“Hardball” is a softball, and this umpire calls it out at first base.

Keanu Reeves plays a compulsive gambler named Conor O’Neill who owes a lot of money to various thugs. A childhood friend offers to pay him $500 a week if he will take over the friend’s responsibility to coach a baseball team in Chicago’s Cabrini Green, one of the nation’s most dangerous housing projects. You know where it goes from there because you’ve seen it in “The Bad News Bears” and “The Mighty Ducks” and dozens of clones. That is not always a bad thing – there’s always room for another story of underdogs and redemption. But this one never delivers on any of the opportunities that formula creates. There’s a nine-member team and we barely get to know any of them except for two inevitable cliches — the fat kid and the cute little kid who talks a lot. Reeves can be terrific in a part that suits his range, but the blankness that works well for him in dumb parts (“Bill and Ted”) and silent parts (“Speed,” “The Matrix”) does not give him enough to work with when he is supposed to be struggling with his compulsion to gamble or angry with himself for getting into trouble. Reeves gets no help from the script, which makes him behave in an arbitrary and inconsistent manner and does not have a single memorable line of dialogue. We don’t want to be told that he and the kids come to care for each other in a movie like this – we want to be shown. And there is not one moment of practice, teaching skills (baseball or otherwise), or conversation to make us believe it.

The movie makes the most of the audience’s inherent commitment to the storyline. We want those kids to make it, and we want Conor to make it, too. The other reason to watch is yet another quietly arresting performance by Diane Lane, who brings a delicacy and complexity to every moment she is on screen.

The script is strictly by-the-numbers, but there is a timely plot twist concerning a player with a forged birth certificate. One of the movie’s most wrenching scenes shows him after he is kicked off the team, wearing gang colors and warning his former teammates with a meaningful glance to get away quickly.

Parents should know that the movie includes very strong language, including many four-letter words used by children. The boys are surrounded by drug use and gang violence. They can identify the weapon by the sound of the shooting and take it for granted that they must sit on the floor to be out of the way of gunfire that might come in the window. One child is badly beaten and another is killed.

I have to say something here about the MPAA’s rating system. This film was originally intended to be released as an R, due to the language used by the children. The producers argued that it was an authentic portrayal of the way that people in that environment speak. Protests during the filming, and, more significantly, marketing concerns about whether the audience really wanted an R-rated movie about a little league team, led them to cut some of the worst language to obtain a PG-13 rating. This shows again the absurdity of the MPAA’s standards because the movie still has some material, including the gang shooting of a child, that is far more likely to be upsetting to younger audiences than a few four-letter words.

Families who see this movie should talk about how the children helped Conor realize that he needed to make some changes. Why was it important that Conor made a rule that the players could not insult each other? What did Conor learn from G-Baby? What do you think will happen to the members of the team when they get too old to play in the league?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy The Sandlot and Angels in the Outfield. They might also like To Sir, with Love.

Prepare for the final movie in the Harry Potter series by watching the first one again:

I loved it. And I can’t wait to see it again.

Based of course on the international sensation, the book by J. K. Rowling, “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” is filled with visual splendor, valiant heroes, spectacular special effects, and irresistible characters. It is only fair to say that it is truly magical.

Fanatical fans of the books (in other words, just about everyone who has read them) should take a deep breath and prepare themselves to be thrilled. But first they have to remember that no movie could possibly fit in all of the endlessly inventive details author J.K. Rowling includes or match the imagination of readers who have their own ideas about what Harry’s famous lightning-bolt scar looks like or how Professor McGonagall turns into a cat. Move all of that over into a safe storage part of your brain and settle back with those who are brand new to the story to enjoy the way that screenwriter Steven Kloves, production designer Stuart Craig, and director Chris Columbus have brought their vision of the story to the screen. Even these days, when a six year old can tell the difference between stop-motion and computer graphics, there are movies like this one to remind us of our sense of wonder and show us how purely entertaining a movie can be.

Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), of course, is the orphan who lives with the odious Dursleys, his aunt, uncle, and cousin. They make him sleep in a closet under the stairs and never show him any attention or affection. On his 11th birthday, he receives a mysterious letter, but his uncle destroys it before he can read it. Letters keep coming, and the Dursleys take Harry to a remote lighthouse to keep him from getting them. Finally one is delivered to the lighthouse in the very large person of Hagrid, a huge, bearded man with a weakness for scary-looking creatures. It turns out that the letters were coming from Hogwarts, a boarding school for young witches and wizards, and Harry is expected for the fall term.

Hagrid takes Harry to buy his school supplies in Diagon Alley, a small corner of London that like so much of the magic world exists near but apart from the world of the muggles (humans). We are thus treated to one of the most imaginative and engaging settings ever committed to film, mixing the London of Dickens and Peter Pan with sheer, bewitching fantasy. A winding street that looks like it is hundreds of years old holds a bank run by gnomes, a store where the wand picks the wizard, and a pub filled with an assortment of curious characters.

Then it’s off to the train station, where the Hogwarts Express leaves from Track 9 ¾. On the train, Harry meets his future best friends, Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) and gets to try delicacies like chocolate frogs (they really hop) and Bertie Bott’s Everyflavor Beans (and they do mean EVERY FLAVOR).

And then things really get exciting, with classes in potions and “defense against the dark arts,” a sport called Quidditch (a sort of flying soccer/basketball), a mysterious trap door guarded by a three-headed dog named Fluffy, a baby dragon named Norbert, some information about Harry’s family and history, and some important lessons in loyalty and courage.

The settings manage to be sensationally imaginative and yet at the same time so clearly believable and lived-in and just plain right that you’ll think you could find them yourself, if you could get to Track 9 ¾. The adult actors are simply and completely perfect. Richard Harris turns in his all-time best performance as headmaster Albus Dumbledore, Maggie Smith (whose on-screen teaching roles extend from “The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie” to “Sister Act”) brings just the right tone of dry asperity to Professor McGonagall, and Robbie Coltrane is a giant with a heart to match as Hagrid (for me, the most astounding special effect of all was the understated way the movie made him look as though he was 10 feet tall). Alan Rickman provides shivers as potions master Professor Snape, and the brief glimpse of Julie Walters (an Oscar nominee for last year’s “Billy Elliott”) as Ron’s mother made me wish for much more. The kids are all just fine, though mostly just called upon to look either astonished or resolute.

A terrific book is now a terrific movie. Every family should enjoy them both.

Parents should know that the movie is very intense and has some scary moments, including children in peril. Children are hurt, but not seriously. There are some tense moments and some gross moments. A ghost character shows how he got the name “Nearly Headless Nick.” There are characters of many races, but all major characters are white. Female characters are strong and capable.

Families who see this movie should talk about what made the books so popular with children all over the world. Why did Dumbledore leave Harry with the Dursleys? Why did Harry decide not to be friends with Draco? Harry showed both good and bad judgment – when? How can you tell? What do you think are some of the other flavors in Everyflavor Beans?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy The Wizard of Oz, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, and How The Grinch Stole Christmas.

DVD notes — this is one of the most splendid DVDs ever issued, with an entire second disk of marvelous extras including deleted scenes, a tour of Hogwarts, and CD-ROM treats.

“Hart’s War” is a big movie that takes on big themes with the courage to give them time and allow for some ambiguity.

Although it is set in WWII and has some battle violence, it is primarily a human drama about honor, sacrifice, courage, and dignity, themes that are explored from the farthest reaches as ideals and from the most personal choices made by individuals.

Lt. Hart (Colin Farrell) is a soldier who works at a desk, far from enemy lines. His father is a Senator, and he was in his second year at Yale Law School when he joined the Army. He tells us that troops were just pins on a map to him. He is glad for the chance to get out into the countryside when he gets an opportunity act as driver for a commanding officer. But the officer is killed and Hart is captured by the Germans. They torture him to try to get him to provide information, and then they ship him off to a prisoner of war camp.

