This choice little fairy tale even begins with “once upon a time.”

It takes place in rural France, in a “quaint little village whose villagers believed in tranquility.” They have “learned not to ask for more.” The village is all but untouched by the outside world, and they seem to like it that way. A young priest sings an Elvis Presley song and it as though he is a visitor from a time machine.

The town is overseen by the Comte de Reynaud (Alfred Molina), the mayor. He acts as a sort of moral policeman, making sure that everyone is keeping to the straight and (very) narrow. Into this paragon of rectitude and abstemiousness the wind blow a mysterious red-cloaked mother and daughter.

Vianne (Juliette Binoche, Oscar-winner for “The English Patient”) and Anouk (Victoire Thivisol) open up a chocolate shop. The Comte takes it as an affront to his authority. How dare they! In the middle of Lent! He does his best to keep customers away. But the chocolate is luscious and Vianne always seems to know just what people need. She knows how to add a touch of chili pepper to hot chocolate for spice and she has an uncanny way of giving everyone the kind of chocolate they cannot resist. She gives her chocolate to her grumpy landlord Amande (Judi Dench, Oscar-winner for “Shakespeare in Love”). She gives some to Josephine (Lena Olin), a woman who is considered a little crazy by the town, but who behaves that way to protect herself from her abusive husband. The chocolate — and Vianne’s warm heart — help both women to bloom. Vianne takes Josephine in and helps Amande get together with her estranged family.

Then the Compte is affronted further when a group of itinerants dock their houseboats in the town. Vianne becomes friendly with Roux (Johnny Depp) and this is too much for the Compte and his sidekick, Josephine’s husband Serge. Both the Compte and Vianne have to confront near disaster and their own fears. The young priest has to find a way to speak from his own heart and his own faith, to become a true spiritual leader for the community.

This whimsical little story is as delicious as its chocolates, with a terrific score and lots of great issues for family discussion.

Parents should know that Vianne never married her daughter’s father, and that in a flashback we see that she and her own mother left her father to wander. Vianne gives some chocolates to one woman to use as an aphrodisiac, and we see the gleam in her husband’s eye as he watches her, after he eats them. Later, a dog who eats some of the chocolates is similarly inspired (brief shot of dogs having sex). There are mild sexual situations with brief and inexplicit nudity. There is some social drinking and a scary fire (no one hurt). A character dies peacefully.

Families should talk about why the Compte is so threatened by Vianne and her chocolates. He seems to feel that his efforts to keep himself and others from feeling joy and passion will help him avoid sadness (and dishonor) from the desertion of his wife. Why do Vianne and Roux wander? Why is there one person whose favorite she can not guess? What is the significance of Anouk’s imaginary friend? Why is Armande’s daughter so angry with her? What do you think about the priest’s conclusion that we are judged by what we do and those we embrace rather than by what we stay away from and those we exclude? Families might also want to talk about what some of the names mean in English. For example, reynaud means fox and roux is the base that holds a soufflé together.

Families who enjoy this movie should enjoy some of their own favorite chocolates together. Some family members will also enjoy Like Water for Chocolate, another movie about a woman whose food has some magical properties (mature material).

The classic fairy tale by Charles Perrault is lovingly and imaginatively brought to life in this animated Disney version, also a classic. Cinderella, a sweet, docile, and beautiful girl forced to act as a servant for her mean stepmother and stepsisters, goes to the ball with the help of her fairy godmother. But her godmother warns that the beautiful coach and gown will only last until midnight. Cinderella meets the Prince at the ball, and they share a romantic dance. But when the clock begins to strike midnight, she runs away, leaving behind one of her glass slippers. The Prince declares he will marry the girl whose foot fits that slipper. He finds her, and they live happily ever after.

Disney expanded the simple story with vivid and endearing characters and memorable songs. The animation is gorgeously detailed and inventive. In one musical number, as the stepsisters squawk their way through their singing lesson in another room, Cinderella sings sweetly as she scrubs the floor, reflected in dozens of soap bubbles.

