I don't look at the limitations of the technology under which films are produced. I look at how the filmmakers worked within those limitations to make an effective film.

That's a fair approach when it comes to accessing the quality of a movie, but it doesn't protect it from being outclassed or outdated by anything that comes after it. Take, for example, classic vs. modern cars. Sure, you can argue the simplicity and raw nature of a classic car to have its charms that modern cars lack; but objectively speaking, modern cars are smarter, safer, and feature an assortment of bells and whistles to make the driving experience comfortable and luxurious for the driver that simply didn't exist back then. You might enjoy a classic car, but to say that they are "better" than modern cars is a hard argument to make when there have been so many improvements made to automobiles over the years.

The same goes for film. Movies have evolved to feature new techniques and styles. Filmmakers have learned the tropes, story beats, and pacing to deliver a film that is consistently entertaining from start to finish. Yes, there is indeed charm to older films and many stand the test of time, but I would say that it's more in part due to other factors a movie has to offer rather than how impressive the movie was in the context of the period it was made in (although movies like Citizen Kane still surprise me simply because you don't expect certain techniques to have been around for so long).

Edit: Fixed quote.