MovieChat Forums > Rope (1948) Discussion > Does this film hold up?

Does this film hold up?

posted 11 years ago by hawsman2-1
37 replies | jump to latest

I'm exploring a lot of older/classic movies as I'm looking to expand my tastes in cinema, but over the course of this experiment, I find it's really a toss up on some of the greats on whether or not they hold up. I loved 12 Angry Men, but Casablanca made me fall asleep (I didn't outright hate it of course, but literally falling asleep doesn't rate well). Psycho left me wanting too and that's Hitchcock's best known work.

So does this film hold up well, or does the high score just reflect the score it deserved at the time it was made?

[–] sanjay_kn 11 years ago

this movie is exceptional and way a head of even todays times.
worth a watch. All hitch films are a treat.
you must start with a bang north by northwest, vertigo,rear window, birds, rebecca, life boat,rope,strangers on a train and more.

[–] sanjay_kn 11 years ago

oh cant miss psycho. well if you do not like casa then try the treasure of siera madre( one of the all time great films), how about lawrence of arabia? try cains mutiny! try elia kazaan too!I can go on and on

[–] SteveMoonlightAllaby 11 years ago

Yes it does. It is very entertaining and a must see!

[–] mmitsos-1 11 years ago

You should also see "Shadow of a Doubt" (Hitchcock's favorite) and "Notorious"....they're both superb.

But how you managed to fall asleep during "Casablanca", I don't know. There must be something wrong with you!

And, for another non-Hitchcockian classic with yet again an exquisitely stunning Ingrid Bergman and very entertaining story, see "Gaslight", if you haven't done so already.

[–] urbanspaceman 11 years ago

I was over 50 yoa the first time I watched Casablanca and I fell asleep like that other guy. It happens. Seen it many times since then, it always seems fresh.

As for "Gaslight", I recommend you check out the original British (1940) version starring Anton Walbrook and Diana Wyngard. It's superior to the Hollywood version in every way. Turner shows it from time to time.

[–] rpartrid-2 11 years ago

just watched it and I who have to say no it does not stand the test of time - the acting is stilted and over the top; high melodrama which doesn't work anymore; contrived plot full of holes; glacial pace - not in my opinion one of Hitchcock's best

[–] liching1 11 years ago

*****SPOLIERS****

It's fun to watch but it is dated --- especially pay attention to Jimmy Stewart's speech after opening the trunk ---comes out just like a stage play from the 1920's. "Overwrought" I think it the word.

[–] rpartrid-2 11 years ago

perfect word

[–] rpartrid-2 11 years ago

i've read several reviews and the word "stunt" is used to describe the - single set no music confined setting and I thought of two other stunt movies - Lady in the Lake (lead actor is the camera) and The Thief (no words). Both films were critical and public failures - can you think of any other "stunt" films?

[–] cmbrower 11 years ago

It's the "rating" given at the time the movie was made. So the standards we have now, are much higher.

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

"It`s the "rating" given at the time the movie was made".

So the IMDb users as well as critics magically travelled back in time to 1948 and judged it from there, unaware of cinema in years to come?

"So the standards we have now, are much higher".

Naturalism is not necessarily better than the more expressionistic stylings of the old; I`ve probably seen more great films from the 1940`s than from the 21st century.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] cmbrower 11 years ago

I was referring to the original ratings / stars given the movie when it was originally released.I agree that the movies from the 40's are truly classics......What I meant was standards that today's critics set for our current movies are much higher than they were in the 1940's. No time travelling necessary.

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

I have no idea how the critics received Rope when it first came out. However, the IMDb users that have given it a rating of 8,0/10, as well as professional critics whose opinion adds up to a 97% freshness rate on Rotten Tomatoes, most definitely did not cast their votes from 1948 - and there`s no reason to think they did not weigh Rope against contemporary films the same as the films of the past.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 9 years ago

Excuse me, but IMDB ratings are current by current IMDB users not by people from 1948.

Fyi, IMDB wasn't around in 1948.

Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel

[–] PrimeMinisterOfTheSinister 11 years ago

"just watched it and I who have to say no it does not stand the test of time - the acting is stilted and over the top; high melodrama which doesn't work anymore; contrived plot full of holes; glacial pace - not in my opinion one of Hitchcock's best"

I just watched it for the first time and I agree with that. My problem with pre-70's movies is the acting style and dialogue. They're more like stage plays than movies. I think this movie holds up just a bit better than most, but it still suffers from those problems.

[–] mikeemano17 11 years ago

This movie is based on a stage play... Hitchcock was the first director to make a film look like one take. If you felt it was like a theatre play then that's exactly what he wanted to do. Once you break the film down it's a great film even though it's 65 yrs old

[–] hal1900 11 years ago

I have just watched this film, after seeing that it was in the IMDB Top 250, and realising that Stewart was in it. Technically it is accomplished for its time - in particular, the long camera takes and the window backdrop that reflects the mood as the scene develops. There are also some stand-out moments, particularly, Stewart's horror on opening the box, and his subsequent speech.

I have to say, I am totally confounded by the high rating. To me, the premise was contrived, the characters' behaviour was unrealistic and the dialogue was not as intellectual as the writers obviously believed it to be.

I would urge anyone who has rated this movie to see the film Laura (1944), which has a similar theme and is artistically brilliant (the lighting), and give it an IMDB rating too. If Rope deserves to be in the Top 250 (although, personally, I don't think it should), then Laura ought to be there, and at a higher position.

~~
All-time favourites list: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur4091935/boards/profile
~~

[–] dmny92 10 years ago

I wanted to thank you for the recommendation, Laura looks like a movie for my taste.

I enjoyed Rope and I think it holds up well (since that was the question on this thread) but I definitely feel it's on the weaker side of Hitchcock's movies, at least what I watched so far. Not as an achievement, but it didn't entertain me as much as Rear Window or Dial M for Murder.