# Am I alone in not really enjoying most old ("classic") movies? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 20, 2010, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078 "2010-05-20T00:44:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078/121 "2010-05-22T20:11:00Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > My belief is simple: Watch whatever you enjoy. If you like old movies better, watch old movies. If you like new movies better, watch new movies. Don’t feel you have to convince other people that you choice is the right one. > > It’s like arguing about your favorite color. Just because I like green, doesn’t mean you’re wrong to like red and I need to convince you green is actually the better color. I agree 100%. The discussion arises when people make sweeping statements that old movies aren’t as good because the acting was fake, or the censor was too powerful, or whatever. When people take responsibility for their own opinions rather than justify them by disparaging whatever they don’t like–and then extrapolating it to generalizations about other things–that’s when argument ensues. A person’s preference for one era of movies over another is a statement about that person and their opinions; it is NOT a statement about the movies in question. Too often here, though, it is stated as such. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078/122 "2010-05-22T20:14:44Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > I don’t have a problem with the list but the massive screed preceding it is just too long. > > . . . . . . > > I do wish he had told us _why_ he selected each film. These statements do not add up. 😃 For what it’s worth, he has actually done just that: many of the films he lists can be found in this newspaper’s film review archive, with capsules written by Rosenbaum. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078/123 "2010-05-22T20:20:18Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > But–he chose _An Affair to Remember_, perhaps because it’s the less saccharine inspiration for _Sleepless in Seattle_. Didn’t he know that [Love Affair](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Affair_(1939_film)) was the less saccharine inspiration for _Affair to Remember_? Of course he is. Both films were made by the same director, Leo McCarey. It’s his opinion that McCarey’s second version was stylistically more mature. And what some see as saccharine, others see as melodrama–which is not inherently a bad thing. Emotional intensity can make what would otherwise be a bland movie great. McCarey’s second version has some of that postwar melodrama that Sirk made such masterworks with. Anyway, again, just another example of how impossible it would be for anyone–you, me, MTCicero–to go100/100 on ANYONE’s list. Maybe R’baum’s list works better for me BECAUSE it’s so personal and idiosyncratic, while the AFI list feels so much like the bland product of a committee that it is. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078/124 "2010-05-22T20:20:57Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > “Seemed more concerned”? “Wants people to be impressed with him”? What kind of mindreading bullshit is that? It’s no kind of mindreading bullshit at all; rather, it’s drawing inferences from an author’s text, an entirely valid pursuit. That said, I appreciate your offering the list. It’s probably not to my tastes–the two movies I’ve seen on the list (Nutty Professor and Cat People) left me cold–but it’s an interesting alternative to AFI’s list. And I disagree with people suggesting the author of that piece is a hipster douche; he’s certainly allowed to like whatever he wants without throwing my taste or his into question. For myself, I didn’t like old movies until I was about twenty, and I checked out _The Maltese Falcon_ to broaden my horizons. And I freakin’ LOVED it: watching the dialogue between Bogart and Astor, my head was snapping back and forth as if I were watching a tennis match, and I had a big goofy delighted grin on my face throughout. I still have a crush on Bogart, and when I see a modern movie that recalls this sort of dialogue (e.g., Iron Man, Down with Love), it’s a real pleasure. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078/125 "2010-05-22T20:38:47Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > It’s no kind of mindreading bullshit at all; rather, it’s drawing inferences from an author’s text, an entirely valid pursuit. > > That said, I appreciate your offering the list. It’s probably not to my tastes–the two movies I’ve seen on the list (Nutty Professor and Cat People) left me cold–but it’s an interesting alternative to AFI’s list. And I disagree with people suggesting the author of that piece is a hipster douche; he’s certainly allowed to like whatever he wants without throwing my taste or his into question. > > For myself, I didn’t like old movies until I was about twenty, and I checked out _The Maltese Falcon_ to broaden my horizons. And I freakin’ LOVED it: watching the dialogue between Bogart and Astor, my head was snapping back and forth as if I were watching a tennis match, and I had a big goofy delighted grin on my face throughout. I still have a crush on Bogart, and when I see a modern movie that recalls this sort of dialogue (e.g., Iron Man, Down with Love), it’s a real pleasure. If you like Astor, my favorite performance of hers is in _ **Palm Beach Story** _, where she plays an eternally amused society dame who collects and discards husbands out of boredom. And of course she’s the heart at the center of one of my alltime favorite movies, _ **Meet Me in St. Louis.