Lions Gate Entertainment (NYSE: LGF) is a stock I've been looking at for a long time. It often looked like a great trade. It actually was recently. On Monday, the stock closed at $6.26. That represented a great short-term rise.

I wish I had gone with my instincts and bought shares when they were below the $5 mark. But something always kept me from doing it. I was worried about the fundamental risk involved.

Lions Gate Entertainment (NYSE: LGF), the little studio that makes big waves in Hollywood with franchise hits such as Saw and Hostel, distributed its annual earnings numbers on Friday after market close. For fiscal 2008, revenues leaped like a lion (you knew that was coming, don't kid yourself) to $1.36 billion, which represented top-line appreciation of 39%. So far, an excellent start. But, it's the bottom line where things start to get ugly. Lions Gate reported a net loss of $0.62 per diluted share; in 2007, the studio booked net income of $0.25 per share. That can't be pleasing to shareholders. According to Marketwatch, Lions Gate did not meet expectations, as some on Wall Street believed the loss would be closer to $0.50 per share (the company did beat on the top line, though). Things were rosier for the fourth quarter, as revenues jumped over 50% and net income climbed 19% to $0.22 per share. Unfortunately, expectations were again too high, as analysts were hoping for $0.37 per share.

The cash flow is a little more pleasing. Operational cash flow increased just shy of 50% to $89.2 million. And the company adjusted this stat even further to come up with a free-cash-flow figure of nearly $137 million (the company adds back the effect of borrowings for production obligations). The huge problem here is a familiar story: rising costs for marketing and distribution. This isn't unique to Lions Gate; competitors such as Disney (NYSE: DIS), Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), Viacom (NYSE: VIA), and Sony (NYSE: SNE) all face this same issue. Management reported that costs for Lions Gate in this regard rose well over 100%.

Lions Gate is a tough one for me. Here's the thing: I love the movie business, and Lions Gate is definitely a more direct play on the business than what you get through a Disney or a Time Warner due to the scales involved. Lions Gate has some great franchises under its belt, and it tends to go for niche, edgy content. Plus, the cash flow is pretty cool.

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp (NYSE: LGF), which has been a bright light in the otherwise dim movie industry recently, has found success making low budget movies aimed at the 20-30 year-old audience. Here is a list of some of their more notable recent releases, sorted by their estimated budgets. None of the movies has a rating milder than PG-13.

• Hostel ($4.5M est. budget / $47.3M gross)
• Diary of a Mad Black Woman ($5.5M est. budget / $50.3M gross)
• Crash ($6.5M est. budget / $54.5M gross, won Best Picture Oscar)
• Crank ($12M est. budget / $27.8M gross)
• Employee of the Month ($12M est. budget / $28.4M gross)
• Saw III ($12M est. budget / $80.1M gross)
• Hotel Rwanda ($17.5M est. budget / $23.4M gross, nominated for 3 Oscars)
• Lord of War ($42M est. budget / $24.1M gross)

(All above figures taken from IMDB.com)

From the above list, you can see Lions Gate's winning formula. All their successes have budgets under $20 million dollars, and most fit into three categories: Movies that push the limits of violence and gore (Hostel, Crank, Saw); low-brow adult-themed comedies (Diary of a Mad Black Woman, Employee of the Month); and edgy dramatic works that gain critical appreciation (Crash, Hotel Rwanda).

Now, here is the problem -- neither the movie the just released, Happily N'Ever After, nor the movie that is making noise today with its addition of Paula Abdul to its cast, Bratz, fits this formula.