The Pianist is an emotionally devastating true story of a Jewish pianist in Poland caught up in the horrors of World War II.

Director Roman Polanski, himself a survivor of the Holocaust who lost many family members, powerfully conveys the epic journey of a man who is transformed by a series of events from an elegantly dressed, highly cultured musician to a scavenging, debased shell of a human being.

The Nazis invade Poland, confine Jews to a ghetto, and eventually ship them off to concentration camps. There is heartbreaking and graphic violence. Yet, Polanski delivers this difficult message in a very thoughtful, skillful way. Just when the audience is on the verge of becoming numbed by the grim life in the ghetto, the pianist escapes for a day and walks through the bright flower stalls in the crowded market outside the ghetto. It reminds the viewer of how far the pianist has fallen from a “normal” life, but it gives the viewer the same brief respite that it gives the pianist. Just when the Nazi brutality against the Jews seems unbearable, a music-loving German soldier treats the pianist kindly while Jewish victims prey on each other.

The most effective parts of the movie are the small, vivid, almost unbearably poignant human moments. In one, a family awaiting a transport train which will take them away to a concentration camp combines all their remaining money to buy a single caramel which they carefully divide into four tiny portions.

This is clearly not a movie for children. However, in addition to being an excellent work of art, it is an instructive movie for teenagers who take for granted the comfort and stability of their world. In “The Pianist,” war is not glamorous and the most principled and courageous people are among its first victims. “The Pianist” is an excellent movie about survival, fate, and values. It is a very worthwhile movie for young adults.

Parents should know that the movie has strong language and graphic and horrific violence, including casual murder of Jews.

Families who appreciate this movie will also appreciate “Life is Beautiful,” “Schindler’s List,” and “The Harmonists.”

This movie is an animated and more kid-friendly version of the stories in the action-packed thrillers “The Mummy” and “The Mummy Returns” — a Saturday-morning-cartoon-style version of the adventures of intrepid archeologists Rick and Evy O’Connell and their 11-year-old son, Alex.

Rick is a big, brave, dashing, and very gung-ho American who more often ends up destroying mummies while saving the world from ancient curses than studying them. And Evy, his brilliant librarian-turned-archaeologist wife, is as feisty as the men. There’s also Uncle Jonathan, Evy’s brother, providing some comic relief. And Ardeth, the brave Medji warrior, helps the family around the globe with his knowledge of Egypt, and is always a hero without being too flashy.

The plot is pretty much the same video-game version of Pandora’s box as the feature installments. Once again, the western explorers accidentally get themselves involved in an ancient curse and have to save the world, the saving involving a lot of acrobatic fight scenes. Alex, foolishly (but they don’t ever emphasize this in the show, do they?) gets an ancient Egyptian manacle stuck to his wrist, which won’t come off without the power of the “lost scrolls”. Unfortunately, the homicidal mummy Imhotep has again awakened, and he wants the scrolls too, as a way of accessing power over pretty much everything and everyone. Basically, the group must race against the mummy to get to the scrolls, locating clues along the way that point them in the right direction.

Even though the story-line is now animated and the violence is less graphic, it still may be too scary for some children. The mucus-dripping mummy may even be too scary for some adults.

This is better than a lot of what is out there for kids who enjoy action/adventure stories with exotic settings. It may even spark some interest in finding out about ancient Egypt and about the real work of archeologists, who, thank goodness, are a lot more careful about excavating the artifacts than the O’Connells are. Use this video to inspire a visit to your local library or museum to learn more about the fascinating culture and the adventures of the 19th and 20th century scholars who have studied it.

Screenwriter/director Douglas McGrath has produced a respectful condensation of Charles Dickens’s rich and sprawling novel of the young sister and brother who find memorable friends and foes when they venture to London for the first time after the death of their father.

This is the story that the Royal Shakespeare Company turned into a stunning almost-word-for-word 9-hour version starring Roger Rees. There is no way that any two-hour version could compare with one of the most unforgettable theatrical experiences of the last century, and it does not try. McGrath has focused on the heart (in both senses of the word) of Dickens’ story, the struggle by Nicholas against his uncle’s attempts to corrupt or destroy him. Although he has had to jettison many colorful characters and huge sections of the story, his skillful paring preserves the essence of the novel’s tone and themes and the result is thoroughly satisfying on its own terms.

