i'm still with her
i think a movie being dated shouldn't detract from its enjoyment. you have to look at it as it was released and not through a modern lens or else youre going to find a lot that you don't like about older movies.
I think there is a common mindset that films have somehow plateaued, sometime between the late 1930s to the mid-1980s or so. That everything before X movie, well, it was still people learning, and then afterward, it was people just copying what was finally mastered. In the first few decades of film, people were still learning how to integrate narrative, still learning what the best length and pacing for narrative is, still learning how to integrate sound, camera effects, cinematography, visual effects, what have you. Then there was this period where all of that stuff was "perfected", and now everything else after that is just riding its coattails, so to speak.The only mindset I refuse to have is to pretend that these films still exist in a very tiny sample size as they once did. I don't know if Citizen Kane was once one of the best movies ever made, but I do know I once thought Mystery Men was one of the best movies ever made and seeing a lot more movies corrected that, but for some reason Citizen Kane will always be one of the best films even though over 1000 times more movies exist now than did back then (worth noting in particular than a lot of the "best" films that were made during WWII suck, just like how music sucked during the Korean war). And if you do give olds films a chance, you might find that some were better than Citizen Kane anyway. I'm pretty sure you only brought this up because I said Citizen Kane felt dated compared to an even older film, so what's the actual problem here? The real problem is with specific time periods, regions, and studio controls. Hollywood sucked in the late 90s and it sucked from WWII through the McCarthy era. It's got nothing to do with films being old.