I, personally, have very little interest in most of the movies coming out this summer. Good for my wallet, I guess. But, there are some reviews that I just feel I have to comment on:

> May 1 - X-Men Origins: Wolverine
>
> If you're a foreign filmmaker, snagging an Oscar may well mean that your next
> job is in Hollywood. This year, Marion Cotillard is the leading lady in Public
> Enemies, and Gavin Hood (director of Tsotsi, which won the Best Foreign
> Language Film Oscar a while back) got handed the reins to the X-Men franchise.
> Unfortunately, the trailer is completely forgettable.

I admit this is one that I've been looking forward to. I admit to being an X-men freak, and am dieing to find out Wolverine's history. Maybe that makes me a geek, I don't care. Will see in the theater sometime in the next week or so.
>
> May 1 - Ghosts of Girlfriends Past
>
> Matthew McConaughey sure loves the niche he's carved out for himself. Is he
> unable to try something different, or merely unwilling? Still, there's no
> reason this movie about a cocky bachelor learning to love will be any worse
> than any of his other movies about a cocky bachelor learning to love. But
> doesn't the whole Christmas Carol thing mean this should have been released
> at Christmastime?

Looks like a cute romantic comedy, and I do like Matthew McConaughey. But this is one that I'll just wait for my parents to rent from Netflicks.
>
> May 8 - Star Trek
>
> Reboots are all the craze right now. When a franchise wears out, reboot it!
> Well, it's hard to argue with Casino Royale and Batman Begins not being hugely
> successful gambles, both artistically and commercially. But Roger Ebert said
> this about Steve Martin's reboot of The Pink Panther:
>
> "Inspector Clouseau has been played by other actors before Martin . . . but
> what's the point? The character isn't bigger than the actor, as Batman and
> maybe James Bond are. The character is the actor, and I had rather not see
> Steve Martin, who is himself inimitable, imitating Sellers."
>
> Not that any of the original Star Trek cast deserve comparison with Peter
> Sellers, but Ebert's point applies here as well. The Star Trek characters
> were not imbued with complicated personalities, but what's there comes from
> the actors. The actors and the characters are inextricable. Spock, played by
> anyone other than Leonard Nimoy, can scarcely be called Spock at all. And
> wouldn't Kirk, played by someone besides William Shatner, either be a stranger
> or a parody?
>
> This may be a good movie. But in recasting the original characters instead of
> creating new ones, it has steepened, not smoothed, the slope it must climb.

I was never a huge fan of Star Trek. I liked a couple of the movies - mainly the ones with the cast of Next Generation - but they've never been a "must see". This, however looks amazing. Definately an "in the theater" movie for me. And as a side note, I heard that Leonard Nimoy was given veto power over the actor playing Spock, and he totally approves of their choice. I don't know how good Kirk or the others will be, but I think Spock should be good.

>
> May 19 - Dr. Dolittle: A Tinsel Town Tail (direct-to-DVD)
>
> What entry in the series do you think this is? The second? The third?
> Maybe you remember that "Dr. Dolittle 3" was quietly released on DVD in 2006.
> But this is actually the *fifth* series entry and the third which stars not
> Eddie Murphy as Dr. Dolittle but Kyla Pratt as his daughter Maya Dolittle.
> I caught part of one on television, and while it seemed like typical formula
> feel-good TV movie stuff, it was about a million times better than the
> classless desperation of the Murphy films.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who liked the third one better than the first two. Not that I'm going to run right out and rent this, but I may catch it on t.v. when it airs.

>
> May 21 - Terminator Salvation
>
> Will this be good? Not a chance. It breaks two unbreakable rules:
>
> 1. You can't make a Terminator movie without Arnold Schwarzenegger.
> 2. You can't make a good movie with McG.

I also can't imagine a Terminator movie without Arnold Schwarzenegger. But, having seen the first three I'm going to have to watch this to see how it all ends. I'm just weird that way. This is a rental, though.

