Paula Alquist (Ingrid Bergman) falls in love with Gregory Anton (Charles Boyer), a musician, and once they are married, he persuades her to move into the house she lived in as a child, which has been closed since her aunt was murdered there.

At first very happy, Paula soon becomes confused and insecure. While Gregory appears to be solicitous and caring, in reality he is cutting her off from all contact with anyone but himself, and making her doubt herself and her sanity. He convinces her that she is always losing things, that she sees things that are not there, that she is unstable and untrustworthy. Every night he leaves to play the piano in an apartment he has rented, and while he is gone the gaslights flicker and she hears mysterious noises from the attic. Gregory persuades her that these are just her delusions.

Just as Paula’s fragile hold on reality is about to break, she is visited by Brian Cameron (Joseph Cotten) of Scotland Yard, with information about Gregory. But can she trust him? Or is he just another illusion?

This classic of suspense is a good way to begin a conversation about vulnerability and manipulation. Gregory is almost able to drive Paula mad by making her think she is mad already. By cutting her off from any outside reality, by cooly denying what she sees and hears for herself, by telling her over and over again that she is helpless and incompetent, she begins to turn into the person he tells her that she is.

Families who see the movie should talk about these questions: “Gaslighting” someone is now an accepted psychiatric term, based on this movie, and its predecessor, the play “Angel Street.” What do you think it means? How does Gregory get Paula to doubt herself? How does the director help the viewer get some sense of Paula’s feelings of disorientation and doubt? Can someone make another person doubt him or herself as Gregory did? Can someone affect other people positively along the same lines, helping them to believe in themselves? How?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “Dial M for Murder” and “Suspicion.”

Gladiator” is a movie of such astounding scope and sweep and such masterful story-telling that it makes its storyline seem classic rather than clichéd. Breathtakingly sumptuous visuals credibly re-create the world of Rome in 180 AD, a world of unimaginable reach and power. The aging Caesar (Richard Harris) watches as Maximus (Russell Crowe), his most trusted general, fights the barbarians in Germania. His motto is “strength and honor.” He tells his men, “At my signal, unleash hell!” and leads them through a terrible battle to triumph. And the battle is terrible, an ancient version of the opening of “Saving Private Ryan,” with burning, bleeding, stabbing, smacking, and just plain carnage wherever you look.

Caesar’s son Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) wants to succeed his father. But his father says no. Commodus does not have the virtues that Caesar wants: wisdom, justice, fortitude, and temperance. Commodus says that he has other virtues: ambition, resourcefulness, courage, and devotion. Caesar tells Maximus he wants him to lead the people back to democracy. But before he can send that message back to the senate, he is killed by Commodus, showing his ambition and resourcefulness, if not his courage and devotion. Commodus orders that Maximus and his family be killed.

Maximus escapes, is captured, and sold into slavery. He becomes a gladiator. He knows that if he wants to confront Commodus, he has to become successful enough to be called to Rome. Meanwhile, Commodus is using festivals and spectacles to distract the populace while he disables the Senate. The only one he trusts is his sister, Lucilla (Connie Nielsen), who pretends to support him to protect her young son.

Director Ridley Scott (“Thelma and Louise,” “Blade Runner”) stages the fight scenes brilliantly, each more inventive and gripping than the last. He must identify with Proximo (Oliver Reed), the owner of the gladiators, who tells Maximus that it is not the opponent he must conquer, but the crowd. He advises Maximus to kill his opponents in a more elaborate and interesting way. Proximo is always looking for something new to engage the attention of the audience, and the results are something like a deranged computer game, with new peril coming literally from all sides.

Fellow gladiator Juba (“Amistad’s” Djimon Hounsou) explains the appeal of the fights when he says that fear and wonder are a powerful combination. Two thousand years later, little has changed. We may not pay to see people kill each other any more, but we pay to see them pretend to do so (in this movie, for example, which elicited applause and hoarse cheers from the audience in its bloodiest moments), and we pay to see them come pretty close in sports like boxing, hockey, wrestling, and football.

Parents should know that this is a very, very violent movie. A woman and child are brutally tortured and killed (mostly off-screen). People are sliced up, burned, and crucified. There are references to rape and incest.

