It might have worked if this movie had been frustrating in the way that the peace movement or the 60’s as a whole were frustrating. But this movie about the life of Hippie/Yippie leader Abbie Hoffman is unsatisfying for a far more mundane reason — a script with a wavering point of view.

Abbie Hoffman emerged from the demonstrations at the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention as the spokesman for rebellious youth. He was genuinely committed to the causes of ending the war in Vietnam and economic justice. He was an inventive strategist and a leader who could inspire others. He was always good copy and gave great quotes. And he was a self-absorbed, angry man who suffered from bipolar disorder.

Back when Abbie Hoffman was engaging in guerilla theater antics like dumping dollar bills on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange and running a pig for President, there was a popular saying: “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that they aren’t really out to get you.” That is Hoffman’s story. This movie adopts a “Citizen Kane”-style structure, with a journalist interviewing Hoffman’s associates to determine whether he was crazy or a victim, and the conclusion of the movie seems to be that he was both.

We see Abbie (Vincent D’Onofrio) with civil rights workers in the South, then losing his short hair, suit, and tie to connect with college students protesting the war. He meets Anita (Janeane Garofolo), who describes him as “crazy and joyous and behind the fun were serious ideas about the redistribution of wealth” who dreamed of “a revolution of artists, poets, and wizards.” He knew that “satire is very effective against tyranny,” and said that “sacred cows make the best hamburgers.” Hoffman worked with others to embarrass the Nixon administration and show the possibilities for change to people who were unhappy with the way things were. He and seven others were arrested for their protest at the Democratic convention. They seized the opportunity of the trial to make their case about what they saw as fundamental injustice in American life with antics that landed them on the front page of every newspaper.

The government saw them as such a serious threat that they engaged in a campaign of disinformation and persecution. Hoffman was charged with selling cocaine and escaped underground, leaving Anita and their infant son, america. Although he and Anita stayed close, he fell in love with another woman, Johanna Lawrenson (Jeanne Tripplehorn). He cannot resist becoming involved, helping to organize an environmental protest. But the pressures of living underground and the increasing chemical imbalence of the bipolar disorder make him fearful and angry.

The movie is sympathetic to Hoffman’s efforts and balanced enough to show us the parallels between Hoffman and his enemies. Each side calls the other immoral. Each recognizes that, as J. Edgar Hoover said, “ridicule is one of the most potent weapons we can use.” Garofolo is strong and tender as Anita. Ultimately, though, the movie is as unsatisfying as the snippets of covers of classic rock songs. More than 30 years later, knowing how it all turned out, it is difficult to remember how truly revolutionary Hoffman’s ideas were, and this movie never really tries.

Parents should know that this movie may be very confusing for anyone who does not remember the 1960’s, and teens who want to see it may need some background. The movie has strong language, fairly mild sexual references and situations (including adultery), permissive drug use, and illegal activity by both protesters and the government.

Families who see this movie will want to talk about what their older members were doing during this period and how they felt about Hoffman’s actvities. The movie’s official website has commentary by Stew Albert, one of Hoffman’s closest associates. Families who enjoy this movie may enjoy “Flashback,” a fictional account of a federal agent with an unexpected secret who captures a former hippie or “Medium Cool,” a fictional story that takes place at the 1968 Democratic convention that features footage from the protests.

Plot: In WWII Amsterdam, a young girl and her family must hide from the Nazis in “the hidden annex.” Unimaginable horrors go on outside their tiny sanctuary. Inside, she struggles to understand, coping with both the normal confusions of adolescence and the the most abnormal and terrifying circumstances.

The movie begins as Otto Frank (Joseph Schildkraut), Anne’s father, returns to the annex after the war, the only one who survived. He finds her diary and begins to read. Anne (Millie Perkins), her parents, her older sister Margot (Diane Baker), Mr. And Mrs. Van Daan (Shelley Winters and Lou Jacobi), and their teen-age son, Peter (Richard Beymer) are welcomed into the annex by two brave gentile friends. The door to the annex is hidden by a bookcase. The annex is in the attic of a spice factory, and during the day, when employees are working, the families must be absolutely silent. Their friends have only three forged ration cards, so the food will be very limited. The families settle in hopefully.

But the claustrophobic living conditions, fear of discovery, and lack of food create stress, and the families bicker. Anne teases Peter and quarrels with her mother. Later, they are joined by a dentist, Mr. Dussell (Ed Wynn), who tells them that things have become much worse, and that many of the people they know have been taken off to concentration camps. They are almost discovered twice, once by a burglar, who breaks in to the factory, and once by the police. A radio gives them a connection to what is going on; they hear Hitler speak, and listen to music. They celebrate Hannukah, and Anne gives everyone small gifts she has made for them. She and Peter become close, and despite the lack of privacy, are able to share their feelings. Just as they are rejoicing that the war is almost over, they are found by the Nazis and sent to concentration camps.

