A child challenged to change the world comes up with a plan. He will do three important favors for people who need them. Then, instead of allowing them to pay it back, he will ask each of them to “pay it forward,” doing three favors for other people, and asking them to do the same. One character describes it as a “Mother Theresa conga line.” The principle is the same as multi-level-marketing, except that instead of soap or vitamins, it’s “generosity between strangers” that is being passed on exponentially.

Trevor has every reason to believe that life is harsh and painful. His parents are alcoholics and his father is either absent or abusive. He walks into school every day through a metal detector. Outside his classroom window is an endless expanse of desert. And his mother works two jobs in a city filled with despair, Las Vegas.

But Eugene encourages his students to “backflip” the world into something better. He does not expect much — maybe a clean-up of some graffiti. But he gets Trevor’s utopian idea.

If that theme appeals to you and you’d like to see three of the finest actors ever put on film, then you are the audience for this movie. If it sounds syrupy, go see something else. As for me, I’m in the first category, and my heart was happily warmed and my tears happily jerked.

Trevor, the 7th grader who comes up with the idea, is played by Haley Joel Osment, nominated for an Oscar last year for his performance in “The Sixth Sense.” Again, he shows us an extraordinary child, wise and sensitive beyond his years because of what he has had to face, but still completely believeable as an 11-year-old. Helen Hunt is heartbreaking as Arlene, a recovering alcoholic with a history of loss and abuse. And Kevin Spacey is breathtaking in a role that is a departure from the tough and wily guys he played in “The Usual Suspects,” “Wiseguy,” “Swimming with the Sharks,” and “L.A. Confidential.” He plays middle school teacher Eugene Simonet, scarred inside and out. One of Trevor’s favors is to bring Eugene and Arlene together, though it turns out that is is not just to make them happier.

Arlene and Eugene put all of their effort into making sure they do not get hurt again until they learn that it is risking hurt that makes us alive. Trevor’s idea does not always work, but when it does, people are transformed, not by the favors others do for them as much as by the favors they do for the next people in the chain. We get a glimpse of its impact as the story is interwoven with scenes four months into the future, as a reporter tries to track down the source of the mysterious acts of generosity.

Parents should know that there is some strong language, and characters abuse alcohol and drugs, including heroin and marijuana. There are references to the most severe domestic abuse. There are some fights, one resulting in mortal injury. A character attempts suicide. Another shoots his gun, though no one is injured. There is some strong language. A character dies tragically. There are sexual references, including references to having to be drunk to have sex and there is a discreet sexual situation. Scenes take place in a tawdry Las Vegas setting with skimpy clothing and strippers. A character’s burn scars may be upsetting. Pre-teens and teen-agers may be especially concerned by the violence that occurs at a school, despite the metal-detectors kids walk through as they enter.

Families should talk about the pay it forward idea. Would it work? What favors would family members like to do? Why is “routine” so important to Eugene? Why do we see him ironing his shirt twice in the movie? Why do we see Eugene sitting at a student’s desk when he talks to Trevor? Why does Trevor say that “it has to be hard?” Families should also talk about Trevor’s comment that the most important thing is watching people, paying attention to things they may not even know they need. Some families will also want to dicuss whether there is a religious allusion in the death of one character.

Families who enjoy this movie will also like “Magnificent Obsession” and “Field of Dreams.”

I’ll admit it with some embarrassment – this movie made me laugh. Yes, it is a very dumb comedy, but as dumb comedies go, it is one of the best because it stars four of the most able comic actors around. The situations are mildly funny (though, as I said, very dumb), but Jack Black, Steve Zahn, Jason Biggs, and Amanda Peet are so much fun to watch that I dare you not to smile.

Black, Zahn, and Biggs play three lifelong buddies who think that life can’t get much better than watching football with a beer bong or performing “Holly Holy” in their Neil Diamond tribute band, “Diamonds in the Rough.” Darren (Biggs) gets involved with a nightmare girlfriend (Peet as Judith -– not “Judy” -– a psychologist), who refers to Darren as her puppet and herself as his puppet master. Darren’s two pals decide the only way to save him is to kidnap Judith so that he can spend some time with the only girl he loved in high school. She happens to be a former trapeze artist about to become a nun.

If this sounds like an Adam Sandler movie, that might be because Sandler produced it, and because it was directed by Dennis Dugan, the director of “Big Daddy” and “Happy Gilmore.” It has the loose construction (and the juvenile attitude toward women) of a Sandler movie. Scenes were apparently created based on, “You know what might be funny?” instead of “You know what this character would do next?” That approach can be disarmingly unpretentious, but it can also be repetitive. How many dead fiancé stories do we really need? And there are a number of similarities to the rest of the Sandler oeuvre, including the contrast between the sweet, forgiving, blonde angel dream girl and the greedy and controlling girlfriend who nevertheless inspires love and loyalty from the hapless hero. There are other similarities, too — to the extent that this is a reworking of “The Wedding Singer,” the part of Billy Idol is played by…Neil Diamond.

