Weakest summer I can recall in years, and I think Star Trek and The Hangover were the only highlights. Cannot even recall a few pleasant surprises, just weak and weaker sequels and quite a few stinkers. And I barely went to the movies this summer.

So now we lead into the dark days of fall, school is back in meaning the kids are not out, so we have nothing to watch but the dregs, slasher movies and crappy romantic comedies until the holiday season Oscar bait starts rolling out. That is all.

I am going to move these soon, come up with a cool URL name for the site, create a portal to all my different blogs. And my next step will be opening the site up for comments. The whole movie review site will be reconfigured as a blog maybe, I'll see. Anyway, just typing out loud as I look forward to an interesting summer.

So far, it looks like Summer Movies 2009 are 0 for Sequels with Night at the Museum, Terminator, Wolverine and Angels & Demons all underwhelming. Maybe Transformers 2 can meet expectations. Stay tuned.

I am trying to figure this out and cannot. I have very little interest in seeing anything at the movies right now. Almost everything out there, at best, stirs up luke warm interest and a passing, "I can wait for it on HBO" attitude, as in the last few years, they've been all dark and serious, overrated IMO, or generally unappealing to me.

One thing is the shift in movies and what is good vs. what people will see ($$$) vs. what will win come awards season. In recent years, the best reviewed movie has rarely won the Oscar, instead being bested by a politically-bent comment on our times type thing that gets a whopping 75% Tomatometer. And no, I am not whining about Brokeback. The nominee with the best average reviews was Good Night, and Good Luck, followed by Capote with Munich pulling up the rear.

Truth be written, the best movies have often failed to be nominated. Memento! See also...almost anything by Disney/Pixar, being sent to kids' table. Ever since Beauty and the Beast got the nod way back when, TPTB freaked the hell out, were not about the award the trophy to a children's movie and created the animation category. Meaning some of the best movies are left out year after year.

Another problem with all the Oscar bait is so many of this year's nominees are great character studies, a showcase of acting or directing talent. Which is well and good but I am not always up to paying $10 just to see so-and-so act for two hours. So while someone may be having a great revival, or turning in a once-in-a-career performance, I want a little more. So things like The Wrestler and Milk will wait for cable, as I do enjoy good performances.

I realize there are only so many slots on the ballot, yet it bugs when better performances are overlooked, and after all this time I am still kinda disillusioned with the Academy for snubbing Kiki for (perhaps what is still her best work) Interview with the Vampire (the year after Anna Paquin won for the boring Piano!!) and think she deserved a nod.

It also irks when performances, IMHO, get placed in the wrong category:

• Juliette Binoche wins supporting for The English Patient, though she was more of a lead than Kristen Scott Thomas
• In Devil Wears Prada Meryl Streep's Devil was secondary to the Anne Hathaway role, but was nominated as lead
• To me Forrest Whitaker's great performance in Last King of Scotland was a supporting role to the (un-nominatated) James McAvoy part
• That same year Oscar snubbed the awesome (supporting or lead, YMMV) performance by Michael Sheen in The Queen; Guess there is pennance for doing cheesy, gothic action crap (okay, I saw the first two)

And yes, I know it's political and TPTB nominate themselves in the category they think they'll win, yada yada. Just like the stupid Emmys, there should be better rules about what qualifies as a lead vs. supporting (vs. what is a standout performance in an ensemble without true leads i.e. George Clooney, Syriana.)

Anyway this is just random clacking of the keys this LINKAPALOOZA, trying to get psyched for the movies and Oscars, and can't. FWIW.

Just thinking out loud, via keyboard. I may start a "How'd I miss it?" or "That's why I missed it" section of the archive. Basically something I've caught via the DVR (one of the best technotoys ever) and feel merits an entry, or a blog mention.

For example, I will pass on In the Bedroom, a heavy well-acted drama from several years back. Worthy of the award nods to be sure, but unless you're a student of the craft of acting, or filmmaking in general, just don't see you getting much enjoyment from it. Just one of those hard movies to watch that, while good, you have to be in the right frame of mind to see. To wit, still have not seen Mystic River; and while it was a good movie, have I really no desire to see another Eastwood "gem" Million Dollar Baby again. So that puts In the Bedroom in the "that's why" category, erased from DVR memory, a "one-view" wonder.

