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.

"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.

- You know a comedy's not funny when the only laughs come from the bloopers during the end credits.

- You know a movie has bad performances when even the one guy playing himself does a terrible job.

- And you know when a movie is going after cheap emotions when it includes a dying man's last wish - and it's to see the Times Square ball drop one more time.

And yes, all of this...and much more...is part of Director Gary Marshall's latest holiday tribute cheese-fest: "New Year's Eve", which is the follow-up to 2010's surprisingly successful "Valentine's Day." Marshall clearly wanted to top himself this time so he has an even larger cast of celebrities who are part of six different storylines all taking place on New Year's Eve 2011 in New York City.

The dying man is played by Robert DeNiro. Yes, that Robert DeNiro. His nurse is played by Halle Berry. There's Sarah Jessica Parker, who plays an over-protective mom to teenager Abigail Breslin, who's looking for her first New Year's Eve kiss. Zac Efron reunites with "Hairspray" co-star Michelle Pfeiffer - he's a messenger boy, she's single and lonely. There's a battle to see who can have the first New Year's baby. Seth Meyers and Jessica Biel are involved in that. And there are plot-lines involving Jon Bon Jovi and old flame Katherine Heigl, Ashton Kutcher and Lea Michele (from "Glee) stuck in an elevator together and Hilary Swank, who's in charge of the ball drop and guess what: the ball gets stuck!

There's also a slew of cameos, which is good because at least they help keep your interest as you wonder who's going to pop-up next.

However, practically all the performances are way over-the-top and the script is both predictable and bland. And did I mention there are no laughs-none-until the bloopers at the end? I wish Marshall put the kind of effort into the movie itself that he did into the out-takes.

But even with all it's problems, "New Year's Eve" isn't a complete mess. None of the storylines are overdone and they do all come to somewhat satisfying conclusions. There are a few twists but the film is so easy to follow that your mind can wander at times and you still won't miss anything. This movie is simple, mindless entertainment, as long as you don't mind not being too entertained.

"New Year's Eve" is rated PG-13 for some (unnecessary) adult language. It's appropriate for kids 13 and up, who might like the Breslin plot-line and seeing Efron and Michelle (who does sing) , but it's mainly for adults who watch/go to movies to see their favorite stars.

On "The Official Kid Critic Report Card", "New Year's Eve" gets a C. Marshall's New Year's resolution should be to get away from these holiday films and try to make a movie  that relies on a good script and believable characters and not just celebrities.

“Twilight” movies have dominated the box office, and the hearts and minds of female fans, for the past three years - with “Twi-Hards” packing theaters representing either “Team Edward” or “Team Jacob“. After seeing “Eclipse” last year I proclaimed myself a member of “Team I Can’t Understand What All the Fuss is About”. Now, after seeing “Breaking Dawn Pt. 1”, the first half of the series finale, I’m now a member of “Team Man, that was Boring”.

Everyone who cares has to know the plot of this one by now:
- Bella and Edward get married - and Jacob isn’t happy.
- Bella and Edward go on their honeymoon - and Jacob isn’t happy.
- Bella discovers she’s having a baby - and Jacob REALLY isn’t happy.
- There are complications with the pregnancy (you think? she’s having a baby vampire!) - and EVERYBODY’s not happy.

And, of course, the vampires and werewolves still hate each other - so no one will be happy until all the others are dead.

Here’s the main problem with the movie: - it suffers from “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” syndrome. In order to make these books into two films, the first parts had to be streeeetched-out, with long, dull periods with nothing going on. The wedding and the reception section takes forever. Then the honeymoon section goes on and on. I started to really understand what’s it like to be a vampire as these parts of the film just wouldn’t die.

After that things pick-up a little bit, but the film also turns pretty gruesome.However, I should mentioned that Taylor Lautner fans don’t have to wait too long for what most of them go to the “Twilight” movies for: 10-seconds in Lautner takes his shirt off.

As for the performances, no one can expect any type of real acting in these films, but Lautner does stand-out as the angry, yet “friend to the end” Jacob. In fact, he is actually the pivotal character in the story.

The make-up is pretty good, especially with Kristen Stewart, and the dramatic changes she goes through during her pregnancy. There are only a few action scenes and, as usual, there are intentionally fast and blurry so you can’t really appreciate the battles.

“Breaking Dawn Pt. 1” is rated PG-13 for language, violence, adult content and disturbing images and situations. Even if your kid sister, who’s 10, read the book, she, or anyone else younger than 13, should not watch this movie. I’m guessing “Twi-Hards” will enjoy it but anyone else will…because it’s so drawn-out…find it very difficult to sink their teeth into.   

On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Pt. 1” gets a C-. Here’s hoping “Pt. 2” follows the “Harry Potter/Deathly Hallows” trend and is filled with exciting action scenes and dramatic, climactic moments. We’ll find-out next November. But, just like the “Potter” finale, this would have been better as one, long film.

"The Lion King" is one of Disney's most popular films of all-time. In fact it's the studio's highest-grossing non-Pixar animated film ever (and #4 on the all-time animation list). In 2002, Disney re-released the movie for the first time, in IMAX theaters. And now nine years later the studio had brought it back again, this time in 3D. The story of "The Lion King" is based on the concept of "the circle of life." You can call what Disney's doing with this movie "the circle of cash", as they go after a new group of kids and their parents excited to see Simba, Pumba and company on the big screen.

