Pixar’s latest has everything we love about Pixar, a heartwarming story with endless imagination, charm, and wisdom, about an endearing character and the fears and joys of being human. And yes, you will cry.

The title character is a young boy whose parents were killed in an accident, so he now lives with his Aunt Olga (Zoe Saldaña). She once dreamed of being an astronaut, but because of her responsibilities as Elio’s guardian she stays in her job tracking space debris for the military.

We first see Elio (Yonas Kibreab) hiding under the table in a restaurant, traumatized by the loss of his parents, with a worried Olga trying to adjust to a child she refers to as her “new roommate.” A few years later, he is in middle school, awkward and lonely. He does not pay much attention to his classmates because he feels unwanted by anyone. Elio is convinced that he can do better somewhere else, so he wants to get as far from Earth as possible. So, he offers himself up to be abducted by aliens, first “communicating” by writing a message on the beach, but then taking a classmate’s ham radio, which leads to a scuffle. Elio’s eye is damaged and he has to wear a patch for a few weeks while it heals.

Olga sends him to camp, where the kids he got into trouble try to scare him. Trying to escape them, he ends up getting transported to space, a sort of floating intergalactic UN, with the leaders of many galaxies meeting in a heavenly “Communi-verse,” with translation disks and temperature and gravity adjustments for every possible kind of living being, a liquid version of Alexa/Siri to provide support, and a computer containing all of the knowledge of the universe that looks like a constant Anaconda card shuffle.

Elio, who has always felt out of place, instantly feels at home, even though the group is not seeing him for who he really is; they think he is the leader of Earth.

This is where the fabulous imaginations of the Pixar artists really get to have fun, with a dazzling array of creatures from a sort of floating cross between an undersea ray and a butterfly and the elegant but warm-hearted voice of Jemeela Jalil, to something apparently made out of stone to a professorial-looking insect to an entity with a screen for a face and shifting blobs to express its feelings. They are a kind and loving group, committed to open-mindedness and tolerance. Tolerance does not mean tolerating the intolerant, however.

Keeping out the intolerant has its risks. The angry Lord Grigon (Brad Garrett, just scary enough) is a warlord who attacks other civilizations. He is so angry at not being made a member of the Communi-verse that he plans to attack them and their planets.

Elio befriends Lord Grigon’s larvae/tardigrade looking son, another young creature who feels different. His names is Glordon (Remy Edgerly, with one of the best kid voices ever, up there with Flower in “Bambi” and Linus in “A Charlie Brown Christmas”). They agree to pretend that Glordon has been taken hostage to get Lord Grigon to back down. And then they send clones of themselves back “home” so they can stay together with the Communi-verse.

The clone versions of the two friends (voiced by the same two actors) give the film a chance to show that it is not easy to fool the people who know us well, and that even those who get frustrated trying to understand us and may push us to be different prefer us to be ourselves.

Elio and Glordon, like, I suspect, many of Pixar’s fabulously creative people, do not fit into the world easily. While Elio devotes himself to getting abducted, he never considers making friends on Earth. He is thoughtless in grabbing the ham radio from the boy who wants to join a club that Elio just made up to get the equipment. He lies to the Communi-verse. He develops a conlang (constructed language) instead of trying to communicate with his aunt.

The film shows us that fitting in with and feeling appreciated by the Communi-verse helps Elio think about who and what he overlooked at home, including his own feelings. Unique can sometimes feel lonely until we understand that everyone, even those who seem to have boundless confidence and fit in easily, experiences moments of loneliness, imposter syndrome, and despair. But like Elio and Glordon, we can find those who appreciate us for who we are as we learn to appreciate the vast array of difference around us.

Parents should know that this film includes a child whose parents were killed and feels their loss very deeply. There is peril and there are references to violence and some mild schoolyard language.

Family discussion: How do Olga and Lord Grigon know that the clones are not Elio and Glordon? Why is it easier for Elio to make friends in space than on Earth? How is the ending of this film like the recent “Lilo & Stitch?” Maybe try communicating by ham radio.

If you like this, try: “Inside Out” and “Turning Red”

The concept almost sells itself: “Die Hard” but if Bruce Willis was a bridesmaid. The problem with a concept that almost sells itself is executing a film that fully delivers on it. “Bride Hard” is more concept than delivery, but it is still silly fun.

