lTim Burton’s “Planet of the Apes” is less a remake than a re-imagining of the classic staring Charlton Heston. This version has no loincloth and no Statue of Liberty, and no Roddy McDowell, but Heston does show up for a surprisingly effective cameo — as one of the apes.

Mark Wahlberg plays Leo, an officer in the United States Air Force, working on a space station in 2029. An exploratory aircraft piloted by a monkey disappears into a mysterious electrical field. Against the orders of his commanding officer, Leo follows it to find out what happened. The storm hurtles him through time and space until he crashes on a planet where apes rule and humans are slaves. Ari (Helena Bonham Carter) helps Leo and some of the others escape to a forbidden city that will reveal some of the planet’s history. But General Thade (Tim Roth) and his army are in pursuit with orders to destroy them. As Burton promised in interviews, this version does not use the now-famous ending in the first film that showed them the planet they had landed on was Earth. This one ends with a twist that may even top it.

As in all of Burton’s movies, including “Beetlejuice” and “Edward Scissorhands,” the art direction is intricate, meticulous, and strangely beautiful. Every detail is a work of art, from the texture of the ape armor to the outline of the spaceship.

Wahlberg makes an appealing, all-American hero, though he is not up to the task of delivering a brief pep talk to the assembled humans. He is no Kenneth Branaugh in “Henry V.” He is not even Bill Pullman in “Independence Day.” But he is fine in the action scenes and he handles the challenge of kissing females of two different species with reasonable finesse. Overall, the simian performers are better and more believable than the humans. Bonham Carter makes a remarkably fetching ape, flirting through her bangs and using her eyes and body language to deliver a real performance. She has far more range of expression than Estella Warren (of “Driven”) as a feisty human in a costume that seems left over from Raquel Welch in “One Million B.C.” Roth is a seething presence as the bad guy, Michael Clarke Duncan gives physical and emotional weight to the role of the loyal officer, and Paul Giametti is hilarious as a slave trader held hostage.

Parents should know that the movie features intense and prolonged peril, a great deal of violence, and many deaths, including characters we care about. Characters are beaten and branded. There is a brief mild sexual situation and some strong language.

Families who see this movie should talk about the way that Burton makes unabashedly clear the parallels between the views of the apes toward humans and the views of racists and other bigots on Earth. Like those who have argued for segregation, apartheid, genocide, and “ethnic cleansing,” the apes find justification for their oppression of humans by insisting that humans are inferior creatures who have no souls or by demonizing them. The apes seem to have no problem with sub-species distinctions, and different kinds of apes work and socialize without any distinctions.

Families who enjoy this movie should see the original and some of its sequels to compare them. They, too, served as a metaphor for racial divides in an era in which it was much easier to put some of the dialogue about equal rights and revolution into the mouths of apes than people. They should also read Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn, a stunning book about a wise ape who teaches his human pupil to think about the world in a completely different way. I promise, when you are done with the book, you will do the same.

It’s better than the first one. That isn’t saying much, especially since the prime audience for this film doesn’t really care much about niceties like character, dialogue, or quality of animation. If you’ve got a little Pokemon fanatic in your family, you’re going to this movie, whether it is any good or not.

And it’s not, by any adult standards. But there are a few moments of interesting animation and what passes for a plot is a bit more coherent than it was in the first one. A bad guy (we can tell he is a bad guy because he has an English accent and because he is a Pokemon COLLECTOR not a Pokemon TRAINER) plans to disrupt the “harmony of fire, ice, and lightning” by capturing the birds that control these elements of nature. Once that harmony is disrupted, he will unleash the monster currents of the ocean, and that will enable him to capture the ultimate treasure, Lugia, for his collection.

Meanwhile, champion Pokemon trainer Ash and his friends arrive on an island just in time for the annual re-enactment of an ancient legend. The girl selected to be the star of the re-enactment calls it “dorky” and thinks it is all a little silly. But then she realizes that it is more than a legend, and that by paying careful attention to the words and music of the old ceremony, she will have the key to restoring the balance of nature, protecting Lugia, and preventing catastrophic weather conditions that could wipe out all living things. According to the legend, “the world will turn to Ash” if the harmony of nature is disturbed. And Ash needs help from everyone, even the usually dastardly Team Rocket, to save the day.

As in the first movie, there is also a short film at the beginning, “Pokemon’s Rescue Adventure,” featuring the Pokemons on a human-free, and almost dialogue-free frolic. Pokemon fans will enjoy the line-up of favorite characters, and may even learn something about loyalty and teamwork.

As I have noted before, anyone who has ever seen the TV series, played the game, or bought the cards knows what to expect here. Every generation of children has some hideously annoying cartoon series to provide parents with much agonizing and many, many buying opportunities. The characters usually undergo some transformation or make use of a secret to attain power. This theme is endlessly interesting to kids who can feel overwhelmed by a world built on a scale that is often too large for them.

