I have a confession to make: I've never been a big fan of Beauty and the Beast. Even when I first saw it back in 1991 -- when it has being proclaimed hither and yon as one of the Walt Disney company's greatest achievements and made history by becoming the first animated feature to score a Best Picture nod -- I found myself wondering what the big deal was. And it didn't have anything to do with that conventional bit of Hollywood "wisdom" that boys don't want to watch movies about girls. Three years earlier, I had seen and loved The Little Mermaid and I thought Belle, the headstrong beauty of Beauty, was just peachy keen. I also liked Robby Benson's thundering vocals as the Beast and found the music (penned by Alan Menken and Howard Ashman, who died seven months before the film's release) quite good, though none of the individual tunes captured my imagination half as much as Mermaid's triple threat of "Part of Your World," "Under the Sea" and "Kiss the Girl." But aside from those elements, Beauty struck me as pretty blah -- a serviceable version of a classic fairy tale minus that crucial touch of magic.

There's a clever gag early on in The Adventures of Tintin that effectively passes the baton from the title character's comic-book origins in the 1930s to his 21st century incarnation as the hero of a lavish animated blockbuster. In the scene, investigative journalist/globetrotting adventurer Tintin (played here by Jamie Bell via the magic of motion capture technology) is sitting with his back to the audience, having his picture drawn by a flea market street artist. The illustrator puts the finishing touches on the portrait and hands it over to his subject, saying proudly, "I think I've captured your likeness." With that, Tintin turns towards the camera and we see the character's past and present in the same frame. On the canvas is a sketch of Tintin as Belgian artist Hergé first drew him all those years ago. Next to that is the version of the character the animators at Weta Digital -- the New Zealand effects house operated by Peter Jackson, one of the primary creative forces behind this new movie, along with its director Steven Spielberg -- have come up with. While these two faces aren't precisely mirror images of each other, the mo-cap figure is still recognizably Tintin. In a single shot, the filmmakers convincingly lift this iconic character off the two-dimensional comics page and turn him into a walking, talking movie star.

In all the hoopla over the new trailer for Super 8 (which looks like J.J. Abrams taking on The Goonies, a.k.a. awesome), people have happily forgotten that yesterday saw the debut of the first full-length trailer for The Smurfs. Now, I'm only a moderate Smurf fan, but I've been dreading this movie since I first heard about it, because I knew it would be a train wreck of Garfield proportions. Unfortunately, the trailer does not seem to be proving me wrong, as there are numerous elements that have dreading the day I will be forced to see it for review purposes. As a sneak peek of that review, here are the things I found the most annoying, terrifying and disgusting about the trailer.

Obviously, Rango was intended to be at least partially for children. A wacky chameleon pretends to be a cowboy, and his belt falls down and it's all very funny. But in all other respects, Gore Verbinski's newest film is darker and more adult than all three Pirates of the Caribbean movies put together. The wisecracking lizard at the center of it all is in the midst of an identity crisis, the villain's scheme is straight out of Chinatown and the supporting cast look like they were dug up from Pet Sematery.

Watching the trailers for Yogi Bear makes my eyes hurt. Not only because of the computer-generated fur on Yogi and his pal Boo-boo, but because I'm picturing the horrible future that awaits us if the movie succeeds. Snagglepuss! Huckleberry Hound! Quick Draw McGraw! All of these funny-voiced animals are on the list of Hanna Barbera creations that could conceivably get a crack at the big screen if Yogi does well, and while I have fond memories of those characters, I simply can't see how any of them would make good movies. The worst part? Hanna-Barbera made hundreds of cartoons, not all of them starring animals, and some of them would make amazing movies. In fact, Warner Bros. is developing a movie based on the adventure series Jonny Quest for 2012 -- granted, they first tried back in 1995, but this time I hope they'll be able to make it stick. Here are some other HB properties (yes, even a few talking-animal 'toons) that I think would be great big-screen spectacles.

How did Quasimodo get a Disney movie before Rapunzel? Okay, they were probably trying to go after the hunchbacked boys' market with that one, but everyone knows that the four most iconic princesses in fairy tales are Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Snow White and Rapunzel (as seen in Shrek the Third), and yet it took 50 animated feature films for Disney to get around to her. Perhaps they were waiting for computer animation technology to reach a point where they wouldn't have to hand-draw every single strand of hair on her head? Whatever the reason, it was worth the wait, because the end result is a flawless animated spectacle, with great vocal performances and one of the funniest and most entertaining princesses in Disney's cotillion.

Finally, the word "despicable" has come back into common parlance! Years of watered-down Daffy Duck cartoons had us worried, but the popularity of the new animated film Despicable Me should get kids calling each other by this polysyllable in no time. Because if the box office is any indication, a lot of kids saw it -- the Universal movie made $60 million over the weekend, which more or less ties it with Kung Fu Panda for the biggest opening for a non-Pixar, non-sequel animated film. By comparison, fellow new release Predators only made $25 million, taking the #3 spot, and repeat earners Eclipse and Toy Story 3 took the #2 and #4 spots, respectively -- all sequels, by the way. How did a movie without a built-in fan base dominate the charts? Here are a few theories.

It's just a rumor for now, but word on the blogosphere is that Amanda Seyfried may play Cinderella in a live-action adaptation of the Disney film. It makes sense, considering the box office bonanza that was Alice in Wonderland, not to mention Enchanted, which was basically about a Disney Princess who comes to life. And since you know that a live-action Cinderella will make a mint, the rest of the princesses can't be too far behind, which is why we're looking at the young actresses of Hollywood to see who could play the rest of the royal family. Here are our choices.

In Hollywood, a slightly sluggish summer has executives questioning their safe moneymaking strategy of sequels, remakes and more sequels and looking for more original fare. Of course, that didn't stop them from greenlighting a sequel to a remake this week, nor will it stop them from rejoicing when Toy Story 3 makes a boatload of money this weekend. And rejoice they should. Because the new Toy Story, with a newly promoted director and the screenwriter of Little Miss Sunshine at the wheel, is as enjoyable and moving as the first two, and I, for one, would be perfectly happy if Pixar made nothing but Toy Story movies from here on out.

The Toy Story movies have always featured a fun mix of real and imaginary toys, with Mr. Potato Head, Barbie, Army Men and a Barrel of Monkeys hanging out alongside Woody and Buzz Lightyear. Now, the third installment brings with it a whole slew of new toy characters, including a Ken doll and a classic Chatter Telephone, and it got us thinking about other actual toys we'd like to see in future installments. Make it happen, Pixar!