Discussion: This is a faithful and affecting (if long) rendition of Anne Frank’s diary, and of her family’s experiences. Director George Stevens used the actual location (now a museum in Amsterdam) as a model for his set, and recreated every detail for authenticity. In addition to discussions of the Holocaust, this movie raises issues about the way that families work together (or don’t) in times of stress. Anne’s famous statement that, “In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart” is also worth discussing.

Questions for Kids:

· The Van Daans each have something that is very important to them: the cat, the food, the coat. Why is that? What does it tell you about each of them? What does it tell you about the impact of hiding?

· In what ways to the people behave like anyone living under normal circumstances? In what ways do they behave differently?

· Why is Anne’s relationship with her father different from her relationship with her mother?

· What do Anne’s Hannukah gifts tell you about the people she gives them to? About her?

· Is Anne’s father like Pollyanna when he tells her that she should be glad there will be no more fights about wearing boots or practicing, and says “How very fortunate we are, when you think of what is happening outside?”

Connections: “Anne Frank Remembered,” an outstanding documentary about Anne and her family, won an Oscar in 1996. “The Attic: The Hiding of Anne Frank” is a made-for-television drama starring Mary Steenburgen as Miep Gies, the woman who hid Anne Frank and her family from the Nazis. It provides a worthwhile opportunity to see the famous story from another perspective, and to consider the character of those who risked their lives to save others.

Activities: The diary itself should be read by every teenager. There is a lot of information for people of all ages about the Holocaust. Younger children should read the award-winning book by Lois Lowrey, Number the Stars, based on a true story, in which a little girl from Amsterdam helps some Jews escape. Children and especially teenagers may like to confide in a diary; remember Anne’s saying that, “I can shake off everything when I write.”

One of Jackie Chan’s best Chinese films is being re-released in a dubbed version with a new score.

It is a sequel to the movie that made him an international star. Though it was made 15 years later than the first, it takes place immediately after the first, set in turn-of-the-century China. Wong Fei-Hong (Chan) is the son of a distinguished and wealthy doctor. As they board a crowded train following the purchase of herbs, Fei-Hong hides the container of ginseng in another man’s luggage, to avoid paying duty. Fei-Hong’s package is exchanged for one containing a valuable antique box. This leads to the discovery that many antiquities are being smuggled out of the country.

Fei-Hong is a specialist in “drunken boxing” (using liquor to “make the body looser and its pain threshhold higher”), and he uses his fighting skill to take on the bad guys.

The fight scenes are sensational. Chan is the most agile and acrobatic screen fighter ever. His split-second timing, imagination, utter fearlessness, and sense of humor produce mesmerizing action sequences. An early fight in a confined space beneath a train car is extraordinary, and the 20-minute final fight sequence is stunning. In this movie, even the housemaid and stepmother are kick-boxers, all the furniture seems made of balsa wood, and gangs of ax-wielding marauders can be vanquished by three or four heroes.

Fans of Chan’s American films may need to make some cultural adjustments to enjoy this movie. Although the new score and dubbed dialogue are attempts to make the movie more accessible to an American audience (one character even uses a Yiddishism to scoff at a plant: “Rootabega, shmootabega!”), some of the conventions and behavior may seem exaggerated and strange. The tone may also seem uneven, with slapstick one moment, a parent beating a child in the next, and a sad death later on. Parents may want to provide some political and cultural context to help kids understand the depiction of oppressed factory workers and the choice of the English ambassador and factory owner as the bad guy. (Interestingly, the Chinese actor portraying a bad guy is dubbed with an English accent as well!) The three stars are for those who care about what happens between fight scenes. For those who don’t care, it gets 4 1/2 stars.

Parents should know that the movie features non-stop fighting, mostly of the cartoon variety. One important character is killed, but most of the time the characters are unhurt or, if they are hurt, the wounds disappear before the next scene. There are are few uses of the s-word and other profanities. Some parents will be concerned about “drunken boxing,” in which liquor affects Fei-Hong the way spinach affects Popeye. As Fei-Hong’s father tells him, though, “A boat can float in water — and sink in it.” And when Fei-Hong overdoes the liquor, he is very sorry. Fei-Hong’s father beats him and disowns him, but later takes him back with love and pride. Fei-Hong has a warm relationship with his young and beautiful stepmother, but she is very manipulative, faking crying to get her way.

Part of the fun of a Jackie Chan movie, like a James Bond movie, is in seeing how he makes use of various props and gadgets. Kids should also note that he is as much a master of physics as of strategy in fighting. Watch how he makes use of his understanding of properties like weight, torque, and balance as he turns the enemies’ strengths against them. Watch, too, how he learns from his elders about going on from mistakes (“Tomorrow brings a whole new journey.”)

Fans of this movie will also enjoy Chan’s recent “Shanghai Noon.”

