You’re going to have to answer to the Coca-Cola company.
Sorry it didn’t float your boat. It is one of the best movies ever made. And funny. But we can’t have any fighting over it, this is the war room after all.
“Gentlemen! You can’t fight in here! This is the war room!”
I just like to say that whenever I get a chance. It’s such a great line. 
That is a great line, but I’d heard it before.
I’m not saying that if you’re Canadian you can’t understand it, just giving outsiders an out if they don’t. We had bombers and felt kinda good about it. You had to dig Diefenbunkers.
It was very surprising to me in that it didn’t hold up very well.
It was directed by the fabulous Stanley Kubrick and it was great when I first saw it in 1964. But I have to agree that if seen for the first time today, it would be very disappointing. Most of his other films have held up very well. I encourage you to check some of them out.
Too bad you can’t time travel and see it back in 1964. It was really hilarious back then.
ETA: in other words, when your neighbor is a nuclear superpower, you may not really want to just bask in its glow.
If you enjoyed Sterling Hayden, you should see some of his B&W dramas,
He was the star of some truly great dramas:
The Killing (one of the truly great Stanley Kubrick films) rated 8.1
The Asphalt Jungle rated 7.9
Clearly De Gustibus non disputandem est applies.
I first stumbled across the film on late night television*, and was hooked the instant I saw it. I thought it was compelling filmmaking, and couldn’t look away. “Yawnfest” would be the farthest thing from any description I would have applied.
*I knew about it, of course, and remember the TV commercials. But I was too young when it came out to se it.
Sometimes heavily praised/hyped movies are disappointments on first viewing, if you’re expecting Timeless Entertainment. I felt that way about “Citizen Kane”.
“Dr. Strangelove” though is a favorite movie, and even more of a gas if you see it after “Fail-Safe” (which takes itself very very seriously).
“Mein Fuhrer! I can walk!!!”
So to speak. 
Have you been evaluated for clinical depression? (Said 9/10ths jokingly. I know your life has undergone some significant changes in the last few years.)
???
Haven’t seen if for a few years, but from my memory, while it’s very good and very funny, it doesn’t really look like a movie to anyone who grew up on 80s and 90s cinema.
What is that - commie talk? Some sort of preversion? Speak English!
I’m guessing there is a fair chance that if you heard it before, it was from someone who had heard it from that film - one way or another.
But, that is just my guess.
Leaffan, you might give *Matinee *a try. It’s a more modern take on the same topics. Between being more recent and more deliberately made to appeal to a wider audience, it’s much more deliberately funny. (It’s set in southern Florida during the Cuban Missile Crisis.)
Maybe if it had ended with the pie fight in the War Room, as originally scripted… ah, Stanley, you wimped out at exactly the wrong point.
May I float a theory?
I was born in '65, and missed out on the “duck & cover” fun. To me, it seems as if the films that came out of Hollywood in the 50’s are stereotyped as being too simplistic, or jingoistic. “Stand Fast against Communism” and “Leave it to Beaver” portrayals of American values and lifestyles seemed to be the standard. I am aware that there were probably darker, more gritty examinations of America/American ideals on film from the 50’s, but those are seen as exceptions, I think.
The tide began to swing in the 60’s. More and more “main stream” films, studios, and directors were putting darker, anti-establishment or counter-culture stuff in their films. While there had been portrayals of the “bumbling fool” of a bureaucrat or politician had shown up in comedies before Strangelove, those were generally understood to be individual people, and they were not supposed to be representative of the entire government. The Dr. Strangelove film broke out the broad brush, and painted the entire military-industrial complex as warmongering jingoistic fools, and the politicians and diplomats are generally portrayed as self serving opportunists.
Was this “broad brush” paint job seen as more hip, fresh, & daring back then? Maybe. I don’t know, 'cause I’m a little young to know for certain.
Anyway, by now, this “they’re all fools and crooks” approach is old hat, so that aspect of the comedy is going to seem boring to some, IMO.
My sister, who is eight years older than I am, doesn’t like to watch B&W movies. (I showed her a photograph I made that I was rather proud of. She said, ‘Why is it black and white?’ I told her, ‘Um… Because I used black and white film.’) Someone I worked with, who is young enough to be my daughter, said she doesn’t like B&W movies.
The pacing is different from modern films (though Leaffan is old enough to have grown up watching slower-paced films), and that puts a lot of people off. Even depictions of life in the '60s look ‘weird’ today. I was a child in the '60s, and didn’t hit the double-digits until the '70s. I remember the lights, the chrome trim on consumer items, and so on. I remember how everything looked New & Shiny & Modern. (As a child, everything was new!) I remember my mom had a sun lamp, and people really did get indoor tans with them. (But we lived in San Diego! Why didn’t she just go outside?) So when General Turgidson’s secretary was tanning under one, it was a fond memory instead of some sort of weirdness. I get the feeling that people who are used to watching films made in the past 20 or 30 years either did not experience things, or do not remember things, that were ways of life in films made 50 or 60 or more years ago. I’ve seen some ‘recent’ period-piece films that seemed to be played for irony.
I think people who prefer ‘recent’ films ‘get’ irony. I’m not so sure they ‘get’ satire. While satire and irony are related, they are different. Satire often uses irony to make its point. (For example, the fighting in Dr. Strangelove near a sign that says ‘Peace Is Our Profession’.) For satire to work, the audience needs to understand the Zeitgeist of what’s being skewered. In that way, it’s more subtle than irony. Based on recent to very recent films I’ve seen, subtlety is not as common as it once was. Filmmakers often put ‘Easter eggs’ in their films, and often do try to make subtle points; but in conversations it seems that many of these go over people’s heads.
Dr. Strangelove came out in 1964. So did the similarly-themed, but much more serious Fail Safe. As I said, I was a ‘Navy brat’ and I worked in Defense while the Cold War was still going on. Today we have ‘preppers’. In the '80s we had ‘survivalists’. The survivalists, for the most part, seemed to be convinced there would be a nuclear war. I remember seeing maps of the safest places to be in case of a nuclear war (IIRC, the Rogue River region of Oregon topped the list.) We had films like Red Dawn, where the U.S. was invaded by Communists. Now, I was either not alive yet, or too young to remember the height of the Cold War. Nobody was building bunkers when I was growing up. But as frightened as people were of the Soviet Union in the '80s, it seems that they were even more scared in the '50s and '60s. The possibility of nuclear war was very, very real back then. Just a few years before Dr. Strangelove was released, the Soviets proved they could launch a payload into space. East and West were developing ICBMs. In 1964 the U.S. was involved in Vietnam (fighting Communists) and there was the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Some people thought this was madness and tried to point the madness out. Fail Safe did this by trying to scare the pants off of people. Dr. Strangelove, Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb tried to do it with satire. And satire works better if you are experiencing (or have experienced) the things that are being lampooned.
Leaffan is old enough to have lived in this era. On the other hand, he is in a country that, while involved in the Cold War, wasn’t quite as invested in it as their neighbour to the south. Leaffan’s experiences may have been different from mine and other Americans. Heck, my experiences living in San Diego until high school are very different from my SO’s experiences growing up in more rural areas. Even though she lived across the street and I’ve known her since high school, our upbringings were different. Even people who grew up in the same time period, in the same area, and so on, experience things differently.
Or it might just be that Leaffan doesn’t like satire. He does seem to dislike most films that everyone else likes. ‘Everyone’ loved Magnolia when it came out. I thought it was tedious in the extreme, and nearly walked out. De gustibus non est disputandum.
This is probably a large part of it.
I recall somebody complaining about seeing The Godfather for the first time recently and thinking it was just another generic (!) mafia movie. Of course, it was really the movie that largely established the modern form of the genre and its conventions (besides doing a number of cinematic things very well).
It’s hard to separate the movie from the period it was made and designed to be watched in.
ETA: I’m less sure about Red Dawn. People thought it wasn’t an especially realistic scenario, even then. But some did (and still do) enjoy the jingoistic and American exceptionalism aspects.