The story behind this film is as remarkable as the film itself. Actress/writer Nia Vardalos created a one-woman show about her Greek family and their response when she married a man who wasn’t Greek. Tom Hanks and his wife, Rita Wilson (who is Greek) saw the show and decided to make it into a movie with Nia playing herself.

You’ll fall in love with Vardalos and her family, too. The family is an irresistible force and she is just plain irresistible.

In the movie, Vardalos plays Toula, the shy, plain daughter of a loving but overpowering Greek family. Her father, Gus (Michael Constantine), can prove that any word originally goes back to a Greek source, even “kimono.” Dozens of aunts, uncles, and cousins, who all seem to be named Nick, are constantly involved in the most personal details of each other’s lives. And, in a tradition that goes back to ancient Greek mythology, there is a sense of fate and determinism that leaves Toula feeling that her life has been mapped out for her. Her family believes that Greek girls are here to marry Greek boys, have Greek babies, and cook a lot of Greek food. In the unlikely event that they do not get married, they are expected to work in the family business, in her case, a Greek restaurant.

But Toula dreams of more, and with the help of her mother and her aunt, manages to have Gus thinking that it is his idea to have her go back to school and get another job – in her aunt’s travel agency.

This small change means a lot, and Toula begins not just to bloom, but to glow. She attracts the attention of Ian, a handsome teacher (“Sex in the City’s” John Corbett). She is a reluctant to have him meet her family, and there are certain cultural adjustments involved, but it all works out and the title event is squarely in the happily-ever-after tradition.

Vardalos and director Joel Zwick balance the specifics of the Greek-American culture with the transcendent universalities of family dynamics. Vardalos and Corbett have a believable sweetness with each other. The movie is riotously funny but heart-catchingly touching and it will make you want to go back and hug everyone you are related to.

Parents should know that there is a non-graphic sexual situation, but it is clear that Toula and Ian wait until they are really committed before going to bed together. Characters drink (Ian’s parents are introduced to powerful Greek Ouzo).

Families who see this movie should talk about why Toula has a hard time telling her family how she feels. How does this family compare to others that you know or have seen in other movies, or to your own? Does your family have a combination of ethnic cultures, and what are some of the issues that have come up in meshing them?

Families who enjoy this movie will enjoy some other family cultural clashes in Moonstruck (some mature material) and Flower Drum Song.

Hurray for “Spy Kids 2,” this summer’s most imaginatively joyous adventure.

Carmen and Juni Cortez are back, now full-time operatives of the spy organization OSS and its new kids unit. As the movie opens, the Preident’s young daughter (“The Grinch’s” Taylor Mumson) is visiting the Troublemaker Theme Park. The rides may be hilariously terrifying (the park’s owner wisely puts up an umbrella as they walk by the one named “The Vomiter”), but the President’s daughter is too cross about her father’s failure to appear to be interested. When she goes on the Juggler ride, she climbs out on a ledge and refuses to come down until he keeps his promise. And it turns out that she has taken the President’s Transmooker! The Juggler ledge will not support the weight of the Secret Service agents. Time for some spies who just happen to be kids!

Carmen and Juni are on the case, but so are their top competition, the Giggles siblings, Gertie (Emily Osment, sister of the star of “The Sixth Sense”) and Gary (Matt O’Leary).

Then, at a big party in honor of the OSS, the Giggles kids’ father is appointed director under very mysterious circumstances. All of the adults are knocked out by drugged champagne and that all-important Transmooker is stolen again. The Giggles kids are assigned to get it back, but the Cortez kids substitute themselves and are off to a mysterious island in a super-dooper dragonfly-shaped submarine.

On the island, they have to keep ahead of all kinds of strange creatures and ahead of the Giggles kids, who catch up quickly. It turns out that a scientist (Steve Bucscemi) has been using the island to do genetic experiments (his spider monkey is a monkey top with eight spider legs and his slizzard is part snake, part lizard) and has created a cloaking device to keep people from discovering what he is doing. It is the cloaking device — and its critical piece, the Transmooker — that all the spies are after.

The spy kids have some wonderful new gadgets, but one of the movie’s wisest choices is to make the Transmooker turn off anything that works with electicity, so the kids have to solve most of their problems with the two things that do work, their brains and the last gift from their gadget-master, Uncle Machete — a rubber band. He tells them that it has “999 uses, and you have to figure out which one to use.”

