The big surprise ending of “Unbreakable” is what a disappointment it is.

The writer/director of “The Sixth Sense” begins with many of the same elements — Bruce Willis, a Philadelphia setting, a strained marriage, a child who is grappling with some big issues, elements of the supernatural, and a twist at the end. Once again, he creates a haunting and portentous mood with subdued performances, somber hues, and fluid camera movements. But unlike “The Sixth Sense,” in which a surprise at the end kicked the entire movie into a higher gear (and inspired audiences to go see it again to help them unravel it), this one has an ending that inspired hoots and boos at the screening I attended. In particular, the “what happens after the movie ends” description that come up on the screen just before the credits is the worst I have ever seen.

Bruce Willis plays David Dunn, a security guard who seems disconnected from his own life, unable to remember very much about his past and unwilling to connect to his wife and child. When he is the only survivor of a train crash, walking away without a single injury, bruise, or scratch, he is contacted by Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), a comic art dealer who has a congenital bone disease. Price has bones that break easily; Dunn has bones that never break. Price believes there must be a connection, and that he must help Dunn find his destiny.

Comic book themes of good and evil, hero and enemy, strength and vulnerability, thesis and antithesis, and destiny and choice appear throughout the movie. Several times, characters see something upside down at first, and then have to turn it around to see it clearly. Price helps Dunn realize that he is more than a security guard. He is a protector. When Dunn begins to use his gifts, he begins to lose the sadness that has always engulfed him. When he tells his wife he had a nightmare, he is not referring to the murderer he has just battled but to a past in which he was able to sense tragedy around him but was not aware that he had the ability to protect people from it.

Parents should know that this movie has a lot of violence. Although most of it is offscreen, its themes, including sexual assault, murder of the parents of two children, and genocide, may be especially disturbing. A child uses a gun. There is a brief vulgar reference and an implication of date rape.

Families who see this movie should talk about how we find our “place in the world,” and the importance of recognizing our special gifts so that we can make the best use of them. If members of the family enjoy comic books, they may want to talk about the tradition of pictoral story-telling, the themes of hero and arch-villain and what makes them so enduring. We often think of good guys and bad guys as opposites, but we should also think about what they have in common.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “The Sixth Sense” and a better teaming of Willis and Jackson in “Die Hard: With a Vengeance.”

Plot: Steven Lidz is the son of Sid (John Turturro), an inventor. He is a distracted man who “believes in documentation” and empirical data. Steven is closer to his warm-hearted mother, the emotional center of the family. When she becomes ill, he goes to live with his father’s two brothers (Michael Richards and Maury Chaikin), both borderline (and sometimes more than borderline) mentally ill. They are hoarders, with huge piles of newspapers filling every bit of available floor space, paranoid, telling him there are only eight trustworthy people in the world (the other four have been killed), and delusional. But they love Steven very much, and see in him a strength and ability to be great that he finds very comforting. They rename him “Franz” because they think it suits him better than Steven.

Franz picks up some of his uncles’ peculiarities (singing the “Internationale” in school while the other kids recite the Pledge of Allegiance), but also draws strength from what they tell him. They encourage him to connect to his heritage by studying for his bar mitzvah. And his uncle’s fascination with objects inspires him to hold on to a bit of his mother by collecting small items that make him feel close to her. When she dies, he retrieves hours of “documentation” (film of experiments and family home movies) from the garbage. He and his father watch them together, and, with the uncles, begin to document the family again.

Discussion: Based on the autobiographical novel by sportwriter Franz Lidz (he kept the name his uncles bestowed on him), this is a quietly moving story of a boy growing up in the midst of incomprehensible loss. Perhaps it is the very incomprehensibility of it all that makes his uncles seem understandable by comparison. Or perhaps they just have a less frightening way of being impossible to understand. To Steven, they are almost like children, the way they play with the “high-bouncers” from the collection of lost rubber balls that “hold the sounds of the children who played with them.” He makes pancakes for them the way his mother made pancakes for him and his sister. He protects them from the landlord who wants to see them evicted. They have time for him, which his parents don’t. They have answers for him, which no one else does. They see him as “Franz” and “Franz” is who he decides he wants to be.

