Plot summary (from the studio): Tragedy seems to follow nine-year-old Esther. She was orphaned in her native Russia. Her last adoptive family perished in a fire Esther barely escaped. But now the Coleman family has adopted her, and life is good. Until a classmate takes a serious fall from a slide. Until an orphanage nun is battered to death. And until Esther’s new mom wonders if that tragic fire was an accident.

From Dark Castle Productions comes Orphan, bringing stunning new twists to the psychological thriller and locking audiences in a tightening vise of mystery, suspicion and terror. You’ll never forget Esther. So sweet. So intelligent. So creative. So disturbed.

Warning: Spoilers below!

Liked:

• I really grew to appreciate Vera Farmiga in this film. No, it wasn’t her best performance (see Up in the Air for that), but I think she did a great job of essentially carrying the film as the only likable character in the entire cast. Now I want to see more of her in leading roles!
• The best moment in the entire film came when John was killed. He was such an idiot that I practically cheered when Esther stabbed him. I’m glad the filmmaker resisted the urge to make John somehow survive and have them start over again as a family. That would have been all kinds of wrong. Kate was much better off without him.

Disliked:

• John was the worst fucking husband EVER. Why would he believe some random 9-year-old orphan over his wife — not just once, but time and time again???? I know it was just a convention for the movie, because after all, if he believed Kate and they got rid of Hester, where would that leave us, but it still bugged the hell out of me. Ugh, he soooo deserved to die.
• Didn’t anybody in that family think it was creepy that Esther wanted to “sleep with Daddy” so soon after being brought home? They barely had time to form any kind of bond yet. That would have raised all kinds of red flags with normal people.
• The “twist” that Esther was actually a 33-year-old woman was pretty ridiculous. I mean, I guess it fit with the story (especially as I was getting annoyed at how many times I said, “how would a 9-year-old know about that?), but it was still hard to swallow. Also, if she was 33, why would she waste her time languishing in an orphanage waiting to get adopted? After escaping to America, couldn’t she have lived as her “adult” self?
• There was a typically drawn-out final fight between good (Kate) and evil (Esther) at the end. I hate those stupid fights because it’s not as though the outcome is ever in doubt, right? And the combatants always take far more abuse and punishment than regular people could. There’s no way either of them would have been walking after the blows they absorbed during the fight.

Rating:

I was totally suckered by Orphan’s 7.1-star rating on IMDb, and thought I’d get treated to an interesting “psychological thriller.” Boy, was I wrong. The setup was decent, but the last half of the movie just dragged and dragged. Plus, the characters were infuriating, the plot made little sense, and the girl who played Esther was (sorry to say this about a child, but…) not a very good actress. I give this film 2 stars out of 5.

Plot summary (from the studio): In Scream 4, Sidney Prescott (played by Neve Campbell), now the author of a self-help book, returns home to Woodsboro on the last stop of her book tour. There she reconnects with Sheriff Dewey (David Arquette) and Gale (Courteney Cox), who are now married, as well as her cousin Jill (Emma Roberts) and her Aunt Kate (Mary McDonnell). Unfortunately Sidney’s appearance also brings about the return of Ghostface, putting Sidney, Gale, and Dewey, along with Jill, her friends, and the whole town of Woodsboro in danger.

Warning: Spoilers below!

Liked:

• Like the previous three films of the franchise, Scream 4 was very self-aware and featured some decent jokes about the endless sequels that horror films tend to produce, as well as the accepted conventions or ground rules involved. I particularly liked Sidney’s line where she said “the original is always better than the sequel” — or something to that effect.
• It was fun seeing the core three back again for this film. I watch Courteney Cox every week on Cougar Town, but I don’t think Neve Campbell has done much in the way of acting in the past decade. She was one of my favorite stars in the early ’90s, as I was a huge Party of Five fan. I always felt kind of sad that she basically fell off the Hollywood map there. And David Arquette… I don’t think I know him from anything else, but it’s always good to have the originals return when possible.
• It was also cool seeing actors like Alison Brie (playing a character vastly different from Annie on Community), Kristen Bell, and Adam Brody (Seth Cohen!!!) in the film.
• I like the continuity in having a couple of the kids walk around with sony digital cameras recording everything. After all, who dissects films more than wannabe directors? This has been a staple since Scream 2 and I was glad to see it back again here.
• The killer(s) actually made sense this time, and it was easy to track their motivation. I can’t remember which previous film it was exactly (either 2 or 3), but I recall that I was utterly confused by who Ghostface was and why he/she was killing people. At least having Jill and that other kid be the killers (hey, I warned you about spoilers!) was understandable from the audience’s perspective.

