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.

"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".

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".

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.

"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.

The build-up to director Steven Spielberg's "War Horse" was huge when the film was released late last year, because of the popular novel it is based om and the Tony Award-winning play. And while this version does provide a nice story and engaging characters "War Horse" goes down a familiar path and therefore fails be to extraordinary.

The plot centers around Albert (Jeremy Irvine), a teenage boy who lives on a farm in Britain with his father and mother. The family needs a new plow horse. But at the auction Albert's father decides to buy a young, energetic horse that catches his eye instead, and he spends all the family's money on him. Albert immediately becomes attached to the horse, who he names Joey, even though his mother wants to sell him back. Albert promises he will train Joey and teach him to plow so they can make enough money to keep the farm.

But then World War I breaks-out and Joey begins an amazing four year journey in which he in involved in war - on both sides - and has several different owners. His impact, as a horse, brings out the best and the worst of everyone he comes in contact with.

The "War Horse" story is simple and straight forward. Once the set-up is in place there are no surprises. It's rare for a film that's nearly 2 1/2 hours long not to have one single twist. What keeps you interested is Joey. Spielberg has done a nice job of making a horse the star of the film but not making it corny. Joey has human qualities and more personality than all of the other characters in the movie combined.

Irvine does fine work as Albert, especially later in the film when he becomes a soldier and joins the war. The rest of the cast, including Emily Watson and Peter Mullan, who play Albert's mother and father, give effective performances.

The biggest surprise for me is the directing, which is pretty ordinary. Where are the typical Speilberg touches? There are way too many close-ups and a couple of bad edits. This was Spielberg's first film to be digitally edited so maybe that was part of the problem, but since this is an old fashioned film maybe they should have stuck with old fashioned techniques. Could it be that he spent too much time on "The Adventures of Tintin", which opened four days prior, and not enough overseeing this final draft of "War Horse"?

There are a few other minor problems, including an annoying goose who is something out of a bad family comedy and where were the horses names in the closing credits? Without them there couldn't have been a movie!

"War Horse" is rated PG-13 for intense battle scenes which include some violent deaths. It's appropraite for teens and up, especially those who may be studying WWI in school. Of course this story is fiction, but the setting and the conflicts are real.

On "The Official Kid Critic Report Card", "War Horse" gets an B-. 

Of the nine 2011 Best Picture nominees "War Horse" was one of the least deserving.