The credits for “Scary Movie 2” show seven different screenwriters, which means an average of 1.3 good jokes per writer. But hey, if you thought that this movie would have witty repartee, you never saw the first one.

Though a slight improvement over the original, “Scary Movie 2” is the same hour and a half of easy, dumb humor: insults, pop culture references, political incorrectness, and bodily fluids, gallons and gallons and gallons of bodily fluids.

I’d like to point out for what I am sure will not be the last time that it is not enough to simply insult someone or make a politically incorrect comment or drown someone in excretions. That’s the easy part. The tricky part, and the worthwhile part, is to make those things funny, and this movie misses so often that its hits seem almost inadvertent. So what we have is a lot of fake and lazy attempts at humor. They may have the rhythm and cadence of jokes, but there is nothing really funny inside. On the other hand, the movie is so cheerfully unassuming about being in the worst possible taste that it is hard to be bothered by it.

What passes for a plot begins with a brief parody of “The Exorcist,” with James Woods in the Max von Sydow role as the title character. This is the highlight of the movie, especially when Veronica Cartwright, in the Ellen Burstyn role, segues from singing “Hello Dolly” with her friends to a rousing chorus of “Shake Ya Azz.” But it ends with tragedy, and we skip ahead to a year later, when a professor (Tim Curry) and his wheelchair-bound assistant take some students to the mansion where it took place, for some paranormal experiments. The rest of the movie is just an avalanche of parodies of everything and anything, from Monica Lewinsky’s dress to “The Weakest Link,” and violations of every possible standard of good taste. Not one but two handicapped characters are played for laughs (with extended comic use of a withered hand), and, as was once said about the infinitely better movie, “The Loved One,” there is something to offend everyone. Woods and Tori Spelling(!) should get good sport Oscars, but the other cast members are mostly forgettable.

Parents should know that this movie is filled with explicit, graphic and offensive humor about every possible kind of sexual act, and that it contains material that would easily get an NC-17 rating in a drama. Peril is mostly comic, but at least two characters are killed and there are some jump-out-at-you surprises. As one would expect in a movie written, produced, and directed by black performers, there are some pointed and valid references to the stereotypical portrayal of black characters in Hollywood films, and the female characters are (in a comic context) brave and capable. However, the movie can be seen as sexist and homophobic, while at the same time parodying sexism and homophobia.

Families who see this movie should talk about the process and role of parody and satire in helping us to see what we take for granted in a new way. How does this movie affect the audience’s ability to enjoy standard thrillers? If they break their promise again and come out with another sequel, what will that one find to make fun of?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the movies that inspired it, including What Lies Beneath and Scream.

Jehane Noujaim left her job at MTV to make documentaries just as her roommate, Kaliel Isaza Tuzman, was leaving his job at Goldman Sachs to run a new Internet company. They combined their two ventures when Noujaim, in conjunction with Chris Hegedus (maker of “The War Room,” about the first Clinton campaign) agreed to follow Tuzman’s venture to tell the story of what they were sure would be a sensational success. Instead, they ended up telling the story of a spectacular failure.

We first see Tuzman leaving Goldman Sachs for the last time, kicking the cardboard box with his belongings out to the street. He is about to join his high school best friend, Tom Herman. Tuzman will be the CEO and Herman will be in charge of technology. The company, which they decide to call govWorks.com, will be a place for citizens to pay parking tickets, taxes, and other fees to local governments. Tuzman’s first job is to raise money.

From 1999 to 2001, govWorks went from eight employees to more than 200, and then down to none. They raised $60 million and ended in bankruptcy.

Noujaim and Hegedus shot over 400 hours of film, not just in the office, but in the bedroom, the gym, the car, in a pizza parlor, on a company retreat hosted by Herman’s parents, and even at the circus. We see Herman braiding his daughter’s hair and hear Tuzman’s soon-to-be-ex-girlfriend complaining that he does not call her. We see arguments over priorities and presentations. A competitor visits the office and then there is a mysterious burglary that appears to be espionage. Finally, we see the almost unbearably painful moment when the friendship is shattered by the business, as Herman leaves and then, on advice of counsel, tries to return only to be formally terminated. Herman says, “I’d rather see govWorks fail than risk personal relationships.” Tuzman says, “The thing that I’ll remember most from last year is when you told me you don’t trust me.” At the end, though, Herman, still wearing the t-shirt of the failed firm, tells Tuzman that “I had a great time over the last year and I love you.” And we see from the end credits that they are still in business together – using their expertise to advise distressed dot.coms.

