Can anyone remember which films I talked about one year ago? (No, don't bother clicking furiously on all the links to my past columns, I'll just tell you.) It was Mr. Brooks, Knocked Up and Bug. God, that seems like a long time ago, doesn't it? Especially given the fifty-odd leagues I've been in since then, some of which I've ACTUALLY done well in ... time has a way of passing slowly when you're waiting for the final numbers to come in, that's for sure.

Anyway, on to the business at hand, which is previewing the films that will be coming out on the final weekend in May. It's ironic that, on this auspicious occasion, I must begin with a film that, probably more than any single film I have considered in the past year, finds me completely in over my head. I mean, I will admit, in the past, I have relied on a fair amount of research and a whole heaping helping of B.S. to fake my way through an analysis. (Everybody in the Fantaverse, sarcastically: "Nnnoooooo!") But I know about as much about the entire concept of Sex and the City, including its six-season, 94-episode run from 1998-2004 on HBO, as, to quote Douglas Adams, "a tea leaf knows about the history of the East India Company." So, to any of you who are ardent fans of this series, please forgive me now for any ham-fisted generalizations, over-simplifications and/or outright blunders I may be about to make.

First of all, Sex is based on a best-selling book by author Candace Bushnell, and she helped co-write the screenplay, along with Michael Patrick King, who is not only also the director, but wore many hats over the span of the series: director, producer and writer, and he even appeared as an extra in one episode. The four principal characters are, of course, the female leads: Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker), Samantha (Kim Cattrall), Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) and Charlotte (Kristin Davis). Chris Noth (who I will always, always remember as being Det. Logan from various Law & Order series) reprises his role as the mysterious Mr. Big.

Obviously, this show was a huge hit with women, and the sales numbers for the various seasons on DVD would indicate that that following has not waned. But the thing that should, will, nay, must be asked is this, the same question one must always ask when contemplating viewing a film version of your favorite TV show: "What will be different?" Is it just basically a continuation of the series, a jumped-up version of a small-screen episode stretched out to 100-plus minutes? Or will there be something special, something that the original series never had? Because so, so many cinematic adaptations of TV shows have utterly failed to make a successful transition.

Not all, of course: The Simpsons Movie opened to huge numbers just last summer, despite the fact that many believed that the TV series' glory days were well behind it. It almost certainly helped, in that case, that series was, and is, still running, and has now been rejuvenated — says me — in the eyes of America. Another thing that set apart the cinematic Simpsons  from the many, many similar TV-to-screen ventures is that all of the particulars, from the cast on down, were in place. In that sense, there's an apt comparison to be made between Simpsons and Sex, since the new film is also not a "bring back a long-dead series with new cast members and a new attitude for a new millennium" waste of film. Memo to Hollywood: The Dukes of Hazzard should never, EVER have been made. Thanks for ruining a perfectly good show from my childhood, jerkweeds! But I digress ...

The Sex movie is set, appropriately enough, four years after the HBO series ended, and the four BFFs are preparing for Carrie's wedding to Mr. Big. They will, apparently, "re-evaluate their friendships, romances and careers in New York City," probably with a fair amount of sex and adult humor (the film's rated R, in case you didn't know). Being so NOT into this series, it is really tough for me to gauge just how well it has aged, and how much its fans are clamoring for more of it. So take my advice, for what it's worth, with a big grain of salt, because I am SO not getting bitten on the butt for this.

Now, despite what some pundits are saying about how this film is going to be THE chick flick of the summer, I can't help but wonder whether Sex and the City, a film that seems to be a more comfortable fit for late-night TV watchers and romantic DVD-renters, might find more life on the shelf of your local Blockbuster than it will in the theaters. Because that's what it feels like to me. On the other hand, the Females 25-40 crowd, who turned this show into such a monster hit in the first place, could flock to their local movie houses in the same way preteen-to-'tween girls did for Hannah Montana ... and Sex will be getting a MUCH wider release.

How wide? Well, probably not nearly wide enough to dethrone Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which will be in its second week, from its No. 1 position. Sex probably does, on the other hand, have a chance of wresting the No. 2 spot away from The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (which will be in its third week), especially since I look for this film to do most of its business in its first two weeks (barring that Hannah Montana scenario I just mentioned). There are no pure chick flicks coming for quite a while after this (Mamma Mia!, which opens July 18, will be the next one), so your guess is as good as mine ... which is, I suppose, what I've been saying all along. (How's THAT for "equivocation?!") Wow, considering the amount of waffling I've already done today, I'm lucky I haven't been drenched in maple syrup.

Fantasy Moguls predicts nine Top 5 points (I think six would be more accurate), 10 PTA points (??), a User Rating of 6.2 (possibly lower, given that scores of men will bash this film without ever seeing it ... pigs), and $95 million in receipts. I'm seeing something slightly lower, like $80 million or so. I don't think those stats combined are nearly enough to justify spending $24 to get Sex in Ultimate, not when you could almost certainly grab much better numbers from the combination of The Incredible Hulk and Hellboy II: The Golden Army for the same amount of money. $13 in Box Office is much more reasonable.

