“Sully” Sullivan (Joel McCrea) is a successful director of silly comedies, including Ants in Your Pants and Hey, Hey in the Hayloft. The studio wants him to make more, but he wants to make a movie with a serious message about The Depression and man’s inhumanity to man. He plans on calling it “0 Brother, Where Art Thou?”

When he lists all the things that are wrong with the world, the studio executive replies, “Maybe they’d like to forget that.” His own butler advises him that “the subject is not an interesting one. The poor know all about poverty, and only the morbid rich find the subject glamorous…. It is to be stayed away from, even for the purpose of study. It is to be shunned.” But Sullivan is determined.

Before he can make the movie, he has to see what life is like as a “bum.” His first efforts fail, as the luxurious studio trailer follows him around. He meets “the Girl” (Veronica Lake), a would-be actress, and she persuades him to let her go with him, dressed as a boy, and they start over again.

This time he discovers the sadness and lack of dignity among the homeless. But before he can go back home, he and the Girl are separated, and he is hit on the head, becomes disoriented, and loses his memory. He punches a railroad guard and is sentenced to six years on a chain gang. Meanwhile, the hobo who has stolen his shoes is killed and, through the studio identification card sewn into the shoes, is identified as Sullivan. One night, the prisoners are taken to a small church, where they see a Mickey Mouse cartoon. Sullivan realizes the joy laughter gives to these men who have nothing else.

When Sullivan regains his memory, he gets out of jail by “confessing” to his own murder so he can contact his lawyer and be properly identified. He goes home to find that his wife has remarried, leaving him free to marry the Girl. And he resolves to make more funny movies, because he realizes that is the best contribution he can make, concluding, “There’s a lot to be said for making people laugh. Did you know that’s all that some people have? It isn’t much, but it’s better than nothing in this cock-eyed caravan.”

Sensitive teenagers often make the mistake of thinking they cannot care deeply and still find things funny, or that those around them cannot appreciate their pain and still find anything funny, even something that has no relation to the situation they are struggling with. This movie makes it clear that laughter and insight go together, that humor is never an insult to a serious situation, indeed that humor can be the highest form of awareness and perception, and that making people laugh can be a good way to help them.

Sullivan himself is funny, with his pretensions and his misguided attempts to find out what poverty is like.

Families who see this movie should talk about why Sullivan wants to make a different kind of movie? Why don’t the studio executives want him to? How do they try to persuade him? What is the difference between the ways that the two servants try to find out how Sullivan can board the train? Why does the second one work? What does the Girl mean when she says, “The nice thing about buying food for a man is that you don’t have to laugh at his jokes”? What does Sullivan learn from the Mickey Mouse cartoon? Do you think this is the kind of movie Sullivan would make when he gets back to the studio?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy other movies by Sturges, especially The Lady Eve. The title of the Cohen brothers’ movie, Oh Brother, Where Art Thou was a tribute to Sturges.

First off, this is the kind of sequel where you really should see the Ring before seeing the Ring Two. In addition to the many visual and character references, you also will understand that the second in the series, while scarier, lacks the first’s novelty and many of its strengths.

Single-mom and journalist, Rachel (Naomi Watts), has packed up son, Aidan (David Dorfman), and the city apartment in favor of a new start away from the killer-video-tapes of Seattle. Settling into their new house in a small town near the ocean, Rachel promises Aidan that they did what they had to do to survive, regardless of the immorality of placing other people at risk of the tape’s deadly curse. No sooner can Rachel say “we are safe now”, then she hears about a local teen who has died from terror in front of his television.

Rachel destroys the new tape only to find that deadly little tape-ghost, Samara (Kelly Stables and, on tape, Daveigh Chase), has designs on taking over Aidan. The chase is on: Rachel must find out how to get Samara out of their lives for good, seeking help from the young ghost’s biological mother (Sissy Spacek in a disappointing cameo as the “crazy” women who mothers seek out for advice on their unruly kids). Realizing she will have to take care of business herself, Rachel dives into a series of watery endings that come together in a muddy puddle, ultimately demonstrating that maternal love wins over evil. Or something to that effect.

The crux of the Ring Two’s scariness is that Samara is free from the rules of the first movie. She pops out of the video and into their lives without the requisite seven-day waiting period and, like Edward Gorey’s Doubtful Guest, shows no intention of leaving. When she makes the Child Protective Services agent assigned to Aidan’s case inject herself in the jugular with a syringe full of air, Samara is showing that this is her world now and it will work to her rules. The dominant imagery in the Ring Two is water and hydrophobic Samara, killed in a well, exercises her nightmares on all those she touches.

Director Hideo Nakata, who was the mastermind behind the Ring’s inspiration (Japanese blockbuster “Ringu” and the less popular “Ringu 2”), excels at atmospherics but is lazy with plot. While spookier than the first, the bare bones of the movie read like a rehashed Lifetime (cable’s “television for women”) drama. A mom protects her child against a threat no one else understands, only to be forcibly removed from her child by authorities, who in turn are punished, and to end the horror, mom must sacrifice herself in some way, thus saving her child.

