If you hear pedantry, that’s your own defensiveness.
What do I have to be defensive about? Do you even know what the word pedant means? The fact that you think defensiveness is a factor just shows that you think there is something wrong with not liking the old movies. No one loses out by not watching old movies. It’s also obvious that they weren’t made for me, I wasn’t born when they were made. That’s where the pedantry comes in, you’re stating the dumb obvious as though you are teaching something. Something tells me it’s a much greater factor for your ego than mine. 
OK now THAT. Is funny.
But just to get this clear: any statement that is not 100% original information is pedantic. Any emphasis or restatement of beginning principles equals pedantry. Got it, thanks.
If someone wants to see what a stagy movie looks like, they should try The Coconuts or Animal Crackers - plays filmed with static cameras not long after talkies were introduced. Good, but not nearly as good as Duck Soup, say.
2001 is the opposite of stagy. No dialog for the first 30 or 40 minutes, or the last 30 or so.
Perhaps our OP thinks 1969 was two weeks after 1929? I grew up in the '60s, and really old movies looked as odd then as they do today. But I still liked them.
Glad you liked it. Anyway, it’s obvious that the movies were not made for me, I wasn’t born yet. I just don’t like the style of movement, but it has nothing to do with realistic movement, because that is irrelevant, it more has to do with fluid movement. The cadence in old films is off for me. Move/Speak reallyreallyreallyfast stop…
Maybe I just like Post-Neo-Realist stuff. But that’s too post-modern for me.
That reminds me, The Bicycle Thief is a worth while movie.
I understand that the culture in some black and white movies can look very alien and unrealistic. I’m still waiting for someone to clue me in about what is so good about Federico Fellini.
One director that seems to be ahead of his time is Henri-Georges Clouzot. I saw Wadges of Fear and The Devils which both took me by surprise. The characters were very real and believable and not stylized like you’d see in a Hollywood film.
Someone mentioned Schindler’s List. Mostly in B&W, as I recall.
Woody Allen Manhattan was in B&W. I think that was his masterpiece instead of Annie Hall. I sat through it twice in the theater.
I don’t think that it’s snobbery that makes the OP feel this way about old films. A lot of us did when we were younger. But time, exposure, and a little learning changed our tastes and broadened our interests. We can see the bigger picture now and we know better how to sift through the junk to find the jewels.
To the person who mentioned the naturalness of Mrs. Miniver earlier: You might like to know that in real life, Greer Garson (Mrs. Miniver) married the actor who had the role of her son in the movie.
Even if an old movie is very good, it may not be suited for your tastes. Someone who knows you and knows old movies should be able to guide you to things that are worth your time.
When my first husband and I divorced, it was quite civil. The only items that we fought over were the 8 by 10 B&W stills from Casablanca.
I disagree with anyone who says that no one misses out when they don’t see old movies. They are part of our cultural heritage. We remain ignorant when we are unfamiliar with certain aspects of our own culture. It’s a tribal thing. (And yes, I have missed out on things that I should be familiar with.)
I find very few actors capable of delivering a believable performance. By that I mean for every Robert Duvall there are a thousand Tom Cruises on the screen. That is not to say other actors are not entertaining but rather a comment on the level of skill.
With that said, earlier movies had an exaggerated emotional feel to them much as I would expect to find in a play. I’ve often wondered if this wasn’t a fallout of the transition of actors from Broadway to movies. It’s something that I learn to accept if the script is good, which is the same standard I apply to modern movies.
I love old B&W movies for the history they portray. Without intending to, many of the movies are an historic record of life during the time it was filmed. I love seeing old cars, buildings, clothing etc… A movie like the “Langley” has the advantage of being made when there were people around who remembered the events.
Dude, you are missing most of the best movies ever made. Go to the AFI best 100 American Films list, watch anything in the top 10. You may be disappointed once or twice, but I am jealous of you, you have yet to discover virtually all of the great art in this medium, which is more assessable now than it ever was before. To see Citizen Kane, Casablanca or The Godfather (I and II!) again for the first time is something I can never do.
