I'm not sure THE DARK KNIGHT is a bad movie, but it certainly feels like a racist movie, doesn't it? African-American characters in this film fall into three categories: Gangsta thugs, buzzard bait, and Morgan Freeman. (I know, I know: Welcome to Hollywood.) Yet in the comics, Harvey Dent is an African-American politician with a distinct if unintentional resemblance to Barack Obama -- both conceal (or at least Obama seems to conceal) barely suppressed rage beneath superficial placidity. (And Obama's most fervent netroots supporters have already hauled out the "Two-Face" label over the FISA bill.) In any case, it's no surprise that Hollywood has run screaming from yet another three-dimensional African-American character, and although Aaron Eckhardt is good in the part (even better, I'd say, than Heath Ledger's Joker), I can think of half a dozen African-American actors who could have handled the part just as well without compromising the character.

(Oh, and it doesn't help that the film's sole Asian character -- a corrupt Chinese businessman -- comes across like Fu Manchu without the mustache, or a spine. But the Chinese connection does give Eckhardt and director Nolan the chance to toss some Lou Dobbs-worthy "made in China" one-liners into a courtroom scene -- all of which, when I saw THE DARK KNIGHT, drew loud cheers from the audience.)

It's funny that O'Hehir should mention THE FRENCH CONNECTION, since I thought of that film several times as I viewed THE DARK KNIGHT (not just during the car-chase sequences, which are only the most obvious homage). I didn't much care for BATMAN BEGINS (and I've always felt that up to now Nolan has promised much more as a director than he managed to deliver), but I have to admit that THE DARK KNIGHT works. At its best -- which is quite often -- it's on a par with the best 1970s New Hollywood filmmaking. (I'm not sure how much of the imagery is computer-generated, but most of it looks and feels like the real thing.) The film's primary flaw is that it pulls some of its best punches in order to obtain that all-important PG-13 rating. BTW, the storyline owes more to Alan Moore's KILLING JOKE than to Frank Miller per se.

I think the answer to this question, at least, is fairly obvious: The category of "family film" exists because parents with small children constitute an underserved niche market. (Of course, the market is underserved for a reason: Families with children don't go to the cinema often, preferring to wait for a film to arrive on home video. This is why Patricia Rozema's KIT KITTREDGE movie is floundering at the box office despite winning some of the best reviews of the summer.)

I suspect LITTLE FUGITIVE would work well for children who can sit through a black-and-white film, though some "prepping" may be required if they're not familiar with New York City. In any case, it works well enough on television, and little Richie Andrusco is a charismatic screen presence. (He even looks like the kid from MILLIONS.)

Martin Ritt's SOUNDER would be a terrific choice, but it has never had a proper widescreen DVD release. The only version of SOUNDER you're likely to find at your local video store is the inferior Disney made-for-TV movie. (Suppression?) Still, every few months Turner Classic Movies will show Ritt's film in its proper aspect ratio. Another terrific film for older children (9 and up) is Charles Burnett's NIGHTJOHN. I didn't mention this one earlier because it was made for television. The DVD is widely available online.

On looking again at this thread, I find myself wondering about what precisely makes a film "kid-friendly." After taking my four-year-old cousin to see KUNG FU PANDA (her choice, not mine), I can state with certainty that the film was not appropriate for her, or for any other children in the theater. It's not that the film was objectionable as such -- it simply bored the kids to distraction. There's no reason to pay attention to a bunch of plush toys who knock the stuffing out of each other. (Yes, the film's homage to chop-socky cinema is clever, but how does one explain this to a kid?)

So ... what makes a film "kid-friendly," and for which kids? It's easier to start with negative examples, I suppose. I'm inclined to rule against fare like THE IRON GIANT, simply because I find it a touch morbid for the sippy-cup set. I suppose tweens won't have a problem with it, though the forced 1950s nostalgia appeals more to parents than to their offspring, and the whole movie comes with a slight aftertaste of spinach. I'm not sure children respond well to an elegiac tone, the sort of thing one finds throughout Gilliam's BARON MUNCHAUSEN (and finds to an even greater degree in the 1943 Nazi production MUNCHHAUSEN) -- but if Gilliam's film is too pessimistic for children, then who precisely is its audience? The same question holds for the Hulot films, which seem more genially nostalgic, and have a certain Gallic detachment that I'm not sure children would entirely comprehend.

And why would one want to see this film if one is not a doctrinaire leftist and/or red-diaper baby?

She sometimes opts for weird three-quarter back views of characters as they're speaking -- why?

My guess: It makes dubbing easier.