“Pitch Perfect” series co-stars Rebel Wilson and Anna Camp star as childhood best friends Sam and Betsy. 30 years after Sam moved away (to Australia, apparently, given her accent), and they have remained close, though not been in touch as often as Betsy would like. Now Betsy is engaged, and Sam is her Maid of Honor and in charge of her bachelorette party, which has been moved at the last minute to Paris. Sam has to leave in the middle of the celebration due to her job, which is not, as she tells everyone, a cat show entrepreneur, but a spy.

While Betsy and her other bridesmaids are drinking with the male strippers, Sam has gone rogue. Instead of spying on the bad guy who is receiving a bio-weapon, she goes after him to retrieve it, showing us that she is impulsive, dedicated, fearless, and extremely good at improvising tactics based on what is available. Next stop, the wedding, at a private island off the coast of Georgia. Betsy’s fiancé Ryan (Sam Huntington) is from a very wealthy family and the island is where they have the whisky distillery that has been in the family for hundreds of years. Betsy, disappointed in Sam’s disappearance in Paris, has now made Ryan’s sour sister Virginia (Anna Chlumsky) her Maid of Honor. The other bridesmaids are pregnant Zoe (Gigi Zumbado), here-to-get-laid-and-drunk Lydia (Oscar winner Da’Vine Joy Randolph, the highlight of the movie).

And then the guys with guns arrive, and if this is sounding a bit like Jennifer Lopez’s “Shotgun Wedding” (which, coincidentally, was directed by “Pitch Perfect’s” Jason Moore), you have the right idea.

Kurt (Stephen Dorff) takes everyone hostage, and this gives Sam the chance to save the day. There are moments where the concept comes together, as when Sam uses plugged-in curling irons as nunchucks, and when the bridesmaids join together to give Sam backup. Stephen Dorff gives one of his best performances as the menacing leader of the bad guys. The process for getting what the bad guys came for is dragged out to allow more time for shooting and stunts. That may be a plus for action fans, but I found it slowed the pace of the film. Wilson is game, but her signature understated delivery does not work as effectively in the scenes focusing on the friendship with Betsy, both under strain and still vibrant. What works best is the interaction of the bride and bridesmaids, whether they are getting snockered, annoying each other (Chlumsky is on point as the competitive rich girl), or just engaging. in BFF-iness. As silly as it is, seeing them all come together to support the bride and go after the killers, beats watching the gift opening at a bridal shower.

Parents should know that this film includes extended action-style peril and violence with assault weapons, grenades, explosives, knives, and other weapons. Many supporting characters are killed and a main character is wounded. Characters drink and get tipsy and use strong language. There are crude sexual references, mostly humorous.

Family discussion: What profession would you pick as your cover if you could not tell people what your job was?

If you like this, try: “Shotgun Wedding” and the “Pitch Perfect” movies

It may be completely unnecessary but this live action version of the terrific 2010 animated “How to Train Your Dragon” is still a great story. The story is heartwarming, the visuals are exciting, and the themes of courage used for a deeper understanding are still worthy. 

I object to the idea that an animated film is just a lesser version until technology develops to create a “live action” remake (the dragons are CGI). Animation has its own artistry, vibrance, and expressiveness. This version is almost a shot-for-shot remake, emphasizing the original’s unsurpassability, yet somehow it is nearly half an hour longer. The original – and its sequels and spin-offs – are so memorable that this remake is like enjoying a cover band version of a classic song more for the memories it evokes of the original than for its own merits. 

Our young hero is Hiccup (Mason Thames), the son of single dad and chief Stoick (Gerard Butler, who voiced the same character in the original). They live in Berk, a craggy, stark, unforgiving, and remote Scandinavian community beset by dragons who steal their food. Status is based on killing dragons and many people in the community proudly sport scars and prosthetics to demonstrate their courage in these battles. Stoick, disappointed by his son’s lack of warrior spirit, reminds Hiccup that his mother was killed by a dragon (though those of us who have seen the animated sequels know that she is still alive). Hiccup is apprenticed to Stoick’s best friend Gobber (Nick Frost), whose prosthetic hand and foot are the result of fighting dragons, and who now provides weapons and teaches those teenagers who, unlike Hiccup, are going to be trained to be dragonslayers.

As in the original, the dragons here are wonderfully imagined, with many fascinating species. Each looks different and poses different kinds of threats. While Stoick has taken all of the warriors in search of the dragons’ nest, Hiccup finds and befriends a wounded Night Fury he names Toothless, hiding their relationship from everyone else until they are discovered by Astrid (Nico Parker), the best young warrior trainee. He takes her for a ride on Toothless and she is convinced that dragons are worthy of respect and affection. 

