It sounds like it's worth a talk with the manager - why is he so fond of meetings? Is there some sort of collaboration that he's trying to inspire? Does he see a problem or specific need that these meetings are trying to address?
In a perfect world, figuring out when NOT to have a meeting would be as much a manager's job as telling people to have meetings in the first place - but the fear of something being missed from the lack of a meeting usually outweighs the guilt of having useless meetings. In the end, the discussion is usually easiest to center around cost vs. value (something managers usually love).
Cost of a meeting
Is actually REALLY easy to determine:
Cost in hours = # of people X length of meeting (in hours)
(or - multiply by average labor rate, if you want dollars not hours)
As a really bare bones metric. Example - 5 people meet for 1 hour - the meeting is 5 hours of cost, or half a man-day. If it helped everyone save a day of non-productive work, it was a huge win. If it helped 1 guy save 2 hours, it was a loss.
Sometimes, for more sophisticated metrics, you may factor in prep time - like for a presentation, or a peer review.
Cost in hours = (# of people X length of meeting) + sum of prep time for each person
Note - it's usually a bad idea to take a guess on how much each person prepares. Also, the meeting type makes a difference. A presentaton is presenter-time heavy, and easy for everyone else. A peer review requires all reviewers to do a certain minimum prep work - if people all hit a good similar range, you'll have a good discussion, if not, one heavy reviewer in a sea of underacheivers will skew the value of the meeting wildly.
Benefit of the Meeting
Meetings are going to have different goals. Critical to any meeting is to actually meet the desired outcome. I have a laundry of list of types of meetings, but in general you need to figure out what the meeting is supposed to accomplish, whether the right people to accomplish it are actually there (or even invited) and then whether or not they can actually reach the goal in a reasonable amount time.
When that fails, the answer is not "more meetings" - but to fix what's actually wrong, and that usually happens outside of any meeting, because more often than not, the opinions and thoughts and perceptions of the people in the room are restricting what gets discussed and inhibits conclusions, and that won't get fixed by getting that same group together another time.
Almost every meeting needs a periodic review - some projects are short enough that killing the meeting when you finish the project is a natural way to let it expire. But standing meetings can be particularly trecherous. I'd suggest that instead of saying "when can we kill this lame meeting?" you say "how often should we assess it's effectiveness and what is the process for correcting any problems?"
Not every meeting goes away - but they should always be morphing to meet the needs of the people who attend. So while you may not kill a meeting, you may end up morphing it so much that it hardly resembles a meeting any more.
Reduce Pain, Fix problems
Lastly, it can often be easier (and more face saving for the manager) if you suggest ways to either "aggregate" meetings (how about we eliminate arbitrary presentation day, and use the first 10 minutes of the status meeting for a random deep dive into a hot topic? two meetings for the price of 1!!), or you suggest using existing meetings to fix actual problems. For example, in a development team - a meeting about keeping in sync with design work may drift into a meeting about the build process, which may drift into a meeting about hot topics in bug fix. As long as the agenda and the attendees change to fit the current needs of the team and it's solving a real problem - then who cares if it's the same day and time?
One of my most successful "status" meetings was not actually about detailed status - it was about the three managers on the team working out the big issues for the day and our manager to have a guaranteed place to make sure that hot issues got concentrated attention.