Ultraviolet -- 2006 -- PG-13

This was a film with a decent premise done in by a bad script. The effects were clever enough but a little on the low budget side. The fights were well-choreographed, but strangely, completely blood-free.

When I first read the synopsis of this movie, I blanched. The plot seemed similar to something I had written and that I'm rather proud of. However, a weak script, hole-ridden storyline, and general cheesy-ness have quelled my concerns about this little film usurping my eventual domination of the genre.

My major problem was a lot of stuff that just didn't make any sense. Apparently whatever is going on makes perfect sense to those on the inside, but to me, I got lost in the shuffle. They figure out this kid Violet is toting around is supposed to be able to kill off the Hemophages (the vampire type people). Well, the plot moves from this to weirder places and then off to somewhere where I got lost. Sheis supposed to have 36 hours to live, and not only does she survive longer than that, she survives beyond the death or something, and I don't know why. The kid dies, then lives. I don't know why. Violet cries tears which are suppose to mean something. I have no idea what they mean.

The fight sequences are overdone, and waaay overacted. They were mostly laughable.

The characters are cardboard cutouts there to jump through the hoops the plot provides. They have no apparent motivation. Whatever the point to this movie was, it got lost somewhere after, oh, it was conceived.

It is apparently based on a comic book character. Perhaps this is a case of fanboy mania where those who have read the comics understand the movie, and the rest of us...well, we're out of the loop.

Final Destination 3 -- 2006 -- R

The latest installment of the FD franchise where death is the bad guy, and weird deaths are the bill of fare adds very little to the overall storyline. Basically, is you take the original Final Destination film and set it on a roller coaster without any adults, you have this film. The main difference is that one can conveniently look up the plot of the first film online and discover that people will die in the order they were supposed to be killed.

One thing this adds is that for some reason the leads play a minor role in nearly every death, usually by way of distraction or interference. In the first film, every death played out in an intricate series of apparent coincidences that caused the people to die. In FD3, the leads track down the next victim and seemingly inadvertently cause the person's death. It's not quite as cut and dry as the original was, and the deaths are not nearly as creative. There is one incredibly clever sequence in a hardware store, but most of the deaths are quickly done. There is usually a decent setup, but nothing that comes close to some of those in the original film.

In the end, it was a good movie, and did not shame the Final Destination franchise. It also had some good pacing, decent characters (for a horror flick), and a sensible plot. On the down side, it's strength was also its weakness in that it basically rehashed the first film with a slightly different scenario and different characters. The photographs were a nice addition, but really, it wasn't enough to distinguish itself.

Over the Hedge -- 2006 -- PG

Dreamworks' most recent venture into the CG animation world gives us the story of a bunch of animals who wake up to find they're in the sole remaining part of the forest in the midst of a massive residential development. The goal here, oddly, is not to find a way out of this predicament, but to gather food for the winter. This plot not being enough to carry the film, we have an outsider to the group who shows them the wonders of the development and how much food there is to be had. He, of course, has his own agenda of gathering food for a homicidal bear that he stole the food from the begin with, but after endearing himself to this group of animals, he predicatably has second thoughts.

The film follows a classic kid fare plot of a dozen cute and distinct characters who move along for awhile, get betrayed, and then live happily ever after. That being said, though, it does have a multitude of funny moments that bring on more than a few laughs. The story's engaging enough to keep you going to the end (not to see how it ends, but to see the antics it takes to get there), it moves along at a really good pace, and it really doesn't leave any loose ends. The little hyper chipmunk character steals the show quite often and is wonderfully setup for his part in the climax.

So, this ranks as another film that isn't bad at all. If you want a good little film that leaves you feeling good in the end, this one does its job very well.

Date Movie -- 2006 -- PG-13

Ok, this film from (2 of the 6) writers of Scary Movie was just dumb. It had a handful of moments drawn from some of the recent RomComs, but on the whole, it was dumb. All it did was shift one kind of comedy into another and then try too hard to make it funny. RomComs are mostly situational and dramatic humor, while this film was more blatant slapstick, sight gag, and sarcastic humor.

It had a rough storyline that it meandered through, but really was only there as a track to put their sight gags and movie spoofs onto. I really couldn't find any redeemable qualities in this film. I guess its pacing was all right, and I did laugh a few times, but on the whole, it wasn't worth it.

Underworld Evolution -- 2006 -- R

From the opening of the film, I was a little concerned about how this woudl play out. It's a sequel to Underworld of 2003, and we started out with a huge prologue of exposition about some new characters and expanding the backstory considerably. Fortunately many of the elements of the ending of the first film carried over and it started to make a bit more sense. It used the first film as a stepping point and moved on from there, but still told a self-contained story.

The characters were decent for an action flick that borders on horror, though the sex bits seemed a bit gratutitious unless they can play into things later. This one follows our heroine Selene as she works to hide her Vampire-Lycan hybrid friend turned lover. More of the backstory comes to light as we are introduced to two brothers who are each the source of  the Vampires and Lycans. In a bit of nearly ridiculous sentimentality, in this film, the father cannot destroy the sons for their violations, nor can the sons destroy each other, even though it would be the right thing to do.

