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.

Normally when a studio holds an early, nationwide screening for audiences it's because they think the film is really good and that the buzz will be helpful to spread the word. Last fall Fox decided to show "We Bought a Zoo" to thousands and thousands of people, not a week or two before it's schedule release date but an entire month early. A puzzling move, because the preview screenings didn't help develop any buzz for the film. Neither did the fact that this "based on a true story" dramedy just isn't very good, as first-time watchers will learn now that the film is out on DVD.

Matt Damon plays Benjamin, a single father of two who's still coping with the death of his wife six months earlier. He was a writer, but just like the title character in director Cameron Crowe's "Jerry McGuire", Benjamin quits his job looking to start a new life in a new town.

After checking-out many new houses Benjamin and his young daughter fall in love with an old home with loads of land attached. They soon learn that this isn't just any property - it's a zoo. But Ben doesn't see this as a problem, but an opportunity. He decides to buy the zoo, which has been closed-down for awhile. It comes with all the animals and the workers, including head zookeeper Kelly (played by Scarlett Johansson). Together Ben, Kelly and the staff have to get the zoo back in shape so it can pass inspection and re-open.

The biggest problem with "We Bought a Zoo" is that everything is too forced. The main story-line and all the subplots are just so obvious, including the possible romances between Ben and Kelly and Ben's teen son and Kelly's cousin (Elle Fanning). This may be the most manipulative script of any film I've seen all year. This movie tries to get you to tear-up in scene after scene after scene. But it never happens, because these characters are so dry and one-dimensional that you don't care what happens to them. Good movies draw emotions from an audience. Here Crowe tries to reach into your body and squeeze your heart with both hands, piling-on with what are supposed to be dramatic elements and captivating scenes - that just aren't.

Almost as bad are the efforts at comedy the supporting characters - the goofy realtor (J.B. Smoove), Ben's quirky brother (Thomas Haden Church) and the weird inspector (John Michael Higgins). All completely unrealistic and unfunny. Damon does his best with what he's got to work with while Johansson simply delivers her one-note dialogue.

"We Bought a Zoo" is rated PG for language and thematic material. It's appropriate for kids 9 and up. 

On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "We Bought a Zoo" gets a D+.

All the animals are real and therefore don't talk. If you have to see a zoo movie, go with "Zookeeper", Kevin James 2011 comedy in which the animals do speak. It's not "based on a true story", but at least it's mildly entertaining.

Imagine if people didn't age past their 25th birthday and from that day forward they had to add time to their personal accounts to stay alive. But, at the same time, everything in the world that people did, used and bought cost, not money, but time, that came off of their personal accounts. Time would be the most valuable thing in the world - so valuable that people would steal and kill for it.

That's the interesting premise of "In Time", which starts out as a promising sci-fi action/thriller but quickly turns into a...waste of time.

Justin Timberlake stars as Will. Since he's 28 he's living day-to-day, trying to earn time, as a citizen of the "Ghetto", the area of this futuristic city where the poor people live. He resents the rich people, who live in East Greenwich, and who possess all the time, many of whom have enough time to live forever. So Will comes-up with a plan to play Robin Hood - steal time from the rich and give it to the poor.

He meets Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried), the daughter of the most powerful man in the city (he has control over most of the time). She eventually joins Will in the effort to change the system. But, of course, this is illegal so the outlaws are constantly being chased by the police, also known as Timekeepers.

After the first 30-minutes or so the concept of "In Time" really starts to get old because the film lacks any suspense or excitement to keep you interested. There's another group of bad guys who are also chasing the "heroes", but you don't really care if they get caught, when they get caught or how they get caught.

And the script has a ton of holes in it, making some of the events in the plot ridiculous. For a movie like this to work all the elements have to fit together perfectly. Here things happen simply to make the story move forward, even if they don't make any sense. 

Timberlake is o.k., but he had a very busy 2011 and probably should have passed on this role. He and Seyfried are fine together, but their comic dialogue really doesn't fit the rest of the movie.

"In Time" does deserve one award, however. It contains more scenes of characters running than probably any movie in history, and that includes movie about running. Unless they used doubles the stars deserve a lot of credit for being in such good shape.

"In Time" is rated PG-13 for action violence and some adult content and language. I can't recommend anyone spending their time (or money) to watch it.

On "The Official Kid Critic Report Card", "In Time" gets a D+. It was one of 2011's biggest disappointments.