The ranking American officer at the camp is Colonel McNamara (Bruce Willis). The German commandant is Colonel Visser (Romanian actor Marcel Iures). The commanding officers have more in common, and perhaps more respect for one another, than they would like to admit.

When two black officers arrive at the camp, the fragile balance of power is disrupted. Because the officer’s quarters are full, they, like Hart, are put in with the enlisted men, who object. During WWII, the armed services were still segregated, so none of the American soldiers had ever had to live with black men before, much less salute them. When the most outspokenly racist soldier is murdered, a black officer is accused, Hart is assigned as his defense counsel, and a court-martial is set up.

About 45 minutes into the story, it begins to become clear that it is not intended to reflect or illuminate the history of about WWII or indeed any war or any history. It is only set in a POW camp as a way to provide a sharper focus for the issues it addresses. McNamara tells Wasser that Americans don’t make distinctions. Wasser, serving more in the role of Socratic interrogator than enemy, points out that America makes a lot of distinctions, especially when it comes to black people. Will the officer get a fairer trial in a German POW camp than he would in the Georgia of the 1940’s? In the POW camp, the black officers face far more mortal danger from their fellow Americans than they do from the Nazis.

The story has some surprising twists and turns, and an ending that will spark some discussion as audiences leave the theater. The performances are excellent, with Terrence Howard a standout as the accused man, telling the court that in his home town, white German POWs can eat at the diner and go to the movie theater, while he, an officer risking his life for his country, cannot.

Parents should know that the movie has some graphic battle violence. Characters are killed. There is some strong language, and some references to drinking. Issues of honor, integrity, equality, justice, and balancing individual rights with the good of the group are all explored.

Families who see this movie should talk about the segregation that existed in the United States before the 1960’s, and the consequences that are still felt today. They should also talk about the choices made by Hart, McNamara, Wasser, and Scott. Which ones surprised you? Which did you agree with?

Families who appreciate this movie will also like the two great WWII POW dramas Stalag 17 and The Great Escape, both based on true stories. They will also like Breaker Morant, another story of a military legal proceeding with an inexperienced defense attorney and the brilliant anti-war drama Gallipoli, starring Mel Gibson.

Amanda Pierce (Monica Potter) is an art restorer at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York with very bad taste in men. When she comes home to find her current beau in bed with another woman (“This isn’t what it looks like,” he protests), she has to find another apartment. She moves in with four towering fashion models and promptly falls (literally) for Jim Winston (Freddie Prinze, Jr.), the Prince Charming across the street who makes her weak in the knees. One little problem — as she gazes into his window, it appears that he has killed someone. Amanda is caught between fear and longing as the models act as sort of combination Greek chorus members/evil stepsisters/fairy godmothers guiding her to solve both the mystery and the romantic dilemma.

This plot could be played a number of ways from slapstick (think Lucille Ball) to terror (think “Rear Window” or “Gaslight”). The tone this version tries to strike is something like “date movie for teenage girls whose boyfriends love Adam Sandler.” So what we get is some swoony romance, a lot of pratfalls, and intermittent gross-out jokes. For example, not once, but twice the snooty supermodels are trapped in the bathroom to no end of would-be comic chaos. The first time they are hiding out in Jim’s shower while he has a post-pirogi visit to the bathroom. The models get to engage in frantic breath-holding and face-squinching. The second time they are in a restaurant men’s room and listen to two plumbers engage in conversation misperceived as sexual before a toilet explodes. The movie’s first ten minutes include two gay jokes and a crack about menopause, all of which, like the bathroom scenes, miss rising to the level of actually being funny.

The models are good sports and enjoy making fun of their image as vapid gold-diggers. Potter (the wife in “Con Air” and the girlfriend in “Patch Adams”) is pretty and appealing but she has no comic sparkle. The movie needs Meg Ryan or Jenna Elfman (and a better script). What we get instead is a standard-issue blue-eyed blonde with an acting range as narrow as her roommates’ hips. Prinze has real star appeal, but deserves much better than this generic role.

