In 1985, Brett Easton Ellis’ first book “Less than Zero”, introduced a new voice to the “party at the end of civilization” genre – those texts dealing with a corrupted society’s last orgy before collapse (for example, works from 1930’s Berlin and the Fall of Rome). The book, heavily influenced by Joan Didion, was a cocaine powered paean to ‘80‘s excess, materialism and greed. The characters were rich and bored, drowning in the very vices they used to escape the everyday.

His second book, “Rules of Attraction” (1988), picks up the party at fictional Camden College (rumored to be based on Ellis’ alma mater, Bennington College) where the young, wealthy and white escape reality – or not—on a lifeboat of sex, alcohol and drugs. The story, adapted to the screen by director Roger Avary, who co-wrote Pulp Fiction, alternates perspectives and time lines while focusing on several, colorfully named parties (e.g. “End of the World Party”) on Camden’s campus.

The “attraction” of the title is a bit of a misnomer. If love has many forms, one of which does not require any great knowledge of a person, something beyond attraction and more like obsession, then this movie is about love. Instead of a love triangle, Rules of Attraction jumps perspectives on a love line: bi and beautiful Paul Denton (Ian Somerhalder) loves self-described “emotional vampire” and part-time drug dealer Sean Bateman (James Van Der Beek), who in turn loves the doe-eyed and virginal Lauren Hynde (Shannyn Sossamon) who loves self-absorbed Victor (Kip Pardue). To stir up the party, it is Lara (Jessica Biel), Lauren’s roommate, who Sean sleeps with as a proxy, while Paul has a nostalgic fling with long-time friend Richard “Dick” Jared (a scene- stealing, Russell Sams). Notable cameos include Eric Stoltz (as student seducer, Professor Lance Lawson); Faye Dunaway as Paul’s tipsy mother; and a cocaine-dusted Clifton Collins, Jr. as unpredictable drug dealer Rupert.

If this strange face of love can be compared to the vast quantities of narcotics casually consumed by the students, then it is the strongest drug of all. While the students can shrug off the effects of getting beaten with a baseball bat, casual sex with a sports team, cocaine/heroin and whiskey drunk as if it really was the water of life, they cannot escape the heartache when each of their budding hopes of love are crushed. Most poignant is the author of Sean’s anonymous love letters who takes her own life when she sees his indiscriminate philandering.

Ellis’ books have all dealt with similar 1980’s themes from different perspectives and have woven in references to characters from his other works. For example, “Rules of Attraction” protagonist, Sean Bateman, is younger brother to “American Psycho”, Patrick Bateman. Roger Avary has done a good job at adapting this multi-perspective narrative into a slick, visually dynamic movie. His backward-forward filming and present- past-present timing gradually reveal the story but he cannot put content into what is, in the end, an empty tale.

Although the movie is set in the present day, the strong influence of the book and Avary’s decision to weave in references to Ellis’ other books keeps a ‘80’s zeitgeist. The book “Rules of Attraction” already felt dated upon its release and the movie feels all the more so – the times having changed so dramatically over the years: the end of the Cold War; the flannel-clad nihilism descending from the Seattle scene; the disappearance of the rich, white boy as the movie bad guy; the return of heroin. But perhaps, most importantly, the world did not end.

Parents should know that this movie contains many elements that they would not want their children to see. The first scene alone of a horribly demeaning date-rape is followed by a non-stop montage designed to shock the most jaded of college party kids, let alone their parents. Sex is pervasive, casual and often described in excruciating detail. Drugs are ubiquitous and feature no downsides beyond the occasional bloody nose or fight with a dealer. Alcohol is more prevalent than soda. The bathtub suicide of one of the minor characters is so devoid of emotion that the laying out of the razor blade is as casual as removing one’s rings.

Families who see this movie should talk about why some people rely upon drugs as a crutch and be sure to discuss the film’s bleak portrayal of adult drug use as well as that of the college kids. Other issues to be discussed include the connection or lack of connection between the characters and the consequences of the choices we make.

Other films about end of the world parties include “Blue Angel” (Marlene Dietrich’s 1930’s breakthrough film) and “Cabaret” (the 1972 musical starring Liza Minelli). Those who are interested in movies playing with time and perspective shifts should rent “Go” (1999), a younger, softer styled “Pulp Fiction” (1994).

Even though I am a well-known softie when it comes to Christmas movies, “The Santa Clause 2” gets a “bah humbug” from me.

Indeed, if the Ghost of Christmas Present had shown Ebenezer Scrooge “The Santa Clause 2,” they both might have just given up on the whole thing. This overstuffed turkey of a movie wraps itself in holly and hot cocoa only to come to the conclusion that the magic of Christmas is…getting presents. When it comes to the true Christmas spirit, this movie makes “Home Alone” look like “The Gift of the Magi.”

