I only saw it once in a class in high school, and that was enough. I also would never sit through "Gone With The Wind" again. Those old time movies just don't seem realistic due to the social restraints and censoring factors of the times. It's like trying to jerk off to the 1940s idea of porn.

I can enjoy movies from all eras though not as much from movies before 1950 or so. (Though I can enjoy Charlie Chaplin's movies any day of the week).

Never thought much of Chaplin's stuff. I guess you had to be there. Could someone do that stuff today and be popular?

No, but in terms of products of their time IMO Chaplin is about as entertaining as you can get.

Keaton, too.

It's not like there was much to choose from in film then. It's like Milton Berle on TV in the late 40s.

Maybe but it still definitely holds up imo.

Here's another one: Eddie Redmayne has never appeared in a "GOOD" movie.

I have conflicting feelings on Lawrence of Arabia. On one hand it's one of the most beautiful and well shot films of all time and yet it also manages to be really boring for a good amount of the run time. Also Peter O' Toole is good in the movie but not as good as some people say he is.

I'm not a huge fan either. Saw it once a long time ago and didn't really care of it. Great acting, writing, music, and cinematography, yet feels like a very empty movie...

You are wrong but I'll allow you to be.

I’m a big O’Toole fan, but I find his reputation as a virtuoso amongst some as unfounded. He’s a powerhouse of heightened emotion, and his best roles are ones that let him lean into that (other than Becket which is high-camp in an annoying self-serious film).

I don't know how unpopular this opinion is but I'll say it anyway.
Vertigo's score > Psycho's score (though I like Psycho overall as a movie more)

Both are equally great honestly. I also really love the North by Northwest score as well.

Cinema Paradiso is a pretty good movie and nothing more.