As I said the last time I reviewed one of these Twilight "films", writing a proper review is utterly pointless because the fans of these books are going to go see it, no matter how hard any critic out there may try and dissuade them. But while I really despised the majority of Eclipse, I've been desperately in need of a good laugh and there is nothing more preposterous than the fourth installment in this series. The Breaking Dawn book was so insanely bizarre that I almost couldn't wait to see this dreck in living color. And... it was everything I could have hoped for and worse. And don't worry, Twiharders, Bill Condon does absolutely nothing to elevate the quality of this material, so you don't need to imagine that an acclaimed director was somehow able to change the ridiculous storytelling of Stephenie Meyer and make it passable for normal human consumption. It is still the terrible mess that she created, now with bonus terrible acting. And it's stretched out for two movies. They want all your money. After seeing where they ended this one, and watching how padded out this was, there is absolutely no reason this couldn't be a single film. This isn't The Hobbit, it's Twilight. Even worse, this first installment didn't even end where it logically should have based on the novel -- instead, it kept going for what seemed like an eternity. Still, I did laugh... a lot. So here's a look at the most ridiculous things about the film. [If you are a spoilerphobe and actually care about Twilight, stop reading now.]

It's time to play the music! It's time to light the lights! It's time to welcome back the Muppets to the big screen with the franchise reboot, The Muppets, co-written by and starring self-professed Muppet lover, Jason Segel. The How I Met Your Mother star plays Gary, a small-town guy whose best pal Walter is the world's biggest Muppet fan. After learning that the old Muppet theater is about to be demolished by an oil magnate, the duo (along with Gary's girlfriend, Mary, played by Amy Adams) hit the road to reunite Kermit and the gang by any means necessary.

Writer/director Alexander Payne, the darkly comic mind behind Election and Sideway, returns after a seven-year hiatus with The Descendants, which easily ranks as his most heartwarming feature to date. It's also his least provocative and prickly, but hey, we all get a little sentimental in our old age. And because this is the guy who made Election after all, his version of "sentimental" isn't the usual gooey Hollywood treacle like The Bucket List or The Help. The Descendants still has a certain bite to it, dwelling, as it does, on the characters' all-too-human foibles and frailties. It's the kind of movie where no one is beyond reproach... even the woman that's lying in the hospital in a coma from which she'll never wake up.

Tom Hanks goes back to school and the Jets and the Sharks rumble once more (in Blu-ray) in this week's batch of new DVDs.

With its Greco-Roman setting, computer-generated backdrops and endless scenes of ridiculously ripped warriors engaging in ultra-stylized, ultra-bloody ultraviolence, Immortals is obviously positioning itself to be the next 300. In fact, the film's advertising materials proudly trumpet the connection between Zack Snyder's surprise 2006 smash hit based on Frank Miller's graphic novel -- which chronicled the tale of the Spartan king Leonidas' (Gerard Butler) last stand at Thermopylae -- and this spin on the myth of Theseus (played by Henry Cavill, who is currently playing the Man of Steel in a new Superman flick directed by... Zack Snyder). Since Snyder is busy trying to make audiences believe a man can fly, 300 producers Mark Canton and Gianni Nunnari turned to Tarsem Singh, director of cult oddities The Cell and The Fall, to produce a movie in its predecessor's image, albeit with some of his own distinct visual flourishes. So how do 300 and Immortals match up? Quien es mas macho? We pit them head to head in a few key creative areas. (Except for the screenplay, because, really -- who's watching either of these movies for the dialogue?)

Adam Sandler's Jack and Jill -- in which he plays both Jack Sadelstein and his frumpy twin sister, Jill -- is not a good movie. I don't think you needed me to tell you that. But it is funny, though, and not in a fart-joke kind of way. I mean, there are a lot of fart jokes -- scenes entirely made up of god-awful fart jokes! -- but there are also tiny moments packed into Jack and Jill that are laugh-out-loud funny. Should you be dragged to this film by a child (it's rated PG, after all), you will not grow to hate and resent said little one for the rest of your life... that is, if you follow our handy guide on suffering through the terribleness:

With two Oscars and 31 directing credits to his name (his 32nd , J. Edgar opened in theaters yesterday) there's no question that Clint Eastwood has secured his legacy as one of Hollywood's premiere filmmakers. But when you produce that many movies over the course of a multi-decade career, there are bound to be a few flops... just ask Woody Allen. And going by the majority of reviews, J. Edgar may be one of the films that's omitted from Clint's career highlights reel. We'll have our own thoughts about the film next week, but in the meantime here are our picks -- in chronological order -- for Eastwood's five worst movies as a director.

Alessandro Nivola plays dad to Abigail Breslin, and Colin Farrell guards Keira Knightley in this month's VOD offerings.

If ever, oh ever a wiz there was, Harry Potter is one because, because, because, because, because, because... because of the wonderful things he does.

In just two short years, 3D has gone from being the perceived savior of the theatrical experience to the favorite whipping boy of critics (myself included) and Hollywood analysts. Blame the high surcharge that 3D places on the cost of a movie ticket, blame the glut of 3D movies in the marketplace, but most of all blame the studios for churning out such relentlessly unappealing 3D fare. Terrific examples of the format like Coraline and, of course, Avatar have largely given way to shoddy conversion jobs (Clash of the Titans, The Last Airbender), obvious cash-grabs (the upcoming 3D re-releases of the Star Wars movies) and films that don't actually seem to make use of the extra dimension (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, Captain America: The First Avenger). Since James Cameron kick-started the new 3D boom, the only dimensionally-enhanced movies that didn't feel like complete rip-offs were Jackass 3D and Piranha 3D, neither of which could be accurately described as "artistic triumphs." For that matter, neither could A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas, but that doesn't change the fact that the latest installment in one of the young century's most unlikely franchises is also the first post-Avatar production that needs... nay demands to be seen in 3D for maximum enjoyment.* Here are five reasons why: