Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We will probably never know how many good movies there were as most of the have been lost or destroyed.There was a strong black movie industry from the Silent films on up. With black actors in a positive and strong roles it just takes some research to find them.
Very good movies can be based on old plots. How many times has boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy finds girl been used.Yes, with some exceptions, today's movies don't stack up to the previous movies.
Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction told the stories with most of the action being implied. That was low-budget/high-talent at work.
I saw a foreign movie called "The Captain" on HULU that I highly recommend. German soldier deserts and happens upon a dead Gestapo Captain and staff car. He dons the uniform and does whatever he has to in order to survive.
It seems that the directors of old gave the actors time to act, and camera work to focus on them at the right moments.
The movies told better stories, it is true. But westerns for example often told the same basic story and were still great, especially for B pictures.
A film teacher I had when I was an RTF major said that all of the Bonanza episodes used one of two plots: 1) A stranger comes to the Pondarsa, or Virginia City (Nevada). There's something bad wrong with this stranger. By the end, the Cartwrights fix the stranger, by changing him or killing him. 2) The Cartwrights visit a strange town. There is something bad wrong with this town. By the end, the Cartwrights fix the town, either by changing the people or killing the villian.
Okay, fair. But . . . there was acting and directing, the best of which, is unoticed until after the movie is over. High Noon had plot #1 with elements of plot #2, but it was brilliant.
Yes, with some exceptions, today's movies don't stack up to the previous movies.
Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction told the stories with most of the action being implied. That was low-budget/high-talent at work.
I saw a foreign movie called "The Captain" on HULU that I highly recommend. German soldier deserts and happens upon a dead Gestapo Captain and staff car. He dons the uniform and does whatever he has to in order to survive.
It seems that the directors of old gave the actors time to act, and camera work to focus on them at the right moments.
The movies told better stories, it is true. But westerns for example often told the same basic story and were still great, especially for B pictures.
A film teacher I had when I was an RTF major said that all of the Bonanza episodes used one of two plots: 1) A stranger comes to the Pondarsa, or Virginia City (Nevada). There's something bad wrong with this stranger. By the end, the Cartwrights fix the stranger, by changing him or killing him. 2) The Cartwrights visit a strange town. There is something bad wrong with this town. By the end, the Cartwrights fix the town, either by changing the people or killing the villian.
Okay, fair. But . . . there was acting and directing, the best of which, is unoticed until after the movie is over. High Noon had plot #1 with elements of plot #2, but it was brilliant.
.
"Casablanca" 1942 -- incredible actors, set decor and costuming, music and humor.
For sure.Most movie regardless of when they were made are not that good simply because making a good movie is hard.
I agree. "Special effects" and "type-casting" are ruining the business. But the fact is that there were a whole lot of bad films and bad actors even in "the good old days". Then there's politics and over-rated PR both then and now that have too much control. Back then it was the Joseph McCarthy Communist black-listing scare and now it's the racial/gender DEI affirmative action nonsense.When I say good, I mean an interesting story with a script and good acting that engages the audience and makes the movie memorable.
It always cost ticket sales in my experience. People are looking for entertainment, escape from reality, not a lecture on their responsibilities.Social Consciousness has little to do with the quality of movies. However, it does help ticket sales.
Obvious, because THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES CHANGED DURING THAT PERIOD. Jobs like servants were what was available so of course that is what they worked, it was a new opportunity for them, and of course they were portrayed as shiftless and uneducated since there was little opportunity for them both in work and education! Like all things in the universe, things evolve in time. But thanks for stating what any 7 year old might have observed, it has been stimulating!In first half of the 20th century, Blacks were relegate to roles as servants, usually portrayed as being lazy, ignorant, superstitious, and prone to thievery and cowardice. Now they are more likely to be portrayed in a better light than other characters.
True.It always cost ticket sales in my experience. People are looking for entertainment, escape from reality, not a lecture on their responsibilities.
.Casablanca’: How a “mess” of a film became a classic
![]()
"Casablanca": How a "mess" of a film became a classic--Aleteia
The 75-year-old film had a rollercoaster and uncertain beginning, including a cast that barely spoke with each other off set.aleteia.org
I am sick of films about:
A woman who is discriminated on the police force and then becomes the hero.- A woman who is discriminated on the fire department and then becomes the hero.
- A woman teacher who is discriminated on her job and then becomes the hero.
