Paula Alquist (Ingrid Bergman) falls in love with Gregory Anton (Charles Boyer), a musician, and once they are married, he persuades her to move into the house she lived in as a child, which has been closed since her aunt was murdered there.

At first very happy, Paula soon becomes confused and insecure. While Gregory appears to be solicitous and caring, in reality he is cutting her off from all contact with anyone but himself, and making her doubt herself and her sanity. He convinces her that she is always losing things, that she sees things that are not there, that she is unstable and untrustworthy. Every night he leaves to play the piano in an apartment he has rented, and while he is gone the gaslights flicker and she hears mysterious noises from the attic. Gregory persuades her that these are just her delusions.

Just as Paula’s fragile hold on reality is about to break, she is visited by Brian Cameron (Joseph Cotten) of Scotland Yard, with information about Gregory. But can she trust him? Or is he just another illusion?

This classic of suspense is a good way to begin a conversation about vulnerability and manipulation. Gregory is almost able to drive Paula mad by making her think she is mad already. By cutting her off from any outside reality, by cooly denying what she sees and hears for herself, by telling her over and over again that she is helpless and incompetent, she begins to turn into the person he tells her that she is.

Families who see the movie should talk about these questions: “Gaslighting” someone is now an accepted psychiatric term, based on this movie, and its predecessor, the play “Angel Street.” What do you think it means? How does Gregory get Paula to doubt herself? How does the director help the viewer get some sense of Paula’s feelings of disorientation and doubt? Can someone make another person doubt him or herself as Gregory did? Can someone affect other people positively along the same lines, helping them to believe in themselves? How?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “Dial M for Murder” and “Suspicion.”

I’d like to add to the list of things I never want to see in another movie, right after lip-synching to Motown songs shown as a bonding experience and sign of inner hipness, anyone ever saying to anyone, “I got more from you than you ever will from me.”

I don’t mind too much when people feel that way in movies, but when they have to say it, it is a pretty good sign that the film-makers are so uncertain that the formula is working that they just want to make sure we get the picture by spelling it out for us. In movies like this, that’s a clear signal that we’re in the land of “minority or disabled people as magical healers,” and that is never a healthy place to be for too long.

But great actors love great challenges (just look at how many Oscar winners played people with disabilities), so we find ourselves with many opportunities to go there. Sean Penn is a fine actor with a first-rate performance here as Sam Dawson, a retarded man who wipes the tables at Starbucks and wants to fight for custody of his daughter. Fellow star Michelle Pfeiffer has less to work with than she did as a similar character in “One Fine Day,” but manages a good fake smile and a nice crying scene. In smaller parts, Diane Wiest, Richard Schiff, Mary Steenburgen, and Laura Dern are all very fine as well, and the soundtrack of Beatles songs recorded by some of today’s best artists, is a genuine treat. The real miracle of the movie, though, is tiny Dakota Fanning as Sam’s daughter Lucy Diamond Dawson (named for the Beatles song). She gives a performance of such sincerity, subtlety, and delicacy that she almost carries the entire movie herself.

Although Lucy’s mother, a homeless woman, leaves right after Lucy is born, Sam does just fine at first, with help from an agoraphobic neighbor (Wiest) who explains when Lucy is a newborn that Sam should put on Nickelodeon and feed her when “Hogan’s Heroes” is on and then again at “I Dream of Jeannie.” Sam also gets some help from an entourage of retarded pals, and all goes along pretty well until Lucy, at age seven, begins to surpass Sam intellectually.

Then the big, bad wolf, in the form of Family Protective Services (Loretta Devine and West Wing’s Richard Schiff) try to take her away. Sam picks lawyer Rita Harrison (Michelle Pfeiffer) out of the phone book because her name is Beatle-ish. Rita turns out to be a driven perfectionist who gets her cardio in by racing up the 26 flights to her office screaming into her cell phone but snarfs down marshmallows and jelly beans when she feels vulnerable. At first she turns Sam down, but later, shamed into taking on a pro bono case, she agrees to represent him. And sure enough, she learns from Sam to take time to smell the roses and play with her own son. Even would-be adoptive mother Laura Dern, in what amounts to almost a tribute to Sam’s favorite movie, “Kramer vs. Kramer,” shows up in the middle of the night to cry about what a loving father he is.

If only they had trusted the material and the audience a little more, this would not feel so manipulative and dishonest. But by making anyone who thinks that maybe a child needs more than a retarded parent can provide look like a monster, they turn the characters into cardboard. The glowing last scene, with Sam performng in a role that is clearly beyond what he has been shown to be capable of, is just phoney. Yeah, I cried, but I was annoyed about it.

