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.

They can fake a lot of things in the movies – they can make us believe that Superman can fly, that there are real dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, and that Harry Potter can wear an invisibility cloak and fight a giant three-headed dog. But they can’t fake coolness. One reason is that part of the definition of being cool is that you don’t notice or care whether you’re cool or not and would never exert any effort to try to pretend to be if you weren’t.

“Extreme Ops” is a movie that is fairly successful at faking some pretty cool stunts but a complete failure at trying to create some pretty cool characters. The premise is an obvious pander to the Hollywood notion of what teenage boys think is cool – a group of hotshot extreme sports superstars go to the Alps to film a television commercial and end up having to escape from a Serbian war criminal. So, basically, what we have is an opportunity for three kinds of stunts: get acquainted with the characters stunts, showing off for each other stunts, and getting away from the bad guy stunts.

In between there is some wisp of a plot about tension between the two partners making the commercial (played by slumming British actors Rupert Graves and Rufus Sewell) and a world champion skier (Bridgitte Wilson-Sampras) who thinks she needs to loosen up a little.

Parents should know that the movie pushes the limits of the PG-13 rating. The characters use the in-movies-only euphemism “freakin’” but their behavior exemplifies the show-me-the-rules-so-I-can-break-them extreme culture it tries to evoke. There is vulgar and crude language, brief nudity, and a same-sex kiss (on a dare). Characters drink (one gets drunk) and smoke. Characters are in extreme peril and there is a lot of shooting, but none of the good guys get badly hurt.

Families who see this movie should talk about how different people have different ideas about risk. What kinds of risks are hard for you, and what kinds are easier? Do you think it is odd that none of the characters in the movie seem to have any idea what is going on in the news?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the superb documentary about the origins of the extreme sports culture, “Dogtown and Z-Boys.”

It’s a bad sign when a movie can’t make up its mind between two titles and just goes with both of them. In the case of “K-19: The Widowmaker,” that is an accurate indicator of its ambivalent, pretentious, inflated, and heavy-handed tone.

It begins with that dreaded signal of fake profundity, the notice that what we are about to see is “inspired by real events.” That all too often means that we will see a lot of fake human drama around some real-life challenge or turning point.

And what that means in this case is a tired retelling of the submarine movie conventions that we have seen in much better form in movies like “The Hunt for Red October” and even potboilers like “Crimson Tide.”

The setting is the USSR in 1961, at the height of the cold war. “Comrade Captain” Polenin (Liam Neeson) is the honorable and beloved leader of the Navy’s flagship, a zillion-dollar nuclear-powered submarine. Moscow is eager to get it out onto the water, but Polenin says it is not ready. So, he is replaced by taciturn tough guy Captain Vostrikov (Harrison Ford), the kind of officer who fires the ship’s only reactor specialist on the spot and whips out his stopwatch to call simultaneous drills.

Thus, we get some good comrade captain/bad comrade captain moments, the kinds of scenes where someone says “You’re pushing them too hard!” and someone responds by saying that it is the only way to teach them what they are capable of. Then it’s good ship/bad ship, as a perfect test missile firing is followed by a reactor leak that puts not only the ship but the whole world at risk.

If you don’t know what is going to happen when you see one sailor hanging a little white mouse in a cage over his bunk and we see one handsome young officer (played by Peter Sarsgaard of “Boys Don’t Cry) just out of school both (1) extol the wonders of atomic energy and (2) jump off of the truck to the sub to kiss his pretty girlfriend goodbye, then there are plenty of better movies that will give you the answer in a manner that is less ham-handed than this one.

Neeson and Sarsgaard do their best, but Ford, in trying to make his character complex, just makes him muddled. Director Kathryn Bigelow has a marvelous fluidity in maneuvering the camera within the tightly confined spaces, but her gifts are best used with action (as in the under-rated Point Break), not tension, which is what is called for here. The movie effectively conveys the decay of petty bureaucracy, but it is slow and too long. And it has one of the worst uses of music in years, all plinking balalaikas, syrupy strings, and, in the moments of greatest peril, angelic choirs, like a Carol Burnett Show parody of a WWII-era propaganda film. And then there is the old-age make-up in the last scene, which is just silly.

Parents should know that the movie is at the farthest edges of the PG-13 rating, with very graphic and tragic scenes and intense peril. Major characters die. There is drinking (some tipsiness) and smoking. There are also some bare bottoms.

Families who watch this movie will want to talk about many of the choices faced by characters in this movie, including those who knowingly sacrificed their lives – or who ordered others to sacrifice theirs — for their country and for their colleagues. The men on the sub watch propoganda movies about the Klu Klux Klan and other problems in the U.S. How do we know that what we hear about other countries is a fair and accurate picture? They should talk about how people can strike the right balance between insisting on a high standard of performance and making sure they have enough information to make the right decisions. U.S. examples like the Challenger disaster and the corporate corruption of 2002 raise these issues. Families might also want to look into some of the issues raised by the use of nuclear power and the problems of disposing of all of the hardware from the Cold War that gave rise to the acronym MAD for “mutually assured destruction.”

Families who enjoy this movie will enjoy The Hunt for Red October and Crimson Tide. They may also want to try Das Boot, probably the most vivid depiction ever of the terror submariners live with. For movies about the complexities of command, try “Patton,” “A Few Good Men,” and “The Caine Mutiny.”

Plot: Cedric (Freddie Bartholomew), who lives in New York with his widowed mother, finds out that he is the grandson of a British earl, and is to go to England to live in his castle. After marrying an American, Cedric’s father was estranged from the Earl, but now that both of the Earl’s sons have died, Cedric is the only heir. He says goodbye to his best friends, Mr. Hobbs (Guy Kibbee) and Dick (Mickey Rooney), and leaves for England, not knowing that the Earl has forbidden his mother to set foot in the castle.

The Earl is a rigid and somewhat pompous man, but, encouraged by his mother, Cedric sees everything the Earl does as wonderfully generous and kind. The old man is utterly charmed by Cedric, as are all who meet him, and he tries to live up to Cedric’s image of him. They grow to love each other. There is a crisis when they are told that the Earl’s older son was married and had a son of his own before he died, and that boy is the rightful heir. With the help of Dick, they prove the new heir a fraud, the Earl realizes that Cedric’s mother is a fine woman, and they all live happily ever after.

Discussion: This is basically a male version of “Pollyanna.” Like Pollyanna, Cedric goes to live with a wealthy but crusty and snobbish relative, insists on seeing the best in everyone (even when it isn’t there), and wins the hearts of all who know him. Not quite as sugary as its reputation, it may still put off kids who think Cedric is too perfect. But his colorful friends, his maturity under stress, and the fun of the idea of his being brought from poverty to an Earldom make it hold up surprisingly well.

Questions for Kids: