Hollywood is often blamed for churning-out too many re-makes of old films and classic stories. Well, at least when it comes to this latest version of "The Three Musketeers", Hollywood is in the clear - since this movie was produced by European studios and shot entirely in Germany. And this film is so bad that everyone in Hollywood and, in fact, every American citizen, should be happy that we had nothing to do with it.

As the movie begins the Musketeers are down on their luck, no longer needed because France is at peace. But that will soon change as villains start popping-up everywhere. There's Milady, played by Milla Jovovich, a double-crossing, triple-crossing former love interest of one of the Musketeers; Britain's evil Duke of Buckingham, played by Orlando Bloom, and even the Cardinal, played by Christoph Waltz is a bad guy. Each of them has their own plan to take advantage of France's wimpy King and get the country into war so they can profit from it.

While this is going on the Musketeers are joined by a 4th member - D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman). He's young and cocky and tries to bring the three veteran heroes back to life. That's a lot of characters you're thinking. And you're right. Surprisingly, the three Musketeers themselves have supporting roles in this story, as director Paul W.S. Anderson chooses to make D'Artagnan and all the villains the stars. This is more like a Three Musketeers sequel instead of a re-boot. The most we see of the original musketeers are in the swashbuckling, sword fighting scenes, which also happen to be the best parts of the movie.

Or I should say - the ONLY good parts of this movie. The rest of "The Three Musketeers" is a mess. The main problem is that Anderson didn't know what type of movie he wanted to make - a campy, silly action/adventure? A serious period piece? A romantic comedy? A spy-mystery? "Musketeers" tries to be all of these and fails miserably on all accounts. I'm guessing the creators were going for the look and feel of the early "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies but man, did they miss the target.

The performances are terrible, but I blame the script more than the actors - though after "The Green Hornet" and now this, Waltz better be careful or the Academy is going to demand their Oscar back. Jovavich tweeted Friday that she was upset that Summit Entertainment, who distributed the "Musketeers" in the U.S., wasn't doing enough to promote the movie. Instead she should be thanking the studio for keeping it quiet so not many people will see her slow motion, "Matrix"-type scenes which are laughable. And I kept waiting for Bloom's silly beard to start falling-off. I think I could actually see the Velcro.

You have all these European characters yet none of them even tries a convincing accent. And the dialogue is perposterous, filled with cliches and modern terms. At one point one of the musketeers says he's "sexy". I doubt that was a common word back in the 1600's.

You could call this movie - "The 3D Musketeers" because it was filmed entirely in 3D. But, as usual, the extra dimension is a waste, only adding a few cheesy shots of swords and cannonballs coming right at the audience. There's not a creative visual in the entire film.

"The Three Musketeers" is rated PG-13 for the swordfighting violence and some language. Kids should not see it - not because it's bad for them, simply because it's bad. In fact, a much more entertaining version of this story for kids is the Disney animated movie starring Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy that came out on video in 2004. It has better writing, better acting and is a lot more fun. I'd even recommend adults watch that over this.

On "The Official Kid Critic Report Card", "The Three Musketeers" gets a F. My advice for anyone tempted to rent/buy/watch this film? - "ALL FOR ONE...BUT NONE FOR THIS".

Jack Black starred in two of the best films of 2008 - "Be Kind Rewind" and "Kung Fu Panda". In 2009 Black was part of the one of the worst film of the year - "Year One". But last year he hit, quite possibly, a personal all-time low with the incredibly bad "Gulliver's Travels".

This is a re-working of the classic story by Jonathan Swift. Black stars as Gulliver, a guy who works in the mailroom of a NYC newspaper. He always talks about doing big things, but never has the guts to do them, including asking the paper's travel writer (Amanda Peet) out on a date.

Gulliver's lies to get an assignment to travel to and write an article about the Bermuda Triangle. When he gets there his boat is sucked into a vortex and he ends up washed ashore on the island of Lilliput, which, of course, is filled with little people. He is captured (how?) and then tells more lies and becomes a hero, but he has to fight-off an enemy army and a jealous General to save the island and try to get back home.

O.K. - that's the plot. And I think I was pretty kind in my description. But I can't hold back anymore. This movie is, above everything else, simply not funny. And for a comedy that usually bad enough. But "Gulliver's Travel's" is so much more. It's gross, offensive, embarrassing. Personally, you've got to feel bad for everyone involved in this project except for Black, since he is also the Co-Executive Producer, and therefore has to take full blame for this mess.

