Malcolm Sayer, a shy neurologist (Robin Williams), is assigned to work with patients for the first time after his research funding is cut off. His patients, all but catatonic, are in a ward called “the garden,” because their only treatment consists of “watering and feeding.” Ever since an epidemic of encephalitis (“sleeping sickness”) decades before, they have not spoken or appeared to understand anything that was going on around them. Everyone else has given up hope, but Sayer, approaching them as a researcher, notices that they are capable of reflex reactions, and believes that new medication used for patients with Parkinson’s disease may help these patients, too. Over the objections of the doctors in charge, he gets permission to try it on one patient, Leonard Lowe (Robert De Niro).

At first, there is no reaction, but soon Leonard “awakens.” His transformation is so thrilling that Malcolm is easily able to get permission and funding to treat the other patients. They, too, awaken, some more fully than others. A one-time musician does not speak, but plays the piano. Some of them are horrified at the time they have lost. But most are giddy with the pleasures of being alive. Malcolm takes Leonard outside, and Leonard’s embrace of everything around him contrasts sharply with the inhibitions of Malcolm, who hesitates to try anything but his work, and cannot even bring himself to have a cup of coffee with a friendly nurse (Julie Kavner).

Leonard becomes impatient to experience more. He develops a warm friendship with the daughter of another patient in the hospital (Penelope Ann Miller). He asks for permission to leave the hospital on his own. But he becomes hyperactive, angry, and ridden with tics. The medication’s side effects begin to overwhelm him. Malcolm sees that he is losing Leonard, and the other patients know that it must soon happen to them, too.

Soon, all of them are returned to their previous state of catatonia, the only evidence of their brief awakening the greater respect and affection they receive from the staff, and their impact on Malcolm, who heeds Leonard’s call to life by reaching out to the nurse.

Discussion: This movie is based on the book of the same name by neurologist Oliver Sacks, who was the basis for the character Malcolm Sayer. It is a powerful and moving story, brilliantly acted and directed. Like Malcolm, we can all use a reminder to appreciate the pleasures of being alive, including the pleasures that require us to take risks.

Families who see this movie should talk about what the neurologist means when he says, “because the implications of that would be unthinkable?” Why would he prefer to believe that the patients are not aware of what is going on? Were you surprised by the way any of the patients reacted to being “awakened?” Which reaction was most like the way you think you might feel? Why is it hard for Malcolm to interact with other people? How does Leonard change the way Malcolm behaves? Why does the staff treat the patients differently after the awakening, even when they go back the way they were?

Compare this movie to Thornton Wilder’s play “Our Town,” especially Emily’s speech after her death, about what she misses and what she wants the living to be aware of.

Scriptwriter Steven Zaillian also wrote the screenplay for Schindler’s List and wrote and directed Searching for Bobby Fischer. Teens will enjoy reading the Sacks book, and some of his others, especially The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat and An Anthropologist on Mars, with astonishing and compassionate descriptions of some of his neurology patients.

A man sees what no one else can, and we call him a genius. A man sees what no one else does, and we call him crazy.

This Oscar-winner for Best Picture is a movie about a man who was both, the true story of genius John Forbes Nash, Jr., who revolutionized mathematics and then became mentally ill. More than 40 years later, as he edged back into sanity, his contribution was recognized by some people in Sweden. They awarded him the Nobel Prize.

As the movie opens, it is just after World War II, and a group of bright young mathematicians are arriving at Princeton. They are proud because “mathematicians won the war,” and they are eager to make up for lost time. Nash (Russell Crowe) stands out. He is tactless, he does not go to class, and he does not produce anything publishable. A teacher once told him that he had a double helping of brains but half a helping of heart. It is not that he does not seem to care about norms of social behavior and academic performance – he does not even seem to notice them.

Then Nash has an idea, an anti-Darwinian notion that proves that more success for more people is achieved through cooperation than through competition. The elegance of his proof is a stunning achievement, and he is rewarded with an important position and allowed to select the classmates he wants as his colleagues. He even meets a beautiful student (Jennifer Connelly) who enjoys his directness and appreciates his “beautiful mind.” Nash is successful, saving the day when only he can see the pattern in a string of numbers from an intercepted Soviet message.

But then Nash begins to see patterns where there are none, and he is hospitalized. His powers of logic and focus and the love of his wife help him to reconnect to reality, and after decades of effort, he is able to teach at Princeton.

