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.”

This semi-successful attempt at a post-modern comic-book style story that has it both ways, archly commenting on superhero sagas while actually giving us a new and cooler version of one at the same time. That is an all but impossible task, and “Mystery Men” comes closer than many, with its sensational production design and cast members who know how to nail dialogue with just the right spin of irony (“Maybe you’d better put on some shorts,” says Jeaneane Garofolo as The Bowler to the Invisible Boy who has just become visible, “if you want to keep fighting evil today.”).

Champion City is just about idyllic now that its superhero, Captain Amazing (Greg Kinnear) has thoroughly vanquished all the bad guys. But without bad guys, Captain Amazing’s visibility — and his corporate endorsements — are declining. He arranges for the release of an old arch- enemy, Casanova Frankenstein (Geoffrey Rush), so that they can battle again. Things do not go as he planned, however, and Frankenstein captures him. A group of secondary superheroes with quirky powers come to his rescue, including the Blue Rajah (Hank Azaria), who throws forks and spoons (but never knives); Mr. Furious (Ben Stiller), whose anger gives him strength; The Bowler (Jeaneane Garofolo), who has a powerful bowling ball with her father’s skull inside); Invisible Boy (Kel Martin), who can’t disappear if anyone is looking; The Shoveler (William H. Macy), who shovels very, very well; and The Spleen (Paul Reubens), who has killer flatulence. Guided by the Delphic Sphinx (Wes Studi), they learn the importance of self-esteem and teamwork, as though they had wandered into some “Mighty Ducks” movie.

Parents should know that much of the humor will be above the heads of most teens, and that what is left tends to be potty humor. Furthermore, though the violence is comic book style, three characters are incinerated in a scary manner. Almost as scary is the way that no one seems to care about that very much, even though one of them is one of the good guys. It is nice to see a female superhero (despite the title), and Garofolo’s Bowler is first among equals in self-possession, maturity, and ability. Families should discuss individual abilities, and what superpowers each member of the family would most like to have.

Remember when Humphrey Bogart told Ingrid Bergman that “it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world?” Well, this is a story that comes down on the side of the hill of beans.

Although it tries mightily to follow the “Titanic” formula, “Pearl Harbor” is not going to inspire the same “let’s go see it again” spirit. Like “Titanic” (and “The Perfect Storm,” and “Twister,” and a zillion others), this movie attempts to tie a love story to a catastrophe, with the theory that if it can make us care, make us gasp, and make us cry, they’ll have a box-office bonanza. But both the love story and the war story have a synthetic feel to them that does not permit us to care enough. It’s worth seeing – but only once.

After a brief prologue, in which we meet the two male leads as young boys to see their passion for flying and their loyalty to each other, we open as the war is going on in Europe. America is sending equipment and supplies, but has not yet entered the war. The two boys, Rafe (Ben Affleck) and Danny (Josh Hartnett) are army pilots. Anxious to get some action, Rafe volunteers to go to England, where he can join an American division of the RAF. Before he leaves, he meets a pretty nurse named Evelyn (Kate Beckinsale) and they fall in love. He leaves for England, and Danny and Evelyn are assigned half a world away, to the Naval Station at Pearl Harbor. When Rafe is reported killed, Evelyn and Danny are devastated. They comfort each other, and become involved. Rafe arrives to find them together, just before the Japanese attack. That attack, lasting just about as long on screen as it did in reality, is devastating to the unprepared Naval Station and to a country that thought it could stay out of the war. But Rafe and Danny train for a counter-attack on Tokyo to send Japan a message that America can and will punish those who attack us.

Director Michael Bay (“Armageddon”) has visual flair and superb command of action sequences. There are some nice moments, like Evelyn’s arrival at the hospital in Pearl Harbor, rows of neat white beds with just one occupant, being treated for sunburn. Dan Ackroyd is fine as an intelligence officer and Jon Voight, somewhere under a lot of make-up, shows us FDR’s compassion, political skill, and intelligence. Affleck, Hartnett, and Beckinsale look gorgeous and do their best to give some depth to the cardboard characters, but they cannot overcome a soapy plot and dialogue that is often wooden and sometimes wildly anachronistic. I do not think that anyone in 1941 spoke of somone’s “having too much time on their hands.” And I am pretty sure that no one, seeing the bombs dropping on Pearl Harbor, concluded that “World War II has just started.” For one thing, the war in Europe had been going on for a while, and for another, they had not started calling “The Great War” “World War I” yet. Rafe writes a lot of letters for a guy who is dyslexic. And can we please, please agree never again to have one of those scenes where some hot-shot flyboys break the rules and are then called on the carpet by crusty commanders who come across all disciplinarian but call them son and thinly disguise the “that’s just how I used to behave” twinkle in their eyes? We know producer Jerry Bruckheimer had a hit with “Top Gun,” but he does not have to make this one into “Maverick and Goose Go to War.”

