In the future, a race of 9-foot-tall, dreadlocked aliens called Psychlos takes over the earth following a nine-minute battle. A thousand year later, the few remaining humans are hunter-gatherers and the evil Psychlos maintain earth as an outpost for mining. Terl (John Travolta), furious at not being allowed to return to the home planet, decides to use humans to mine gold for him to keep. But one of the humans, Jonnie Goodboy Tyler (Barry Pepper), encourages the others to revolt.

There. Now you know everything you need to know about the movie and I’ve saved you the trouble of trying to sit through it. You might think it can’t be that bad because science fiction movies often have cheeseball dialogue and cardboard performances and as long as the special effects and explosions are good, it does not really matter. You would be wrong. This movie was made due to the ceaseless efforts of its star, John Travolta, and it is the most horrible example of vanity filmmaking since Isaac from “The Love Boat” cast himself as “Othello.”

The movie could be used as an exam for film school students on what not to do.

Acting: John Travolta’s performance as the bad guy in this movie is reminiscent not of his brilliant work in movies like “Get Shorty,” “Face/Off” and “Pulp Fiction” but of his character in “Welcome Back Kotter,” Vinnie Barbarino, trying to act tough. His attempts to sound imperious and sarcastic lack any sense of presence or dignity, and then, to make it worse, he follows them with an attempt at a contemptuous laugh that sounds a cross between Faye Dunaway railing about the wire hangers in “Mommy Dearest” and Dr. Evil in “Austin Powers.” Poor Forrest Whitaker does his best with an idiotic role as Terl’s sidekick and whipping boy. Some other actor struggles underneath the worst make-up job since Dan Ackroyd in “Nothing But Trouble.”

Design and effects: The humans look like a hair band on a bad day. The Psychlos look like a hair band on a really bad day. The sets are dark, dank, and uninspired. The explosions are boring. And it is all much too loud.

Dialogue: At some points, we hear the Psychlos’ dialogue as garbled mush resembling the way the clay people used to talk in the old “Flash Gordon” serials. Unfortunately, at times we hear it in English. “Couldn’t you forget to file the report, as a friend?” “As a friend I could forget to file the report, but fortunately, I’m not your friend.” “While you were still learning to spell your name, I was being trained in how to conquer galaxies!” “Never engage in a criminal activity unless you have a patsy to pin everything on.” And my personal favorite: “Jonnie, I know you don’t believe in fate, but I’ve always known this was your destiny.”

Plot: The plot is not very interesting and completely illogical. Even if we assume that the Psychlos really wanted minerals from the earth, if they were so advanced that they could annihilate the human population in nine minutes, how could it take them more than a thousand years to extract it? Jonnie has to figure out a way to produce gold for Terl while he and his men are really secretly using flight simulators somehow still functioning after a thousand years. This is to enable them to learn to fly fighter jets, also somehow still functioning after a thousand years, kind of like the scene in “Sleeper” when Woody Allen starts up a Volkswagen Bug that had been abandoned for hundreds of years, except not intentionally funny. The audience dissolved in laughter at Jonnie’s solution – just get the gold from Fort Knox, which conveniently had been overlooked during the Psychlo’s thousand-year domination of the planet, and was still intact but ready to be emptied out. Somehow a group of humans who are illiterate and have not even discovered the wheel manage to master thousands of years of literal rocket science in a couple of days, transport over to the Psychlos’ planet and blow it all up with one well-placed bomb. Not since that girl learned how to be a ballerina without leaving the house in “Flowers in the Attic” or Rock Hudson went to medical school really really fast so he could invent an operation to cure Jane Wyman’s blindness in “The Magnificent Obsession” has there been such an example of speed learning.

Halfway through the movie, my son leaned over to whisper, “It’s the movie Ed Wood wanted to make but never had the money for.” He is right – this movie has Wood’s genuine fervor overriding genuine ineptitude.

Parents should know that the movie has a lot of sci-fi violence, with lots of explosions, characters in peril and some gory dismemberment. There are a couple of mild expletives and some mild sexual references. Women are treated as sex objects or taken as hostages.

Families who see the movie should talk about the importance of learning and history (Jonnie is inspired by the Declaration of Independence), and they should contrast the way that the Psychlos use “leverage” (blackmail) to manipulate each other with the teamwork and loyalty shown by the humans. They might also want to compare this movie to some sci-fi classics, like the “Star Wars” movies. Or, they might just want to skip this one and watch those instead.