Very little has changed in the storyline, as noted. But perhaps 15 years distance has brought some changes in our atmosphere and understanding. For me at least, Stoick’s harsh judgment of Hiccup as weak and fearful because he does not want to cut the heads off of dragons felt like a slightly broader statement about masculinity, hierarchies based on community standards, and fear of the unknown than a father’s distorted but genuine wish to protect his son from creatures that were responsible for so much loss. Perhaps that was just because I know the story so well and thought the padding dragged a little.

Thames portrayal of Hiccup is sincere and he allows us to see the teenager sort through his feelings as he allows curiosity to triumph over tradition. Parker, the daughter of Thandiwe Newton and Ol Parker, is excellent, showing us Astrid’s fierceness and, like Hiccup, the curiosity that leads her to question her community’s assumptions, even though by the standards she was raised with, she is at the top. 

Production designer Dominic Watkins skillfully translates the animated world with intricate, textured, settings filled with intriguing details. The ships, the landscape, the workshop, even the doors in the arena that open up to allow dragons to enter for the training sessions area are all gorgeously imagined to bring us into the world. Lindsay Pugh’s costumes and the hair designs by a talented group of artists help define the characters, who dress for battle but show a lot of personality and intention in the way they present themselves. The flying scenes are dynamic, fun to watch, and I’m sure a glimpse at what the new ride at Universal Studios will be like.

Parents should know that this movie has extended peril and violence, though human and dragon deaths are off-screen. We hear about injuries and deaths, including the death of Hiccup’s mother. It also includes a very positive portrayal of people (and a dragon) with disabilities.

Family discussion: Why was Hiccup the first to see that the dragons could be friendly? Why was it hard for his father to accept that?

If you like this try: the animated movies, the books, and the television series

Writer/director Celine Song has followed up her auspicious debut film, “Past Lives,” with another story about a woman torn between two men, with one who represents her past. In “Past Lives,” the other was her present; in “Materialists” the other represents a future she imagines for herself.

This film is less successful because it never fully integrates the ideas and the characters. Even three of the world’s most charismatic and talented performers cannot manage to make the characters come to life. There are some well-chosen songs on the soundtrack and some provocative ideas. But the tone is inconsistent and the treatment superficial. The themes are worth exploring but are always just out of reach.

Dakota Johnson plays Lucy, a matchmaker to wealthy New Yorkers who are used to buying bespoke and think they can give her a list of “must haves” covering everything from education and bank account to height, hairline, and regular churchgoing. They give her a checklist but she almost always responds by promising them love.

Lucy herself is resolutely single, five years after breaking up with her aspiring actor boyfriend John (Chris Evans), she is working at a company called ADORE, doing what she says is the only job she has ever been good at. Early in the film, she is being celebrated for the wedding of two people she brought together, her ninth successful match. 

At that wedding, the bride is having a meltdown over whether to go through with it. Lucy calms her down with a very pragmatic discussion of what she needs from the relationship. We will see that Lucy is more than pragmatic; she is, per the title, a materialist. After the wedding goes off successfully, Lucy meets the groom’s brother at the singles’ table. He is Harry (Pedro Pascal), deemed in the lexicon of the matchmaker world, a “unicorn,” because he “checks all the boxes,” handsome, tall, charming, interested in marriage, and very, very rich. He is instantly drawn to Lucy, even after she tells him that her only criterion for a husband is mind-blowing wealth, and that she will only date someone if she is certain it will lead to marriage.

Also at the wedding, though, is John, who is working as a cater-waiter. They have a cordial, even borderline affectionate, conversation and he drives her home in the same beater car he had when they were together. 

So the central conflict here is not just between two men, but between two lives, two versions of herself. And around her are people making choices and experiencing the consequences that affect the way Lucy thinks about her own choices. 

This is where the film runs into difficulties. We are told (not shown) about the characters’ feelings. Harry and Lucy have a series of dinner dates in beautiful, luxurious settings, but all they ever talk about is whether Lucy wants or should want to date him. There’s never even the most basic movie shorthand for falling in love, some kind of connection through their pasts or their interests. A crucial conversation and turning point in their relationship is too superficial, even for a seemingly superficial subject. While we get a flashback showing us how strains of not having enough money and the more significant strains of different ideas led Lucy and John to break up, there is nothing in their interactions to demonstrate a shared understanding.

More than once in the film, characters talk about feeling valued or worthless. What makes people feel valued by themselves or others, is tantalizingly raised, but frustratingly sketched. 