Parents should know that this movie has the requisite one f-word, now standard in PG-13 movies, and some other mild language. There is a stong reference to adultery. Lucy’s mother is a homeless woman who deserts her after she is born. Some children (and adults) will find the custody conflicts and discussion of parenting issues upsetting.

Families who see this movie should talk about what Sam should do to give Lucy everything she needs. What problems are they likely to have as she gets older? What did Rita learn from Sam, and why was it only Sam who could teach it to her? A number of the people in the movie struggle with parenting issues — there has never been a court proceeding in history that permitted such discussion of the family lives of all the participants and witnesses. How do you see those struggles in the families around you?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy Kramer vs. Kramer and Rain Man. They should also read the wonderful Expecting Adam by Martha Beck.

A message to those of you who might be considering larceny, fraud, or murder — it’s much, much more complicated than it seems. Unfortunately, the people who are not smart enough to figure that out are the people who think that it might make sense to, for example, inject paint into the number balls that they use to select the winning lottery ticket, so that only certain numbers will come up. It turns out that the people in this movie use whatever intelligence they have to think up this idea, leaving none left over for small details like what to do with the people who discover what they’ve done and want a piece of the action.

Inspired by a true story, this is the tale of a Harrisburg, PA television weatherman who conspires with the girl who selects the winning numbers for the state lottery to make sure they will have the winning ticket.

John Travolta plays Russ Richards, a popular local figure with a permanent parking space and roped-off table at his favorite local bistro, Denny’s. He has ambitiously but unwisely invested in a snowmobile franchise. Despite his professional expertise, he did not anticipate that Harrisburg’s uncharacteristically balmy winter would leave him on the brink of bankruptcy. He consults his friend, Gig (Tim Roth), who owns a strip joint. Gig arranges a robbery of the snowmobile showroom, but that goes wrong. So he suggests to Russ that perhaps Russ’s girlfriend Crystal (Lisa Kudrow), who goes on camera in a ball gown each week to select the winning lottery numbers, might just be persuaded to help make sure that the numbers she picks are the ones they pick. It turns out that Crystal is delighted.

Russ and Crystal behave like people who know for sure that they were meant to be rich, and are getting increasingly annoyed that somehow the message never got across. But Russ is a sweet guy at heart, if cowardly and self-centered. What he really loves are the fans. Crystal turns out to be completely ruthless. What she really loves is stuff — as she models her new Italian leather coat she happily announces that she will never again have to wear anything that didn’t come over on a boat. Crystal brings in her weird, hulking, snuffling, fun-doll fan of a cousin (Michael Moore) to be the ostenstible purchaser of the lottery ticket. But when he tells her he wants more of the money, she dispatches him with less interest than she would show in a broken nail.

Director Nora Ephron, best known for writing and directing sparkly romantic comedies like “Sleepless in Seattle,” goes for a darker kind of comedy here. She gets terrific performances from a first-rate cast, especially Bill Pullman as a lazy police officer. But Ephron is a long way from the Coen brothers. She has some sharp insights about the ambitions and strategies of her characters and there are some very funny moments, a sort of “Maltese Falcon” on acid, but ultimately it does not work.

Parents should know that the movie has very strong language, nudity, sexual references and situations, assault, murder, shooting, drinking, smoking, and drug use, in addition to the overall theme of larceny and fraud. Some characters are punished, but some are not.

Families who see this movie should talk about why the money is important to the characters and how they calculate their risks. Movies about crime are always in some sense movies about problem-solving, and it is worth pointing out the way that the characters respond to the initial challenge of figuring out a way to sabotage the lottery and to the subsequent problems that they did not anticipate. Families may also want to talk about why people do and do not obey the law and what the consequences are for themselves and society if they don’t.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “Fargo,” a darker but more successful comedy about larceny and murder.

It would take more time to list all of the things that were awful about this odious movie than it would be to watch it again. I’d rather not do either one.

This is a movie about a purportedly loveable slacker named Van Wilder (Ryan Reynolds) who has been the big man on campus for seven years. His father (Tim Matheson) pulls the financial plug, and Van has to find a way to pay his tuition so that he can stay on for more of what he loves about college – parties.

So, like any enterprising young man, he starts up a business: Topless Tutors. It is wildly successful until the strip club owner decides he wants his dancers back. Van finally finds his true calling in life –- he’s a party planner with a specialty in debauchery, sort of Martha Stewart crossed with Hugh Hefner.