Disliked:

• Hayden Panettiere reeeeeally stood out from the other high school kids in the film. I mean, she just appeared to be so much more mature than them, and of course she’s simply stunning to look at. I know she’s only 21 in real life, so it’s not a stretch that she played a high school student, but it was a bit distracting to see her around the other girls. Yeah, I’m sure they were all just as old or even older, but Hayden’s looks got in the way.
• The second act kind of dragged out for a long time. The movie was only about an hour and 40 minutes long, which isn’t a marathon by any stretch, but there wasn’t enough happening in Act 2 to sustain interest.
• Maybe this is a problem of familiarity breeds contempt, but there weren’t any truly scary moments in this movie. Like most people, I just pretty much took it for granted that Ghostface would kill some of the kids (but none of the core 3) but that he/she would be unmasked in due time. Even the victims seemed jaded in this film, and didn’t get scared during the phone calls like they did in the first few movies.

Rating:
I really wanted to like Scream 4 because the franchise has sentimental value for me (reminding me of some good times in my life back in the mid to late 1990s), but unfortunately the filmmakers didn’t give me much to enjoy. The opening sequence was strong and set up my expectations for an entertaining time, but the second act failed to deliver. The film probably legitimately rates 2 stars, but nostalgia compels me to give it 3 stars out of 5.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): One night a violent thunderstorm sweeps through the town of Bridgton, Maine, leaving extreme wreckage in its wake. The next morning, David Drayton (played by Thomas Jane) surveys the damage to his property and decides that he better head off to town to pick up supplies before the supermarket is cleaned out by other residents. David brings along son Billy (Nathan Gamble) and neighbor Brent Norton (Andre Braugher), leaving wife Stephanie (Kelly Collins Lintz) at home to begin putting things back in order.

On the way to town, David and Brent notice a lot of military vehicles heading in the opposite direction, but they don’t make too much of it. Their focus is simply on getting supplies, which is what lots of other people are doing at the crowded supermarket.

While in the supermarket, the patrons notice a heavy mist rolling down from the surrounding mountains. The mist is dense enough to reduce visibility to zero, which gets the patrons worrying about how they’re going to return home. Then someone runs into the store with a bloody nose, screaming that no one should venture into the mist. The supermarket patrons don’t quite know what to make of the screamer, but don’t really take him seriously — yet.

Things change when a bag boy tries to go outside to fix the store’s only generator. He’s viciously attacked by a tentacled monster that severs his body at the waist. David manages to slice of a piece of the monster, which later serves as evidence that something is indeed out there.

The rest of the films shows the arguments, fights, and killings that take place in the store as the patrons try to decide what they’re supposed to do. Eventually a small group breaks away from the pack and goes on an expedition outside to find out what’s going on. Things look bleak, with no apparent signs of survivors anywhere — which leads to the group taking a drastic final step.

My Reaction: This was one of the few Stephen King stories that I didn’t read in the original prior to seeing the film. As a result, I have nothing to compare the events of the film to. I know that the ending wasn’t faithful to the novella, but I have no idea how the rest compares.

Anyway, I am a bit torn about The Mist. On the one hand, the idea of a monstrous creature hiding in a fog just seems so utterly absurd and laughable that I could hardly work up any tension while watching. I know the film was supposed to be more about the pack mentality than about the monster, but still… it was just hard to get invested in this premise. On the other hand, I actually liked the ending because it didn’t follow the typical pattern of the Army swooping in at the last minute to save the day. Yes, the Army swooped in, but just a few minutes too late, as it turned out.

One thing I don’t understand is why the David’s posse didn’t try to escape on foot once the gas ran out. I mean, there was only one creature, right? And it couldn’t be everywhere at once, right? So they had a pretty good shot of making it to a safe haven without getting torn apart.

Overall, I guess The Mist was about as good as most Stephen King films, which is to say rather average. The events at the end weren’t quite enough to make up for what transpired before, so I give this movie 3 stars out of 5.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Christine Brown’s (played by Alison Lohman) life seems to be headed in the right direction. She has a stable job as a loan officer at a bank and has a cozy home life with boyfriend Clay Dalton (Justin Long), who is himself beginning a new job as a professor at the local university. In addition, Christine is up for a promotion to an assistant manager position, with co-worker Stu Rubin (Reggie Lee) being the only obstacle.