When Cinderella asks if she can go to the ball, her stepmother tells her she can, if she can make an appropriate dress. She then keeps Cinderella much too busy to have time to make the dress. But Cinderella’s friends, the mice and birds, make one for her in another delightful musical number. As the fairy godmother sings “Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo,” she transforms a pumpkin into a coach, the mice into horses, the horse into a coachman, and finally, Cinderella’s rags into a magnificent ballgown. The scene when the Duke comes looking for the girl whose foot will fit the glass slipper is very suspenseful and highly satisfying.

While the story has enduring appeal, many people are troubled by the passive heroine, who meekly accepts her abusive situation and waits to be rescued, first by her godmother and then by the Prince. It is worth discussing, with both boys and girls, what some of her alternatives could have been (“If you were Cinderella, would you do what that mean lady told you?”), and making sure that they have some exposure to stories with heroines who save themselves. A superb book called Ella, Enchanted by Gail Carson Levine has an ingenious explanation for the heroine’s obedience.

In today’s world of blended families, it might also be worth discussing that not all step-parents and siblings are mean. Even children who are living with intact families of origin may need to hear this so that they will not worry about their friends.

Families who see this movie should talk about these questions: Why does Cinderella do what her stepmother says? What could she have done instead? Why is the King so worried about whether the Prince will get married? If you had a fairy godmother, what would you like her to do for you? Or would you like to be a fairy godmother? Whose wish would you grant?

This story has been told many times, and families might enjoy seeing sme of the other versions, including “Cinderfella,” with Jerry Lewis as the title character and Ed Wynn as his fairy godfather. The made-for- television musical version starring Leslie Ann Warren, with songs by Rogers and Hammerstein, and the remake with Brandi and Whitney Houston are available on video and well worth watching. Drew Barrymore’s revisionist “Ever After” gives us a spirited Cinderella who rescues herself.

Children might be amused to hear the rumor that Cinderella’s most famous accessory is the result of a mistake. It is often reported that in the original French story, her slipper was made of fur. But a mistranslation in the first English version described it as glass, and it has stayed that way ever since. But in reality, while there have been many versions of the story over the years, the best-known early written version, by Charles Perrault, did describe her slippers as glass. Other versions have her wearing gold slippers or a ring that fits only the true Cinderella.

Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles) dies, alone in Xanadu, his enormous mansion. His last word is the mysterious “Rosebud.” A newsreel gives us the highlights of his life, the wealthy young man who became an influential newspaper magnate and political candidate, who married first the niece of the President and then, after a scandal that led to the end of his political career, a singer. As the lights come up in a screening room, an editor says, “It’s not enough to tell us what a man did. You have to tell us who he was.” One of the reporters, Jerry Thompson, goes off to find out who Kane really was.

He meets with five different figures who were important in Kane’s life to try to understand the small mystery of Kane’s last word and the larger mystery of the man who was capable of both integrity and corruption, and who seemed to have no sense of peace or happiness.

Thompson begins by reading the journals of millionaire Walter Parks Thatcher (George Coulouris), now dead, the trustee who oversaw Kane’s early years. He explains that Kane’s mother (Agnes Moorehead) was a landlady who became wealthy when a prospector who had not paid his bill left her the deed to his mine. The mine turned out to be one of the world’s richest sources of silver. Mrs. Kane believed that her son would do better if Thatcher, a bank executive, took charge of his education and upbringing. She wanted him far away from his bully of a father.

Kane was a rebellious charge, and as soon as he reached his majority, he bought a failing newspaper, which he used to criticize Thatcher and the rest of the financial elite.

Next, Thompson speaks to Mr. Bernstein (Everett Sloane), who worked with Kane at the newspaper. He talks of Kane’s high ideals, and his devotion to the individual struggling against the powerful. He also speaks of Kane’s first marriage and its disintegration (shown in a stunning series of scenes set at breakfasts over the years).