In finding one story to tell among 400 chaotic hours of footage, there were probably a million options. They story the filmmakers chose to tell is the story of the Herman/Tuzman relationship and the way that the very qualities that made the two men good complements for each other ultimately led to catastrophe. Maybe it is because their access to the principals of the firm was extensive but they were not allowed to film the backers or board, so the story they told was determined by the pictures they had to show it. Maybe it is because the filmmakers were women, so they saw the story with a Deborah Tannen-esque yang to Tuzman’s testosterone-driven yin.

Parents should know that the movie includes very strong language and tense and emotional moments. One of the great strengths of the story is the way in which a group of people from very diverse backgrounds and cultures works together with great loyalty and commitment.

Families who see this movie should talk about how we make choices when our work and professional lives conflict. At one point in this movie, Tuzman, under intense deadline pressure, calls for an all-weekend meeting. Herman refuses, saying that he promised to be with his daughter. Families should talk about what happens next, and what they would do in that situation.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “The War Room.”

Two things that almost always capture our attention in movies are watching someone learning something and watching someone getting revenge. Both are in “The Count of Monte Cristo” in abundance, and once again, in this 15th filmed version of the Alexandre Dumas novel, this most resilient of stories has been made into another thoroughly enjoyable movie.

James Caviezel (“Frequency”) plays Edmund Dantes, an honest sailor who has a devoted girlfriend named Mercedes (Dagmara Dominczyk) and a lifelong friend, Fernand (Guy Pearce of “Memento” and “LA Confidential”). When he is promoted to captain and can afford to marry Mercedes, he thinks all of his dreams have come true. But Fernand, overcome with jealousy, betrays Edmund, and Villefort (James Frain), a corrupt magistrate, sentences him to life imprisonment. His friends and family are told that he has been executed.

After years of brutal abuse, Edmund meets another prisoner (Richard Harris), who teaches him to read and swordfight. They plan an escape, but his friend dies, and Edmund escapes alone, with a map showing the location of a treasure on the island of Monte Cristo. He meets up with pirates and ultimately finds the treasure, enabling him to return in a new persona, the Count of Monte Cristo, where he will prove that “revenge is a dish that is best eaten cold.”

The script falters, with some clunky dialogue and a Hollywood-ized ending that Dumas fans will find overly convenient. But the performances (especially Pearce, descending from pettiness to decadence and complete corruption), the swordplay, the splendor, and the story, featuring what is probably literature’s all-time best revenge fantasy are old-time-movie satisfying and lots of fun.

Parents should know that the movie features PG-13-style peril and swordfights and characters are wounded and killed. Edmund is beaten in prison by a sepulchral warden who clearly enjoys torturing the prisoners. Though it is not explicitly shown, we hear screams and we see his extensive scars. A character attempts suicide and there is a suggestion that suicide is an honorable way to respond to discovery of dishonor. There is a non-explicit sexual situation, references to adultery and a child conceived out of wedlock. Omitted from the movie are the book’s depiction of character’s use of opium and a concubine.

Families who see this movie should talk about what made Fernand turn from Edmund’s friend into his enemy. Why did it make Fernand angry that Edmund was “happier with his whistle than (he) was with his pony?” How do we see that Edmund is at first too trusting and then not trusting enough? What does it mean to say, “treason is a matter of dates?” What does it mean to say, “perhaps the thoughts of revenge are serving God’s purpose of keeping you alive?” Or that “neglect becomes our ally?” How did hope change Edmund’s attitude during his beatings? Why does he want to hold on to his hatred? How does Edmund determine the revenge that will be most painful for each of his foes?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “The Three Musketeers,” also based on a Dumas novel. There are even more versions of that story on film than there are of this one, but the 1948 (starring Gene Kelly) and 1973 (directed by Richard Lester) versions are the best.