The audience is forced to watch Black for much of this film with his shirt off, which is bad enough, but we also see his butt crack, he gets a wedgie, gets kicked in the groin (of course, all terrible comedies has to have the groin shot scene) and, believe it or not, he does something with his body that's even more disgusting than all of that combined. I can't write it - and I still don't believe that I had to see it.

This is a very tough film to watch. It just doesn't work on every level. I think 20th Century Fox was hoping that some of the fun that came from the scenes of the small characters from the first "Night at the Museum" film could be produced here with a whole film about little characters. What a mistake! When the studio pushed the opening of "Gulliver" back 3-days last December it was a clue that they knew they had a bomb on their hands.

"Gulliver's Travels" is rated PG for some mild violence, language and adult references. It may be appropriate for kids, but kids, teens, adults, senior citizens - NO ONE should have to watch this film. If someone gives you the option of having to sit through this movie or take a trip to the Bermuda Triangle, take the trip.

On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Gulliver's Travels" gets an F.

I'm betting that Black can't wait for the release of "Kung Fu Panda 2" so he, and everyone else, can finally put "Gulliver" behind them.

It was last December when I first saw the trailer for "Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore" and I really didn't want to see the movie when it came out in July. But I did, because it's my job. I hope you didn't.

The story, and it's pretty lame, involves a police dog named Diggs, who loses his job because he doesn't follow orders, and gets sent to a kennel. But there he gets an offer to join an elite group of K-9 agents whose mission is to prevent the evil (and quite creepy) cat, Kitty Galore, from taking over the world.

Diggs and the other dogs have to work together with some good cats, but there's also a wisecracking pigeon and a mouse in the cast, and they all talk, with animated mouths.

This is actually a sequel to the first "Cats and Dogs", which came out in 2001, got a lot of good reviews, and made nearly $100-million dollars. 

But there are so many problems with this film: The set-up - animal having to save the world - we've seen it all before. Funny? There isn't a single good laugh in the entire movie. And it looks cheap.

There are some major Hollywood actors in "Cats and Dogs". Chris O'Donnell plays Diggs' owner and Bette Midler, James Marsden, Nick Nolte, Christina Applegate and Neil Patrick Harris voice the main animal characters, but it doesn't matter. The story is awful, the dialogue is awful and at times even the mouths and the voices don't match-up.

"Cats and Dogs" is rated PG for some very mild action. There were some very young kids, maybe 5 or 6, sitting behind me in the theater and when they weren't talking, they were laughing a little. This may be the age group that could enjoy this film. For anyone older, don't bother.

On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore" gets an F. It's one of the favorites for my Worst Film of the Year award.

The Blu-ray and DVD do include "Coyote Falls", the new Road Runner/Wile E. Coyote short that was the only good thing about seeing "Cats and Dogs" in the theater. And there's a "Yogi Bear" preview. If you can watch those, and then skip the movie, go for it.

It was shot in 2D, then converted to 3D. But "Clash of the Titans" can be summed-up with just 1D, and that stands for DISASTER.

When released in theaters earlier this year the movie had the 3-D worst of any film I've ever seen. And here's why: the studio decided AFTER the movie was shot that they wanted a 3D version, so they converted it in post production and proved that this can't be done, at least not well. Most of the scenes looked either cheap or cheesy - some of the characters in focus, others very blurry. In fact the Zeus character, played by Liam Neeson, wasn't in focus the entire movie. And a couple of times, just to stay awake, I took my glasses off, and the screen looked pretty normal.

The good news is, in the DVD version, the bad 3-D isn't an issue. But all the other things wrong with this movie still are.

The story is based on Greek Mythology,and the battle between the gods and the humans. The main character is Perseus, the demigod played by Sam Worthington of "Avatar" fame. The plot is basically the same one as in "Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief", though that's a much better film.

"Clash" is all about the action. There are way too many fighting scenes and the effects just aren't that special. And even if you didn't see the original 1981 version (which I haven't seen but have been told was also cheesy - but in as fun way) you know these characters and you know what's going to happen in the end when the big, evil monster - The Kracken - shows-up. And that scene is also disappointing because we've already seen The Kracken in the trailer.

