“The Gospel of John” is a reverent, moving, and dignified depiction of the life of Christ as described in the New Testament. It is a literal re-telling, actually a recitation of the Gospel, word for word, a “faithful representation,” in its own terms. The entire text, as translated by the Good News Bible, is read aloud as it is enacted.

The production design is superb, reflecting careful research and a dedication to historical authenticity. The movie was filmed in a desert area in Spain that has changed very little since ancient times. The miracles are portrayed simply and without any flashy special effects. The narration is well handled by Canadian actor Christopher Plummer. But the heart of the movie is, as it should be, the character of Jesus, exceptionally well-played by British stage actor Henry Ian Cusick. He has the presence to convey Jesus as portrayed in the Gospel of John, loving but sometimes troubled. Cusick’s eyes convey a warmth, wisdom, and sadness that add a great deal to the story. Steven Russell is also very fine as Pontius Pilate.

Parents should know that the movie has vivid depictions of the crucifixion, including bloody wounds. Jesus is whipped, beaten, and stabbed. The legs of the men crucified with him are broken. The movie opens with a brief statement designed to ward off any concerns about anti-Semitism, but some viewers may believe that the portrayal of the “Jewish authorities” is biased.

Families who see this movie should talk about the lessons Jesus tried to teach his followers and how this Gospel differs from the others.

Families who appreciate this movie will also enjoy the Visual Bible series. They might like to compare this to other movies about Jesus, like King of Kings or Ben Hur. They might also like to compare this to a lovely Italian movie, The Gospel According to Matthew.

This mesmerizing documentary about the late rap star Tupac Shakur makes clear what a talented performer and vibrant presence he was, even for audiences who don’t listen to rap music and aren’t quite sure which rap star/convicted felon/murder victim he was.

But it does more than that. It tells a deeply moving story of a gifted, thoughtful, and intelligent young man who has to cope with the challenges of poverty and then has to manage the even more complex challenges of success. And it deals forthrightly with the problems of race and class in America, from racism and police brutality to black on black crime, absent fathers, and the uneasy relationship between showbiz “thug life” and the real thing. At one point, he says, “I really did believe that no black person would ever shoot me.”

The movie was produced by Shakur’s mother and MTV, which provided access to broadcast footage, interviews, and outakes. That allows Shakur, eerily, to tell the story himself, even predicting his own violent death. He warns us that this will be a story of “violence, redemption, and love,” and that proves to be true.

Shakur’s mother was one of the few women leaders of the Black Panthers. She went to prison when she was pregnant with him. He was deeply aware that he served time in prison before he was born. He also respected his mother’s activism but felt that he did not get enough of her attention. “I always felt she cared more about ‘the people’ than her people.” He missed having a strong male role model. “You need a man to teach you to be a man.”

He cared for his community but hated being poor. He briefly dealt drugs, but even the local dealers urged him to follow his dream. He loved performing and was accepted at a school for the arts. By the time he was a teenager, he was working professionally. By the time he was 20, he was a successful recording artist.

He understood the irony when it was only after he became famous that he was picked up by the cops. A citation for jaywalking led to a confrontation that became a beating.

Meanwhile, he is stunned and humbled to find that his visibility has young people looking to him for leadership. He takes it seriously, and gives a lot of thought to what he wants to tell them. He helped develop a code of behavior for “thugs” that covered things like keeping civilians out of the line of fire in gang warfare and taking responsibility for children.

Shakur is clearly and refreshingly as free from any form of prejudice as it is possible to be, at least in his own relationships. His dedication to his friends is genuinely touching. He uses racist and sexist language in the songs he writes, but also writes about respecting women. He has enormous charm but is also a thoughtful young man who wants to understand the world better and wants to make an important contribution. He admits his mistakes freely and he learns from them and moves on. Anyone who watches this movie will feel his loss and want to carry forward his dreams.

Parents should know that this movie includes a great deal of very bad language, including racist terms (with some discussion of when they are and are not racist). Characters use drugs, drink, and smoke, and the ravages of drug addiction are frankly described. Characters engage in violent behavior and sexual abuse, including assault and shooting, and some go to jail. Shakur and other characters are shot and murdered. There are candid discussions of police brutality and racism. All of these issues and the consequences are presented in a realistic way that parents may find more suitable for teenagers than the usual shoot-out and explosion movie.