** _ I think of her as being like Katherine Hepburn–always able to completely inhabit the role she’s in–only better: she was more versatile, and played \*femmes fatales \*just as well as she played society dames. I’d be interested to hear if you ever revisit _ **Cat People** _. It was definitely a B-movie–that was literally what it was made for. So it’s story, and most of the performances, are weak. But as an exercise in atmosphere–something I for one was far less likely to notice when I was younger–it’s nearly unparalleled. Nearly: personally I’d pick _ **I Walked with a Zombie** _, by the same director (Jacques Tourneur) over _ **Cat People** _ any day. And please don’t dismiss the list for those two titles. If I reordered it according to my own taste, \*\*\*The Nutty Professor \*\*\*would be near the bottom, and _ **Cat People** _ would probably be in the lower third. That said, I’m glad I’ve seen TNP. While I don’t find it all that enjoyable, I do “get” what Dave Kehr is saying about it, c&p’ed from this newspaper: > [@](#): > > Jerry Lewis’s _ **Persona** _, and in some ways a more honest film (1963). Lewis is Dr. Julius Kelp, an absentminded chemist who invents a potion that turns him into the irresistible Buddy Love, a character bearing a not wholly coincidental resemblance to Dean Martin. Even if you don’t find Lewis funny (strangely enough, I sometimes do), _ **The Nutty Professor** _ has to stand as one of the most intense investigations of self ever put on film, a technically impeccable work of inspired megalomania. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078/126 "2010-05-22T20:49:49Z")
I confess I am appalled that some find _Casablanca_ boring or not worthy of watching. IMO, that opinion shows a certain lack of open-mindedness. Of course it’s not the world’s greatest movie: there are better plots; there is better cinematography, direction etc, but as was said upthread, this movie is about reclaimed faith in the nobility of Man. AND it has fantastic acting and intelligent, subtle dialogue. What’s not to appreciate or like? We can argue all day about what makes a “classic”. Some are saying it’s the quality of the film; others are stating it’s an era; still others insist a film needs critical acclaim to make it so. It’s all and any of these, really. _Captain Blood_, _Casablanca_,\* Kinds Hearts And Coronets\*, hell, Hope and Crosby’s Road pics, may not meet all qualifications (or any), but they’ve stood the test of time and _people are still entertained by them_–a salient point that most film snobs seem to lose sight of, but that’s another thread entirely. 🙂 Compared to old black and white films, I find most movies today to be incredibly boring, dumbed down to the nth degree and playing to the lowest common denominator of humor/fear/anger/shock. In contrast to what has been said here, I think most contemporary films spend too much time on exposition. Even the trailers give entire plots away. And it would seem that Hollywood has run out of creative ideas and is now in the business of remaking old movies or basing new films on on TV shows (do we really need a remake of _The Karate Kid_? or _The A Team_?) I think some people just don’t want to do the work needed to fully enjoy older film. The syntax and vocabulary is different than today (usually more sophisticated); body language and gestures/movement/actor positioning signified important things in older films. Lighting (especially in b&w) was crucial, and soundtracks were more than a way to tout the next CD. If you don’t want to put in effort, that’s fine: your leisure time is yours to spend how you want. But don’t decry what you don’t appreciate. I am not saying that those who don’t like older films are stupid or narrow minded; everyone has different tastes. (I don’t like opera, for example, but I understand I’m cutting myself off from a large segment of culture and entertainment). What I “hear” from those who dislike old movies here, though, is “they were shite, anyway, so I’m not missing anything”. Yes, you are. It’s one thing to realize something has cultural importance and value and not enter into it. It’s another to dismiss the very foundations of the entertainment you now enjoy and laud as unnecessary and primitive (“fluffier”–wth?). There is a self-centeredness to that POVwhich is breath-taking in its arrogance. We could go back and forth (and of course there are quality films made today, just as there was total dreck made back in the b&w days) forever. We could all compile lists of our own classics and then point fingers and laugh at one another etc. But there is this: aren’t we all glad we have the choice? Thank god for the existence of Hollywood for the last 100 years (roughly). We can all watch what we want to watch. That alone is amazing. To think I never, ever have to see a Freddy Krueger movie and that there is my counterpart who is avidly awaiting the next one is wonderful, IMO. Just don’t ask me to sit through what you consider entertainment and I won’t make you watch _The Easter Parade._ ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078/127 "2010-05-22T21:55:23Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > If you like Astor, my favorite performance of hers is in _ **Palm Beach Story** _, where she plays an eternally amused society dame who collects and discards husbands out of boredom. And of course she’s the heart at the center of one of my alltime favorite movies, _ **Meet Me in St. Louis.