Vampires are more popular than ever right now in the entertainment world, thanks to "The Twilight Saga" and TV shows such as "True Blood" and "The Vampires Diaries". Hard to imagine that they were also big 40-years ago, on daytime TV of all places.

But that was the case. And now Johnny Depp and Tim Burton have teamed-up, for the 8th time, to bring the daytime soap opera , "Dark Shadows" (1966-71) to the big-screen.

Depp plays Barnabas Collins, who was a member of the richest family in Maine back in the late 1700's. He's cursed by a witch who loved him, because he loved someone else. She turns him into a vampire and locks him in a coffin. We flash forward to 1972 and the coffin is discovered by some construction workers who open it (big mistake) allowing Barnabas to return to what's left of his family and try to restore them to glory in a town that's been taken-over by an evil woman named Angelique (played by Eva Green), who just happens to be the same witch who cursed Barnabas nearly 200 years earlier. He's looking for revenge, he's looking for love and he's looking for blood.

"Dark Shadows" starts with a good set-up, laying-out the plot in soap opera fashion. It grabbed my interest from the opening shot. But one of the big problems with the film is that it's extremely inconsistent. An engaging scene is followed by one that just loses you and any momentum the story had. And this happens over and over. 

Also, this movie is being sold in the trailers and commercials as a comedy - but it just isn't. All the attempts at humor fall flat, including trying to get laughs out of the fact that this is a vampire from the 1700's is now living in 1972. He's amazed by a McDonald's sign, baffled by a lava lamp. Please, that's the best the writers could do?

The strength of "Dark Shadows" comes from what Tim Burton always provides: a great look and feel. You could tell this was a Burton film even if you didn't know (and Depp and Burton's wife - Helena Bonham Carter weren't in it). The sets and costumes are fantastic and even the make-up is well done.

The cast does a nice job of playing this is soap opera style - delivering dialogue that is sometimes sharp, other times intentionally bland and almost always over-the-top. Michelle Pfeiffer is a good choice to play the matriarch of the Collins Family. She has some good early scenes with Depp, who is classic Depp here again. But seeing him play yet another "wacky character" is getting kind of old.

"Dark Shadows" is rated PG-13 for some language, adult content and violence. There are more sexual references than you might expect from a PG-13 film, probably because sex was a big part of daytime dramas. It's appropriate for kids 12 and up, but most of them will likely not be interested. This movie was made for fans of Depp and Burton and fans of the original show, which had a huge cult following. I'm not really sure how those fans will like it. There were certainly a lot of them at the screening I attended, but I didn't hear too much from them during or after the movie. Regular movie goers will likely be split down the middle, which was exactly the way I felt leaving the theater.

On The Official LCJ Report Card, "Dark Shadows" gets a C.

At times it tries too hard, especially over-doing the fact that it's set in the early 70's (including a weird Alice Cooper cameo). The editing is a little rough and it's not a bit scary. In fact this is probably the dullest vampire movie ever made. But with a solid cast, a director who's a visual master and a great soundtrack "Dark Shadows" is not a complete wash-out.

I just wish it had a little more bite.

On The Official LCJ Report Card, "Dark Shadows" gets an    .

It's the big screen event diehard superhero comic book and film fans have been waiting for: an "Avengers" movie. And it's finally here. After "Iron Man" became a box office hit and re-launched Robert Downey, Jr.'s career, Marvel Studios released "The Incredible Hulk" (starring Edward Norton) and "Iron Man 2", and then followed with last summer's "Thor" and "Captain America: The First Avenger". And now all these iconic characters have come together to save the world in "Marvel's The Avengers", the first film of the 2012 Summer Movie Season. And what a way to start it off!

Samuel L. Jackson first appeared as Nick Fury, the leader of S.H.I.E.L.D, our country's top-secret defense unit, at the end of "Iron Man" asking Tony Stark to become part of The Avengers Initiative. In "The Avengers" we see that project come together. But Fury needs to assemble this team sooner than he expected because the evil god Loki, Thor's half-brother (and the villain in "Thor"), has escaped his world and come to earth. Loki has an army and a plan to either kill or make slaves of all humans. Early in the film he steals a weapon that Shield was working-on that will give him the power, literally, to destroy everything in his path.

So it's up to The Avengers to join forces (and egos) to try to take Loki down. The six very different members include Downey Jr.'s Iron Man (who isn't big on the idea of this project at the start), Chris Hemsworth's Thor (who feels guilty because it's his brother causing all the trouble), Chris Evans' Captain America (who's still trying to adjust to the modern world), Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow (who debuted in "Iron Man 2"), Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye (he and his bow and arrows had a small role in "Thor"), and Bruce Banner (a.k.a. The Hulk), played by Mark Ruffalo. He's the third actor to play this role in the past decade (Eric Bana starred in 2003's "Hulk" and then Norton in 2008).

This might sound like way too simple of a plot-line: Six superheroes comes together to battle one evil mega-villain and his army. And on the surface, it is. And that's what makes "The Avengers" even more of an amazing accomplishment because it turns this very simple story into a wildly entertaining film.

First of all, the movie is  jammed with action. Many of the early fight scenes involve the Avengers fighting amongst themselves, as they test each other to see who's worthy. The last half-hour is practically one non-stop battle sequence, but it's staged with a nice pace that keeps it interesting and not (like in so many other action films) mind-numbing. In fact all of the action scenes are a lot of fun. And the script is filled with touches of humor - clever dialogue and funny moments that help balance-out all the action. 

Downey, Jr. is spot-on as usual as the sharp, sarcastic Stark. Ruffalo is a good choice as The Hulk. He brings his own unique style to the character and, some will argue, steals the movie.  Johansson and Renner are solid. The Chrises are also good, though Evans stands-out a little more than Hemsworth. But the strongest performance for me comes from Jackson, who can deliver effective dialogue, shoot a weapon and make you laugh. He's the ideal choice to play the role of a non-superhero leader of a group of superheroes.

"The Avengers" is close to two-and-a-half hours long. The first half, while the team is coming together, is dominated by Loki. Tom Hiddleston does a nice job. The character works well within the storyline and his interactions, one at a time with each of the Avengers, are a strong element of the film. Most of the special effects are impressive, though a few do look a little cheesy (especially on Asgard - Thor and Loki's planet).

Is this movie goofy, silly and at times a little overly-dramatic? Of course...but who cares! It's exciting and engaging, with the best score and costume design of any movie so far this year.

"The Avengers" is rated PG-13 for all of the action/violence. It's appropriate for kids 11and up, who will love all the action. Parents, if you're going to take younger kids to this, and I know you are, please keep them quiet during the film. Of course Marvel fans (both comics and films) will not be disappointed either. And, as usual, there's a few extra to keep an eye out for: the regular cameo by the great Stan Lee and not one, but two surprises during the credits.

On The Official LCJ Report Card, "Marvel's The Avengers" gets an A-. It may just be the greatest modern-era superhero movie of them all.

Up-coming Marvel projects include next year's "Iron Man 3" and "Thor 2", "Captain America 2" in late 2014 and an untitled project for May 2014. Could that be a second "Avengers"? Considering the killing this one will do at the box office it's a lock that we will see a second "Avengers". It's just a question of when.

Aardman Animation is best known for their stop-motion, claymation films and shorts, many of them involving the characters Wallace and Gromit, and most of them award-winning. On the big screen Aardman has given us 2000's "Chicken Run" and 2005's "Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" and, more recently, the studio provided character development for two CGI animated films: 2006's "Flushed Away" and last year's instant holiday classic, "Arthur Christmas".

