I have to agree with Kerry regarding the difference in styles between the '40s, '50s, '60s and now in movies, as in everything else in life.

For one thing, movies of long-ago eras had something that very few movies have today (and I admit that as a writer I am biased). That little "something" is called a story, with a beginning, middle and end. Too many movies today depend on special effects, digital imaging, and violence to capture their all-too-often teenage audiences.

Actors like Susan Hayward, Bette Davis, Gene Tierney, Olivia DeHavilland, Robert Mitchum, Gregory Peck, Sir Laurence Olivier and many other great stars had the ability to make good scripts great and even transcend some of the not-so-good scripts.

That stars had some physical eccentricities and movements should not be such a detriment to these reviewers. If they are paying attention, later stars have them, too. One that comes instantly to mind is Dustin Hoffman with his incessant nose-and-mouth twitching that keep me unable to watch him for more than a couple minutes. Great as Meryl Streep can be, her head-tossing action can irritate after a while. There are more, of course, but none I can think of at the moment, for the simple reason that most of them are in movies with lousy stories that I don't want to pay good money to see.

I suggest some of these reviewers go back and really watch some of the actors, directors and their movies of long ago. They might learn something.

They did a segment the other night on ShowBiz Tonight on CNN about how these actresses ( Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep, etc) are getting huge, huge salaries and their films are going down the tubes. I guess the suits need their names to reel us in to these klunkers!