“Down With Love” can’t make up its mind whether it is a salute to the Doris Day-Rock Hudson/James Garner/Cary Grant movies of the 1960’s or a parody of them. Perhaps surprisingly, it works better as a salute, and never quite reaches the heights of the movies that inspired it.

The original movies were glossy fantasies that seemed to exist in that same 1960’s ring-a-ding-ding fantasyland Steven Spielberg brought us in Catch Me if You Can. They may have seemed instantly irrelevant in the era of Vietnam, the civil rights movement, and the sexual revolution, and yet they were as indispensible and — surprisingly — as inimitable and enduringly appealing as some of that decade’s other cultural touchstones.

We think of them as irretrievably retro and sometimes they were (as, for example, in The Thrill of it All, when Day’s doctor husband is profoundly threatened because she gets a job, which she quits after seeing him deliver a baby, reminding her what a woman’s true purpose is supposed to be). But most often, Day played supremely capable and confident working women, and it was the plot contrivances, not prudishness, that kept her characters from sexual encounters outside of marriage. Those movies also had some genuinely wicked commentary on the same conformist consumer culture that was the trigger for a lot of the political protest. Feminist critics like Molly Haskell now recognize that in their own way, these movies were very much a reflection and a part of the revolutions of the 1960’s.

In this movie, Barbara Novak (Renee Zellwegger) is the author of a book called Down With Love, that tells women to be strong and independent, to find fulfillment in work and to use men for sex but not become emotionally attached. Magazine writer and man-about-town Catcher Block (Ewan McGregor) decides to expose her as a hypcrite by making her fall in love with him. He pretends to be a shy astronaut who does not want to have sex unless he is in love. But Barbara — and Cupid — have a few surprises in store for him.

The movie begins by saying that “the time is now — 1962” and the period details are, well, swell, including flip hairdos, Tang, martinis, the twist, “Camelot” and clothes and furniture that are the kickiest! Catch is wearing a dinner jacket when he returns from a luau with the astronauts at Cocoa Beach. When Barbara’s book becomes a worldwide sensation, she receives the ultimate badge of fame — an Alfred E. Newman parody on the cover of Mad Magazine. But the best of the movie’s in-jokes is Tony Randall, who often played Hudson’s best friend, a neurotic rich guy who hopelessly envied Hudson’s confidence and success with the ladies in the original series of movies. In “Down With Love,” that role is exquisitely played by David Hyde Pierce, but Randall appears as the head of the publishing firm, demonstrating his impeccable timing and delivery. Indeed, the supporting players, sets, and costumes are so vivid that they make the main characters seem a little bland.

Parents should know that this movie has a good deal of sexual innuendo and double entendres, including an extended split-screen sequence that makes it appear that the characters are engaging in a number of sexual acts. There is brief strong language. Characters drink and smoke as evidence of sophistication. Equality of women is a humorous theme of the movie. As in the 1960’s movies it salutes, all characters are white.

Families who see this movie should talk about whether a similar plot could work in a movie set in 2003.

Families who enjoy this movie will enjoy the movies that inspired it, especially Pillow Talk and Lover Come Back (both about a battle of the sexes in which the man pretends to be someone else to romance the woman) with Day and Hudson, The Thrill of it All with Day and Garner, That Touch of Mink with Day and Grant, Sex and the Single Girl (about a woman who writes a book promoting women’s sexual freedom) with Natalie Wood and Tony Curtis, If a Man Answers with then-married Sandra Dee and Bobby Darin, Come September with Hudson and Gina Lollobrigida, and Man’s Favorite Sport with Hudson and Paula Prentiss. They might also enjoy similar themes in earlier movies like Theodora Goes Wild (another story about a woman author of a notorious book) and Take a Letter Darling (man gets a job as secretary to a woman executive). And they might like to see more of the pre-“Odd Couple” Tony Randall in the fantasy The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao and the wild satire Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?

And the answer is — Yes! This is the movie the fans of the original “Matrix” were hoping it would be. This movie has electrifying fight scenes, an audaciously dystopic vision, zillions of explosions and car crashes, a steamy love scene, and visual effects that raise the bar from the first one as much as the first one raised it from everything that had gone before. And yes, this is the movie that will rock the box office for the forseeable future.

No refreshers to bring us back into the world of the original “Matrix” — this movie literally starts with a bang as a woman in black breaks into some sort of secured facility and fights off the guards. We are back in the world where the machines use humans for fuel, lulling the humans into thinking that they are living mundane lives so that they will not realize that they are merely an energy source. Only a few humans know the truth, and Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) and Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) believe that one of them, Neo (Keanu Reeves) is “the one” who will defeat the machines. The scenes shift back and forth between Zion, the city where the humans who resist the machines live and the illusory “city” maintained by the computers called The Matrix.