"The Pirates! Band of Misfits" is the studio's first stop-motion film since "Were-Rabbit", and it is so incredibly funny throughout I was exhausted from laughing when it was over.

Hugh Grant stars as the voice of The Pirate Captain. He's the leader of a wacky and diverse crew who storm the seven seas in search of gold. For his entire life The Pirate Captain has wanted to win the "Pirate of the Year" Award. Every year he enters and every year he loses, but that doesn't stop him from entering again, and since he's never won before he think he's got a really good chance this time. You gotta love his optimism.

But he needs to steal a lot of booty to have a chance to compete with the more successful pirates for the award. So he and his crew take to the high seas and eventually come upon a ship with a young scientist named Charles Darwin on board. Before being made to walk the plank, Charles notices that The Pirate Captain's parrot (named Polly) is actually a scientific wonder - a thought-to-be-extinct Dodo bird. Charles wants to enter Polly in a major Science competition in London. But London is not a safe place for pirates because England's Queen Victoria HATES pirates. If he goes The Pirate Captain could win enough riches to realize his dream of being "Pirate of the Year" or he and his crew could get caught and killed. And what about Charles Darwin and his assistant - a highly intelligent, but silent chimp?

It's a wonderfully goofy plot - set in the 1800's - and yet characters have Sharpies, use modern expressions and one of the other scientific experiments is a Rubik's Cube. And this only adds to the goofiness. "The Pirates! Band of Misfits" is filled with big laughs, subtle jokes and clever one-liners from start to finish. You have to pay attention and listen closely to get them all. The first scene of the movie, in which we meet The Pirate Captain and his men (all of which aren't men) has more laughs in it than some full-length so-called comedies. Overall, "The Pirates!" is more geared to an older audience because the jokes and references are more for them, but that's not to say that younger kids won't like it.

The writing is brilliant. The script relies on so many forms of comedy: satire, parody, farce, slapstick. There are situations and events thrown-in just for laughs (my personal favorite is the "Pirate of the Year Award" ceremony), others that are flat-out ridiculous, but it all works because the writers stay true to the story and the variety characters.

The other element of "The Pirates!" that makes it so enjoyable is the stop-motion animation, which is fantastic. All characters and settings look so good that you watch in awe wondering how the Aardman team was able to create these scenes with modeling clay and hundred of thousand of still photos. Grant, in his first animated role, does a nice job as the likeable Pirate Captain. Jeremy Piven, Salma Hayek and even Al Roker are part of the supporting cast. The rest of the voices mostly come from British actors, including Martin Freeman and Brendan Gleeson.

This is the most ambitious of any Aardman film, with loads of characters and tons of action. The movie packs so much into 90 minutes, and that includes the credits, which may be the most entertaining I've ever seen. You'll feel bad for the people who worked on the film because you won't be able to pay attention to their names. Don't make a mistake and leave early.

"The Pirates! Band of Misfits" is rated PG for some mild action, rude humor and brief language. It's appropriate for kids 8 and up. But again, youngsters will enjoy it for the characters and the action, but the older crowd, including parents, will appreciate it even more.

On The Official LCJ Report Card, "The Pirates! Band of Misfits" gets a B+. It's a whale of a good time and the funniest film of 2012...by far. I saw it in 3D and the extra dimension works, though it does make a few of the scenes a little too dark. When I see "The Pirates!" again (and it'll be soon) it'll be in digital 2D and I'm sure it will be fantastic. Either way, if you don't enjoy "Pirates!" it's time for you to walk the plank!

This is a big year for animated movies, with two other stop-motion films, plus Pixar's "Brave" and "Madagascar 3" coming out. But it'll be very hard for any of them to defeat "The Pirates!".

Disneynature has had much success with their Earth Day documentaries: 2009's "Earth" was about our entire planet, primarily focusing on polar bears, whales and elephants and was narrated by James Earl Jones. 2010's "Oceans", narrated by Pierce Brosnan, took us under the sea. And last year's "African Cats", about lion and cheetah families, was narrated by Samuel L. Jackson. Combined they've grossed more than $200 million worldwide. This year the studio is taking us back to Africa, this time to meet a young chimp named Oscar.

"Chimpanzee" is narrated by Tim Allen, who tells Oscar's story of survival in the rain forest. We first meet Oscar as a baby - instantly cute and likeable. He's curious and loves to literally "monkey around". His mother Isha takes care of him and tries to protect him at all times. The leader of their group is Freddy - an older chimp who's not a big fan of young upstarts, especially when he's trying to sleep.

Freddy's #1 duty is to protect his group from his enemy - Scar - and his gang of chimps who want to take over Freddy's territory for food. During one confrontation between the two sides little Oscar is separated from his mother and this takes all of their lives in a surprising direction.

At only 78 minutes "Chimpanzee" goes by very quickly. At the end I immediately thought - "It's over already?"  The subject matter is interesting and the story is engaging, I just wish there was more to it, especially since much of the film is taken-up by many wide shots of the rain forest and close-ups using time-lapse photography.

When I interviewed co-director Alastair Fothergill (who also worked on "Earth" and "African Cats"), he told me that unlike Disneynature's previous films, they wanted "Chimpanzee" to be more of a comedy. And it is, so Allen is a good choice for the narration. He has a distinct voice and adds his own personality to the storytelling. Some of Allen's lines are a little corny but there are some humorous moments with Oscar interacting with the his mom and the other chimps, and you do learn a lot about chimps, including one amazing fact about what they eat that I guarantee will surprise you.

What's most impressive about "Chimpanzee" is the footage. Fothergill and co-director Mark Linfield ("Earth") deserve a lot of credit for capturing great, natural moments on film. And it wasn't easy. The camera crews were restricted to standing 22 feet away from the chimps at all times and everyone had to wear masks so they wouldn't spread human germs to the chimps. Some of the shots are amazing, especially knowing that all of the close-ups we see had to be taken from a distance. Like the other Disneynature documentaries, there is a "Making Of" short at the end, which could have been much longer.

At times the material runs a little dry. There are one too many scenes of Oscar and the others trying to break open nuts with rocks and sticks. And come on, you named the rival chimp leader Scar? The old, evil lion in "African Cats" was also Scar. It's time the writers come-up with another name of a Disney cartoon villain for the enemies in these documentaries.

"Chimpanzee" is rated G. Unlike "African Cats", there is no blood on the screen, but there is some action/violence during the attacks that may briefly scare younger ones, especially with the over-dramatic music during those scenes. Overall, it's appropriate for kids 8 and up.

On The Official LCJ Report Card, "Chimpanzee" gets a B.

At the screening I attended, there was no preview for next year's Disneynature film. Fothergill told me there are a few projcets in the works, but he couldn't give anything away, so we'll have to wait and see what Disneynature has is store for it's 2013 Earth Day film.  Maybe we'll finally get that a bird documentary I've been looking for.

Most everyone knows that The Three Stooges were a classic comedy trio that began back in the 1920's. They were famous for their outrageous slapstick and were very popular both on TV and in movies. Now, more than 60 years after the original Moe, Larry and Curly ended their run as the Stooges, they're being revived.

I've never been a huge fan of slapstick, so I was a little worried going into "The Three Stooges". But I've got to say that I'm surprised by how funny the physical bits work in this film and fans of the original Stooges will be pleased with the effort put in by the filmmakers and cast to honor these comedy legends.