- A woman who is discriminated in the military and then becomes the hero.
- A woman who is discriminated against and then becomes the hero who saves a family on a hiking trip that goes wrong.
A woman boxer who is discriminated against and then beats the top man in a fight.
I don't give a "like" to a YouTube channel before I see the video and I don't join a club before I see an example of its opinion. So ..... would you like to give me an idea of what the link is about or should I just ignore his link and forget about it?Thanks for sharing your opinion.
... How many times can you put a movie around Esther Williams in a freaking pool ....

If you are referring to the link about Casablanca that I posted, the title should be explanatory.I don't give a "like" to a YouTube channel before I see the video and I don't join a club before I see an example of its opinion. So ..... would you like to give me an idea of what the link is about or should I just ignore his link and forget about it?
Not a fan of Ester Williams but the fact is her movies were very popular. She made movies in the 40's and 50's but never the 30's.Some old movies are really crap. How many times can you put a movie around Esther Williams in a freaking pool and how many Americans were interested in the relationship (or lack of it) between Fred and Ginger? The dirty little secret is that 30's Americans were so desperate for entertainment that anything would do and enough time has passed to think of junk Hollywood movies as art.
The link requires me to join it like a club or something like that.If you are referring to the link about Casablanca that I posted, the title should be explanatory.
Unbelieveable! Such a good film! Even small lines are extraordinary like "How much watch?" "Such much!" Yeah, I've seen the film many times.From the start, Casablanca faced major production challenges. Securing the rights to the original play was difficult, and three directors turned the project down before Michael Curtiz, who spoke little English took it on. The script was in constant flux, with three credited screenwriters frequently clashing with each other and with Curtiz. One actor quipped, “Why learn your lines? They’ll change them during shooting.”
Bogart disliked the film, and Ingrid Bergman complained she didn’t know which leading man her character would end up with, even as filming neared its end. Despite their on-screen chemistry, Bogart and Bergman reportedly did not get along off-camera. Many cast members doubted the film would ever be finished.
Hmmmmm. Isn't Hal B. Wallis the one who produced those cheap, meaningless films with Elvis Presley? I know Elivs didn't like them. He wanted to be a serious actor, not sing.Producer Hal Wallis called the production "a mess," and studio head Jack Warner seemed to agree, stating "I doubt it will every be released."
My point was about all Hollywood movies during the 30's. The Hollywood moguls cranked out junk because they owned the entertainment industry. There were bad old movies in classic Hollywood just like today. Duke Wayne as "Attila the Hun" was laughable and his role with a Norwegian accent in "The long voyage home" was painful. Hollywood supported the Military 100% during WW2 but turned Vietnam Veterans into monsters.Not a fan of Ester Williams but the fact is her movies were very popular. She made movies in the 40's and 50's but never the 30's.
The relationship between Fred and Ginger was certainly of great interest to the public. They were the most popular dance team ever. When their breakup was announced, it was headline news throughout the country.
There were constant stories in the press about a romantic relationship between the two. However that was simply wishful thinking by the public. They were close friends throughout their life. During their years as dance team Both were married to other people during their partnership.
There was junk produced but also 2 of the most popular movies every made, The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind.
Also, on AMI's top 100 movies of all times are:
City Lights (1931), Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939), Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937), King Kong (1933), It Happened One Night (1934), Duck Soup (1934), A Night at the Opera (1935), Swing Time (1936), and Bringing Up Baby (1936).
Elvis did a good job in both of the westerns he did. Not so much the others. having 5 older sister I sat through all Elvis movies, beach movies and the Tammy movies. Some people judge movies if they are Academy Award level and some movies are made to just be Pop corn movies but they are still fun to watch. Clarence the Cross Eyed Lion and Goodbye Charley are two Ihad in mindThe link requires me to join it like a club or something like that.
Unbelieveable! Such a good film! Even small lines are extraordinary like "How much watch?" "Such much!" Yeah, I've seen the film many times.
Hmmmmm. Isn't Hal B. Wallis the one who produced those cheap, meaningless films with Elvis Presley? I know Elivs didn't like them. He wanted to be a serious actor, not sing.
True. I cringe when I think of the Tarzan films with tigers and bears and alligators roaming around the jungles of Africa and the sound of kookaburras in the trees.... There were bad old movies in classic Hollywood just like today. .