The meanings of certain objects came to light, however, and as the film unfolded, I became more and more interested in the storyline, which is a good thing. I'm a plot guy as a lot of people know, so a good, in-depth plot intrigues me to no end. This one has that sort of plot.

A weakness in this one that also prevailed in the first one is the heavy, heavy reliance on guns as a weapon, and the seemingly unending supply of ammo. No one ever ran out of bullets (unless there was a ready gun replacement nearby). The only time anyone ever fought without a gun was against the main baddie, and then it was rare. I think more could have been done with these species in their methods of fighting. Sure there was a limited use of knives (wait, knife) and some bomb action (when it served to further the plot only, not as a defense or offensive weapon), but for the most part, it was guns.

Another item in this film that really didn't happen in the first one was the supernatural healing ability they have. In the first film, a trainload of vampires was attacked and they were killed by scratches and general beatings. They did not heal. I this one, we had the main baddie slammed againt a rock wall on the side of a moving vehicle. He healed. We had the characters take some serious beatings in this one that they never took in the first one. They healed. I thought that might be a bit over the top. Maybe I missed it in the first one though.

I admit to being hooked during the action-intensive climax, so that apparently worked for me. In the end, I thought it was a good enough film with some good action and a very indepth  and thorough plot. In my first viewing of it, I really didn't catch any real holes. So in the end, I felt it was a good, solid film that begs to have more story told.

Rumor mill says there may be another. I just may watch it too.

V For Vendetta -- 2006 -- R

This one was impressive. It had a clear cut message repeated over and over: the government should fear the people, not vice versa. Some great development and a plot deep enough to likely warrant another viewing should the opportunity arise.

We have a mysterious character named V, who acts as a sort of vigilante against the current government of England. He makes a promise to destroy the parliament building on November 5th, one year from making he announcement. During this time, he makes a series of mysterious killings related to something that unfolds as the films does. It follows two main plots beyond this: one is a relationship with a woman he saves first, and then she saves him. The second are some investigators who serve the purpose of illuminating V's backstory, since he never talks about it to the girl.

All of these characters get some solid development as we progress through the web of the tale. The plot continues to unravel little by little as well until the story is all laid out for us at the end and it makes perfect sense. The final scene is a sight to behold and really uplifting to watch.

As a side note, the film does make the rather obvious comment that the United States' current "War on Terror" will cause the nation to destroy itself. This film occurs in Britain, but the news makes multiple references to "the former United States" for no other really ovious reason related to the plot at hand.

I liked this film. It is definitely unique in its genre. I was worried when it opened with a heck of a lot of chit chat, but that panned out into something really impressive.

Scary Movie 4 -- 2006 -- PG-13

I watched the Unrated version on video that probably included more profanity, I'm guessing.

This one was a vast improvement over the last two pieces of crap put out in this franchise. Scary Movie 2 was shameful and Scary Movie 3 only moderately improved on it, since it was not possible to get worse (knock on wood). The "fourth and final installment of the trilogy" was much, much funnier and though it depended on the spoofing of other films for its humor, it did a far better job than it has ever done before. I have seen nearly all of the films it spoofed, so very little was lost on me.

One of the weaknesses of 3 was that it tried to do too much, and when I saw a dual War of the Worlds/Grudge thing going on, I was immediately concerned that this one might repeat the mistakes of its predecessor. My fears were abated, however, when the WOTW battle began, the Grudge plot was transitioned into something more. It was also amusing to me that Bill Pullman, who was in the Grudge, played a warped version of his role from that film.

While definitely a stronger entry this time with more laughs, the storyline still suffers from its reliance on spoof material and sight gags. A lot of things happen just for the sake of there being a joke in there somewhere, which hurts it when the joke doesn't come off as funny.

That being said, the overall story was actually pretty good. It had some ok development among the characters with our War of the Worlds characters actually experiencing growth during the course of the film. Our lead, Cindy, doesn't really grow that much at all, though.

So in the end, we have a far better offering than the previous ones have been. I'm not sure how much better it could have been considering the dependance on previously existing films.

Poseidon -- 2006 -- PG-13

Ok, so we have a disaster movie about a cruise ship that is hit by a freak tidal wave that flips it completely over on it top, leaving only the bottom of the ship exposed on the surface of the ocean. It happens on New Year's Eve so most of the passengers are reveling in either the big ballroom or another dance hall. One of the first things we are told is that once the boat was hit, GPS trackers were launched that will allow rescuers to pinpoint their location and pick them up -- few hours, tops.

From there, we launch into a journey from the bottom of the ship -- first, by a single passenger, and then by a group who want to follow him to get out, against the Captain's reassurance that the room they are in will keep them safe. I'd seen the 1972 version some time ago, so I knew exactly where that ballroom was going, but that's beside the point.