When this movie was original announced Moe, Larry and Curly were going to be played by Benicio del Toro, Sean Penn and Jim Carrey. What a different movie that would've been. In the end "Will & Grace"'s Sean Hayes stars as Larry (the curly-haired Stooge - for the uneducated), Will Sasso plays Curly (the bald Stooge), and Chris Diamantopoulos is Moe (the leader of the Stooges, who tries to hold everything together).

At the beginning of the film, we see the Stooges as babies, being dropped-off at the front of an orphanage (already with their famous haircuts). We then flash-forward 10 years and no one working at the orphanage can stand them anymore (including Mother Superior, played by "Glee"'s Jane Lynch) and no one wants to adopt them. Then we jump ahead another 25 years: Mother Superior hasn't aged a bit, but the Stooges have and they're still causing trouble at the orphanage.

So much so that the orphanage is being forced to close because it can't afford to pay all the bills that are piling-up from repairing things destroyed by the Stooges. So Moe, Larry and Curly decide to go out on their own and try to raise the $830,000 needed to keep it open. Along the way they get caught-up in a scheme involving Lydia (Sofia Vergara), Moe becomes a reality star on "Jersey Shore", and a lot of other funny and crazy things take place.

The film is divided into three acts, each beginning with updated version of the classic intros from the TV shorts. Some of the slapstick, especially early on, is laugh-out-loud funny. But, for me a least, it did get a little old after a while. But the second half does have some funny one-liners to keep the laughs coming.

But, sadly, "The Three Stooges" is not all Nyucks. The subplot involving Lydia is a waste. I would have liked to have seen more of the Stooges trying to come-up with ways of getting the money. There's a scene where they try to become farmers that is hysterical.

Besides Vergara and Lynch, the supporting cast also includes Jennifer Hudson as a nun (who's only in the film to belt out a couple of songs). An almost unrecognizable Larry David ("Curb Your Enthusiasm") also plays a nun, and he's a main target for hi-jinks throughout the film. And even though you know that a guy is playing a nun, it still works. Isiah Mustafa (the "Old Spice Guy") plays the "Jersey Shore" producer.

And yes, the entire cast of that MTV show is in the movie. Once Moe becomes a cast member, he, Larry and Curly get to do what just about everyone has been dying to do to these people since they first appeared on TV. However, this subplot is a little "out there" and goes on a bit too long.

Diehard fans will be happy with the actors' interpretations of the Stooges. All three handle the very tricky dialogue and pull-off the slapstick in style. There are plenty of moments where you know what's coming, but more often than not you laugh anyway. The characters are gullible and likeable, and Hayes, Sasso and Diamantopolous capture that and mesh very well on screen.

"The Three Stooges" is directed by The Farrelly Brothers. They're better known for their more adult comedies, such as "There's Something About Mary", "Dumb and Dumber" and "Hall Pass". "The Three Stooges" is actually their first PG-rated film in 10 years. Obviously there's a lot of silly, slapstick violence, along with some rude humor and a few gross moments. The film is appropriate for kids 9 and up, as long as their parents make it clear, as parents have had to do with their kids since this trio first appeared on screen, that they should not try to imitate anything they see The Stooges do. And just in case, you get a reminder of that at the end of the film (complete with an inside joke).

On The Official LCJ Report Card, "The Three Stooges" gets a C+.

If this film is a box office success we could see some of the original Stooges' movies and shows return to TV and the inevitible sequel, where we could meet the other three Three Stooges.

"Titanic" was the biggest movie of all-time (with $600M) from 1998-2010 before James Cameron's next movie - the overrated "Avatar" - took over. "Titanic" is the top movie to stay consecutively at the #1 spot at the box office (15 weeks from Dec. 19, 1997 to Mar. 29, 1998). It won 11 Oscars (tying the all-time record) including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Visual Effects and Best Song and was nominated for 14 (Kate Winslet and Gloria Stuart both lost, though Stuart won a SAG award).

Now, one of the biggest, most respected (and longest) films in movie history is back on the big screen for its 15th anniversary and the historic 100th Anniversary of the sinking of the actual Titanic. And Cameron has resurrected it in 3D. I was really disappointed by 2009's "Avatar" but am amazed at what Cameron was able to do 12 years earlier with "Titanic".

This is the first time seeing the film and one of the most impressive things for me about "Titanic" is the storytelling. The challenge for Cameron: making a compelling movie about an event that everyone already knows so much about. Well, he succeeds by telling the story in a non-traditional fashion. The introduction (in present day, with the explorers searching inside the sunken Titanic and Stuart - "Old Rose" - coming on board to tell her story) was a stroke of genius. And the fact that Cameron allows this section of the film to last for half an hour is amazing, something most directors would never have the guts to do.

In preparing to see "Titanic 3D" I was thinking about the film's length (3 hours and 15 minutes) and wondering if I was going to be able to get through all of it. But the movie is so engaging with its story, likeable characters and intense and dramatic scenes that I never once thought about the length. The film flows (not pun intended) timelessly and you just want it to keep unfolding.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Winslet have great chemistry on screen. A young Leo may not have given the best acting performance of his career, but you can't help but care about Jack and Rose while they're falling in love on the ship and you're rooting for them to stay together and get off the ship alive. The visual effects are breathtaking, especially the scenes of chaos on deck when the ship is going down. Some of those shots of the lifeboats and the passengers floating will stay with me for a long time. And having the "Titanic" theme (Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On") sprinkled in throughout the film and then having her sing the full song over the credits at the end at the end is yet another fantastic decision.

As for the 3D post-conversion (which is probably what many of you mostly care about since you've already seen the film several times) - it works! The 3D is not overwhelming, but it enhancing the storytelling and the action (especially the water sequences). No gimmicks or tricks, so the effect should not be distracting to any "Titanic" diehards who might be worried that this new version will spoil the film.

"Titanic" is rated PG-13 for intense action/violence, peril, disturbing images, some language, brief nudity, and some smoking. It's appropriate for kids 12 and up. If you've never seen "Titanic" before (like me), you're a huge fan who can recite the lines by heart or somewhere in between this is the perfect opportunity to take another memorable voyage.

On The Official LCJ Report Card, "Titanic 3D" gets a B+.

Though Cameron promised that he didn't change a single frame of the original film I couldn't help but look for him inside his one-man submarine during the scenes at the bottom the ocean. Who knows what he's got planned for his next underwater adventure film, but he'll have a hard time coming-up with anything as great as "Titanic".

Mirror, Mirror, on the wall, who's the fairest of them all? Snow White is the fairest...the 1937 Disney animated Snow White. 75 years later, Hollywood is in a "Snow White" craze with two big releases based on the fairy tale within a few months of each other. June's "Snow White and the Huntsman" looks like a dark, action/adventure. "Mirror Mirror" on the other hand is a light family comedy with only mild action. The problem is "Mirror Mirror" isn't funny or exciting, and at times is uncomfortable to watch.

In this version of the story, Snow White's mother (the Queen) died at childbirth and so her father (the King) had to take care of her. He found a new Queen, and she would be the one to rule the land and take care of Snow White because the King went off to fight in the forest and was never heard from again. Julia Roberts stars as The Queen, an evil and strict woman who has destroyed the once prosperous and happy kingdom by taking all the townspeople's money. And she despises the now 18-year-old Snow White (Lily Collins).

One day without permission, Snow White goes outside the castle and into the forest where she rescues Prince Alcott ("J. Edgar"'s Armie Hammer), who was held captive by seven bandits. These bandits are the seven dwarfs, but don't have the Happy, Dopey, Grumpy names like in the Disney classic. The Queen orders her #1 servant (played by Nathan Lane) to kill Snow White, but instead he allows her to escape into the forest, where she meets-up with the dwarfs. At the same time, the Queen wants to marry Prince Alcott but he's falling for Snow White, I bet you can figure out the rest.

