I really tried to go with this attempt at a creepy thriller, but found it impossible to be either creeped or thrilled.

Richard Gere stars as John Klein, a star Washington Post political reporter who thinks his life is going just right when, following a car accident, he finds out that his wife (radiant Debra Messing) has a rare brain tumor. After her death, he sees some odd, angel-like drawings that she made in the hospital.

Two years later, he suddenly finds himself in the midst of all kinds of nutty stuff, mostly in a small town in West Virginia on the Ohio River. For one thing, he ends up in the town even though it was 400 miles from where he was driving and there is no way he could have covered that much road in 90 minutes. For another, when his car fails and he goes to a nearby house to ask for help, the man in the house (Will Patton) holds him at gunpoint, saying that John has been there three nights in a row.

A skeptical policewoman named Connie (Laura Linney) tells John of the odd happennings in town, including sightings of a winged creature with red eyes who looks sort of like the drawings John’s wife did. So John tells the Post he is working on a story and settles in at the local hotel to investigate.

After that, it is all spooky noises and creepy camera angles. Director Mark Pellington, whose “Arlington Road” had the scariest conclusion of any movie released in the 1990’s, knows how to handle suspense and when to throw in some “boo!”-ish surprises. But the happenings themselves are so un-compelling that it hardly seems worthwhile. Maybe it is because they decided to be true to whatever really happened (though they had no problem moving the time of the story up more than 30 years to take placein the present). But even the Mothman at his most ominous just didn’t seem that scary to me. The spookiest thing he does is call John on the phone and tell him that he hid his watch in his shoe and he misses his wife. And the best officer Connie can do when all this happens is wail, “I hate this!”

Another problem is the way that, after all that business with having voiceprints done on the Mothman’s recordings and having the sightings substantiated by many different people, the movie hedges its bets at the end by telling us that it all might be a post-traumatic manifestation of John’s grief over losing his wife or guilt over thinking about letting her go so that he can move on. It’s possible that both are true — that it was the grief that made John available to otherworldly messages and that he decides to walk away from it. But that still leaves us with a big “so what?”

Parents should know that, though it is not very graphic or gory, the movie is a psychological thriller that may be deeply upsetting to some people. There is a car crash and a tragic accident with many deaths. Another death could be suicide. There is a brief non-graphic sexual situation, and brief strong language.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy The Sixth Sense, Poltergeist, and Flatliners. And they might like to keep an eye out for a documentary about the strange happenings in Point Pleasant, Special Investigations: Mothman.

Most of E.B. White’s elegant language is missing and the animation is nowhere near the Disney level, but the new animated version of “Trumpet of the Swan” (G, some tension and peril) is still a very good family movie with much to enjoy and talk about.

As the movie begins, proud and loving trumpeter swans Father (Jason Alexander) and Mother (Mary Steenburgen) are awaiting the hatching of their new children. The young cygnets are all they dreamed of, except for Louie (Dee Baker), who is mute. This creates two problems. Louie cannot express his feelings without words, and he cannot attract a mate without the ability to make the trumpeting sound that gives this breed of swans their name.

Louie tries to solve the first problem with the help of a human friend named Sam, who takes him to school so that his teacher, Mrs. Hammerbottom (Carol Burnett) can teach him to read and write. Father tries to solve the second problem by stealing a trumpet from a musical instrument store. Even though Father knows it is wrong to take something without paying for it, he feels that he must do it to help his son.

Louie’s skill at reading and writing does not do him any good with the swans, who cannot understand him, but he does find a sweet girl swan named Serena who understands him without words. But he cannot settle down with Serena until he puts his father’s heart at rest by finding a way to pay for the trumpet. After many adventures, Louie and Serena are able to live happily ever after.

Families who see this movie should talk about the importance of finding a way to communicate and the value of people who can understand us. They will also want to talk about the conflict faced by Father, who wanted so desperately to help his son that he was willing to risk his life and do something he knew was wrong.

Families who enjoy this movie should read the wonderful book, along White’s other classics, “Charlotte’s Web” and “Stuart Little.” They will enjoy the movie versions of those stories as well.

Producer William Castle is better remembered for his outrageous marketing. schemes than for the content of the movies. He would do anything to attract attention, from taking out a million-dollar insurance policy for anyone who died of fright while viewing one of his movies to the “Coward’s Corner” set up to refund the ticket price of anyone who wanted to leave before the movie revealed its big secret. My favorite of Castle’s gimmicks was in “13 Ghosts,” where audiences were presented with special “ghost viewers” to hold before their eyes. If you looked through the red cellophane, you would see the ghosts, but if that was too scary, you could just look through the blue and then you would not see them.

