no more name calling Mr(or Mrs.) PoppyPants. Second: Please do what I asked and do a simple google search and some even simpler light reading before you respond to me with your opinions. Be careful to read from the correct sources. And By that I don't mean just people who agree with me, I mean read from experts on film and, better yet, people with firsthand knowledge. If you cannot tell the difference between the two, I'm sorry I can't help you.

[–] qofreason 14 years ago

No need to call me names like 'film snob', stranger.

I did not call you a film snob; I said you strive to fashion yourself as a film snob when you're basically an empty suit. Look at this wannabe condescending language about how you were "merely trying to enlighten" me. I asked a rather direct question about the significance of the killer plane, and how do you respond? With nothing. A reference to Google and the library? I suggested suspense, and, always the pretender, you attempted to pat me on the head and say this is ONE of the things Hitchcock was after. You're a fraud.

As for listening to the commentary, the back-story is too boring to rehearse, but since you can't be bothered to argue your position... I bought this for my mother years ago because it's one of her all-time favorite movies. I recently borrowed it, watched it, found it lacking, came here to discuss. The DVD comes with a commentary, and since I do enjoy learning from my betters, I thought I'd pay attention (Leahman is first screenwriter to ever receive the lifetime achievement Oscar). He's a giant.

His commentary kind of sucked, and I did skip around. I have also listened to Mann's commentaries for PUBLIC ENEMIES and MIAMI VICE, despite not caring for either work (which is a polite way of saying MV sucked donkey balls). In any case, I listen to commentaries for the person, not necessarily the film. If Hitchcock recorded a commentary for NxNW, then I'd listen to it.

I believe you meant that I said 'realism has no importance', but nevertheless.

I suggest you get yourself a good dictionary. Alternatively you can go to Google, or the library. Also, since we're harping on your language skills, I most certainly did not write "deeply gleaned answers." I tried overlooking that atrocity... I tried.

First off, stating your opinions about how a set of scenes was handled as fact isnt a good way to prove your point. (I apologize if I appear to have done so but I did not mean to.)

You should apologize for sounding incoherent.

Second: I am unsure what you mean by "clumsy" Please elaborate.

I think it's rather obvious to people who have watched the film. Nevertheless, I'm happy to explain, but first, reciprocity: explain the significance of the plane attack on Thornhill. I dare you.

You misunderstood me here: I didnt reverse my opinion. I was addressing the fact that you seem to enjoy movies for their realism (which is ok, its your opinion I guess...) and yet Michael Bay's movies are not very realistic at all. *cough cough* The Transformers films, Armageddon, Friday The 13th remake series, The Rock, The Island, and heres one more: Bad Boys 2 *cough cough*

Really?? Michael Bay's movies are NOT realistic? Geez, it almost seems as though I was striving for sarcasm with that comparison. As if -- and feel free to fill in the blanks here -- I compared Hitchcock against an outrageously unrealistic director for rhetorical effect.

While I'm waiting for you to B.S. some faux-profound explanation of the famous plane attack, I'll use an example from Bay's only truly good work, THE ROCK.

In the furnace room Connery explains that he has to roll past flame bursts. He has to get the timing exactly right or he's toast. So he disappears behind metal and fire and... for a moment... the Seal team feels abandoned. Then he triumphantly emerges from behind a vault-like door and says "Welcome to The Rock." Or at least that's how I remember it. It's a great scene because it's exciting, but if you think about it for two seconds, it's almost as stupid as someone trying to kill a person with a cropduster. Think about it: When Connery escaped from Alcatraz thirty years earlier, why did he need to go through the furnace? Why didn't he just walk out that big door? I think the answer is this: It would not have been exciting. And I think that perfectly explains why Thornhill is attacked by a freaking biplane.

Hitchcock's films made alot of money, but were not made to make money. In reference to Hitchcock's decision not to cast Stewart- Hitch thought he had made a bad film. It failed at the box office. He wasnt afraid to lose money, he had made lots over the years and was continuing to make more. He didn't want to make another bad film. He stated this often and I'm sad that you interpreted other peoples reports on his actions otherwise.

Are we playing spot the contradiction? If so, this is too easy.

With all of that addressed, I ask you to do 2 things; First, no more name calling Mr(or Mrs.) PoppyPants.

