Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles) dies, alone in Xanadu, his enormous mansion. His last word is the mysterious “Rosebud.” A newsreel gives us the highlights of his life, the wealthy young man who became an influential newspaper magnate and political candidate, who married first the niece of the President and then, after a scandal that led to the end of his political career, a singer. As the lights come up in a screening room, an editor says, “It’s not enough to tell us what a man did. You have to tell us who he was.” One of the reporters, Jerry Thompson, goes off to find out who Kane really was.

He meets with five different figures who were important in Kane’s life to try to understand the small mystery of Kane’s last word and the larger mystery of the man who was capable of both integrity and corruption, and who seemed to have no sense of peace or happiness.

Thompson begins by reading the journals of millionaire Walter Parks Thatcher (George Coulouris), now dead, the trustee who oversaw Kane’s early years. He explains that Kane’s mother (Agnes Moorehead) was a landlady who became wealthy when a prospector who had not paid his bill left her the deed to his mine. The mine turned out to be one of the world’s richest sources of silver. Mrs. Kane believed that her son would do better if Thatcher, a bank executive, took charge of his education and upbringing. She wanted him far away from his bully of a father.

Kane was a rebellious charge, and as soon as he reached his majority, he bought a failing newspaper, which he used to criticize Thatcher and the rest of the financial elite.

Next, Thompson speaks to Mr. Bernstein (Everett Sloane), who worked with Kane at the newspaper. He talks of Kane’s high ideals, and his devotion to the individual struggling against the powerful. He also speaks of Kane’s first marriage and its disintegration (shown in a stunning series of scenes set at breakfasts over the years).

He then talks to Jedediah Leland (Joseph Cotton), once Kane’s best friend and the drama critic for Kane’s newspaper, who tells him of Kane’s second marriage, to Susan Alexander (Dorothy Commingore), a nightclub singer. Kane was determined to make her a success as an opera singer. When Leland wrote a bad review of her performance, Kane finished writing it for him, printed it, and then fired him.

Thompson visits Susan Alexander, now an alcoholic. She tells him about the isolation of her life with Kane, and her decision to leave him. Neither she nor the butler at Xanadu is able to tell Thompson anything about “Rosebud.”

The viewer, however, is permitted to solve the smaller mystery of Rosebud, but the answer only proves that there are never any simple answers to the complexity of the human spirit.

Kids who watch this movie can never know how revolutionary it was. Every one of its dozens of innovations, from the flashback structure to the use of sets with ceilings for additional authenticity, has become all but standard. No problem–there is time enough for them to study these aspects of the film’s brilliance if they decide to learn more about film history and criticism. For their first viewing of this brilliant work, (and for purposes of a family discussion) just let them focus on the story, the dialogue, and the characters, which remain as compelling and contemporary as they were more than 50 years ago.

Like Willie Stark in “All the King’s Men,” Kane begins as a populist and dies corrupt and alone, and we cannot help but hope for some explanation of how that happened, as Thompson does. Importantly, both Kane and Stark were based on real-life figures. Kane, of course, was based on William Randolph Hearst, the almost-impossibly wealthy heir to the largest gold and silver mine owner in America, who became a powerful publishing magnate. Kane might also have been based on Welles, only 25 years old when he co-wrote, directed and starred in this film, who then spent the rest of his life coming up with one excuse or another for why he never came close to that level of achievement again.

As we see in flashback, Kane was taken from his parents when he was six, and raised by the bank, or by Thatcher, who was close to the same thing. This created an emotional neediness and a deeply conflicted view of money and power that is one factor in his downfall. As soon as he had control over his money, Kane bought the newspaper, perhaps for the same reason Welles went to to work for a Hollywood studio; he said it was “the greatest electric train set any boy ever had.” A rebel by nature (as we see when he hits Thatcher with his sled, and in his glee in getting the staff to remake the paper over and over), he enjoys what H.L. Menchen referred to as the purpose of a newspaper: “To comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” Afflicting the comfortable is great fun for him, especially comfortable people like Thatcher and his colleagues and his wife’s uncle, the President of the United States.

Like Stark, though, Kane’s taste of power makes him feel that the rules do not apply to him. He begins to feel that the ends justify the means. He does not just want to sway the electorate in favor of the candidate of his choice; he wants to be that candidate. As we see in a striking scene, with Kane in front of the enormous poster of his face, he loves the adulation of the crowd.