Long story short, their goal was to reach a propeller shaft so they could walk out of the bottom of the ship. Now, just to clarify (and this is not a spoiler, since I never include spoilers [the ballroom thing doesn't count; it should be obvious]), I thought the propeller he was referring to was the propellers at the rear (or stern) of the ship, so imagin my surprise when hit a certain point and announce that they are stuck because the bow in underwater. I'm laughing and saying, "you idiots, you should be heading for the stern." Well, turns out that this ship has some stabilizing propellers in the front of the ship, and THAT'S where they were going. I had no idea...

The film has a decent enough plot with some built in thrills and spills of the passengers working their way through the upside down maze of this behemoth ship to the bottom. Got a fair amount of claustrophobia and such of them working their way through, and not a lot of plot holes to fall into. Those who die are clearly telepgraphed before it happens and most are cliche deaths whose reasons for dying are incredibly obvious. There was an incredibly forced conflict with the kid running off near the end and getting himself trapped somewhere. Seriously, what kid in that situation is going to leave mom? And let's face it, folks. Despite its death in 68, we all know that parts of that 1930 production code are still in full force (in mainstream films), so the kid's fate is also incredibly obvious as is the ending.

The breakdown in this film is a very common breakdown in a lot of modern films...can you guess? Character. Introducing nearly a dozen characters and then developing them in a two hour film is a difficult thing to do, but this film wasn't two hours long. It only ran 90 minutes and then 10 minutes of credits (because they were a large font, double spaced -- I joked that if this were a Spielberg film, you couldn't read anyone's name with zoom, but here, everyone's was clearly visible -- anyway...). This means they actually had a half hour of time that could have been used to let the audience connect with these people. Give us a little of their personality, history, hopes, dreams, desires, goals, problems, issues, or something more than a bunch of nameless people trying to get out of a sinking ship. We got a little of some of them, but a lot of the actions were cliches and didn't set them apart from anyone else in the world. There was an incredible opportunity for development between Dreyfuss' character and the girl who stowed away, but it was blown off (I was even expecting it, and it never happened).

What it seems is that there was too much pressure to keep the plot going and character was left by the wayside. This is unfortunate in films like this since a quick study of the best of the best reveals that what makes them great is not the plot (because some of the best films in the world have a simple plot), but it's the character inside them. This film could have been much better, but it abandoned the most important part of the film in favor of getting through it. It has no real rewatchability to learn more about the people inside.

And finally...there was a raft waiting for those who made it out...with oars. I just shook my head and rolled my eyes. That has got to be the sickest coincidence I've ever seen. That's not a spoiler...that's just awful.

I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer -- 2006 -- R

This was a direct-to-DVD special that I watched after viewing the first two in the franchise, and to be honest, I didn't find it to be as bad as everyone was afraid it was going to be. I always tend to review from a story perspective, rarely getting into production stuff unless it becomes distracting.

This version has nothing to do with the "Last Summer" mentioned in the first two films. It rather uses those films as a backstory to provide a foundation to what happens in this one. At one point in the film, they pull out a scrapbook of sorts of articles mentioning "the fisherman" and the murders committed in the coastal town and Bahamas island of the first two films.

This film opens with the "fisherman" story and a chase through a fairground (and by the way, what the hell is with all these fairs? Is 2006 the year of the fair or something? Final Destination 3, When A Stranger Calls...anyway) until he corners one of the friends on top of a building. Well, this friend miscalculates his escape and ends up impaled on the top of a tractor. We learn that this fisherman chase is a big prank, but one that, with the death of the friend, has gone horribly wrong.

It begins to stand out more as a remake when many of the characters'...well, characters...resemble the four of the original film. This, however, does not detract from the enjoyment of the film, but rather serves to add to it, since it provides a sort of grim familiarity to what's going on.

One concern I started to have was how this killer can be everywhere. He pops up in the strangest places, and at one point, he attacks our heroine on a gondola quite a few feet above the ground. I was all set the poo-poo the ridiculousness of this whole unlikely crap when finally the reveal came. As with all of these teen scream flicks, there's a question mark leading us through the film of whodunit and this one is no different. It points the finger quite deliberately at just about everyone within the plot, revealing that their "secret" was not much of a secret at all. Several other people knew about the prank and knew who was behind it. What did this do? Give our fisherman more fodder to hack up. The reveal did what it should do: clean up the loose ends it was dangling throughout the film and allow what appeared to be stupidity to get itself to making sense.

I will admit that the film provided very little suspense, and barely classifies itself as a horror movie. It's kind of like the latter Nightmare on Elm Street films where it's basically a low-key action movie, and accepting it from this perspective will add to its enjoyment. You want a horror movie? Well, it has some blood in it, I guess.

Take it for what it is: a continuation/remake of the best part of a franchise, and a decent enough twist to give it its own legs to stand on. It's not the greatest film ever made, but it was a fun romp to chew up an hour and a half. The way they worked the franchise was just the next logical step it had to take.

