>We're not trying to bully you, and it is an interesting post.
>Just don't dismiss your knowledge on something because of your
>age, when you clearly know a lot about filmmakers who are from
>before your time.

it wasn't supposed to reflect my knowledge or interest in films before my time. if anything it was a respectful admission KNOWING that you are a few years older than me. I was simply trying to offer you a younger man's perspective. my interest in older films doesn't come from an urge to obtain superior knowledge (like AFKAP for example) and debate furiously over non-issues in attempt to appear smarter, and more seasoned. No. it's because I lover older films, newer films and all the ones inbetween.

I love American films, foreign films, silent films, doesn't matter. i'm fascinated by films that are clearly dated and off their time (and yes Hitch's films are OF THE TIME, that's why the remakes were updated so drastically - with mixed results of course). Those films aren't just entertaining but also educational in that they are snapshots of eras that neither I, or anyone else throwing jabs in this thread, will ever be able to personally experience. They're not films set in 1930s, they ARE films from the 1930s. That does not mean i consider them any less of a classic. Why is it that anytime someone admits to having a certain perspective on a topic, he gets attacked for it? All of you have your own perspectives on this. As passionate as you all may be NONE OF YOU were old enough to have sat in the cinema during Hitch's heyday either so where all this pseudo-lecturing stems from, i don't know. Anyways, i'm done with this place. IMDB may have a crappy layout but it's much less pretentious.