Families who see this movie should talk about the way that Shakur changed and grew and what he learned. They should talk about his question, “How can you love like an angel when you are surrounded by devils?” and his statement that “I did not create thug life; I diagnosed it.” Did he also promote it? What did he mean that “a studio is cheaper than a therapist?” They should also look at Shakur’s code of ethics for thugs on this site.

Families who appreciate this movie will also appreciate Hurricane and Malcolm X. They will also appreciate another documentary about tragic musical figures, The Filth and the Fury, about the Sex Pistols.

Please someone, get me the blue pill. I want to forget that this ambitious and noteworthy series is ending so weakly.

The Matrix: Reloaded ended with the rebel forces of Zion preparing for the imminent invasion of the machines. Whatever script problems it had were more than made up for by the spectacular action sequences and the promise of a third chapter that would bring everything together. But that promise has been broken. “Revolutions” has the weakest script of the three, with pretentious dialogue that provoked laughter from the audience and a muddled structure that removes a lot of narrative tension. Worst of all, it has nothing to compare to the innovative “bullet time” effects of the first film or the sensational highway chase scene and combat between Neo and dozens of Smiths of the second. Instead of taking us to the next level, it all seems like a tired rehash.

There are two basic storylines. First, Niobe (Jada Pinkett Smith) has to pilot a ship through some very tricky thing while guys in huge robot things fight off zillions of cool flying octopus-like machines. Second, Neo (Keanu Reeves) and Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss), on another ship, are heading straight for city occupied by the machines for a Dorothy-and-the-wizard-in-Emerald City-style confrontation.

There is a brief encounter with the Frenchman and Persephone (the still unimpressive Monica Belluci) in a nightclub that appears to be occupied with writhing bondage and discipline freaks. Neo visits the Oracle in her cozy kitchen (now played by Mary Alice, replacing the late Gloria Foster) and has a strange conversation about love and karma in an antiseptic train station.

The dialogue thuds, a mishmash of barked orders and cardboard heroics. But some of the performers manage to inject some life and dignity. Jada Pinkett Smith is the Matrix’s Han Solo, a charming rogue who can pilot a ship better than anyone else. Nona Gaye (Zee) makes her brief time onscreen memorable as a woman who overcomes her fear to give everything she has to the revolution. Though Mary Alice does her best, she cannot replace Foster, whose Oracle was the anchor of the other two movies. Hugo Weaving remains superb as Agent Smith. But it takes too long to get to the big final confrontation between Neo and Smith and the fight is not worth the wait.

The scariest moment in the movie was when it intimated that there might yet be another episode.

Parents should know that as with the first two films there is a great deal of battle violence. Characters are wounded and killed and there are some grisly graphic images. Characters swear a lot, mostly the s-word. There is brief nudity in a kinky nightclub scene.

Families who see this movie should talk about the source of the character names, a veritable encyclopedia of mythological references. What do the discussions of balance and choice mean? Of love and karma? Who is the Oracle? Who is the Architect? What is the train? What do you think of Neo’s answer to the question, “Why keep fighting?” What does it mean to “balance the euqation?”

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the first two in the series as well as Blade Runner.

This first movie based on Patrick O’Brien’s hugely popular 20-volume series of books about a ship’s captain during the Napoleonic Wars falls into the Harry Potter category: the intensely detailed books have passionate and intensely detail-oriented fans, so any movie version had to be flawlessly meticulous.

Co-screenwriter/director Peter Weir (Dead Poet’s Society, The Truman Show) has delivered a respectful but exciting film based on two of the books. He clearly intends it to be the all-but-impossible — a thoughtful and intelligent action film for grown-ups. And it comes pretty close.

Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe) is captain of a tall ship called the H.M.S. Surprise in 1805, the midst of the Napoleonic Wars. His orders are to “sink, burn, or take as a prize” a French ship called the Acheron. But it is Aubrey who is surprised when the Acheron attacks. Many of his crew are injured or killed and his ship is badly damaged.

Aubrey must chart a new course on many levels. The Acheron is more powerful. Aubrey has no way of getting any information, direction, or support from home. He must lead his men (some of whom are still boys) into battle against a daunting enemy, knowing that many will be wounded or killed.

Aubrey is a good captain. He treats the men with dignity, kindness, and respect. But he understands that they need him to be a leader, not a friend, and that sometimes requires discipline and distance. Aubrey’s nickname is “Lucky Jack.” He knows that when he is in command of a group of boys and men a long way from home, it helps if they believe that he is lucky as well as wise. But that means he has to stay lucky.