No, the insult began with you casting yourself as some enlightened cinephile. Behave like a jerk, and I'll call you a jerk. Oh, but you're not just a jerk. You're a not-very-bright jerk.

Second: Please do what I asked and do a simple google search and some even simpler light reading before you respond to me with your opinions. Be careful to read from the correct sources

Ah, thank you sensei. I will be sure to "read from the correct sources."

[–] Godfather-114 14 years ago

Do you have ANY reading comprehension skills whatsoever? Also, why do you keep referring to me as some cinema freak? It is true, I have a passion for movies, but that is no reason to keep being rude. I wasn't rude to you. Condescending? I probably came off that way. You see, you frustrate me greatly. You have no interest in the film and yet you want me to explain something to you that you that isn't really that complex.I just can't figure you out. And I guarantee that your reply will be another one criticizing my rhetoric (probably out of context) and complaining that I still haven't answered your question.

*sigh* You dislike the film. You are asking me to explain the film(or at least one scene). What are you getting out of this? Better yet: What am I getting out of this? Proving someone wrong on the INTERNET? Big whoop. News Flash: You are arguing an OPINION, and so am I. Now, before you misconstrue this as my giving up: I assure you, I have not. I hold true to my OPINION that North By Northwest is a fantastic film. But I also recognize the fact that you hold true to your OPINION that it is not. But anyway, here is a quick question: Why are you so passionate about this? As previously stated by both of us, you dont like this movie. Why are you on its message boards arguing with it's (obviously) idiot fans?

[–] qofreason 14 years ago

Unwilling or unable to support your opinion you continually return to attacking my motives.

And I guarantee that your reply will be another one criticizing my rhetoric (probably out of context) and complaining that I still haven't answered your question.

Have you answered my question? You have not.

You are asking me to explain the film(or at least one scene).

Yes, one scene. Let's not forget that you took it upon yourself to chastise me for daring to question this scene. You're basically Bible-thumper without a Bible. This hole film is holy to you but you can't subject it to rational scrutiny. It would be easy to say, "Yeah, the scene is rather silly, but it works for me." Nooooooooo, you have to go on and on and on about the brilliance of "Hitch."

You also keep trying to twist my insults into backhanded compliments: "You keep referring to mas some cinema freak" and then have the gall to suggest that *I* will take *you* out of context. Never mind the fact that throughout this one-sided exchange I have quoted you faithfully and you have misread me regularly.

[–] Godfather-114 14 years ago

Wow... you have addressed my question so clearly I just dont know what to say. And you didn't completely do everything I just said you would or anything like that. Woah. Well then I must concede that I am arguing with an idiot. Nay, a lazy idiot, but we've already addressed that part. Like I said, you have no reading comprehension skills and are arguing this for no clearly defined reason.

-For future reference your argumental tactics are terrible. You have continually made assumptions and done nothing but criticize MY argumental tactics. You know nothing of which you speak and complained(as I said you would) because it hasnt been explained to you and because you dislike the way I have spoken to you. You remind me of someone as pathetic as a 4chan user. I recommend to you a book called 'The Art Of War', by Sun Tzu. Facinating read and may help to, well, fix whatever is wrong with you.

"Do you know how hard faking your own death is? Only one person has ever done it. Elvis."

[–] qofreason 14 years ago

Wow... you have addressed my question so clearly I just dont know what to say. And you didn't completely do everything I just said you would or anything like that. Woah. Well then I must concede that I am arguing with an idiot. Nay, a lazy idiot, but we've already addressed that part. Like I said, you have no reading comprehension skills and are arguing this for no clearly defined reason.

You're so full of it. More time-wasting blather. You have made specific claims and refused to back them up.

-For future reference your argumental tactics are terrible. You have continually made assumptions and done nothing but criticize MY argumental tactics.

"Argumental tactics" -- brilliant. You're a tryhard -- "nay," worse than that -- a tryhard who sounds like a crappy Bond villain.

[–] Godfather-114 14 years ago

Frustrated a bit, 'qofreason'?

"Do you know how hard faking your own death is? Only one person has ever done it. Elvis."

[–] Godfather-114 14 years ago

[–] sly_stallones_downstairs_face 14 years ago

Its difficult for a film such as this to age badly as the dialogue is so snappy. The only limitations back when it was created are in the technology used(limited in comparison to today.) As far as storytelling, character development et al it excels in every department.