Four couples sort out their romantic entanglements in Shakespeare’s most magical love story. Hermia and Lysander love each other, but her father wants her to marry Demetrius. Demetrius loves Hermia, but is loved by her friend Helena. When Hermia and Lysander run off together, Helena tells Demetrius, and he chases after them, with Helena chasing him. Meanwhile, as the four lovers wander in an enchanted forest, the fairy queen and king argue over custody of a changeling child. The local Duke prepares for his marriage to a woman who seems not entirely sure she wants to marry him, and a group of workmen rehearse a play to perform at the wedding celebration.

With the help of his mischevious companion, the fairy king obtains the juice of a magical flower that causes people to fall in love with whomever they first see after they wake up to his queen and to Lysander and Demetrius. The queen falls in love with a man who has a donkey’s head. Lysander and Demetrius both fall in love with the neglected Helena, forgetting all about Hermia. But by morning, everything is sorted out, and the wedding festivities end with the workmen’s remarkable play.

Filmed several times before, most famously with James Cagney as Bottom and Mickey Rooney as the Puck, this sumptuous version manages to be both earthy and enchanted. The cast includes Hollywood royalty (Michelle Pfeiffer as Fairy Queen Titania, theater-trained performers (including Ally McBeal’s Calista Flockhart and and Kevin Kline, magnificent as Bottom the would-be actor), international stars Sophie Marceau and Rupert Everett, and “new vaudevillian” and MacArthur genius grant award-winner Bill Irwin. The resulting mix of acting styles clashes at times, as does the mix of music and the switch of setting from ancient Athens to 19th century Tuscany, arias and all. Ultimately, though, it is charming, an accessible introduction to the works of that guy in the movie with Gwyneth Paltrow.

Parents should know that there is some earthiness (including an inexplicit scene of Puck relieving himself, some brief nudity, and Hermia’s firm resolve not to have sex with Lysander until they are married).

Kids will enjoy the movie more if they have some basic introduction to the plot. They may want to talk about an era in which a father could order his child to marry the person he chose, about “the course of true love,” and how people work out the problems in relationships. Older kids may like to talk about the metaphor of an enchanted forest as a place to find self-knowledge and to resolve issues.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the Elizabeth Taylor/Richard Burton version of “Taming of the Shrew” and the Franco Zeffirelli version of “Romeo and Juliet.”

Families who loved the adorable and heartwarming “Babe” need to know that this sequel, co-written and directed by “Mad Max’s” George Miller, is a much darker and more unsettling movie, not suitable for most small children.

Once again, Babe is called on to save the day, as the Hoggett’s farm is threatened with foreclosure. Mrs. Hoggett (Magda Szubanski) and Babe must appear at a fair to raise the money to save the farm. But everything goes wrong. They miss their connecting flight and are stuck in the strange and menacing city.

Then things get worse. Mrs. Hoggett and Babe are beset upon by every kind of predator, and the warm and cozy scenes of redemption and reconciliation we expect never come. Mickey Rooney plays a genuinely creepy clown. A mildly happy ending is almost coincidental and anti- climactic.

The movie is easier to admire than like, which may be why it ended up on several critics’ end of the year “10 best” lists, and was picked by the late Gene Siskel as the best film of 1998. The visuals are wonderfully imaginative. The city is a miracle of production design, brilliantly conceived. There are special effects of breathtaking skill and small moments of genuine charm. Babe and some of his new friends are adorably endearing. Older kids and teens who are not too embarrassed may appreciate the film’s artistry. But younger children should stick with the original.

One of the classic set-ups for comedy is what I refer to as the “Cat in the Hat” plot — one or more “normal,” somewhat bored characters find their lives completely (and yet somehow enjoyably) disrupted by a free- spirited character who has what a modern psychologist might refer to as “sloppy impulse control.” This is the basic premise of the first feature film starring Rowan Atkinson’s cult favorite, Mr. Bean. Bean is something of a throwback to the classic silent film comedians, a childlike man who is unabashedly consumed with enjoying himself, and incapable of considering the consequences for others. In an effort to make the character more appealing to a U.S. audience, the producers have sent Mr. Bean to Los Angeles and to actually have him not only trying to solve the problem he creates but even hugging someone. The result is uncomfortably uneven.

Frustrated with his work as an incompetent guard at an art museum, but unable to fire him, his supervisors send him to a U.S. art gallery as an “expert,” to speak at the unveiling of “Whistler’s Mother.” All of this is an excuse for what is really a series of slapstick sketches (on an airplane, in a kitchen, in a hospital, and of course in the art gallery) involving very little dialogue, but many funny faces and physical contortions, and a lot of potty humor and general grossness.

Parents should know that there are some sexual references. Younger kids may miss the suggestiveness of Bean’s pelvic gyrations when he is trying to dry his pants in the mens’ room. But a young boy says that he can’t sleep because he keeps thinking about naked women and asks what an intrauterine device is. There is a modern version of “Whistler’s Sister,” featuring a nude. Bean gives people “the finger,” thinking it is a friendly gesture. Grossness includes an exploding vomit bag on the plane, a very wet sneeze onto a painting, an overdose of laxatives, and a candy dropped into an open incision, washed off, and eaten. Bean and his American host (Peter MacNicol as David Langley) respond to disaster at work by going out to get drunk. Langley’s wife and children respond to disaster at home by leaving. His daughter is in a motorcycle accident and it is not clear whether she will be all right.