When A Stranger Calls -- 2006 -- PG-13

This is based on an urban legend that always freaks me out. A girl is babysitting and she gets calls on the house phone threatening her, and asking if she has checked on the children. She finally calls the cops and they trace the call. They call back and tell her to get out because the call is coming from inside the house on the house's second line. She runs upstairs to find the children dead and she makes a daring escape. Now, this is Hollywood, and you can't kill children, so let's have a look at how this legend translated.

The parts of the film that played the legend worked fairly well. It generated a real feeling of creepiness as the calls played out, and the final call from the police relating that the calls are coming from inside the house was well placed, though it took awhile to get there. The whereabouts of the stranger were completely secret and we had no idea where he was or if he would spring out at some point, so that worked.

And that was the short list of what worked in this movie. Kick off your shoes and pop the popcorn because what didn't work goes on for awhile. By the numbers:

1. This girl is to babysit to work off going over her minutes at a super secluded mega house with a housekeeper...who was apparently unable or unwilling to babysit even though she lives there.

2. The alarm went off early in the film, but even though the housekeeper is no where to be found, she blows off the police. Ok.

3. Her friend enters through an open garage door without setting off the alarm. She still doesn't call the police even though that clearly points to what set off the alarm.

4. Her friend is somehow whacked outside the house...when the stranger is supposed inside already.

5. At one point, the Caller ID showed her friend's cell phone number calling, but when she answered, it was the stranger. She still didn't call the police.

6. She freely wanders the house looking for trouble when she feels like she is in danger. Wouldn't staying in one place be better?

7. Will someone please show this girl where the light switches are?

8. We've established the danger. She's scared. She's got the police coming to keep her company. What does she do when she notices someone in the guesthouse (who is supposed to be their son who never announces when he's coming home)? She calls the guesthouse and leaves a detailed message about everything she is doing.

9. But wait! In the worst move in the entire film, she LEAVES THE HOUSE and runs to this guesthouse to check out who is there. She doesn't know this son character. Maybe he's the freak. Then the stranger calls the unlisted number of the guesthouse. Hm, where could he have found this number? On the fridge, maybe? Then she runs right back to the house again.

10. This film had no character development. It gave us just enough of everyone to tell the story, but nothing to really connect to. It had a slew of different characters, most of which went unused. Even the people she was working for and her best friend were as good as extras in this one.

11. It had this whole bit where she got a popsickle out of the freezer and she failed to eat it, so she threw it away. What was the point of that series of scenes?

So we've got a lot of flaws here. Tons of stuff that happened for the sake of attempting some scariness, but it was so contrived, that all fear was offset by laughing at the film. It had a good premise, but some desperately poor execution.

Silent Hill -- 2006 -- R

As I understand it, this film is an adaptation of a video game, but having never played the game, I am left to look at this film like a movie, likely much to the distress of those who played the game (sort of like my Final Fantasy VII review where I was told to shove it because I didn't understand the game). That being said, I'll only thumb my nose once before plunging in.

I thought this was a clever little horror flick actually. We begin with a mother frantically searching for her little girl before finding her standing over a veritable abyss next to a waterfall. The mother, Rose, rescues the daughter, Sharon, as she nearly throws herself to her death repeating the words, "Silent Hill." Well, a quick research online reveals Silent Hill to be a ghost town in West Virginia, so Rose decides to run her daughter, who we learn was adopted from West Virginia, out to Silent Hill in an attempt at therapy.

From there, we go on this little adventure inside this town of Rose looking for Sharon. A lot of really weird stuff goes on with a darkness that envelops the place and a constant snowing of ashes. The claustrophobia of the film really ups the creep factor a lot, and sometimes we're placed in almost total darkness with only the sounds around us. Very well done there.

But...we're not without some down sides. First, the lead manages to find a flashlight that works. This town has been shut down for 30 years, and Rose walks into an abandoned office and finds a flashlight that works. This was completely unbelievable. After all the horror, this really hurt it for me. I would have accepted her having a flashlight in her truck or something, but to find one in town? You gotta be kidding.

They also ran up against this weird zombie thing with acid blood. This thing only appeared once and could have been those things in the dark too. It never received any kind of explanation for what it was or what it existed. It just seems like something that looks weird and creepy and that's why it's there. This works for a video game, but not so good for a movie.

Finally, the ending. This is what the audience takes away from a film and it is critical to it working or not. I kind of understood from the parallel storylines that Rose and Sharon were in a sort of parallel world to our own. This is not a spoiler, it is actually revealed very early on in the film, but when we hit the end, this phenomenon is never explained. We reach a sort of satisfying conclusion to what happens in Silent Hill, and then end up in a sort of limbo'd state of ambiguity. It left me kind of empty. I was surprised when the credits started rolling. Kind of bummed me out.

In the end, I liked it. It had some good adventure, good scares, good suspense, but an ending that left me hanging. Still recommend it, though. Some people like ambiguous endings.