In part one, modern day Scrooge and bitter divorced dad Tim Allen finds that Santa has fallen off his roof and died. He puts on Santa’s red coat and finds that he is now the new Santa, complete with North Pole workshop and eight tiny reindeer. Allen saves Christmas and saves himself by getting in touch with his inner Santa, generous and unabashedly mushy.

This time, Allen fnds out that there is one more “Santa Clause” in his obligation to take over. He has to marry a Mrs. Clause before Christmas, only 28 days away. He goes back home to visit his son Charlie (Eric Lloyd), so that he can find out how Charlie got on the “naughty” list and find a Mrs. Claus to bring back to the North Pole.

Charlie is in trouble for vandalizing the school with graffiti protesting the principal’s refusal to celebrate Christmas. The principal is very stern and, well, Scrooge-ish, but you can tell that if she would just take off those glasses and let down her hair, she would be very warm and pretty. I think you get where this is going.

Meanwhile, back at the North Pole, Santa has left a mechanical substitute (also played by Allen), who gets wired on a couple of gallons of hot cocoa and decides that all the children have been naughty and will get lumps of coal in their stockings this year.

Yes, it has Disney’s meticulously imagnative art direction, and that workshop on the North Pole has some charm. Allen’s comic timing is always a pleasure and co-star Elizabeth Mitchell has a lovely laugh. But the overall theme that Christmas is about getting the perfect gift, even if you haven’t been entirely good, compounded by intrusive product placements for McDonald’s and Nestle, will leave the audience feeling like it has just eaten an entire plum pudding.

As with the first film, parents should use caution in bringing children who may be grappling with the issue of Santa’s existence to see this, and should be prepared to discuss their own traditions and beliefts.

Parents should know that the movie has some bathroom humor. A character tries to yank out his tooth to get the tooth fairy to come (and apparently succeeds, off camera). Parents should talk to younger kids to make sure they do not imitate this behavior. While the movie has strong, intelligent female characters, the elves (played by children) conform to 1950’s-era stereotypes, with the boys creating toys and playing football while the girls deliver the cookies and cocoa. There are very few minority characters and the movie does not acknowledge any other religious or cultural holiday traditions.

Families who see this movie should talk about how Charlie feels about keeping the secret of his father’s life as Santa. And they should talk about how a big disappointment can make someone afraid to try to be happy. Talk about the scene in which adults play with their favorite childhood toys. Which would you like to have again?

Families who enjoy this movie will enjoy the original and Christmas classics like “A Muppet Christmas Carol” and “White Christmas.”

Plot: Mary Lennox is a sour and selfish girl, spoiled by an Indian nanny and neglected by her parents. When they are killed, she is sent back to England to live with her uncle Archibald Craven, a mysterious and lonely man. He rarely returns to his home in Yorkshire, and leaves Mary to the care of Mrs. Medlock, the housekeeper, and Martha, the maid. Both are busy, and Mary has nothing to do but wander around the moors.

One day, Mary finds the key to a secret garden, once the favorite place for her uncle and his wife, whom he adored. After she died, he locked it up and swore no one would go in there again. Mary is determined to find it.

Following the sound of crying she often hears in the night, she finds that there is another child living in the house. It is her uncle’s son, Colin. He has been confined to bed all his life and is spoiled and demanding to the point of hysteria. Mary soothes him by telling him about the garden. Later, when he has a tantrum, she is the first person ever to impose limits on his behavior. He tells her that he is afraid he will have a hunched back like his father, and she tells him his back is fine.

Mary finds the garden, and she and Colin and Martha’s brother Dickon work to bring it back to life. As they do, Mary and Colin get stronger in body and in spirit. When Archibald returns, he meets them in the garden. They run to him, and it is clear that the garden will heal him, too.

Discussion: Every child should read this book and see at least one of the filmed versions. Children respond to Mary Lennox because (at least in the beginning) she is so unlikable, a relief from all the Pollyannas and Cinderellas who are rewarded for their relentlessly sunny characters and good deeds. And then there is the pleasure of meeting Colin, who is even worse, a “young rajah” who has had his every wish granted instantly and is surrounded only by those who live in terror of his hysteria. Mary and Colin are a perfect match for each other, and the scene in which she responds to his tantrum with fury is one of the most satisfying in any children’s book — indeed, in any book, as is the scene in which they enter the garden together, a wonderful metaphor for all that is going on inside their spirits.

T

Pure popcorn pleasure, this is a heady combination that is half testosterone, half attitude, and all action. “The Transporter” really delivers.

Don’t pay much attention to the plot – no one connected to the movie does. Just pay attention to the chases and explosions, staged with style by Corey Yuen, a veteran Hong Kong actor/director and co-written by Luc Besson, whose wildly imaginative visuals ignited “The Fifth Element” and other films.

