>>215476289A Fistful of Dollars, but I’m a zoomer who doesn’t really watch old movies. My cutoff is usually around 1970.
>>215476289All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
Things To Come. It's in the public domain so you can watch it for free online. It's basically a freemason power fantasy where they take overtime control over society after a second great war and spread of a plague ravages the world.
>>215476289Probably Metropolis
I've watched something from each year since 1895, but the earliest feature I really enjoyed is Sherlock Jr. (1924)
>>215476289The Birth Of A Nation (unironically)
>>215476289Duck Soup (1933)
The oldest I remember off the top of my head is The Canterville Ghost, but I wouldn't be surprised if I'm forgetting something (or things)
>>215476289Treasure of the Sierra Madre for me.
Watched this in high school. Was pretty damn good actually.
>>215476289L'inferno
>>215476289"Crime and Punishment" starring Peter Lorre.
King Kong is an allegory for mass immigration
M
>>215476521Fun fact it was Uncle H's favorite film.
Buster Keaton - The Scarecrow (1920)it's hilarious!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsA_TpQM_Gc
>>2154762892Fast2Furious
The Wizard of Oz
>>215476706>thisthis
A Trip to the Moon if it counts.Passion of Joan of Arc if not
>>215476289Nosferatu and Haxan or whatever you spell it, from 1922
>>215476289Prolly Murnau's Faust. I was studying the work at Uni at the time and it helped me pass an exam.Trip to the Moon and Haxan are on my watchlist but I haven't seen them.
I came here to say the Big Sleep (1946) with Bogart and Bacall.>>215476417But then I was reminded of Marx Brothers films. Animal crackers and Duck soup are great movies.
Bergman kinos from the 50s
>>215476289>>215476572>Hitler and other boomers in the 1930s saw this and shat their pantshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zct1tPK1Zk0
>>215478429The effects were a pretty big deal at the time, no pun intended. Although I think Godzilla's suit technology ended up being superior as it had more fluid motion compared to stop-motion.
>>215476413Same. It's somehow more racist than its reputation suggests but an impressive work of art. The Flora Cameron rape/whatever scene is utterly excellent in terms of composition.
>>215476289M - 1931.
Dracula (1931)
>>215476289Gaslighting (1944)12 angry men (1957)
The Thief of Bagdad (1924)
>>215476289The wizard of OZ is 1939 and would probably be the oldest film most people have seen.
>>215476289A trip to the moon.
The old Frankenstein movies. First 3.
>>215476538>>215478479based.but i'm with the anons who say Buster Keaton. The General, or something. slapstick/visual comedy is pretty damn timeless: it wasn't 'too old! reee' for anyone at any point before, and it still isn't today.
>>215476289Oldest has to be The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Silent movies were only getting really good in the late 20s, but then some moron had to invent sound and it killed cinema.
https://youtu.be/p3Tvl1Fuxt8?si=cVOADYU6ji6XvhL7
>>215476289The wolf man
>>215476289The Great Dictator. Scene of Hynkle and Napolini doing negotiations was the highlight for me
>>215476289Does The Great Train Robbery count? If not that, probably Nosferatu.
Can't say I enjoyed it but at least it had some standards and had nice photography. Every other old movie I've seen suffers from bad acting and mid photography.
>>215476289Nosferatu
>>215480962pretty cute in a retrofuture way too. people did actually believe humans would go to the Moon by the year 2001.
>>215476289a streetcar named desire. women be crazy!!
>>215478588this
>>215476289Aside from Hitchcock some Disney movies, and a few spaghetti westerns, I kind of consider everything pre-Night of the Living Dead in '68 to sort of be a practice run. There's obviously objectively well-made films before that, but as far as things that I would go out of my way to sit down and watch as a leisurely activity, yeah, 68 tends to be the cutoff, barring the aforementioned exceptions.
Stagecoach
Never liked silent films until I saw Dr Mabuse, or as I like to call it, Dr Kinuse
Star Wars or Scarface, whichever was made first
>>215476289Maybe Frankenstein (1931).
>>215482916You mean Scarface (1983) with Al Pacino? Then Star Wars I guess, huh? Not a bad choice at all, but it's still odd to see Star Wars referred to as old. Seems fresh and timeless to me.
>>215476289Intolerance
>>215481616I can't get into silent movies. They seem pretty cool but they just put me to sleep.
>>215476289Pinocchio
>>215476289I've watched older, but the 1900's is where I recommend most people start if they are interested in silent cinema
Die NibelungenIt's a 5 hour long two part silent movie. I doubt I'll ever be able to find another person who has ever watched it irl. - although I bet some of you guys did watch it.I think the most interesting part of it is that there's some kind of weird parallel reality where your average successful filmmaker makes a movie praising the knightly loyalty instead of weird holocaust allegories but with aliens.
>>215483185Star Wars is a live service film, they keep updating it to keep it fresh for modern audiences.Nowadays it looks like this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HC-MSbIAPQNo need for kids to sit through a boring 70s film. YouTube can get them up to speed.
>>215476413My problem with Birth is that when a black character had a significant role and was not just part of the background -- as in the scene with drunken, negro legislators -- Griffith would use a white actor in blackface. The attempted rape scene would have been more effectively racist had it not been so obvious that the white woman was being pursued by a white man with a bit of boot polish on his face. Reportedly, this happened because Griffith practiced segregation on his set and didn't want black actors going near his white actresses. While that was certainly in keeping with the white supremacist spirit of the production, I think it detracted from the drama on the screen. Birth tries for historical authenticity, but the blackface makes it look like a cartoon.
>>215476289L'Arroseur Arrosé (1895)
>>215483347i've seen that clip of the guy fighting the dragon, pretty neat.but tbqh a long EPIC is a hard sell. even in an age when people apparently like these multi-part miniseries that end up being 10+ hours, at least it's digestible.maybe it's ADHD, i just can't stay engaged with a film that long. i can spend a whole day in a good book, but 2 hours is like my physical maximum for moving images.
>>215478336I don't get how it starts and ends so awesomely but is a long slow romantic comedy in the middle.
>>215483366Various kinds of Despecialised editions are available for people who want to pretend that Star Wars ended in 1983. They are good, I recommend them. Some of the changes Lucas made seem like spiteful practical jokes played at the expense of the old fans.
>>215483485it's split into two films, so you can watch them separately. nta, but I watched them like a couple years apart and still very much enjoyed them
>>215483517>Some of the changes Lucas made seem like spiteful practical jokes played at the expense of the old fans.i'm not sure. i can't blame the guy for feeling like "i need to fix things". 3D CGI was the cool new thing at the time, and it's not as if people were constantly saying it is vital to Han's character that he absolutely must shoot Greedo. prior to the Special Editions, it was just another scene in the film. hell, they'd already trimmed out the scene of him smooching some random woman first.the genuinely shitty thing is not also making the original versions available as a high-quality transfer/restoration. but i also feel that way about THX-1138 (his changes don't seem to attract the same vitriol there, for some reason...)
>>215483618No, Han must shoot first. Because you need to think he's a rogue who cares only for himself for his character to work. That's what makes him saving Luke's ass at the end work so well, because you legitimately think he's gone. If Greedo shoots first, Han loses that bastard edge.
>>215476706>18 minutesThat's not a movie, that's a movelet.
>>215476413>>215478440I always call this performative bullshit. There's nothing for a modern viewer to enjoy it. It's action and romance and both are shit in it leaving a terribly boring 3 hour long movie so it's only memed here because "hehe KKK" I'm calling you posers.
>>215483485>i've seen that clip of the guy fighting the dragonIt's impressive for the time but it was also very quickly outdated. In the world of practical effects used to create a scene showing a man interacting with a fantastical monster it's like 1990's CGI is to us.I always really liked the story of this particular heroic cycle(the movie is mostly based on Wagner's take on it and that in turn is a fusion of different medieval poems and prose romances dealing with the same exact story) and I never understood that despite 2 fantasy crazes running between the 1920's and now(post Conan The Barbarian craze in the 80's and post LOTR/Harry Potter one in 2000's) a modern high budget attempt at handling it is nowhere to be found.
>>215483693i get it anon, and i actually agree. through intention, good editing, happenstance, i think Star Wars worked out and it's just fun.there are tons of goofy changes in the Special Editions. there are three different versions of Vader first taking to the Emperor and the revised dialogue is like it's trying to retcon IN a twist. from>We have a new enemy, Luke Skywalker.to>We have a new enemy. The young rebel who destroyed the Death Star. I have no doubt this boy is the offspring of Anakin Skywalker.the hell? that's not news to Vader, it's in the opening crawl. he's looking for 'Skywalker' on Hoth.but on the day in the 90s where Lucas was making these decisions, it wasn't controversial yet, y'know? it's like when an author writes a bad sequel to a novel, definitely wasn't their intent at the time even if it's obvious in hindsight.give it the Blade Runner treatment of releasing all the different versions. i'd actually like one that fixed purely visual shortcomings: the seams on matte paintings, that type of thing. (and damn right am i glad for Project 4K77, grain and all.)
>>215483935>outdated Was it? The mechanical dragon looks pretty good even today. Better than anything made by Hollywood in that time period.
>>215478536Snow White is from 1937.
>>215484021>Was it?Compare it to what was possible with stop motion just a few years later. As I've said it's 1990's CGI. Back then it was fucking impressive but not you look at it and it just hurts.
>>215484419I still think the dragon was pretty impressive. Stop motion of that era generally doesn't blend that well with actual people. Even in King Kong.
Die Nibelungen is great. The soundtrack is also amazing. I think I actually prefer Kriemhild's revenge.
>>215476289Benhur
>>215483992>i'd actually like one that fixed purely visual shortcomings: the seams on matte paintings, that type of thing.That's what the oohteedee versions do.
There is apparently a 1923 version of The Blue Lagoon that I have an eye out for if it even still exists.
>>215476710for me its Speed Kings (1913)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2xuyty1G7k
>>215476289Snow white, Its a timeless classic.
>>215476289Bridge on the River Kwai
>>215484146why are these characters moving so much? in my superior animes, they'd be bobbing across the background with their mouths flapping.
>>215480252This, The Great Train Robbery (1903) and The Little Train Robbery (1905) are good
>>215481113past the moon*, because we got to the moon only months after the film premiere
>>215476289Deliverance
What are some of the earliest accessible masterpieces? For me is The Last Laugh (1924) for silent and Blackmail (1929) for talkies
>>215484650ohh thanks, was wondering if someone had made something like this.just read his description, sounds similar to the Harmy/Despecialized approach. starting with the UHD Blu-rays, painting stuff out.maybe the end result is effectively the same, couldn't you start with one of the theatrical scans and paint the tiniest things back IN? maybe you'd lose grain. but just a few tweaks you could probably crib from the Blu-ray. e.g. some windows/hangar bays have a slight wobble to them, which is gone in the Special Editions. maybe you could just take the edges from the Blu-ray? happy middle ground.
>>215483242>Segundo de ChomónHis creature design in The Haunted House (1907) is still scary to this day
>>215485051>we got to the moon right, and we just haven't been back for 50 years. makes perfect sense!
>>215485231I think "past the moon" encompasses that too
I've found that a lot of the most famous silent films hold up pretty well, or at the very least are interesting and unique.
Since people are saying things like The Great Train Robbery and A Trip to the Moon, I will go with Battleship Potemkin.
>>215476289https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cT6Pz9t89LkThe Great Train Robbery is fun and a short watch
not the oldest, but these are my favorites of the 1920s
>>215476353>My cutoff is usually around 1970.I am not a zoomer but I am similar. I will watch some classics like rocky r the warriors and have seen movies from earlier when i was a child but I dont actively go out to watch old movies.Generally late 80s is the furthest I go back unless they are classics
>>215485625you're missing out on so many kinos
Birth of a nation
>>215476289I just watched The Invisible Man from 1933. It was much better than Dracula and Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein from that era. The effects of when he removes his bandages are really good. The plot was great too, not surprising from an HG Wells book.
>>215476401Metropolis (1927). After that, The Mark of Zorro (1940).
jurassic park (1993)
the general (1926)buster keaton is always great
>>215483850Racism has nothing to do with it, the civil war scenes are shot amazingly, and the climax with the Klan coming to the rescue is a powerful piece of film. You don't have to be pro Klan to get into the spirit of the film just like I can watch anti whitey sinners and still enjoy parts of it despite not agreeing with all the sentiment
>>215485625I will never understand this mindset. There is so much you probably would enjoy but you are missing it all.
>>215485689didn't mean to quote
>>215485645Not really and I have probably watched all the best movies from the 40-70s already. I was born in the 80s so all that stuff would have been on TV.Simple fact is most of the movies from before the 80s are too old in both culture and technique for me to rekate to.A good example is wizrd of oz. it is a great movie but technicolor is not gonna wow me and the way the people speak, dress, act is too dated for me to relate to.Most of the best movies from those times were musicals or romantic dramas, both genres I hate.>>215485783>so much you probably would enjoy but you are missing it all.Not really. Like I said its too dated for me to relate to.Think of all the big movies from the 40-70s and I have probably watched them all anyway, when i was a child as my mother was born in the 50s and stuff like that was on TV.Hitchcoks movies, westerns, musicals, disney cartoons, romance, biblical epics...I would have watched pretty much it all.
>>215485783Anyone who thinks like that is a lost cause. There are endless good films even pre 1960 and someone who writes them off because they're from the modern era is someone disconnected from what those films really are
>>215483850If the length is an issue you can watch that film in slight fast forward in 2 hours and it'd be historically accurate (as per Wiki).Now, I get it if the racism puts you off, but I strongly disagree that there's nothing for a modern viewer to enjoy. It's superbly crafted from start to finish, great battle scenes, good writing, visually very well composed (especially considering that film was basically two weeks old back then). DW Griffith somehow knew more about filmmaking than most hacks trying at it nowadays.
unironically "The Horse In Motion" 1878.It's considered one of the first "movies" and "videos" of all time. I like horses.
Objective, Burma! (1945)
>The invisible man 1933Loved the effects and it has a lot less of that era's "standing around narrating between characters instead of actual dialog" thing they all did to stretch the time
>>215476289A lot of those early buster Keaton ones. The Cook? One of the fatty Arbuckle collabs>>215476383Based
>>215478440>It's somehow more racist than its reputation suggestsNot at all. If you think it's racist, you either have an unreasonable definition of racism or else you didn't understand the movie
>>215486555checked and do you enjoy horse sheathing?
>>215486555when animators animate a horse galloping, do they all just copy/trace this?
>>215483347I still need to watch the second part, but I'm surprised it's not more popular considering how popular Metropolis and M are.
>>215485829>old in both culture and technique for me to rekate toI don’t really get this considering most movies are just dealing with timeless aspects of the human condition.Even if they aren’t dealing with scenarios and subjects you can directly relate to, often times that’s what makes me more interested in them, since they are so far removed from our modern day culture.
>>215476289The final scene of Hell's Hinges 1916 is incredibly dark, one of the best endings of fire. As a whole movie, Way Down East 1920
>>215476289Frankenstein (1931)
>>215486735A lot of Chaplin/Keaton still hold up. All the way back in 1917, 1920+ -- the themes of poverty, home ownership, trying to get married, troubles with parents or love (old hat themes in 1-act plays on vaudeville or day theater) are still relevant. It's the way they're told that changed. Clumsy formulas, or different ways to say them.
Probably the Wizard of Oz
>>215484940because they traced it over real people
>>215486924They backtraced it?
>>215487129
>>215476289The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari from 1920Cool movie, pretty creepy. I loved the stylistic approach they took for the set design and actors makeup/outfits.>>215476353>>215485625I am curious why there is a cutoff. Is it because there are so many movies that you need to limit your scope? Or is it because you don't think you'll like them? Or another reason?
>>215486735>>215486901At the core function a movie is a story telling medium, so yes the story telling of a story is timeless but say the way gone with the wind is made, clothing, sets, mannerism, high colour/contrast compare that to a more modern romance story (idk I dont watch romance) and you will see one is terribly outdated to a point a person cannot relate to the characters.A more recent but relative example is the 1st mission impossible movie (tom cruise) clearly made with a relatively small budget as a generic action flick of the 90s, then compare that to the more recent MI movies (maybe not the last one as it was clearly reshot and turned into a mess) and see the production quality, interactions with characters and even the way the movie is shot, they are so far apart that the 1st MI movie is actually heavily dated now. To a point it is not even entertaining.On release it was just a shlocky action flick anyway.The point being some things, like all things, have a limited expiration before they are antiquated.gone with the wind is antiquated, so is MI, and so are silent movies like chaplins movies.not neccesarily saying modern movies are better and especially since the pandemic, coasting on a decade+ of cape shit, hollywood has pretty much forgot how to make good movies so there is more quality movies in the backlog of decades past than is being released now, but there is a cut off point where I and anyone cannot relate to the time period, including techniques of film making, way of speech, clothing etc that is a cut of point of actual quality in most cases.
>>215487201>I am curious why there is a cutoff.see>>215487227
>>215487174Reported to cyber police.
lost World 1925, its got stop motion dinosaurs and everithing, cant remember how many times i watched the vhs
>>215476289M (1931). That's about as far back as I can go and still enjoy.
>>215487227Just to add to this though, liek I mentioned above, there are classics or time pieces that are still relatable.The warriors is a great example because despite being based on a comic book, itself being based on a 3-5k years old war, the movie has a certain time piece nostalgia that even not being born of the era, and the movie intending to be some sort of dystopian futuristic movie, it stands alone on its own merits as a unique movie with a unique setting, which gives it a sort of timeless quality to it.If you wanted to use other flicks of the era like gene wilder and richard pryors movies of that time, they actually dont hold up in the same quality as unique time piece movies.Though not all being bad.i was just using these 2 type of 70s movies where one being timeless and the others being dated.
>>215487227>and you will see one is terribly outdated to a point a person cannot relate to the characters.I see. I personally don't agree with that sentiment. The Twilight Zone is imo one the best, if not best, tv shows of all time and it was made in the late 50s/early 60s. Many of the episodes are very relatable. On occasions there will be a special effect that sticks out and it will temporarily take me out of the show, but only for a second or two. I can look at old paintings and relate to them, just like I can watch old shows. But hey thats just me. We all get different things out of watching movies.
>there are anons ITT who haven't seen a trip to the moonIt's 15 minutes long you uncultured swine
>/tv/ thinks modern movies are shit>/tv/ also thinks old movies are shit and refuse to watch them because they're "too old"
>>215487174he ded ;__;and the girl is now a gendersomething, athough she was actually molested.overall, the /b/tard bullies were wrong imo.
Idk, but everytime i watched an old movie i was glad i did. They had production values and social realism and creativity. They are better than movies now. And better also means they are more watchable.
>>215476706Why cant they make a movie like this nowadays. Its 105 years old and still funny.
