10 Best and Worst Summer Movies of 2007- What to See and What to Avoid at the Theaters

While some film sequels build successfully upon the momentum of their predecessors, other films rely on that momentum to carry viewers to see a bad movie. As such, it is worth thinking twice before seeing the latest in a series of otherwise good movies. However, some movie sequels can be better than the originals! It is important to consider who will be acting in, producing and writing the screenplays for movies in deciding which ones to see and which to skip. With that in mind, the following reviews discuss these and other issues that can make or break a given film. So, have a great summer and go out to the movies - but don't waste two hours and ten dollars on something that won't live up to the hype!

The Bourne Ultimatum is likely to outdo its predecessors, something that is rare in the modern film industry. To understand why, one has to look at the trajectory of the series so far as well as the new twists in the yet-to-be released third movie. The Bourne Identity was brilliant in part because of the decision to include one of Germany's best and most famous actresses - Franka Potente - in the co-starring lead role with Matt Damon. That demonstrated from the first that this movie was not just about being a smash hit, but also about selecting skilled actors and actresses who could be developed as characters. The Bourne Supremacy lived up to the first, still an edge-of-your-seat adventure despite the fact that the original mystery of Bourne's identity (which drove the entire plot of the original) had been at least partly solved. The mark of a good sequel is that ability to transcend whatever gimmick made the first film successful, or at least adapt it so the second doesn't feel like it is rehashing the first. The Bourne Ultimatum (beside being likely to resolve the remaining questions of Bourne's identity) has one key thing going for it: it was written in part by Tom Stoppard, arguably the most brilliant comic, dramatic and philosophical stage-writers of our time. Better yet, Stoppard is teamed up with Tony Gilroy who has written for some successfully gripping and dark movies of his own including: Proof of Life and The Devil's Advocate. Their combined contributions to the script and screenplay have the potential to bring this from a 'good flick to see on the weekend' to a 'must see' dramatic, comedic and action-packed thriller!

New elements in the Fantastic Four sequel, the Rise of the Silver Surfer, have the potential to make this one better than the first. The Fantastic Four have always been (in the comics and in the first movie) a second-rate group in terms of Marvel super-heroes. As a relatively wholesome 'family' unit, they never were as popular as the outcast X-Men or the trouble teen Spider Man. In the first movie, they faced their original arch-nemesis Doctor Doom, a conventional power-hungry Lex Luthor type character. Hopefully the introduction of a morally-conflicted Silver Surfer and his world-devouring master Galactus will bring enough turmoil and drama to the plot to make this one much more interesting. In the comics, the Silver Surfer is a herald of Galactus - basically scoping out planets worth consuming (which he must do to sustain himself). Now, he isn't as bad a guy as he sounds: he originally took the job to save his own planet from destruction by Galactus! Galactus too is a strange character - he isn't 'evil' in the traditional sense, simply amoral and looking for food. In the comics he turns on Galactus, as the movie trailers hint he is likely to do in the film as well. So, in the end, perhaps this one will be more interesting than the last. Clearly the addition of a wild-card into the Fantastic Four will mix up their internal relationships, and the threat of a world-ending force will drive up the drama. Because both of the new semi-villain characters are conflicted and interesting, with a lot of comic history to draw on, there are also great potentials to mix up the typical black-vs-white moral dichotomy the first film suffered from.

The greatest thing about the Harry Potter movie series is the change in tone, directorship and cinematographic style from one film to the next. I have read the entire series of books so far, and though they are all gripping it is always nice to see them come to life in the movies in a slightly different form. The Order of the Phoenix contains many dark twists and turns, and some pivotal moments of personal realization for some critical characters. Without spoiling any details for those of you who haven't read it, I would say: you can expect some serious and dramatic changes in this film which, if the history of the series says anything about it, will result in compelling film that in *no* way will feel like a repeat of anything you've seen so far from Harry Potter. If you're debating reading the book before seeing the movie, this is a rare case in which I would suggest: yes, it is worth doing. Because the movies always follow the plot of the books but always give a different angle or perspective on them, I think that knowing the plot details does not, in fact, ruin the experience of the film. In a way, it is like seeing a film you love twice, but in two different ways!

Nancy Drew will be a difficult classic to bring to life on one the big screen. The genre is one rarely seen today: the 'whodunnit' mystery (with the possible exception of TV shows like Monk and Psyche). The key obstacle for the writers seems to be: how do you keep the essence of Nancy Drew, who many of us are familiar with from our childhood, yet update it to attract a contemporary audience? Other movies based on classic children's' series like the Narnia series and the Lord of the Rings trilogy seem to work for modern audiences. However, that could be simply because the 'fantasy' aspect of such stories makes them more timeless. My mother read Nancy Drew books to me when I was little. On the one hand, the plots were always well-crafted and suspenseful (to me as a child at least), but on the other hand the setting was (even two decades ago!) so far in the past.