This is a movie about loss, but more than that it is a movie about families, and the acceptance of family members who are not always easy to understand. This includes Sid as well as the uncles.

The movie raises the question of faith. Sid is relentlessly scientific and is furious that his brothers have encouraged Franz to study Judaism. He tells them that “religion is a crutch, only cripples need crutches.” But Franz’s mother, dying, says maybe Franz is right.

Franz’s attitude toward his uncles is very sympathetic, even protective. But Franz and his friend Ash play a prank on Uncle Danny, slipping him a note that sends his paranoia into overdrive. Danny commits himself, and when Franz admits that he wrote the note, Danny tells him it is all right, that it made it possible for him to get help.

Questions for Kids:

· Why does Steven give up instead of giving his speech?

· Why does Steven decide to go live with his uncles? Why do his parents let him?

· Why do Sid and his brothers have different ideas about religion?

· What does “documentation” mean, and why is it important here?

· What does Sid mean by an “undisciplined mind”?

Connections: This was the first feature film directed by actress Diane Keaton (“Annie Hall” and “Father of the Bride”).

Activities: Older kids, particularly those familiar with Lidz’ sports writing, may want to read the book. Those who are not familiar with the Bar Mitzvah ceremony may enjoy attending one.

This movie has a lot of surface appeal, but at its core it is as vacant as the story’s main character.

It tries to be a sort of “Sixth Sense” with sex, a trippy mind game movie about a rich, successful, handsome, but superficial man named David (Tom Cruise), whose life turns upside down when he meets a woman who stirs him (because she is “guileless”). But then he must pay the price for his casual negligence. A woman becomes jealous, and drives them both off an embankment. She is killed, and he is badly hurt and disfigured. The life he took for granted is shattered.

At this point, a fairly conventional narrative is shattered, like David’s arm and his face. It becomes impossible to say much more about it without spoiling the surprises. David tries to piece together his story and we do the same, though sometimes based on conflicting information.

Like last year’s “Cast Away,” this is something of a vanity production. I suspect that Tom Hanks created the ultimate acting exercise for himself, based on what he feared most – being separated from his family. Cruise, who also produced this movie by purchasing the rights to the original, Spanish-language version, has done the same here. He may have chosen what he fears most – losing his looks and easy grace, losing his knack for owning the room. And, like Hanks, he selected a story that provides the opportunity for tour-de-force acting. In many scenes, Cruise’s famous face is covered with a latex mask, leaving him only his body and his eyes to convey all of the character’s emotions.

Cruise works hard and makes some arresting choices. Diaz turns in a terrific performance and Tilda Swinton is excellent in a brief role as an executive. But Kurt Russell seems a little lost as a therapist, and Penelope Cruz, repeating her role from the original, says her lines as though she is not really fluent in English yet.

Parents should know that the movie has very strong language and explicit sexual situations and references. One character smothers another, and a different character kills herself and is unsuccessful at killing her lover. The facial disfigurement is graphically portrayed and may be very upsetting to some viewers.

Families who see this movie should talk about why David feels unsatisfied at the beginning of the movie, and whether he should have made a pass at the woman his best friend brought to a party. How much of the world around us do we control? How much would you like to control? If given the choice presented to David at the end of the movie, what would you choose?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “The Sixth Sense,” “The Matrix,” and possibly “A.I.” They might also like to see “Waking Life,” an animated film that makes many of the same points.

The Viet Nam battle drama “We Were Soldiers” spends half an hour making us care about each of the characters and the rest of the movie blowing them up.

It is based on the book by Lt. Colonel Harold G. Moore, a devout Catholic who is as devoted a commander as he is a father. Moore was asked to develop the “air cavalry,” a system for using helicopters in combat. He led the Americans into their first major engagement in Viet Nam. They were hopelessly outmanned, with just 400 soldiers to 2000 Vietnamese. They fought bravely and did their best to look out for each other. And most of them were killed or wounded.