Nicholas (Charles Hunnam) and his sister Kate (Romola Garai) grow up in a small house in the country, the devoted children of devoted parents. But their father speculates unwisely in an attempt to follow the example of his successful brother. When he dies, the family must go to the brother for help. The brother is Ralph Nickleby, who lives in a huge house filled with a collection of stuffed and mounted animals that seem to be poised to pounce on anyone who is careless enough to look away.

Nicholas and Kate take the jobs Ralph procures for them. They are so kind themselves that they do not realize that he sees them the way he would see a shilling – only worth his time if he can use them to his advantage. He sends Nicholas off to become a teacher at a boys’ school in Yorkshire and he sends Kate off to work for a dressmaker.

The school is run by Wackford Squeers (Jim Broadbent) and his wife (Juliette Stevenson). They starve and beat the boys and steal the money and gifts sent to them by their families. One particular boy, known only as Smike (Jamie Bell of “Billy Elliot”), is the most severely abused, because he has no family.

Nicholas does the best he can to teach and befriend the boys, but his gentle upbringing has not prepared him to take on such unabashed cruelty. When he spurns the advances of the Squeers’ daughter, her parents decide the best way to hurt Nicholas is to abuse Smike. Nicholas, unable to bear seeing Smike beaten again, thrashes Squeers and he and Smike escape.

On their way back to London, they meet up with literature’s most irresistible troupe of actors, the company established by the spectacularly theatrical Vincent Crummles (Nathan Lane) and his wife (Barry Humphries of “Dame Edna Everage” fame). Their special attractions include their daughter — a perpetual juvenile of indeterminate age billed as “the Infant Phenomenon,” and a real working pump that he tries to work into every production just because it is such a novelty to see on stage. They welcome Nicholas and Smike warmly and invite them to join them in their production of “Romeo and Juliet.”

Nicholas and Smike are very happy there until they get a letter from Kate. Ralph has allowed his unsavory business associates to treat her disrespectfully. Like Nicholas, she does not have enough experience of the world to abandon her natural gentility and the circumstances and conventions of her culture and era give a woman without the protection of a man few options in responding to abuse.

Nicholas returns to London with Smike and denounces his uncle, who swears he will get revenge. With the help of the kind and generous Cherryble brothers and a few melodramatic revelations, Nicholas and Kate manage to find true love and happiness.

Dickens books lend themselves beautifully to film. He created strong, very distinctive characters, gorgeous dialogue (the movie is worth seeing just for the way Lane delivers Crummles’ speeches), and wonderfully dramatic stories with all the audience-pleasers Vincent Crummles would love to put on for an audience – dastardly villains, true-hearted heroes, love, hate, revenge, comedy, tragedy — and a working pump. McGrath and his actors clearly view this as a labor of love, and every detail is beautifully realized, with one of the best ensemble performances of the year. The one exception is Hunnam as Nicholas. It is a challenge for any actor to play a good-guy hero whose job is to react to all of those vivid characters, but Hunnam never manages to show us anything of Nicholas’ growing depth and resolve.

Parents should know that the movie has child abuse, some tense and upsetting family scenes, and sad deaths. A character commits suicide and it is portrayed as a just response to a terrible revelation. There is a brief and somewhat graphic childbirth scene with a nude baby.

Families who see this movie should talk about how parents can both protect their children and prepare them for a world in which not everyone will be as kind to them as their families are.

Families who enjoy this movie should see McGrath’s similarly meticulous version of Jane Austen’s “Emma,” starring Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeremy Northam. They should also see the Royal Shakespeare Company’s 9-hour version, a magnificent achievement, and they might want to see some of the many other movie versions of Dickens’ books, including “A Christmas Carol,” “Great Expectations,” and “David Copperfield.”

For many of us, romantic comedies are like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, providing comfort food and simple consistency in a messy world. We relax and enjoy the familiar experience, knowing that there will be no discomforting surprises or soul-searching involved. This simple fare can be especially welcome during the frenetic holiday seasons, so if you like the taste of romantic comedies, then “Two Weeks Notice” might just be the meal for you.

Let’s be clear from the start, “Two Weeks Notice” is not a great romantic comedy. There are no real sparks between leads Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant, some of the humor you can foresee (and start wincing at) long before it arrives, and, if you have seen the preview, you have a pretty good sense of where the movie is going.