** _ I think of her as being like Katherine Hepburn–always able to completely inhabit the role she’s in–only better: she was more versatile, and played \*femmes fatales \*just as well as she played society dames. Those both sound like my kind of fun; thanks for the recommendations! > [@](#): > > I’d be interested to hear if you ever revisit _ **Cat People** _. It was definitely a B-movie–that was literally what it was made for. So it’s story, and most of the performances, are weak. But as an exercise in atmosphere–something I for one was far less likely to notice when I was younger–it’s nearly unparalleled. Nearly: personally I’d pick _ **I Walked with a Zombie** _, by the same director (Jacques Tourneur) over _ **Cat People** _ any day. Hmm…my main memory of that is a scene that’s supposed to be extraordinarily creepy, in which a girl turning into a cat person flings a parakeet into a lion’s cage or something. Except she throws it exactly like a frisbee, and my then-girlfriend and I broke up laughing over the scene. The whole thing was just so ridiculous that I had trouble suspending disbelief. There are other movies who excel in creepy atmosphere (e.g., The Shining, The Haunting, Let the Right One In); this one just didn’t do it for me. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078/128 "2010-05-22T22:52:18Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Those both sound like my kind of fun; thanks for the recommendations! > > Hmm…my main memory of that is a scene that’s supposed to be extraordinarily creepy, in which a girl turning into a cat person flings a parakeet into a lion’s cage or something. Except she throws it exactly like a frisbee, and my then-girlfriend and I broke up laughing over the scene. The whole thing was just so ridiculous that I had trouble suspending disbelief. There are other movies who excel in creepy atmosphere (e.g., The Shining, The Haunting, Let the Right One In); this one just didn’t do it for me. Yes, the movie has some serious, serious weak spots. But for an appreciation of how creatively–and cheaply–Tourneur achieves high atmosphere on a low budget, check out _ **The Bad and the Beautiful** _, a behind-the-scenes Hollywood soaper\* where the making of a thinly disguised _ **Cat People** _ is appropriated to show how creative–and cheap–Kirk Douglas’s character is. \*Again, a melodrama, but a great, great movie by Vincente Minnelli. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078/129 "2010-05-22T23:13:26Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Plotholes? Perhaps a thread comparing the different types of disbelief different movies require us to suspend might be interesting, but most plots have fallacies of one kind or another. Those in Casablanca don’t get in the way. “Some snapping dialog” is a gross understatement; you can take any 2-minute segment of Casablanca and find more “snap” than in many entire modern movies, unless childish American-style “snap” is your thing. And I’m not expert on “wooden acting”, but I’d take Humphrey over many of today’s box-office actors. The “letters of transit,” “issued by General de Gaulle,” “cannot be recinded, even questioned.” Although they are the central plot device in the film, they make no sense; it is clear (as should be obvious) that nothing issued by de Gaulle is going to be worth wax paper in Nazi-controlled Vichy France territory, and it doesn’t stop Strasser from trying to call his boys to stop them from escaping. Never mind that Lazlo is on the run; he doesn’t send his siren of a wife on forward, and avoid attracting attention by meeting up with a known Resistance member at one of Casablanca’s hot spots, and subsequently pointlessly humiliating the Strasser and his exaggerated group of cartoon Nazis, bringing more attention upon himself. What he’s going to do in America to support the Resistance is anyone’s guess (he’d be better off going to London), but he scarcely seems to be the key charismatic figure upon which hinges the future of the Resistance. Of course, a lack of logic isn’t a death knell for an otherwise enjoyable film, but it also does open the door for legitimate criticism by those who enjoy a story for its plot elements. (And despite the claims that Renault actually said, “General Weyland”, I’ve listened to the soundtrack at slow speed and he is clearly saying “de Gaulle.”) I’m unclear what “childish American-style ‘snap’” is supposed to mean; _Casablanca_, despite being directed by a Hungarian, is most certainly an American film, made within the Hollywood studio system (at Warner Bros.) by contract players and primarily written by a notable American screenwriting team (the Epstein brothers). It is almost quintessentially American of its era, both in dialogue and tone; cheery, optimistic, a little shallow and dismissive in its portrayal of “foreigners”, and ultimately a little tinny and unrealistic about the consequences. Bogart did not think much of his own acting ability–his range was notably limited, and he was the first to acknowledge it. For the most part in his career (and this was certainly true in _Casablanca_) he played up his own cynical, wisecracking dry wit, and parts that he took were rewritten to emphasize this. It’s an entertaining film, but there is no objective reason it should be held up to be the finest film ever made. There are far better films in any measurable sense, even some made in the last ten or twenty years. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078/130 "2010-05-22T23:31:30Z")