Minnie Driver does her best, but, sadly, she gets no help from the movie’s producers (14 of them!). She gets no help from the screenwriter, whose only previous credit was Jerry Springer’s “Ringmaster.” Driver does not even get much help from first-time feature director (but two-time Best Actress) Sally Field. In other words, this is a bad movie.

The people in this movie can’t even be referred to as “characters” because they do not behave like any human being who ever thought, spoke, or breathed. The actors might as well be wearing signs that say, “Plot device!” as they are moved around the set like chess pieces, because that is the only possible explanation for their behavior. And basic elements of plot are slapdash or just missing.

Mona is a little girl who lives with a mother who does not seem to care much about her and with her mother’s out-of-work boyfriend, who does not like her at all. So, she makes her bedroom into a private world, decorated with cheery little signs that say things like, “Never give up!” and “U can do it!” For her, beauty pageants are a vision of perfection, grace, and validation. So, she decides that what she needs to make her feel beautiful and loved is to win one or maybe all of them. She earns money for lessons and braces and does statistical analysis of each year’s winners. She picks just one girl from school to be her friend — the one who can sew costumes for her.

When she grows up, Mona (Minnie Driver) is relentless. She is incapable of any thought that does not relate to winning a pageant. Her friend Ruby (Joey Lauren Adams) is happy to devote all of her efforts to Mona’s competitions, too. When obstacles arise, Ruby takes care of them, from smoothing over allegations of cheating at a pageant to becoming the mother of Mona’s child (Hallie Eisenberg, the little girl from the Pepsi commercials). A parent or guardian is ineligible to be Miss American Miss. And nothing must get in Mona’s way.

Beauty pageants certainly provide material enough for several movies, and some, like “Smile,” manage to do them justice. But this movie has no point of view, a wildly inconsistent tone, and no understanding of its characters — I mean people.

Is Mona supposed to be a caricature? Then you can’t expect all of America to adore her at the end. Is she supposed to be a likeable person with flaws? Then she can’t possibly be as overwhelmingly self-absorbed as she is throughout the movie. It isn’t just that she responds to a question about “human interest” by admitting that there just aren’t that many humans she finds interesting. It is more that her best friend is in prison on a murder charge and it never even occurs to her that she might want to, say, get her a lawyer? Come to the trial? Try to help her in any way? And does anyone think that it is a good thing to confess your biological relationship to your best friend’s daughter on national television? Or that the daughter would consider this good news?

The movie has some funny moments. Kathleen Turner is magnificent as a beauty pageant diva. One pageant contestant announces that she has a double degree in genetic engineering and cosmetology, and another has a ventriloquist act. When a woman goes into labor in a grocery store, Mona seizes the opportunity to get some good publicity and pushes her to the hospital in a shopping cart, singing, “Wind Beneath My Wings.” But these bright spots are just not worth the sloppy mess that comes along. Maybe sixty years ago Bette Davis and Miriam Hopkins or Mary Astor might have pulled off this kind of a plot (come to think of it, they did, in “The Big Lie” and “Old Acquaintance”). Maybe thirty years ago, Carol Burnett could have pulled off a parody version. But with these people and in this decade, it is not just bad — it is positively annoying.

Parents should know that the movie has occasional strong language and sexual references (mild by PG-13 standards, but still vivid). Mona cheats in the pageants, causing serious damage to another contestent’s hand, without any remorse. Indeed the injured woman’s bitterness is portrayed with as much callousness as though the screenwriter shared Mona’s conviction that all that counts is winning. There is an out of wedlock pregnancy and a minor character commits suicide by taking pills.

Families who see this movie should talk about Mona’s comment that love is a language that has to be taught, and Ruby’s comment about letting bad things go. More cynical family members may want to count up the logical inconsistencies and plot holes.

Families who enjoy this movie will like “Smile” even more. And they may also enjoy “We’re Not Married,” a cute comedy in which Marilyn Monroe plays a married beauty queen who all of a sudden becomes eligible for the single woman competitions when it turns out that her wedding ceremony was invalid.

The classic English comedy written in 1967 by Peter Cook and starring Cook and Dudley Moore has been Americanized. In other words, it has less deadpan humor, sly wit, and existential comedy and more jokes about penis size. But it is still delicious fun and one of the best comedies of the year. It may not leave you bedazzled, but it will leave you happy.

Brendan Fraser is one of the most versatile actors around, which makes him a perfect choice for the role of Elliot, a nerdy guy who longs for the beautiful Allison. But after four years working in the same firm, he has managed to speak to her only once, and that was about the weather. When he whispers that he would give anything to have her, that is all the invitation that the devil (Elizabeth Hurley) needs to make him an offer he can’t refuse — seven wishes in exchange for his soul.