Families who see the movie will want to talk about why it is that people are drawn to watch other people battle and what the appeal is of movies like this and full contact sports. Notice that, like Odysseus in the land of the Cyclops, Maximus will not use his name until he has done something he can be proud of. Why didn’t Commodus just have him killed? Why did Commodus (a little like the WWF’s Vince McMahon) decide to participate in the combat? What does it mean to “smile back” at death? Compare the lists of virtues claimed by Caesar and Commodus. Which are the most important? One of the movie’s great challenges is making its world seem very different to us without making it impossible to identify with the characters. The story is told without any sense of irony or distance. Some older kids will have some good thoughts on how that is accomplished. Families who enjoy this movie may want to see some of the other classics set in this era, like “Ben Hur” and “Spartacus.

This is a check-your-brain-at-the-door, dig into some popcorn, sit back and enjoy summer explosion movie, brought to you by the same folks who did “Con Air.”

Nicolas Cage again stars as the good guy in a bad world, this time a reformed car thief named Memphis who has to get back into the game to save his brother, Kip (Giovanni Ribisi). Kip reveres his older brother’s mastery of the Zen grand theft auto as a Zen art form, but he also resents him for walking away from that life and from his family. Kip is supposed to steal 50 cars for a very mean guy with an English accent and a passion for woodwork. When Kip blows it, the baddie tells Memphis that he has to get the 50 cars in four days, or Kip goes into the car-size trash compacter.

What that means is that (1) we get comfortable cheering for the car thief, and (2) it turns into one of those movies that helpfully gives us a countdown (“72:00:00 hours to deadline”) as we see him put it all together.

Part of the fun is that the movie gives us bad guys (the car thieves) who must deal with worse guys (a gang that thinks they should be the ones to get this steal-for-order assignment) and an even worse guy than that (the threatening wood-lover and some off-screen heroin dealers). Then there are the good guys (cops Delroy Lindo and Timothy Olyphant) and the not-so-good guys (homicide cops who think car theft is unimportant).

Producer Jerry Bruckheimer has this formula down cold: top acting talent (Oscar-winners Cage, Angelina Jolie, and Robert Duvall, along with rising star Ribisi and the sensationally talented Lindo), some snappy dialogue, a cool and clever hero, and lots and lots of chases, all done with such panache that even a “my dog ate it” plot twist doesn’t derail things.

Memphis and the cop both long to capture one elusive prize. For Memphis, it is “Eleanor,” the ‘67 Mustang he never managed to steal successfully. For the cop, it is Memphis himself, the one thief he never managed to catch.

Memphis says that he never did it for the money – “I did it for the cars.” He and his gang all love cars so deeply that as they go out to steal, they banter back and forth about TV car trivia, naming the make and model of any car ever driven on a sitcom or detective show. That gang includes former love Angelina Jolie, who doesn’t have enough to do, but does it well, looking very fetching in blonde dreadlocks. When she blows a kiss with those bee-stung lips, the audience lets out a collective sigh.

Parents should know that the movie includes strong language, sexual references and situations, and lots of tense scenes and explosions. Families who see the movie will want to discuss how the way that the movie “disinfects” the hero-thief by giving him (1) a good motive, (2) a commitment to going straight, (3) even worse bad guys, (4) loyal friends who demonstrate that he is worthy of respect and affection, and (5) a resolution that seems fair to everyone. They may also want to talk about how vulnerable everyone is to crime, and how to protect themselves and their property.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “Con Air” and “The Rock” (warning: both are more violent than this one).

Plot: Scarlett O’Hara (Vivien Leigh) is the beautiful and headstrong daughter of of the owner of a Southern plantation called Tara. She has “the smallest waist in three counties” and dozens of beaux clamoring for her attention. But the one she believes she loves is gentle Ashley Wilkes (Leslie Howard). At a party, just as the Civil War is beginning, she finds out that he is going to marry his cousin Melanie (Olivia DeHavilland). Her fury at this news is witnessed by Rhett Butler (Clark Gable), a dashing, but cynical man who refuses to participate in hypocricy and speaks very directly, telling Scarlett that she is “no lady” and telling the men at the party that the South cannot win a war.