I will also cover lesser movies that have great moments. There are some movies, that while not great or perfect or anything, still have a scene or two that I just love and if I catch them at the right time, have to sit down and watch again. Hard to explain. Many are guilty pleasures or decent movies that could have been more. One such movie is In the Land of Women, with Adam Brody and Meg Ryan. No I won't do a full review, and yes it is way too ovary-centric for the masses, and even as a chick-flick it was kind of weak. But it had moments and promise, just failed to be new or fresh or deliver on something more.

The older and maligned Something to Talk About with Julia Roberts and Dennis Quaid, while not a perfect movie, surprised me. I knew nothing of it, other than it received so-so reviews and poor box office, and it cracked me up. Yes the "Southern" bullshit is well, bullshit; and the family dramarama is overbearing; but there are still some scenes and moments of humor and relationships that ring true and made me laugh. YMMV.

Another movie I do recommend is Beautiful Girls. As a whole it is a decent chick flick as much about the guys as anything else. While the friendship scenes with the guys are nice, I love every scene with a young Natalie Portman. In a small role, she made an impression, matching up well against Timothy Hutton and creating great little moments.

All for now. Off to write a full review of the excellent Waitress.

I just read this article on Entertainment Weekly's website, in which they and some folks at PopWatchers dis 19 romantic comedies they don't love. I mostly agree with them.

Both The Wedding Date and Because I Said So which I was forced to watch; have refused on Summer Catch, 27 Dresses. YES they listed The Truth About Cats and Dogs!! Praise sweet merciful Jesus, I did not like that movie. They ask what the hell was so romantic about What Women Want, and I agree. And consider it a non-romantic comedy, a faux chick flick but from the man's side (similar to Wedding Crashers).

I think TPTB missed the point of a few movies on their list. The Family Stone made the cut, which yeah I guessed every plot point from a glimpse at the movie poster (and was proven right when I got stuck watching it on HBO). TPTB acknowledge that Stone is not really a RomCom as they call them, but then they list Bounce.

I so remember that movie, going to see it with friends and leaving the theater talking about how the promo monkeys fucked it up royally. Promotion is all about managing expectations, and they sucked at it. While I cannot recall the lines now, the trailers for Bounce all had some funny little quips and heartfelt speeches, designed to make it seem like a romantic comedy. Hell--that downer was not even a dramedy, it was a melancholy chick flick drama. Not saying it would have been a better movie but had it been promoted as something else, I think critical and fan reactions may have been different. See also Return to Me (and did anyone see that movie?).

Matthew McConaughey made the list in Failure to Launch, for having no chemistry with SJP (of The Family Stone) which I can see, and they did not hate The Holiday enough for me. Sticking Kate Winslet with Jack Black is wrong on so many levels. Notting Hill is often discussed in this vein, and I tend to agree... mostly because "the girl" screwed up at every turn and did not deserve "the boy." I've heard it argued the other way, and just shake my head. EW cites a cringe worthy line..you know the one. I have heard worse.

Finally got around to watching Under the Tuscan Sun, not a true RomCom but still... and aside from the whole "Diane Lane cannot get laid" bullshit...one line just killed me and had me throwing shit at the TV. "If you do not cheer up, I will be forced to make love to you.. and I have never been unfaithful to my wife," or something like that, from some Italian dickweed (who was sort of nice the rest of the time in an otherwise meh movie) with a MONSTER crush on Lane, trying to blame her for his would-be adultery. That line was ASS.

Other omissions:

• The Wedding Planner was just as schlocky and predictable as any of these, with minimal chemistry.
• Head Over Heels (I have friends with bad taste who drag me to every RomCom out there). Cheesy, silly, lame, stupid, plotless, pointless .. the list goes on and on.
• Maid in Manhattan. OMFG. Talk about lack of chemistry. Ralph Fiennes looks like he'd rather be having root canal, you can practically see him mentally adding his paycheck in half his scenes with J-Lo. It makes EW 24 Bad RomCom list but not the 19 they love to hate.

