Note to Bruce Willis: make sure all your future movies have kids in them. Willis has great talent as an actor and enough charm to keep him on the A-list despite a few clunkers, but he is simply the best there is when he plays opposite a child actor, as he did last year in “The Sixth Sense” and as he does here in “Disney’s The Kid.”

Most actors are afraid of appearing with kids. There’s a reason for the legendary advice to stay away from kids and animals on stage, because they will draw all the attention away from even the most accomplished adult performer. Some actors who appear with kids can’t resist showing off or trying to out-adorable them (think of Bill Cosby). But Willis treats his kid co-stars as though they are the only two people in the world. He is not afraid to let the child actors get the attention. The result is two terrific performances at the heart of a surprisingly funny and endearing movie.

Willis plays Russ Duritz, an “image consultant” who spends his time (1) helping miserable (but rich and powerful) people get out of public relations disasters, (2) making the lives of everyone who knows him as miserable as possible, and (3) being miserable himself. At least he would be miserable if he ever allowed himself to think about it, which he doesn’t.

Duritz is doing his best to hide from his hurt and loneliness by working all the time, being thoughtless and insensitive to everyone he meets, and putting a lot of energy into forgetting his feelings, even forgetting that he ever had feelings.

But one of the insights of this movie that is well worth discussing with kids is that feelings will not let you forget them. If you don’t look at them directly, they will come and find you. In this case, that happens literally. Duritz is buzzed by a bright red airplane, a full-sized replica of his favorite childhood toy, and then he receives a visit from a pudgy, unhappy little kid named Rusty (Spencer Breslin) who turns out to be none other than Duritz himself, circa 1968.

At first, Duritz is embarrassed by his younger self. He says, “I look at him and all I see is awful memories — memories I’ve been spending most of my life trying to forget.” He decides that Rusty can’t go back until he helps him. But he learns that Rusty is there to help him, too. Duritz has spent his entire professional life making over other people, with his first subject himself. But he needs to remember who he really is inside that image. Why does he have a problem with dry eyes? Why does he get so angry when people cry? What is it about his past that “doesn’t want to stay in the past?”

This is a Disney movie, and it has an old-fashioned Disney ending. Only the hardest hearts will refuse to be warmed. It is also very funny and genuinely insightful.

Families who see this movie should talk about the importance of understanding your past. Kids who see the movie will want to know whether their parents are neglecting their childhood dreams, and they may want to talk about what they can do now to stay in touch with what is important to them and to feel happy with themselves when they grow up. They should discuss what makes people mean. As this movie shows, it is often because they are insecure and in pain. Some kids who have experienced or observed bullies at school may want to talk about why kids behave that way and how to respond to them. Older kids may also want to talk about the difference between “spin” and accountability and the way that image consultants change the way that people feel about celebrities.

Parents should know that there is some rude and PG-rated language, a school-yard scuffle, a sad off-screen death, and a parent-child confrontation that may be upsetting.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy an old Disney classic, “The Shaggy Dog.”

In “A.I.” we had a real boy, Haley Joel Osment, playing a robot. In this movie, we have computer animated figures playing real people. This is the first computer-animated movie to “star” actors. Instead of giving us glossy surfaced-toys or imaginary ogres, this movie gives us human characters, with pores in their skin and beard stubble, and they are so real that at moments you can forget that they are made up of pixels and not DNA.

Those are usually moments when they are not talking or expressing emotion. The movie’s effects work best when the “actors” are moving, because their movements are based on that oldest of animation techniques, rotoscoping (real actors act out all the movements for the animators). The characters’ movements do not interact with their environments very much, but since this is science fiction and they are sometimes weightless anyway, it is not as much of a distraction as it could have been.

They do less well when it comes to talking and, well, acting. While leading lady Dr. Aki (voice of Ming-Na) may have more facial expressions than some real-life actors (Monica Potter, for example), the very realism of the features underscores the disparity between computer animation and real life. In more standard animation, the conventions allow for a level of exaggeration and omission that allows us to project human-like reactions onto a character like Buzz Lightyear or Simba. But when we see something with so little difference from humans, it just makes clearer how important that difference is. Movie fans might also find it distracting to hear such instantly recognizable voices (James Woods, Ving Rhames, Peri Gilpin, Alec Baldwin, Steve Buscemi, Donald Sutherland) coming from faces so incongruously different from our associations. The dog Baldwin voiced in “Cats and Dogs” seemed more suited to him than this Ben Affleck-clone of a leading man.