The best thing I can say about this 2nd edition of the “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” book series - a series that I really enjoy by the way - is that it’s not as bad as the first, which was a mean-spirited, disgusting, jaw-droppingly unfunny movie. However, “Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2: Rodrick Rules” is still pretty bad.

The first film focused on “wimpy kid” Greg Heffley’s ups and downs - mostly downs - as a 6th grader. This time the story deals with Greg’s life at home, primarily his relationship with his older brother Rodrick.

Rodrick constantly picks on Greg and hates having him around. But their parents, over-played again by Rachel Harris and Steve Zahn, want them to get along. So they come-up with ways to try to force Greg and Rodrick to become closer. And it works - sort of - as Rodrick teaches Greg how to lie to his parents and break family rules. And each has a goal: Rodrick to have his band win the local talent contest and Greg to get noticed by the new girl in school. Yes, it’s as bad as it sounds.

Early in “Rodrick Rules” I was thinking: “Here we go again”, after a few gross and ugly scenes that could have been right out of the first film. But thankfully the script this time stays mostly out of school. This doesn’t make the movie  entertaining by any means, but at least it’s watchable.

There are a few specific things that make this sequel better than the original. This version contains more of the pencil drawing of the characters that make the books so much fun. And the parents are much more involved in this story. However, that’s both good and bad, as the mom and dad are portrayed as dumb and out of touch. In fact, watching the film I felt bad for both Zahn and Harris, who I hope at least got some decent paychecks.

There are a lot of awkward and very unfunny scenes, and the overall message about the importance of brotherhood is lost, thanks to the over-the-top performances and predictable script. It’s clear that the producers of “Rodrick Rules” tried to make a better film that the original, so I give them credit for that. But the final product is still pretty much of a mess.

It’s rated PG, for some of the gross humor. It’s appropriate for kids seven and up. The 10 and under crowd will probably enjoy it, but for older kids and adults, and fans of the books, this is a painful experience.

On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, “Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2: Rodrick Rules” gets a D+ - slightly better than the original, but I still can’t recommend it.

There are three more “Wimpy Kid” books, so don’t be surprised if we see each of them come to life on screen over the next three years. If they keep improving, we may actually have a decent movie by the time Hollywood is done with the series.

I need to say right at the start that I am not a gamer. That may be one of the reasons why "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World", which is basically a movie set inside a video game, didn't work for me. But there are a lot of other reason why it simply doesn't work, period.

Scott (Michael Cera) is a 22 year old who lives in Toronto and plays in a band. He's dating a high school girl named Knives, but he sees this new girl in a dream, meets her and ends-up falling in love with her. But in order to have a relationship with Ramona, Scott has to fight and defeat her Seven Evil Exes.

The movie's look is a combination of a video game and a comic book. It's based a popular six-volume graphic novel series. The look is kinda cool in the beginning. In fact, I liked the first half-hour of "Scott Pilgrim", as you get to know the characters and can enjoy the unique style of the film. There are some laughs and some smiles.

But once the evil exes begin showing up all the fun comes to an end and the movie turns into this long...long series of  fight scenes that aren't exciting or interesting. It's the same punching and kicking over...and over. You stop caring for the characters or how things are going to work out.

Now, I guess if you're a person who enjoys playing video games for hours and hours with the characters battling each other for points and coins then you'll probably enjoy the last hour and a half of "Scott Pilgrim". That's just not my idea of a good time in real life, or in a movie.

There's a pretty good cast: Anna Kendrick ("Up in the Air") plays Scott's sister, Jason Schwartzman is the 7th evil ex and two superhero stars - Brandon Routh (Superman) and Chris Evans (Human Torch and Captain America) are also evil exes (a nice touch for the comic book fans). But the performances are overshadowed by the look of the film, which is the real star.

"Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" is rated PG-13 for some adult subject matter, action-violence (which is stylized and shouldn't bother anybody) and some language (but most of the "bad" word are bleeped out). It's clearly meant for the teen to young adult gamer crowd.

On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" only gets a D+.

It was one of the big bombs of the summer and I doubt it'll do much better on DVD.

You'd think that a film written by Adam Sandler, and starring him and four other well-known and successful comic actors would be hilarious. In the case of "Grown Ups", the comedy fails.

Sandler, Kevin James, Chris Rock, David Spade and Rob Schneider play five friends who all played together of a championship basketball team when they were kids. Now, thirty years later, they learn that their former coach has passed away.

So the five reunite at the funeral and, with their families, then spend a weekend together at the old camp where they use to hang out. And they then spend most of the movie cracking jokes about each other and acting crazy.