The movie begins with a couple apparently from the bronze age as a (very fictionalized) symbol of the origins of romance. We see several of ADORE’s clients explaining their unrealistic and, in some cases, selfish expectations in a match. These scenes end up more distracting than pointed. A tragic match leads to the film’s strongest performance (Zoe Winters as Lucy’s client) but it is off-kilter with the rest of the story. Lucy actually does very little for her clients, Neve suggesting, for example, that they might want to focus less on how they want to be loved than on how they want to love.

The issues Song wants to address are deep; the way they are addressed is thin. But the actors are very charismatic and appealing and the settings are (mostly) enticingly luxurious.

Parents should know that this film includes drinking, smoking, and strong language. There are sexual references and non-explicit situations. 

Family discussion: Was Lucy helping her clients? She says it is the only thing she is good at. How does she define “good?” Will that change? What similarities do you observe in the relationships between people who value each other? 

If you like this, try: “How to Marry a Millionaire,” “Hitch,” and “Past Lives”

When a movie begins with “Act Three,” it is an invitation to open our minds to something unusual. “The Life of Chuck” is based on a story by Stephen King, and it reflects his more mystical side. While it includes dark and tragic themes, it is a story of profound humanity, ultimately spirit-expanding.

It begins at the end in more ways than one. A teacher named Marty (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is meeting with parents who seem oddly disconnected from concerns about how their children are doing in school. The world seems to be collapsing. A major earthquake has knocked California into the ocean. The internet is shutting down. Couples who have been together are splitting up and those that have split up are getting back together. Marty’s ex, Felicia (Karen Gillan) is an exhausted nurse in a hospital where most of the arrivals are attempted suicides. And somehow, signs – billboards, skywriting, bench posters, even projected in the windows of suburban homes — are appearing everywhere thanking someone named Chuck. 

In Act Two we meet Chuck as a young boy and see him grow up. His parents were killed in an automobile accident, and he lives with his grandparents (Mark Hamill as Albie and “Ferris Bueller’s” Mia Sara as Sarah) in an old house with a padlocked room in a cupola on the top floor that he is warned never to open. He is very good at math but what he loves is dancing, and a dance class leads him to what will be one of his life’s most profound and satisfying moments, in part because after moments of doubt and fear of being judged (he is in middle school, the judgiest part of life), he finds the courage to follow his heart and take a risk. Later, as an adult, and, as we are told by narrator Nick Offerman, nine months from his death due to a still-undiagnosed brain tumor, he will have another sublime moment of dance, when he passes by a busking drummer on a break from an accounting conference.

To say much more would be to say too much; this is a film that benefits from an audience without expectations or advance guidance. But for those who have seen it and would like to know what I think it means, I have some spoiler-filled comments at the end of this review. For now, I will just point out that twice in the film teachers share a selection from Walt Whitman’s Song of Myself in their classrooms, the part that goes

Do I contradict myself?

Very well then I contradict myself,

(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

When Chuck’s teacher (played by Kate Sigel) explains this passage to him, she places her hands gently over his ears and asks what is between them. It is the multitudes within each of us, every emotion, every memory, every wish, every fear, every sublime moment, every crushing disappointment, every tiny quotidian interaction we are not even aware that we noticed. 

This movie is a labor of love from both King and writer/director Mike Flanagan, whose wife (Seigel) and son (as the youngest version of Chuck) appear as key characters. It has a transcendent, poetic humanity that should make us better appreciate our own lives and the people we value.  And take the time, at least once in a while, to dance.

Parents should know that a child’s father and pregnant mother are killed (offscreen) in a car accident and there are apocalyptic events. A central character dies and there are references to other deaths, including a suicide. Characters use strong language and there are references to pornography.

Family discussion: What multitudes are in you? Who would you want to be with if things were scary? What do we learn from Marty’s conversations with Sam and Gus? Should Chuck have listened to his grandfather’s advice? 

If you like this try: “It’s a Wonderful Life,” “The Odd Life of Timothy Green,” and “Stranger Than Fiction” 

Stop now if you don’t want spoilers.

CLUES: What does it mean that we see Sam and Gus in different time periods but they do not seem older or younger, while Chuck is played by four different actors as he goes from young childhood to middle age? Why is the Whitman poem so important? 

MY VIEW: Every character in the movie is a part of the “multitudes” that make up one person, Chuck Krantz. The thank you signs are a part of his shutting down as he dies. When we die, our stories, our memories, our relationships, the multitudes within us stop, at least in the form of being contained in one individual consciousness. What Chuck saw in the locked room represents the recognition we all have that our lives are temporary.