In theaters

STAY ALIVE, directed by William Brent Bell, written by Bell and Matthew Peterman, 85 minutes, rated PG-13.

So far, the new William Brent Bell movie, “Stay Alive,” is the movie to beat this year. It’s terrific, smart and alive, with an expertly crafted script by Bell and Matthew Peterman that will shake audiences awake with something new. This is exactly the sort of movie it should have been. It’s fresh and it’s scary, the best of what a contemporary horror movie can be.

Okay, so that isn’t exactly true.

Thing is, some are wondering when it is going to be true. Not since the ’70s has Hollywood turned out a consistent lineup of solid horror movies. For those who love these films and understand that their potential goes way beyond the occasional cheap jolt and bloodletting seen today, finding one that takes the genre seriously and is worth seeing has been a long time in coming. Ask yourself when you were last truly scared at a horror movie, and not simply repelled by its violence. “The Sixth Sense” and “The Others” might come to mind, but what else?

There are a few, but hardly enough.

“Stay Alive” is a good example of how rock-bottom bad the genre has become. It boasts an absurd premise and runs with it as if it were running with scissors down a very steep hill: Elizabeth Bathory, the real-life 17th-century weirdo who slaughtered 600 young virgins and bathed in their blood in an attempt to keep herself young (didn’t work), has been resurrected in a video game called “Stay Alive,” which is about to go into commercial release.

Before it does, though, it must be tried out by a handful of beta testers, who are having a hell of a time of it as the movie begins. After playing the game, they start getting knocked off in exactly the same way their characters die in the game. Bummer! What ensues is death by video game – and a movie that recalls too many elements of “The Ring,” “Scream,” “Blood Rayne” (which also was inspired by Bathory’s story), and the “Final Destination” movies to suit.

Jon Foster is Hatch, the lead character whose friend (Milo Ventimiglia) and boss (Adam Goldberg) are the first to die. Hatch isn’t the only character with an unusual name. Frankie Muniz, in a career slump, is Swink Sylvania, Sophia Bush is October, Jimmi Simpson is Phineus.

Samaire Armstrong rounds out the cast as poor, down-on-her-luck Abigail, who isn’t into video game culture and thus, I guess, has the normal name. She can, however, scream, which is perfect since she spends the closing moments of the movie hanging upside down in chains while Bathory prepares a nice, youthful bloodbath.

It’s okay – you can sigh.

Grade: D-

On video and DVD

KING KONG, directed by Peter Jackson, written by Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, 183 minutes, rated PG-13.

The first 45 minutes of Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” are pure padding, dull and meandering, with the characters allegedly being fleshed out when it turns out that really there isn’t much to them at all. At least not in Jackson’s hands.

The director shows no restraint here, just computer-generated overkill peppered with flashes of what it could have been had Jackson not felt pressed to top his Academy Award-winning “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, which is an altogether different beast.

For one thing, the “Rings” series wasn’t a love story, which “Kong” is, though you would be hard pressed to know it until Jackson finally achieves a level of intimacy in key scenes that come well past the film’s midpoint. The movie inflates the original film’s running time from 95 minutes to more than three hours, which is absurd. The only reason this “Kong” should have been three hours is if it featured Jane Goodall in the sack with the ape. At least that would have made for an interesting show.

But no. Instead, we get Naomi Watts, Adrien Brody and a wholly miscast Jack Black failing to fill some rather large shoes. The irony about Jackson’s “Kong” is that in spite of being a movie in which size matters, the script and the actors struggle to rise up and do their part; they shrink against the technical chaos, becoming almost secondary to the work being done by computers.

With a few exceptions, the worst of which involves a fake-looking chase scene in which several brontosauruses run amok amid humans, the special effects throughout “Kong” are mostly polished.

Occasionally, masterful technical flourishes are achieved, such as when Kong comes up against three T-Rexes, which has energy in spite of recalling Spielberg’s “Jurassic Park.” The film is at its best when it just stops, when beauty and the beast can – oh, I don’t know – share some down time together and appreciate a sunset. At least during these moments you feel the weight of their odd bond, which is crucial if Jackson is going to bring audiences to their knees during Kong’s climactic fight atop the Empire State Building.

If it’s spectacle you want, ignore this review – the movie succeeds in being 2005’s biggest spectacle. But if it’s something that recalls the original 1933 Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack film you’re seeking, Jackson’s movie is too much. In the end, for me, ’twas overkill killed the beast.

Grade: C

Visit www.weekinrewind.com, the archive of Bangor Daily News film critic Christopher Smith’s reviews, which appear Mondays in Discovering, Fridays in Happening, and Weekends in Television. He may be reached at Christopher@weekinrewind.com.