There's a lot of adult humor and adult references in "Grown Ups". Even though there are a lot of kids in the movie and they're in a lot of scenes, this is NOT for kids. But the problem is, since most of the jokes aren't funny and most of the gags don't work, it's not really a movie for adults, either. There's a ton of slapstick, with characters falling down, getting hurt and , of course, what would a bad Hollywood comedy be without at least one character getting hit in his private parts.

It seems like many of the scenes were ad-libbed, with the five actors simply throwing out lines and hoping they work. Most times they don't. Others in the cast include Salma Hayek Pinut, Maria Bello and Steve Buscemi. They should all forget about this one quickly.

The concept isn't bad - but the scripts is very weak and very predictable, especially the big basketball game at the end. Once again this is a case of the trailer being funnier than the film.

"Grown Ups" is rated PG-13. Again, it's inappropriate for kids and not good enough for adults.

On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Grown Ups"" gets a D+, only for a couple a pretty funny scenes, and one of them involves James, right at the start of the film, so be warned: it's pretty much all downhill from there.

Rock's "Death at a Funeral" - very fully. I also really enjoyed James and "Paul Blart: Mall Cop". Even Sandler's "Bedtime Stories" was better than this. Maybe these friends just shouldn't work together.

The story of Robin Hood has been told many times on the big screen, with the likes of Errol Flynn, Kevin Costner and an animated Disney fox playing the title role. There isn't any "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor" in this latest version, because it's a "prequel" to the story that we all know.

Russell Crowe stars as Robin Hood, and, just to be clear, he's not related to "Little Red Riding Hood", though that would have made for a better movie.

There may be more action/battle/fighting scenes in this movie than in any film I've seen and you've ever seen. The movie is set in 12th century England, and begins with Robin fighting on the side of King Richard. That king gets killed and so Robin then fights against the new king, King John. Or is it the other way around? Then England gets attacked by France and so Robin fights against the French.

All of it is rather confusing, and even though some of the story is based on history, no one knows if there was ever a REAL Robin Hood, so all of his story is made up. And since it's a "prequel" you know what's going to happen at the end, because if any of the main characters die, there couldn't be the other Robin Hood story.

As you can probably tell, I don't like this movie very much. There's too much action, it's 2 hours and 20 minutes long, it's way too serious and outside of the fighting scenes there's not much going on. Lady Marion, who's played by Cate Blanchett, says a few times that she's hoping for a miracle. I was too the night I saw it in the theater: that, somehow, Disney's 1973 animated version would, magically, start playing on the screen.

The only funny part in the film wasn't even supposed to be funny: during one of the battle scenes an older woman approaches a group of soldiers on the roof of a castle with a big bucket and says, "time for soup". She wants to feed them lunch while they're being attacked and getting shot with arrows. Hysterical.

The performances aren't anything to get excited about. Crowe, 10-years after "Gladiator", proves he can still swing a sword. Blanchett gets into the action a bit. William Hurt has a small, supporting role. And Mark Strong, who was terrific as the villain in "Sherlock Holmes", plays a bad guy again, but with all the fighting no one has any time to act.

"Robin Hood" is rated PG-13 for the intense and non-stop action violence. Older kids may want to see it, but they won't enjoy it because it's too serious, too long, and there's nothing special about any of the fighting scenes. Plus, at times, the movie is pretty dull.

I decree, by the power of King LCJ, that on his Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Robin Hood" gets a D+.

Be prepared, if you buy the DVD or Blu-ray, to feel like you got robbed, but your money won't be going to the poor, it's going straight to Hollywood.

Johnny Depp and Tim Burton have done several movies together, including "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "Edward Scissorhands". However, their latest collaboration has me as mad as a hatter, because it's just not very good.

"Alice in Wonderland" is based on the two, classic Lewis Carroll books, but it's isn't a remake of the familiar story, it's actually a sequel.

Alice (who's played by Mia Wasikowska), is now 19, and once again she falls into the rabbit hole and enters Wonderland (or in this case "Underland"). And, again, she meets-up with The Mad Hatter (played by Depp) and gets in trouble with the Red Queen (who has the huge head and voice of Helena Bonham Carter). Her sister, the White Queen (played by Anne Hathaway), helps Alice throughout the story but it's Alice who must, in the end, fight the evil Jabberwocky and save the kingdom.

If you think this sounds a lot less like "Alice in Wonderland" and a lot more like the next installment of the "Narnia" series, well, as Alice says several times in the film: "I'm afraid so." Frankly, I like Alice better in her little blue and white dress and not in battle armor carrying a sword and shield.

