You would think that a movie called “Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles” would just about make itself work. It starts with two strong assets: an engaging character already well known and fondly remembered from two previous movies and a city that is a big, juicy target for satire. But they are lost in the swamp of a dumb script and lackluster direction.

The story begins in the Australian outback, as Mick “Crocodile” Dundee (Paul Hogan) and his ladylove, Sue (Linda Kozlowski) are living in unmarried bliss with their son Mikey. But Sue is called to Los Angeles to take over a paper in her father’s newspaper empire when an editor is killed in an automobile accident. We have a few scenes of Mick, Mikey, and fellow-croc-catcher Joe getting a kick out of the weirdness of Hollywood (George Hamilton recommends a coffee enema and Mike Tyson recommends meditation, Mick and Mikey go on a tram tour of a studio back lot and Mick stabs a fake anaconda). There are jokes that are older than the 61-year-old Hogan. Do we really need a “thought a skunk was a cat” joke? And there is some silliness about a movie studio that intentionally makes terrible movies like “Lethal Agent III.” I had hopes for a moment there of some “Producers-“like parody of shlocky movies, but what we got instead was a chase scene that, come to think of it, might be an outtake from one of those “Lethal Agent” movies after all. The talented Jere Burns is wasted as a generic bad guy.

All of this would be pretty harmless, except for some aspects of the movie that are affirmatively annoying. One is the language, very strong for a PG movie, with a number of swear words and some “nice ass” remarks that are supposed to be charming or funny and fail at both. Another is the truly shocking plastic surgery on the main characters. Hogan, who is 61, has just had some of the crags removed. But Kozlowski has that botox-mask look, her features as frozen and sandblasted as one of the heads on Easter Island. Even though she is only called upon to have one expression — bemused adoration – through most of the movie, it is more than those features can be called upon to produce.

Finally, the most annoying aspect of the movie is that it is not enough for Sue to adore Mick; everyone else must, too. Every woman who comes into contact with a Real Man from the Outback all but swoons, until the movie is more like a love letter than a comedy.

Parents should know that in addition to the strong language mentioned above, an important element of the plot is that Sue and Mick are not married and have a son together. Characters smoke and drink. Characters are in peril, including guns, knives, and fierce animals, though it does not get too intense. There are a couple of jump-out-at-you surprises that may upset younger kids.

Families who see this movie should talk about how people in families support each other’s careers and about how children learn to think about what they might do when they grow up. They might want to look up Los Angeles and the Outback on a map and talk about what they might like to see if they are able to visit.

Families who enjoy this movie will enjoy the other “Crocodile Dundee” movies, especially the first (some mature material).

This doctor knows what ails you. Sully Travis (Richard Gere) is known as “Dr. T” to the adoring upper-class women of Dallas. He is a popular gynecologist, and why not? No trying to cover your nudity with embarassing paper “gowns” that rip when you sit on the examining table for Dr. T. His patients, still attired in their jewelry and even hats, are draped in heavy linen that matches the elegant uniforms of the staff. The patients rest their feet in the mink covers that protect them from the chill of the stirrups. His busy office feels more like a pricey beauty salon than a doctor’s office, with a constant hum of murmured assurances and air kisses. One impatient patient returns over and over again because it is the only place where people tell her she is beautiful.

And Dr. T does think they are all beautiful. He loves them all, telling his shooting buddies that “by nature they are saints — they are sacred and should be treated that way.” This includes not only his patients but also the many, many women in his own life, including his wife Kate (Farrah Fawcett), his two daughters, Dee dee (Kate Hudson) and Connie (Tara Reid), and his wife’s sister Peggy (Laura Dern), who has moved in to his house with her three small daughters.

Dr. T loves to surround his women with love and care, listening to them, adoring them, and protecting them from any kind of worry. But his women are having problems he cannot solve. Kate is having a mental breakdown that appears to be caused by not having enough problems. She has retreated into childhood and must be sent to a mental hospital. Connie drives a car with a JFK license plate and conducts conspiracy theory “Grassy Knoll” tours of Dallas. Dee Dee is preparing for her wedding, but the person she is really in love with may be her maid of honor. And Peggy barely hides her sense of desperation behind slightly shrill “Love you more’s” and secret snorts of liquor.

Dr. T is attracted to a golf pro named Bree (Helen Hunt). He tries to take care of her, too, but she is very independent. She drives the golf cart — and she leads him to her bedroom. When he tells her that he wants to make sure she never has to do anything or worry about anything ever again, she says, “Why would I want that?” Dr. T must relinquish the illusion of control and remember what really matters.

It is a great pleasure to watch director Robert Altman (“M*A*S*H,” “Nashville,” and many other classic films) and his team do their stuff and the movie is richly enjoyable. The production design is spectacular, perfectly creating the world of wealthy Dallas. The acting is marvelous. Richard Gere is more relaxed and vulerable than he has ever been, and Laura Dern is sensational as the desperate divorcee in outfits that would be considered outrageous anywhere outside of Dallas. The movie raises some thoughtful questions about what we can and can’t — and should and shouldn’t — control, with some mystical overtones as Dr. T is told that a wet woman is back luck, and then has to deal with a succession of drenched females. Some will find the ending abrupt, some misogynistic, and some just mistifying. It may be all three — but it is also moving, and even fitting.

Parents should know that the movie includes a same-sex kiss, brief nudity, and a very explicit childbirth scene. A character commits adultery. A character abuses alcohol. There are several hunting scenes, but no animals are shot. There is some strong language.

Families who see this movie should talk about why Dr. T wants so badly to take care of the women in his life, and what effect that has on them. They should talk about why Dee Dee is planning her wedding when the groom seems superfluous (we never even see him or hear about him until the wedding scene). What is it that Dee Dee and Connie and Peggy want, and how will they get it? How are they different from Bree? What do you think about Bree’s reason for changing jobs? What does that mean to Dr. T?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “Nashville.”

“Hart’s War” is a big movie that takes on big themes with the courage to give them time and allow for some ambiguity.

Although it is set in WWII and has some battle violence, it is primarily a human drama about honor, sacrifice, courage, and dignity, themes that are explored from the farthest reaches as ideals and from the most personal choices made by individuals.

Lt. Hart (Colin Farrell) is a soldier who works at a desk, far from enemy lines. His father is a Senator, and he was in his second year at Yale Law School when he joined the Army. He tells us that troops were just pins on a map to him. He is glad for the chance to get out into the countryside when he gets an opportunity act as driver for a commanding officer. But the officer is killed and Hart is captured by the Germans. They torture him to try to get him to provide information, and then they ship him off to a prisoner of war camp.

The ranking American officer at the camp is Colonel McNamara (Bruce Willis). The German commandant is Colonel Visser (Romanian actor Marcel Iures). The commanding officers have more in common, and perhaps more respect for one another, than they would like to admit.

When two black officers arrive at the camp, the fragile balance of power is disrupted. Because the officer’s quarters are full, they, like Hart, are put in with the enlisted men, who object. During WWII, the armed services were still segregated, so none of the American soldiers had ever had to live with black men before, much less salute them. When the most outspokenly racist soldier is murdered, a black officer is accused, Hart is assigned as his defense counsel, and a court-martial is set up.

About 45 minutes into the story, it begins to become clear that it is not intended to reflect or illuminate the history of about WWII or indeed any war or any history. It is only set in a POW camp as a way to provide a sharper focus for the issues it addresses. McNamara tells Wasser that Americans don’t make distinctions. Wasser, serving more in the role of Socratic interrogator than enemy, points out that America makes a lot of distinctions, especially when it comes to black people. Will the officer get a fairer trial in a German POW camp than he would in the Georgia of the 1940’s? In the POW camp, the black officers face far more mortal danger from their fellow Americans than they do from the Nazis.

The story has some surprising twists and turns, and an ending that will spark some discussion as audiences leave the theater. The performances are excellent, with Terrence Howard a standout as the accused man, telling the court that in his home town, white German POWs can eat at the diner and go to the movie theater, while he, an officer risking his life for his country, cannot.

Parents should know that the movie has some graphic battle violence. Characters are killed. There is some strong language, and some references to drinking. Issues of honor, integrity, equality, justice, and balancing individual rights with the good of the group are all explored.

Families who see this movie should talk about the segregation that existed in the United States before the 1960’s, and the consequences that are still felt today. They should also talk about the choices made by Hart, McNamara, Wasser, and Scott. Which ones surprised you? Which did you agree with?

Families who appreciate this movie will also like the two great WWII POW dramas Stalag 17 and The Great Escape, both based on true stories. They will also like Breaker Morant, another story of a military legal proceeding with an inexperienced defense attorney and the brilliant anti-war drama Gallipoli, starring Mel Gibson.

As I watched this movie, I thought about how important the hair is in Meg Ryan movies. Those adorable tousled curls in “City of Angels.” The feisty but vulnerable and equally adorable hairdo in “You’ve Got Mail.” The very serious and hardly adorable at all hairdo in “Courage Under Fire.” And now, in a movie where we need some seriously cute hair, I am sorry to say that it is an unfortunate jaggedy sort of thing that doesn’t work at all.