There is a heartbreaking moment near the end when Nash is leaving a classroom and a man he does not know approaches him to ask him something. Before answering, Nash turns to a student to ask whether she sees the man, too, because he is still not sure which people he sees approaching him actually exist. He has simply adapted to his delusions, by requiring proof, in classic mathematical or at least empirical terms.

This is an extraordinary story, and it has been made into an extraordinary movie. Crowe is, as always, simply magnificent in a role that would provide irresistible temptation for showboating for most actors. There are superb performances by everyone in the cast, including Connelly (an Oscar-winner for Best Supporting Actress), Paul Bettney, Ed Harris, Christopher Plummer, Judd Hirsch, and a dozen others. What is really special here is the way that screenwriter Akiva Goldman and director Ron Howard have found a way to present both Nash’s genius and his mental illness in such compelling, cinematic, and accessible terms. Both in essence become characters in the story as we go inside his head and wonder with Nash what to believe. This is what makes the movie more than a disease-of-the-week special with color-by- numbers “heartwarming” moments of triumph over adversity. This is what makes the movie itself a true work of art.

Parents should know that the material might be very upsetting for kids, or for anyone who has relatives with mental illness or who knows very little about it. There are some strong scenes of family tension and peril, including a child in jeopardy, scuffles, and potential domestic abuse. There are graphic scenes of shock therapy and self-destructive behavior. A character is in peril involving shooting. There is also some crude language with sexual references.

Families who see this movie should talk about mental illness, about how people with mental illness need to be treated, and about what is different now in the way we treat the mentally ill from the days depicted in the movie. Families who want to know more should check the website for the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “Apollo 13” and “Parenthood,” also directed by Ron Howard. They might also like to read the book, by Sylvia Nasar, or Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!, a very engaging book about a brilliant physicist. Families who like board games should try Go, the Chinese board game played by the mathematicians in the movie. The rules are fairly simple, but the strategies are endlessly complex.

NOTE: DVD extras include all kinds of extra goodies, including an entire separate disk featuring footage of the real John Nash and more information about his work.

There’s no better way to start off the Christmas season than this holiday classic, now celebrating its 25th anniversary and so popular that Turner Classic Movies runs it for 24 hours each year. Millions of fans can recite its lines from memory and some are so passionate they visit the Christmas Story house and attend the Christmas Story conference. Some even buy leg lamps or the action figures.

I think there are two reasons for the movie’s enduring appeal. First, it perfectly evokes the experience of childhood. Today’s kids may not drink Ovaltine or wait for their decoder rings, but they still have to deal with bullies and they still wish for gifts their parents think are too dangerous. But more than that, this is the perfect antidote to all those stories of Christmas perfection on one hand and dysfunction on the other. I love the way this family responds when everything goes wrong. They laugh. And you know that in the future, this Christmas is the one they will always remember.

Parents should know that this movie includes some mild sexual references. A character offers money to a girl to do some non-specific things for him and looks at pictures of women in lingerie. There are also humorous references to bad language including a child having his mouth washed out with soap for swearing.

One of the greatest musicals of all time has a gorgeous new Criterion edition in honor of its 50th anniversary.

The documentary style of this movie masks its tight construction, clever script, and sublime anarchy second only to the Marx brothers. A surrealistic day in the life of the most overwhelmingly popular rock group of all time, it portrays the Beatles sympathetically — like the heroine of “It Happened One Night,” they are constantly told what to do and smothered by all they have. Part of the humor is that it is not the members of the Beatles but Paul’s “clean” grandfather who causes most of the trouble. Musical numbers include “Can’t Buy Me Love” and “Should Have Known Better” as well as the title song, inspired by Ringo’s warped syntax after a long recording session.