If you are willing to jump over the plot’s many weak bits, then this psychological thriller is a good-looking spook-fest and a should-see for fans of the original. For those looking for a tight, tense stand-alone horror movie, they might want to peek into another dark corner.

Parents should know that this movie is extremely scary and there is near-constant peril for all the major characters. Younger and horror-adverse audiences will be frightened by numerous scenes and images, including the attempted murder of young children and the suicides of parents. There are deer attacks, attempted drownings, chase scenes, a spooky basement and the non-explicit but horrific off-screen deaths of characters. There is a very graphic “suicide” and references to madness. A character swears in a very memorable and scary scene.

Families who see this movie might want to talk about the consequences of our actions. At the end of the Ring, Rachel made a choice and the Ring Two represents the outcome of her choice. What else could she have done? What are the teenagers in the beginning of the movie choosing to do in a similar situation? What would you do differently?

Families who enjoy watching scary movies together want to watch “Poltergeist”, “The Grudge”, “The Sixth Sense”, or “The Shining”. If they have not yet seen “The Ring” then they should watch that before this sequel.

Somewhere inside this very mainstream Hollywood confection is a surprisingly subversive little bit of deconstruction. It takes a classic Cinderella theme — the makeover that catches the attention of Prince Charming — and turns it upside-down. This is a movie about an un-makeover.

The original Miss Congeniality was a Cinderella story with Sandra Bullock as the ironically-named FBI agent Gracie Hart. The shy and dowdy girl who snorted when she laughed got a glamour makeover so that she could go undercover in a beauty competition. She unleased her inner bombshell, bonded with her fellow beauty queens, and captured both the bad guys and the heart of a hunky fellow agent.

But there’s no such thing as happily ever after when there’s sequel money to be made, so as this one opens, Gracie’s notoriety has made it impossible for her to do undercover work and the romance has come unraveled. She is given the choice between a desk job and going on the road to do promotional work for the Bureau. While she does not want to become “FBI Barbie,” she does not want to deal with the loneliness and insecurity of her old life, so she gets another makeover, goes on a book tour, and ends up demonstrating her famous SING method of self-defense (that’s “solar plexus, instep, nose, and groin”) on Regis, with the help of Sam Fuller, her hostile new associate (Regina King).

But we have to figure out a way to get some of the other characters from the first movie back into the story, so Gracie’s friends from the beauty pageant (Heather Burns as Miss United States of America and William Shatner as pageant representative Stan Fields) get kidnapped, and Gracie and Sam have to outsmart not just the bad guys but also the local FBI by-the-books types to save the day.

All of this is just a conventional set-up for some outlandish and silly but mildly entertaining farce and a couple of better-than-average wisecracks. Bullock chases and tackles someone she thinks is a Dolly Parton impersonator, dresses up like an old Jewish lady in a wheelchair, and does a lot of racing around in sequins and high heels. But the reversal of the usual makeover/romance theme adds, if not weight, at least a bit more interest.

As producer of the film, Bullock has tailored it around her talents, and her pleasure in the role makes it more fun to watch. The wonderful Regina King (Ray) is unfortunately relegated to scowls and punches for most of the movie but gets to shine in her own set of spangles near the end. Dietrich Bader (“The Drew Carey Show,” Napoleon Dynamite) and Eileen Brennan (Private Benjamin) provide some bright moments but the rest of the cast is cardboard-y and practically invisible.

Parents should know that the movie has some strong language and a lot of action-style violence (no on hurt) and peril. There is some sexual humor, some crude jokes, and a joke about drinking. A strength of the movie is its portrayal of strong, loyal, and capable diverse characters, including minorities, women, and a gay character.

Families who see this movie should talk about whether “people care about people who care about themselves.” Why was Sam so angry? What was the most important thing that Sam and Gracie learned?

Families who enjoy this movie will enjoy the original, Legally Blonde, Beverly Hills Cop, and the underrated Guarding Tess.

First off, this is the kind of sequel where you really should see the Ring before seeing the Ring Two. In addition to the many visual and character references, you also will understand that the second in the series, while scarier, lacks the first’s novelty and many of its strengths.

Single-mom and journalist, Rachel (Naomi Watts), has packed up son, Aidan (David Dorfman), and the city apartment in favor of a new start away from the killer-video-tapes of Seattle. Settling into their new house in a small town near the ocean, Rachel promises Aidan that they did what they had to do to survive, regardless of the immorality of placing other people at risk of the tape’s deadly curse. No sooner can Rachel say “we are safe now”, then she hears about a local teen who has died from terror in front of his television.

Rachel destroys the new tape only to find that deadly little tape-ghost, Samara (Kelly Stables and, on tape, Daveigh Chase), has designs on taking over Aidan. The chase is on: Rachel must find out how to get Samara out of their lives for good, seeking help from the young ghost’s biological mother (Sissy Spacek in a disappointing cameo as the “crazy” women who mothers seek out for advice on their unruly kids). Realizing she will have to take care of business herself, Rachel dives into a series of watery endings that come together in a muddy puddle, ultimately demonstrating that maternal love wins over evil. Or something to that effect.

