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.”

Denzel Washington has a coiled, controlled energy that puts tremendous power behind his coolness and grace. That quality works well for him when he plays good guys, adding complexity and ambiguity to his portrayal of heroes from the Washington Post reporter in “The Pelican Brief” to the lawyer in “Philadelphia” and real-life figures Hurricane Carter and Malcolm X. Here that cougar-like quality adds a lot of sizzle to his portrayal of a bad guy, a rogue cop who has crossed the line so many times that he doesn’t even see it any more.

Washington plays Alonzo Harris, head of an elite unit of LAPD narcotics officers. Ethan Hawke is Jake Hoyt, the rookie who has just one day to show Alonzo that he should join the unit. Jake is smart, tough, and very motivated – he wants to make detective, and this is his best opportunity. But Alonzo tells Jake that his ideas are all wrong, and that the streets and the police are very different from what he has been taught.

Jake climbs into Alonzo’s huge black Monte Carlo and before he knows it, he is smoking marijuana laced with PCP and watching Alonzo rough up attempted rapists and let them go. Like Dorothy in Oz, he knows he’s not in Kansas anymore. Alonzo is a master of manipulation, using a mix of trash talk, bullying, and charm to persuade Jake to violate every principle he has. He is constantly pushing, constantly testing. At first, Jake is so eager to be accepted that he accepts Alonzo’s view that only a wolf can catch another wolf. But when it appears that Alonzo thinks of Jake not as fellow predator but as prey, Jake decides that only one of them can survive.

Washington is dazzling in his Oscar-winning performance as Alonzo. He lets us catch a glimpse of Alonzo’s desperation as he interacts with a charming drug dealer with a taste for expensive drinks (Scott Glenn), three “wise men” who run the department, the mother of his child, and the men of his unit. With each encounter, he shows us a different approach. Hawke is just fair as the white-bread rookie, but Glenn and singers Macy Gray, Snoop Dog, and Dr. Dre make the most of small roles. The director, Antoine Fuqua, shows his music video roots with a style that is often flashy but not always in aid of the story.

Parents should know that the movie is a very strong R, with extremely rough language (including the n-word and anti-gay slurs), graphic violence (including the murder of major characters), drug use, brief nudity, and sexual references.

Families who see the movie should talk about the way that seemingly little exceptions to ethical rules end up creating very serious problems. When do the ends justify the means? This may be especially meaningful in light of the current debate about how to respond to terrorism.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy Internal Affairs a better film with a similar story line, starring Andy Garcia and Richard Gere.

Plot: “Once upon a time there was a plaid overnight bag,” this movie begins. But actually there are four, identical on the outside, but with very different contents. One contains a set of rare rocks on their way to being presented at a conference of musicologists. One contains a very valuable collection of jewelry. One contains top secret government documents. The last one contains nothing more than a change of clothes. All four bags converge in a large hotel to provide the framework for an affectionate valentine to the classic screwball comedies of the 1930s. Like “Bringing Up Baby,” this centers on a madcap young woman (Barbra Streisand), Judy Maxwell, who decides to show her appreciation for a shy professor in spectacles (Ryan O’Neal), Howard Bannister, by disrupting his life as much as is humanly possible and then some. The attempts by a spy to steal the bag with the documents and a thief to steal the bag with the jewels help to make things a bit more complicated.

Professor Bannister is at the hotel to present his findings about the musical qualities of rocks used by ancient societies as primitive instruments. He is accompanied by his stuffy and overbearing fiancée, Eunice (Madeline Kahn). He hopes to get a research grant from wealthy Mr. Larabee, who will be attending the conference. Judy, who came to the hotel to cadge a free meal, is drawn to Howard, and stays on to be near him. She impersonates Eunice at the opening dinner, utterly captivating Larabee. She then proceeds, as Howard says, to “bring havoc and chaos to everyone,” including the destruction of a hotel room (and Howard’s engagement), and a wildly funny car chase through the streets of San Francisco, before it all gets straightened out.

Discussion: This movie is a lot of fun, but it does not come close to meeting the standards of the movies it is trying to emulate. The main flaw is that Judy and Howard (and the actors who portray them) are simply not as appealing as their prototypes in classics like “Bringing Up Baby.” For example, as we meet Judy, she is stealing a meal from a hotel, something which may have had more appeal in the “anti- establishment” early 1970s, but which now seems less than charming. The big laugh line at the end of the movie, a poke at O’Neal’s overwhelmingly successful previous movie, “Love Story,” will not mean anything to today’s kids.

Questions for Kids:

· What do you think about the way Judy behaved? Did she ever think ahead, or did she just do what seemed right at the moment?

· Eunice tells Howard that she does not want romance because she wants something stronger — trust. What is the point of view of the movie about that? How can you tell?

· Which is the funniest part of the movie? Were there any parts that were supposed to be funny that you did not think were funny? Why?

Connections: See “Bringing Up Baby” and compare it. Some of the other classic screwball comedies are “My Man Godfrey” and “The Lady Eve.”