Like the first one, this is fresh, funny, exciting, and brilliantly inventive. The OSS party scene is simply marvelous, as a cordon of Secret Service agents move from side to side in perfect formation to allow the President’s daughter to have enough space for her ballet dance. It was sheer inspiration to bring in another generation of spies, with the magnificent Ricardo Montalban and Holland Taylor as Ingrid Cortez’s parents, far more terrifying for Gregorio than the most powerful of bad guys. The story sags slightly toward the middle, and the part with Cheech Marin (who has appeared in all of the movies made by screenwriter/director Robert Rodriguez) seems awkward and unfinished, as though some scenes are missing. It is still by far the best family movie of the summer. I just hope they make another one every year.

Parents should know that there is some brief gross-out humor (most kids will love it) and some tense peril (no one gets hurt). Everything that appears very scary at first turns out to be friendly and cooperative. As in the first, the movie is outstanding in showing women and Latinos in key roles.

Families who see this movie should talk about the President’s daughter’s feelings about not getting enough attention from her father. What do you think about Juni’s advice to her? What do you think will happen? We see three different families in the movie. How are they different? How do you think Gary’s view that “a good spy makes no binding connections wth family or friends” makes him feel as a son? As a spy? If that is your rule, how do you know who to trust and how do you know what is right?

How have Carmen and Juni changed since the first movie? Why was it hard for Ingrid’s parents to accept Gregorio? What should he do about that? How do both Carmen and Juni and their parents show their need to be independent?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the original and Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. They will also enjoy the “Cover Me” television show, based on the adventures of some real- life spy kids and their parents. They might like to look at the website of the CIA, which was originally called the OSS.

Don’t settle back in your seat and wait for a rehash of the first three-hour epic in the “Lord of the Rings” series to remind you who everyone is and where we left off a year ago. Even with another three hours, director Peter Jackson does not have a second to spare to get you up to speed. Every moment of chapter two is packed full with the same breathtaking audacity and scope of the first one, plus three times as much action.

There will be two kinds of audiences for this film. The Tolkien devotees will be looking for their own particular visions brought to life. Those who are new to the stories will just be looking for an epic with a heroic quest and a lot of action (and a little romance). Both should come away very satisfied.

It seems a little chicken to say that so much goes on in this movie that it is hard to summarize, when Jackson has managed to pull off the vastly greater challenge of realizing it on screen. But so much goes on in this movie! And everything goes on at once, as Jackson’s extraordinary pacing (like the book) cuts back and forth between stories, leaving the characters in the direst peril while we look in on the other group we left in the direst peril just moments before.

In the first episode, Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) is apparently the only creature pure in heart enough to possess an ancient ring that calls to the worst in everyone else who comes near it. The ring has almost unlimited power, and those who wish to inflict evil on the world will do anything to get it. A small group accompanies Frodo on his quest to return the ring to the place where it was made, the only place it can be destroyed. At the end of “The Fellowship of the Ring,” the group has been splintered, some dead, captured, or waylaid. Frodo and his trusted friend Sam (Sean Astin) set off together.

“The Two Towers” picks up each of the members of the remaining fellowship and cuts back and forth between their adventures. Frodo and Sam find a twisted creature called Gollum who himself embodies the book’s struggle between good and evil. Once utterly corrupted by his attempts to steal the ring, the remaining good within him begins to awaken under Frodo’s kindness, but that may not be reliable enough for him to become the faithful guide they need.

Meanwhile, Frodo’s Hobbit friends Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd) are caught up with Treebeard and the Ents (tree creatures of enormous size). Also meanwhile, the human warrior Aragorn and dwarf dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) try to get help from King Theoden (Bernard Hill), who has been enchanted into befuddlement so that they can fight the vicious Uruk-hai throng of White Wizard villain Saruman (Christopher Lee).

The first movie had a lot of thundering hoofs and meaningful looks and introduction of characters and portents of doom. This one flings us from cliffhanger to (literal) cliffhanger, with mighty legions hurtling into battle. Every moment on screen is filled with masterfully handled detail. The vast New Zealand landscapes are a perfect realization of Tolkien’s middle earth. The vast armies of hulking monsters stretch back for miles. Every button and belt buckle seems both new and eternal. Gollum, computer animated but based on the movements of actor Andy Serkis (who also provided the voice), is as real as any of the humans. The human actors hold their own, giving gravity and heart to the effects and panoramas. The only drag on the proceedings is Aragon’s love triangle, which feels like something between a distraction and a place-holder.

Parents should know that this movie is non-stop, very intense action, with extremely violent battle scenes and intense peril.

Families who see this movie should talk about the many representations of the war between good and evil. King Theoden comes back. Gollum may be coming back. Where else do you see the dualities expressed? What does it mean to say that Saruman has “a mind of metal and wheels and no longer cares for growing things?” At several points, characters have to decide when to fight and when to give up or retreat. What do they consider in making that decision? What should they consider? Why is it important to Gollum that Frodo calls him by his old name? Why do Sam and Frodo wonder if they will ever be included in songs or tales?

