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”.

Brendan Fraser plays Adam, who was born in 1962, in an elaborate bomb shelter constructed by his eccentric genius of a father (Christopher Walken). His parents, mistakenly believing that a nuclear bomb exploded in Los Angeles, stayed in the shelter for 35 years. Adam comes out in 1997 to get supplies. He meets Eve (Alicia Silverstone) who is at first annoyed and bewildered by his innocence and old-fashioned values, but then charmed by them.

This leisurely comedy has no surprises or special insights, but it does have attractive performers (including Dave Foley as Troy, the gay best friend). It doesn’t waste much time on Adam’s surprise at the changes of the last 35 years. Instead, it allows us to share his undiluted joy from the simple pleasures he has never had a chance to experience, like the sunrise and the ocean. And it even has some poignance as Troy and Eve envy Adam’s old-fashioned good manners and love for his family.

Parents should know that there is some strong language and some sexual references, including a prostitute of ambiguous gender and adult video stores (nothing shown), and “comic” alcohol abuse (Adam’s mother, played by Sissy Spacek, becomes an alcoholic while she is confined to the bomb shelter). Some parents may also be concerned about an addled character who founds a new age style religion based on the belief that Adam and his family are gods. In general, the movie’s values are sound, however, emphasizing Eve’s essential honesty and her appreciation of Adam’s integrity and courtesy.

Martin Lawrence stars in a made-to-order story of a jewel thief who returns to the scene of the crime to retrieve his loot, only to find that the construction site where he stashed the stolen diamond is now a police station. When he is told that the only way to get inside is by being under arrest or by wearing a badge, he decides to impersonate a detective.

So, what we have here is a cross betweeen “Beverly Hills Cop” and “Sister Act,” your basic street-smart- guy-who-keeps-it-real-showing-the-desk- jockeys-a-thing or-two type plot. There are two version of this plot, with or without hugging. Anyone who expects that Lawrence’s character will come out of the experience a better person is more gullible than the cops who decide that he’s so good he must be from Internal Affairs or the FBI.

But believability is not the real point of this film. The real point of this film is watching Lawrence mug his way out of various situations, which he does very, very well. It is a pleasant diversion with a lot of silly fun.

Parents should know that there is some strong language and some raw humor. Furthermore, the movie departs from Hollywood tradition in leaving the hero unrepentant and in possession of the stolen jewel. Families will want to discuss the real consequences of such a robbery, and the situation Lawrence faces in working with at least one colleague who has no compunctions about betrayal and murder.