Parents should know that the humor and plot may be juvenile, but the movie is raunchier than many PG-13s, with some very strong and graphic language. When the models do a makeover on Amanda, they tell her to clench her behind and tweak her nipples. Amanda’s lesbian friend grabs her breast. The dog Prinze walks for a neighbor tries to mount Amanda, which is supposed to be funny. There is violence, including an apparent murder and some shooting, but it is not explicit or very threatening. Some parents may also be concerned about the way that the models exploit the men who want to date them and about the foolish chances taken by the characters.

Families who see the movie should talk about why some people make mistakes in trusting the wrong people. They may also want to talk about whether a life devoted to looking beautiful can lead someone to be superficial and self-centered.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “Charade” (the perfect combination of thrills and romance) and romantic comedies like “If a Man Answers.”

William Tensy (Gene Hackman), a chain-smoking tobacco zillionaire, goes into a little rant about the ridiculous notion that second-hand smoke is harmful and turns to blast a cloud of cigarette smoke at his parrot, who immediately keels over. If only the second-hand comedy in this movie was as powerful. It is clear that the dream cast members are all enjoying themselves immensely, but that does not translate into much fun for the audience.

Sigourney Weaver plays Max, a con woman who marries wealthy men, denies them sex, and then sues them for divorce when they make a pass at her partner, Page (Jennifer Love Hewitt), who is also her daughter. Weaver and Hewitt are at their most delectable in outfits that Erin Brockovich could only dream of. If there were ever an Oscar for cleavage, this movie would be the one to beat.

After they take New Jersey chop shop owner Dean (Ray Liotta), Page is restless and wants to go off on her own. When they run into a little problem with the IRS, they agree to take on one last big con together and head off for Palm Beach. Max wants to go after Tensy, but Page is drawn to a sweet bartender named Jack (Jason Lee) who owns some land worth $3 million. Max’s challenges include a ferocious guard dog of a housekeeper (“Saturday Night Live’s” Nora Dunn), and Tensy’s constant coughing and terrible tobacco-stained teeth. Page’s challenge is keeping her plan secret from her mother and keeping herself from falling in love with Jack.

It isn’t a terrible movie, but it just does not work very well. We like the characters too much to enjoy their greedy behavior but we do not like them enough to care whether they end up happily. Max and Page are awful to just about everyone and have no sense that their behavior hurts other people. They are selfish and amoral, operating entirely out of expediency with no thought for the consequences for themselves or others. The script tries to make us believe that this is all because Max is trying to protect Page from being hurt, but that is a con job that we just don’t fall for. And despite a few con-job twists, the script is just weak and unoriginal. In real life, these con women would not fool Forrest Gump. Can it possibly be true that this is the second movie in two months to have a supposedly funny scene in which the genitals are knocked off of a nude male statue? This one is even less funny than the one in “The Wedding Planner.”

Aside from the cleavage already mentioned, the best reason to watch the movie is to see Weaver and Hewitt doing their bombshell best and Hackman’s odious performance as the mark who just might not be worth marrying to get $20 million.

Parents should know that this is yet another example of the MPAA’s comedy rule, meaning that material that would get an R rating in a drama gets a PG-13 rating because it is supposed to be funny. The movie contains continual sexual humor that can get very raunchy, including references to group sex. There is no nudity and nothing too graphic onscreen except for the statue. It has very strong language, especially for a PG-13, smoking (comic) and drinking. As noted, the main characters are con women with no concerns about stealing from anyone and everyone.

Families who see the movie should talk about how Max tried to protect Page from hurt, and whether that is wise or even possible. What does it mean to say, “you might as well get hurt in your own healthy ways?” What was it about Jack that made Page think differently about herself and about the possibilities? What do you have to think about the world to be able to rob everyone you meet? Why did it take Page so long to tell Jack her real name, and what did it mean when she did?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy one of the all-time classics, “The Lady Eve,” about a father-daughter team of con artists, and “The Sting” (some mature material), about two con men who take on an even bigger crook for one of the most intricate and satisfying con jobs of all time.