In its television broadcasts, of course, this was impossible, and the movie has been shown since its 1960 theatrical release without this special effect. Now, the new DVD edition, which comes complete with one ghost viewer and an order form for those who want extras, enables you to see (or not see) the ghosts just as Castle intended, and the cheesy fun makes this just right for family movie night or a teenager’s Halloween party.

A family inherits a haunted house and a mysterious pair of spectacles from a reclusive uncle. It turns out that 12 ghosts occupy the house, including a lion and his headless tamer, a jealous chef and the wife and her lover that he killed with a meat cleaver, a hanging woman, and the ghost of the uncle himself. A Ouija board tells them that a 13th ghost will be added soon. Who will it be?

The special effects were low-budget even for their time, and today’s audiences will find them more silly than scary. But there are a couple of jump-out-at-you moments and plot twists that still work pretty well. The DVD includes both the version that requires the glasses and the one that does not and a brief documentary about Castle that is as much fun as the movie, especially the selection from the movie’s original introduction, which explained how to use the glasses.

Parents should know that this movie does include occult material, including a Ouija board and a seance, which may be upsetting to some children. There is an attempted murder of a child, and another character is murdered. Some families may be uncomfortable with the father’s irresponsibility about money.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy a movie inspired by Castle’s wild gimmicks, Matinee, starring John Goodman. They might also like Castle’s Homicidal(the one that was shown in theaters with the Coward’s Corner and ushers dressed in nursing uniforms), but parents should know that it is scarier than “13 Ghosts” and has more mature themes. They might also enjoy the big-budget remake with terrific (and very graphic) special effects but an even dumber plot, starring Matthew Lillard and Shannon Elizabeth.

Minnie Driver does her best, but, sadly, she gets no help from the movie’s producers (14 of them!). She gets no help from the screenwriter, whose only previous credit was Jerry Springer’s “Ringmaster.” Driver does not even get much help from first-time feature director (but two-time Best Actress) Sally Field. In other words, this is a bad movie.

The people in this movie can’t even be referred to as “characters” because they do not behave like any human being who ever thought, spoke, or breathed. The actors might as well be wearing signs that say, “Plot device!” as they are moved around the set like chess pieces, because that is the only possible explanation for their behavior. And basic elements of plot are slapdash or just missing.

Mona is a little girl who lives with a mother who does not seem to care much about her and with her mother’s out-of-work boyfriend, who does not like her at all. So, she makes her bedroom into a private world, decorated with cheery little signs that say things like, “Never give up!” and “U can do it!” For her, beauty pageants are a vision of perfection, grace, and validation. So, she decides that what she needs to make her feel beautiful and loved is to win one or maybe all of them. She earns money for lessons and braces and does statistical analysis of each year’s winners. She picks just one girl from school to be her friend — the one who can sew costumes for her.

When she grows up, Mona (Minnie Driver) is relentless. She is incapable of any thought that does not relate to winning a pageant. Her friend Ruby (Joey Lauren Adams) is happy to devote all of her efforts to Mona’s competitions, too. When obstacles arise, Ruby takes care of them, from smoothing over allegations of cheating at a pageant to becoming the mother of Mona’s child (Hallie Eisenberg, the little girl from the Pepsi commercials). A parent or guardian is ineligible to be Miss American Miss. And nothing must get in Mona’s way.

Beauty pageants certainly provide material enough for several movies, and some, like “Smile,” manage to do them justice. But this movie has no point of view, a wildly inconsistent tone, and no understanding of its characters — I mean people.

Is Mona supposed to be a caricature? Then you can’t expect all of America to adore her at the end. Is she supposed to be a likeable person with flaws? Then she can’t possibly be as overwhelmingly self-absorbed as she is throughout the movie. It isn’t just that she responds to a question about “human interest” by admitting that there just aren’t that many humans she finds interesting. It is more that her best friend is in prison on a murder charge and it never even occurs to her that she might want to, say, get her a lawyer? Come to the trial? Try to help her in any way? And does anyone think that it is a good thing to confess your biological relationship to your best friend’s daughter on national television? Or that the daughter would consider this good news?