> June 5 - Land of the Lost
>
> Here, however, is a less welcome return to a cult hit of the past. The
> television show Land of the Lost is inextricably part of its time. I saw it
> at just the right age (five or six) when men in lizard suits were utterly
> terrifying. If you know what I'm talking about, you'll agree that this movie
> is wrong, wrong, wrong. If you don't know what I'm talking about, why would
> you care about it in the first place?
>
> Maybe you'll care because you like Will Ferrell. He's the star of this thing,
> and while I initially hated Ferrell, I've since come around. Elf was a lot
> of fun, and Stranger Than Fiction might be in my Top 10 list for the decade.
> But CGI and a star are all wrong for this. Just like how Spock without Nimoy
> isn't Spock, Land of the Lost without rock bottom budget 70s-era production
> values isn't Land of the Lost.
>
> I've always had fond memories of the show. While most of what I watched at
> that age is forgotten or reinforced by later memories, Land of the Lost stands
> out as something special. But I never saw it again after age six. Sometimes
> I sought it. When a DVD of three random episodes cropped up in Netflix, I
> rented it. But I never watched past the opening credits, which amused me by
> how terrible the back-screen work was despite how convincingly I remember the
> opening trip down the waterfall. I might watch it again someday. I'm hugely
> curious to view my childhood memories with an adult mind. But is it worth it?
>
> There are no doubt a number of people my age who hold the original show in the
> same regard. But here's the thing. Unless it's sentimental to you, in which
> case a modern movie would have zero appeal, there is NO WAY you could POSSIBLY
> care about it. There's nothing is about it to value.
>
> So why, Why, WHY does this movie exist?
>
> Curiously, the tagline on the advertising sums up my feelings exactly: "Right
> place. Wrong time."

I remember a "Land of the Lost" t.v. show in the 90's. I have no idea if it was anything like the show you watched in the 70's or if either of them have any bearing on this movie, but the concept has been redone before. (Does that sentence make sense?) But, I also find very little of value in this thing. Will Ferrell isn't even a draw for me - the only movie of his that I liked was "Stranger Than Fiction". A definite pass.
>
> June 12 - Imagine That
>
> Down and out businessman Eddie Murphy discovers that his career can be
> revitalized by his daughter's imagination. This seems like it covers the same
> type of ground Bedtime Stories did. Murphy is a talented comedian who has made
> far too many unwise choices for me to rely on him.

Hmm... this story does seem to have been done to death in the past year or so. Bedtime Stories, and wasn't Inkheart sort of similar? Now this. Seriously, I understand rehashing the same plot sometimes, but 3 times in one year?

> June 24 - Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
>
> Michael Bay's first Transformers movie was better than I expected it to be, but
> come on. It was not great or lasting entertainment. Still, it's not like
> Michael Bay would have made something great if a Transformers sequel had never
> gotten a green light, so it's hard to bemoan this.

Maybe the first Transformers movie was not lasting entertainment, but for what it was, it was pretty good. I won't be seeing this in the theater unless we take my nephew to it, but I will definitely rent it.

>
> June 26 - My Sister's Keeper
>
> This looks fantastic. From the back of Jodi Piccoult's book: "Anna is not
> sick, but she might as well be. By age thirteen, she has undergone countless
> surgeries, transfusions, and shots so that her older sister Kate can somehow
> fight leukemia that has plagued her since childhood. The product of
> preimplantation genetic diagnosis, Anna was conceived as a bone marrow match
> for Kate-a life role that she has never challenged . . . until now. Like
> most teenagers, Anna is beginning to question who she truly is. But unlike
> most teenagers, she has always been defined in terms of her sister-and so
> Anna makes a decision that for most would be unthinkable, a decision that
> will tear her family apart and have perhaps fatal consequences for her
> sister she loves."
>
> Smart movies are rare, especially in the summertime. Of course I don't
> know that this will be good, or even smart, but the raw materials are here.
> It occurs to me that adapting books into movies is a really healthy practice
> for the film industry. Ever notice how most of the cardboard cut-out movies
> are original screenplays? Of those titles I've mentioned here so far, don't
> Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, Imagine That, and 17 Again just SCREAM out their
> superficiality? They all have neat gimmicks, and not a one of them suggest
> an exploration of its gimmick beyond the confines of stock formula. But all
> the time you need to fill in a pitch meeting with a producer is 30 seconds or
> so.
>
> The director, by the way, is Nick Cassavetes, whose The Notebook was a
> delightful surprise.

Wow. Thank you for bringing my attention to a great-looking movie that will probably not make the t.v. ad radar. Why do you only see trailers for action movies or horror flicks, or comedies? Is there a law against advertising good, smart dramas? The theater is for movies that you need a big-screen to get the full effect, but this is going straight to the top of my "must rent ASAP" list. I just hope that I like it more than The Notebook, which I found highly overrated.