The action scenes are exceptionally well-staged, putting the audience in the middle of the battles. The details are perfectly rendered — every gun, every blast, even every sound. But the action is balanced with a strong, classically structured story of the friendship between Aubrey and the ship’s doctor, Stephen Maturin (Paul Bettany, last seen as Crowe’s roommate in A Beautiful Mind). They are friends and they share a great deal as they play music together in the quiet evenings. But they are very different. Aubrey is a man of action who gives and follows orders. Maturin is a man of science who believes that battles are tragic distractions from the pursuit of knowledge to make the world a better place. Their two perspectives provide balance as they struggle with their duties.

All of the performances are exceptionally strong and Crowe is splendid as Aubrey. He has the dash and the gravity and the sheer star power to provide the center of the movie, even in the midst of flying cannonballs. Weir has succeeded in making a film that is true to O’Brien’s books, utterly respectful of the history but all about the story.

Parents should know that the movie has prolonged and intense battle violence and some graphic scenes of amputation and surgery. Characters are in peril and many are severely wounded or killed, including some who are still children. A character is whipped as punishment. A character commits suicide. Characters drink and smoke and there are references to drunkenness, including the impact of extra rations of rum for the sailors.

Families who see this movie should talk about Why does Dr. Maturin say that “the deaths in actual battle are the easiest to bear?” Would Aubrey agree? How does Aubrey’s joke about “the lesser of two weevils” turn out to relate to some of the movie’s deeper themes? Why does Aubrey say, “I can only afford one rebel on this ship?” Who is he referring to? Characters in this movie are constantly making very difficult choices. Which did you think were most difficult? Which would you have decided differently?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy seafaring classics like Errol Flynn’s Captain Blood and Against All Flags and Gregory Peck’s Captain Horatio Hornblower R.N.. They will also enjoy the recent A&E television Horatio Hornblower miniseries starring Ioan Gruffudd.

Meg Ryan sheds more than her clothes in this would-be steamy thriller. She sheds her twinkle. We don’t get the nose-wrinkling smile. No adorable befuddlement. No irresistible misting of the eyes. Unfortunately, that leaves her — and us — with not much of a performance. And unfortunately the script leaves us with not much of a movie.

Ryan plays Franny, an English professor who is deeply moved by words. She drinks in the scraps of poetry on the subway placards. She writes down the latest slang terms she hears from her students. And when a police detective (always-watchable Mark Ruffalo) comes to ask whether she saw anything on the night of a murder, she writes down a word he used to describe the body: “disarticulated.” But she holds her own words in, communicating very little to anyone except for her sister Pauline (Jennifer Jason Leigh).

Franny and the detective begin an intensely charged affair, but they know very little about each other and the very intensity in the midst of the investigation of a series of brutal makes them pull away from each other. Franny even begins to wonder whether the detective may be the killer. Threats loom all around her, including a needy ex-boyfriend (a stringy-looking Kevin Bacon) and a student (the charismatic Sharrieff Pugh) who seems interested in a much closer relationship.

Director Jane Campion uses arty tricks like a hand-held camera and a rust-colored cast to the settings to try to make the movie about something deeper. She may want it to seem dreamlike, even nightmarish. But it just feels incoherent. The verbal and physical encounters that are supposed to be dark and edgy and sexy are just flat. Ryan can handle dramatic roles, as she showed in When a Man Loves a Woman and Flesh and Bone. But she does not have enough to work with in the affectless Franny. The story itself is just weak, with an especially dopey ending that seems grafted on from another movie. If this were a smarter or more linear or more focused movie, I might think that Franny’s reaction to the detective — first impulsively getting too close and then impulsively pushing him away — was a reflection of the character’s conflicts about herself or perhaps symbolic of the human ambivalence about intimacy, physical and emotional. But I think it was just over-heated and muddled.

Parents should know that this movie is very close to an NC-17. It has exceptionally explicit sexual references and situations and extremely strong language, including racist and homophobic comments. There is nudity, including scenes in a strip bar. The movie also has very grisly images including bloody body parts and blood-drenched rooms. Characters are killed. The movie includes a lot of smoking and drinking, including drunkenness.

Families who see this movie should talk about the importance of Franny’s story about how her parents got engaged. How did the director use the way the camera moved and the color schemes of the settings to help tell the story?

Families who enjoy this movie will enjoy the better Sea of Love and Final Analysis.