Garfield is a big, orange, lazy glutton of a cat created by cartoonist Jim Davis in 1978. His musings on life’s essential concerns — meaning mostly how he can get more of everything, especially food and attention, without any effort — work pretty well in a three-panel comic. At least they work well enough so that, as someone once said about the “Nancy” comic strip, it is easier to read it than not to read it. If only that were true of this movie, which requires real effort to endure.

The real genius Davis showed was not in humor; it was in marketing. Several Garfield books, just collections of the strips, were on the best-seller list at the same time in the 1980’s. And the strip led to animated television specials with Lorenzo Music providing Garfield’s voice. And that has now led to a live-action movie, with Bill Murray providing the voice and Breckin Meyer playing Garfield’s owner, Jon.

In order to make a three-panel joke that is not specifically directed at children into a feature film that is, the people behind this movie have tried to have it both ways. Garfield begins as the unabashedly self-centered, wisecracking, lasagne-loving fur-covered id character from the comic strip, but then undertakes a rescue mission, somehow transformed into a loyal friend who is willing to exert enormous effort and take big risks to save the dog he once considered an appalling intruder. As a result, none of this makes much sense or captures our interest. But there are some pleasantly silly moments along the way.

We first meet Garfield as the “so much time and so little to do” cat who cares for nothing but food (especially lasagne), attention, and being in charge. Life feels pretty good for him until a pretty veterinarian (Jennifer Love Hewitt as Liz) persuades Jon to take home a dog named Odie.

Garfield experiences severe sibling rivalry, especially when his efforts to control Odie backfire. Then Odie is taken by an ambitious animal trainer, the decidedly un-happy Happy Chapman (Stephen Tobolowsky), who plans to make him perform on television, and Garfield goes to the rescue.

As in the comic strip, the human characters are so bland they are barely visible. The characters with personality are the animals, real with some special effects enhancement except for the all-CGI Garfield and all with top voice talent except for the silent Odie. Highlights include a dance-off between Garfield and Odie to the Black-Eyed Peas song “Hey Mama,” a wild ride through airducts and stairs as Garfield tries to find Odie, and some just-to-keep-the-parents-awake references to Jerry Maguire, Apocalypse Now, Elvis, Billy Joel, and even Shakespeare’s Henry V.

Parents should know that the movie has some comic violence, including a shock collar used on both a dog and a human. No one of either species is seriously harmed. There is some PG-style crude language (“butt,” “blow chunks,” “suck-up”) and brief vulgar humor. There is also some intrusive product placement for Wendy’s, though the product that makes the greatest impression is the lasagne.

Families who see this movie should talk about why Garfield was jealous of Odie and Happy jealous of his brother and why it was so hard for Jon and Liz to tell each other how they felt.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy Cats and Dogs, Teacher’s Pet, Lady and the Tramp, and Air Bud. Older viewers will also enjoy seeing Murray and Tobolowsky together in Groundhog Day.

De-Lovely is Di-Sapointing.

On the asset side, we have the glorious songs of Cole Porter, the most urbane and elegant composer-lyricist of the 20th century. He’s the top.

And we have suitably elegant and urbane production design, with sets and costumes that help to tell the story.

Unfortunately, we also have a script that keeps getting in the way of the story. Yes, I know that the previous attempt to film Porter’s life was 1946’s highly fictionalized Night and Day, with Cary Grant (Porter’s own choice) playing the lead. But the fact that the first movie left out Porter’s homosexuality is not a reason to make it the main theme of this version. The over-emphasis of Porter’s sexual orientation in this film goes past disproportionality into the category of weirdly obsessive. All right, he was gay. But what about all the other things we’d like to know?

Perhaps the worst of the many wrong-headed choices in this film, however, is the deadly decision to begin with Porter as an old man, talking to someone (The angel of death? A sepulchral sort of psychoanalyst?) as he sees his life play out before him on a stage (get it?) and, for the Hollywood years, on a screen (now do you get it?). This may have looked creative and meaningful on paper. It does not work in the movie.

