Appreciate the thoughtful responses, thanks.

timothy, I think thisniss and I are very much on the same wavelength here -- Verdoux is an easy film not to like, probably easier than any other of his features (not counting Countess From Hong Kong, I guess) but it feels more defiant, prickly and dangerous than the other, admittedly great films you cite. I will grant that the "Brechtian" stuff had built up in CC's work, that's an excellent point. And I'm simply building a case for Verdoux here, not arguing that it's his greatest or most must-see or anything.

thisniss, what a terrific summary. I'm absolutely unsure whether I "liked" Verdoux or whether I think it's "good." He's challenging you to not like the movie and the character and the actor-director by extension, isn't he? That's really why I brought up Spike Lee's Bamboozled and von Trier's Dancer in the Dark. Not, before God, to argue that they are Chaplin's equals, but because, whatever we may make of them personally, those movies are intentionally designed to be disliked by many viewers. (Uh oh, I feel a thinkpiece coming on.) When I was writing this, I went back and read some of the enraged reviews of Dancer, including some by people I know and like. On one level, fine, they hated it. Fair game. But also, if they were that pissed off by it, I would say the film accomplished what it set out to, no?

That said, I suppose that with Verdoux, Chaplin did not set out to lose lots of money, be demonized as a Commie pervert and driven out of the country. At least not consciously.

Haven't seen the film in 20 years, and I guess that shows. Maybe I should! Correction in progress.

the revelation in question occurs in the first couple of pages of Coben's novel. The movie milks it a bit longer, but not that much. The major question is not whether the protagonist's "murdered" wife is still alive, but how and why such a bizarre thing could have happened. T'ain't a spoiler, in my book.

Actually, Eric Beckman, the guy from the NY children's film fest, says he wrestles with this all the time, and there's no easy answer. Does it mean a movie about kids? A movie mainly marketed to kids? Simply a movie without certain kinds of defined-as-adult themes and subject matter?

The standard here was meant to be utilitarian: The movie will engage a large mixed group of children and adults, whether they're closely related or not, without striking any of them as hopelessly stupid or boring. By Timothy's account, Kung Fu Panda fails this test. (I haven't seen it, but a lot of the Cannes critics loved it. I guess it's a film for grown-ups.) Here's what I wrote on June 2, in the original invitation:

"With summer upon us, I want to accumulate an absolutely killer list of DVDs for grown-ups and kids (say, ages 4 to 12) to watch together when the beach day gets rained out, or just before bed, or just for the hell of it. What I'm mainly looking for are non-obvious, non-recent and non-computer-animated choices; classics that our generation has partly forgotten, or odder, older stuff that might broaden the kids' horizons a little and intrigue even the snobbish, film-buff adults in the audience. Obviously it's got to be entertaining to a broad viewing spectrum, or no dice."

Whatever flaws are revealed in the accumulation of this list (no "Duck Soup"), most of the films on it pass that test. Although I remain highly skeptical about "Mom and Dad Save the World."

Xrandadu, I'll definitely come back with that list of runners-up.

Probably true that "Muppets Take Manhattan" is superior to "Great Muppet Caper," come to think of it. I was just following the polls with that one.

You're right that no one had mentioned westerns (not one, that I can recall) and furthermore no one mentioned the old Universal etc horror/monster movies, which I most definitely grew up with. James Whale's Frankenstein is clearly for older kids, it's a serious and moving film with upsetting themes -- but a lot of those later Dracula vs Wolfman type movies were avidly consumed by small boys of the pre-Star Wars era. (And I'm talking right before the Star Wars era.)

One might doubt that kids today would have the patience for slow, talky b&w movies with fake-looking monsters, but if these lists have proved anything, they've proved to me that small children have fewer prejudices than the rest of us, will try almost anything, and can wind up liking unpredictable stuff. One woman wrote in the comments on Saturday that her 5- and 3-year-olds loved the old Popeye & Betty Boop cartoons, and had rewatched Fritz Lang's Metropolis many times! By any reasonable standard, that's unlikely. Those things should seem totally inscrutable to someone born in 2005. But totally inscrutable does not equal "not enjoyable," and hell, they might as well learn that young.

Sold on Holes & Millions, people, sold. I'll try 'em on our family in due course (4 seems a touch young for either). And I totally agree that Fantastic Planet seems like a crazy choice. It's slow, and many grown-ups will find it nightmarish. But it got a couple of reader votes, illustrating the principle that youjustneverknow.

I'll revive this topic as events warrant -- for example, to review new DVDs that seem to fit the category. I can feel a column brewing about vintage TV shows for today's kids -- my twins are nuts about the old "Flipper" series, and will charge around the house being Flipper and, I don't know, some other person or animal from "Flipper." What say ye? Any particularly great or unexpected suggestions?

And now it's time to get back to my day job: Covering oddball films likely to alienate large numbers of adults! Thanks for coming, everybody. Yes, even you haters. What fun.