But as we also see, he is drawn to Susan Alexander (whom he meets as he is on his way to sit among his late mother’s effects) because she responds to the private Kane, the one who can wiggle his ears and make hand shadows. When he finds that he cannot have both Susan and public acclaim, he makes the critically wrong choice to try to make her into a publicly acceptable figure, an opera star. Leland writes an honest review (after getting drunk for courage). Kane’s last shred of integrity requires him to print the review, but he cannot bear to face Leland again.

Indeed, he cannot bear to face anyone. He retreats to Kanadu, where Susan Alexander spends her night working on jigsaw puzzles. She cannot bear it any more either and finally leaves him; he hardly notices, except to become even more isolated. That private self which she responded to, and which once mattered so much to him, has become as completely inaccessible as the little house inside the snow globe that crashes to the floor when he dies.

Families who see this movie should talk about what they think of Kane’s pledge on the first page of the newspaper. How do the scenes at the breakfast table tell you what is going on in Kane’s first marriage? Why do you think he said “Rosebud?” Who if anyone in the movie is satisfired with his or her life? How can you tell? Why does Kane change?

Fans of Phoebe Tyler on television’s “All My Children” will enjoy seeing a young Ruth Warrick as Kane’s first wife.

It is hard to say who is the more interesting real-life character, William Randolph Hearst or Orson Welles. There are many biographies of both, and they are fascinating reading for families to enjoy. The biographies of Hearst detail his reaction to this movie. His efforts to use his newspapers to discourage people to see the movie were just what Kane himself might have done. Everyone should make an effort to see San Simeon, the model of Xanadu, now open to the public in California.

There are also volumes of material about this movie, probably the most honored ever to be produced in Hollywood, and always at or near the top of critics’ surveys on the best film ever made.

Usually, the worst thing about a movie like this is the waste of talent. Yes, this movie wastes the talent of Orlando Jones (the guy from the 7-Up commercials who was terrific in “The Replacements”) and Eddie Griffin and especially the wonderful Vivica A. Fox. But worse than that, it wastes a wonderful idea. This could have been the movie that “Bamboozled” could not be, a satiric swipe at the way that black men, both upper-class and street, are seen by American society — and each other.

Orlando Jones plays a highly successful investment banker with a supermodel girlfriend. He is so uptown that he even has a financial last name — Chase. But that name takes on another meaning when he is framed for murder and has to get to Mexico, where he will be under the protection of a CIA agent who knows he is innocent. How does a black man become invisible? He switches clothes with a street hustler named Freddy Tiffany (Griffin). They take a train out of town, but when the bad guys come after them, they have to figure out another way to travel.

What humor there is comes from Chase having to “act black.” After one high-jiving performance, Tiffany asks, “What’s the last movie you seen, ‘Car Wash?'” Chase shows that he has “kept it real” on some level by out-dancing and out-foxing Tiffany. But no effort is made to take on the real underlying issues, with the possible exception of Tiffany’s comment when he is frisked by policemen: “Do I look like Puff Daddy?” and his point to Chase that “It wasn’t the brother in the suit but the suit on the brother that got you your so-called respect.”

The jokes are tired and so is the plot, with the least surprising twists and turns we are likely to see this year. We guess way ahead of the characters who will turn out to be a good guy and who won’t. It’s a terrible waste of the actors. It’s even a waste of the film.

Parents should know that the movie has a lot of violence, including shoot-outs. Characters use a lot of bad language, including the n-word. One character gives the finger.

Families who see this movie should talk about how we jump to conclusions based on someone dresses or speaks and what the movie can and could tell us about the way blacks are perceived by whites and by each other.

Families who enjoy this movie will enjoy the far superior comedy, “Silver Streak” and the even more superior thriller “North by Northwest.”

There is nothing more appealing to watch in a movie than one character teaching another, except perhaps when two characters teach each other. This reliable formula is well presented in this fine film about two great writers, one who has not published anything for nearly half a century and one who is 16 years old.

A mysterious character lives in an inner-city high rise. Known to the neighborhood as “The Window,” he has never been seen to leave the apartment, and the local teens are curious about him. Jamal (Rob Brown) accepts a dare to enter the man’s apartment. The man surprises him, and he races out, leaving his backpack behind.

The next day, the backpack is thrown out the window, and Jamal finds that his private journals have been extensively marked up with comments, ending with “Where are you taking me?” Jamal has never shared his writing or his intellectual curiosity with anyone. All his friends know is that he is a good basketball player. Jamal goes back to “The Window” to ask for more comments, and, very slowly, a friendship begins. It turns out that “The Window” is William Forrester, author of one of the greatest books of the 20th century, who has not published a book since the first one won the Pulitzer Prize in 1954. He is a recluse, with no communication with the outside world beyond his window, his television, and delivery of groceries by his publisher.

