Plot: Set in medieval times, the story begins as villagers with torches approach the home of a famous sorcerer (Sir Ralph Richardson). They need his help to fight a dragon. If they do not sacrifice a virgin twice a year, he will destroy their community. The sorcerer agrees, but he is killed when a warrior with the group insists on a test. The sorcerer’s apprentice, Galen (Peter MacNichol) goes in his place, telling them “I am the sorcerer you seek.”

On the way to the village, Galen discovers that Valerian, the boy who spoke for the group, is in fact a girl brought up as a boy to protect her from the lottery used twice a year to select a female virgin for sacrifice. They reach the dragon’s lair, and Galen casts a spell that causes an avalanche. Sure that the dragon is killed, they celebrate, and Valerian appears in a dress. The King is worried, telling Galen, “You came here to toy with a monster? Who are you to risk these people’s lives?” It was he who agreed to sacrifice the girls, after his brother was killed by the dragon. He throws Galen in the dungeon.

Galen is freed by the princess, who is horrified when Galen tells her that she has not been included in the lottery. She had been assured that she ran the same risk as everyone else, and she feels betrayed and ashamed. It turns out that the dragon has not been killed, and it is time for another sacrifice. The princess puts her name on all of the lots, to make up for the risks she avoided over the years. The king, heartbroken, begs Galen to fight the dragon. But the warrior tries to stop him, believing that the sacrifice is the only way to keep the rest of the village safe. As they fight, the princess is killed and eaten by the just-hatched baby dragons.

Galen fights the dragon with a shield made of dragon scales by Valerian and a sword made by her father. He is defeated and starts to leave, when he realizes that the sorcerer can still help him. He uses his magic to bring back the sorcerer, who fights the dragon until they destroy each other. It is not just the end of the two of them, but the end of that era, as Christianity replaces sorcery.

Discussion: When the community is at risk, how do you decide what to do? History is filled with problems created by people who made the wrong choices. Many people criticize those who tried to compromise with Hitler. Many criticize those who decided Americans should fight in Viet Nam. The king here makes the decision to compromise after his brother is killed. He negotiated a terrible deal with the dragon, but it was better for his people than the uncertainty they had before. In contrast, Galen wants to risk his own destruction and the town’s by fighting. When he loses, he leaves until he figures out a way to defeat the dragon.

And what about the king’s compromise, the lottery itself, and its fairness in theory and as practiced? The way we evaluate risks and benefits in making our choices (sometimes emotionally rather than analytically) is demonstrated here. Note the King’s change of heart when his own daughter is at risk.

Like the other famous sorcerer’s apprentice (memorably portrayed by Mickey Mouse in “Fantasia”), Galen doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. He thinks because he knows a few tricks, he has enough magic to defeat the dragon. But he is wrong, and the princess dies because of his mistake. He doesn’t know what he does know, either — it takes him a while to figure out why the sorcerer allowed himself to be “killed” before starting on the journey. But when the time comes, and he has to know the right moment to destroy the amulet, he is able to trust himself, and he gets it right.

Sorcerers and dragons cannot exist without each other. Valerian’s father says approvingly that magic is dying out. Particularly well handled here is the notion that religion replaced magic.

Questions for Kids:

What do you need to know in deciding whether to fight, compromise, or run? How have you seen those questions presented?

What adjustments might be difficult for Valerian after the way she grew up?

What was the point of having both the king and the priest claim credit for defeating the dragon?

What do you think about the princess’ decision? Why did she say that putting her name on all of the tiles “certified” the lottery?

Connections: Other “sword and sorcery” movies include “Labyrinth” and “Ladyhawke.”

Activities: Read Shirley Jackson’s famous story, “The Lottery” about a small town that uses a lottery to determine which of its citizens will be sacrificed.

This “Formula” is missing some key ingredients – like plot, characters, and dialogue.