> [@](#): > > “Seemed more concerned”? “Wants people to be impressed with him”? What kind of mindreading bullshit is that? And even if it were true–which, if you’ve read enough Rosenbaum to get his tone, you’d know it’s not–it’s irrelevant to the content of the list. The list itself is a treasure trove of titles you just don’t see mentioned anywhere else. > > (Another example of how tone is valued over content at the Dope. The value of what you say here is completely irrelevant unless you can say it in a way that will make each individual who reads it feel warm inside.) It’s not mindreading. I read the article and that’s the impression I got from it. And to be quite frank, lissener, you have more than a touch of the same (as your post which I quoted would indicate). If people don’t agree with you, it’s not just a matter of different opinions. It’s because we’re too shallow to appreciate the inner depths that you see. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078/131 "2010-05-22T23:46:13Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If people don’t agree with you, it’s not just a matter of different opinions. It’s because we’re too shallow to appreciate the inner depths that you see. Huh. I never thought that (and certainly never said anything that could even be loosely interpreted as implying it–I await your cite to the contrary), so if that’s what your mindreading is picking up, you should adjust the squelch or something. My mindreading take? You’re projecting that I’m trying to make you feel inadequate _because you feel inadequate_. But nothing to do with me. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078/132 "2010-05-22T23:46:58Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > It’s an entertaining film, but there is no objective reason it should be held up to be the finest film ever made. There are far better films in any measurable sense, even some made in the last ten or twenty years. Talking of objective reasons and measurable senses by which art may be evaluated reminds me of **Dead Poets Society** , which is in no subjective or intuitive sense a great movie, but at least got this point dead on :). That said, I certainly have found some movies from the last decade or two to be superior to **Casablanca**. **Let the Right One In** has stuck with me more, and I’m sure I could think of others if I weren’t so tired. But “best movie evar” isn’t a standard I’m at all interested in. I’m just interested in Casablanca as a movie full of humor, full of romance, and full of Bogart. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078/133 "2010-05-23T01:53:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Huh. I never thought that (and certainly never said anything that could even be loosely interpreted as implying it–I await your cite to the contrary), so if that’s what your mindreading is picking up, you should adjust the squelch or something. My mindreading take? You’re projecting that I’m trying to make you feel inadequate because you feel inadequate. But nothing to do with me. Are you serious? Why on earth would I feel inadequate around you? What have you ever done that was special? ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078/134 "2010-05-23T02:35:54Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It’s not mindreading. I read the article and that’s the impression I got from it. > > And to be quite frank, lissener, you have more than a touch of the same (as your post which I quoted would indicate). If people don’t agree with you, it’s not just a matter of different opinions. It’s because we’re too shallow to appreciate the inner depths that you see. > [@lissener](#): > > Huh. I never thought that (and certainly never said anything that could even be loosely interpreted as implying it–I await your cite to the contrary), so if that’s what your mindreading is picking up, you should adjust the squelch or something. My mindreading take? You’re projecting that I’m trying to make you feel inadequate _because you feel inadequate_. But nothing to do with me. Both of you – and anyone else tempted to get into it – please leave personalities out of it, please. If you must go after each other, do it in the Pit. Thanks, **twickster** , Cafe Society moderator ---