Meanwhile, Jamal’s test scores bring him to the attention of a posh private school, which offers him a full scholarship, though they expect more from him on the basketball court than in the classroom.

Some of the students at the new school are friendly, especially Claire (Anna Paquin). But a teacher named Crawford (F. Murray Abraham) suspects that Jamal’s work is not his own, and when Jamal embarrasses him in class, he accuses Jamal of plagiarism. The only one who can defend him is a man who has not left his apartment in decades.

The strengths of this movie are its themes and its performers. Newcomer Rob Brown is up to the level of the Oscar-winning trio (Connery, Paquin, and Abraham) who appear with him. In addition to the pleasure of seeing Jamal and Forrester spar with each other, teach each other, and support each other, there is the guiltier pleasure of those moments, in which Jamal takes off his Clark Kent/boyz in the hood disguise and lets his Superman intellectual energy and prodigious reading skewer those who dared to have preconceptions about him. There are a couple of scenes that recall that supremely satisfying moment in “Annie Hall” when Woody Allen pulled Marshall McLuhan out from behind a theater sign to refute the man who had been pontificating about McLuhan’s theories. The theme of a character whose true value and genius is not seen by those around him is a recurring theme in stories with a lot of appeal for teens, who often feel that way themselves.

There are also scenes of real loyalty and connection, not just between Jamal and Forrester, but between Jamal and his brother (rapper Busta Rhymes in his best performance yet) and between Jamal and Claire.

The movie’s primary weakness is its climax confrontation, which is artifically constructed and unsatisfyingly unrealistic. Forrester’s explanation of his decision to withdraw from the world and his decision to change is weakly handled. Jamal may be just a little too perfect. And a brief in-joke appearance by a big star is distracting.

Parents should know that the movie has brief strong language and sexual references and situations (Jamal’s neighbors have loud sex on the other side of his bedroom wall). Forrester says that women will have sex with anyone who has written a book. Jamal and Claire take their relationship very slowly and show a lot of respect and concern for each other. Forrester drinks a good bit, and talks about a character who died in a drunk driving accident.

The movie raises a lot of great issues for family discussion. Why do Jamal and Forrester hide their talents? How does the fact that both have lost family members provide an important connection for them? Why is it important for us to find people who can teach us? Why was Crawford so angry, and do you agree with Forrester’s comment about “bitterly disappointed teachers?” What prejudices are revealed by the characters? Do you agree that “people are most afraid of what they don’t understand?” Family members should also talk about Forrester’s advice that the first draft is written with the heart, the second with the head, and might want to try his technique for getting started on writing. They might also like to read some of the books Jamal talks about. And (note the way I started that sentence with “and” per Jamal’s comments on the subject) every teen should read “Catcher in the Rye” by famously reclusive author J.D. Salinger, the inspiration for the Forrester character.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “Powder,” about another teen with extraordinary powers and “Field of Dreams,” another movie with a character based on Salinger. Mature teens will also like “Good Will Hunting” (very strong language and sexual situations) by the same director, also about a brilliant young man from a poor community.

Six lonely, insecure single people sign up for a beginning Italian class that changes their lives in this small, endearing Danish movie that feels as much like a documentary as like a traditional romantic comedy.

That is because it was made under the auspices of a group of film-makers who have made a commitment to making movies as simply as possible.

The Dogme 95 film-makers have pledged to obey some severe restrictions as a part of their commitment to making movies with more freshness, intimacy, and authenticity than the big-studio productions that they believe interfere with story-telling. They film in real locations, their only props those that are already present. They use minimal additional lighting and do not re-record dialogue. There is no musical score. The best known Dogme 95 films are Lars van Trier’s “Breaking the Waves” and “Dancer in the Dark.” “Italian for Beginners” is the first Dogme 95 romance and the first directed by a woman. One of the Dogme 95 rules is that the movie must not have a director’s credit. But it was directed by its screenwriter, Lone Scherfig.

The movie begins as Andreas (Anders W. Berthelsen), a young, newly ordained minister, is shown around the church he will be taking over temporarily. The current minister has been suspended (later we will find out why), and Andreas is a temporary fill-in. He moves into a hotel managed by Jorgen (Peter Gantzler), a shy man who has two big problems. He has not been able to have sex for four years, and he has been told to fire his best friend, Finn (Lars Kaalund), a handsome man who loves the sports restaurant he manages but cannot manage to be nice to any of the customers.