Here is what it does have: the undeniably cool Samuel L. Jackson (who co-produced) in a kilt, fending off attackers with golf clubs and one funny joke. Unfortunately, it also has Samuel L. Jackson fending off some other attackers by inducing what I will tactfully call severe intestinal distress. And the joke is stolen from “Pulp Fiction,” in a much better scene featuring, um, let me think, yes, Samuel L. Jackson. It also has lots and lots of violence, with many people getting shot or blown up. And there are, oh, about 20 or 30 words in the script that are not profane, though none profane or otherwise that are particularly witty or memorable. It has kilt jokes, though none that are particularly original or memorable, plus I can’t figure out why so many people who live in England which is right next door to Scotland seem never to have seen a kilt before or at least know what it is called.

Jackson plays Elmo McElroy, a pharmacist by training who never got his license because of a drug conviction. So, he spent 30 years cooking up concoctions for a very mean drug dealer (played by rock star Meat Loaf) who not only speaks of himself in the third person but when doing so actually calls himself “The Lizard.” McElroy has an idea for one last big deal to buy his freedom. All he has to do is blow up all of his current customers and sell his latest invention, a drug 51 times more powerful than any ever invented before while avoiding the beautiful assassin who is trying to kill him.

Director Ronny Yu brings out the tired old Hong Kong camera tricks. Every other scene is either sped up or slowed down. He wastes the talented Robert Carlyle and Emily Mortimer. They play characters who have different motivations and even different personalities from scene to scene. They do whatever moves the story forward, which means whatever will cause the most destruction.

Parents should know that the movie has extreme graphic violence and non-stop profanity. The language used includes many exceptionally vivid British swear words, the literal meaning of which may not be familiar to some viewers. The characters are drug dealers (who generally themselves do not use drugs), and there is a generally lax attitude toward substance abuse of all kinds. There is one sex scene that is moderately explicit and brief non-sexual nudity.

Families who see this movie should talk about how McElroy developed the plan that would allow him to achieve his dream (which is not fully revealed until the credit sequence). Why was that dream so important to him? Speaking of dreams, they might like to talk about what it was about this material that made Samuel L. Jackson want to produce and star in it.

Families who enjoy this movie will enjoy the far better “The Transporter” and Jackson version of “Shaft.”

If you want to ride this movie the way its heroine rides the waves, the best thing to do is bring a walkman and a really good pair of headphones and watch it while listening to your favorite assortment of surfer hits. A compilation of Beach Boys, Jan and Dean, and, of course, the classic Surfari rendition of “Wipeout” will be a far better accompaniment to this movie’s visuals than the dreary attempt at story, acting, and dialogue.

And oh, those visuals! Some of the most glorious cinematography of the year takes you right inside those Hawaiian “pipe” waves that the big-time surfers master. Hawaii’s glorious natural resources, including many very pretty girls in very tiny bikinis, are lovingly photographed.

The story is one of those eye-of-the-tiger, Flashdance on a surfboard, will she believe in herself enough to follow her dream sagas with no special insight or freshness. Kate Bosworth plays Ann Marie, a cute tough-on-the-outside-but-vulnerable-on-the-inside surfer girl who has what it takes to be world-class if she can just (1) get over the fear she has had since almost drowning, (2) manage to train for her big chance while supporting herself and her younger sister, and (3) not get distracted by Prince Charming, a cute quarterback named Matt. Pals played by Michele Rodriguez and real-life surfer Sanoe Lake provide support.

The surfing scenes are breathtaking and by themselves worth the price of a ticket. The water is the most vivid and memorable character in the movie. MTV-style camera tricks will be annoying to some, but there are no tricks that can spoil the shots of the massive, thundering, walls of water that writhe like a sea serpent the size of a skyscraper.

The three actresses have a nice, easy camaraderie and it is easy to believe that they have lived together forever with a mixture of familial bickering and unquestioned loyalty and understanding. I was especially impressed with the surfer sisterhood that had one of the world champions taking time in the middle of a competition to give encouragement to a young competitor. And it was nice that Prince Charming (Matthew Davis, last seen as the boy who broke Reese Witherspoon’s heart in Legally Blonde), when asked for advice, instead provides support for Ann Marie and gently reminds her that she is a girl who does not need anyone else’s advice.