In the end, though, it works, thanks to the inescapable pleasure of watching Zahn, Black, and Biggs. Peet is less well served by the script, which has her as some sort of pre-pubescent fantasy of a man-eating girlfriend, but she still glows – and looks great in some very revealing outfits.

Parents should know that this is a PG-13 movie that could easily have qualified for an R, and they should be very cautious about evaluating its appropriateness for teenagers. The coming attraction and commercial use computer graphics to make the movie seem less raunchy – Zahn’s nude yoga pose (with sexual overtones) is disguised with computer-added underpants and Peet’s revealing blouse is made much less revealing. The movie has very strong language and jokes about oral sex, masturbation, and homosexuality. A “butt cheek implant” operation is shown in brief but gross detail. Drinking too much beer is portrayed as a humorous bonding experience. The movie includes comic kidnapping and comic fatalities. A woman uses sex to control a man.

Familes who see this movie should talk about what happens to friends when they start to become involved in romance and why a man like Darren would put up with a woman who treats him with no respect or affection. What would be the right thing to do if you believe your friend is in a bad relationship?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “The Wedding Singer” and “Big Daddy.”

This is not one of those movies where the spies wear elegant dinner jackets, drink martinis, use cool gadgets and have sex with gorgeous women in between huge explosions and shoot-outs. There is no hidden fortress, secret formula, or missing computer chip. Instead, it is a smart thriller for grown-ups about spies who manipulate their “assets” (sources) with brains, not explosives. And it is about loyalty, politics, and whether the ends ever justify the means.

It begins in 1991 with a failed rescue attempt at a Chinese prison. Nathan Muir (Robert Redford) is awakened on his last day working for the CIA by a phone call from Hong Kong. An agent has been captured. We learn through a series of flashbacks that the agent, Tom Bishop (Brad Pitt) was originally recruited and trained by Muir. We trace their relationship through the world’s trouble spots from Viet Nam to Beirut as they go from teacher/student to partners and then as they cannot work together any more. Bishop, code named “Boy Scout” for his true blue values, likes being one of the good guys. He likes to keep his promises. He is willing to bend rules, but only if he has to. Nathan is not sure he knows what the rules are anymore, beyond the one he tells Tom is unbreakable – save your money so that you can retire someplace warm and never spend any of it to protect an asset.

The CIA has 24 hours before Bishop is executed. Muir spends much of that time in a taped and transcribed meeting with top officials who are more concerned about maintaining trade negotiations with China than with rescuing a spy who does not seem to have been on any authorized mission. The rest of the time, he is using everything he has accumulated in his career – his experiences, his relationships, his tricks of the trade, and even his money – to get the Boy Scout back home.

Redford and Pitt (who worked together on “A River Runs Through It”) are both marvelous, their different acting styles working well to help them portray the differences in their characters. Director Tony Scott (“Top Gun” and “Crimson Tide”) shows his usual expert touch in action stories about men who have to think quickly while they struggle with problems of loyalty and independence. The scenes in Beirut are particularly unsettling and tragic.

Parents should know that the movie has very strong language and a lot of violence, including a brutal beating. We see the victims of violence, including amputees and dead bodies. There is a mild and inexplicit sexual situation.

Families who see this movie should talk about how people develop rules when their work involves breaking traditional rules. How can you tell when you stop being one of the good guys? How do they know that the rules they are breaking are in aid of a greater good? Who was betrayed in the movie?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the Tom Clancy movies, The Hunt for Red October and Patriot Games.

I think the idea here was to cross “Silence of the Lambs” with “The Matrix.” It’s a story about a serial killer, now in some sort of irreversible catatonia. How can the police find where he has hidden his last victim, who may still be alive? Well, it just so happens that a billionaire whose child is in a mysterious catatonic state has funded one of those mysterious science labs that only exist in movies, lots of sleek corridors and white-coated geniuses and equipment that requires a skin-tight jumpsuit to operate. This one has figured out a way to allow an empathic social worker named Catherine (Jennifer Lopez) to enter the boy’s mind and communicate with him. So the police decide to allow her to see if she can make any progress with the serial killer.

All of this is just an excuse for lots and lots of stunning but often gruesome surreal visual effects that fall somewhere between the hyper-clarity of a nightmare and the claustrophobic grotesquery of a bad acid trip.

The movie is all sensation, no plot, no logic, no meaning, no effort to explore or illuminate. It is filled with juxtapositions that seem more meaningful than they are, creating an illusion of profundity that dissolves before your eyes.

Parents should know that the movie has many gross, upsetting, and scary moments, including child abuse, torture, murder, perversion, mutilation, a terrifying full-immersion baptism, and characters in peril. A character smokes marijuana to calm her nerves.