What's interesting is that, while this "two weeks only special event" is being promoted as a 3D exclusive, the film is being offered in 2D as well. Obviously Disney is finally realizing what many of us have been saying for some time - that families can't afford 3D ticket prices. So for those who just want to see this movie in a theater (after watching it over and over on DVD) 2D is an option. The main reason for this re-released is to get fans interested in buying "The Lion King 3D" DVD when it comes out on October 4th. Sing it with me: "The Circle of Cash"...

I saw the movie in 3D so I could review it in the new format and I'll cut right to the chase: the 3D isn't great. This is a bit disappointing considering how good Disney's past 3D conversions ("The Nightmare Before Christmas" and "Toy Story 1 & 2") turned out. Many of the scenes are blurry and only a few times, during the wide nature sequences with animals running and birds flying, is the 3D that impressive. But even then, it's nothing we haven't seen before. I tipped-up my 3D glasses several times during the film and there are long stretches when the 3D effect isn't used.

Originally Disney was planning to convert and re-release my all-time favorite, "Beauty and the Beast", but that plan was scrapped after word leaked-out that the 3D conversion was not going well. If this was what that movie was going to look like I'm glad that project was never completed.

As for the "The Lion King" as a film, I didn't remember much from the previous time I had seen it five or six years ago. I know I didn't love it back then and now seeing it again I understand why. The blending of serious themes of murder, death and revenge and the goofy parts with Timon, Pumba and the hyenas just doesn't work. It's stunning to me that so many people consider this film a classic.

"The Lion King 3D" (like all other versions) is rated G. There are no new scenes or songs. It's the 1994 original from the first frame to the last. As you already know there's the death of a main character and several scenes of peril, which might be o.k. for younger kids watching the movie at home, but you may not want your very upset 5-year old crying out in a public theater: "Simba's dad is dead".

At the packed screening I attended the audience was made-up mostly of two groups: parents with their young kids and twenty-somethings who grew-up watching the movie on DVD. Members of both groups sang along with the songs and knew all the dialogue. I don't belong to either group. I just sat and watched.

On "The Official Kid Critic Report Card", "The Lion King 3D" gets a C-. If you're a die-hard fan and have never seen it in a theater I suggest seeing the 2D version. You won't miss out on anything and will save some money. 

Pixar has hinted about converting and re-releasing more of their films in 3D and I'm sure that's coming. Don't be surprised if  "Finding Nemo" is the next choice.

2007's "Transformers" was an exciting action film with a good, human story to go with it. After seeing "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" two years later I never wanted to watch another Autobot vs. Decepticon battle. But Paramount decided the world needed a third "Transformers" film even though most critics and moviegoers hated the sequel.

"Dark of the Moon" begins in 1962 with a history lesson. It seems the "space race" of the 1960's was started because an alien spacecraft landed on the moon. This, of course, will be news to you as it was to me. I think I would have remembered this if we had read about it in school. But we see President Kennedy talking about it and in 1969 American astronauts checking-out the Autobot ship, so in director Michael Bay's mind I guess it must be true.

The story then moves to present day. Sam (Shia LaBeouf) has already saved the world twice, but he's unemployed. However, he's got a new, hot girl friend (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley - who replaces Megan Fox). Her slimy boss helps Sam get a job, but soon he has a more important thing to do - try to save the world again.

It turns out it was the former leader of the Autobots - Sentinel Prime (voiced by Leonard Nimoy) - who crashed his ship on the moon, and the Decepticons have come up with a plan to bring him back to life so he can help them defeat the Autobots and take over the Earth.

"Dark of the Moon" may get the award for the most distinguished cast for a silly, sci-fi action film. Frances McDomand, John Malkovich, and John Turturro. These are three of America's most respected actors. What - was Meryl Streep busy last summer when they were filming "T3"? The supporting cast also includes Patrick Dempsey (as the "McMeanie" boss), Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson, heck, even astronaut Buzz Aldrin has a cameo as himself. The problem is most of the dialogue spoken by all the characters is laughable.

The plot leads-up to the final showdown between the good and evil robots - a one hour, non-stop battle that takes place in Chicago and pretty much destroys the entire city. Baseball fans will be happy to know that Wrigley Field is left standing, but that's about it. I happened to see "Dark of the Moon" in Chicago and was relieved when I walked outside after the film was over and not a single building had been harmed. Bay knows how to stage realistic action scenes and the battles and CGI effects look great. But, just like with "Revenge of the Fallen" the fighting goes on way too long.

In fact the film as a whole is too long - 2 1/2 hours. Several early scenes, including those involving Sam and his parents, could have been cut from the movie completely, along with all the slow motion, which Bay seems to love. After awhile you just get tired of all the metal on metal clanking from the robots beating on each other. And, following the "Transformers" tradition, this movie is REALLY LOUD (fortunately you can adjust that at home).

"Transformers: Dark of the Moon" is rated PG-13 for all the action/violence. Hundreds of humans (along with several robots) are killed, and there's some adult language. It's appropriate for the 10 and up crowd who enjoy these films, though after 2 1/2 hours even diehard fans will be worn out.

On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" gets a C-. It' slightly better than "Revenge of the Fallen", but makes the same mistake that movie made: too much Autobot vs. Decepticon fighting and not enough of a human story to make us care who's going win.