There have been thousands of war movies, and dozens of movies about the Viet Nam war, but this is one of the few to truly honor the men who fought and the women they loved. This is not a movie about politicians (though there are some digs at those who sent these men into battle without adequate resources) and it is not a movie about whether the US involvement stemmed from imperialism or a commitment to freedom. This is a movie about those who put their lives on the line not for their country but for each other.

The movie has some weaknesses that, in context, work very well. The battle action is often hard to follow, though perhaps that is a good way to replicate the relentlessness and disorientation of war. The characters and dialogue are clichéd, even corny. But in the context of the movie, they become paradigms. Mel Gibson, as Moore, is the man we would all want to lead us into battle, a true hero who promises his men that he will always be the first on the field and the last to leave, and that men may die, but none will be left behind. He trains his men to learn the tasks of the man above and teach their own tasks to the man below, and directs them, above all, to take care of each other, he gives them a purpose and a dignity that, sadly, the conflict they were sent to fight and the politicians who sent them there never could.

The movie also takes the unusual step of treating the soldiers on the other side with dignity as well, making them human beings with ability, honor – and wives left behind to mourn them.

Parents should know that this is one of the most brutally violent movies ever released, with up-close, graphic, and relentless violence and the deaths of many characters. There is some strong language and a mild sexual situation.

Families who see this movie should talk about how we decide to risk American lives in a war, and how, knowing that lives will be lost, we prepare and motivate our armed forces. They may want to discuss their own views on the war in Viet Nam and the treatment of veterans.

Families who appreciate this movie will also like Saving Private Ryan, Platoon,and The Right Stuff. They should also see the under-appreciated Gardens of Stone.

Plot: “Once upon a time there was a plaid overnight bag,” this movie begins. But actually there are four, identical on the outside, but with very different contents. One contains a set of rare rocks on their way to being presented at a conference of musicologists. One contains a very valuable collection of jewelry. One contains top secret government documents. The last one contains nothing more than a change of clothes. All four bags converge in a large hotel to provide the framework for an affectionate valentine to the classic screwball comedies of the 1930s. Like “Bringing Up Baby,” this centers on a madcap young woman (Barbra Streisand), Judy Maxwell, who decides to show her appreciation for a shy professor in spectacles (Ryan O’Neal), Howard Bannister, by disrupting his life as much as is humanly possible and then some. The attempts by a spy to steal the bag with the documents and a thief to steal the bag with the jewels help to make things a bit more complicated.

Professor Bannister is at the hotel to present his findings about the musical qualities of rocks used by ancient societies as primitive instruments. He is accompanied by his stuffy and overbearing fiancée, Eunice (Madeline Kahn). He hopes to get a research grant from wealthy Mr. Larabee, who will be attending the conference. Judy, who came to the hotel to cadge a free meal, is drawn to Howard, and stays on to be near him. She impersonates Eunice at the opening dinner, utterly captivating Larabee. She then proceeds, as Howard says, to “bring havoc and chaos to everyone,” including the destruction of a hotel room (and Howard’s engagement), and a wildly funny car chase through the streets of San Francisco, before it all gets straightened out.

Discussion: This movie is a lot of fun, but it does not come close to meeting the standards of the movies it is trying to emulate. The main flaw is that Judy and Howard (and the actors who portray them) are simply not as appealing as their prototypes in classics like “Bringing Up Baby.” For example, as we meet Judy, she is stealing a meal from a hotel, something which may have had more appeal in the “anti- establishment” early 1970s, but which now seems less than charming. The big laugh line at the end of the movie, a poke at O’Neal’s overwhelmingly successful previous movie, “Love Story,” will not mean anything to today’s kids.

Questions for Kids:

· What do you think about the way Judy behaved? Did she ever think ahead, or did she just do what seemed right at the moment?

· Eunice tells Howard that she does not want romance because she wants something stronger — trust. What is the point of view of the movie about that? How can you tell?

· Which is the funniest part of the movie? Were there any parts that were supposed to be funny that you did not think were funny? Why?

Connections: See “Bringing Up Baby” and compare it. Some of the other classic screwball comedies are “My Man Godfrey” and “The Lady Eve.”