The music is, well, de-lovely. But the numbers are not well handled. Perhaps in an attempt to follow in the tradition of Oscar-winning hit Chicago, the songs are pointedly, even ham-handedly intended to comment on the events of Porter’s life, which is not only innaccurate in showing which songs were written when but also diminishes the songs’ ability to tell their own story. Too many of the songs are given to Kline, a gifted musician and singer who went for authenticity (Porter was not a good singer) instead of musicality. For the rest of the songs, there is some stunt casting of pop stars, and most of them do very well. Alanis Morrisette’s Olive Oyl get-up and reedy, Bjork-ish rendition of “Let’s Do It” does not work as well as the smooth and smoky “Begin the Beguine” by Sheryl Crow, Diana Krall’s silky “Just One of Those Things,” and the mischevious “Let’s Misbehave” by Elvis Costello. But even the best of these renditions, the highlight of the movie, are spoiled with too many cuts. Just buy the soundtrack CD instead.

At one point, Porter and his wife view a screening of the Cary Grant biopic, in a scene that is intended to draw a sharp contrast between the Hollywood-ized (meaning heterosexual-ized) superficial story-telling of the first and the more in-depth and revealing aspects of the second. Unfortunately, it just draws a sharp contrast between the elegant sophistication of Cary Grant and the torpid ham-handedness of “De-Lovely,” utterly unsuited to its subject with its mis-match of form and content.

Parents should know that the movie has explicit sexual references for a PG-13. A theme of the movie is Porter’s life as a semi-closeted gay man and the stress this put on his relationship with his wife. There is also a reference to a miscarriage (including some blood), the (offscreen) death of a child, and severe injury resulting from a horseback-riding accident. Characters drink and smoke a great deal (one dies of emphysema).

Families who see this movie should talk about what drew Cole and Linda to each other. What did each of them want from the relationship? What did each of them get? Families should be sure to discuss Cole’s bitterness at the end of his life. Would he have been so bitter if he had spent more of his time differently? What do people have to do to maintain a sense of satisfaction and the ability to continue to develop relationships with others at the end of their lives?

Families who enjoy this movie will enjoy seeing some of Porter’s musicals including Kiss Me Kate, Silk Stockings, Can-Can, and High Society. They will also enjoy the previous biopic, briefly glimpsed in this film, starring Cary Grant and Alexis Smith as the Porters, and featuring Monty Wooley and Mary Martin as themselves. It may not strive for accuracy, but it is fun to watch, especially Martin performing her signature song, Porter’s “My Heart Belongs to Daddy.” You can also see Marilyn Monroe’s unforgettably sultry version of the song in Let’s Make Love.

What happens when you take a relatively big budget for a comedy ($16 million), a tried-and-true comic vehicle in the plane from which no one can escape, and a handful of actors clearly having fun? Apparently, you get 86 minutes of silliness ranging from sweet to raunchy aimed at the “mature” audience who hasn’t outgrown poop jokes. You might hope for a little more originality and a less slap-dash ending, maybe even for some breadth, insight, and bite. It’s not there. But you might be able to dial your hopes down enough to forgive all that and find some enjoyment in the movie’s cheerful vulgarity and the pleasure it takes in stomping on any notion of political correctness.

When Nashawn Wade (Kevin Hart) has a horrific flying experience involving the dual traumas of getting partially sucked into the airplane toilet and watching his dog get sucked into the plane’s jets, he sues the uptight, white airline and sets out to make a difference with his $100 million settlement. His life-long fascination with airplanes drives him to start “NWA” (his initials helpfully echo those of the iconic ‘80’s gangsta rappers), the first airline aimed broadly at African Americans, but more particularly at “playas”.

Nashawn joins a motley crew of characters on NWA’s first flight from LA to New York, aboard the pimped-out, purple plush plane piloted by Captain Mack (Snoop Dogg, as ever the definition of cool). By accident, the Hunkee (pronounced “honkey”) family of passive-aggressive father (Tom Arnold), father’s blond and busty girlfriend, Barbara (Missi Pyle), rebellious daughter and father-imitating young son end up on NWA due to a mix-up after their vacation to “Crackerland”.

Other passengers include Nashawn’s doe-eyed former high school sweetheart (K.D. Aubert), a libidinous couple intent on cementing their membership in the Mile High Club, a blind man (John Witherspoon) who mistakes a baked potato for the willing lap of his female neighbor, and a male model whose most notable physical (ahem) attribute is discussed in great detail. The crew of the plane run the character gambit from A to B, with flight attendants including a Latina hottie (well captured by Sofia Vergara), and two female security guards, who are so funny they could easily have their own sit-com (the comediennes, Mo’Nique Imes-Jackson and Sommore).

Of course, the ride gets bumpy along the way to the East Coast. The Hunkee daughter turns 18, prompting a dance party in the impossibly huge upper deck, much to the distress of her protective father. Captain Mack, afraid of heights, is incapacitated by drugs, co-pilot Gaeman (Godfrey) is the victim of a hot-tub mishap, leaving Nashawn to take responsibility for landing the plane safely and tie-up all the loose ends into a happy conclusion. The biggest and best joke of the movie is the plane itself, with First Class a palatial area worthy of MTV’s Cribs and “Low” Class a close cousin to a run-down city bus complete with Colt 45 ads, overhead handles to grip and lockers which require a quarter to open.

This movie has a heart, even if it has three sizes yet to grow. Nashawn and his ex-girlfriend have a tender scene where he explains why he left her to not stand in her way. Mr. Hunkee and his daughter have an open discussion about why she is mad at him and what she is doing (and, more importantly, not doing) in order to rebel against him.

Novice writers Bo Zenga and Chuck Wilson join second-time director, Jessy Terrero, to create this visually entertaining and often funny spoof which gleefully revisits the same airspace covered in Airplane. The jokes range from packaged to fresh, but the most engaging aspect of the comedy is the fun the cast is clearly having on the set.

Parents should know that this movie has a great deal of vulgar humor and crude material that may be offensive to some audiences. They should be very cautious in determining whether it is appropriate for their families. There is a thin line walked in this movie between breaking down stereotypes with humor and perpetuating them to get a cheap laugh, and this movie crosses over that line several times. The movie includes strong, frequent profanity, with just about all references to women are the b-word and all men are referred to by the n-word. The treatment of the movie’s gay character is a lip-sticked caricature, the target — not the source — of punch lines. There is a high level of very explicit sexual humor throughout the film. Sexual acts are described in great detail, and a frolicking couple attempt to have sex in every area of the plane. Characters partake of drugs, drink heavily to drown sorrows, and refer to “playa” lifestyles in nothing but positive terms.

On the other hand, Nashawn’s decision to do give something back to the community and to take responsibility for his actions is an important theme of the movie.

Families should discuss how some of the other characters respond to his decisions and how the other characters do or do not take responsibility themselves. Families could choose five different characters and discuss the stereotypes that they represent, in particular how these caricature might limit how we see the person as a whole. Also, what value does humor have in this movie for tackling issues that are difficult to discuss?

Families that enjoy this movie should rent its inspiration, Airplane, which has mature comic themes in addition to plenty of easy laughs. For those looking for more intelligent comedy similarly focused on urban humor, Barbershop is an excellent choice. Also, Undercover Brother is recommended for families looking for a good spoof movie.

A disaster movie has to be about more than the cool special effects. It does not have to have compelling characters or memorable dialoge. It does not even have to make sense in logical terms, but it has to feel true the same way that a myth or an urban legend does. The best disaster films find a way to satisfy the audience’s innate need for justice and redemption. Then there are those, like this one, that put all of their energy and money into the gee-whiz-iness of the special effects and hope we’ll be so busy enjoying them that we’ll forget to notice what they leave out.

Co-writer and director Roland Emmerich gave us an exceptionally entertaining disaster movie with Independence Day. This has some of the same ingredients, but they don’t mix as well because it does not have the heart or the zing that Will Smith, Robert Loggia, and Jeff Goldblum (and co-writer/producer Dean Devlin) brought to that one.