This movie will be most successful with kids who are already familiar with the character and appreciate that kind of humor. Other kids may be very uncomfortable with the gross and embarrassing situations. Parents may want to point out that Bean is upset by the guns carried by the police because British police don’t carry guns. They will also want to talk about the different attitudes toward art, and about Bean’s “solution” to the problems he creates. Kids may enjoy knowing that Atkinson did the voice of Zazu in “The Lion King” (but adults will remember him as the malapropish vicar in “Four Weddings and a Funeral”).

Think of it as Pinocchio played by C3PO from “Star Wars.” Robin Williams plays “Andrew Martin,” a robot who wants to be human, in this adaptation of a story and book by Isaac Asimov.

In “the not too distant future,” a robot is delivered to the magnificent home of the Martins. He steps out of the box and asks, “Are you one’s family?” When the little girl (Hallie Kate Eisenberg from the Pepsi commercials) mispronounces “android” as “Andrew,” that becomes his name. When the other daughter is cruel to Andrew, her father (Sam Neill) tells the family that “as a matter of principle, he will be treated as if he were a person.” Although the family elects not to activate the “personality chip,” they see that there is something special about Andrew’s wiring, a spark of consciousness, creativity, and yearning. Mr. Martin promises to help Andrew become all that he can.

This is fine when he is teaching Andrew about history, biology, and even humor, and when he wants to be adapted so that he can show more expression in his face, but less fine when Andrew wants freedom. And he is uncomfortable with his growing affection for Andrew: “You can’t invest your feelings in a machine.” Martin’s understanding daughter, “Little Miss,” (Embeth Davditz) does not hesitate to care deeply for Andrew, and remains close to him all her life.

As Andrew lives on past the lives of his original family, he stays close to their descendants, especially “Little Miss’s” look-alike granddaughter, Portia. He uses the latest technology to provide himself with skin, hair, a neural sytem, a digestive system, and finally, to become fully human, mortality. Just like Woody in “Toy Story 2,” Andrew has a choice between pristine immortality and a limited, uncertain, but deeply engaged existence.

This movie gives families a good opportunity to talk about what makes us human. Why did Andrew’s makers want to remove what made him special? Why did Andrew want to find others like himself? What do you think made him different? When do you think he became human? When he created something? When he wanted freedom? When he felt love? When he allowed himself to grow old and die? Why did he stop referring to himself as “one?”

Why didn’t some people in the family like Andrew? Why didn’t Andrew like Portia at first? Why did he want to be with her, when he didn’t like her? Do you think that’s what life will be like in the future? What would it be like to have a robot in our house?

Talk about the origins of the names “Portia” and “Galatea.” Portia was the heroine of Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice,” who makes the famous plea about the quality of mercy to Shylock. Andrew’s plea to be declared a human, though, is more reminiscient of Shylock’s entreaty for equality: “Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die?” Galatea is the name of the mythical statue whose sculptor fell in love with her. A kind goddess granted her life, so that they could be together.

Parents should know that there is some mild profanity and sexual references that include a “facts of life” discussion, Andrew’s adaptation so that he can have sex (but not children), a post-sex conversation in bed, and one of the most romantic descriptions of the sex act ever written. There are also ill-behaved and surly children whose behavior is not curtailed by the family.

Big Daddy” has all the unavoidable elements of an Adam Sandler film: slapstick humor, gross jokes, bodily functions galore, spectacular pratfalls and more than a sprinkling of sexual innuendo. Yet, the movie is not without its funny moments, it is a welcome return to the sweetness and heart of “The Wedding Singer” after the numbing dopiness of “The Waterboy,” and the tasteless portions (about 90%) are played in such a broad and obvious way that there is little risk that teens will mistake this for acceptable behavior.

It is the story of Sonny Koufax (Adam Sandler), shiftless young man who is wasting his life, much to the chagrin of his parents, friends, and girlfriend. One day, a 5 year old boy (played by twins Cole and Dylan Sprouse) is abandoned on his doorstep through a mixup. Rather than place the boy in an orphanage, Koufax agrees to take care of him for a few days, thinking it will help him win back his ex-girlfriend. At first the two have fun behaving irresponsibly together, but gradually Koufax comes to love the boy and realizes that he wants to keep him. He also recognizes that someone needs to be the grown-up, and it is going to have to be him. If he wants to keep the boy, he will have to begin to accept some responsiblity. He sees the consequences of his slacker lifestyle in the influence he has on the child, and in the risk he runs of losing him. Koufax fights the Department of Social services in court when they come to take the boy back.

This is not a profound movie, but adolescents (and those with adolescent humor) will enjoy it. There are a number of sexual references — some quite vivid — and a range of the usual PG-13 naughty words and potty humor. But this movie is so open, it has no chance to become smarmy (like the new Austin Powers movie). Sandler has a light enough touch that the movie does not become sentimental or lose its sense of humor by adding some heart to the characters. Like the character he plays, Sandler is beginning to learn that you can be responsible and funny at the same time.

For a more sophisticated but also very funny movie on this theme, see “A Thousand Clowns”.