Moving on to the second of just two films being given a wide release on this particular weekend, we come to The Strangers, a horror film that, in case you weren't aware, has already been postponed TWICE. Now, when a film gets postponed, it can be for a number of reasons: a traumatic real world event occurs that parallels the film to too great a degree, so it gets pushed back in order for the tumult to die down (V for Vendetta and Gone Baby Gone come to mind). Sometimes budget over-runs and production problems arise that cause a delay (as with J.J. Abrams's upcoming Star Trek film). More often than not, however, a film gets jerked around because the studio releasing it does not have enough confidence in what they've got to put it up against strong competition. Hence, such films are tossed into a weaker area in the hopes of grabbing a little dough. Sometimes it works, as with Vantage Point. But when a film gets pushed back twice, thrice, four times, then you know that it's not worth your time. (Example: Rogue was delayed FOUR times, finally released on April 25, and was gonzo after one week).

If I remember correctly, The Strangers was originally set to be released last December, but then it got bumped to spring ... and then, once again, to late May. Now, a low-budget horror film can be hit-or-miss. The Eye and Prom Night were both able to crack $30 million earned, while The Ruins stalled well short of $20 million. And I think we can pin the reason for that on its rating. Quite simply, unless you are a franchise with a recognizable name or a proven track record (like Saw or Halloween), having your film earn an R rating is going to simply kill you. People's taste for gore and "torture porn," which was at an all-time high a few years ago, has cooled off massively. People are simply not going to line up for that anymore.

Particularly not when the film in question seems to have a 90 percent DNA match with a film that came out only ONE YEAR AGO! Just look at the plot of this film: a couple, cozied up in a vacation home, are terrorized by three unknown assailants. I mean, swap out the words "vacation home" for "seedy motel," and you pretty much have the so-so Vacancy, which was released in April of 2007. (Actually, don't swap out the words "vacation home" at all, and you have something, ahem, eerily similar to Funny Games, which was in theaters in March.) And when you replace recognizable names like Luke Wilson and Kate Beckinsale with Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman? Lots of empty seats.

Now, I will always love Liv Tyler for her role as Arwen in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I would have thought that her career would explode after such a tremendous series of outings. But alas, Jersey Girl and Reign Over Me is all she's really done in the last four years. (At least she plays the central character of Betty Ross in next month's The Incredible Hulk film, which should be interesting.) And Speedman? Well, I know from IMDb that he was a regular on the TV show Felicity, and also had prime roles in Dark Blue and two of the Underworld films, but he is not a known commodity to me. And for a larf, I simply must relay the quote from IMDb's "Buzz" line about this movie: "The problem here ... Supermodel Gemma Ward playing one of the three 'masked assailants.' Gemma Ward: sexy, not scary. Unless Naomi Campbell trained her."

Quite appropriately, this film has been given the rock-bottom price of $2 in both Ultimate and Box Office leagues by Fantasy Moguls. If The Strangers is very, very lucky, it could slip into the No. 5 spot on its opening weekend, behind, presumably, Indiana Jones, The Chronicles of Narnia, Sex and the City and Iron Man (Speed Racer should be long gone by then). But that's all it will give you. Its User Rating won't climb much higher than 5.0, and with a good ad campaign, it might pull The Ruins-sized numbers and leave with around $15 million. In Ultimate, a $2 film is probably not going to help you much anyway, so if its between this, Space Chimps, or final-weekend releases The Longshots or Henry Poole Is Here, it's pretty much pick-your-poison. In Box Office, however, it's probably the best one out there. Just don't be surprised if it tanks the way Deception did.

That will wrap it up for me for ... well, a year! I would like thank, once again, our old buddy Nico for his truly wonderful, heartfelt, humbling introduction. You rock, dude. I would also like to thank my beleaguered and overworked editor (known on the boards as Mister Funktastic) for his patience, support and occasional indulgence. Special thanks to my fellow columnists Steve Mason, Mr. Informative (aka dranscht) and Indie Jones (aka Chienfantome). Thanks to all those on the forums and Message Boards who always have something supportive, contrary or pithy to say, who make this site a wonderful place to convene. Thanks to all of the people who play the games, go to the movies, and love every minute of it. And finally, thanks to my wife, without whose support I would no doubt find myself buried in a landfill up to my forehead. Who loves ya, baby?

Please return again next week, when I will be kicking off the month of June with two more summer films that, as a nice change of pace, I actually have an interest in seeing: Jack Black leads an all-star voice cast as the titular character in DreamWorks's latest animated summer romp, Kung Fu Panda; and Adam Sandler plays an Israeli counter-intelligence agent who decides to make the career-switch of all time, to a New York City hair stylist, in You Don't Mess with the Zohan.

TTFN!

Shrykespeare is still blushing from all of that rodentine resplendence. Say a kind word of your own at shrykespeare42@gmail.com.