Boss Mr. Jacks (David Paymer) tells Christine that Stu has a slight edge for the promotion even though Christine has been there longer. Christin just hasn’t demonstrated that she can make the tough decisions that the new job would require. This news makes Christine determined to prove that she’s up to the task.

She gets her chance when an old woman named Sylvia Ganush (Lorna Raver) comes into the bank. Mrs. Ganush is way behind on her mortgage payments (again), and has come to ask for an extension. Christine refuses, in an attempt to show Mr. Jacks that she deserves the promotion. Even after Mrs. Ganush goes down on her knees right in the middle of the bank to beg for leniency, Christine doesn’t give in.

Later, as she’s going home, Christine is attacked by a deranged Mrs. Ganush in the parking garage. They fight it out, with Christine coming out on top. Mrs. Ganush, however, does manage to put a curse on Christine.

For the next few days, Christine is bothered by weird happenings. She sees Mrs. Ganush in her dreams, bleeds profusely for no reason at all, and sees strange shadows in her home. Freaked out by it all, Christine tries to go to Mrs. Ganush’s house to make peace, but learns from the woman’s daughter that it’s too late. Mrs. Ganush has died.

The rest of the film then shows how Christine tries to get rid of Mrs. Ganush’s spirit and the curse once and for all, first with the help of Clay and then with the help of a fortune teller who may or may not be a scam artist.

My Reaction: I’m surprised that Drag Me to Hell has such a high rating (7.3 stars as of this writing) on IMDb.com. That rating duped me into seeing it, and I was completely disappointed with how the film turned out. This wasn’t horror so much as it was gross-out crap, and it wasn’t clever enough to be a comedy along the lines of the Scream franchise.

I can’t believe how many disgusting things went into Christine’s mouth during this film. WTF? I seriously just wanted to reach through the screen and clamp her jaws down. Is this the kind of thing that passes for “horror” these days? Give me a break.

The story lost momentum well before the halfway point, so by the time the Mexican lady from the beginning of the film was brought back in, I had already pretty much tuned out and didn’t care what was going on. All I can say is that I’m glad Christine got dragged to hell at the end. Good riddance to an annoying character.

Overall, Drag Me to Hell was a rather boring film with an unlikable lead, stupid setup, and poor execution. Even though the main character got what she deserved in the end, it was too little too late. I give this movie 2 stars out of 5.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): The Final Destination franchise deals with the basic premise that you can’t cheat death. When your time is up, you’ll exit this earth one way or another.

In this particular film, Death has his eyes set on a group of kids from McKinley High School. The fateful events begin during Grad Nite festivities at a local amusement park, where senior Wendy Christensen (played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead) suddenly has a vision while she’s standing in line with her friends at one of the roller coasters. She sees a series of events that lead to the roller coaster crashing and everyone on board dying. Wendy then freaks out and demands to be let off the ride. A handful of her classmates join her in getting off, but the rest stay aboard. Not surprisingly, things play out exactly as Wendy had envisioned.

Wendy and the survivors think that they have cheated death, but then strange things start happening to them as well. First one, and then another of the passengers who got off the roller coaster end up dying in freak accidents soon after the initial incident. Instead of buying some quick life insurance online, Wendy and Kevin (Ryan Merriman) try to warn the other passengers who got off at the last minute, but no one believes them.

After the first string of deaths, things calm down for about five months. But then Wendy has one more terrifying vision. This time she’s on a train, and sees another series of events that lead to horrific deaths — including her own. Just as she realizes what’s going to happen, she tries to pull on the emergency brakes, but they don’t work. The movie ends there, with the viewer left to determine whether or not Wendy and her friends finally succumb to their fate.

My Reaction: Well, there’s not a whole lot to say about a film like Final Destination 3. This is one of those films where you can’t very well expect originality or freshness, nor are you going to be surprised by anything that unfolds on screen. The most you can hope for is to be entertained, and I thought Final Destination 3 did a decent job in that respect.