Kids, especially those ages 6-10, also love to memorize and sort endless facts, whether about Pokemons, dinosaurs, cars, or Beanie Babies. It gives them a sense of mastery, especially because they can do so much better than adults. And it becomes an important part of their social development, creating a shared language with their friends. This can be particularly meaningful for kids who are insecure about talking to other children.

Still, excruciating as it can be for parents to endure, it may be worthwhile for kids to see the movie. If it makes it any easier, remember that before too long, this will be over and by the time the next one comes along your children will be past that stage.

Parents should know that the movie features a lot of cartoon-style action, with characters in peril, but no one gets hurt. Like Harry Potter, Ash and Misty are at a point where there are some uncomfortable boy-girl feelings. When Misty is accused of being Ash’s girlfriend, she bristles. But she does not allow the fear of acting like a girlfriend prevent her from acting like a friend, and her special water skills turn out to be just what Ash needs. There is also some mild potty humor.

Families who watch this movie should talk about the importance of loyalty and teamwork and how Ash sometimes feels that he is not up to the task (“Training Pokemons is tough enough, but saving the world is way too hard!”). Ask kids why Team Rocket decided to become good, and whether they think they will stay that way. Kids may also want to talk about how Ash’s mother feels. She is proud and scared at the same time when he is risking his life to save the world. She is sorry that his life as a Pokemon trainer takes him so far away from her, but when she tells him, “You’re my hero every day,” she lets him know that she is proud of him for who is is as well as for what he does.

Families who enjoy this movie will enjoy the first one, “Pokemon: The First Movie — Mewtwo Strikes Back.”

I suppose that it’s a sign that we’ve passed the peak of Pokemon frenzy that the word “Nintendo” got a bigger reaction from the kids in the audience than the word “Pokemon,” but this movie mustered enough of the old Pokemon spirit to keep the kids pretty happy.

Like the first two Pokemon features, this one includes both a short Pokemon-on-their-own adventure and then a longer feature story along the familiar lines of Pokemon Trainer Ash and his pals save the world. Interestingly, this time the threat comes not from a mad scientist, as in the second Pokemon movie, or from a rogue Pokemon, as in the first movie, but from a little girl named Molly who unwittingly causes havoc when she meets up with some Pokemons who grant her every wish.

Pokemons, of course, are those adorable little pocket monsters who love to be caught by their human trainers, who carry them around and deploy them against the pocket monsters of other trainers, to see who is the best. Most adults find them somewhere between annoying and painful, but children love them. They are always drawn to the idea of hidden sources of power accessed by seemingly powerless figures (think of Superman, Power Rangers, etc.). And they love the memorizing, sorting, and of course collecting opportunity that Pokemons afford. This can be an important part of their social development, and parents should respect their affection for Pokemons while maintaining control over the accumulation of clutter.

Parents should know that some children may be upset by characters in peril (though no one gets hurt). The opening segment includes a scary dog, though he later cooperates with the Pokemons. In the feature story, Molly has lost her mother and the magical Pokemon that she thinks is her father steals Ash’s mother for her. Her very loving father leaves her to pursue a scientific inquiry and disappears. This may be of concern to some children. The little girl’s mother returns only during the closing credits, with no explanation. There is a little bit of “I want to be your boyfriend” humor, but it is very brief and utterly G-rated.

Families who see this movie might want to talk about how having one’s wishes granted may not always be a good thing, and about the way the Pokemons take care of each other in the short segment and take care of their human trainers in the feature movie. Older kids may get a kick out of the way that the silly Team Rocket, always trying to get ahead of Ash and his friends, end up helping them out because “without them, we’d be out of show business!” They may also want to talk about the way Molly sees the shape of her Pokemon friend in a cloud, and how we can keep those we love inside us always.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the other Pokemon movies and “Kiki’s Delivery Service.”

The best biographical movies do three things. They show us why the life being depicted was important and how the main character had an important impact on the way we see the world. They give us a glimpse of what it is like to care passionately about something, to share a little bit of that passion and to think a little bit about what makes us feel passionate. And they give us a voyeuristic opportunity to experience the life of someone who comes from behind or has a dysfunctional family or has made reckless mistakes, or all of the above.

“Pollock,” a labor of love from director/star Ed Harris, gets about half of it right. Harris shows us the artist as a hugely talented but yowling id, all hunger and impulse. We see that both art and acceptance (and therefore fame) matter a great deal to Pollock. And we see that when the two collide, art wins out. Art critic Clement Greenberg (Jeffrey Tambor) champions of Pollock’s work, making him the darling of the art world. His approval means a lot to Pollock, professionally and artistically. When Greenberg criticizes the color in one painting at a dinner party, Pollock runs to the studio to drag it into the room and takes out a huge tube of paint to squirt onto it. But even his need for approval and his self- destructiveness and spite are not enough to allow him to mar a painting that he thinks is right.