Star Wars is great fun, but it is kid stuff. Best wishes.
the good, the bad, and the ugly,
Apocalypse Now,
both of those are out of your ball park but are absolute must see flicks for anyone who wants to see how a great movie is made,
Citizen Cane is a movie you only watch if you are interested in being a director (I think, that movie was painful to watch inspite of knowing how ground breaking it was in places)
Blade Runner, while this is post 80 its early 80’s, I challenge anyone to name a film with more influence on more levels with 0 cgi. 99% of movies with cgi dont even come close to the special effects shots in that movie.
its very very hard to appreciate anything artistic when you dont have the background to understand everything thats going on. with old movies its mostly a cultural thing, since you have no reference to the times they were filmed its much much harder to “get” the movies.
I prefer to think of it as a swoon, thanks. I really ought to get me one of those couches. 
What I really don’t get about the OP is that he excuses The Great Escape for looking dated because it’s set in the past. But pretty much all old movies are set in the past. Except for a handful set in [cue ominous music] the future, movies are generally set in the time period they’re made. So a movie made in, say, the 40’s is set in the 40’s. Last time I looked, that was in the past, so by the OP’s logic ALL old movies ought to get a pass for looking dated.
I always kind of liked old movies, myself. Of course, I got a fair bit of exposure as a child because frequently they were all that was on. I’m just old enough to remember when someone having cable was a big hairy deal. There were a lot of hours the local network affiliates had to fill in around original programming, and they tended to fill those hours with old sitcoms like I Love Lucy and The Beverly Hillbillies. And oh yes, old movies. Some of them were even such traditions that networks rearranged prime-time schedules around them, like The Wizard of Oz and The Ten Commandments.
Or maybe it’s just that I’m a total immersion person when it comes to stories. Books, movies, oral stories, it doesn’t matter. Once I’ve slipped into the world of the story or the character, I’m completely oblivious to stylistic choices like clothes and lighting and exact phrasing of certain passages. After the story is over, sometimes something that’s really jarringly different from what I’m used to will hit me between the eyes, but not during the story. If you’re not a total immersion person, I guess I can see how you might actually notice things like that and be annoyed by them, but it’s so foreign to my nature that it kind of blows my mind that someone thinks like that.
While the good, the bad, and the ugly is certailnly a great film, I’d recommend Once Upon a Time In The West as Leone’s masterpiece. Definitely the first scene at the train station.
Anybody who wants a career in CGI should see more films without CGI so he can get a better feel for what reality looks like. And view his CGI on both the big screen and the small, just to make sure one doesn’t look more fake than the other.
What I liked about Titanic was that they faked up the real sets and models so they looked more like the CGI ones.
So how does it compare to the productions Shakespeare was personally involved in (I mean, you being immortal and all)? 
All kidding aside, I do wonder how you would react to productions of that era.
I certainly hope you never read a book, view a painting or listen to a piece of music that was created before you were born. Obviously they weren’t made for you. And you won’t be losing out on anything.
I tried to think of a nicer way to put this, but what you’re describing isn’t snobbery. It’s ignorance or lack of sophistication. If you’re happy watching a very limited range of movies then that’s your business, but if you’d like to expand your tastes then the only thing to do is get over these self-imposed restrictions and watch some more movies.
I hesitate to recommend movies to people with tastes very different from mine, but Roger Ebert’s “Great Movies” series is one good place to begin. Some of his choices I would not suggest to anyone who isn’t already a film buff (Last Year at Marienbad is unlikely to change your mind about B&W films) and some I personally dislike, but there are many truly great movies on his list. And it’s not all hoity-toity artsy stuff or serious dramas either – This Is Spinal Tap is on there, as is A Christmas Story, Alien, Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, and The Producers.
If you begin to watch more movies, I think you’ll soon discover that many of your objections to pre-1980 movies have more to do with your preconceptions than what those movies are actually like.
Kiss Me Deadly
Try this one first. I guarantee you’ll like it.
:rolleyes:
I like some old movies, but I tend to prefer newer movies. I suppose I’ve been trained to like that style of cinematography over the years… So be it. That said, there still isn’t anything like fred and ginger dancing in todays movies.
One thing is certain though… If you’re a fan of action movies, then at least you can say with some authority that today’s movies are indeed better than older ones. Being brain candy at best, older action has indeed gotten stale. 
Oddly enough, I read a lot of sci fi books, and infinitely prefer older sci fi from the 50s and 60s to the books of today. The authors were more optimistic and upbeat, and painted a more whimsical view of the future. Todays authors tend to get all dystopian and doom & gloom about the future.