Viewers already know that the escapees are going to meet with gruesome deaths, so the filmmakers’ job here is to keep us guessing as to the specifics. Towards that end, there were a couple of good fake-outs along the way, and a couple of memorable scenes. For example, who can forget when the blond bimbos got burned to death when they couldn’t escape the tanning beds? Or when the one girl got a bunch of nails pounded through her skull thanks to an out of control nail gun? Gruesome indeed.

Overall, Final Destination 3 is your run-of-the-mill teen horror flick. There are a few entertaining moments in the mostly predictable movie, and I give it 2 stars out of 5.

Horror is pretty much my least favorite genre, as it’s so difficult to get this kind of film right. I usually prefer stories that are scary because they actually could happen (like Silence of the Lambs) more than stories that are all about blood and gore (Nightmare on Elm Street, etc.) I typically don’t care for anything that makes heavy use of supernatural elements, but again, the result can be good when done the right way (think The Exorcist).

So when I heard about Mirrors, which is a horror film about haunted/possessed mirrors, I was very skeptical about how well the story would play out on screen. It was pretty much a given that I wouldn’t be scared because of the real-life possibilities of the plot, so that left it up to the actors to sell the film to me. Surprisingly enough, I thought they did a decent job!

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Ben Carson (played by Kiefer Sutherland) is a NYPD detective who is on leave after being involved in a shooting. He has been off the force for a year alread, and in that time, his life has basically come apart. He’s had problems with alcohol, is still taking painkillers, and is estranged from wife Amy (Paula Patton) and children Michael (Cameron Boyce) and Daisy (Erica Gluck). He currently lives with his sister Angela (Amy Smart), and, in an effort to get back on his feet, has taken a job as a night security guard at the Mayflower department store, which is closed because of a fire.

One of the strangest characteristics of the Mayflower is that it’s full of mirrors, and all of the mirrors are spotless and polished. That’s because the previous night watchman, Gary Lewis (Josh Cole) was obsessed with keeping those things clean — until something drove him to slash his own throat with shards of glass from a subway bathroom mirror.

During Ben’s first night on the job, he notices something strange about the mirrors in the Mayflower. In them, he sees reflections of things that aren’t there. Moreover, all of the scenes show people being treated horribly or suffering from ghastly injuries. Ben doesn’t know what’s going on, but he’s compelled to do research. This leads to the discovery that the Mayflower used to be a mental hospital run by a less-than-ethical doctor who purposely mistreated patients.

Once the possessed being in the mirrors tries to go after Ben’s family, all bets are off. Kiefer kicks into full Jack Bauer mode to get to the bottom of the mystery and save his loved ones. This involves tracking down an old patient of the mental hospital who supposedly died but is actually still alive. Apparently, the mirrors have a score to settle with her, and won’t rest until they get that final confrontation.

My Reaction: On the surface, the plot of Mirrors sounds downright dumb. A demonic spirit that lives in mirrors and takes control of people’s reflections, forcing them to kill themselves? Uh huh. I’m seriously surprised that any studio gave this project the green light.

That being said, I am equally surprised at how well the story played out on screen. Don’t get me wrong, there were plenty of eye-roll moments in this movie, as well as several “Yeah, right!” scenes, but despite all that, I still found myself engrossed in the story for the most part. Even though the plot didn’t make much sense (I’m still not certain why the mirrors were after the nun), Kiefer Sutherland made the whole thing watchable. Yes, he basically played Jack Bauer in this one (even down to a few disgusted shouts of “Dammit!” exactly like Jack), but that’s what he does best.

I’ve read on a few message boards that some people didn’t like the ending, but I did. Frankly, I’m tired of seeing ordinary men turn into indestructible superheroes in Hollywood films, so it was nice to see someone actually feel the effects of a fight for once.

Overall, Mirrors is worth a watch. Yeah, the plot is outlandish and you could probably poke a thousand holes in the screenwriters’ logic, but suspension of disbelief (x10) is a prerequisite for watching horror films. I give this one 3 out of 5.

The name Harvey Milk didn’t mean anything to me, as I’d never heard it before. That made it all the more surprising when I learned that a film had been made about his life. And not just some low-budget indie feature, either. No, this was a project for mainstream audiences, directed by Gus Van Sant and starring Sean Penn, Josh Brolin, and James Franco among others. So I read a little bit about Harvey Milk, and learned that he was the first openly gay man elected to public office in the U.S. It sounded like Milk’s life — and death — were pretty interesting, so I decided to give the film a try. Plus, it didn’t hurt that Milk has been nominated for a few Oscars, including Best Picture.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): The film opens with Harvey Milk (played by Penn) dictating into a tape recorder. Since the opening credits (and a familiarity with Milk’s life) tell the viewer that Milk will eventually be assassinated, it’s clear that the recording will be important in some way. Milk essentially recaps his life, going back from the present year 1978 to 1970 in New York. That was the day before his 40th birthday, and the day he picked up Scott Smith (James Franco) on the steps of the NYC subway. What began as a one-night stand turned into a relationship that lasted several years, eventually bringing the pair to San Francisco.