Plot: This adventure saga mixes an update of the old system of “recruiting” sailors by shanghai with the fantasy of saving the universe by being a star at computer games. It turns out that one particular arcade game is really a test, put on earth by very advanced beings from another planet, to find someone good enough to be “The Last Starfighter.” And the only one to meet that challenge is Alex, who lives in a trailer park with his mother and younger brother, and who has just found out that he did not get the loan he needed for college.
Centauri (played with magnificent panache by Robert Preston) is the outer-space recruiter who takes Alex to the Starfighter deployment center on his planet and explains that Alex is the only one left who has the skill to be the Last Starfighter. Alex refuses, and is on his way back to Earth when all of the other Starfighters are destroyed by the evil Ko-Dan. When the bad guys come after him because they know he is the last remaining threat to them, he agrees to stay and fight.
Centauri thoughtfully leaves behind a “courtesy replacement simuloid,” a robot that has Alex’s looks, so his family won’t worry. The simuloid, however, has no idea of how to behave like an Earthling, and gets into all kinds of trouble.
Meanwhile, Alex is paired with Grig, a reptilian-looking alien navigator (under all of that latex is a remarkably expressive Dan O’Herlihy). Alex worries, “I’m just a kid from a trailer park.” “If that’s all you think you are, that’s all you’ll ever be.” Because all of the other Starfighters have been killed, Alex must face opposition leader Zor alone. “It will be a slaughter!” “That’s the spirit!” “No, I mean us!” But he is successful, and returns to Earth to collect his devoted girlfriend and take her back with him.
Discussion: This movie has a lot of action and special effects. The efforts of the “simuloid” to understand life on Earth provide some good slapstick. The relationship between Alex and Grig is handled nicely. The movie is no one’s idea of a classic, but kids who like space-age shoot-’em ups will enjoy it, and with the caveats noted below, it is a good family movie.
Questions for Kids:
· Why does Alex change his mind and agree to fight?
· How can he tell which are the good guys and which are the bad?
Connections: This was the last film performance by Robert Preston (“The Music Man”). Aside from Preston, the movie’s greatest asset is the production design, by Ron Cobb of “Alien,” “Star Wars,” and “Conan the Barbarian.” For a much more thoughtful and mature depiction of bonding between a human and an alien, see “Enemy Mine.”

Dreamworks SKG steps up to the Disney gold standard with this sensationally entertaining animated adventure. Kevin Kline and Kenneth Branaugh provide the voices for Miguel and Tulio, two loveable rogues who go off to the new world in search of excitement and gold. Contrary to the way most animated films are made, the producers put the two actors in the same room to record their dialogue, and it paid off. Kline and Branaugh, both classically trained and both masters of improvisation, brought humor and spontaneity to the relationship of the two characters that adds life and electricity to a medium that can often seem too staid. Think Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid crossed with Bob Hope and Bing Crosby. It is no coincidence that the “Road to” title and one of the best gags in the movie pay loving tribute to the Hope/Crosby series. The animation is terrific. The biggest challenge — making the character’s faces expressive without being caricatures — is especially well done. El Dorado itself is suitably magical, and the scenes with humor and tension are epertly handled, especially a high stakes basketball-style game and the climactic escape. Aside from the lackluster Elton John/Tim Rice score, this is an outstanding family movie.

The movie is set in 1519, as Cortes is planning “to conquer the new world for Spain, for glory and for gold.” Miguel and Tulio accidentally stow away, along with their one possession, a map to El Dorado, the legendary land of gold. They escape Cortes in a rowboat (taking a clever horse along with them!) and land on a coast that looks just like the one in their map. They follow the map to the city of gold, to be welcomed as gods by the friendly chief (voice of Edward James Olmos) and his less friendly priest Tzekel-Kan (voice of Armand Assante). They are also welcomed by Chell (voice of Rosie Perez), who knows they are con men, but promises to help them if they will take her with them when they go.

As they struggle to behave like gods, Miguel and Tulio begin to care about what happens to the people of El Dorado, first from the power- hungry Tzekel-Kan and then from Cortes, who plans to plunder the city. Their friendly rivalry begins to get hostile as Miguel thinks of staying behind and Tulio and Chell fall in love. The final conflict forces them to find out what their priorities really are.

Families who watch this movie together should talk about how the characters decide what is important to them and how they decide what to do. When Miguel and Tulio think they are dying, they thank each other for their friendship and talk about what they most wanted in life –- adventure, gold, being remembered. How do their actions later on reflect these goals? Tulio says, “You know that voice that tells people to quit when they’re ahead? Miguel, you don’t have one.” What does that mean? Why does Miguel take risks that Tulio thinks are not wise? Talk about Tzekel-Kan’s view of people as disgusting and his statement that “people will not respect you unless they fear you.” Why does he think that? How does thinking that make him behave differently? Keep in mind that Tulio and Miguel are small-time con men, and ask kids if they think the end was fair, and whether Tulio and Miguel will continue to cheat people in the future. Kids with a lot of patience might enjoy trying to replicate the domino stunt in the movie, and older kids will enjoy learning more about Cortes and talking about the history of colonization.

Parents should know that this is not a Disney movie. It is rated PG for a couple of mild words, some brief nudity and suggestiveness, and some tense moments. Some families may object to Cortes’ reference to the disciples or to his calling Tzekel-Kan a “lying heathen.”

Families who enjoy this movie will enjoy the spectacular animated movie “The Thief and the Cobbler” and the Bob Hope and Bing Crosby classic, “The Road to Bali.”