It has been four years since the first movie was released. This second chapter is like the “Empire Strikes Back” with very, very cool sunglasses — it is a transition to the big finish in the third movie, which was filmed at the same time as this one and which will be released in November 2003. This is the bridge between the chapter that sets up the conflict and the chapter that resolves it.

As in the first one, the great strength of the movie is the visuals, which are brilliantly imaginative and at the same time essentially right. They exist in a fully-realized world we can believe in completely. Every detail is perfect — the bug-like spaceships, the grubby equipment, the pile-up of GM cars on a freeway, a decadent nightclub, an urban courtyard, Neo’s fabulously cool frock coat and sunglasses — every rivet is exactly what it should be, with the exception of the cutesy/earthy Ewok-ish clothing in Zion.

The action sequences will knock your socks off. Episode One’s Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving) has learned how to multiply, and Neo has to fight a hundred Smiths, each with its own version of Weaving’s magnificently cocked eyebrow. Real-life twins (and black belt karate instructors) Adrien and Neil Rayment play dredlocked albinos who can turn themselves into ghost-like wraiths out to destroy our heroes. And then there is a heart-stopping 14-minute chase and crash scene on a freeway. Still, just as with the first one, the most powerful scene doesn’t have fancy special effects or explosions. It’s the conversation between Neo and the Oracle, played with endless warmth, wit, and spirit by the late Gloria Foster.

The movie also taps into epic questions of destiny, causality, identity, and choice. So if the dialogue is not spectacular and there is more attitude than acting and the adoring devotion of Morpheus and Trinity to Neo gets a little dreary, who am I to quibble? I am sure there are viewers out there who will find a way to make sense of it all and who will be happy to explain when the laws of physics are suspended and when they are not. I could not, but by then I was enjoying the movie too much to care.

Parents should know that the movie has intense and prolonged violence and peril including guns and martial arts. Characters are killed (sometimes more than once). There are a few four-letter words. There is a deeply romantic sexual encounter (briefly graphic, both nude), brief nudity in a secene with group dancing, and a crude oral sex joke. Minority and women characters are strong, brave, loyal, and intelligent.

Families who see this movie should talk about some of the character’s comments about destiny and choice. Is choice “an illusion created by those with power?” Humans, who created the machines, are now trying to wrest back control from the machines. Whose choices led to that conflict? Is Neo “the one” (hint: both words have the same three letters) and what does that mean? Who or what is the Oracle?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the original and some of the movies that inspired it, including the classic silent film “Metropolis” and the brilliant “Blade Runner.” Note: stay through the endless technical credits to get a glimpse of some of the scenes in the upcoming “Matrix: Revolutions.”

It’s hard to blow a premise like this one — color-in-the-lines, belt-and-suspenders risk averse man meets his daughter’s prospective free spirit father-in-law just before the wedding. It worked pretty well in the 1973 original starring Alan Arkin and Peter Falk. But this retread with Albert Brooks and Michael Douglas has more misfires than hits.

Brooks plays Jerry, a worrywart of a podiatrist who is obsessively planning every detail of the wedding. Douglas is Steve, some sort of secret agent who may be getting a little old for the job — in the first scene he has to squint a little bit to try to read the confirmation he has just been shown by his contact.

Steve’s case involving an arms dealer and a stolen submarine is concluding just as the wedding approaches, and Jerry gets mixed up in a series of wild adventures that include Barbra Streisand’s jet, parachuting off a skyscraper, and a dip in a hot tub with a high strung international criminal who is having something of a sexual preference meltdown.

It’s always fun to watch Brooks unravel, Douglas gives an appealingly loose performance, and there are a couple of genuinely funny moments. But the film lacks the energy and zaniness of the original.

Parents should know that this movie has some very strong material for a PG-13. This includes crude jokes about the criminal’s homosexual attraction to Jerry and Steve’s ex-wife (Candace Bergan) explaining that she and Steve used to have great “angry sex.” A bridesmaid gets drunk and confesses that she and the groom had sex before he met the bride. There is comic peril and violence and characters are killed.

Families who see this movie might like to recall some of the stories of bringing their own in-laws together for the first time.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the original and a classic in this genre, the magnificent “Midnight Run” with Robert DeNiro and Charles Grodin.

Each of the previous Pokemon movies has seemed slightly better to me than the one before, but this lackluster fifth in the series is at least two steps back.

Pokemon master Ash and pals Brock and Misty visit the Venice-like city called Altomare, which is guarded by two legendary Pokemons named Latia and Latios. They are dolphin-shaped creatures who can make themselves invisible and disguise themselves as human and who communicate in annoying fingernails-on-blackboard screeches. Meanies Annie and Oakley, teen-age girls with midriff-baring outfits, steal the jewel that is the source of Altomare’s power.