Together, they have produced a straight shot of movie adrenaline. Jason Statham (best known for his appearances in tough-guy movies “Snatch” and “Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels”), plays Frank, a former military man who now serves as a “transporter.” He will deliver anything from one place to another, as long as his price and conditions are met. The price is high. The conditions are these: no names on either side, no changes to the deal once it’s set, and no looking into the package. The movie kicks off with a heart-thumping chase scene as Frank transports three bank robbers and their swag (though he won’t budge until they get rid of a fourth robber who wasn’t part of the deal). We see that Frank is both a meticulous planner and fearless under pressure, whether he is being chased by dozens of cops or penetratingly questioned by just one smart one.

Then Frank takes on another job and for once he breaks one of the rules. He looks in the package he is transporting and finds a young woman named Lai (Shu Qi). If he hesitates about delivering her to her destination, it is only briefly, because he takes her to the drop-off and accepts another job from the man who receives her. It is only when that package turns out to be a bomb intended to kill Frank that he returns to retrieve Li and extract some revenge.

Frank starts to care which side he’s on and he starts to care about Li, then thinks he can’t trust her, then learns he really can. No surprises with the story – this is straight out of screenwriting 101. But there are some very cool surprises in the chases and explosions as Frank and Li take on the bad guys and the bad guys chase after them.

Statham is a fine action hero, handling kick-boxing and dialogue with wit, grace, and style. Qi, who learned English (or some English, anyway) to take on the role, has a fresh, appealing presence, and François Berléand is superb as the policeman caught between suspecting Frank and admiring him. The bad guys played by Matt Schulze and Ric Young are not as interesting as they could be, but the movie moves so fast you won’t have much time to think about it.

Parents should know that the movie features intense, non-stop peril and action violence, with massive destruction of property. Many people are killed. Characters drink and smoke and use very strong language. In the coming attraction and commercial, Lai tells Frank he is in “deep trouble.” The word in the movie is not “trouble.”

Families who see this movie should talk about how Frank appears once to have been an idealist; what made him decide not to try to work to make things better any more? Why did the policeman let Frank go after the bad guys instead of sending the cops? What do you think Frank and Lai will do next? What makes this chase and explosion movie better than so many others?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “Snatch” and “The Fifth Element” as well as Hong Kong kick-boxing classics like “A Better Tomorrow” and “Once Upon a Time in China” (all very violent).

I can’t figure out how a studio decided to take “Charade,” one of the world’s most delectable movies, and remake it without a single one of the ingredients that made it great. The dreamy theme song by Henry Mancini is gone, except for a dozen brief, quiet bars almost lost amidst the screeching, thumping soundtrack. The witty dialogue is gone, except for a couple of quips. They left out one of the best last lines in the history of movies. But, worst of all, the star power is gone, too. This movie has some attractive and talented actors. But I think I can state without fear of contradiction that Mark Wahlberg is no Cary Grant. And he should stay away from berets.

If we were to erase every memory of the original, this movie would simply be a pedestrian and mildly weird standard romantic thriller, below average but not unwatchable. Thandie Newton plays Regina Lampert, a British woman living in Paris. Three months earlier she impulsively married a wealthy Swiss art dealer but has resolved to get a divorce because she feels it was a mistake. Before she can tell him, she arrives home to find their apartment empty and gutted. He liquidated everything they had and left without leaving a message. She learns that he has been killed. And then she learns that he was not Swiss and not an art dealer. He had stolen some money while on a military operation for the United States. The money has disappeared, and the people he first stole it with and then stole it from want it back. And so does the U.S. Government.

Josh Peters (Wahlberg) arrives just as she is feeling like a damsel in distress and he befriends her. At first, she relies on him, but then she finds out that he has not been honest with her, so she has to use her own judgment and courage to decide who to trust and to solve the mystery.

Director Jonathan Demme undercuts the suspense with clumsy exposition and poorly handled characterization. Wahlberg looks puffy and unhappy and has no chemistry with Newton. And there are some surreal moments (possibly tributes to the French New Wave films of the 1960’s) that do not work at all. Josh plays a CD by French legend Charles Aznavour for Regina and all of a sudden, Aznavour is in the room, singing. A strange nightclub scene brings all of the characters together in a mad tango. The credit sequence also takes some of the characters in a playful direction that has no connection to the mood of the rest of the movie.

Parents should know that the movie includes nudity, an adulterous sexual situation, extreme peril and violence, strong language, and drinking and smoking. There is an off-camera but vivid search of a dead body. Regina responds to the stress of having to identify her late husband and being questioned by the police by getting drunk.

Families who see this movie should talk about how Regina decides whom to trust.

All fans of mystery and romance should see the classic “Charade” with Cary Grant, Audrey Hepburn, and Walter Matthau, and, if possible, they should also watch the DVD with delightfully witty commentary by the director and screenwriter. Families will also enjoy the companion movie, “Arabesque,” with Gregory Peck and Sophia Loren.