It has (1) a hero: Dennis Quaid as Jack Hall, a paeloclimatologist who figures out that the global warming problem is much more serious than we thought. And it has (2) hubris, with the arrogant Vice President of the United States dismissing the Jack’s call for action. It has (3) portents — flocks of birds fleeing New York as the music on the soundtrack goes vwamp-vwamp. It has (4) bleary-eyed and highly caffinated but earnest bureaucrats spouting important techno-babble about forecast modules, cyclonic systems, critical desalinization points, and the upper troposphere while they peer into computer screens, type on keyboards and spout clunky 50’s sci-fi movie dialogue (“If we don’t act now, it will be too late!”). It has (5) a dewy young couple (Jake Gyllenhaal and Emmy Rossum as Hall’s son Sam and his academic decathalon teammate Laura) for us to root for and (6) clueless leaders (the President’s response to the bad news is to look at the Cheney-esque Vice President and ask “What should we do?”) for us to hiss. It has hope, courage, and honor amidst tragedy.

Most of all, it does have some striking visuals and cool special effects, from hailstones the size of basketballs in Tokyo and the crushing of the HOLLYWOOD sign to the flooding ad freezing of Manhattan. A huge Russian ship floats ghost-like down what once was 5th Avenue. The Statue of Liberty’s torch barely emerges above the ice. This is all very impressive. But the dialogue falls with a bigger thud than the hailstones. And to the extent there was ever any pleasure possible in seeing New York City destroyed, that has surely been diminished by the real-life sight of the demolition of the Twin Towers.

This movie gives us too much destruction to take in, with at least a third of the planet wiped out, but it also gives us too little, and the effect is numbing rather than moving. We see only a small group of dead bodies, where there would be millions, and the survivors have to deal with problems that are almost quaint and antiseptic compared to the aftermath of real-life lesser disasters in recent years.

The drama seems curiously muted as well; with the exception of the Vice President’s arrogance and some frantic shoppers stocking up on bottled water, just about everyone else is uniformly calm, dedicated, resigned, and heroic, even a homeless man who is so cute and friendly he might as well live on Sesame Street. Don’t disasters provoke some panic? Some selfishness? Some desperation? Some consequences? Someone suggesting that maybe after living on vending machine crackers, that cute homeless guy’s cute pet dog might taste pretty good?

On a large scale, the movie shows that disasters require the sacrifice of some lives, but on a smaller scale a character risks her own life to help someone whose chances of survival are very slim. Combined with preposterous, illogical, and over the top plot turns (walking from Philadelphia to New York in arctic conditions seems to take a couple of hours, survivors camped out in a library burn books when it would make more sense to burn the furniture, and medication on the Russian ship is helpfully labled in English), this further diminishes the emotional impact of the movie’s themes. The movie fails as story and it fails as warning. Its highest and best use is as a promo reel for the computer programmers who did the visuals.

Parents should know that the movie has intense peril and violence with the destruction of much of the world. Millions of people are killed, mostly off-screen, though there are some dead bodies and major characters are killed. There are brief images of grisly injuries. Characters drink, including drinking as a way to dull the sadness. Characters sacrifice themselves, including suicide, to save others. A strength of the movie is the portrayal of men and women of different races with courage and ability and devotion, including a loving inter-racial marriage.

Families who see this movie should do some research on global warming and on efforts by scientists and policitians to prevent further damage to the ozone layer. They should also talk about why the librarian wanted to save the Gutenberg Bible and about how all of the characters think about (and rearrange) their priorities in the face of disaster. Would your choice for your favorite vacation be like Sam’s? Whose decisions do you approve of and why? The politicians speak of “triage,” making the very tough decisions to let some people die so that more can live. How do people make those choices? What do you think about the way they decide to define “win?” What will happen in the weeks following the end of the movie, and what will the world look like a year later?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy Touching the Void, Armageddon and classic disaster movies like The Towering Inferno.

Harry Potter is 13 in this third movie based on the globally-popular series of books by J.K. Rowling, and the movie itself seems to be entering adolescence, darker themes, darker images, and darker emotions. It also has a bracingly welcome sense of humor.

