A lot of people comment on the color of old movies based on watching them on DVD or Blu-Ray, which is an electronic version of the movie that went through a digital color-correction process. Now ideally, a film print was used as a reference when grading the video transfer, but you can' t be sure of that so don't get too fixated on the home video color as being an accurate representation of how these movies looked when they were released (and back then, some prints may have been Eastmancolor and others Technicolor I.B., which would have an effect on saturation and contrast.) And even if you sought out these movies in revival houses, you then have the issue of either looking at an old color print of a (then) new negative, or a new print of a (now) old negative.
Nowadays, the only accurate idea of what these movies looked like forty, fifty years ago is a good Technicolor I.B. (dye transfer) print, assuming one was made and preserved well, simply because the dyes in those prints are very stable. But even there, you have to keep in mind that they were timed for projectors using carbon arc lamps, not modern xenon bulbs (which are slightly cooler... though both types are near daylight 5600K.)
I suggest reading the interviews with Conrad Hall in the book "Masters of Light", and also Maltin's book on cinematographers. He can be a bit contradictory, however, when it comes to color saturation. He said he didn't like intense saturation, especially in blue skies, which he felt often were mismatched from cut to cut, so he liked to overexpose the negative (sometimes heavily) to wash out the color a bit, and some of "Butch Cassidy" was shot with some sort of LowCon or Fogs to further soften the colors. However, he also mentions in other interviews that Deluxe Labs (which handled Fox movies at the time) printed down his overexposure and the results were somewhat richer colors... but I'm not sure he liked it that way or not. He often talked about trying to get away from the saturated contrasty Technicolor look of the 1950's and 60's, but compared to the muted style of many modern movies, some of those movies still look saturated by modern eyes.
But remember that video transfers are often goosed up in saturation to make old movies look more poppy and snappy on your TV set, partly to compensate for some fading in the film elements. But in terms of the technology of the day, which was mainly Eastmancolor negative and print stock, and also Technicolor I.B. prints, the negative stock of the day was not unusually saturated.
Another factor is that as film fades, the color layers fade at different rates. One effect is that old Eastmancolor prints go pink (magenta) as the yellow and blue dyes fade, but new prints of old negative often look blue-ish in the shadows and hair of the actors because they have to add blue to the new print to correct skintones and highlights that have shifted the other direction. So you get something of the effect of sunburned faces with blue-ish hair, blue-ish greys, etc. because the dye layers are imbalanced now due to selective fading. When it gets bad enough, they have to go back to any b&w separations that were made from the negative and work from those. Often the result from b&w seps being recombined is accurate color but more grain and contrast, so it's a toss-up sometimes compared to working with the faded color negative.
All this to say don't try to draw definitive conclusions as to how these old color movies originally looked by watching them on video.