There are some briefly lovely background paintings but other than that this below average for the Pokemon series, too violent and confusing for younger kids but not enough character, plot, or visual interest to engage older children.

Parents often wonder about the appeal of Pokemon. As I have written before, there are three reasons that children are drawn to characters like Pokemon. First is the perennial appeal of characters who appear to be weak but have hidden sources of power. Kids, who live in a world of powerful giants are drawn to stories of transformations and secret strength, from Clark Kent who is secretly Superman on through the Transformers, Ninja Turtles, and Power Rangers. Next, the many facts to memorize about Pokemon give children a chance to master something that is vastly beyond the ability of adults, giving them a sense of power and competence. Finally, as children start to develop social skills, fads like Pokemon provide a shared language that can help those conversations and imaginative games get started.

Parents should know that this movie is violent for a G, including peril (electric shock waves are directed at characters, including children) and the death of a character who essentially sacrifices himself to save the community. There is one sweet kiss on the cheek.

Families should talk about why Annie and Oakley did not seem to care about anyone but themselves. Families might want to look at photographs of Venice, which inspired the imaginary city of Altomare.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the others in the Pokemon series as well as anime classics like “Spirited Away” and “Kiki’s Delivery Service.”

Bookworm, you know who you are, you glorified loafer, you word-nerd. You, at times, have shunned humans, shirked work, stayed up too late, skipped showers, spent beautiful days inside, hiked mountains with hardbacks, haunted bookstores for hours (not buying a thing), faked illness, and committed legion other minor social crimes, all to be with these magnificent companions, these books. It is to you that this documentary is tipping its hat, for “The Stone Reader” is an ode to loving books. When you pull your nose from that novel, see this movie.

In director Mark Moskowitz, you will recognize a kindred soul. Moskowitz is a bit of a geek whose day-job is creating promotional spots for politicians and who calls his mom when he has to do something that makes him anxious. He directs this slow-paced but engaging documentary with a visible need to communicate the joy of his obsession, which was re-ignited by a book called “The Stones of Summer.”

As he informs you in the first “chapter” of the documentary, Moskowitz picked up the book at seventeen and could not make it through the first chapters. At forty-two, he finds himself trying again and this time he is enthralled. He makes it his mission to find out what happened to the book, which no one else seems to have ever read, and to the author, Dow Mossman, who never published again. His trip meanders back and forth from his pastoral home to various interviews with experts on everything along the reading chain, from writers to publishers to reviewers.

Torpid and philosophical, the first half of the movie examines the reader’s connection to books and features thought-provoking interviews as well as a lovely radio piece in which writer Mario Puzo describes his parent’s horror at his reading habit. The second half of the movie introduces the palpable tension of whether Moskowitz will ever find out what happened to Mossman.

It’s not often that you get to see a documentary about such an un-cinematic subject as the joy of reading. There are no sexy Hollywood stars here, flexing their dramatic muscles as lovers brought together by books or as characters from the pages of a novel, which are the typical roles played by literature in film. The modulations of tone are subtle from the quiet excitement of Moskowitz’s young son as he lovingly unwraps the latest “Harry Potter” to the elegiac note which creeps into the interview with Carl Brandt, a literary agent, as he talks about how the book could never have been published these days.

Let it be noted that this movie is about as far as one can go from a summer action flick and still be sitting in a theater. For those who do not share Moskowitz’s love of books, then this movie will be 128 minutes better spent elsewhere, perhaps with someone who can explain to them the immense and lifelong joy of reading.

Parents should know that the most dangerous act in this movie is when Moskowitz drives from his mailbox to his house without wearing his seatbelt. There are discussions about the early ‘70’s which mention draft-dodging, war and drug use. One of the people interviewed, Dan Guenther, discusses some of his experiences in Vietnam.

Families who see this movie should talk about what reading means to them, about what book first inspired a sense in them that they were not alone, about an author who they feel speaks to them. Beyond reading, families might discuss how a personal quest might inspire a person to strive to learn or excel, and might alienate them from others, as Mossman was alienated.

Families who enjoyed this movie might wish to rent literary inspired stories such as “Shakespeare in Love” (1998) or “Possession” (2002), both starring Gwyneth Paltrow. They might also be interested in “Shadowlands” (1994) or “84 Charing Cross Road” (1986), both starring Anthony Hopkins. For those families who truly enjoyed the movie, it is more likely that they will wish to rush home to read. If so, a delightful ode to reading is Anne Fadiman’s little book “Ex Libris: Confessions of a Common Reader.”