From the moment the opening credits roll –complete with childhood snapshots of the lead characters and the Counting Crows’ neutral cover of Joni Mitchell’s classic “Big Yellow Taxi”—we know we are in familiar territory. All that remains to be seen is who Cupid’s lucky victims will be this time and what odd turns of fate will keep them apart until the credits roll again.

Enter stage left Lucy Kelson (Sandra Bullock), who in the first scene is bailed out of jail by her approving parents (Dana Ivey and Robert Klein) for protesting the demolition of an old theater. Clever us, we know that she is the good-hearted liberal cause girl in the sensible shoes. A proud denizen of Brooklyn, Lucy is a bright legal aide, fighting the just fight and protesting demolitions in her spare time. Her fight is about to take her up against the Wade Corporation.

Enter stage right George Wade (Hugh Grant), who is the “face” of the Wade Corporation, working in tandem with the “brain”, his financially savvy but less attractive brother, Howard (David Haig). George is immensely wealthy, self-absorbed and oblivious. Challenged by Howard to find a Chief Counsel with more upstairs, womanizing George sets off to hire a genuine Harvard Law graduate. Guess who he finds?

Lucy dedicates herself 110% to her job, which, as the months go by, she comes to realize is 109% more than what she needs to do to fulfill her role as a glorified baby-sitter to her pleasure-seeking ward. It is when Lucy decides to quit and George begins questioning a life without Lucy that the “romantic” part of “romantic comedy” is supposed to appear.

Where the comedy of this movie is consistently strong, it is the romance that is even less believable than the embarrassing baseball game and the unnecessary bathroom scene in the recreational vehicle. Neither Lucy nor George seem entirely human, with their simple characters writ large but they have a lovely ability to laugh at and with one another, so perhaps those romantic sparks are not really necessary. After all and caveats aside, none of the movies shortcomings will really matter to those with a craving for something sweet and light.

Parents should know that this movie has a brief scene of potty humor, in addition to references to casual relationships and infidelity. Two of the characters participate in a non-explicit game of strip chess. A woman’s head gets stuck on a man’s pants in a suggestive way.

Families who see this movie should talk about how Lucy and George are molded by their families’ (very different) expectations. Lucy says that she will never live up to her mother’s expectations, how does this drive her behavior? Why does George say that it is worse when one’s family has no expectations at all? How do the characters change as they are influenced by one another? Are these changes always for the good?

Families who enjoyed this film might consider watching other light comedies with Hugh Grant or Sandra Bullock such as “Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “Notting Hill”, and, “Miss Congeniality”. For those who want to laugh and watch sparks fly between leads, movies such as “His Gal Friday” and, more recently, “The Hudsucker Proxy” might appeal.

One of the great existential questions of childhood, memorably explored in “Stand By Me,” is “If Mickey is a mouse, and Pluto is a dog, what is Goofy?” Goofy may be in a class (and genus) of his own, as we see in this thoroughly enjoyable film. At the center of the story is Max, struggling through the torturous insecurity and self-consciousness of adolescence. Like all teens, he is humiliated by his father’s goofiness. But the movie’s great joke is that in this case, his father is not just goofy, he is Goofy, the Goof of all Goofs, the Uber-Goof!

When a prank at school gets Max in trouble, Goofy decides that what Max needs is some quality time with his father. So he takes him on a fishing trip, not knowing that Max will have to miss his first date with his adored Roxanne, and that in order to get out of the date, Max has lied to Roxanne, telling her his father is taking him to a rock concert. It takes a while (and a run-in with Bigfoot) for Goofy and Max to start talking to each other instead of at each other. But they ultimately strengthen their connection and find a satisfying resolution. Free of the pressures that sometimes smother the big Disney releases, this movie has a refreshingly casual, even insouciant feel, with some sly humor (look fast for a glimpse of Elvis at a remote lunchcounter), even daring to poke fun at Disney itself. The teen characters are contemporary without the prepackaged feel of other Disney productions (like “The New Mickey Mouse Club”), and there are lively songs performed by by Tevin Campbell.

Although the material in this movie is certainly suitable for all ages, younger kids may be uncomfortable with the strain between Max and Goofy. It’s a shame that the G rating scared off the film’s optimal audience, the 10-14 age group. If you can persuade them to take a look, they will find much to enjoy and identify with, and, if parents and kids watch it together, it can inspire some good discussions about parent-child communication.