In San Francisco, Harvey and Scott open up a shop called Castro Camera in an area known as The Castro. At first, the openly gay couple had some problems with locals, but The Castro soon became a mostly gay neighborhood. Milk meets other gays, and hears stories about how they’re constantly harassed by people nearly everywhere they go. Milk wants to do something to make the city safer for gays, so he decides to run for public office. There’s a city supervisor spot open, and Milk quickly puts together a campaign.

He’s soundly defeated the first time he runs for the supervisor seat. And the second. But Milk never gave up, and the third time he ran, he finally won. The cost was significant, however, as all the campaigning took a toll on his private life, with Scott leaving him because he couldn’t handle all the political activity.

Once in office, Milk begins working on various ordinances that will protect gay rights. The rest of the film shows how he spoke openly about the need for equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, how he rallied the masses to support the cause, and how he ultimately succeeded in passing a gay rights ordinance in the city of San Francisco. Unfortunately, he ruffled a few feathers along the way — including those of Dan White (Josh Brolin), a fellow supervisor who was disgruntled at Milk’s refusal to play the quid pro quo game. Milk’s tenuous relationship with White ultimately proves to be fatal, as White guns him down in his office on November 27, 1978.

My Reaction: I usually don’t like Sean Penn movies, so I wasn’t sure how I would respond to Milk, but I found this film to be truly excellent. I was drawn in right from the start, and was focused on the plot the entire way through. Usually with films of this length (over two hours), I start to get restless at some point, but that never happened with Milk. The acting was brilliant, and the story was completely absorbing.

I have to admit that at times I was irked by what I considered to be “stereotypical” gay behavior, but then again, I know nothing of the lifestyle, so who am I to question Gus Van Sant, right? Nevertheless, I just have to know: is it really that easy to pick up gay men? I mean, Harvey Milk, picks up Scott Smith in the subway tunnel, and then hooks up with that Jack guy right away as well. I wish it were that easy for heteros!

But I digress. Obviously, the strength of the film is Penn’s performance and the way he portrays Harvey Milk with such humility and humanity. If Penn’s take on the man is anywhere close to how the real Harvey Milk was, then Milk seems like he surely would have been a great person to know.

Overall, I definitely think Milk deserves its place among the Best Picture nominees. In fact, I liked it even more than I liked The Reader, because Milk was a more even, better-paced film. I give it 5 stars out of 5, and recommend that you see it soon!

I’m not much of a fan of horror movies, dislike remakes in general, and don’t consider Jessica Alba a must-see actress, so it seems a bit surprising that I would even watch the 2008 film The Eye, which originally saw the light of day as an East Asian production of the same name back in 2002. But I guess that’s what happens when I let other people be in charge of choosing movies for the night! I figured this movie would be pretty dumb, and in that respect, I guess it didn’t disappoint.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Sydney Wells (played by Alba) is a concert violinist who has been blind since the age of 5. Her sister Helen (Parker Posey) convinces her to get a cutting-edge cornea transplant, and slowly but surely, Sydney’s eyesight starts to return.

Instead of making everything easier, however, Sydney’s newly restored sight fills her life with unease, complications, and downright horrors. She begins seeing the ghosts of people who have recently died, as well as recurring visions of a young woman hanging herself. These hallucinations of course freak Sydney out, so she seeks help from her therapist Paul Faulkner (Alessandro Nivola).

Faulkner reluctantly agrees to reveal the donor’s name to Sydney. It turns out that the corneas came from a young Mexican woman named Ana Christina Martinez, so Sydney and Paul next hit the road to see Martinez’s mother. The mother tells them that the villagers believed Ana Christina to be a witch, and were essentially responsible for her early death because they wrongly thought she was the cause of a factory fire that resulted in many fatalities.