Still, the technology is stunning. The monsters are extraordinary creations, somewhere between dinosaurs, dragons, jellyfish, and squid. A scene with a soaring eagle is breathtaking, genuinely touching. The post apocalyptic-settings are complex and believable. The dialogue is passable, delivered with panache by first-rate talent (Buscemi, as always, is a highlight). The problem is the script, which reads like a Pokemon reject, confusing gibberish about the earth’s spirit that does not do justice to the beliefs of environmentalists or pantheists.

Parents should know that the movie includes brief strong language and extreme prolonged peril, with the violent death of many major characters.

Families who see the movie should talk about whether the vision of the future it portrays could possibly become reality, and about how the discoveries of important scientists have been considered heretical. They may want to talk about the motivation of the General. Was he just acting out of rage at the loss of his family?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the Star Wars – Episode IV, A New Hope… trilogy and might like to see the first major studio science fiction movie, Forbidden Planet to compare the technology and the ideas of that era with ours.

Even an outstanding cast, some good special effects, and an intriguing idea from a first-rate writer can’t save this sci-fi thriller from a poor script and unimaginative direction. The studio’s lack of confidence and its troubled history is evident in its long-delayed release and obvious cuts to take it from an R to a PG-13.

Gary Sinise, who also co-produced, plays Spencer Olham, a brilliant scientist who has created a devastating weapon to be used in a war against genetically superior aliens. After a romantic weekend in the country with his beautiful doctor wife, Maya (Madeleine Stowe), and on the night he is to greet the head of the global government (Lindsay Crouse).

But an inspector named Hathaway (Vincent D’Onofrio) tells Olham that the plans have changed. Hathaway has intercepted an alien message showing that Olham has been killed and replaced by an alien cyborg construction that so perfectly replicates Olham’s memories and thoughts that even he does not know that he is no longer alive and himself.

If this sounds vaguely like “Blade Runner,” that is because both are based on stories by pioneering visionary sci-fi author Philip K. Dick. Like “Blade Runner,” this story envisions a world in which identity is so blurred that even we do not know who we are.

Unfortunately, though it tries to impersonate a much better movie, its ideas are lost among pedestrian chase scenes, and even a twist at the end cannot make it compelling.

Parents should know that the movie has peril and intense violence, including injury and death for key characters, including parents of young children. We see injured people, including battle victims and a young girl. Characters use strong language. A character is drugged, which makes him hallucinate. There is a very mild sexual situation involving a loving married couple and a brief non-explicit shot of a nursing mother.

Early in the movie, Olham quotes Einstein’s famous comment that “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” Olham is referring to the human capacity to create weapons of mass destruction and mentions J. Robert Oppenheimer, who helped create the bomb that ended the war and demolished the two Japanese cities and tens of thousands of civilians. Families who see this movie might want to learn more about Oppenheimer and his trial for treason and discuss some of the conflicts scientists face.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the vastly superior Blade Runner – The Director’s Cut and may also enjoy other dystopic visions of the future from “Metropolis” to “Judge Dredd.”

Based on William Golding’s award-winning allegorical novel, this is the story of a group of English schoolboys marooned on a remote island. At first, they operate according to the structure they are used to (“Let’s make a lot of rules!” shouts one of the boys). Ralph, thoughtful and democratic, is selected as their leader. He plans for the long term, keeping a signal fire going. But when no one comes to rescue them, civilization slips further and further away. Jack and his “hunters” take over, becoming more and more savage. They paint themselves and make sacrifices to a mythical “beast,” first the heads of the animals they kill for food, and then one of the boys, killed in a wild ceremonial dance. They murder Ralph’s last follower, a chubby boy called “Piggy,” and they are chasing murderously after Ralph when they are found by rescuers. NOTE: This has some very scary moments, and the overall theme may be particular troubling for some kids.

Teenagers should read the book, by Nobel Prize-winner William Golding. This movie was remade in 1990, in color, with a contemporary setting, and the nationality of the boys changed to American. It has some power, but is not as good as the original.

If you like movies that make sense, don’t go anywhere near “Mulholland Drive.” If you like to come out of the theater saying, “Oh, I get it — he was just pretending to shoot the other guy!” this is not your movie. On the other hand, if “Twin Peaks” was just too upbeat and linear for you and you feel that the references in “Blue Velvet” were just too obvious and jejune (in fact, if you have ever used the word “jejune” in conversation), then this movie is for you.

It is not a story but a mosaic of stories, eras, moods, characters, and themes that intersect, overlap, and parallel like a dream. After a jitterbugging credit-sequence prelude, a luscious brunette (Laura Harring) tells a limo driver that he is not supposed to stop, but he does. Just as he is about to shoot her, a car filled with carousing teenagers slams into the limo. The brunette limps away and hides out in an apartment. She has lost her memory, and when asked her name, she picks the name “Rita” from a poster for Rita Hayworth’s movie, “Gilda.”

The mood of this part of the movie is classic, noir-ish 1940’s Hollywood. But then the person who finds Rita in the apartment is Betty (Naomi Watts), a fresh-faced ingenue just off the plane from Deepwater, Ontario, hoping to make it as an actress and a star in LA. She could be from the 1950’s or she could be from the present day. Betty tries to help Rita find out who she is. Meanwhile, a young director named Adam (Justin Theroux) is being pressured by some very dangerous-looking guys to give a particular actress the lead in his new movie. When he refuses, he has to meet with a creepy-looking cowboy, who tells him, “If you do good, you’ll see me one more time. If you do bad, you’ll see me two more times.” A nervous young man tells a compassionate friend that he had a nightmare about a scary person behind Winkie’s diner and they go looking for him. Tiny little people run around screaming. A purse contains a lot of cash and triangular blue key that opens a blue box found in another purse. A different blue key confirms that a murder for hire has been carried out. Two friends laugh over a silly story and then one shoots the other to get a book of phone numbers. He then accidentally shoots a fat lady and a vaccum cleaner. We see a lot of phones, from old-fashioned dial phones to 21st century cell phones and headsets. In a strange nightclub called Silencio, a woman sings Roy Orbison’s “Crying” in Spanish, except she is just mouthing the words to a recording. That might have some relation to the lip-synching audition Adam is holding for his new leading lady. So when Adam goes home unexpectedly and finds Billy Ray Cyrus in bed with his wife and responds by pouring pink latex paint all over her jewelry, and Betty turns into Diane, who used to be dead, and Betty’s aunt’s landlady, or is it Adam’s mother, is played by 1940’s musical star Ann Miller, all of that does not seem as out of place as it otherwise might.

Themes of dreams and reality, identity and anonymity, innocence and corruption, creativity and conformity, ripple and resonate throughout. References to other movies flicker through, including the blending of face and profile from Ingmar Bergman’s “Persona” and the spit out the coffee scene from the Clark Gable and Ava Gardner movie “The Hucksters.” Betty tells Rita that she wants to help her solve the mystery because “It’ll be just like in the movies.”

Watts and Herring are outstanding. Betty practices her corny audition scene with Rita with a competent but conventional reading. Then, when she gets to the audition, she completely turns it around, leaving us as breathless as the characters in the scene. Watts later suddenly becomes an entirely different character who has an entirely different history with “Rita” and carries it off splendidly.

Lynch cast unknowns as the leads but populated the margins of the film with old-time stars and semi-stars. This embellishes his themes and adds to the dreamy, half-remembered quality of the story. In addition to Miller, the cast includes Lee Grant, Robert Forster, and the star of the 1960’s television show, “Medical Center,” Chad Everett.

Parents should know that the movie has very explicit nudity and sexual situations, including lesbian encounters and masturbation. It also has very strong language, violence, a dead body, and disturbing images.

Families who like this movie will also appreciate Lynch’s other movies, including Blue Velvet. For a terrifically entertaining and insightful analysis of this movies, see this article from Salon.