And that's one of the many problems with "Mirror Mirror" - there's nothing new or different about this story to make it even worth making the new version. This movie tries too hard to be too cute. You can tell the filmmakers were trying to copy the successful formula of Disney's "Enchanted" (updated spin on the fairy tale genre) but they failed miserably.

The film does have a pretty good cast, but they have very little material to work with. Roberts' Queen tries to talk "evil" with her dialogue but doesn't actually do anything evil. And for some reason she has an alter ego (her as the "woman in the mirror") who is just bizarre to look at. Collins ("The Blind Side") is a good choice as the plucky princess. You feel bad for Hammer (who was very good in "J. Edgar" and "The Social Network"), because the script has him doing some embarrassing scenes, including playing a dog and actually licking Roberts. Lane is a funny guy, and though he does have a couple of decent one-liners, he's mostly wasted here. Most of the jokes fall flat, including the all ones involving the dwarfs, who are a bit overused. But all of the costumes (especially Roberts' large dresses) are very nice.

There are a couple of good moments in "Mirror, Mirror" when Hammer and Collins are together dancing and sword-fighting. But the rest of this film is simply silly. At times characters say lines that really has nothing to do with what's happening. It's as if the writers knew a scene was dying, so they added what they thought was a funny line to try to save the day. The special effects are anything but. Most of the backgrounds are green screen, and the creatures (including gigantic wooden puppets - Why? I don't know - and some type of dragon-looking thing) aren't scary, just weird.

"Mirror Mirror" is rated PG for some mild action and brief language. It's appropriate for kids 9 and up. Younger ones might like the slapstick, but anyone of any age will get freaked-out when Julia Roberts walks into the mirror and comes out of the water onto a boardwalk in the Philippines. Overall, this is one of the corniest and wackiest movies I've seen in some time.

On The Official LCJ Report Card, "Mirror Mirror" gets a C-. It has a few good moments, but we can only hope that this isn't the fairest of the "Snow White" movies coming-out this year.

2010's "Clash of the Titans" (the remake of the 1981cult favorite) was one of the worst films of that, or any year - lame story, awful dialogue and cheap special effects, including an incredibly bad 3D post-conversion. Not much differs between that film and this totally unnecessary sequel, except for Sam Worthington's hairdo.

"Wrath of the Titans" begins about 10-years from where "Clash" left off. Worthington, once again, is Perseus, the half-human/half-god son of Zeus. Perseus is a widower and he has a son of his own. Perseus has chosen to live his life as a human, until Zeus (Liam Neeson) tells him that the fate of the god's immortality is in danger. Soon after Zeus is taken captive by his brother Hades (Ralph Fiennes) and Perseus' brother Ares is also in on the plot. Ares is jealous of what Persues has accomplished (including the whole "Release the Kraken" thing from the first film).

Persues learns he has a cousin who's also half-human/half-god, and he needs to find him so together they can try to save Zeus and defeat Ares.

If all of this sounds utterly ridiculous and a waste of thousands of hours of work by the filmmakers, cast and crew that's because it is. If ever a movie deserved the tag-line: "Who Cares" - it's this one (unless you're really into Greek Mythology, and if that's the case you'll probably rip this movie apart for other reasons, such as 'Zeus was a lot taller than Liam Neeson').

However, there are a few things that make "Wrath" an improvement over "Clash":

1) It's 7-minutes shorter

2) Neeson and Fiennes do have a few scenes together in which you actually see some good acting

But the biggest difference is the 3D, which actually looks professional this time, and is quite effective

But that's it. The rest of "Wrath" is a mess: There's nothing compelling about the story, the editing is clumsy, the dialogue is laughable ("Brother"? "Yes...Brother") and Worthington is the dullest half-god/half-human in movie history.

"Wrath" is packed with way too many action scenes, in an effort to try to make-up for not having much of a story. It doesn't work. It's rated PG-13 for the fantasy action/violence. Even though we get plenty of close-ups of several weird creatures all trying to kill Perseus there's nothing here that kids 12 and up can't handle.

On The Official LCJ Report Card, "Wrath of the Titans" gets a D, which, considering "Clash" got an "F" two years ago, is a notable improvement.

The good news is that this should mark "The End of the Titans". And, even better, this movie is so bland that by tomorrow morning I won't be able to "Remember the Titans".

"Bully" has been getting a lot of attention over the past several weeks, because of the "R" rating given the documentary by the MPAA. The Weinstein Company and others tried to get the rating changed. A 17-year-old girl from Michigan has gathered nearly 500,000 signatures on a petition, hoping to convince the MPAA to make "Bully" PG-13. As you probably know by now their efforts failed, but the studio decided to ignore the MPAA and is releasing the film "unrated". I wholeheartedly this decision and I'll get into that a little more later. But controversy aside, this movie is fascinating, heartbreaking and very important.

Bullying has become a major problem in American schools. "Bully" follows the stories of five students who have been directly affected by bullying. We get to know kids who have been victimized because others think they're "different", whether it's how they look, how they act, or their sexuality. We meet a girl who was a victim and chose to fight back, but in the wrong way. And we see two families who are dealing with the ultimate tragedy: having a son/brother commit suicide because they simply couldn't take the bullying anymore.

The parents want to use their terrible situations to help get bullying stopped, but find it difficult to get the administration in the schools to deal with the problem seriously. It's clear, thanks to some dramatic hidden-camera video and interviews with teachers and staff, that the schools are not doing enough (some not doing anything at all) to stop bullying from taking place and punishing the kids who are involved. The parents are forced to fight this battle outside of school, starting-up anti-bullying organizations which they hope will make a difference.

At times "Bully" is hard to watch because of the stories that the parents and kids share, some of which are shocking. There are also several scenes of actual bullying taking place, including footage captured on school buses, that just makes you angry. And listening to one Vice Principal's opinions on the bullying situation will make you want to shout at the screen. This is one time when it might be o.k. to talk during a film, because it's tough to stay silent when you're hearing some of these comments.

This documentary does not include a narration. Some text appears every once in awhile to identify people and locations but mostly you hear from victims and their friends and family members, those involved in the school systems and, of course, the bullies themselves. This was a good decision by director Lee Hirsch to go without narration and allow everything to play out naturally so we get the complete picture of this issue from the words of those directly involved on all sides.

"Bully" cuts back and forth between the five stories over the length of a school year, giving enough time for each one to unfold and have a dramatic impact. You feel terrible about what these kids and families have gone through, and feel even worse that nothing effective is being done to solve this problem.

There is some hope and a positive message at the end of "Bully". The film certainly made a lasting impression on me, and hopefully those who watch it will be not only moved by it, but encouraged to take action. This is an important documentary that everyone - parents, teachers, school officials and first and foremost, students, should see.

As for the MPAA controversy, "Bully" had been given an 'R' rating because of six swear words - that's it. And these words are actually necessary because they help to show the verbal abuse that bullies use along with the physical abuse. And, trust me, kids everywhere have heard these words and won't be harmed by them. I applaude Hirsch for not giving in to the MPAA and re-editing the film, taking-out the 6 words in order to get a PG-13 rating. And I support the studio's decision to ignore the MPAA and release the film without a rating. Hopefully theater groups around the country will understand this unique situation and decide to show the film AND allow kids to see it. The movie's website states that 13-million children will be victims of bullying in schools throughout the U.S. this year alone. The MPAA was not protecting those kids by trying to keep them from hearing a few bad words. Instead it tried to prevent them from possibly getting the help they need to end the torture and maybe save their lives. Let's hope it didn't succeed.

