Typically I've started out all like and then halfway through I'm like and at the end I'm like . I'm okay with ambiguity and symbolism to a point... I just don't find it that enjoyable when that's all there is and I'm like... what was THAT about? lol Anyway, I look forward to trying some of those on your list.
I did want to say something about visuals in film -- I get what you're saying, at least to a certain degree. However, I guess I am able to take something as a product of its era and appreciate it. The thing about Kane and some of the other films is not that it can't be duplicated or even improved upon today, but that it was unique and groundbreaking in its day and pioneered much of what has evolved since (and no little thanks to advancement in equipment and technology). Similarly, Psycho could very well be considered the birth of the modern thriller films, and many basic elements have been duplicated (however IMO seldom if ever topped) countless times. No one had ever seen anything like it at the time (well, continentally anyway).
Don't think too hard about them -
feel them.
The
pioneer/never been seen before/groundbreaking argument is probably where we differ most. I can respect and appreciate that those were true at the time, but a better test is how a film comes through
today. 2001: A Space Odyssey feels as if it could have been made this decade, but it was released in 1968. That is part of what makes it a masterpiece, because it has held up, it's as good now as it ever was; it's not dated, it's modern. Most hollywood films from the
classic era are dated by multiple elements of their production and therefore are ultimately inferior to most of what we have today. Not just technically, but especially in their
tone, which to me is probably the single most important aspect of a motion picture.
I'll give a couple of yours a chance, probably.