Like last year’s “The Patriot,” the movie fails to provide any sense of the reason for the conflict. When asked why he fights, a character says nothing about freedom or fighting the Nazis. He just says that he wants “to matter,” a disconcertingly me-oriented answer from a would-be representative of the greatest generation.

No one wants them to demonize the people we fought in World War II, but they go too far in the other direction. It’s almost as though they were more interested in selling tickets in Japan than in giving any substance to the story. Cuba Gooding, Jr. does his best with a part that is awkwardly inserted into the main storyline.

The movie bends over backwards to be fair to the Japanese, portraying them as brave and loyal. But it is also dismayingly US-centric, showing (inaccurately) both the English and the Japanese in awe of American spirit and strength. The Japanese general says that he fears they have “awakened the sleeping giant.” And Rafe’s British commander says that if other Americans are like Rafe, he feels sorry for anyone who goes to battle with the US.

Parents should know that the movie features extended and intense battle violence with thousands of casualties, including characters we care about. Soldiers use strong language and joke about seduction techniques. A couple decides not to have sex because they do not want to have any regrets. Another couple does have sex and the woman becomes pregnant. Cuba Gooding, Jr. plays a real-life hero of World War II, the first black man to win the Navy Cross. The woman may be there because they thought it would be exciting and they would meet men, but when they are needed, they are strong, brave, and dedicated.

Famiies who see this movie should talk about the events that led to World War II and about some of the real-life characters who are depicted. Make sure that they know that in 1941 the armed services were segregated. The character played by Cuba Gooding, Jr., Dorie Miller, like most other black soldiers, was not trained to fight and was assigned to cooking and menial jobs.

Characters in the movie face choices that are well worth family discussion. Why didn’t the US realize how vulnerable it was to attack? How do you decide which wounded to help? What should Evelyn have done when Rafe returned? Why did the pilots volunteer for the raid on Japan?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy other Michael Bay action spectaculars like “Armageddon” and “The Rock.” Fans of WWII movies will do better with “Saving Private Ryan,” “Mr. Roberts,” and “30 Seconds Over Tokyo,” with Spencer Tracy as the real-life James Doolittle, portrayed in “Pearl Harbor” by Alec Baldwin. Mature audiences will also appreciate “From Here to Eternity,” a brilliant movie about soldiers stationed at Pearl Harbor before the attack.

Audiences who have been wondering when we were going to get a great comedy about incest can keep wondering. “Say it Isn’t So” is a mediocre comedy about incest, a pale retread from the producers (but not the writers or director) of “There’s Something About Mary.” They are clearly trying here for the same results, but miscasting and going once too often to the well of “I can’t believe they did that” get in the way. Its primary appeal will be on video, to excited middle schoolers who think they are cool for watching an R-rated movie and can’t tell the difference between gross, outrageous, and funny.

Sweet Gilly Noble (Chris Klein) meets up with the world’s worst hairdresser, Jo Wingfield (Heather Graham) and they fall in love and become engaged. But then Gilly finds out that the birth parents he has been looking for are none other than the Wingfields, Valdene (Sally Field!) and Walter (Richard Jenkins), Jo’s parents. So, the lovers part, and Jo returns to her old boyfriend, rich, handsome, charming Jack Mitchelson (Eddie Cibrian). A year later, as Jack and Jo are about to get married, Gilly finds out that he is not Jo’s brother, and he races off to get her the message before the wedding.

All of this is just an excuse for jokes involving amputated limbs, bikini waxes, paralysis, pierced nipples, bestiality, a town named “Beaver,” a guy with his arm stuck in a cow’s rear end, and, of course, lots of incest humor. The few bright spots feature Orlando Jones as Gilly’s one friend (an amputee pilot).

Parents should know that this movie contains extremely strong language, many sexual references and situations, and a lot of gross-out material. There is brief nudity and drug humor, and characters smoke and drink. Most parents will not find this movie suitable for children or teenagers.

Families who do see this movie should talk about what to do when someone you care for is about to marry someone you think is a bad choice, and about how a highly dysfunctional family like the Wingfields could produce a sweet daughter like Jo.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy There’s Something About Mary(very mature material).

Plot: As the movie opens, the narrator says that the movies he has seen about WWII are about “flyboys” in leather jackets, and do not reflect his own experience as an American prisoner of war in a German Stalag (prison camp). This is that story.

Sefton (William Holden) is a cynical loner who bets (successfully) that his fellow prisoners will fail in their attempt to escape. He manages to scrounge or trade for many small luxuries, including a bar of soap and an egg. When the others show their contempt, he says, “So maybe I trade a little sharper. Does that make me a collaborator?” and sums up his philosphy, “This is everybody for himself, dog eat dog…You can be the heroes, the guys with fruit salad on your chest. Me, I’m staying put, and I’m going to make myself as comfortable as I can, and if it takes trading with the enemy to get me some food or a better mattress, that’s okay with Sefton.”

The other men in his barracks start to suspect him of trading more than cigarettes and silk stockings with the Germans. When Lieutenant Dunbar, a wealthy Bostonian who is in the barracks on his way to the officer’s prison camp, is arrested for sabotage, they conclude that Sefton told the Germans that Dunbar was the one who blew up the train filled with ammunition. They beat Sefton severely. He tells them that two people know he is not the one who is telling the Germans their secrets — Sefton himself and the one who is really doing it. Sefton starts to watch the others, to find the spy, and figures out who it is. But what can he do? If he says nothing, the spy will continue to betray the Americans. If he tells the others, the spy will just be sent to another Stalag. If they kill the spy, they will be killed as punishment. Sefton finds a way to reveal the identity of the spy, and the prisoners use him as a decoy, so that Dunbar can escape. Sefton insists on being the one to take him, telling the others that the risk of escaping has been outweighed by the chance at a reward from Dunbar’s family.

Discussion: This is an exceptionally exciting drama, based on a play by two men who were prisoners in Stalag 17. Holden’s superb performance won a Best Actor Oscar , and the rest of the cast, some who were also in the Broadway play, is excellent. This movie provides a good opportunity to talk about the role of humor, especially “black” or “gallows” humor, in adapting to the harshest circumstances. A former Communist bloc comedian once said that every joke is a “tiny revolution.” Here, when all control over their lives is taken from them, the prisoners try to establish some sense of control with jokes and pranks, and again, we see that, as W.H. Auden said, “a laugh is less heartless than tears” (see “Sullivan’s Travels”).

Examine the other strategies and responses the prisoners had to adapt to their circumstances. Sefton adapted by trying to make whatever small improvements to his life that he could, helping him to maintain some sense of power, choice, and control. Animal and Harry use dreams to help them feel better; also giving them a sense of control, even if it is only for the future. Joey plays an ocarina, and becomes completely withdrawn. Interestingly, the camp commandant, Von Sherbach (Otto Preminger), a ruthless man, is nevertheless shown as feeling his own loss of control, because he has been assigned to the backwater of the war effort. He hopes that identifying Dunbar as the one who blew up the train will bring him to the attention of those who may move him to something more prestigious.

Sefton is interesting (the narrator says he would fit into one of the Reader’s Digest series about the “most unforgettable character”) because he has none of the redeeming qualities we expect of our heroes. In contrast to Dunbar, who is rich, handsome, charming, unpretentious, modest, and brave, Sefton is selfish, cynical, and hostile. In his last words to the group as he leaves to rescue Dunbar, he says that if they should ever run into him after the war, to pretend they don’t know him. When he says he is motivated by the prospect of a reward, we believe him. Heroes are just as complicated as everyone else, possibly more so.

This movie also provides an opportunity to talk about justice and fairness. The evidence was very strongly against Sefton, and his unpleasant personality made him a natural object of hostility and suspicion. Contrast the process for finding Sefton guilty with the process the commandant uses to interrogate Dunbar (who was “guilty”).

Questions for Kids:

· Why did Sefton give his egg to Joey?

· Why was Sefton so consumed with his own comforts and privileges?

· Why did the others suspect Sefton?

· How did the prisoners use humor to keep their spirits up? How do the film-makers use humor to break the tension?

· How can there be “rules” like those of the Geneva convention in a war? How can those rules be enforced?

Connections: Other outstanding movies about prisoners of war include “The Great Escape.” “The Rack” stars Paul Newman as a soldier accused of treason following his release from a Korean prison camp.