The Hills Have Eyes -- 2006 -- R

Ok, so we have another remake; this one of a classic film originally directed by Wes Craven from the late 70's about cannibals living in the radiation drenched desert of New Mexico (I believe).

This one got weird from the get-go with some old guy wandering around hollering for "Ruby." Well, in short order, we get a collection of odds and ends including an ear, and our protagonists stop into his gas station. In typical horror movie fashion (and completely unlike reality), everyone gets out of the vehicles (a truck with a full fifth wheel camper in tow) including the dogs which, of course, need to be chased down. It's kind of an annoying scene overall, but hey, it's really the only development we get for most of these people.

At the end, we get our catalyst for the whole film. Old guy says take this road that's not on the map; it's a shortcut. Me? I would have said thanks but no thanks, but our big man in the driver's seat putts himself and his family down a completed deserted dirt road in the middle of no where from a highway leading through the middle of nowhere, and of course, they end up crashing from from strategically placed spikes in the road that blow out all of the tires and send the truck careening into a nearby rock. Now they're trapped.

What's the first thing they do? Split up. That's right, it's a horror movie, so they split up. One goes down the road to see how far it goes...seriously. The other heads back to the gas station. Me? I'd've seen four blown out tires and no evidence of what did it and suspect something is up. Then again, I'd've never gone down that road to begin with in a truck towing a camper. Anyway, everyone else stay at the camper in the blistering heat.

As could be expected a dog escapes and runs across the desert to its timely demise. The boy chases said dog; I would have let the dog run...they come back. The boy discovers the dog gutted, flips out, and tells no one...even when he insists they all sleep together in the camper, and the married couple wants to sleep in the truck...even then, he doesn't tell. "He didn't want to freak everyone out," he says later.

Now, the move that ruined the whole movie in believability. I tell you this because this film is really not worth renting. The cannibals get into the camper and find the cute teenager. They want a piece of her, even though mom is sleeping in the camper too. You ready for this? The teenager gets a little scream out. They use a remote to light up dear old dad some distance away (cause they captured him at the gas station). Mom gets up and runs out the door WITHOUT NOTICING THE TEEN OR EVEN LOOKING HER DIRECTION. This is a mobile tube and mom didn't notice their visitors or that her daughter was in danger. I just laughed at this because it was so unbelievable. And then, to top that off, these guys are working on doing their business with her, her brother-in-law comes back into the camper for something (I forget what), says something to her quickly, and leaves ALSO WITHOUT NOTICING HER PERIL. This should have been one of the most horrific and suspenseful scenes in the film, but I just could not accept that no one would notice someone in trouble less than 10 feet away.

So, the film was pretty much destroyed for me from there. People die. The baby is kidnapped (yeah, they put a little baby in the film) so the brother-in-law has to look for his child in the freak town of the cannibals. He takes the living dog with him. Good move, in my opinion. Then, he stashes the dog somewhere when he enters the house with the baby. Idiot. Dogs count as, like, two people in a fight.

They have one of the cannibals' wakie talkies...and then use it with the camper's CB to communicate. Um, hello? The cannibals have the walkie talkies...they can hear you.

Finally, the guy gets the baby (the first time), and tries to exit the house back through the front door instead of at least trying the window for a quicker, safer escape. If the window is stuck, then fine, but he didn't even try it.

This film was a case of characters jumping through hoops to ensure they follow the plot only and not do what people logically do. Most of it is completely unbelievable and the suspense was almost impossible to get into as a result. Not as bad as "Manos" The Hands of Fate or Scary Movie 2, but it's down there.

The Tooth Fairy -- 2006 -- NR

Got me a kind of graphic horror flick this time that is a twist on the traditional tooth fairy mythology. This time, the tooth fairy is a witch who longs for your last baby tooth, and once she takes it, she kills you rather brutally with an axe. She keeps the tooth which traps the soul of the child in limbo between heaven and hell.

Another kicker here is she lived in the house purchased by our main characters with the intention of turning it into a bed & breakfast. So we have kind of a Friday the 13th idea going on in that we not only have the little girl who has, of course, lost her last baby tooth, but the witch's spirit has been brought back due to all the wonderful renovations to her house. You'd think she'd be thrilled with the boost to the property value.

So one by one, the people who are staying in the house get hacked in graphic and disgusting ways dumping blood everywhere. Things are complicated by a weird hate relationship between the new owner and some guys in town who were squatting on the property. It's a weird kind of relationship, and seems thrown in only to add to the screen time, since their existence adds very little to the overall plot and doesn't forward the story really. I'm sure if the core story were over 90 minutes, these guys wouldn't even be here.

The characters themselves are pretty well drawn. We have a past and future for each of the main ones, and very quickly into the film, we actually hope for the best for them, which makes their deaths a bit of a bummer. The deaths themselves are hidden fairly well in the order they'll die. The first one (not the teaser, but after that one) is dead obvious not only who but how, but fortunately that telegraphing ended there (although an obvious weapon was setup kind of early).