In a pique, Scarlett impulsively agrees to marry Melanie’s brother Charles (her sister’s beau), who dies just after he enlists. This leaves Scarlett as a widow, encumbered to the point of suffocation by the mourning rituals of the era, which restrict her to elaborate black clothes and very limited social activities. She goes to visit Melanie, now married to Ashley, in Atlanta, and meets Rhett again, now a war profiteer, who shocks the community by pledging money for the war effort if she will dance with him. She is delighted to have an excuse to dance. His directness makes her uncomfortable, but also intrigues her, because she has been used to men who are both predictable and easy to control. Melanie has a baby just as Sherman comes through with his soldiers. Scarlett stays with her, then gets Rhett (staying at a bordello) to take them all back to Tara. She tells Rhett he was right not to join the Confederate army, but he has decided that now is the time to join, and leaves her at Tara.

Her mother is dead, her father has had a breakdown, and her sisters are ill. They have no food, and all but two of the slaves have left. Scarlett takes charge, swearing she will never be hungry again. When a Union deserter tries to steal her mother’s jewelry, she shoots him, and Melanie helps her bury the body.

The war ends. About to lose Tara, she tries to get the money from Rhett, and when he refuses, she marries Frank Kennedy (her other sister’s fiancé), a merchant, to get the money. Frank is killed in a KKK- style raid, and she marries Rhett. But she thinks that she still wants Ashley, and by the time she realizes that it is Rhett she loves, he leaves her, with the most famous exit line in the history of the movies. After he is gone, she reminds herself that she will go on and work for what she wants, that “Tomorrow is another day.”

Discussion: Considered by many the definitive example of the Hollywood movie, this is by any standard one of the greatest films of all time. It could be — and should be — viewed from a dozen different perspectives, but it is, above all, a story about adapting to the most challenging circumstances possible. Interestingly, our heroine is not especially brave or smart or considerate. On the contrary, she is completely selfish. And she has very little interest or understanding of the world around her or of her own feelings. Yet the movie shows us that she has qualities like stubbornness and focus that enable her to survive, while those like Melanie and Ashley (who are thoughtful and honorable) do not. In the first scene, her father tells her that what matters most is Tara, and that becomes her symbol of survival. At the end of the movie, with her emotional life devastated, her first thought is to return there to start over again.

In the first scenes of the movie, we get a glimpse of the South before the Civil War. The lives of the landowners are similar to those of British landed gentry, with even more elaborate standards of gentility, chivalry, elegance, and refinement. Listen to Mammy (Hattie MacDaniel) before the barbecue party, reminding Scarlett of the conventions of the era, from how much it is appropriate for ladies to eat in front of gentlemen to how much skin it is appropriate to expose in the afternoon. All that is shattered when the war begins, and shattered again when the illusions about the war as an exercise in chivalry and sportsmanship are relentlessly swept away by the realities of combat with a vastly more powerful adversary. Every belief and assumption the Southerners had about themselves and their future is challenged.

Notice how much of what goes on between Scarlett and others is about power. She and Ashley have little in common; indeed, the qualities she thinks she admires in him are the ones that make her feel contempt for Melanie. Scarlett’s primary interest in Ashley seems to be in making sure she can enslave him as she has the Tarleton twins and every other man she knows. In a scene that is even more controversial today than it was when it was filmed, Rhett’s willingness to overpower her sexually increases her respect for and interest in him.

Scarlett and Rhett are both free from considerations of honor and duty and therefore able to think in strictly pragmatic terms about survival. The difference is that Rhett is always honest with himself and others about what is going on, while Scarlett insists on keeping her illusions about Ashley, until it is too late.

Questions for Kids:

· Why were the Southerners so wrong about their ability to win a war with the North?

· Why does Scarlett marry Charles? Why does she marry Frank? Why does she marry Rhett?

· Why is Tara so important to her?

· Why does Rhett like Scarlett? Why do his feelings about her change?

· What do you think will happen after she goes back to Tara?