**Author:** ![OpalCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8edcca/32.png) [@OpalCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OpalCat)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078/135 "2010-05-23T05:07:59Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > What I “hear” from those who dislike old movies here, though, is “they were shite, anyway, so I’m not missing anything”. I hope you’re not including me in that group. ---
**Author:** ![MTCicero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a4c791/32.png) [@MTCicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MTCicero)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078/136 "2010-05-23T05:08:12Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Yeah, because my exchange with every other of the many persons I’ve disagreed with has taken the same tone. > > You didn’t disagree with me. In order to undercut an offering I made to try to help people cut through the garbage and find some great movies, rather than take responsibility for your own opinions and explain why you personally disagreed with the list, you justified it by character assassination. By mindreading, and telling us the secret motivations of the list’s author. As the rest of this thread will show you, I have zero problem with civil disagreements. > > And then, you accuse me of a personal attack based solely on my disagreeing with you, right after you disparage Rosenbaum’s motivations solely because you disagree with him. > > As far as calling him a contrarian based on this article, did you read the article? It is acknowledged to be contrarian in nature. It’s offered as an alternative to the AFI 100–it’s specifically a list of films that did NOT appear on that list. And as far as his excluding the Godfather films, did you read the article? He said that since he agreed with the inclusion of a number of films on the AFI list, rather than “approve” those, he’d simply create his own list. How much more pompous would it have been of him to OK some of the films, then add his own? To “correct” the AFI list, rather than simply offer an alternative? It seems to me his motivations were the opposite that you ascribe. > > But still, for you to dismiss him as dishonest and contrarian simply because you hold different opinions on some of the films is far worse on your part than anything you’ve accused him of. You don’t like The Nutty Professor? For what it’s worth, it took me a couple screenings to get an inkling of what he valued in it. But even then, my opinion of that movie is probably closer to yours than to his. Do I disagree with him on some of the titles on his list? Of course I do. How unlikely that ANY movie buff would agree 100/100 with anyone else’s list? > > Your need to turn this negative, seemingly for roughly the same reasons you accuse him of, rather than simply saying “Well I don’t like a lot of these, and I wish he’d included these others,” and made it about your own opinion rather than your diagnoses of his motivations, is childish. > > It’s too bad you don’t have the confidence in your own opinions to defend them on their own merit, but must instead attempt to undercut the character of those whose opinions you disagree with, because you’re obviously intelligent and experienced enough to have interesting opinions. > > Bottom line, dude, that was just rude. I offered a positive attempt to give people a starting point in exploring older movies. And instead of saying “I disagree with this or that choice, but . . .” you had to undermine my “offering” with ad hominem reasons to dismiss the entire list as without value. That seemed extremely rude to me, hence my personal reaction. > > Now I vote we put this hijack to sleep. Dude. You tend to take things a little too seriously. Aaand that’s the last time I’ll engage you. (In this thread, anyway.) ---
**Author:** ![MTCicero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a4c791/32.png) [@MTCicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MTCicero)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078/137 "2010-05-23T05:12:01Z")
Redacted. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078/138 "2010-05-23T05:16:03Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Actually, over the grand scheme of old movies, \*\*\*Casablanca \*\*\*is not really very good. I’m not sure why it’s found its way through the erosion of time that left many other, better, movies by the wayside–some cultural hook it found itself anchored to–but while it’s not a \*bad \*movie, it’s certainly nowhere near the best of its kind. > > Check out \*\*\*Gilda \*\*\*for a similar but, IMO, more entertaining movie. It’s like _ **Casablanca** _–triangles and WWII espionage in a third-world Casino–but with a sense of humor. (\*\*\*Gilda \*\*\*is available through Netflix streaming.) Gilda rules. As does The Third Man. Some nice movies listed in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![MTCicero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a4c791/32.png) [@MTCicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MTCicero)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078/139 "2010-05-23T05:21:09Z")
Sorry about post #136. After I’d read **Twickster** ’s admonition to stay on topic or movie to the Pit, it was too late to edit it. Apologies to **Opal Cat** for continuing to derail her thread. Won’t happen again. ---
**Author:** ![Autolycus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@Autolycus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autolycus)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078/140 "2010-05-23T05:50:24Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It’s like arguing about your favorite color. Just because I like green, doesn’t mean you’re wrong to like red and I need to convince you green is actually the better color. No, green is objectively the best color. Geniuses like green. Wasn’t that from a movie? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-alone-in-not-really-enjoying-most-old-classic-movies/540078.md?page=8)