Overall, "Clash of the Titans" is a boring mess. Worthington barely has any lines. There are just a lot of close-ups of his facial expressions, that is, when he isn't fighting. Ralph Fiennes plays Hades and he's pretty creepy looking, but other that that the rest of the characters are bland.

As for the dialogue, Pegasus, the flying horse, has some of the best lines, and all he does in whinny. And all the action scenes are dull.

"Clash of the Titans" is rated PG-13 for fantasy action violence and some scary images. I guess it's appropriate for kids 10 and up, but, trust me, it's not worth your time or money. There's a new, alternate ending on the DVD. It doesn't matter.

The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Clash of the Titans" gets an F. It's the worst film of 2010 so far.

I really wanted to come-up with a way to give it a D, to go along with the theme of this review, but this movie is just so bad I couldn't.

"Shorts" is a Robert Rodriquez creation, so you'd expect a lot of special effects. However, "special" is a word that should never be used to describe this movie. "Awful" is that word.

In "Shorts" a kid named Toby, who has no friends, meets a couple of kids and they find a rainbow-colored rock that allows wished to come true. All of a sudden everyone wants the rock, including the adults, who are hoping to become rich, powerful, happy and everything else that people wish for.

Right from the start "Shorts" is a disaster. There's an opening staring contest sequence that isn't funny and continues throughout the film. The main story is predictable and goofy (in a bad way). Laughs? Forget it.

As for the acting, all of the kids are painful to watch. Meantime comic actors Leslie Mann and John Cryer and serious actors James Spader and William H. Macy are all part of the cast, and the way the film turned-out they can't be happy that they're associated with it.

And as for those effects, they're cheap, and often disgusting.

"Shorts" is divided into parts or "shorts", and the stories bounce back and forth in a way that's both confusing and reveals parts of the plot out of order.

Rodriquez had a hand in every aspect of the film: writing, directing, editing, picking the songs. He even had most of his family members playing roles. Yikes!

"Shorts" is rated PG for mild fantasy action. It's not appropriate for anyone. I saw "Shorts" at Grauman's Theater in Hollywood this past summer. I still can't believe that the first film I ever saw at that historic theater was, what could be, my worst film of the year. 

On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Shorts" gets an F.

There are going to be too many good movies out this holiday season for you to waste your time and money on renting or buying "Shorts". And if anyone gives it to you for Christmas, as for the receipt.

How do I put this nicely? "Aliens in the Attic" is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

The plot is so simple and predictable: A group of four alien creatures come to Earth and land on the roof of a vacation home. They are discovered by some of the kids staying there. The aliens try to kill the kids, who fight back in order to save the planet.

The biggest surprise concerning "Aliens in the Attic" is how this project could have ever gotten green-lighted. It has the look and feel of a Direct-to-DVD more Made-for-TV film.

The script is terrible, the dialogue is completely phony, the performances are embarrassing. "High School Musical" star Ashley Tisdale has a starring role, but even her fans won't want to see this mess.

There are some legitimate comic actors in the cast, including Kevin Nealon, Andy Richter and Doris Roberts. I can only guess that the reason they got involved with this movie was for a paycheck.

The special effects, starting with the aliens themselves, are cheap looking. There was no effort made to make "Aliens in the Attic" funny or entertaining. There isn't a single joke or gag that works - didn't laugh once.

"Aliens in the Attic" is rated PG for some mild action-violence. But I can't say it's appropriate for any age group because I don't want anyone to waste their time and money going to see it. I lost an hour and a half of my life that I'll never get back.

It's the second year in a row that 20th Century Fox has put out a comedy based on aliens coming to earth. Last year it was "Meet Dave" and this year "Aliens in the Attic", and they're both amazingly bad.

On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "Aliens in the Attic" gets an F! 

By the way, the original title of this movie was "They Came From Upstairs", but the studio changed it a few months ago after filming was completed. What they should have done is kept the title...and changed everything else.

I'll get right to the point: "The Comebacks" is a loser.

The idea is good - a sports movie that makes fun of other sports movies. But this film is awful. It's not funny and it's certainly not for kids! Too much adult humor, or, I should say, adult NO humor.

No need to explain the plot or name the actors. This is without a doubt one of the worst films of 2007.

On The Official Kid Critic Report Card, "The Comebacks" gets an F.