The Kid 1921
>>215487513no she was a horrible little cunt and her family were stupid white trash garbage who should have disciplined their daughter and got her off the internet
Pic related (1954) is probably the oldest movie that I think is amazing. Citizen Kane (1941) is "ok", but I feel it's a bit overrated.
>>215476289Citizen Kane. I've watched some Buster Keaton stuff that's surprisingly entertaining too, though some of the enjoyment came from being able to peer back in time and see what things were like back then.
>>215476289Tall in the saddle (1944)
The Big Trail with a young and handsome John Wayne.I've tried many times but I just cannot enjoy silent films.
>>215487546Oh, forgot about High Noon (1952). That one is really good too.
>>215487477I rughtfully think there are movies from every decade that are worth watching. don't lump me in with the rest of the retards
Hmmm maybe Casablanca 1942
I've seen Birth of a Nation and Metropolis 2 or 3 times, Nosferatu many times. Enjoyed some silent westerns like The Covered Wagon, Wagon Tracks, and Straight Shootin'. Having a specific interest in what the movie is about and an appreciation for the historical value helps a lot. There should also be music with it, not just dead silence
Rebecca, 1940
>>215487602what silent films have you watched? I find that the slapstick comedies are really fun to watch, and even people who profess not to like silent films generally enjoy them
>>215476289The lost world 1925 is legitmately awesome. Wings 1927 is sheer kino of the highest order
>>215487543nah. kids can be little shits, teenagers aren't void of responsibility or anything but she was just bratty/naughty.making a spectacle out of her, that one's on the trolls (and the media, really).
>>215476417Came here to post this
Love The Thin Man series of movies... my wife and I make martinis and watch.
>>215487513Yeah but the dad totally stoked the fire
>>215476289Good looking movie.
Stayed up watching Monstervision to catch the original It Came From Beneath The Sea.
>>215487934Just recently I borrowed a DVD from the library with a bunch of John Fords silents. Watched The Iron Horse which admittedly was very cool but just difficult to keep up and fully immerse myself in. Tried 3 Bad Men as well but couldn't do it. You're right I really should try the comedies and slipstick classics.
There are lots of old movies I like, although with some of them I get annoyed by the stereotypical over-the-top sentimental string soundtrack which, while many people obviously must have enjoyed it back then, seems strange to me these days. Maybe decades from now people will feel the same way about all the modern thrillers with the moody "guy slowly plinking the same piano key over and over again" music, or the Hans Zimmer revving car sound.
>>215476289Hard mode: what’s the newest?
>>215488205but he seemed so internet-savvy!
>>215476289Häxan (1922)
>>215487941>kids can be little shitsdoesn't matter, actions have consequences and she deserved everything she got
>>215476289Keaton's shit is still mostly hilarious
>>215488265Yeah, I definitely recommend some Buster Keaton or Harold Lloyd. I'm personally not a fan of Chaplin, but he might be up your alley. You could also try out some Fritz Lang stuff like Metropolis or Die Nibelungen. which you might not like, but I think they're pretty cool
>>215488163Ive seen some of the classics like The Invisible Man, Jekyll & Mr Hyde - I mostly enjoyed them for what they are. Havent watched too many films other than well known ones like Freaks and those 'monster' films from earlier than 50s.Had Akira Kurosawa period once when I watched most of his stuff, they are kind hit and miss but the films made in the 40s are interesting, drunken angel has one of worst fightscenes I've ever seen though. I remember I liked Ikiru. Watched some other japanese films from 50s but cant recall now.Night of the demon (1957) was good, but probably 10 years since I watched it. Stumbled upon A bucket of blood (1959) while drinking late one night, it was pretty fun.I guess 60s is kinda old now. But seen too many movies from that decade and forward to recall any specific movie.
>>215476289Cabinet of Dr. Cagliari>>215483850>I always call this performative bullshit.Yeah that is descriptive of your virtue signalling.>>215485783How are those ordered?>>215487879That is fucking kino.