He then talks to Jedediah Leland (Joseph Cotton), once Kane’s best friend and the drama critic for Kane’s newspaper, who tells him of Kane’s second marriage, to Susan Alexander (Dorothy Commingore), a nightclub singer. Kane was determined to make her a success as an opera singer. When Leland wrote a bad review of her performance, Kane finished writing it for him, printed it, and then fired him.

Thompson visits Susan Alexander, now an alcoholic. She tells him about the isolation of her life with Kane, and her decision to leave him. Neither she nor the butler at Xanadu is able to tell Thompson anything about “Rosebud.”

The viewer, however, is permitted to solve the smaller mystery of Rosebud, but the answer only proves that there are never any simple answers to the complexity of the human spirit.

Kids who watch this movie can never know how revolutionary it was. Every one of its dozens of innovations, from the flashback structure to the use of sets with ceilings for additional authenticity, has become all but standard. No problem–there is time enough for them to study these aspects of the film’s brilliance if they decide to learn more about film history and criticism. For their first viewing of this brilliant work, (and for purposes of a family discussion) just let them focus on the story, the dialogue, and the characters, which remain as compelling and contemporary as they were more than 50 years ago.

Like Willie Stark in “All the King’s Men,” Kane begins as a populist and dies corrupt and alone, and we cannot help but hope for some explanation of how that happened, as Thompson does. Importantly, both Kane and Stark were based on real-life figures. Kane, of course, was based on William Randolph Hearst, the almost-impossibly wealthy heir to the largest gold and silver mine owner in America, who became a powerful publishing magnate. Kane might also have been based on Welles, only 25 years old when he co-wrote, directed and starred in this film, who then spent the rest of his life coming up with one excuse or another for why he never came close to that level of achievement again.

As we see in flashback, Kane was taken from his parents when he was six, and raised by the bank, or by Thatcher, who was close to the same thing. This created an emotional neediness and a deeply conflicted view of money and power that is one factor in his downfall. As soon as he had control over his money, Kane bought the newspaper, perhaps for the same reason Welles went to to work for a Hollywood studio; he said it was “the greatest electric train set any boy ever had.” A rebel by nature (as we see when he hits Thatcher with his sled, and in his glee in getting the staff to remake the paper over and over), he enjoys what H.L. Menchen referred to as the purpose of a newspaper: “To comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” Afflicting the comfortable is great fun for him, especially comfortable people like Thatcher and his colleagues and his wife’s uncle, the President of the United States.

Like Stark, though, Kane’s taste of power makes him feel that the rules do not apply to him. He begins to feel that the ends justify the means. He does not just want to sway the electorate in favor of the candidate of his choice; he wants to be that candidate. As we see in a striking scene, with Kane in front of the enormous poster of his face, he loves the adulation of the crowd.

But as we also see, he is drawn to Susan Alexander (whom he meets as he is on his way to sit among his late mother’s effects) because she responds to the private Kane, the one who can wiggle his ears and make hand shadows. When he finds that he cannot have both Susan and public acclaim, he makes the critically wrong choice to try to make her into a publicly acceptable figure, an opera star. Leland writes an honest review (after getting drunk for courage). Kane’s last shred of integrity requires him to print the review, but he cannot bear to face Leland again.

Indeed, he cannot bear to face anyone. He retreats to Kanadu, where Susan Alexander spends her night working on jigsaw puzzles. She cannot bear it any more either and finally leaves him; he hardly notices, except to become even more isolated. That private self which she responded to, and which once mattered so much to him, has become as completely inaccessible as the little house inside the snow globe that crashes to the floor when he dies.

Families who see this movie should talk about what they think of Kane’s pledge on the first page of the newspaper. How do the scenes at the breakfast table tell you what is going on in Kane’s first marriage? Why do you think he said “Rosebud?” Who if anyone in the movie is satisfired with his or her life? How can you tell? Why does Kane change?

Fans of Phoebe Tyler on television’s “All My Children” will enjoy seeing a young Ruth Warrick as Kane’s first wife.