Yes, the Cheshire Cat, the White Rabbit and Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum are involved in the story, but not that much. However, the one thing that is missing completely from this version of "Alice" is fun. Burton has made a serious film, that, at times, is even a bit depressing. And the movie gets off to a dreadfully slow start, as the first 20-minutes: Alice's life prior to falling into the hole, are completely unnecessary.

Instead of the joy and wonder of the original stories (and Disney's own 1951 animated classic) we get fighting and arguing and sadness. When the most popular line in a film is "Off With His Head", you know it's not going to be a lot of fun.

On the plus side "Alice" is great to look at. The animated characters blend perfectly with the actors and the make-up and costumed design is fantastic. And some of the characters, such as the Cheshire Cat and Hookah-Smoking Caterpillar are quite likeable. But that's it.

"Alice in Wonderland" is rated PG, for the action-violence and the smoking. It's appropriate for kids 7 and up and they'll want to see it, but be ready for them to get bored in a hurry.

On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Alice in Wonderland" only gets a D+, a HUGE disappointment. After all the incredible hype, and the $billion box office worldwide, I have to say that this is one tea party that you can skip.

When this Disney comedy came out last year, with Hollywood legends John Travolta and Robin Williams teaming-up, I hoped that they'd be a winning combo in a funny film. I was wrong.

In "Old Dogs", Dan (Wliiams) and Charlie (Travolta) are long-time best friends and business partners. Dan's old girlfriend, Vicki (played by Travolta's real wife, Kelly Preston), comes to town and tells Dan that he's the father of her two children.

Vicki needs to find someone to take care of the 7-year old twins while she's in jail for two weeks, so Dan and Charlie volunteer. Neither of the two "old dogs" have any experience with kids so they have trouble keeping the kids happy while also trying to close a huge business deal.

The overall theme of "Old Dogs" is a little adult for a Disney film, but that isn't the biggest problem with the movie. The script is horrible - no funny lines or originality. The performances are dreadful, and there are several awkward scenes in which you feel embarrassed for the actors. I've really enjoyed both Travolta and Williams in previous family films, including "Hairspray" and "RV", but there's nothing to like here.

In some ways "Old Dogs" is similar to the 2008 family comedy "Imagine That", in which Eddie Murphy plays a businessman who doesn't know how to take care of his daughter. That movie surprised me in a good way. What's surprising about "Old Dogs" is just how unfunny it is.

"Old Dogs" is rated PG for mild adult humor and themes, including a scene in which characters get hit in their private parts with golf balls. You know a comedy is bad when there has to be a scene in which characters get hit in their private parts to get a laugh.

This movie is supposed to be for kids, but they'll be bored. If you're a big fans of Travolta and Willams you may want to see them together, but after about 10-minutes you'll wish they, and you, were in a different movie.

On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Old Dogs" gets a D+. That grade is probably a little higher than it should be, but it was the final movie for the late Bernie Mac, who has a cameo, so I'm being generous.

There's no simpler way to put it: the first "Night at the Museum", which came out in 2006, was fun and entertaining. This sequel is the exact opposite.

In "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian" Ben Stiller is back as Larry Daley, the night watchman in the first film who quit his job after becoming a successful businessman. He returns on a visit to the Museum of Natural History to find out that most of his friends are being shipped-off from NYC to the Smithsonian in Washington D.C.

Soon Larry finds out that the magical Egyptian tablet that brings all the museum pieces to life has been stolen and so he goes to D.C. to try to save the day.  

"Battle of the Smithsonian" lacks all of the humor and charm of the first film. And, obviously, the originality of the first one is gone because this one's a sequel. Yes, there are some new characters, including Amelia Earhart (played by Amy Adams) and Kahmunrah, the main villain (over-played by Hank Azaria), but they aren't interesting enough to make the story work.

And this is supposed to be a comedy. I may have laughed 3-times during the entire movie when I saw it in the theater. There are long stretches where there's a lot of things happening on screen, but it's simply boring. I was in my own battle: fighting to stay awake!

No need to discuss the DVD extras - they don't help make this worth watching.

"Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian is rated PG for some mild violence. It's appropriate for kids 6 and up and everyone who saw the first one will want to see it. Younger kids may like all the animals in the film and the tween girls can hear some Jonus Brothers songs, but everyone else will have a hard time getting through this trip to a museum.

On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian" gets a D+.

It's clearly one of my biggest disappointment of the year.