TPTB rightly acknowledge that one person's crap is another's guilty pleasure (Only You, Simply Irresistible), and I don't feel all that guilty for enjoying Sweet Home Alabama. One critic is more upset at the appropriation of songs for movie titles, rather than the movie itself. And What a Girl Wants-while a cheesy, grating pop song-is a decent movie with an adorable Colin Firth.

Pretty much anything with Sandra Bullock, Reese Witherspoon, Drew Barrymore, Kate Hudson, Jennifer Aniston, Meg Ryan, John Cusack, Hugh Jackman, MM, Hugh Grant, or Patrick Dempsey has a fair shot of being a fair to downright crappy RomCom. Even some of the allegedly good ones have been panned at one point or another. I have read convincing critiques of Pretty Woman and the like, can see how they are "bad." On particularly dour day while watching Sleepless in Seattle, my snark machine took over, subjugating my suspension of disbelief...and the movie's been ruined ever sense.

As long as there's "date night" there will be Romantic Comedies: crappy, shitty, lame, dumb, so-so, decent to almost okay, "for the guy" fake outs (Knocked Up) and everything in between.

I recently posted this on another blog. Thought I'd list it here too. You can read the whole blog here.

Agree with most of ang wa, and some of Peter's comments. Interesting aspects that I did not consider. You have some great points, witty, but "left him behind TWICE because of that "he fell behind" code." I know his crew, with Mr. Gibb, left twice, but I just watched Pearl again and Will & Elizabeth only did once(?) since the Pearl crew had already left. But really, much like the whole kiss/shackle in Chest, Will KO'd Jack with an oar and left him there, possibly to die, was not so much of a "fall behind" as a trick/betrayal.

And that is I think part of the point.

Jack is not a "done" character yet. Classic anti-hero to be sure, TPTB are simply making an argument about being a "good man" and a "pirate: def. as whoring, thieving, manipulative, drunk bastard(?)" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And they are juxtaposing that with the "good" Will/Elizabeth.

Betrayal requires 2 parties: the betrayer and the betrayed. Jack doesn't seem to hold a grudge (hates Pearl crew, not Will, Gibb) about being left behind, only heckling Mr. Gibb about the code at the end. But Will, in Pearl, has a guilty face when he says that Jack "fell behind." Yet he doesn't seem to feel too bad about leaving a "man who would trade another man's life for a ship" (to quote Elizabeth) behind. Why? He's "a pirate" to quote Will, and perhaps it's not wrong to betray a pirate(?). In Chest, Elizabeth obviously feels remorse (though claiming she's "not sorry"), but whether she feels bad about the trick, or the kiss (and it's implications) I cannot say.

As to Sparrow's selfishness and all, I say "pirate." Agreeing with the other posts, he planned to use Will as "leverage" to get back his ship, working each turn of events to his best advantage in Pearl and he managed to work it all out in the end. Yes he tricks Will, sells him out, wants the key/chest for his own ends, yada-Pirate, but getting the heart will save himself (Jack's priority 1) and everyone else, in theory. Part of his not caring for others is "pirate," the other part an act. Flirting with Elizabeth is just sport. Yes he'd tap that if he could, don't think he's really making a play.

I think some people see a "change" in Jack because, like Will and Elizabeth, they WANT him to want to be a good man, and act like the hero we "know he can be" because we love the character so much. Jack gets a pass from everyone (audience and film characters) at the end of Pearl because it all worked out OK in the end. After Chest - to state the obvious - Jack, Will, et al, the story - not done yet. And what I see evolving as much as anything, is that Will & Elizabeth are already a lot more like Jack than they think. Elizabeth has always had a fascination with pirates, and it would seem does want a pirate. His name is Will. IMO.

I try not to spoil movies too much by giving away all the story details. Ergo THIS is where you can give your analysis of a particular plot point, preview of upcoming attraction.

Same rules: respect those around you. No just posting "you're an asshole, and stupid." While that may be true, it doesn't add to the discourse. If you do, you'll be banned and burn in Hell. And of course, try to keep it simple. I don't want to spend hours reading pages and pages of the same crap.