So forget the NR. See "Bully" - and take your kids with you.

Along with the brief language, there is some mature subject matter in the film, mainly involving the suicides. It a tough call on an appropriate age group for "Bully" because I truly believe all students, from 3rd-4th grade on up, should see it. Exposing young kids to this issue may be one of the best ways to try to combat the problem. Certainly it should be required viewing for every middle school student in the country.

But know going in that even though the movie does end on a promising note, this is a very serious film that's quite emotional to watch.

On The Official LCJ Report Card, "Bully" gets a B+. This is solid documentary filmmaking. Some of the images and interviews will stay with you forever. I would have liked to have seen an interview or two with some of the actual bullies, but Hirsch says he left those out intentionally because this film is about hearing from those in most need to be heard - the victims.

The timing of the release of "Bully" is excellent, as students are still in school, and the DVD release can take place at the beginning of the next school year in the fall. And there's a good chance the buzz about the film will return at the end of the year when the Oscar nominations are discussed.

The "Harry Potter" movie series has come to a close and the "Twilight" film finale is this November. So inevitably Hollywood needed a new blockbuster franchise based on a popular book series to latch on to. Enter "The Hunger Games" - part one of a three-book series aimed at a similar audience. This first film certainly has more substance to it than the "Twilight" movies, and a more serious tone than the "Potter" series.

"The Hunger Games" is set in futuristic North America (called Panem), which, following a catastrophic war, has been divided into 12 districts. Jennifer Lawrence (Oscar nominee for 2010's "Winter's Bone") stars as Katniss Everdeen. She lives in the poorest district, #12, with her younger sister, Primrose, and her mother. She also has a boyfriend named Gale (played by Liam Hemsworth). Each year Panem conducts "The Hunger Games", in which one boy and one girl from each district between the ages of 12 and 18 are chosen at random to compete in a fight to the death in an arena, which is televised live across the nation. There are 24 contestants (called tributes) and only one can come out alive.

Primrose gets selected, but Katniss volunteers to take her place and be the female tribute. The male selected is Peeta ("Journey 2"'s Josh Hutcherson), who's anxious to fight, but believes that he's not going to survive. Each of the tributes gets special training for a few weeks, so they can be prepared for the competition. Woody Harrelson is quite good in the role of Haymitch, the District 12 mentor. He does what he can to try to prepare Katniss and Peeta for...The Hunger Games.

The first hour or so is very good. We meet a lot of characters, including Stanley Tucci's over-the-top talk show host (though Tucci's likeable in pretty much every movie he's in from "Julie & Julia" to "Captain America"), District 12's wacky head official, played by an almost unrecognizable Elizabeth Banks. And singer Lenny Kravitz is good as Katniss' stylist. The early scenes at the Reaping, when the two candidates are chosen, and star treatment they receive leading-up to the games are well done.

But this is one of those movies where the set-up is better than the pay-off. Once the actual fighting competition begins, "The Hunger Games" slowly loses its appeal. After one nice surprising touch, the movie becomes a long, drawn-out, deadly version of "Survivor", with no twists or surprises. And unlike most of the rest of the world, I didn't read the books so I didn't know what was coming. Some of those who did are likely to be even more disappointed with obvious way the story plays out.

If "The Hunger Games" was a stand-alone film, I would be blasting the ending as a cop-out. And yes, series writer Suzanne Collins also co-wrote the screenplay. But that's always the problem with a movie version of part 1of a book series. If the writer actually had the guts to make some serious decisions involving main characters, which would make the movie much more interesting, those characters wouldn't be around for the next book or the next movie.

Along with "Survivor" it's impossible not to see plenty of "The Truman Show" and even "American Idol" in "The Hunger Games", which allows for a fair amount of social commentary on reality TV and celebrity status in our society. And, for the most part, the message is very effective.

The plot does a few holes in it, especially during the games when characters do things they would never do in similar situations in real life, but the film is well-shot and nicely directed with an authentic look by Gary Ross and the performances, led by Lawrence and Hutcherson are pretty outstanding.

"The Hunger Games" is rated PG-13 for some intense action/violence, mostly involving teens killing other teens. There's a good amount of blood and some inappropriate images for younger ones. In fact, because of it's theme and violent images, this is about as close to an "R" rating as a movie can get without actually getting one.  Most fans of the books are sure to like it and it will be a tremendous success at the box office. For those not caught-up in the hype (like me) this is a good, but not great film.

On The Official LCJ Report Card, "The Hunger Games" gets a B-.

The second film in the series, "Catching Fire" is scheduled to be released November 22nd, 2013. Until then, as they say in the film (over and over and over): May the odds be ever in your favor.

One of the current TV commercials for "John Carter" states that before there was "Star Wars" and "Avatar" there was John Carter. And that's very true. The character was the creation of famed writer Edgar Rice Burroughs back in 1912.
But the ad campaign doesn't go far enough, because along with "Avatar" and "Star Wars" there are over a half-dozen other films that come to mind while watching "John Carter", each of them represented on screen either directly or indirectly. They include:

- "Cowboys and Aliens"
- "Braveheart"
- "Gladiator"
- "Prince of Persia"
- "The Adjustment Bureau"
- "Aladdin"
- And yes, even "Mars Needs Moms". In fact that Robert Zemeckis big-budget, motion-capture bomb (one of Disney's all-time disasters) was released right around this time last year.

And now, here we go again on another trip to Mars, only this one, sadly, is even more painful to be a part of.

The plot of "John Carter" starts out simple but then gets way too complicated. The basic story has Carter (Taylor Kitsch), a Civil War veteran who's tired of fighting and just wants to be left alone, getting magically transported to Mars. There he finds himself in the middle of another war, and he has to decide if he wants to fight in this one, or just try to find his way back to Earth.

On Mars there are good Humans (the blue team), bad Humans (the red team) and actual Martians (who happen to be green). We never really know why they're fighting (nor do we care) and all the characters have names and live in places you can't remember. There's a ton of dialogue, way too much for a sci-fi adventure movie.

There are also plenty of action scenes, and a few of them are fun and original, but most are dull and predictable. And even with the massive $250 million budget this film contains some of the worst special effects I've seen on screen in years (including the Carter character jumping over and over. It's surprising that you can't seen the harness).

Another problem is the movie’s length - nearly 2 hrs and 20 mins. It should have been edited down - drastically, especially considering the weak performances and bland story. And the score, by Oscar-winner Michael Giacchino, is way over-the-top. Epic music for an average product.

"John Carter" is directed by Andrew Stanton, who wrote and directed "Finding Nemo" and "Wall-E", winning Oscars for both. He's the second Pixar animator in recent months to take-on his first live-action film (Brad Bird with "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" the other). I know there's never enough animated projects to go around at Pixar, but Stanton needs to make better choices if he's going to continue working in live-action.

"John Carter" is rated PG-13 for all the action violence, but none of it is believable so no one will be harmed watching it. The movie is appropriate for kids 11 and up. Fans of the original Burroughs story and die-hard sci-fi nuts are going to want to see it, but I can't imagine too many will be happy with this version.

On The Official LCJ Report Card, "John Carter" gets a D+.

It is time that Disney decides to explore another planet, say maybe Venus or Saturn. I'd even be happy if they brought back Pluto! Anything but another trip to Mars.