On the other hand, amidst all of this female empowerment there are some issues that make the characters less than ideal role models. Parents should know that Ann Marie accepts a lot of money ($1000 for “surfing lessons”) and expensive gifts from the quarterback. She has sex with him after knowing him for a couple of days and then is horrified to overhear a conversation that makes her think that he does not think of her as marriage material.

Parents should also know that the movie has strong language and a lot of vulgarity for a PG-13. We see a mess in a toilet bowl and a used condom. Ann Marie is a poor guardian for her 14-year-old sister. She chases after her sister when she sneaks out to go to a raucous party and worries about her smoking and ditching school, but makes very little effort to set an example or impose limits. Parents of younger kids who want to see a movie about two sisters in Hawaii who go surfing should watch Lilo and Stitch.

Families who see this movie should talk about the obstacles Ann Marie must overcome – not just the finding a way to support herself and doing all the training but overcoming her fears of failing and of succeeding. Some viewers may conclude that her attraction to Matt was in part a way to give herself an excuse not to do her best in the competition. Families might also want to talk about the way that the Hawaiian natives feel about the tourists (one tells a tourist to leave the beach he likes to surf, saying “We grew here; you flew here”).

Families who enjoy this movie will enjoy the surfer classic The Endless Summer and the recent documentary about the beginning of extreme skateboarding, Dogtown and Z-Boys. And of course there’s always Gidget!

Bond, James Bond, has returned to the big screen once again. This time, as with every effort in the Pierce Brosnan series, producer Barbara Broccoli and MGM studios will try and out do the explosions, the sex, and the witty dialogue that has permeated the countless entries in the spy films. “Die Another Day,” the latest Bond adventure, should be praised though, as it succeeds in giving the audience the most thrilling Brosnan adventure since his debut film, “Goldeneye.” What this latest entry in the Bond films does is reminds us is why 007 is still so appealing after all these years. Unlike this summer’s loud and crass rip-off, “XXX,” the James Bond films have class and tradition, a certain familiar thrill as well as a hero whose arrogance is charming, not brutish and dull.

This film starts out with 007 going undercover to assassinate the son of a South Korean leader. When things go wrong, Bond is captured and tortured, while his homeland denies he exists. After being traded for a ruthless Korean killer (who now has diamonds embedded into his face, thanks to our hero), James must find out who double crossed him in Korea and why. Along the way, he meets a female American counter-part, Jinx, played by Oscar winner Halle Berry.

Berry is fine in the film, though her role is not nearly as large as the trailers show and that turns out to be a good thing. As the past two films have proven, not enough action involving Bond just slows the pace in the formulaic series. The first hour is truly thrilling and actually succeeds for once at adding depth to Bond. There is some great comedic bits involving John Cleese, the fantastic locales that Bond movies are famous for, and a fun if unrealistic car chase. Serving as both distractions and annoyance in the film are cameos by American tough guy Michael Madsen and singer Madonna. Madonna may have crafted a fun modern techno song for the film, but her acting is still as stale and laughable as it was ten years ago. All and all, “Die Another Day” is a fun Bond entry that has enough great stunts and excitement, that, by the time the movie tales off in the last 20 minuets, the viewer can forgive its bland conclusion.

Parents should know that the movie is rated PG-13 for excessive violence, sex, partial nudity, mild profanity, and many off-screen deaths. This film pushes the PG-13 rating hard, even for a James Bond film. The film is almost non-stop action scenes, some of which include graphic is if rather bloodless deaths. This includes one impaling, a knife in the neck and another in a chest, a character being sucked into a plane engine, while another is pinned to a hovercraft before plunging to his death at the bottom of a waterfall. The film also includes many explosions and scenes in which death is implied, but not shown. There is almost constant shooting, and James Bond’s ambiguity about violence may trouble younger viewers. The film shows James Bond smoking in numerous scenes. The movie is also filled with sex and sexual dialogue. One sex scene is rather graphic, while the other two imply it. There is also a view of a woman naked from the back, as well as numerous silhouettes of nude women during the opening credits. The film also includes numerous sexual innuendos, including two that are rather graphic, one coming at the end of the feature. The film briefly address James Bond’s womanizing, but makes light of it rather then condemning his behavior.