Connections: This film, the long-time box office champion, won eight Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Supporting Actress (Hattie McDaniel, who beat Olivia DeHavilland to become the first black performer to win an Oscar ). Amazingly, director Victor Fleming, the fifth director assigned to the movie, directed “The Wizard of Oz” the same year. With five directors and at least 12 screenwriters, the credit for “authorship” of the movie must go to producer David O. Selznick, whose vision for the film was spelled out meticulously in long memoranda, published in Memo from David O. Selznick. A made-for-television movie, “The Scarlett O’Hara War” is based on the furious efforts in Hollywood by all of the actresses (including Bette Davis, Paulette Goddard, Joan Crawford, and Tallulah Bankhead) who wanted this juiciest of parts. “Scarlett,” a television miniseries, continues the story, but with not even a fraction of the quality of the original. Read the original book by Margaret Mitchell instead.

Has there ever been a life as blessed as that of the wealthy English country house owner of the 1930’s?

Imagine being able to toss off casual commands to a huge staff who are there to anticipate every thing the master wants and have it ready before he realizes he wants it. And imagine living in a magnificent house with a safe full of silver and jewels, breakfast in bed, and lots of room for everyone you know to come and spend the weekend.

Pretty good, as long as you’re on the upstairs side of the equation. This movie, a cross between “Upstairs Downstairs,” an Agatha Christie murder mystery, and a game of Clue, uses the pre-WWII country house as an ideal setting for intrigue, romance, ambition, betrayal, and revenge. And it is also a cautionary tale about class, secrets, money, sex, and love.

Lady Constance (Maggie Smith) represents the last of the old way. She unhesitatingly accepts her position in the class hierarchy, despite the minor inconvenience of having to humble herself by asking for more money from a cousin who represents the new. He is a relative by marriage named Sir William(Michael Gambon). His money may be vulgar because it is newly made and his manners may be vulgar because his wealth permits them to be, but just about everyone in the house wants something from him.

The servants, so regimented that they are called by the names of their masters and seated according to the ranks of those they serve, also show the range from those too bound by respect for tradition or lack of imagination to think of something else, to those who cling to the structure so that they do not have to think about anything else, and those who are just beginning to be aware that the world is going to present them with alternatives they could never have dreamed of.

The household includes Sir William’s bored and bitter wife (Kristin Scott Thomas), their daughter, with eyes like sqashed poppies, terrified of having a secret discovered and with no one to confide in but her maid, a brother-in-law desperate for Sir William to back a business deal, and a distant relative who is the only real-life historical character in the movie, early screen idol Ivor Novello (Jeremy Northam), who brings a Hollywood producer to take notes on the place for a Charlie Chan movie. As Novello literally sings for his supper, entertaining the guests one evening, you can see the future. Those who ignore him (most of the guests) will soon fade, but those who love his music (most of the household staff) will soon take over when World War II transforms the economy and class system of Britain more radically than any event of the previous 300 years.

When asked about his relatives, Novello says that he “earns (his) living by impersonating them.” He is only one of many characters who explore the divide between upstairs and downstairs. There are sexual encounters, largely enjoyed by both parties. And a character who arrives in one category is revealed to be in the other.

As in his best movies, Altman masterfully handles a dozen overlapping and intersecting storylines. Somewhere in the midst, there is a murder, but its resolution is incidental to the many other revelations and confrontations.

The Oscar-winning script is superb, but the movie is mostly a banquet of magnificent performances by most of England’s finest performers. It is worth watching a second or third time, just to enjoy Maggie Smith, Helen Mirren, Clive Owen, Emily Watson, Alan Bates, Scott Thomas, Gambon, and Northam. Ryan Phillipe and Bob Balaban (who co-produced) do very well as the Americans.

Parents should know that the movie has sexual references and situations (briefly graphic), including adultery and homosexuality, and an attempted molestation. There is some strong language and a character is murdered.

Families who see this movie should talk about how each of the different characters fits into the overall story. Which do they sympathize with the most? Which do they dislike the most? Who in the film actually cares about Sir William? Why? Why was it so important for Mrs. Wilson to be the “perfect servant?” What will happen to each of the characters in 10 years?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy Altman’s M*A*S*H and Nashville. They may also want to try Masterpiece Theater’s Upstairs Downstairs.”

DVD note: The Collector’s edition DVD has outstanding extras, including commentary by the director, production designer, producer, and screenwriter, deleted scenes and a Q&A session with the film-makers. Strongly recommended.