>
> July 1 - Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs
>
> This series has some incredibly long-lived characters. A few more sequels,
> and our woolly mammoth and saber-toothed tiger friends will be teaming up with
> the North American buffalo in their quest for survival, then maybe hanging out
> in city parks with the Madagascar crew.
>
> I'm kind of neutral on this series, although I like the squirrel. What I don't
> like is the obsession over 3D. 3D is kinda cool, sure. But it's not more
> immersive than 2D, as studios and producers are desperate to convince us
> (because a public embrace of 3D would widen the ever-narrowing gap between the
> theatrical and home-viewing experiences as well as set piracy back). 3D is a
> fun gimmick, but it's a distraction from real storytelling. Moreover, most of
> the 3D we're seeing now desaturates colors and blurs sharp lines. Ironic,
> that 3D can't even deliver everything 2D does!

I liked the first Ice Age, the second one was okay. My favorite part, especially in the second one was the squirrel. May rent this one, eventually. But I've decided that you're getting too old for kids movies when you start psychoanalyzing them. Didn't the dinosaurs precede woolly mammoths and saber-toothed tigers, and, well, mammals? So, how are we on the third or fourth Ice Age movie, and NOW there are dinosaurs?

>
> July 17 - Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
>
> The funniest thing ever occurred late last year. It was the reaction of
> whiny Harry Potter fans when they heard this was being postponed from the
> Christmas season to the following summer. Warner Bros cruelly destroyed many
> lives that day. Fans hated Warner Bros forever and swore to boycott the film.
> We'll see how many don't show up for this.
>
> I know I'll be there. But for the first time since the series started, I will
> be very, very wary. After loving the first four films, and especially the
> third and fourth, I hated hated hated the fifth (although there were lots of
> individual elements to love, first and foremost Imelda Staunton as Dolores
> Umbridge). The problem is simply that it was so rushed that very little had
> the required emotional impact. Example: Ron's father almost gets killed and
> still might die -- do we give Ron half a second to react to that? Nahhhh,
> ON WITH THE PLOT! It is telling that the fifth book is the longest of the
> series, while its movie is thus far the shortest.
>
> For now, I blame the director, David Yates, who unfortunately is going to
> return to direct all of the remaining films in the series. I shudder to think
> that my penultimate favorite book of the series will be done by him rather than
> Cuaron or Newell. Still, there is hope: the other reason the fifth movie
> might have fallen short was the absence of the series' regular screenwriter,
> Steve Kloves. A scheduling conflict, I believe, meant he had to opt out of
> the fifth movie, but he's back for the sixth. If his absence was what went
> wrong, rather than Yates' direction, we'll be back on track.
>
> (The other problem I had with the fifth movie was avoidable: I saw it on an
> IMAX screen, which had the climactic fight at the end in 3D. The 3D process
> was *horrible*: dark, blurry, and misproportioned. My emotional involvement
> with the film, already on shaky ground, shattered, and it was a relief when
> I could take the glasses off again. I recommend against the IMAX 3D version
> of the next movie.)

I don't know if you've read the books, but there was very little emotional impact in the fifth book as well. It may have been the longest book, but it had the least in the way of a plot, and very little of any importance actually happened. I actually liked the movie better than the book, because the book plodded along. With one exception - the comment you made about Ron not being given time to process about his dad being attacked before they were moving the plot along, again. The book was not much better on that score. It is a shame that the climax was ruined for you as it was one of the few truly important scenes in the book. Can't remember how well the movie handled it, though.

>
> August 7 - G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra
>
> Transformers made some money, so, hey, how about a G.I. Joe flick? Stephen
> Sommers is the man behind the camera. Sommers made a good movie (The Mummy)
> once.

This is another one that, despite being based on a cartoon I hated when I was young enough to watch it, the trailer actually makes it look almost rentable. Still on the fence, though.


> August 14 - The Time Traveler's Wife
>
> Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana in a fantastical romance: a man has a rare
> genetic condition that causes him to time travel involuntarily. This wreaks
> havoc on his marriage. I hate it when that happens.

I absolutely love the book this is based off of and can't wait to see it. It's really a bit more complex than your review makes it seem. It takes the concept of cause and effect, mixes it with the concept of fate, and then throws the whole mess on its ear. Anyway, this may very well be a theater movie.