Families who enjoy this movie should see the original Fellowship of the Ring. They will also enjoy the wonderful BBC radio audiotapes of the entire series.

This is a story of obsession, betrayal, and jealousy, based on Claude Chabrol’s “La Femme Infidel.” It is about a happily married couple who seem to have everything until the wife is drawn into an affair. It is not for kids, but some adults will consider it a worthwhile portrayal of emotional suspense, told with director Adrian Lyne’s characteristic visual flair. It’s a shocker, so read no further if you don’t want hints of what is to come.

Richard Gere and Diane Lane play Edward and Connie, a couple thoroughly enmeshed in married life. He manages a fleet of armored cars (metaphor alert!), and she stays at home, looking after their precocious son (Erik Per Sullivan, “Dewie” on TV’s “Malcom in the Middle”) and doing charity work. One day, in the city to hunt down some items for the school auction, Connie is literally thrown into the arms of seductive Frenchman Paul (Oliver Martinez). He’s young and charming, and while their first meeting comes to nothing, she can’t stay away.

None of the plot elements are novel, but the seduction is handled very smoothly, without a lot of the emotional short-hand that would leave the story hollow. In fact, the strength of this film is its very down to earth emotional perceptiveness. Paul may be a polished Lothario, but even he can’t help but champ at the bit while preparing coffee for the lovely Connie, scalding himself and leaping around coltishly. When Connie shows up at the office unexpectedly (after an assignation), Edward is just as jumpy, mugging around in an inside-out sweater while his wife suspects every word he says. The movie makes us constantly aware of the currents of affection that run between the characters.

Back at home, Edward knows something is wrong. As his wife primps in private and shies away from his advances, his suspicions mount. Finally, after Connie is spotted in a restaurant with Paul, he cannot avoid the truth. A private detective produces all the details, and Edward goes, broken- hearted, to the apartment of his rival.

The best scene in the film is this confrontation. Neither knows exactly what to do, and it’s in this strange emotional limbo that a tragic choice is made.

Parents should know that this film contains a number of elements which may be upsetting to children. The theme of infidelity runs through the movie, and it creates some tense scenes of home-life. Connie’s seduction is quite overwhelming, and the sex scenes are intense and graphic. There is also a violent scene that results in murder.

Families who see this movie will want to discuss the title. The film is symmetrical–the wife is unfaithful in the first half, the husband in the second. To whom is the husband unfaithful? What “happens” in their final conversation? What is forgivable?

Families who enjoyed this movie will also enjoy the movie that inspired it, “La Femme Infidel,” the recent hide-the body thriller “The Deep End,” and the same director’s “Fatal Attraction.”

The presence of a Hollywood icon as an actor and director cannot overcome the predictability in the script in “Blood Work.”

Clint Eastwood stars as Terry McCaleb, a veteran FBI profiler similar to Eastwood himself in having an enviable record and struggling to stay in the game for longer that his body wills him. However, while on the verge of capturing a taunting murderer, McCaleb suffers a heart attack and is forced into retirement. Two years later he is slowly recovering from a heart transplant when he is visited by the sister of the woman whose heart now beats in McCaleb’s body. Her sister’s murderer is still on the loose, and she wants McCaleb on the case. He reluctantly agrees and is soon finding clues and getting in danger just as he used to, sometimes being driven along by his lazy fishing neighbor (Jeff Daniels) who mostly plays Watson to McCaleb’s Holmes. And of course, McCaleb has to disobey doctor’s warnings and dodge the bumbling fellow officers to carry out his case, also becoming close to the woman (Wanda DeJesus) and her nephew (Mason Lucero).

The trouble with “Blood Work” is that the believable parts are unsurprising and the surprising parts are unbelievable. Eastwood’s presence hasn’t diminished one bit over the years and his storytelling skills still shine, and Daniels also does a very good job, but the movie is simply never too interesting to anyone who’s seen this kind of film before, especially after they’ve been done so well in Manhunter and The Silence of the Lambs. The film’s climax is probably the most interesting part, but it’s hard to believe that the McCaleb who was so perceptive in the film’s first half wouldn’t have figured out the killer and his/her motive much sooner, which seemed obvious to much of the audience.

Parents should know that this film has some strong language as well as some graphic images (mostly on videotape) of people getting shot. There is also some offscreen sex, and the happening and recovery of the heart attack are well documented.

Families who see this film should ask whether McCaleb felt the need to catch the killer because the murdered woman’s heart saved his life or because he cared about the woman and her nephew.

People who enjoy this movie should check out the Thomas Harris adaptations, as well as Eastwood’s best, Unforgiven and Dirty Harry.