Since 2000 three Dr. Seuss books have made their way to the big screen: "How the Grinch Stole Christmas", "The Cat in the Hat", and "Horton Hears a Who!". When you think of other classic Seuss books "The Lorax" doesn't immediately come to mind. So it's a bit surprising that this story was chosen to be the newest Seuss film. But the theme of the movie - protecting the environment - is certainly a hot topic right now.

Unfortunately "Dr. Seuss' The Lorax" is just too simple to have an impact on anyone who sees it - kids or adults.

Ted (voiced by Zac Efron) lives in Thneedville where everything is fake and made of plastic and the people like it that way. There are no trees so everyone has to buy clean air. In order to impress a girl he has a crush on named Audrey (singer Taylor Swift), Ted needs to find a real living tree. His Gramma (voiced by Betty White - how predictable) tells him to go to the mysterious Once-ler, who lives outside of town.

The Once-ler (Ed Helms) tells Ted the story of The Lorax (voiced by comedian Danny DeVito). He is a short, orange creature who "speaks for the trees" and tries to protect them so he and his animal friends can live and thrive. When the Once-ler was younger, he came to the animal's beautiful home and chopped down all the trees so he could make a product out of them to sell to and make a lot of money - something he later regretted doing. The Once-ler decides to help Ted to try to undo his big mistake.

The movie begins promisingly with a musical number during the opening credits. Something pretty rare - and it works. And the first half of the film is o.k. There are touches of Seuss (including some rhyming dialogue) and the animation is bright and cheery.

But then "The Lorax" begins to go downhill - fast. It's almost as if the filmmakers forgot that this is a Dr. Seuss story. There's no wit, no charm. The movie becomes just another average CGI animated film. Which is shocking considering that it's made by many of the same people behind 2010's "Despicable Me", which is one of the most original movies of the past decade. "The Lorax" is filled with stereotypes and dull characters, such as a villain who's the shortest person in town and a fat bear who is the slowest and goofiest of all the animals.

One thing the movie's not filled with is laughs. There are hardly any funny lines. Most of the "jokes" are either overdone or incredibly predictable. An obvious attempt to duplicate "Despicable Me"'s hilarious minions with a group of goldfish fails miserably.

And, after the opening musical number, the rest of the songs are corny and unnecessary. It seems like they were added simply to get the very thin story to fill 90 minutes.

The animation is colorful, the voice cast is solid, and the Lorax and Once-ler characters do have a little depth to them. But it's very difficult for "The Lorax" to keep your interest when you know exactly what's coming.

It's rated PG for brief mild language. Young ones may like the colors and the characters, but will likely get restless halfway through. Anyone older than 8 or 9 will have a hard time caring about the story or the very basic environmental message.

On The Official LCJ Report Card, "Dr. Seuss' The Lorax" gets a C+. This isn't one of Seuss' classic stories and so I guess we shouldn't be surprised that this is not even close to being a classic animated film.

This is the third year that I be able to see the "Oscar Nominated Animated Short Films". While there are several good shorts (including a few that aren't even in the running for the Oscar), there isn't one this year that's outstanding.

OSCAR NOMINEES:

"Dimanche/Sunday" - A hand-drawn short from Canada about a boy's average Sunday. It has good animation and a humorous story but just kind of sits there with no payoff or resolution. B

"The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore" - The longest title and longest short (15 min.) William Joyce ("Robots" and "Meet the Robinsons") co-directs this CGI short about a young man who is brought to a library where books literally fly off the shelves. Similar story and look as Pixar's "Up", with emotion and good messages. The animation style is a little soft and the movie wanders a little bit. B

"La Luna" - Pixar's nominated short is one of the best of the bunch. It's about a little boy who goes to work with his father and grandfather. They have an interesting job: cleaning the moon. This is a sweet and funny short with great animation. It's far better than Pixar's entry last year, the wildly disappointing "Day & Night". B+

"A Morning Stroll" - Unusual, but yet it makes perfect sense. This short combines hand-drawn and CGI animation in three very different and very vibrant styles. The story is about...well...a chicken! (and that's all I want to say). Well thought and entertaining. B

"Wild Life" - Canada's second nominated short is about a young man, in the early 1900s, who leaves England to live the "wild life" as a cowboy in Canada. The animation is all done with oil painting cels and it's great looking, but the story is a mess. There's a constant reference to comets that I just didn't get and the twist at the end doesn't really work. C

HIGHLY CONDEMMED

"Skylight" - The first half of this five-minute short is a funny rip-off of "March of the Penguins" and other nature documentaries and a social commentary on Global Warming. Then it becomes predictable and pretty ridiculous. A great start, but a disappointing finish. C+

"Hybrid Union" - A bland story about machines trying to race each other to get away from a storm. The animation is O.K., but the story and message are too obvious. I don't want to think this much while trying to enjoy a quick short. C

"Nullarbor" - A funny and more adult short from Austraila about two men who come-upon each other while driving their vehicles across a long stretch of land on the continent. The animation is good and at times, this short is laugh-out-loud funny. Predictable but enjoyable throughout. B+

"Amazonia" - Bright animation and a pretty clever story about a young frog and an older frog trying to catch food in the "Amazon". Nice, surprise ending that works. It's simple and could've had a little more bite too it, but a nice way to end the collection. B

Favorite (out of all nine): "Nullarbor"

Prediction for the Oscar Winner: "La Luna"

Japan's Studio Ghibli has had a great deal of success bringing their anime films to America, thanks in large part to Disney, which distributes the films in the U.S. Fans and critics alike have loved Ghibli movies, beginning with their first - 1986's "Castle in the Sky". Stand-outs from the studio include "My Neighbor Totoro" (1988), "Spirited Away", which won the Best Animated Feature Oscar in 2002, "Howl's Moving Castle", which was nominated for an Academy Award in 2006 and 2009's "Ponyo".

Their latest, "The Secret World of Arrietty", is a simple and sweet addition to the collection, written and co-produced by long-time director Hayao Miyazaki, who adapted it from the book, The Borrowers.

Borrowers are little people who live under the floors of homes. They take just what they need to survive from the humans they live with - an occasional sugar cube or tissue. And they have to be sure they are never seen. 14 year old Arrietty (voiced by Disney Channel's Bridgit Mendler) is just old enough to start going on borrowing trips with her father, which has her mother worried. Real-life husband and wife Will Arnet and Amy Peohler voice the parents.

One day while she's out on her own Arrietty is spotted by Sean ("Wizards of Waverly Place" star David Henrie), a teenager who's come with his aunt to stay at this house in the country. Sean has some medical problems and needs to rest before surgery. Even though she's been told to stay away from "Human Beans", as they call them, Arrietty is drawn to Sean and he is immediately fascinated with her. The two begin an unlikely friendship and learn much from each other.

The first thing that makes "The Sercet World of Arrietty" stand out is the beautiful animation - completely hand-drawn by hundreds of Japanese animators with grace and quality. The characters are vivid and expressive and the backgrounds are gorgeous, many appear to be watercolor paintings. Both Arreitty's miniature world and the real-life settings are wonderful.

The work of the voice cast in this U.S. version is quite good, including comedy legend Carol Burnett, as the home's caretaker, who's suspected for years that little people were living in the house. She's getting the hang of voicing villains (which she also did in 2008's "Horton Hears a Who!")

At times the film feels a bit rushed. I would have liked to have seen more of the unusual relationship between Arrietty and Sean before the very abrupt ending. And though it's rated G there is some adult material here, mostly involving Sean's illness. Yes, this is an animated movie with the Disney name attached, and it's a fantasy about 4-inch tall people, but this is a little more grown-up than "Ponyo" and not recommended for the very little ones. However, everyone else will enjoy this gentle, unique story.