It is hard to say who is the more interesting real-life character, William Randolph Hearst or Orson Welles. There are many biographies of both, and they are fascinating reading for families to enjoy. The biographies of Hearst detail his reaction to this movie. His efforts to use his newspapers to discourage people to see the movie were just what Kane himself might have done. Everyone should make an effort to see San Simeon, the model of Xanadu, now open to the public in California.

There are also volumes of material about this movie, probably the most honored ever to be produced in Hollywood, and always at or near the top of critics’ surveys on the best film ever made.

This special effects action comedy is fun for kids and fairly painless for adults. More important, it is a rare film directed at kids from 4th-8th grade, that most neglected of movie audiences. Not surprisingly, it is produced by Nickelodeon, the cable channel dedicated to just that group.

Zak (Jesse Bradford), the son of a loving but preoccupied scientist, accidentally takes a top-secret device, thinking it is a watch. It turns out to be a mechanism for speeding up the metabolic rate of whoever is touching it so that they see the world around them as almost frozen. To the rest of the world, they are moving to fast to be seen. At first, Zak uses it to impress a pretty girl (Paula Garces as Francesca) and together they have fun with some pranks and pay-backs. But then the bad guys come after them, and Zak and Francesca have to save the world.

The plot is a throw-back to the old Disney classics like “The Shaggy Dog” (also with a pretty teenage girl named Francesca) and “The Absent-Minded Professor.” Director Jonathan Frakes (of “Star Trek”) ably handles the sci-fi aspect with special effects that truly are special. We see water droplets suspended in air and a bee floating over a flower. The movie zips along quickly and has a lively pop soundtrack.

Parents should know that there is mild peril, though the guns only shoot ice bullets (to shock the system out of hyper-time) and no one is hurt. Francesca wears some revealing outfits, but she and Zak share only a couple of kisses. The movie features multi-ethnic good and bad guys and Francesca is strong, smart, and brave.

Families who see the movie should talk about the problems of developing technologies that can get into the wrong hands and the problems of balancing commitments to work and family.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy The Rocketeer.

Arnold Schwarzenegger plays Gordy, a fireman whose wife and son are killed when a bomb goes off in a terrorist attack. As he becomes convinced that the government will not do anything to bring justice to the man responsible, a Colombian nicknamed “The Wolf,” Gordon decides to get justice for himself, by finding The Wolf and killing him.

The original release of this movie was delayed following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. It may still be too soon – in fact, it may never be possible to be as casual about fictional terrorism again. The movie is too close to reality to be able to enjoy it as pure entertainment and too far from reality to be able to get any feeling of satisfaction from it.

It is very formulaic. Arnold is told of the insurmountable obstacles. He surmounts them. Finally, he arrives in the secret lair of the bad guy. We see how bad a guy the bad guy really is, to make us feel even better about what lies ahead of him. Arnold is very clever and utterly unstoppable. Many explosions later, we get to what comes as close as possible to a happy ending.

The best parts of the movie are the brief appearances by John Turturro as a Canadian mechanic and John Leguizamo as a charming cocaine producer. The decision not to allow Gordon to carry a weapon provides for some moments of creativity in the plot. But Arnold is getting too old for this kind of thing, and, given our recent experiences, audiences may feel that they are, too.

Parents should know that the movie is very violent, with extreme peril. Many characters are killed, including a child. A character is killed by having a poisonous snake forced down his throat. A character’s ear is bitten off and spit out. The movie has strong language, and references to drug trade. The jitters of a character who appears to have had an overdose of cocaine are supposed to be funny.

The movie tries to make a connection between Gordon and The Wolf. Both are formerly gentle and loving men who became killers after losing children. The Wolf even asks Gordon how they are different. Gordon replies, “Because I am just going to kill you.” Families who see this movie should talk about the impulse for revenge and how to determine the best way to respond to terrorism. Were any of The Wolf’s claims legitimate, even if his tactics were not? Do all conflicts create “collateral damage?”

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the best of this genre, including Die Hard and Under Siege.