My favorite movie.

Most. Overrated. Movie. Ever. (YMMV)

Why do you say that, Senyar?

I'll never know one way or the other, I can not make myself sit through old movies. Other than a western or two.

Love love love Claude Raines.

I'm the opposite - can barely make myself sit through new movies, but will watch 30s and 40s movies insatiably. They account for about 80% of my viewing activity.

I have a big crush on Bogey.

I often can't make myself sit through old movies, at least not when I'm alone. I couldn't make it through Dr. Strangelove (second viewing but the first one since college) the other night. But this one I really enjoyed!

I'm like weretable. Most of the acting was so stilted it's painful to watch. Exception: Lawrence of Arabia.

I do not watch that many movies anyway. When I was in my teens I would watch two a week in the theater on average and several more at home on video or cable. But the older I got the more movies I saw that I thought were a waste of my time and money and I kinda just quit bothering. The last movie I saw in the theater was Return of the King and I haven't rented a movie in years.

Miko: I was so excited beofre I saw this movie for the first time (on TV in my 20s) but was so disappointed - and the three or four times I've seen it since, the disappointment has grown.

I don't find the characters or the story believable and I think Bogart's acting is terrible.

Older movies take me some time to settle into - I think it's an ear thing, different rhythms. Once I do, I tend to find them very enjoyable. The classics that have endured, of course. Prime examples are Marx Brothers and the Pat and Mikes. I've never adjusted to Hitchcock (except Rear Window), and old War Movies make me want to run screaming. Seven Year Itch, Some Like It Hot, and Bringing Up Baby are also winners for me. Hrm, a pattern - comedies are easier for me.

Ah. To me it just gets better. A matter of taste, I suppose. I personally find the characters very believable, empathize with Ilsa, and I think the ending is great.

Bogart's acting was the kind of acting people expected before Brando and Newman and such. Nobody wanted him to be naturalistic or disappear into the character; he was Bogart and people were paying to see him be Bogart.

You do have to get into a different mindset to watch movies from that era. The camera work was very static, the editing was very slow and the music was not subtle. No one cared if things looked fake either. People knew that city streets behind the rear window of a car was just a projection of stock footage and the car was being rocked by stage hands just off camera.

Have you seen 'To Have and Have Not'? Another goodie!

And The African Queen!

*does the "suggested a winner" dance*

I don't know what it as about Casablanca, but it feels so much more watchable to me than other older movies. And yeah, Lawrence of Arabia is also pretty fantastic. I want to like Marx Brothers movies because, I mean, Marx Brothers, but I'm not used to their rhythm yet. It's weird when Groucho suddenly breaks out in song.

You do have to get into a different mindset to watch movies from that era.

I agree with that. But there's a lot to appreciate. The camera was indeed more static - the whole "dolly shot" thing is very rare, and almost nothing is on location. On the other hand, directors paid intense attention to the composition of the frame - especially the light. Some of the images are incredibly beautiful. The velvety darks and silvery lights are gorgeous to behold.

Scripting is another highlight. Hollywood hired some incredible writers - many who went on to careers in fiction, like Ring Lardner, Fitzgerald, Hemingway. The writing, dialogue and story development is almost always better than in most major movies today.

Characters were bigger than life, icons, archetypes, their every attribute simplified and clarified and blown up big. It's something more influenced by the stage, and more in the line of storytelling, than today's preferences - more consciously theatrical.Costuming was carefully done and the clothes are great - I wish I could go shopping in these movies. And while the studio system had its downsides, it made for actors who worked together efficiently and fluidly with less visible ego "star" nonsense than they try to pull off today - and the output in terms of number of pictures is amazing.

I should note that I've seen plenty of turkeys from the 30s and 40s. The best of the best is what we end up seeing, and the studios cranked out a lot of filler material, too. Interestingly, some of the movies we now consider the greatest didn't do so well at the time - they were middle-of-the-road in terms of box office, but managed to get produced because the studio system was interested primarily in pure output, and movies didn't have to pass a marketing- and finance-driven series of hurdles to get made. A lot of these movies are analogous to today's 'indie' and small-budget art features in their characteristics, but were much easier to get made. But even though not every one of the major films was a hit at the time, the run of great dramas and comedies, especially screwball comedies, has really never been equalled. I'm not a fan of the Stooges, the Bob Hope/Bing Crosby movies, or even the Marx Brothers, who are funny but only in limited doses, since the films are just gag reels. Not much interested in most Westerns or adventure films of that era. But I can't get enough Howard Hawkes, Frank Capra, Billy Wilder, George Cukor...and I adore Barbara Stanwyck, Bogey, early Bing, Spencer Tracy, Jean Arthur, and Katharine Hepburn.