- Edit 3Before modification by Joel at 22/08/2013 12:30:49 AM
You may have to resign your Adminship.
Kind of like Moses in the movie, I suppose.
Seriously though, movies were so much BETTER back then. Frequently including the acting. It is truly amazing what quality actors are capable of when they have no CGI—nor even Industrial Light and Magic—and must rely solely on trivial inferior things like ABILITY. 
Jimmy Cagney, Humphrey Bogart, Edward G. Robinson, Jimmy Stewart, Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Bing Crosby (who was not even primarily an actor, but still a darned good one) and those are just the really big ones off the top of my head. Henry Fonda, Gregory Peck, Gary Cooper, the Barrymores (sorry, Drew is very cute, and has some talent, but not like her forbearers.) We have SOME great actors (Spacey comes to mind as someone who can play a broad range of roles at a very high, convincing, level,) but they had a host.
Really, you are depriving yourself if not enjoying as many of those old films as possible; that is before we even get into the writers, directors and producers who wrote the book of film making, then repeatedly took it to a whole other level. "Double Indemnity" is a good case in point, directed by Billy Wilder and co-written by he and Raymond Chandler, with Robinson, MacMurray and Stanwyck in the lead roles. It is hard to imagine DiCapprios "Titanic" airing annually across America in 60 or 70 years time like "It's a Wonderful Life" (Capras films were amazing, too) and "The Ten Commandments." I mean, c'mon, DeMille; guy was so good he could make the same film the years biggest film in TWO DIFFERENT GENERATIONS! If Coppola remade "The Godfather" would it be the top grossing film of 2013?
Um... sorry; I did not mean to get preachy. Just, do not let obsolete cinematography cost you some of the best dramas and comedies ever made.
EDIT: Oh, and I doubt DiCapprio matches Robinsons total of over 100 feature films either. Those guys worked their tails off, yet a dazzling number STILL managed to be routinely mesmerizing. And while I did not mention any women, there were just as many of them; I just identify with them less. Still, it says something that the two most famous Southern Belles in film were BOTH played by a Brit (though her theater background likely helped her as much as it did the Barrymores, and the eerie similarities between Etonian British and Piedmont Virginian dialects did not hurt.)
First of all, I watch old movies. Some. Black and white ones not very often. Their themes and plots don't speak to me, don't get me engaged, their film-making feels old-fashioned and bores me easily. My interest more or less begins in the 60s, some of my favorite films are from the 70s.
But I don't buy into the whole "those were still real actors, not being able to rely on CGI and shit!". That sounds like the old man on the porch. Some of the best acting performances ever put on film happened in the last 20 years. Not in Transformers 2, mind you. And don't even get me started on cinematography.
So I am gonna hold on to my movie aficionado card a bit longer if you allow, I can live with the "No elitist" sticker on top.
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, mainly comprised of 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.