Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Lead Spencer Tracy had recently led an exploration expedition into darkest Africa, in "Stanley and Livingstone". Now, with similar bravado, he leads a military expedition through the wilderness, from Crown Point, on Lake Champlain, to the French Canadian- Abanaki village of St. Francis, whose warriors had been raiding settlers in the New England frontier. The screenplay is based upon the novel of the same title, which was based on history. It was filmed in gorgeous Technicolor: the first Tracy film given the color treatment. Part was filmed in the MGM studio and part in the mountains of Idaho.I noticed something unusual in the main characters included. Tracy was the dramatic lead, while Robert Young was the fictional romantic lead: with an aristocratic bearing, who had spent some time at Harvard before being kicked out. He was a painter, made maps for Rogers during the expedition, and was probably one of the few literate members of the expedition. In the film "Hudson's Bay", released the following year, we have a very similar situation. The screenplay is mostly about traveling around in the Canadian wilderness in the 1600s, collecting furs. Paul Muni is the roguish historical dramatic lead, while John Sutton, as his fictional aristocratic companion, is the romantic lead. In both films, a fictional female lead is present. Why was a fictional romantic lead teamed with the man of action? In both cases, the actor playing the romantic lead was in his early 30s vs. 40s for the man of action, and was more handsome. Thus, by reason of age, looks, and lack of aristocratic bearing, the dramatic lead was deemed a poor match for the beautiful, aristocratic, female lead. Also, the man of action was too restless, moving around in the wilderness most of the time, to settle down with a wife. Another interesting tidbit I discovered: The female lead's character was named Elizabeth Browne, which was also the maiden name of the wife of the real Robert Rogers!While on the subject of women, there were 2 European women captives in St. Francis. The older one, who hadn't been there so long, was glad to be rescued, while the younger one, who had been captured when a girl, and was now a teen, thought of herself as an Abanaki, thus resisted being "liberated". This was a typical contrast among females captured by 'Indians'.In St. Francis, we see many Abanaki warriors killed. Rogers claimed abut 200 Abanaki were killed. But the French reported that only about 30, all women and children were killed, as the men were all out on a raid. Since Rogers reported losing about 100 men on the expedition, if the French information is close to correct, this was a pyrrhic victory, although the number of settlers killed in raids did decline after St. Francis was burned. Reportedly, Rogers often exaggerated his accomplishments. Otherwise, the screenplay is remarkably faithful(for a Hollywood film) to the historical details.Rogers was next assigned to the mid-Great Lakes region, where he captured Detroit, as well as other French outposts. Later, he did send several parties to look for a northwest passage to Asia. But, he gradually spiraled into debt and alcoholism, thus played only a very minor and chaotic part in The Revolutionary War, mostly siding with the British. I have to wonder whether, at the subliminal level, the Abanaki are supposed to represent Nazi Germany, as I have proposed is relevant to several Errol Flynn films of this era. This one differs from the Flynn films, in that it is tightly based on a historical incident.The anticipated telling of Roger's adventures in the mid and western Great Lakes region in a sequel film was cancelled. Thus, the title given to this film makes no sense. The title of this review would have been much more appropriate, perhaps shortened to Roger's Rangers.I give this film a high rating for historical accuracy, quality of presentation, and entertainment value. See it. You will never forget it. I think Tracy should have received The Best Actor Oscar, but he had already taken home several Oscars in the last few years. Perhaps the film should have taken home an Oscar, as well.

Spencer Tracy (as Major Rogers) gets Robert Young (as Langdon) and Walter Brennan (as Hunk) drunk, so they'll become members of his Colonial American Rangers, and head for the "Northwest Passage" of the title. Along the way, they kill many Indians (aka Native Americans).The photography is the film's main attraction. This must have seemed like a grand classic when released in 1940; however, the epic quality has been equaled many times, and this film doesn't have enough other qualities to maintain classic status. Mr. Young's painting and Mr. Brennan's teeth are not characterization traits to last through the ages. Mr. Tracy performs well, as usual; however, his Rangers look a little old, as a whole, to be making this journey.The most exciting scenes are when the Rangers burn an Indian village, and wipe out its inhabitants. Watch for it in the middle of the film, not the end. Be warned, though - it's a visceral slaughter. Addison Richards (as Ranger Crofton) is particularly sadistic; later, he gets his turn... ***** Northwest Passage (2/20/40) King Vidor ~ Spencer Tracy, Robert Young, Walter Brennan, Ruth Hussey