The Simpsons Movie has the potential to bring back to life a series that long ago lost its spark. The series itself simply went on for too long! It ran out of plot-lines the made sense in a 10-to-30-minute (some episodes were split up) segment. The movie, however, takes things to a whole new level. The stakes have gone up, Homer's fate and that of the world "hangs in the balance" (as the trailer puts it) and, with the different format of wide-screen film and a PG-13 rating, this cult classic of the nineties has the potential to live again in a new and different way. The other potential bonus of the movie is that it might stir up Matt Groening enough to have new ideas for the series which, amazingly, is scheduled to continue into 2009 despite the fact that so many viewers have lost interest.
Ocean's Thirteen is another one in the countdown that started with Ocean's Eleven. Each movie moves farther away from the number one for a reason: they are only getting worse with time! The first movie was a well-crafted balance between comedy and drama, an excellent remake of an old movie. It starred a number of big-name actors who were high enough caliber to deliver compelling performances overall, and different enough to play off of one another successfully based on skills, personalities and direction. The second was such a step down it is really not even worth talking about. I went over old themes and rearranged familiar plot-lines. It was just plain bad. With that go on, I can only assume that the third in the series is relying simply on name recognition at this point - and I doubt that its producers are expecting to put in any series effort, if the Ocean's Twelve is to be a trusted predictor.

I am incredibly excited to see this amazing author get Stardust onto the big screen, but am concerned about how it will be received by the public. Yes, it has an amazing all-star cast that will bring in a huge number of viewers, and a catchy if dreamy plot about a search for fallen star. However, I wonder if the surrealism of Gaiman's work will translate well into a movie, or be understood by an uninitiated audience - especially with the comic-book-esque visual delivery. Gaiman is, if known at all, known by most as an author of books and stories. Few people know that his die-hard fans remember him most for Sandman, where he shocked the literary and comic-book worlds by bringing them together an an unprecedented fashion. For many die-hard book-readers, Sandman was their first encounter with graphic novels. Likewise, for many comic book fans Sandman was their first experience with well-developed and deeply philosophical plot-lines. So, with that in mind, I have the following advice for anyone considering seeing Gaiman's Stardust: skip the book - it isn't his best work and it might even spoil the movie for you! Instead, go back and read one of the Sandman TPB (Trade Paper Back) books that collects his earlier graphic novels into cheaper compilations. If you don't know which to get: pick up number one in the series, or get Endless Nights which tells short stories about each of the main characters. Once you have read these you will know more what to expect from the movie, and likely enjoy the experience significantly more than you would have otherwise!

The Transformers movie is destined to be a pivotal summer blockbuster, packed with the characters many of us know and love from the cartoon series and original goofy animated film as well as the somewhat darker and more tragedy-filled comics the followed. The film has taken a non-nonsense approach that shows guts: jumping right into an all-out war involving the humans rather than beating around the bush like the comics did back in the day (when most robot conflicts went unnoticed by the people of Earth). While there is doubtful to be much in the way of complex plot - as evidenced by the visually-gripping but duologue-lacking trailers - there is sure to be amazing action and special effects. As such, Steven Spielberg seems to be the best choice for the role of Executive Director. Spielberg is brilliant at turning standard blockbusters into epic and gripping thrillers. Between the creative live-action cinematography and classic iconography, this movie is sure to be a hit with fans of all kinds - from people like me who watched the series and owned the toys as a child, to anyone interested in seeing an action-packed summer movie!

The brilliance of the Die Hard movies lies in the main character John McClane, played by Bruce Willis, whose daredevil tactics and short snappy humor in the face of extreme stress keep you both in suspense and laughing throughout the film. From the very first movie he does the seemingly impossible: takes on an entire cadre of hostage-taking terrorists single-handedly. He even broken glass in the middle of a firefight with no shoes on, and yet keeps right on going. This most recent film plays on an up-to-date out-of-retirement John McClane struggling with alcoholism and other issues - a sure recipe for reintroducing his tortured character with a new set of challenges to overcome. Like a good Bond movie, Die Hard 2 was a pretty nice change of venue and characters without changing the basic premise: Bruce Willis against impossible odds, being clever and uncompromising, pushes through to save the day after a terrorist plane hijacking. Again, it's Bruce's character who carries the movie, throwing witty one-liners at the bad-guys while dripping blood and taking on impossible odds. Die Hard 3 had a few strokes of genius: bringing on "Zeus" (played by Samuel L. Jackson) for a comic counterpoint to Bruce's character, and integrating surprising tricks and turns and the best kind of magic trick: misdirection. As the plot unfolds, the nature of the game keeps changing: surprise follows surprise until you realize you've been duped from the start - as has the main character and the entire New York City police department. Probably the best scene is when Bruce has to drive a cab at high speeds through central park - creative stuff! This most recent film promises to update the character of John McClane, giving him not only new problems but pitting him against a new form of crime: internet terrorism. Hopefully this up-to-date plot premise (playing on hot topics like terrorism and the internet) have give the movie's makers plenty to work with. I except that Bruce, despite his age, will bring as much to the table with this movie as he has done with the rest, making it well worth seeing!

The new Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End movie is likely to be the second best of the series. Because the 2nd and 3rd movies in the Pirates of the Caribbean series were filmed at the same time, they 3rd is going to feel much like a direct continuation of the 2nd. So, if you liked the sequel you're sure to love this one. Even if you are somewhat skeptical of this story's second act: keep in mind that it was just setting the stage, in part, for the third and final act. Personally, I think this could be the best of the bunch. As the trailer shows, all of the big players - friends and foes - will come together in this one. While I normally don't buy into the drawn-out epics (Lord of the Rings and so on) this one has me anxiously anticipating the resolution of a number of plot points and character relationships. Best of all, the final battle is sure to be a blast! Still, since the second didn't turn out as well as the first, it is possible that this one will be a bit of a bust but at least better than the second.