The crux of the Ring Two’s scariness is that Samara is free from the rules of the first movie. She pops out of the video and into their lives without the requisite seven-day waiting period and, like Edward Gorey’s Doubtful Guest, shows no intention of leaving. When she makes the Child Protective Services agent assigned to Aidan’s case inject herself in the jugular with a syringe full of air, Samara is showing that this is her world now and it will work to her rules. The dominant imagery in the Ring Two is water and hydrophobic Samara, killed in a well, exercises her nightmares on all those she touches.

Director Hideo Nakata, who was the mastermind behind the Ring’s inspiration (Japanese blockbuster “Ringu” and the less popular “Ringu 2”), excels at atmospherics but is lazy with plot. While spookier than the first, the bare bones of the movie read like a rehashed Lifetime (cable’s “television for women”) drama. A mom protects her child against a threat no one else understands, only to be forcibly removed from her child by authorities, who in turn are punished, and to end the horror, mom must sacrifice herself in some way, thus saving her child.

If you are willing to jump over the plot’s many weak bits, then this psychological thriller is a good-looking spook-fest and a should-see for fans of the original. For those looking for a tight, tense stand-alone horror movie, they might want to peek into another dark corner.

Parents should know that this movie is extremely scary and there is near-constant peril for all the major characters. Younger and horror-adverse audiences will be frightened by numerous scenes and images, including the attempted murder of young children and the suicides of parents. There are deer attacks, attempted drownings, chase scenes, a spooky basement and the non-explicit but horrific off-screen deaths of characters. There is a very graphic “suicide” and references to madness. A character swears in a very memorable and scary scene.

Families who see this movie might want to talk about the consequences of our actions. At the end of the Ring, Rachel made a choice and the Ring Two represents the outcome of her choice. What else could she have done? What are the teenagers in the beginning of the movie choosing to do in a similar situation? What would you do differently?

Families who enjoy watching scary movies together want to watch “Poltergeist”, “The Grudge”, “The Sixth Sense”, or “The Shining”. If they have not yet seen “The Ring” then they should watch that before this sequel.

Engaging characters and evocative period detail cannot overcome the uh-oh factors that ultimately overwhelm this coming-of-age story set in the 1970’s and written and directed by actor David Duchovney.

Movies that start with voice-overs as adults recall the year when everything changed are one uh-oh factor, especially if we find out right from the beginning that our narrator wanted to become a writer or an artist. Sometimes films that begin that way work very well, but more often they are self-indulgent. A more reliable red flag is either a minority or a disabled person who shares wisdom with the main character and passes on life lessons. This film has both, with Erykah Badu as an angry prisoner in solitary confinement and Robin Williams with big fake teeth as a janitor/deliveryman who is called, in the language of the era it depicts, “retarded.” As with many first films, it is cluttered and overly plotted and at the same time too much is too easily resolved. As worthy and sincere an effort as it is, it would take a much better script to overcome all of that.

This is the story of Tommy (Anton Yelchin), about to turn 13. He is still mourning the loss of his father from cancer and making clumsy efforts to comfort his mother, a nurse (Tea Leoni). His best friend is Pappass (Williams), the school’s assistant janitor. They deliver food for the local market, which gives them a chance to explore and laugh at the world together — and to save money together for what they both think is the coolest item on earth, a beautiful green bicycle.

But, this is one of those “Puff the Magic Dragon” movies, and Tommy/Little Jackie Paper is going to have to come of age by beginning to outgrow his friend. That means girls, one in particular, but it also means growing into a greater understanding of the complexity of people and their differences and motivations. He catches the attention of a woman in the local jail (they call it the “House of D” for “detention”) and she gives him advice on getting close to the girl he likes. It works, and Papass is anxious and angry at being left behind. He makes a bad mistake and Thomas feels responsible, with tragic results.

Parents should know that the film has very strong language for a PG-13, including middle-school insults concerning physical developments during puberty. The young characters have the preoccupation with sex that is typical of that age. There is some kissing and a tender, apparently non-sexual long hug while lying down. Some of the residents of the “House of D” are prostitutes and one says she murdered someone. A character chain-smokes, another abuses alcohol, another asks for marijuana, and another overdoses on prescription pills. There are tense and disturbing confrontations and a character removes someone from life support.

Families who see this movie should talk about who Thomas could have talked to about his problems, either at the time or after he grew up and about why he thought it was impossible. How did his inability to tell the truth about himself affect his relationship with his wife and son? Why was the Lady’s advice important to him? Do you agree with the decision Thomas made about Pappass?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy Charly, with an Oscar-winning performance by Cliff Robertson, and an underrated gem, The Reivers, with Steve McQueen, based on a novella by William Faulkner.