while it is true that still not every film looks amazing in HD (because of the source material, or because the studio messed around with a good master in digitally waxed away the natural film grain or tried to make it look "super sharp" with edge enhancement) - it s NOT true that not any film's look would improve drastically by higher bitrate of a blu-ray or more colour depth, compared to a dvd. blu-ray is able to preserve the film's natural look for the first time in history on a home media format.
think of PA's oldboy new 4k transfer again. you said you didn't like the heavy grain, but for me it looks very natural and not disturbing when projected with a beamer, and the heavy noise that is present in the screenhots you took was down to some extra digital processing in your TV that's not able to process natural film grain in high resolution properly. you like the DVD more because the resolution is lower and it looks better on your TV. fair enough. but the new scan is still a huge improvement when played in a "neutral" way (i.e. a TV that doesn't try to make a mpvie shot on film look like it was shot digitally).
if people prefer the vintage oldschool look of VHS in 4:3 for old movies, mostly for nostalgic reasons, i can totally understand that. but blu-ray can offer the best of both worlds - natural film look preserved as intended and originally shown in theaters (if not altered or "corrected" digitally) + a higher resolution than on vhs/dvd.
one of the very few examples where dvd looks better than blu-ray:
http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=3404&d2=3401&s1=31330&s2=31288&i=8&l=0
just because the blu-ray is dnr'd to death, and while dvd shows low resolution, at least some of the film grain is still there.
).