On the way back home, Sydney and Paul get stuck at the border crossing gate, and Sydney suddenly realizes this is a scene she’s been seeing in her many visions. She finally understands that Ana Christina has wanted her to see these things in order to prevent a bunch of deaths from an impending explosion and fire. Sydney jumps out of the car, tells everyone in the traffic jam to evacuate their cars, and saves their lives. She’s caught near the explosion, however, and shards of glass penetrate her new eyes — rendering her sightless once again.

My Reaction: I had so many problems with The Eye that I’d just like to get the one positive aspect of the film out of the way right at the beginning here. I thought some of the visions Sydney had were genuinely creepy, which is far more than I can say for other horror movies I’ve suffered through. For example, when the dead guy starts floating towards Sydney in the elevator, or when she checks herself in the mirror but sees Ana Christina’s reflection, I have to admit that I was a bit freaked out. Too bad some other scenes were ruined with typical horror flick style loud music, otherwise they would have been very scary as well.

That being said, I thought most of the film was utterly terrible. I was willing to buy the fact that a woman who had a cornea transplant could see things her dead donor used to see. That was actually a pretty cool premise. But the execution of the film and the god-awful acting by Alba made The Eye practically unwatchable. The script didn’t do itself any favors, either. You mean to tell me that Sydney didn’t bother letting anyone know about her visions until 45 minutes into the action? Ugh, that should have happened far earlier — but I guess there wouldn’t have been enough material left in Act 2 if the character had done the logical thing.

There were plenty of other parts of The Eye that I hated as well (such as Sydney running around her apartment smashing all her lamps and overhead lights or the fact that her doctor would risk his license to tell her the name of her donor), but don’t really want to bother with listing them all here. Suffice it to say that I was rolling my eyes more often than not while watching this garbage.

Overall, I thought The Eye was a waste of time. The original might have been riveting and scary, but the remake falls far short in nearly every respect. I give the film 1 star out of 5 and recommend that you skip it!

You don’t have to be able to quote the Book of Exodus chapter and verse to recognize at least a few of the 10 Plagues that God unleashed on Egypt. They were: blood; frogs; lice: flies; diseased livestock; boils; fiery hail; locusts; darkness; and death of firstborn males.

While most people would be content to attribute these plagues to the wrath of God, the main character in the 2007 film The Reaping has a highly plausible — and scientific — chain of events to rationalize all 10 unusual occurrences. It’s a good thing too, because she might just need to draw on this knowledge to help explain why a small Louisiana town seems to be suffering the same fate as Biblical Egypt.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Katherine (played by Hillary Swank) is an LSU science professor who specializes in investigating and debunking what appear to be religious miracles. As the film opens, she’s in Concepción, Chile with her assistant Ben (Idris Elba), where locals have been wiping the oozing remnants of a dead priest’s body on their own bodies in the hopes of being cured of their various ailments. Once Katherine discovers that illegally-dumped toxic waste is at least partly responsible for some of the “phenomena” in the city, she and Ben return home to Louisiana.

At Katherine’s LSU office, Ben tells her that she’s received numerous phone calls from a man named Father Costigan (Stephen Rea). Katherine had been avoiding the priest, but reluctantly agrees to a brief conversation.

Father Costigan tells her that some of his photographs have been spontaneously burning in a peculiar way: only Katherine’s face is obliterated in each one, and when put together, the burn marks depict a sickle shape. Father Costigan believes Katherine is in danger, so he warns her to be careful.

A bit later, Katherine and Ben get a visit from a man named Doug (David Morrissey), who lives in a small backwater town called Haven. He has heard of Katherine’s penchant for rooting out a scientific explanation for strange occurrences, so he wants her help. The river in Haven has turned blood-red, and no one can figure out why. A few of the more vocal townsfolk blame it on a young girl named Loren McConnell (AnnaSophia Robb), who some believe murdered her brother near the site.

Katherine and Ben both agree to go take some samples from the river. They’re astonished to learn that the red coloring is not due to a pH imbalance as Katherine originally speculated; it’s human blood — the first of the 10 plagues.

As the film progresses, the rest of the plagues start ravishing Haven, causing the townspeople to become increasingly agitated. They believe that Loren is responsible for everything and must be sacrificed, but Katherine remains convinced that there’s a scientific explanation. She’s determined to uncover that explanation and save the girl in the process.

My Reaction: I found The Reaping to be interesting up to a certain point. I liked the whole premise of Biblical plagues afflicting a town in modern times, and enjoyed Hillary Swank’s performance as Katherine. I thought she was very convincing as a smart, tough, no-nonsense scientist who lost her own faith at the same time that she lost her daughter. I also appreciated how the screenwriters resisted the temptation to turn Katherine into a complete atheist who loathes any mention of God; instead, it was clear that she respected others’ beliefs even as she debunked their “miracles”.

That being said, I had major problems trying to believe that the happenings in Haven occurred in something of a vacuum. I mean, if there were signs of any of the Biblical plagues in today’s world, I’m pretty sure there would be hundreds of news crews, cameras, and reporters on the spot in no time, even if we’re talking about an out-of-the-way Louisiana town. I know the filmmakers took pains to mention that Haven wasn’t on the map and that there was no cell service or whatever, but still… No way that happens in modern times.

At any rate, I still thought The Reaping was a pretty decent popcorn flick, though it certainly wasn’t as scary as advertised. I give ti 3 stars out of 5.

My husband and I usually take turns choosing which movies to rent whenever we go to the video store. Yesterday was his turn, so he decided to get Vacancy since he likes horror/suspense type films, and because Kate Beckinsale is in it. I’d never even heard of this movie before, but I checked it out on IMDB.com and was encouraged by its 6.4 rating. I wasn’t expecting an Oscar contender, of course, but figured Vacancy would at least be entertaining. Wrong.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Beckinsale and Luke Wilson star as Amy and David Fox, a couple whose marriage has been on the rocks ever since their young son died. Amy deals with the pain by popping antidepressants whenever she can, while David does his best to try to get back to a normal life.

As they’re driving home from a visit to Amy’s family’s house, David has to suddenly swerve to avoid hitting an animal in the middle of the road. The car sustains some damage, which requires them to stop off at a nearby gas station to have it checked out. The mechanic on duty says that there’s a minor problem with the fan blades, but they should be able to make it to the next decent-sized city, which is about 30 miles away. However, the car breaks down (for good this time) just a mile down the road, so David and Amy head back to the gas station on foot.

The station is closed by that time, and since there’s no cell reception to call for a tow truck, they decide to check out a dumpy motel down the block. The manager, a man named Mason (played by Frank Whaley), tells them that their best bet would be to get a room for the night and wait until the gas station opens up again in the morning. David and Amy agree.

As they try to settle into their room, they hear someone pounding on the door. Problem is, no one’s out there and Mason says they’re the only guests that night. Then the phone starts ringing, but no one talks when Amy picks up. And finally, David pops in a couple of videotapes that were left in the room, only to discover that they’re snuff films. Some sicko has recorded people being murdered in the very room that David and Amy are staying in.

The couple soon realizes what kind of danger they’re in, and the rest of the film then deals with their attempts to make it out of the motel alive.

My Reaction: I thought this movie started out reasonably well. The opening scenes were a bit slow, but they were necessary to establish the characters of Amy and David so the audience could get a feel for them before they were thrown into the motel situation. I even thought their arrival at the motel, the initial meeting with the creepy Mason, and the slow discovery of the snuff films was okay as well. But once the black-clad killers showed up, the movie went downhill for me.

I mean, the premise (psycho motel manager and two associates kill guests in order to sell snuff films for a profit) seemed interesting enough, but the execution was horrible. I found it hard to suspend my disbelief regarding David and Amy’s ability to keep three seasoned (and armed) killers at bay just by running in and out of their motel room. Give me a break!

And nearly everything David and Amy did annoyed me — to the point that I wanted them to get caught. I think it’s a pretty bad sign when viewers actively root against your heroes, right? But let’s see here, they dropped down into a tunnel and started crawling through it without having any idea where it led or who was waiting down there; they kept calling 911 even though that didn’t help them at all; and they somehow found it appropriate to make out a couple of times despite the fact that their lives were supposed to be in danger.

Oh, and why is it that movie characters can’t just be quiet when they’re supposed to? How freakin’ loud was Amy when she was hiding up in that crawlspace?? How did Mason not hear her gasps and squeals? Sheesh.

Don’t even get me started on David’s ability to survive stab wounds or on the stupid non-ending.

Overall, I found Vacancy to be an utter waste of time, and am beginning to think that the IMDB.com rating system is seriously flawed. I give this film just 2 stars out of 5 and recommend that you stay far, far away from it!