This is a movie about a modern-day New York woman with no illusions (just a few years ago, she would have been called a “career girl”) who meets up with a 19th century Duke, a guy who has never seen modern technology but who stands up when she leaves the dinner table. It is a perfectly pleasant date movie with a cute premise and attractive stars, but it never quite works because (1) it is very predictable and (2) it is not very believable. Oh, I believe that a 19th century duke could travel through time. I just don’t know how he would fall in love with Meg Ryan in that hairdo.

The hair would not matter quite so much if the movie gave us anything else to work with. Ryan’s character, Kate, is just so brittle and charmless that it takes every smidgen of Ryan’s considerable adorableness quotient and every smidgen of Hugh Jackman’s considerable acting ability to help us believe that Leopold (Jackman’s character) is swept away by her. They make it work, but just barely.

The movie has some nice moments by a first-rate group of sidekicks and supporting actors, including Breckin Meyer as Kate’s actor brother (the lessons he gets from Leopold on how to approach the woman he has a crush on are delightful), Natasha Lyonne as Kate’s assistant, “West Wing’s” Bradley Whitford as Kate’s boss, and Liev Schrieber as Kate’s neighbor.

Parents should know that the movie has brief strong language and a joke about modern-day pooper-scooper laws. Characters drink and smoke. A supervisor’s behavior could be considered predatory, even sexual harassment.

Families who see this movie should talk about how bad experiences can make some people cynical. Why is Kate’s job important in telling us something about her and about the themes of the movie? If you could go back in time, where would you go and who would you like to meet? Which customs of olden days would you like to bring back?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy Breakfast at Tiffany’s” (which Kate describes to Leopold) and, of course, a carriage ride through the park!

Plot: Doris Walker (Maureen O’Hara), an executive at Macy’s, is responsible for the Thanksgiving Day Parade. When the Santa Claus she has hired for the parade shows up drunk, she quickly subsitutes Kris Kringle (Edmund Gwenn), who is an enormous success. She hires him to serve as the store’s in-house Santa. There he is an even bigger success. He tells customers to shop elsewhere when Macy’s doesn’t have what they want. The employees are aghast, but it turns out to be a public relations triumph, and Macy’s is known as “the store with a heart.”

Doris has a little girl named Susan (Natalie Wood). She has decided to raise Susan without any fantasies or illusions, to help her handle “reality.” Susan does not believe in Santa Claus. But Kris tells her that he really is Santa Claus, and when she sees him singing a song in Dutch to comfort a little girl who doesn’t speak English, she begins to believe him. He teaches her how to use her imagination, so that the other children will enjoy playing with her. He has the enthusiastic support of lawyer Fred Gailey (John Payne), who cares deeply for Doris and Susan.

But Kris’ insistence that he really is Santa Claus leads to a hearing on his mental competency. Kris is so unhappy that he does not even want to assist in his defense. Doris and Susan write to let them know they believe in him, and a postal clerk decides to send along with it all of the letters addressed to Santa Claus as well. Fred persuades the court that this is conclusive proof that the U.S. Government believes that Kris is Santa, and the judge rules in his favor. The next day is Christmas, and when Doris, Fred, and Susan all get what they asked for, it is clear that Kris made it possible.

Discussion: In a way, this is the opposite of “Inherit the Wind.” Both are courtroom dramas about how we decide what is true, based on faith or based on provable fact. They have opposite conclusions, however, and the great gift of the movies is that both seem right to us. (One similarity is that in both, the judges are warned that they must make a decision that will have favorable political consequences.)

Doris has been hurt, and thinks she can protect herself and Susan from further hurt by not letting herself believe in anything outside themselves any more. She finds out that both she and Susan have missed a lot, not just in imagination but in the ability to trust, and to allow themselves to get close to other people.

Questions for Kids:

· Why doesn’t Doris want Susan to use her imagination? Why do Kris and Fred think it is important?

· Why is it important that Kris told people to go to other stores to buy things they didn’t have at Macy’s?

· Why doesn’t Mr. Sawyer like Kris?

· Why did Fred have Mr. Mara’s son testify in the trial?

· Why doesn’t Kris try harder to win the case at first? What makes him change his mind?

Connections: Ignore the pallid 1973 (television) and 1994 (theatrical) remakes. The original is much, much better, and the 1994 version completely ruins the courtroom denouement. Gwenn won a well-deserved Oscar, as did the screenplay.