Meanwhile, intrepid campus reporter Gwen (Tara Reid) decides to write about Van. Despite the fact that she has a pre-med frat-president boyfriend, she finds herself drawn to him. And despite the fact that Van has spent seven years being benevolent but distant, he finds himself being drawn to her.

Around this slight plot contrivance are strewn many gross attempts at humor involving bodily functions and excretions, both human and animal. They include a prank involving ingestion of dog semen inside éclair filling, getting children drunk (and having them barf), and feeding an extremely powerful laxative to someone just before an exam with no bathroom breaks. It is also supposed to be funny that what appears to be oral sex is just a woman measuring Van for a pair of pants while sucking on a lollypop and that Van is forced to have sex with an elderly woman who wears a wig. Are you laughing yet?

There is a half-hearted attempt to portray Van as all right at heart because he raises money for campus causes and befriends people that others might think of as losers. The movie tries to have fun including cast members from classic teen comedies like Animal House, Revenge of the Nerds, Risky Business, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, and American Pie, but all it does is serve to remind us of how much better those movies were. (I admit that I had not anticipated ever using some of those movies in the same sentence as the word “better.”)

The script is unforgivably sloppy, with dialogue that sounds like people who don’t know very much English made it up on the spot. It does have many vivid and imaginative euphemisms for female body parts and oral sex.

Parents should know that this movie has the grossest and most disgusting humor imaginable, involving every possible bodily function. There are extended jokes about the size of a dog’s testicles. Characters drink to excess. Van’s beneficence includes getting compliant girls for boys who would otherwise not have anyone to have sex with.

Audiences looking for a better movie in this genre should check out the closest thing to a classic it has produced: National Lampoon’s Animal House.

lTim Burton’s “Planet of the Apes” is less a remake than a re-imagining of the classic staring Charlton Heston. This version has no loincloth and no Statue of Liberty, and no Roddy McDowell, but Heston does show up for a surprisingly effective cameo — as one of the apes.

Mark Wahlberg plays Leo, an officer in the United States Air Force, working on a space station in 2029. An exploratory aircraft piloted by a monkey disappears into a mysterious electrical field. Against the orders of his commanding officer, Leo follows it to find out what happened. The storm hurtles him through time and space until he crashes on a planet where apes rule and humans are slaves. Ari (Helena Bonham Carter) helps Leo and some of the others escape to a forbidden city that will reveal some of the planet’s history. But General Thade (Tim Roth) and his army are in pursuit with orders to destroy them. As Burton promised in interviews, this version does not use the now-famous ending in the first film that showed them the planet they had landed on was Earth. This one ends with a twist that may even top it.

As in all of Burton’s movies, including “Beetlejuice” and “Edward Scissorhands,” the art direction is intricate, meticulous, and strangely beautiful. Every detail is a work of art, from the texture of the ape armor to the outline of the spaceship.

Wahlberg makes an appealing, all-American hero, though he is not up to the task of delivering a brief pep talk to the assembled humans. He is no Kenneth Branaugh in “Henry V.” He is not even Bill Pullman in “Independence Day.” But he is fine in the action scenes and he handles the challenge of kissing females of two different species with reasonable finesse. Overall, the simian performers are better and more believable than the humans. Bonham Carter makes a remarkably fetching ape, flirting through her bangs and using her eyes and body language to deliver a real performance. She has far more range of expression than Estella Warren (of “Driven”) as a feisty human in a costume that seems left over from Raquel Welch in “One Million B.C.” Roth is a seething presence as the bad guy, Michael Clarke Duncan gives physical and emotional weight to the role of the loyal officer, and Paul Giametti is hilarious as a slave trader held hostage.

Parents should know that the movie features intense and prolonged peril, a great deal of violence, and many deaths, including characters we care about. Characters are beaten and branded. There is a brief mild sexual situation and some strong language.

Families who see this movie should talk about the way that Burton makes unabashedly clear the parallels between the views of the apes toward humans and the views of racists and other bigots on Earth. Like those who have argued for segregation, apartheid, genocide, and “ethnic cleansing,” the apes find justification for their oppression of humans by insisting that humans are inferior creatures who have no souls or by demonizing them. The apes seem to have no problem with sub-species distinctions, and different kinds of apes work and socialize without any distinctions.

Families who enjoy this movie should see the original and some of its sequels to compare them. They, too, served as a metaphor for racial divides in an era in which it was much easier to put some of the dialogue about equal rights and revolution into the mouths of apes than people. They should also read Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn, a stunning book about a wise ape who teaches his human pupil to think about the world in a completely different way. I promise, when you are done with the book, you will do the same.