The deluxe anniversary edition includes lots of extras:

• New 4K digital film restoration, approved by director Richard Lester, with two audio options—a monaural soundtrack and a new 5.1 surround soundtrack made by Apple Records—presented in uncompressed monaural and DTS-HD Master Audio on the Blu-ray
• Audio commentary featuring various members of the film’s cast and crew
• In Their Own Voices, a new piece combining interviews with the Beatles from 1964 with behind-the-scenes footage and photos
• You Can’t Do That: The Making of “A Hard Day’s Night,” a 1994 documentary program by producer Walter Shenson
• Things They Said Today, a 2002 documentary about the film featuring Lester, music producer George Martin, writer Alun Owen, cinematographer Gilbert Taylor, and others
• New piece about Lester’s early work, featuring a new audio interview with the director
• The Running Jumping and Standing Still Film (1959), Lester’s Oscar-nominated short featuring Peter Sellers and Spike Milligan
• Anatomy of a Style, a new piece on Lester’s approach to editing
• New interview with Mark Lewisohn, author of Tune In: The Beatles: All These Years—Volume One
• Deleted scene
• Trailers
• One Blu-ray and two DVDs, with all content available in both formats
• PLUS: A booklet featuring an essay by critic Howard Hampton

Families who see this movie should talk about the nature of fads and the problems created by success.

Families who enjoy this movie together will also enjoy the Beatles in “Help!” and “Yellow Submarine,” but skip the movie “Magical Mystery Tour” and just listen to the music instead. Kids 12 and up might enjoy “I Wanna Hold Your Hand,” about teens overcome by Beatlemania or “That Thing You Do,” written and directed by Tom Hanks, the story of a 1960s Erie, Pennsylvania, rock group that has an unexpected hit song.

If the idea of a medieval jousting movie set to classic rock songs like “We Will Rock You,” “Low Rider,” and “The Boys are Back in Town” bothers you, forget this movie and rent “Ivanhoe” instead. But if the idea appeals to you, get some popcorn and get ready for a ravishingly good time. This is “Ivanhoe” crossed with “Rocky” for the MTV/WWF generation, and it is great silly movie fun. In other words, leave skepticism behind and it will rock you.

Heath Ledger plays William Thatcher, a knight’s squire who steps into his liege’s armor when the knight is killed in a jousting match. All he is thinking of is winning the match so that he can get some food for himself and the other two squires (“The Full Monty’s” Mark Addy as Roland and “28 Days’” Alan Tudyk as Wat). But once the armor is on and the lance is in his hand, his childhood dream of being a knight is awakened, and he persuades Roland and Wat to help him pretend to be a nobleman, so he can continue to compete.

A young writer named Geoffrey Chaucer (Paul Bettany), forges the appropriate documents and acts as his herald, and William becomes Sir Ulrich. Although his greatest skill is in the sword-fighting event, the big money is in jousting, so that is where he decides to compete.

Of course William meets a beautiful princess (newcomer Shannyn Sossamon) and an arrogant champion who competes with him for the princess and the title (Rufus Sewell, wonderfully brooding as Count Adhemar). The secret of William’s low birth is revealed at the most dramatic moment. But there is a happily-ever-after ending that is just right for this fairy tale.

Ledger holds his own well in his first leading role, and Bettany is completely winning as Chaucer, who may have a gambling problem but who knows the value of words. Sossamon, in her first role, is pretty, but unimpressive. The art direction sets the scene beautifully, and, if you are willing to give it a chance, the music works very well, especially in a dance sequence that shifts about 600 years into David Bowie mid-step. I’m sure that if Bachman Turner Overdrive had been aroundin the 1400’s, they would have played “Taking Care of Business” during combat.

Parents should know that the movie is very violent, with a lot of shattered lances and battered combatants, but little gore. There is some strong language and a mild sexual situation.

Families who see this movie should talk about the pros and cons of the use of anachronisms (Wat says, “It’s a lance – hel–LO!”) to tell this story, and about the loyalty shown by William, Jocelyn, Roland, Wat, and Geoffrey (and Coville) to each other. They should also talk about why Adhemar was willing to do anything to win and how he would have felt if he had been successful. William is not the only knight who competes under cover – why does the Prince want to compete without letting anyone know who he is? Why was it important for William to allow Coville to lose with honor? And families should discuss Jocelyn’s order to William that he lose to prove his love for her, and whether that was fair or kind. Take a look at Leigh Hunt’s poem, “The Glove and the Lions” at http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/275.html for a similar story that concludes, “No love,” quoth he, “but vanity sets love a task like that.” They might want to take a look at a modernized version of “The Pardoner’s Tale” (http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/pardoner.htm) to see if Geoffrey Chaucer kept his word and got his revenge.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “Ivanhoe,” though it’s a little slow between the jousting matches and, as in the book, Ivanhoe ends up with the wrong girl. They will also enjoy “Gladiator” (warning: much more violent than this movie).