Families who see this movie should talk about what it would be like to enter someone else’s mind and about the differences in the ways individuals think. They may also want to talk about mental illness, its causes and treatments.

Families who enjoy this movie will also like “The Matrix.”

Plot: “Fast” Eddie Felsen (Paul Newman) is a pool hustler. He and his partner, Charlie, go into pool halls and set the local players up. Eddie pretends to be a pool player who likes to make big bets. When he beats them and takes their money, he makes it look like luck, so they can’t tell they have been hustled. Eddie’s dream is to beat the legendary Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason), the champion. He challenges him to a contest. At first, Eddie is ahead. But he gets cocky, drinks too much, and is finally worn down by Fats. After more than 24 hours, Eddie realizes he can’t win. He leaves Charlie the money and the car, and goes off on his own. Eddie meets Sarah (Piper Laurie), an alcoholic, and moves in with her. When Charlie finds them, Eddie tells him to go. Charlie wants to make enough money to set up his own pool hall. Eddie wants more; he wants to win, and to be a winner. Angry at himself and the world, Eddie hustles some young punks, and shows off, humiliating them. They beat him up and break his thumbs. He has time to reflect, and to grow closer to Sarah. He agrees to go into partnership with Bert Gordon (George C. Scott), a silky gambler who sees everything in terms of dollars. Bert sets up a game with a decadent rich man. In a mirror image of the game with Fats, Eddie loses at first, and then, defying Sarah’s appeal to quit, persists, and wins $12,000. At the hotel, Bert and Sarah acknowledge that in the tug-of-war for Eddie, Bert has won. Sarah commits suicide. Bert once told Eddie that he needed more than talent to beat Fats — he needed character. He shows that he has developed character when he goes back and takes Fats on again. Fats concedes, “I can’t beat you.” Bert says that Eddie owes him his piece of the proceeds, but Eddie refuses. Bert allows him to go, but says he will never be able to play in a big-time poolhall again. That doesn’t matter. Eddie has what he wanted. Discussion: Despite the seedy settings (so evocative that they are almost a character in the story), this is almost a traditional morality play about humility and redemption. In the beginning Eddie is, as Fats notes, as fast as his nickname, slick, cocky, superficial. He wants to win for the kick of it. But inside him, there is someone who wants to win for the beauty of the game, and the honor of doing something surpassingly well. He is really not so far removed from Eric Liddell (“Chariot’s of Fire”), who feels God’s pleasure when he runs. But before he can be a real winner, he must get rid of the part of himself that wants to lose, that is afraid to take a real risk. For that, he has to experience real loss, the beating, the damage to his thumbs that could have ended his ability to play pool, the loss of Sarah. As Nietzsche said, “That which does not defeat me makes me stronger.” Eddie is strengthened so by these experiences and by what he has learned, that he can no longer be contained by what had once been his entire world. Bert’s threat that he will no longer be able to play big- time pool is meaningless to him. Even if Bert had offered him a 50-50 deal, he would not have taken it. That world is too small and self- contained for him now. Most of the movie takes place in smoky, dingy bars and pool- halls. The scenes at the rich man’s home in Louisville are just as squalid in their own way. There is only one scene in which Eddie and Sarah are outside together. They are having a picnic. It is in that scene that they first reveal the truth about themselves to each other. Sarah confesses the real source of her money (her father) and her limp (polio), contrary to what she has told him before. And she tells him that she loves him. Eddie tells her what he barely admitted to himself, the way he loves the game of pool, the way it makes him feel to play it well. Understanding what it means to him is what enables him to begin to go back to it. The relationship between Eddie and Sarah is a weak part of the movie, mostly because her character is the least well-crafted in the otherwise all-male movie. It is hard to feel sympathetic towards her because she thinks so badly of herself. Yet her willingness to love Eddie is what causes him to recognize what is best in himself. It is also interesting to look at this movie from Fats’ perspective. He represents one direction Eddie could take. He could become the new champion and take on every tough kid who wanted to topple him, until one finally would, just as he toppled his predecessor. This is the theme of “The Gunfighter,” in a life-and-death context. Questions for Kids: · People in the movie have different ideas about what makes someone a winner or a loser. What are those ideas? How do they fit with others you have heard about, or with your own? · What made Eddie different between his two games with Fats? · Why didn’t Sarah want Eddie to keep playing Findlay? · How do Sarah and Bert represent two different parts of Eddie that fight with each other? Connections: “The Color of Money,” also starring Newman as Eddie Felsen, is a sequel made twenty-six years later by Martin Scorsese (rated R). Felsen becomes a mentor for a young hustler played by Tom Cruise. Both performances are outstanding (Newman won a long-overdue Oscar), but the script is weak, especially in the second half.