All three of them end up in the Italian class, along with a beautiful hairdresser and a clumsy bakery shop cashier. The two women, who are both caring for sick, demanding, parents, find out that they have even more in common. And Jorgen learns enough Italian to ask the pretty Italian cook who works with Finn if she would like to come to the class — even though she already speaks Italian. And then, like Shakespearean lovers running off to the woods, they leave Denmark to go to Venice, that most romantic of cities, to sort it all out.

This is the kind of cute concept that Hollywood studios churn out regularly (see Liza Minnelli’s “Stepping Out” for a pretty good example). But Schefberg has the courage to make the story messily un- formulaic. She trusts the audience enough to give us complicated characters coping with great loss and sadness. And here, in Dogme 95’s stripped-down style, the camera puts us so close to the action that we feel we are watching a real story unfold. There are moments of great intimacy, as when the hairdresser allows her hand to caress the side of Finn’s head as she washes his hair, and when Jorgen squats next to the swimming pool to ask advice about his problems with women as Andreas swims laps. And there are moments of great sweetness, as when the Italian cook steps away to consider a marriage proposal, to come racing back with her answer.

Parents should know that the movie is romantic and often comic, but characters cope with some very serious problems, including suicide, mercy killing, fetal alcohol syndrome, impotence, the death of parents, and the consequences of divorce for the adult children.

Scherfig said in an interview that there are no villains in her story, and that one difference between her story and most movies is that most movies made the audience want to be like the characters, while in her movie the characters want to be like the audience. Do you think that is true? What is the significance of Karen’s failed attempts to cut Finn’s hair, and his finally getting it done by someone else? What do we know about Andreas’s late wife that makes us think his new romance will work? Why does it take a trip to Venice to allow the characters to finally take a chance? What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of the Dogme 95 style? What kind of stories is it best for, and what kind would it do badly?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “Brassed Off” and “The Full Monty.”

When a movie’s on-screen explanation about what happens to the characters after it ends contains a typo (“aide” instead of “aid”), we get some idea of why it seems that so little attention was paid to other details like story and character.

The sad thing is that somewhere inside this mess of a movie are a couple of characters we like. “American Pie” alums Jason Biggs and Mena Suvari play Paul and Dora, freshmen at NYU. We see right away what a sweetheart Paul is, at his family’s party celebrating his scholarship. Paul dances with his little sister and slips the money his grandfather urges on him back into his grandfather’s own pocket. And we see right away how nice Dora is, putting ice on Paul’s knee when he falls down the classroom steps. Biggs and Suvari are very appealing and make a great couple. We settle back, waiting for them to find out what we already know, that they’re perfect for each other.

Unfortunately, it’s a frustrating and annoying hour and a half until we get there. The other characters are all tedious and the plot developments are either lame “but I thought”-type misunderstandings or lamer lifts from better movies. Paul has three interchangable and odious roommates who think of college as a four-year party. Dora is desperate for money, so she takes a job as a waitress in a strip club, sleeps in Grand Central Station (after paying a homeless woman to tell her mother that she is sleeping in a dorm). And she’s having an affair with a selfish and egotistical professor (Greg Kinnear).

As the typo indicates, the movie has an unfinished quality, as though someone was trying to create structure through editing that was not there in the script. There are several unnecessary cameos (David Spade, Andy Dick, Everclear) that seem to have been thrown in as an effort to pick things up. A lot of the plot twists and details are so dumb or unbelievable, even within the context of romantic comedy, that they are just distracting. Why would Paul agree to a second party when the first one was such a disaster? Why would he and Dora believe what people they know to be unreliable tell them about each other? Characters do things for the sake of the plot that are completely inconsistent with the rest of their behavior. Some things just make no sense at all. If the whole movie is supposed to take place in the first semester (at the end of the movie they are making plans for Thanksgiving) then Paul wears that thick wool hat when it isn’t even cold out? When did Dora have time to meet and start an affair with the professor? It seems to be well underway when school starts.

Parents should know that the movie has a casual attitude toward drinking and drug use. Paul’s roommates spike girls’ drinks with the “date rape drug,” which is treated as little more than a regrettable prank. Despite the fact that integrity is a key aspect of Paul’s character, Paul and Dora casually steal bread, coffee, and theater seats, and this is portayed as clever and charming. Students also blackmail a professor into giving them good grades.

Families who see this movie should talk about how Paul and Dora evaluate their choices. Why does Paul go along with his ex-roommates’ party plan? Why does he care what they think of him? Why is Dora so wrong about the professor? How do people make friends in college? Paul’s father (Dan Ackroyd) gives him some very good advice, and another of the movie’s many frustrations is waiting for that to be important later in the movie.

People who want to see a better movie about this stage of life should see “Breaking Away” or the syrupy blockbuster “Love Story.”