Movies are made for heist stories. Great robberies can be fun to watch on stage or read about in a book, but movies provide an immediacy and economy of narrative that no other form of story-telling can touch. Give us something worth a lot of money, whether it is money, jewels, or a secret formula, put it somplace hard to break into, whether it is a museum, a bank, or an enemy compound, and an anti-hero to root for, and we’re ready to enjoy.

The pattern may be familia, but it is reliable. Set out the task and explain the obstacles, come up with clever ways to get around the obstacles, then show us the heist itself, throwing in a few unexpected challenges and some even more clever on-the-spot problem-solving, add in some colorful characters with a few twists and turns in their relationships, and we will settle back and enjoy.

“The Score” benefits from this formula almost as much as it benefits from its Mount Rushmore of acting power. The story might not have much that’s new, but it is still fun to see a thief look at an intimidating new safe utterly undaunted, explaining that “If somebody can build it, somebody can unbuild it.” The movie’s real luster comes from stars Marlon Bando, Robert DeNiro, Edward Norton, and Angela Bassett, who are thrilling to watch under any circumstances. You can’t help wishing, though, to see them under other circumstances. I’ll be the rehearsals for some of these scenes were more fun to watch than the scenes themselves.

DeNiro plays Nick, a careful thief who plans meticulously, keeps his cool when the unexpected occurs, and lives by two rules: work alone and never rob in the city you live in. He is willing to think about breaking those rules when Max, his long-time fence Brando) offers him a job so big that he can retire and live happily ever after with the woman he adores (Bassett) and the jazz club he owns.

The job will require working with Jack (Norton), who came up with idea (stealing a priceless gold scepter studded with jewels) and who has done all of the prep work (posing as a retarded man to get a janitor’s job in the building, getting access to all of the technical specifications for the security system), but who does not know how to crack the safe. If they are going to do this job, Nick and Jack will have to work together.

There are not many surprises here. Of course Nick and Jack will have some trouble learning to work together. They will have to rely on a mother-ridden computer nerd to get the key access codes. Nick and his girlfriend will have a disagreement about this “one last job.” And there will be both honor and dishonor among the thieves. This would be a B movie without the world-class talent on screen, but even they can’t lift it to more than a B-plus. It is fun to watch them spark each other, though, and for my money, Norton (who does have the showiest role) takes the prize.

Parents should know that the movie is rated R for language, brief drug use, sexual references, and a brief, non-expliit sexual situation. The heroes of the movie are all theives, and there is no suggestion that there is anything wrong or even any harm in stealing an historic treasure.

Families who see this movie should talk about the conversation Nick and Jack have about taking risks, and how their views differ. They may also want to talk about how Nick was firm about his rules until enough money was offered to change his mind.

Families who enjoy this movie will enjoy some heist movie classics, like “Topkapi,” “The Great Train Robbery,” and “The Lavender Hill Mob.”

This movie has a lot of surface appeal, but at its core it is as vacant as the story’s main character.

It tries to be a sort of “Sixth Sense” with sex, a trippy mind game movie about a rich, successful, handsome, but superficial man named David (Tom Cruise), whose life turns upside down when he meets a woman who stirs him (because she is “guileless”). But then he must pay the price for his casual negligence. A woman becomes jealous, and drives them both off an embankment. She is killed, and he is badly hurt and disfigured. The life he took for granted is shattered.

At this point, a fairly conventional narrative is shattered, like David’s arm and his face. It becomes impossible to say much more about it without spoiling the surprises. David tries to piece together his story and we do the same, though sometimes based on conflicting information.

Like last year’s “Cast Away,” this is something of a vanity production. I suspect that Tom Hanks created the ultimate acting exercise for himself, based on what he feared most – being separated from his family. Cruise, who also produced this movie by purchasing the rights to the original, Spanish-language version, has done the same here. He may have chosen what he fears most – losing his looks and easy grace, losing his knack for owning the room. And, like Hanks, he selected a story that provides the opportunity for tour-de-force acting. In many scenes, Cruise’s famous face is covered with a latex mask, leaving him only his body and his eyes to convey all of the character’s emotions.

Cruise works hard and makes some arresting choices. Diaz turns in a terrific performance and Tilda Swinton is excellent in a brief role as an executive. But Kurt Russell seems a little lost as a therapist, and Penelope Cruz, repeating her role from the original, says her lines as though she is not really fluent in English yet.

Parents should know that the movie has very strong language and explicit sexual situations and references. One character smothers another, and a different character kills herself and is unsuccessful at killing her lover. The facial disfigurement is graphically portrayed and may be very upsetting to some viewers.

Families who see this movie should talk about why David feels unsatisfied at the beginning of the movie, and whether he should have made a pass at the woman his best friend brought to a party. How much of the world around us do we control? How much would you like to control? If given the choice presented to David at the end of the movie, what would you choose?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “The Sixth Sense,” “The Matrix,” and possibly “A.I.” They might also like to see “Waking Life,” an animated film that makes many of the same points.