As for the plot, it was decent. We had our share of dumb moves peculiar to the horror genre. The girl walks into a clearly abandoned shed, and still asks if anyone is there. Lots of "hello?"s here and there. People wandering into areas that no one in their right mind would wander into. People exploring strange noises even though they know there's a killer out there (seriously, people don't do this!). People getting left alone (often as more of a matter of convenience rather than need). One character was told that a certain item would slow down the tooth fairy. This item (which has unlimited use) was used once and for some reason discarded.

And let us not forget the cranky old person who knows the whole history of everything and visits once and is then visited later so we can learn all there is to know, including how to win. This person was the most underdeveloped, though without her, we'd've been confused.

The biggest downside is the suspense (or rather lack thereof). We are introduced to the danger when it comes up and kept abreast of what it is doing which (if you know anything about fear) does not inspire any kind of dread or suspense. It's a tad creepy at times, and there's a little dread when you know someone is going to be hacked, but when it comes to suspense, there is none. Once the tooth fairy picks someone, it is over pretty quick. No false scares. No wondering whether the person is in danger or not. Just there's the monster. There's the victim. Cut back and forth and whack! Game over, man. It's the weakest part of the whole thing, though suspense (strangely) is more a facet of thrillers than it is horrors, which focus primarily on the gore effects rather than the slow build of tension.

In the end, it was actually pretty good. We had a decent plot (though ripe with horror cliches), good characters, and some good action. For you horror buffs, there is lots of gore and yes, the required bare bosoms (can't get through a horror flick without 'em). So the film works better than most horror movies I've seen, and if you like horror, it's worth a look. Just don't look to be scared; only a bit creeped.

Lucky Number Slevin -- 2006 -- R

Wow, very cool. Here we have a thriller that self-references to North by Northwest, and what an appropriate analogy it is. It's easily as well constructed aa that Hitchcock classic, though a bit more graphic.

What we have is a guy named Slevin who, after a fit of bad luck, goes to stay with a friend who has disappeared and is immediately picked up by some gangsters to whom his friend owes money. He is charged to work an act of vengeance on boss #1 for the actions of boss #2 in exchange for paying off the debt he (or rather, his friend) owes. Well, then boss #2 takes an interest in him for the debt owed to him as well. Then, there is apparently a hitman involved who has some sort of interest in our boy Slevin as well. That's the setup.

This film both takes right off, while at the same time being a slow burning fuse that begs for us to pay attention or risk missing something that may or may not be important later. I say it like that because like any well-made film, everything is important but until the chips finally come down, we have no idea. A normal film gives up the setup in the first 20 minutes; this one gives you a bunch of stuff that happens, but doesn't give up much. Nonetheless, I was glued for the duration wondering what the heck was going on.

Got some great characters in this one and though it's hard to discuss some issues without spoiling the film, I will say everyone's motives make perfect sense and every little thing works together to make the larger whole very cohesive and tightened together nicely. The plot flows very quickly with little in the way of extraneous scenes to make you wish they would just get on with it.

Only one scene made me wish we would move on, and while that scene served to reveal some character info between the two bosses, I really think it went on too long as I was just wishing we could get to the point of the film which was approaching very quickly by that time.

This was a great film, and right up my alley. It was twisty, and appropriately confusing until just the right time when everything comes out and all reasoning is revealed. I really enoyed it.

Stay Alive -- 2006 -- R (UR)

I watched the Unrated DVD version of the film.The DVD had a strange character building thing that I could never figure out. If you have a clue on this one, feel free to say what it is supposed to do. I even matched up one of the characters, and it still kicked me out. Anyway...

This film takes some of the modern fun stuff and makes it evil. I guess someone took a lesson from the Japanese here. So this time, the concept is that there is a video game that is horrific and violent, but the catch is however you die in the game, that's how you will die in real life. This is understandably disturbing for those who have played and died. Then the game realizes no one is playing it anymore, so it starts playing itself to get more of them in its clutches. Now they're forced into it.

This was a great concept that played out superbly in some areas of the flm, particularly in the third act when reality and the game were actually interacting. Really cool. They even used the rumble function against us. When you hear that tell-tale controller vibration, look out.

But we were not without flaws, of course. Had ourselves a slew of horror movie stupidity to go with the cleverness which took a lot of the respect out of this film. Got your mass of characters with distinctly stereotypical personalities so you know them quickly and understand them just as fast. People knock once, and enter other people's houses. They investigate weird noises and movements. They go into dangerous places alone. When they are all alone, they say, "Hello? Is anyone there?" And it was setting itself up so well...

For the gorehound in you, you won't be totally satisfied, but you won't be totally disappointed either. There's some splatter, just not much of it, which is fine by me. I'm more into suspense than splatter anyway.