>>215476289nosferatu from 1922the guy who played the count looked spooky, deadass. like a souped up, rat jewish bastard from the depths of hell. good movie.
>>215476289The Lost World (1925)
>>215476289pretty sure it was The Thief of Baghdad, unless Broken Blossoms is older.The General also good
>>215476289Birth of a nation. I watched it on TCM
>>215476353charlie chaplin and buster keaton films are fun but I think the earliest real films that are undeniable kino are in the 50s (rear window, vertigo, the big heat) and even the 40s has some that are borderline kino (its a wonderful life)
The very first talkie from the UK is excellent: Blackmail (1929)
>>215484146it's this. amazing such a film could be made back then.
The Phantom Carriage (1921)
The Cabinet of Dr. Cagliari (1920) and The Phantom Carriage (1921) are two of my favorite moves ever.
>>215488163they're pretty fun. they do get incredibly hackneyed as they went on, though
>>215488341that is hard.the most recent movie I watched all the way through and really liked was Dinner In America (2020)
>>215490753Other than documentaries, the last new films I saw were Barbie and Oppenheimer (not in the same screening - no Barbenheimer for me, thank you very much). Oldest full length movie? Probably A Woman in Paris (1920).
>>215478429How did the windshield on the car get damaged like that when he never hit it and no object hit it either.Immersion ruined.
>>215478588This. It's an absolute hoot, very delightful. Holds it fantastically compared to something like The Great Train Robbery.
>>215476289Coconuts (1929), the first Marx Brothers film.
>>215478247Seconding this. Love me some spooky kino.
THE SWIMMER WITH BURT LANCASTER
>>215476438I remember enjoying this movie. I wouldn't go out of my way to rewatch it, but it was a nice watch.
>>215476289
>>215476289City Lights is the oldest movie I liked enough that I'd recommend it.
metropolis. 100 years old! tcm is great for finding century old shit
>>215476289Cabinet of Dr.Caligari (1920)
>>215483185Not him but I like the original Scarface better. Al Pacino is a horrible actor.
>>215476289I've seen and enjoyed The Devil in a Convent from 1899, but it's only three minutes long. There's a lot of good early short films. Nosferatu(1922) and Peter Pan(1924) are probably the earliest features I like. King Kong and the Invisible Man both from 1933 are the earliest two 5/5 movies for me. Vampyr from 1932 is pretty good.
Phantom and Man Who Laughs hold up. Nosferatu was boring. It really depends o the music with silent films though
>>215492488>Nosferatu was boringu saying wat?
>>215487252The cultural atmosphere behind story-telling just changed a lot
>>215486603>>215485247What surprised me about this movie is that it has the car exploding upon impact cliche. I really didn't expect that to be so old.
>>215476289Probably King Kong or The Invisible Man. I've seen a couple of silent movies but they're not my thing. I view movies an audio-visual medium so no dialogue kills it for me.
I think the older movies I have watched are Chaplin movies. Simple but always funny and emotive. The one with the kid, the one where he is a vagabond and there is a blind girl in a store...
1874
>>215492888I'm sorry, but this looks goofy af.
>>215476289Cool Hand Luke. I remember randomly downloading it and watching it like at 1am and it blew my fucking mind. I didn't know anything about old movies of any kind, but as I was watching it, it suddenly dawned on me that 1) I didn't know a god damn thing about movies and that 2) Just because our technology has advanced doesn't mean things are better. It was so well shot, performed and written that everything modern looks revolting and lazy.
>>215493326The first thing I did after watching this movie was take an unconscious woman home and feed her eggs. She has to eat all the eggs.
>>215493326Also, I remember watching the opening scene and being extremely confused because it didn't look or feel like something that was 60 years old. I immediately understood and connected with everything that was happening on the screen. It didn't feel alien or old.
>>215476417Why is this so funny, but everything else I tried watching by these guys was boring and cringe.
