You actually reminded me of longstading complaint though: Too many modern actors simply play themselves onscreen. Robert Downey Jr. is a convincing rich thrill-seeking playboy because being one destroyed his promising young career (though I commend cleaning himself up to resurrect it; Lindsay Lohan probably will not be an A-lister a generation from now.) Same with Charlie Sheen in Two and Half Men: The only difference between actor and character was surname. I realize Classic Hollywood had its share of hams (one infamous one retired from film in Sacramento, CA before moving to Washington, DC for his most convincing acting,) but today the rule is honored more often in the breach than in the observance.

There are "exceptions to the exceptions;" as noted, Spacey is one: He can and has played everything from purest hero to commonest Everyman to blackest villain, naturally and believably. He seems to me the exception highlighting the rule though. When Brad Pitt was a directionless stoner he played one very convincingly; now the devoted family man plays an equally convincing one in his latest blockbuster. Yet his list of villainous roles though is so short I had to Google to find "Kalifornia;" the other "examples" were things like "Fight Club." The guy even played a NAZI sympathetically!

Frankly (I know this invites trouble,) Hollywood now looks artistically bankrupt, mostly actors playing themselves in reboots of successful TV/film most people <30 are too young to remember. "Creativity" is too often asking, "What if Captain Kirk were different?" and earning acclaim for what would once have earned lawsuits.

Now, I understand the problems of two people in Nazi-occupied North Africa don't amount to a hill of beans in this Twenty-First Century world, but timeless tales remain just that. "Double Indemnity" is one; I would not be surprised if someone remade it for the cynicaly venal modern world (James Cains other big novel-turned-film, "The Postman Always Rings Twice," was remade forty years after its first successful release, and survived the transition from black and white to color.) The fact remains vastly improved special effects and cinematography just flat demand less of actors, writers and directors now. Getting by on "big 'splosions" alone was simply impossible half a century ago: Films had to make up for it with gripping plots and compelling performances.

Stuff like that is why, despite being very weary of zombies (which never interested me much in the first place) and imprinting on Superman from youth, I enjoyed "World War Z" far more than "Man of Steel:" The Brad Pitt zombie film did a better job of being more than a big name action movie. My other cinephile friend made the comment that "Michael Shannon was Michael Shannon," just underscoring my earlier point about modern actors. "Man of Steel"s chief accomplishments for me were 1) a Superman movie an avid Superman fan disliked and 2) an extended final fight so loud and long it managed to not only make my wife uncomfortable but my unborn DAUGHTER as well.

Well, end rant; my impression you ignore ALL old movies was wrong, and it is true Depression and WWII era movies resonate less with modern audiences.