One point that was just ridiculous...where in the world does one have access to police case records and photographs that they can print off? I mean, seriously. That kind of stuff isn't public. I don't care who you are. This guy just logged onto the net and the background said FBI. My disbelief was faltering in its suspension.

Cool concept and some good scenes and moments. It did follow its own rules, though the characters were cliche. Not the worst movie of its kind, by any means, but it could have been much better.

The Lake House -- 2006 -- PG

Well, this was the next movie on my wife's Netflix list, but this time, I wanted to see it. The previews looked a bit wild, so it drew me in. What I got was a pretty well-constructed fantasy romance.

We start out with a woman who is a doctor leaving the title house and moving to Chicago. Her departure is immediately followed by the arrival of a guy who is an architect and in the mailbox is a letter from the woman. It's pretty basic stuff about the house, but nothing she says matches what he finds in the house, and to top that off, he writes back to her telling her he doesn't know who she is since no one has lived in the house in years.

What we very quickly learn (and it's in all the previews) is that these people live two years apart and they are only connected through this mailbox in front of the house that will pass letters through in real time with a two year lapse. It's actually a very interesting concept, and plays out fairly well throughout the course of the story. It allows for a solid connection between these two people and fills out their characters well.

One pressing question throughout the film is why the architect doesn't just show up and see her. After all, he has already experienced everything she is going to, so what's the hold up, right? I have my half-baked theories throughout and this point is throughly clarified without a doubt in a climactic ending. The pacing occasionally slows, but not to the point of distraction. The film does commit a rather paradoxical continuity error as well, but based on the fantasy already created, it's forgivable. Also to make the story work, it glazes over a few things that seem a little obvious that our hero might have done, but perhaps he understand the paradox it would have created...

This is a cool little fantasy romance that is quite a bit different from your standard chick flick fare. While the why is never explained, it really doesn't need to be. It's one of those things that's just an enigma in the world...a mailbox that allows two people to connect over a two year span.

RV -- 2006 -- PG

Wow, it's been a practically movie-less last week. Not sure what happened there.

RV is a family comedy involving an advertising guy who had planned a big vacation to Hawaii with his family until his boss tells him that he can't go, and now needs to give a presentation in Colorado. Not wanting to reveal the business trip but still wanting to take the vacation, he concocts an RV Trip to get them to Colorado and spend time with the family.

This is essentially a madcap type mis-adventure where the family tries to avoid each other, hate each other, and eventually bond before it's all over. The antics start a little stale but quickly escalate into downright amusing and funny. The poor RV (aka 'the rolling turd') gets tortured in the course of the movie losing its brakes early on for some silly (and plot-impacting) consequences further in.

The characters were drawn a bit thin with very little backstory and huge play on cliche character types. We have the rapping, weight-lifting little brother; the rebellious, "dad's a dork" teenage daughter who listens to hard rock; the stay at home mom who is spoiled; and the workaholic dad. While the cliches make it easy to make a connection to these people, the lack of originality makes the overall characters very unmemorable.

The moral message of the film is very easy to decipher, and in fact, I had it deciphered as soon as the plot was laid out. As soon as he announced the plan for the RV trip, I thought to myself, "If he just tells them what's going on, it'll make it all a lot easier for them to take." This message was delivered 60 minutes later. There was very little reasoning given for him not to reveal this beyond a slim mentioning that on the Hawaii vacation, he was not to work. If there had been some kind of whining and complaining about the working, it would have been a bit easier to take.

However, in the end, the movie was great fun, I laughed quite a bit, so the point of it being a comedy was well taken and a great success. The thin establishment of the main plot and forgettable characters hurts it a little bit, but the film is stil worth watching. It's very enjoyable which is really the point of movies anyway.

Cyber Wars -- 2006 -- PG-13

From the beginning, this one felt like a variant of the Matrix and a few other movies I've seen yet don't remember the titles to. We start out with some scrolling text to set us up so we aren't completely lost in the next scene which has our heroine chasing down a guy who has somehow changed his identity using a "simplant." The whole society is linked together via this "Cyberlink" and identity theft isn't so much of a problem as identity changing, or that's how I understood it.

A lot of the story details are rather convoluted, though the movie seems to flow well enough on what it does construct for us. How everyone is linked is never really explained to satisfaction, nor is how these simplant things help those who use them since they don't change the face, but just the perceived identity. The only time anything is used for identification purposes from a societal standpoint is getting into the subway. So....avoid the subway and no one catches you? Not seeing the threat here.

Our heroine is a bounty hunter and of course, she is the best because of her father or something that was also not fully delved into. She is charged to find a guy who can now put this simplant thing into his brain which makes a identity change permanent, and while this sounded very cool, the reason continues to escape me. She actually finds him very quickly in the overall plot, and we learn there's more to the story than just him.

This is where it gets very Matrixy and where we get into spoiler-world. What I can say is there is a lot of virtual reality in this world of theirs, and while it doesn't follow the exact plot of the Matrix (sorry, no machines controlling the world, and they are not living their lives as batteries in a big computer), there are a lot of elements that made the corrolation inescapable.