But as anyone who has ever read a fairy tale knows, wishes are a tricky business. Elliot wishes to be rich, powerful, and married to Allison. He is instantly all three — and a Colombian drug lord. And Allison hates him. Elliot stumbles his way through his wishes, each time adding in what he left out before only to find that he has created yet another loophole. He may be rich, smart, popular, sensitive, and well-endowed, but somehow it never works out the way he hoped.

Fraser is wonderful, almost unrecognizable as he moves from sensitive poet to basketball superstar. Hurley may not be up to the acting challenge, but she looks like a million bucks in a series of hilarous get-ups, and she has that most important attribute of a movie bad guy — an English accent. The rest of the cast does not have much to do beyond wardrobe switches as they play different roles in each scenario, but Frances O’Connor (Allison) has a great smile and Orlando Jones (of “The Replacements” and the 7-Up commercials) has a couple of good moments. Gabriel Casseus makes a strong impression as someone who gives Elliot some good advice.

Parents should know that the PG-13 rating comes from some relatively mild language, sexual humor (including references to homosexuality), comic peril, and comic drug use.

Families who watch this movie should talk about what wishes they would like to make, whether they would make them if they had a chance, and what the Devil means when she says that you don’t have to look very far for Heaven and Hell. Ask kids what they think a soul is, and whether it can be sold. What did Elliot learn from his mistakes? Why was it so hard for him to be likeable and to see how others perceived him at the beginning of the movie? How was he different after the wishes? Was the ending what they expected?

Families who enjoy this movie should see the original version (notice the names of the Devil’s dogs in the new version). They may also enjoy other “sell your soul to the devil” movies like “The Devil and Daniel Webster” and “Alias Nick Beal.”

“Behind Enemy Lines” is an old-fashioned, heart-thumping, send-in-the-Marines, “I don’t care what the orders say” rescue mission story, and the most purely exciting movie of the year.

Equal parts adrenaline and testosterone, it wastes no time in getting us into the action. Owen Wilson plays Chris Burnett, a Navy navigator who is impatient with whatever it is that the US is doing in Bosnia. He longs for some excitement. When he and his partner are sent out on a routine reconnaissance mission on Christmas Day, they stray out of the prescribed area because they see something suspicious. Then they are shot down.

All of this is very inconvenient to NATO, which is in the final stages of negotiating a very fragile peace agreement. Burnett tries to stay alive and get to a safe rendezvous spot as his commanding officer, Admiral Reigart (Gene Hackman), tries to direct a rescue mission.

What this means is about 90-pulse-pounding minutes of non-stop nightmarish action as Burnett is chased by an assassin through minefields and desolation of all kinds, from ravaged trees to burnt-out cities. Meanwhile, the Admiral has an almost as treacherous struggle as he makes use of the most sophisticated technology to track Burnett’s position but is thwarted by politics when he orders a rescue.

It is brilliantly filmed by first-time feature director John Moore who masters both the second-by-second intensity of the action sequences and the bleakness of the physical and political landscape. The aerial combat scenes are stunning. The parallels between the personal, the psychic, and the political are subtly intertwined, and the rousing, send-in-the-Marines finish is, these days, especially satisfying.

In the midst of the action, there are dozens of moments filled with quiet power. The ejected officers drift down as the camera circles a hugely imposing statue of the Madonna, looking over a barren landscape, and we see that half of her face has been blown off. A young boy’s English vocabulary is based on Ice T lyrics. Two officers walk down the hall toward a father who knows that they do not deliver good news in person.

Hackman, as always, is a joy to watch, doing wonders with the subtle struggle of a by-the-books patriot whose loyalty and sense of honor makes him risk everything, knowing that his career is on the line. Wilson, in his first major dramatic role, does not show much range, but is a very likeable presence as a classic American hero – brave, resourceful, and a little cynical, but everything we would hope for when the time comes. Charles Malick Whitfield is the Marine we all want to rescue us, and David Keith contributes a fine performance as the Admiral’s aide.

Parents should know that the movie, though rated PG-13, has intense peril and devastating violence, with many characters killed. Children and young teens are involved. There is brief strong language.

Families who see this movie should talk about the complexity of today’s military actions, compared to the stark contrast between freedom and tyranny in previous wars (at least as portrayed in most history books and movies). They might want to compare this movie to others like Three Kings (very mature material) and The Longest Day.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy Hackman as a submarine commander in Crimson Tide.

A classic romance always involves a certain formula: Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl. Beijing Bicycle is a romance, except the love interest is a bicycle and not a girl.

Guei (Cui Lin) is a very poor but hard-working and determined delivery boy from the “country” area of present-day Beijing. The company that he works for loans its delivery boys first-rate bicycles. Guei is told that if he can earn 600 yuan, his company will transfer ownership of the bicycle to him. Guei toils daily to earn the 600 yuan. Finally, as he is just about to reach his goal, his bike is stolen when Guei leaves it for a moment to deliver a package. Devastated, Guei vows to find his beloved bicycle, and begins to search tirelessly for it throughout the entire city.

On the other side of town, Jian (Li Bin), a teenager about the same age as Guei, has a new bicycle which he adores. Jian claims to have purchased it at a flea market. Jian believes that his new bicycle allows him to fit in better with his peers, and that the status he now possesses as a result of owning the bicycle has earned him the affections of Xiao (Gao Yuanyuan).

Guei, meanwhile, continues his search for his bicycle. By persistence and amazing luck – given the millions of bicycles in Beijing – Guei stumbles upon the bicycle, hung on a bike rack in some obscure location in the city. He tries to take it back but is driven away by a guard. Still determined, Guei somehow is able to trace the bike to Jian. Guei then seizes the bike. Jian runs after him, and what ensues are a series of incidents in which Guei and Jian steal the bike back and forth from each other. In the process, Guei is subjected to continuous, and very graphic, physical abuse from Jian and his thuggish friends.

Eventually, after endless struggles to gain possession of the bicycle, Guei and Jian agree to share it. While this works well for a while, eventually Jian relinquishes his rights to the bicycle because he doesn’t need it to impress his girlfriend, whom he’s driven away by mistreating her. Although Guei has regained sole custody of the bicycle, his troubles are far from over. He and his beloeved bicycle will endure further physical trials caused by Jian’s reckless behavior. In the end, however, Guei perseveres. He and his bicycle may be a wreck, but they are together.

This movie was nominated for 5 of Taiwan’s Golden Horse Awards (Best Film, Best Director, Best New Actor, Best Original Screenplay, Best Editing), and won a variety of other awards. The director, Wang Xiaoshuai, says he made the film because of the special meaning of the bicycle for Chinese people, which he calls a “symbol of China.” He said he also made the film to capture the jubilance of young people getting bicycles – and their heartbreak at loosing them.

To American audiences, Beijing Bicycle may seem like a lot of pointless fights and hand-wringing over a common and easily-replaceable object. To understand the deeper meaning of the bicycle, viewers need to understand that in China, ownership of a bicycle is (or at least was) a sign of prosperity and resourcefulness. Further, it is a key mode of transportation because cars and motorcycles are still relatively rare. For the characters in this movie, the ownership of the bicycle was equivalent to a first love. It filled their desires and needs, and it made them feel more mature and in control.

The problem with this movie is that the symbolism probably does not translate across cultures. American viewers, who are used to automobiles as the principal mode of transportation, are unlikely to feel the way that Jian or Guei feel for the bike – as something essential for survival or for social support. It is hard to stop asking, as the movie progresses, “Why all this fuss over a bike?” Because bicycles are not valued in our culture as they are in China, it is difficult for the audience to connect with Wang’s characters in the way that the director perhaps intended.

The two main characters in this movie did a very convincing job. The audience will feel empathy for Cui Lin’s character, because Cui is able to show him as hard-working and as a fundamentally good person. Li Bin was very believable as the immature, self-centered, and dishonest Jian.

Parents should know that there are numerous bloody fights that may scare younger kids. Characters smoke and pressure a character into trying a cigarette. Beijing Bicycle’s overall theme is perseverance over adversity. The most interesting aspect of this movie was the presentation of how the two main characters deal with the different obstacles placed in their path (theft, and constant physical and emotional abuse). Older teens will enjoy comparing the lifestyles of American and Chinese cultures to each other. They will also enjoy seeing how a common object can have a completely different meaning depending on the person who owns it.

Families should discuss why Guei and Jian cannot live without the bicycle. Kids should think about why these characters obsessions have put them in danger and caused them to do things they normally would not do. Why is it that Guei’s boss call him “the little engine that could”? Why does Jian believe the bicycle is rightfully his? Why does Guei believe the bicycle is rightfully his? Why does Jian give up the bicycle in the end? In American culture, what would be the equivalent of the bicycle to Guei and Jian? What similarities and differences are there in the way people live in Beijing and the way people in large cities live in the United States? Do Jian and Guei have anything in common other than their obsession with the bicycle?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “The Bicycle Thief,” the story of an Italian painter who searches for his stolen bike which is crucial for his family’s survival (in Italian with subtitles).