The movie has some funny moments. Kathleen Turner is magnificent as a beauty pageant diva. One pageant contestant announces that she has a double degree in genetic engineering and cosmetology, and another has a ventriloquist act. When a woman goes into labor in a grocery store, Mona seizes the opportunity to get some good publicity and pushes her to the hospital in a shopping cart, singing, “Wind Beneath My Wings.” But these bright spots are just not worth the sloppy mess that comes along. Maybe sixty years ago Bette Davis and Miriam Hopkins or Mary Astor might have pulled off this kind of a plot (come to think of it, they did, in “The Big Lie” and “Old Acquaintance”). Maybe thirty years ago, Carol Burnett could have pulled off a parody version. But with these people and in this decade, it is not just bad — it is positively annoying.

Parents should know that the movie has occasional strong language and sexual references (mild by PG-13 standards, but still vivid). Mona cheats in the pageants, causing serious damage to another contestent’s hand, without any remorse. Indeed the injured woman’s bitterness is portrayed with as much callousness as though the screenwriter shared Mona’s conviction that all that counts is winning. There is an out of wedlock pregnancy and a minor character commits suicide by taking pills.

Families who see this movie should talk about Mona’s comment that love is a language that has to be taught, and Ruby’s comment about letting bad things go. More cynical family members may want to count up the logical inconsistencies and plot holes.

Families who enjoy this movie will like “Smile” even more. And they may also enjoy “We’re Not Married,” a cute comedy in which Marilyn Monroe plays a married beauty queen who all of a sudden becomes eligible for the single woman competitions when it turns out that her wedding ceremony was invalid.

Charlie’s Angels” manages to fulfill the middle-school-age fantasies of both boys and girls and to make it clear that it does not take itself too seriously. The result is a lot of silly popcorn fun. This is the kind of movie where the action sequences may be sped up, but the heroines’ hair is always in slow motion, a sort of “Josie and the Pussycats” crossed with “Mission Impossible.”

The angels are three fabulously gorgeous, often scantily-clad women who are as brilliant as they are beautiful, and who can kick-box five guys at a time. They work as detectives, solving cases brought to them by the mysterious Charlie, who communicates with them only by speakerhone. Dylan (co-producer Drew Barrymore), Alex (Lucy Liu), and Natalie (Cameron Diaz) are so technologically adept that they can tug a few wires and make a fast food drive-through speaker sound like an MP3 track. They will stop in the middle of tracking a suspect to give each other flirting pointers and stop in the middle of a life-or-death kickboxing fight to take a phone call from a boyfriend.

Charlie’s latest client is a software firm whose programming genius, Eric Knox (Sam Rockwell), has been kidnapped. His voice identification program, if combined with global positioning technology, could be used to track anyone, even Charlie. So the angels are off to the rescue.

Just as in the old television show, this requires many costume changes — the angels go undercover as belly dancers, a race car pit crew, corporate consultants, and lederhosen-clad messengers. It also involves placing the angels in jeopardy every 17 minutes or so. But these angels don’t use guns. They take on bad guys with their wits and their feet.

The angels have so much fun that it is impossible not to enjoy them. The fight scenes were staged by the same person who did “The Matrix,” and the angels get a huge charge out of their suspended-air kicks and chops. A soundtrack of cheesy 1970’s music (“Brandy,” “You Make Me Feel Like Dancin’,”Heaven Must be Missing an Angel”) and sly digs like an airline passenger disgusted by the prospect of watching “T.J. Hooker: The Movie” keep things light-hearted. The angels are all terrific, especially Cameron Diaz, whose pure pleasure in doing horrible retro disco dances lights up an entire room. Bill Murray has some good moments as their sidekick, Bosley.

Parents should know that in addition to a lot of “action-style” violence (very little blood), the movie has drinking, smoking, and some profanity and innuendo. One of the angels is shown waking up after a one-night-stand, clearly intending never to see the guy again. She later has a sexual encounter that turns out to have been a mistake.

Families who see this movie should talk about how Dylan’s absent father affected her life, especially her decision to work for a man who would never meet her. Knox, too, was affected by an absent father. Why don’t the angels want the men in their lives to know what they do? What would happen if they told them? Even movies as essentially silly as this one can also provide good lessons in problem-solving and ethics. How do they break down the problem of getting access to the GPS software into solvable pieces? Why won’t the angels give Knox access to the GPS software? Families may also want to talk about the way that the angels use their looks as well as their brains and muscles. In some ways, a beautiful woman is impossible to miss, but in other ways she is invisible, because she is not perceived as a threat. And when they dress up in German costume and pretend to be delivering a telegram, their obvious enjoyment shows that they are the ones exploiting the befuddled recipient rather than the other way around.

Families who enjoy this movie should watch the original television show in reruns or on video as well as other television classics like “Honey West,” “Get Christy Love!” and “Police Woman.