The characters all ring as very flat throughout and even when something that should be devastating occurs, it falls through because we have no investment in the story. The plot is interesting enough to keep going (even though parts of it don't make a lot of sense), but the characters are just going through the motions to get to the end. Special effects are decent, but very cartoony in a lot of places. It feels like a cheap TV movie where they wanted to do more than the budget allowed for. It would have been good to concentrate on the story first, and then build around that.

In the end, it wasn't the worst film ever. A lot more effort should have been put into developing the characters to the point that we understood them, and could invest in their problems. There were some scenes we could have gone without just to get a little more character. I don't know if it would have saved this mess since the very premise was not explained to my satisfaction (in fact, it was only explained in that little scroll up at the beginning...which was probably added in post when they realized it was never explained), but it would have helped. Good characters can sometimes save a bad story just because they're so hard to find.

Click -- 2006 -- PG-13

I remember wanting to see this one from the well-constructed trailers. It's quite simply about a guy who is given a universal remote for his life. We're not talking just his present life; he can back up to any point in his life and review everything going on, he can pause his present, and even get a commentary by James Earl Jones. All of this begins as some great fun and comedy and Adam Sandler plays it very well with great effect.

Things start to get hairy when he decides he doesn't want to deal with something and fast forwards. All he has to do is think of where he wants to end up and he ends up at that point in his life. And so begins the dramatic part of the story which passes from amusing to heart-wrenching as we wheel along. The characters are well-played and the main ones are rounded out sufficiently to completely understand them and their motivations. It's a very simple story which only serves to help it in the area of the character development.

The drama takes over the comedy in the latter part of the film, and it is this latter part that really gives the film its staying power. The theme is all about the decisions you make in life and the consequences. When fast-forwarding, his life went on "auto-pilot" meaning that whatever was most important took center stage. So while he was skipping these parts, everyone else still experienced him acting this way, and he was left in the end to decide whether it was all worth it.

Sure, I can find a weakness in the fabric of it all. Since we're dealing with a movie that involves the intangible concept of time, there were some minor logic flaws. It felt like there were some ideas that were in one scene, but dropped in the next scene (such as a scene where focus was placed on him dropping the remote on the carpet as he ran up the stairs; I thought something was going to happen with this, but it was back with him in the next scene).

The one thing I wanted him to do with this ability was never done in the entire movie. If I had this little device, I would pause my life, and do a bunch of things that needed to be done, and then unpause. That way, I've finished what I need to do and can move on. Granted, it would be limited to physical things, but he could have finished the treehouse on pause. Anyway...

I liked it. It was well-constructed and clever. It had a solid moral core to it. It had scenes that were well-acted and very dramatic. Definitely one of the better films I've seen recently.

The Omen 666 -- 2006 -- R

This is a remake of the film of the same name (minus the 666) from 1976. The plot is 99% identical to the original with a few location and effect changes and a slight updating here and there of stuff that happened between 76 and now.

We start with a lot of prophetic hullabaloo basing a variety of news clips from the past few years (9/11, the Tsunami from a couple years ago, the shuttle explosion) on passages from Revelation indicating the time of the Antichrist has come. Then our her's child is born, dies, and he adopts a child whose mother died in childbirth. He willingly accepts the baby as his own to comfort his wife. Then comes the question: is the child the Antichrist? The 76 version makes this a lot less clear than this one. Everything seemed like more of an accident back then where this one was more deliberate.

Our first storyline problem came pretty quick, and that would be the infamous hangnig of the nanny. We got no bonding time with this woman. We didn't see her interact with Damien in any way, nor did we know anything about her until after it was all over. I saw this as an error in character since while her fate is predetermined, we needed at least a little connection instead of, "hm, who's that?" Crack! "Ok, who WAS that?"

The movie progressed, as I said, like the original, so there's not a lot that went wrong. Unlike some remakes that screw up the story somehow, this one simply updated it, and played it just like it did last time, so it actually worked remarkably well. One interesting change was the beheading, but I have no issue with this. It worked just as well as the original version did.

The characters were decently developed for the genre. We didn't have an intimate knowledge of them, but I cared enough about what was going on an about Robert Thorn. Horror movies are meant to hit us in our vulnerable spots, and this one used a child, which is probably the most vulnerable since people don't usually fear their own children, so that was a good little idea as well.

Of course, my one lingering question is "Why the heck didn't they fire the new nanny?" She was breaking rules, arguing with the family, and even brought in a dog that she was instructed to get rid of and never did. Oh well.

People have whined and complained about this movie, but really, it wasn't too bad. I acheived what it was meant to achieve: bring the 1976 story to the present day and tell it again for a modern audience. Whether us movie fanatics wants to admi it or not, there are people who do not watch movies that were made before they were born. Therefore, they would never watch the 1976 Omen, and this gives them access to a horror classic that was remade rather well, in my opinion.