Families who see this film should talk about why James Bond is so loyal to his country. If it means so much to him, why do they deny his existence? It could also be addressed why Bond turns to violence so often, and that, although it works in the film, it destroys many people’s lives in the process. Why does the American government and the British government work together despite disagreements? Why does the South Korean general disapprove of his son’s violent methods? It could also be discussed why Bond treats women they way he does and how this film presents him with a strong female counter-part. What is it about how she treats him that makes Bond question how he acts towards women? Families should also talk about how the Bond movies in general treat women and possibly how it has changed since the series incarnation.

Families who enjoyed this movie will also enjoy “Goldfinger,” “The Bourne Identity,” and “Mission: Impossible.”

Any documentary about gun violence in America in which the single most intelligent and insightful comment is made by a guy named after a dead beauty queen and a serial killer is worth a look. Then there is the bank that gives out free rifles to customers who open up new accounts, a guy who sleeps with a gun under his pillow, and of course Charlton Heston standing up at a meeting of the NRA just after the shootings at Columbine and yelling “From my COLD DEAD HANDS!”

So shock-rock star Marilyn Manson sounds positively statesmanlike when film-maker Michael Moore asks him what he thinks of the two boys who listened to his music before they took guns into their high school and killed 13 people and injured 21 more before turning the guns on themselves. Mason, wearing his garish stage makeup but speaking quietly, compares the endless media coverage of the Columbine shooting to the way the media all but ignored the record-breaking U.S. bombing in Kosovo that same day, the most extensive bombing expedition in world history. And then, when Moore asks what he would say to the boys in Columbine, Manson says simply, “I wouldn’t tell them anything, I would listen to what they had to say– which is what no one did.”

Moore is deeply concerned and the ultimate bleeding heart liberal, but he is not an ideologue. He learned to shoot in high school and is a life member of the NRA. When the bank gives him a rifle, he casually checks the action while he asks if anyone ever considered that maybe guns and banks were not the best possible combination. Much of the time he lets the story tell itself, as when he interviews the brother of Timothy McVeigh’s co-conspirator, Terry Nichols. John Nichols, who sleeps with a gun under his pillow, says that he believes that anyone should have access to guns or even bombs. Then Moore asks whether he thinks that anyone should have access to nuclear weapons, and McVeigh looks at him like he is crazy and says, “No! There are some real crazies out there!” Sometimes, Moore becomes the story, as when he brings two young survivors of the Columbine shooting to K-Mart’s national headquarters to protest their selling of ammunition, including the bullets still in the bodies of the two young men. After a day of deliberation, a K-Mart spokeswoman reads a statement

This is more mosaic than polemic and mordantly funny, though it does veer a bit over the top when Moore tries to link television producer Dick Clark to the murder of a six-year-old by a six-year-old, because the boy who killed his classmate had a mother who worked at one of Clark’s restaurants in a welfare-to-work program. And his relentless questioning of a clearly memory-impaired Charlton Heston, leaving a photo of the murdered girl in Heston’s home after Heston stalks out of the interview, has the unintended result of making Heston seem more sympathetic.

But the movie confronts complex questions fearlessly, even as it acknowledges that it does not have the answers. Why do our fellow North Americans in Canada, who have proportionately the same number of guns, shoot each other only one-tenth as often? Why are Americans fearful even out of proportion to the amount of violence we subject ourselves to? The movie’s violation of strict “documentary” standards by shifting some scenes around has been criticized. For one example, see this website. Moore’s response to some of the questions about the movie is here.

Parents should know that the movie’s subject is violence and it includes explicit real-life footage of the shootings at Columbine. It also includes very strong language and brief references to drinking, smoking, and sex.

Families who see this movie should talk about the questions Moore raises. Why do Americans shoot each other so much more often than any other country? Why don’t Canadians lock their front doors? Why was Moore successful in persuading K-Mart not to sell ammunition any more? What can you do to try to reduce violence or to change other things that matter to you?

Families who enjoy this movie should see Moore’s first film, “Roger and Me,” about General Motors and Moore’s home town of Flint, Michigan.