On The Official L-C-J Report Card, "The Secret World of Arrietty" gets a B+. The year in animation is off to a great start.

2008's "Journey to the Center of the Earth" was a fun family adventure. It was also the first live-action film to be shot entirely in the new digital 3D format. The Third Dimension has come a long way in the three and a half years since "Journey 1", as we see in "Journey 2: The Mysterious Island", which showcases the technical improvements along with a few other surprises.

Josh Hutcherson ("Bridge to Terabithia", "The Kids Are All Right") is the only main cast member beck from the original. He reprises his role as Sean, who's now a teenager and still getting into trouble. Brendan Fraser played Sean's uncle in "Journey 1", but in this sequel, Dwayne Johnson is the leading man, as Sean's stepfather Hank. Sean is able to pick up codes over the radio that he thinks are coming from his grandfather, who's an adventurer trying to find the Mysterious Island that Jules Verne wrote about.

After figuring-out that the island may be more actually be real, Sean and Hank decide to try to go looking for it. They hire a wacky helicopter pilot (Luis Guzman) and his daughter Kailani (Vanessa Hudgens), to take them out to the middle of the ocean where the island is supposed to be. They barely survive a wild storm and end-up on the island where they meet Sean's grandfather (played by Michael Caine). They learn that the island is the lost city of Atlantis (no spoiler if you saw the end of the first film) and that it's about to return to the ocean floor. So it's a race again time and the rising tide to figure out how to get off the island and get back home.

The key to enjoying "Journey 2: The Mysterious Island" is not to take it too seriously. This is pure fantasy/science fiction. Caine even discusses this in the opening narration. Of course the plot is ridiculous, but it's also a lot of fun. And, just like the first one, "Journey 2" has a good enough story (with only a handful of characters) to keep your interest the entire way.

Johnson is clearly in one of his three comfort zones here, that being the 'family film'. This is his fifth family film (including career highlights "Tooth Fairy" and the animated "Planet 51"). He has tons of charisma and charm on screen. He's also a co-producer on "Journey 2", and he likely had input on some of the scenes he plays for laughs, including bouncing 3D berries off his chest right at the audience and the witty dialogue he shares with Caine. Johnson also sings in the film ("What a Wonderful World"), and he's actually not that bad.

Caine is perfectly cast as the crusty, old adventurer. Hutcherson and Hudgens are good as they deal with a possible budding romance while trying to stay alive, but Guzman is too over the top as the comic-relief character. He's forced to deliver flat jokes and fall down a lot. Overall the 3D is better than average for the CGI scenes involving huge bees, lizards, eels and birds chasing the human characters. But the regular, live-action 3D still has a way to go.

"Journey 2: The Mysterious Island" is rated PG for some brief language and mild action. A few times creatures come right at the camera, which might scare younger kids for a second or two, (but for most the in-your-face 3D is a blast!). It's appropriate for kids 8 and up, who along with their parents (and even grandparents who might be Michael Caine fans) will enjoy this first thrilling family adventure of the year.

On The Official L-C-J Report Card, "Journey 2: The Mysterious Island" gets a solid B. It's a great "Journey 2" take to beat the winter blues.

Without giving too much away, this sequel does set-up for a third installment, which should come as no surprise. Hutcherson's going to be too old for this role pretty soon so Warner Bros. better not wait another three and a half years if the do plan on making "Journey 3".

And before the film is a new Looney Tunes short called "Daffy's Rhapsody", starring Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd. Daffy's voice is the late Mel Blanc's recording of the 1953 song "Daffy's Rhapsody". The short is fast-paced, has great animation and a lot of fun.

"Big Miracle" is not inspired by the true story of the U.S. hockey team beating Russia in the 1980 Winter Olympics. That was 2004's "Miracle". In this movie, one of the first of Universal Studio's 100th anniversary year, the Americans and Russians actually work together, to try to save three whales. And, yes, it's also based on an actual event.

John Krasinski (from TV's "The Office") stars as Adam, a TV news reporter working in Barrow, Alaska (which is located above the Arctic Circle) back in 1988. One day he discovers that three large, grey whales are trapped in the ice, with only one small hole for them to come to the surface to breathe. He does a story on the whales which is shown on the NBC Nightly News. Soon everyone, from school kids to the President of the United States, becomes interested in the plight of this whale family.

Including Adam's ex-girlfriend Rachel, played by Drew Barrymore. She's the leader of Greenpeace, and she comes to Barrow to try to use her power to get the help needed to free the whales. And there's Ted Danson, who plays as an evil and greedy oil company executive and Kristen Bell, as TV reporter sent from L.A. to cover the story. And there are plenty of local Alaskans on hand. They all come together to try to save the whales.

And that's pretty much it. "Big Miracle" is a one-note film. It's all about saving these whales, who are given the Flintstones names Fred, Wilma and Bamm-Bamm for some reason. Some inspirational movies that are based on a true story grab you emotionally and really make you care about what's going to happen. "Big Miracle" just floats there, like a dead goldfish in a bowl, for nearly two hours. You're hoping that maybe it's going to come to life and starting swimming around, but it never does.

One of the main problems is that the three whales just aren't likeable. All they do is pop-up out of the water for a few seconds and then go back down. Over and over and over. Very tough for the filmmakers to get the audience to make a connection with key characters who have no personality. Compare this to last September's "Dolphin Tale", whose main character, an injured dolphin, was fun and very likeable. It also helped that the dolphin in "Dolphin Tale" was real. It's very obvious that the three whales in "Big Miracle" are animatronic creations.

As for the performances, they are shockingly bad, led by Barrymore. But it's not entirely her fault, as the dialogue she and the rest of the cast is forced to deliver is pretty corny. And there are some scenes that are utterly ridiculous, including the ones involving President Reagan and the Russians, that could have been part of a Saturday Night Live skit.

"Big Miracle" is rated PG for some mild language. It's appropriate for kids 9 and up. Parents, don't take your little ones to this thinking it's a fun, cute movie about whales. It's a long, talky movie about "saving whales". Like the two six year olds in the row ahead of me they will quickly get bored and want to leave. Come to think of it, that's kinda how I felt. The only thing that kept me going was the actual news footage of the whale rescue story that's used throughout the film. It was fun seeing Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and the late Peter Jennings once again.

On The Official L-C-J Report Card, "Big Miracle" gets a C-.

This movie was originally called "Everybody Loves Whales". Good decision to change that, since it kept critics from writing such lines as "Nothing to love about 'Everybody Loves Whales'." However, I have to say that the biggest miracle involving "Big Miracle" will be if it makes it's budget back at the box office.

"Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" deals with a very difficult subject: the attacks of 9/11. But this film is much more than that. It's also a story about journeys and taking risks, dealing with grief and moving forward.

14 year-old Thomas Horn was chosen to play young Oskar Schell, the main character of the story, by director Stephen Daldry when he saw Horn competing on "Kids Jeopardy". And Horn is excellent in this very challenging role, which required him to deliver a tremendous amount of dialogue and raw emotion in practically every single scene.

Oskar is very smart but he also has issues with anxiety and socialization. His father (played by Tom Hanks) knew how to get the best out of his son. They loved to play word games and he would send Oskar on adventures throughout NYC that would force him to use his mind and talk with people. When his father dies in the World Trade Center attacks, Oskar and his mother (Sandra Bullock) are devastated, unable to make sense out of what happened. 