The first two movies were competently directed by Chris Columbus, with brilliant production design and meticulous attention to detail, making sure that the books’ passionate fans were happy but playing it safe.

For the third, Columbus stayed on as a producer, but there is a new director, Alfonso Cuaron, whose previous work has demonstrated ferocious visual flair (Great Expectations) and great sensitivity in working with and portraying children (A Little Princess) and teenagers (Y tu Mama Tambien). He has kept the best of the first Potter films and enriched it with his own splendid vision, meshing perfectly with the tone of the story and the increasing complexity of the themes and characters. Literally and figuratively, the horizons of the characters are getting wider. Third-year students with parental permission are allowed to leave the Hogwarts campus for a visit to the nearby town for shopping and snacks. Harry does not have permission, but finds a way to do some exploring that corresponds to what is going on inside him as he begins to seek some answers.

For the first two years, Harry has spent most of his time being grateful to be rescued from his awful relatives, the Dursleys, amazed at all the magic around him, and resolute in his commitment to loyalty and integrity. But now he is beginning to get angry. He is growing up and feeling everything more sharply and deeply, especially injustice in general and the loss of his parents in particular.

This year, when life with his aunt and uncle gets to be too much for Harry, even for summer vacation from Hogwarts, he packs up and leaves — after extracting some revenge on a nasty relative. Soon he is back at Hogwarts school, where some scary creatures called Dementors, guards at the wizard prizon of Azkaban are there to seek the first-ever escaped prisoner, Sirius Black. He is the one who betrayed Harry’s parents to Valdemort, and he may be on his way to Hogwarts to kill Harry.

Defense Against the Dark Arts teachers are to the Harry Potter books what drummers are to Spinal Tap — they don’t last long. This year’s teacher is Professor Lupin (David Thewlis), whose kind eyes and melancholy air make him a good friend for Harry. Harry’s first friend, Hagrid, is now teaching the magical creatures class, introducing the students to a hippogriff (a sort of flying bird/horse) and Professor Trelawny (Emma Thompson) is a professor of divination (fortune-telling) who is so focused on the future that she is not very tuned in to what is going on in the present. The Hogwarts chorus sings “Something wicked this way comes” as the camera swoops in, and you don’t need to be Professor Trelawny to tell you that they’re on to something.

When the hippogriff injures Harry’s adversary, Draco Malfoy, it gives ammunition to those who oppose the headmaster, Professor Dumbeldore (now played by Michael Gambon, replacing the late Richard Harris). The hippogriff is sentenced to death. The Azkaban guards, called Dementors, have come to Hogwarts looking for Black, and every time Harry sees them, he faints. They dissolve any happy thoughts of people in their path, and Harry, who has known greater sadness than anyone else in his class, is the most vulnerable. Harry has to find a way to save the hippogriff and protect himself from Black and from the Dementors. His friend Hermione seems to be behaving strangely, especially when it comes to entrances and exits. She is also growing up nicely, ready to stand up for herself with more than her magical powers. Harry is growing up, too, but he still has to cope with his potions teacher, Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) and the rest of his schoolwork.

The next movie is underway with the same cast but yet another director, Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral) and should be out next year. And Rowling has promised two more books. I can’t wait.

Parents should know that the movie is close to a PG-13 for intense peril and grotesque, Halloween-ish images. A strength of the movie is its treatment of a theme of the book (increasing in subsequent books), the wizard version of racial prejudice against “mudbloods,” those of mixed witch/muggle backgrounds.

Families who see this movie should talk about Dumbledore’s statement that people can bring light to even the darkest moments. What can you learn from the way Harry and his friends learn to defeat the Boggerts? The Dementors? Older kids and teens should examine all of the Potter movies to see how different directors and cinematographers can take the same characters and settings and convey a different feeling. Notice how the colors and texture of the scenes and the movement of the camera help to creat the mood and tell the story.

Families who enjoy this movie should read all of the Harry Potter books and listen to the wonderful audio tapes read by Jim Dale. They should see the first two movies as well. And they will also enjoy Back to the Future.