I saw this during the Spencer Tracy tribute on Aug. 18 on Turner Classic Movies. Ironically, that date is the birthdate of Meriwether Lewis (1774.) Much of the action in this film mirrors the toils and turmoils of the Lewis and Clark Expedition which occurred less than 50 years from the time of this story. When you see the men malnourished, facing difficult portages, battling mosquitoes and having to wade through cold water for long stretches, fearing Indian attacks constantly, you have some ideas of the challenges facing the Corps of Discovery. Their co-leader, Lewis (Actually, he officially outranked Clark during their trip, because Clark's orders promoting him to captain equal to Lewis didn't arrive before their departure) had a career that had much in common with Maj. Rogers. Like Rogers, he was a brilliant leader and his men followed him loyally to the end. Both men toiled along with the men and consulted their junior officers and men before making difficult life-or-death decisions. Both were hailed as great heroes by the public and government they represented after their marvelous feats of derring-do, but both came to bad ends. Rogers sided with the British during the Revolutionary War and his Rangers eventually became a Canadian outfit and he never was able to achieve his mission of finding the Northwest Passage, although as Tracy says in the film, he may have had little faith in there actually being such a water route. Lewis also never saw his extensive journals of his expedition come to be published, dying mysteriously in a Tennessee travelers' inn a few years after arriving home from that epic trip, which was charged with also trying to find the elusive Passage. Langdon's summary quote about Rogers could also apply to Lewis, as American adventurers since then carry his spirit of discovery with them, even into outer space. This film has always been one of my favorites. As a lover of westerns, I can enjoy many of the familiar elements: an arduous journey over breathtakingly beautiful but perilous land and water, battles with Indians, men and women of unflinching courage. I'm lucky enough to live in a part of the northwestern U.S. where some of the film footage was shot, which was only a little more than a hundred miles from the same part of Idaho which had proved so difficult to the Lewis and Clark expedition. In fact, this film and COME AND GET IT (1936), also featuring Walter Brennan in his first Oscar-winning role, were the first two films made in this part of the Northwest (specifically, northern Idaho) to achieve Academy Award nominations and NORTHWEST PASSAGE had some great photography which was so honored. If you've never traveled to the Northwest, I urge you to do so. And I urge you to see NORTHWEST PASSAGE. In either case, you'll enjoy the trip. Dale Roloff

Northwest passage is one of those films that your parents probably watched when they were growing up. Despite having seen it or parts of it many times over the years its still very entertaining. Like other classics of it's times, DODGE CITY, ROBIN HOOD etc that has been given the Technicolor Hollywood treatment of the late 1930's, for what ever reason Northwest passage stands out as being the best. Watching it in 2006 almost 60 years after it was made on a digital plasma wide-screen one can really appreciate the efforts that went into filming this back in the 1930's as well as the work gone into keeping it restored.As for the movie, some of the rangers looked to be a bit long in the tooth to be credible rangers, a bit old, scrawny and tired looking but perhaps it only enhanced the disheveled appearance that you might expect after such a long treks. Ironically, it's the tension throughout the movie keeps you on your toes because it's really not that violent. There is one major battle and that's it, for a move that is well over two hours long it's not really that much, but it's worth watching it for the cinema photography, the atmosphere as well as the scenery alone. However, if that's not going to keep your attention you'll find Spencer Tracy at his finest. Although Robert Young and Walter Brennan are fine in support, Tracy just steals the show as the enthusiastic tough as nails ranger ready to conquer North America.I say conquer, he's not a raving maniac that is just out to kill, he'll fight if he has too, but its' discovering routs and new territory that's important to him. He commands respect not through fear but through admiration. There is nothing he asks his men to do that he is not prepared to do himself. If it's not going without food, or hauling a boat over a mountain he's the first link in a human chain trying to cross a swollen river riddled with rapids. He shows no fear but he's not reckless and is not looking to kill the enemy just for the sake of it. Discipline is important but the safety of the expedition as a whole is paramount, he wont slow down his troop and endanger it by carrying a wounded man.(Interesting thought, no medivac helicopter ready to swoop in and take out a casualty).He has courage demands loyalty but is prepared to listen to his junior officers when they want to split up despite his reservations(which apparently they are entitled to do)he acquiesces. He rallied his command to go on at every opportunity and encourages them when in doubt with resolve as well as humor. He certainly understands his responsibility as leader. At the end of the movie when he is addressing the new expedition he delivers it with humor that clearly motivates the men into relishing the challenge, I was almost sorry I couldn't go along as well! (Note:one of these days I'll have to try drinking rum and hot water with brown sugar and butter added!)