A year later, while in his father closet, Oskar finds a key that he believes his father left him as part of a final adventure. So he begins a quest to find the lock that goes with the key, hoping what's inside will provide some answers. Along the way Oskar meets many people, some who change his life as he does theirs.

"Extremely Loud and Incredible Close" is based on a novel which went much more into the details of the 9/11 attacks. For his film Daldry has simplified things. This is Oskar's story: a young boy trying, in his own way, to deal with the sudden loss of his father. But the script and the performances make it work. The film is over 2-hours long, but you stay with it the entire time. Solid supporting performances from Max Von Sydow and Viola Davis compliment the work of Horn, Bullock and Hanks, who is only in a handful of scenes.

As has been the trend with many end of the year releases (including "J. Edgar" and "The Iron Lady"), flashbacks are used extensively, as we see (and hear, in heart-breaking phone messages) the events of 9/11 as they are happening, in bits-and-pieces, throughout the movie. By the end we get the full story of that day for this family, and it helps make for a believable conclusion. The flashback clips help build to a suspenseful climax as Oskar's quest with the key is also coming to an end.

"Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" is rated PG-13, mostly for the realistic and tragic subject matter. It's appropriate for teens and up, but it's tricky to recommend. Anyone who lost a loved one or was personally effected by 9/11 in other ways may want to avoid this film, as some scenes may be very tough to handle, even 10 years later. This movie is powerful and quite sad.

On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" gets a B+. It was one of the best films of 2011 and definitely deserved it's Best Picture Oscar nomination.

From the title you might think "The Iron Lady" is the story of the wife of "Iron Man". And while Meryl Streep could probably pull-off that role too, here she stars as Margaret Thatcher, Britain's first female Prime Minister.

Right from the first time Streep is on screen it's hard to recognize her because SHE IS Thatcher. And that convincing portrayal continues throughout the entire film. Much of the story of Thatcher's life is shown in flashbacks (Alexandra Roach plays Thatcher as a young girl). We see how she developed the drive to get to into politics, how she had to fight the men who ignored and dismissed her because of her gender and how she made it to the top.

Along with the flashbacks, director Phyllida Lloyd uses another device to provide some insight into Thatcher - her deceased husband Denis (played by Jim Broadbent). He's seen through hallucinations by the elderly Thatcher, and the couple carry on conversations and discuss events of the past. This choice by Lloyd shows Margaret as quite a different person from the one who was one of the most powerful leaders in the world during her time in office. The flashback scenes provide a look of Thatcher fighting hard for England against the odds and, at times, against everyone else. She's inspiring.

And Streep is amazing. Let's be honest - Meryl Streep should be nominated for just about every role she does and win an Oscar every time she's nominated. She is THE best actress working today - and nobody's a close second. But Academy voters, for some reason, like to give the honor most years to someone else - a surprising performance, a comeback performance, a newcomer. Glad it didn't happen this year, though I did pick Viola Davis to win.

As for "The Iron Lady" itself, the flashback scenes are a little distracting during the first part of the film but settle down a bit later. There's a very authentic look to the film, highlighted by the wardrobes and the use of actual news footage of some of the historic events (though we never see the real Thatcher in any of them). All of the other performances are solid, but the story doesn't grab you as much as it should have. Frankly, I would have liked to have seen much more of Thatcher's exciting life when she was The Iron Lady and less of her as a sad, old lady.

"The Iron Lady" is rated PG-13 for some language and violence. It's appropriate for teens and up and, much like "J. Edgar", is a good choice for students who may be studying this time in world history.

On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "The Iron Lady" gets a B. It's a must-see for Streep's Oscar-winning performance. 

Normally, if a studio is unhappy or not confident in a movie, they'll bury it by releasing it in either January or August. Warner Bros. released "Joyful Noise" this past January as one of the first new films of 2012, and now it's already out on Blu-ray/DVD. And while it does have some problems, "Joyful Noise" not a complete loss, thanks to the music.

Queen Latifah co-produced and stars as ViRose Hill, the newly appointed director of a Gospel choir for a church in a small town in Georgia. Dolly Parton plays G.G., who's also a choir member. She wanted to be choir director so the two don't get along.

The town is in tough financial shape, and the one thing that brings everyone together and makes them happy is cheering for the choir as they take part each year in the national "Joyful Noise" competition. They've never made it to the finals - but this year could be different - thanks to ViRose's daughter (played by Keke Palmer) and G.G.'s grandson (Jeremy Jordan). They're both great singers who bring some young energy, and some young love, to the choir.

There are also several subplots, including one involving ViRose's son, who has Asperger's syndrome; her husband, who's in the military and a really weird one involving one of the choir members that doesn't even belong in this movie.

"Joyful Noise" needed some serious editing. The 120-minutes could easily have been cut-down to 95, and it would have made for a much better film. And much of what could have gone involves the songs. The film is divided almost equally between the story and musical numbers, some that are great and others that are totally unnecessary. And all of the songs are performed in their entirety, even ones not involving any of the main characters. Parton wrote three of the tunes and she and Latifah have plenty of opportunities to prove they can still sing (though Latifiah's solo midway through the film sadly brings everything to a stand still).

Palmer is the best singer of them all. Her version of Michael Jackson's "Man in the Mirror" at the beginning of the movie is tremendous.

From the commercials and the trailers you may think "Joyful Noise" is simply a musical/comedy, but the film does have some dramatic elements. And there are moments when it rises above the cheesy level where it exists most of the time. All of the acting is a little forced but I have to admit I did laugh a few times during the silly fight scene in the restaurant between Parton and Latifah, even though it's ridiculous.

"Joyful Noise" is rated PG-13 for language and brief adult content. Teens will like the young love story while fans of Parton will be thrilled to see her back on the big screen for the first time in 20-years. But the reason to see this movie is for the Gospel music. Again, not all the songs are hits, but there's enough here to make this at least a semi-joyful experience.

On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Joyful Noise" gets a C+. Inspirational music overcomes an uninspired story.

"Beauty and the Beast 3D" was originally supposed to be released on February 12th, 2010. But after early test screenings and negative backlash, Disney decided to drop it completely. In September, they decided to release "The Lion King 3D". Once that became a surprise hit, the studio decided to re-release a bunch of their classics in the third dimension.

I got ripped online for my harsh criticisms of "The Lion King 3D" because of how poor the conversion was. Too many scenes were blurry, and for stretches of the movie, there was no 3D at all. But Disney has done it right with "Beauty and the Beast" - giving it the 3D treatment it deserves.

From the memorable opening sequence with the stain-glassed windows to the glorious finale, the 3D is used perfectly. At times the conversion makes the background images (such as the statues in the castle) pop-out and become true characters.

It also enhances many of the musical numbers including "Be Our Guest" and the ballroom sequence for the song "Beauty and the Beast". And there's a moment you'll remember if you're a fan of the movie - during the song "Gaston" when LeFou is swung straight into the camera. Wait till you see that in 3D.

It's no secret that "Beauty and the Beast" is my favorite movie of all time. So there is a part of me that isn't sure that this version was even necessary. Why mess with a classic? But if this version gets more people to see the film, especially young kids, then it was worth it. In fact this is a great first 3-D movie to take little ones to (theaters are even supplying special 3D glasses that are just the right size).

Along with this new version of "Beauty" is a brand new and very funny short called "Tangled Ever After", which takes place right where "Tangled" left off. And, as always, don't leave early because during the end credits there are new black and white artist sketches of the "Beauty" characters in 3D that are very impressive.

On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Beauty and the Beast 3D" gets a B+.