Harris gets a lot of the details right, including the dazzling spectacle of watching Pollock create the paintings. In the beginning of the movie, before a flashback to Pollock’s early days, we see him at a elegant gallery opening, after Life Magazine has already named him the greatest living American artist. Pollock is asked to autograph the magazine and he reaches for it with paint-stained fingers. He may be all dressed up, but a real artist’s fingers are never completely clean. Great care has been taken with the movie’s art direction. A magnificent lobster-decorated dress worn by Pollock’s patron Peggy Guggenheim (Amy Madigan) is an exact replica of one she really wore. Much of the movie takes place on location at Pollock’s home in rural Long Island, and it all feels very genuine and authentic.

Harris, Harden, and Madigan are all outstanding, and the film, while flawed, is engrossing and impressive. But we never really see why Pollock was important or what motivated him. He is boorish, selfish, conceited, and, most of all, needy. A bunch of other artists make brief appearances and then disappear, making no impression at all except for the fun of seeing young versions of artists like Willem de Kooning and Franz Kline. And there are a few cringe-inducing expositional moments, as when Pollock’s wife, Lee Krasner (Marcia Gay Harden), exclaims on seeing his first dribble painting, “This isn’t Cubism, Jackson, because you’re not breaking down the figure into multiple views!” That does not do much either for those who are familiar with Pollock’s work or those who think that they have a child who could finger-paint better than that. Pollock, who wisely resisted explanations and categorization, deserves something more subtle and complex. There are moments when this film gives it to us, as when Pollock makes his famous statement, “I do not use the accident. I deny the accident.”

Parents should know that the movie contains a lot of mature material, including very strong language and sexual references and situations. A highly unsatisfactory sexual encounter between Pollock and Guggenheim is shown fairly explicitly. Characters drink, smoke, abuse drugs, and engage in self-destructive behavior. Pollock’s drunk driving with the passengers screaming, is shown, though not the crash that killed him. Family members treat each other badly, which may be upsetting for some viewers.

Families who see this movie should talk about why people become passionate about art and how art is affected by the surrounding commerce and culture. Why did Krasner give up her own art to take care of Pollock? Why were the views of Guggenheim and Greenberg so important? Why aren’t Pollock’s paintings just considered scribbles? Are there any painters today who are as important a part of the cultural landscape as Pollock was when he was featured in Life Magazine? Or are our new cultural icons working in different mediums?

People who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “Kerouac, The Movie,” a documentary about another highly influential 1950’s figure.

Another stunning performance from Russell Crowe holds together a movie that is otherwise not sure exactly what it wants to be.

Inspired by a magazine article about “K and R” consultants and a real-life hostage negotiation, this is the story of an American executive who is kidnapped and held for ransom. That’s what “K and R” stands for — “kidnap and ransom,” and not, as one might think, “kidnap and rescue.” But the movie makers know that audiences expect to see more than tense bargaining over price. They want some Rambo action, and in this movie, they get it.

The story begins with its hero, Terry Thorne (Crowe) sitting in a conference room giving a dry recital of his most recent success, the official report belied by scenes of what really happened, a shoot-out and perilous rescue by helicopter.

Then we see Alice and Peter Bowman (Meg Ryan and David Morse), a loving but discontented couple living in South America, where Peter is supposed to be overseeing construction of a dam. Alice is frustrated and unhappy, still mourning a miscarriage eight months earlier. Peter is also frustrated, because none of his equipment has arrived as promised, and because he feels that he cannot make Alice happy.

Then Peter is kidnapped, and Terry arrives to handle the negotiations — until it turns out that Peter’s company has not paid its insurance premiums, and Terry’s firm orders him home. Terry leaves, but then returns, out of a sense of honor or because he is drawn to Alice, or both.

The story shifts back and forth from Terry’s attempts to get the kidnappers to agree to a ransom Alice and Peter’s sister can pay to Peter, being held in the mountains. Peter’s scenes are intended to show his response to the deprivation and torture and his efforts to fight back or escape, but they are the weakest in the movie, failing to maintain tension or even sympathy. Meanwhile, Terry learns that he will have to go in commando-style to rescue Peter.

Crowe is magnificent, a reluctant hero out of a Bogart movie, with Bogart’s combination of ideals and complete lack of illusion. Offscreen, Ryan and Crowe had a romance that made headlines, but onscreen, there is not much beyond some meaningful glances and one brief conversation that Crowe makes heartbreaking. Ryan does her best to make Alice smart and tough, but neither she nor Morse as Peter are able to make us care very deeply. Pamela Reed makes a welcome appearance as Peter’s sister and David Caruso is excellent as Terry’s friend and compatriot.

Parents should know that the movie is very violent, with a lot of shooting and explosions and many deaths. Characters use very strong language. One of the bad guys uses drugs, and some of the good guys drink as a response to stress and as a way of bonding.

Families who see this movie should talk about how people evaluate risks and how they decide whom to trust. Why did Terry come back? What will he do next?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “Missing” with Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek.