Much Ado About Nothing is a new page in the career of Joss Whedon. Whedon, doing Shakespeare, is something of a film fan's dream come true. But sometimes such "dreams come true" fall on their face.

This one does not.

This stylish reimagining of the Shakespeare comedy is as seamless and funny as any Shakespeare comedy ever put on film. Much has been made of how the movie was shot in 12 days or so at Whedon's house in between shooting and editing The Avengers. That is an interesting bit of trivia but you'd never know it from just watching the film. The haste is never in evidence in the finished product. Maybe the urgency was a blessing.

There isn't a bad thing to say about this movie. Everyone in the cast, from small roles to the leads shine. Alexis Denisof as Benedick and Amy Acker as Beatrice have such chemistry you wonder if watching this movie will make their respective spouses a little nervous. More likely the two have residual chops from their days together on Whedon's Angel.

The two are not the only Whedon alumnus in the film; Nathan Fillion of Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Firefly and Serenity, Clark Gregg of The Avengers, Reed Diamond of Dollhouse, Fran Kranz of The Cabin in the Woods and many others. In fact, most of the people in the film have had at least bit parts in Whedon movies or television shows. That is an ancillary part of the fun of this movie; you get to figure out the various actors connections to Whedon. Some are easy. Some are unrecognizable from previous roles.

The film sticks pretty close to the play. Sometimes with updated Shakespeare the modern becomes a distraction. Here it never does. Where it actually is even noticeable at all it is used by Whedon for a laugh. The characters wear suits and ties and have cocktail parties. There are tons of small sight gags and physical humor that Whedon tosses into the mix that are unique.

It is often more difficult these days to make Shakespeare as a period piece--frilly costumes and elaborate period sets are as likely to distract from a production as add to it. Even in some modernized Shakespeare trying to go elaborate with the sets works less than well. The 1995 version of Richard III, set in a Nazi Britain, leans too heavily on the imagery and props--even when some of the acting is fine.

There are no distractions from the words here.
It just all works like a charm. It is to be hoped that when Whedon is shooting The Avengers II he calls everyone over to shoot another of the Bard's comedies. How about Twelfth Night?

If you feel that you have to go see World War Z the first thing you need to do is put the idea that the film has anything to do with the book out of your head. It has nothing to do with the book. The name is the same and that is about it.

That, in and of itself, isn't an impediment to a movie being good. Plenty of adaptations of books have thrown the book out the window and done a decent job. The problem with World War Z is that it is an action movie where the action isn't terribly interesting and a horror movie that isn't particularly scary. It is even difficult to write about because it is so bland, like a slice of Wonder Bread and a glass of milk.

The film starts off with some promise. It doesn't spend a great deal of time on set up. We meet a family; dad has apparently quit a job recently working under circumstances that are dangerous. Then they are in a car in Philadelphia and shit goes crazy. Zombie-attack crazy.

These are non CGI zombies and we see people getting bit and turning and then Brad Pitt's Gerry burns rubber.  There are scenes of civic mayhem and conversations of rescue which happens shortly (as you might imagine, not without incident).

Brad Pitt and everyone else in the movie are fine but no one is given much to do. They seem to think that talking is bad and once there is any hint of any actual plot development there needs to be a large-scale CGI zombie attack.

Once on the ship the story and problems start to pile up. Gerry's family is on an aircraft carrier run by the military and UN. And he is sent out on a mission to discover the origin of the zombie plague. Basically from here he flies to Korea. Then decides to go to Jerusalem and finally to Wales. No need to refuel the plane, of course. There are, naturally, zombie attacks in all these places. It is very formulaic. Arrive in new place and then zombie attack. Hell, get on plane, zombie attack.

There is no chance in any of this to give half a shit about any of the alleged characters.

Then we come to the crux of the issue; the zombies are not scary. The CGI zombies do not move like humans. They move like a giant coordinated blob. It is far less real looking than any recent zombie video game. There is no suspense. They can pile up and go over a wall. How they manage to do it in Israel is idiotic. The Israelis are supposed to have seen the whole thing coming and yet they don't know not to have a sing along?

Next, when you find non-CGI zombies they are more comical than scary. The snap their teeth together in a motion that, presumably, indicates they want to bite you! OOhhh...scary. It is actually closer to laughable.

And with the PG 13 rating it isn't very gory (I am sure it will come out with a gorier version on DVD).

Another problem with this movie is its lack of attention to detail.  They send Gerry on an extremely important mission and give him a satellite phone. The assistant secretary of the UN doesn't seem to have a cell phone, nor does the military commander (who, oddly, appears in one scene). Who gets the other satellite phone? His wife. When he calls in with important information she has to run with the phone.  This is, of course, just an example. There is really nothing to this movie. It is all air and CGI.

More egregious is how this is obviously just a set up for sequel. Hopefully there will not be one. The resolution is sort of clever (and again has nothing to do with the book) but it isn't done particularly well. It sort of just ends and ends with a lame voice-over no less.

Man of Steel has a great deal going for it:solid cast, decent writing, a good pace and you even manage to care, just a little, about some o the characters. But somehow, while the film does manage "good" it never gets anywhere near "great."

Part of this may be "super hero movie fatigue." There is a sameness to most of these films, even the good ones. It is hard to describe but it is something everyone (who isn't a complete fanboy or fangirl) senses after repeated superhero exposure. Iron Man III is good. The Avengers was a lot better than such an ensemble film should have been (a LOT better). But there is also something anticlimactic in all of them.

Maybe it is because we know none of the main characters are ever in any real danger. There has to be a part 2, part 3 or part 4!. The comics kill off their characters with frequency (and of course bring them back with equal frequency) but at least that allows for some suspense.

But back to Man of Steel.

What are the best things about the film? Henry Cavill and Michael Shannon are both excellent as hero and villain. Cavill and company are probably the best group of actors ever brought together for any superman movie. Yes, I know, Christopher Reeves had a horrible accident and was a totally brave and admirable man. But Cavill is a better actor. There is an almost "Wolverine" side to this movie where Superman tries to hide and blend in. Cavill is good in these, all too brief scenes.

Shannon, the depth of whose character is regrettably only hinted at, is even better. The hints of the complexity of his character come from the notion that, on Krypton, everyone is genetically engineered for a duty--Shannon's Zod is the warrior-protector of the society. There could have been much more made of his conflict as a formerly "good man" but it is sort of left on the table.

This is an example of what is wrong with the movie; there is a great deal hinted at that is never fully explored. They cram a lot into the movie and they do it pretty well. This is never really boring (even if it starts a little slow). It just never rises to the level of, let's say, the Batman movies or the first two X-Men movies.

This said? With all the introductions out of the way? The way is clear for a more complex and higher end super hero film with Superman II. Let's just hope the fight scenes are a little less Transformers-like in number 2.

This all sounds a little harsher than it should. As noted, the acting and pacing are good. You will not be bored to tears but if you enter with exceptionally high expectations you may be a TAD disappointed.

Some of the actors not mentioned:Diane Lane and Amy Adams also turn in decent performances. Lane playing Martha Kent does give her character depth in this film. She is a fine actress. And while Adams isn't given much to do here, she adds something to Lois Lane. This Lois Lane can do things for herself.

Once again, hope for future Superman movies. Filmmakers need to remember that audiences do not mind movies where there is talking--provided what is being said is interesting. Explosions are cool but so is exposition.

This Is The End is a notch up on most comedies these days; it will actually cause laughter. There is a great deal in this film that will make you laugh and, simultaneously, feel embarrassed about said laughter.

This is not what could be called highbrow humor. There are far too many penis jokes for that but let's face it; penis jokes are funny. So are vomit jokes and making fun of celebrities with penis and vomit jokes.

And these are the primary topics explored in the film:Penises, vomit, celebrity, drugs, oh and the biblical "End of Days" too. That is a big part of the movie. Penises also wind up incorporated in the biblical apocalypse.

Everyone in this movie--in large or  small roles--is hilarious. No one slows down the pace, no one shies from making themselves look silly. If there is anything about the movie that could be changed it might be more footage of the reality-style video confessions or maybe more stories from the characters talking about "bad things" they have done in their lives. They might also have found a way to have a penis smoke a joint.

The basic plot of this movie is that Seth Rogen goes to the airport to pick up Jay Baruchel at the airport in Los Angeles. They then proceed to smoke weed and play video games (did I mention there are a lot of drug jokes too?). The conflict in the film first arises when Rogan says they are going to a party at James Franco's house. Baruchel doesn't want to go. He hates Hollywood. He says Franco can't even remember his name.

But they go.

And it is funny. So go see this. If you wait for video it won't be the end of the world  but it will benefit from a viewing on the big screen.

Frances Ha is a funny, quirky little indie film that is getting tons of love. It is, of course, the sort of film that usually gets such critical love; it is a black and white indie film about young artsy types in NYC.

In this case, though, the love is deserved.

For viewers in their 20s--especially those following a career in the arts--this film will have immediate resonance. Viewers who are a little older can look back on earlier years of their lives and recall analogs for these characters, or versions of them.

There are rich kids playing at being artists and writers. While we never see how these people turn out we can feel some certainty they wind upworking for the family business. There are the upwardly mobile types who only temporarily inhabit the environs of the hipster. Then there are the artists of more modest backgrounds. You can find this last type living on friend's couches in any expensive city in the USA.

Frances, the lead character played in charming fashion by Greta Gerwig, falls into the latter category. If you knew someone like Frances you would like her. You would also probably cluck your tongue about her and sometimes avoid her.

The film, co-written by Gerwig and director, Noah Baumbach, stands out for its optimism. Many indie movies about living in the city have a mean spiritedness. This one doesn't. This is a movie with real affection for its characters. There is no class warfare here, all the characters are depicted with sympathy. It is as if Woody Allen wrote and directed a film after a strange bout of contentment and happiness. And this film very much calls to mind Allen's writing and direction (probably more the latter than the former). This isn't to say the film is all about happiness and success--as much as anything it is about failures and disappointment. But the tone somehow manages to still be light an

Frances is a dancer, a choreographer, who is an understudy with a small company. She keeps getting knocked down and back in little ways--she loses roles she counted on and roommates. She seems maybe a little lonely and has more than a little difficulty connecting with people. Could it be because she seems to just say what springs to mind?

That works in some situations and it makes for squirminess in others (in life or in the movies). But, really, when it is done without malice it is a good quality in a human being. This movie highlights these good qualities. There is a tendency to run such a positive view down. Wouldn't one of her friends be venal or mean? Maybe they are and the film just chooses to not show that part of them? Or maybe most people are basically good. It is an unpopular concept of course.

There are lots of chuckles in the films but don't go in thinking you are going to find hilarity in every line. This is a slice of life film and it makes you care about the characters living these lives. You will walk out of Frances Ha in a better mood than when you sat down (unless you bought movie theater nachos).

It is to be hoped Gerwig and Baumbach collaborate again.

Now You See Me is a mediocre movie that wastes what seems like a fine cast. But isn't that often the case? A film chock full of stars just falls on its face?

You are never bored out of your skull in the film--in part because of the always watchable Jesse Eisenberg--but you are never really that interested either. None of the other actors are horrible but no one else shines. There is something off about Mark Ruffalo's performance that is difficult to place, however. But it is hard to level a finger at an actor for the film's failure or even the director. This is writing problem. It is just so cheap and lazy.

If this is a mediocre, forgettable movie, it is a really bad caper movie. The set up is lame, the execution is lame and none of it is remotely believable. A movie about magic tricks that tosses in CGI to make the tricks work?

The film's press compares it to Ocean's Eleven. It isn't even half as good as Ocean's Thirteen.  Don't worry though, if you do go to see this? You will forget it within an hour after the credits roll.

Mud is a peculiar little coming of age film. It revolves around two boys, living on the Mississippi River who find a boat up in a tree. This is, of course, irresistible to the young boys. But as soon as they move in to claim their prize they find someone is already living in their boat.

That person calls himself "Mud" and is played by Matthew McConaughey. Some are calling this the actor's finest role which may be true (putting aside his work in films such as Frailty and Lone Star). He is also surrounded by other fine actors--especially Tye Sheridan as Ellis, the young protagonist. Sheridan brings a complex young man to life--he is coming of age with girls, he is dealing with the break up of his parent's marriage and then he discover Mud. He truly shines in the role.

His best friend, Neckbone, played by Jacob Lofland is also stellar. Both seem true in their roles. You never get a whiff of "acting" in their acting. They bring these kids to life and, if anything, steal a great deal of McConaughey's thunder.

Add to these two Ray McKinnon, Michael Shannon, Sam Shepard and Reese Witherspoon and you have quite an ensemble cast. Their screen time is never wasted. They make the most of every second.

While watching Mud you are never bored, you care about the characters--even when you are not sure what to make of them. Some are sketches and the audience is left to fill in the gaps. You might feel a little unsatisfied at the film's end. You might want more out of it.

Until you think on it a little more.

We love happy endings. We accept sad endings. Sometimes were are disturbed when things end somewhere in between. Yet that is how life is most of the time. The best doesn't always happen but neither does the worst. Love may not always triumph but that doesn't mean it is utterly worthless.

Characters, major and minor, make decisions that bring consequences. Many of these choices are subtle but have devastating consequences to the character's own lives and the lives of those close to them. It is a film that is about coming of age and the relationship between boys and father figures but it is also a film about such choices and, maybe, that people are not doomed to repeat bad choices throughout their lives.

Everyone has seen Star Trek Into Darkness by now. But it seems a movie that, even well after the fact, is worth a brief note. This is how you reboot a franchise. If you haven't seen the first or the second? Then I do not feel bad about a spoiler from 2009's Star Trek.

They change the time line.

The villain travels back through time and does things that alter the Star Trek universe. Director J.J. Abrams is given a clean slate to work from. Even better he is given a clean slate with a variety of characters to revisit and re-imagine in a new way. So far Abrams is doing it right.

This film is superior to the first one, in part, because it requires a limited amount of set up. We know the universe has been changed. We know the Vulcan home world has been destroyed. The cast we know from years of Star Trek geekdom but it is great fun watching the new interpretations of these characters--especially by Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Simon Pegg (although not necessarily in that order).  Quinto's Spock and Pegg's Scotty are the real standouts. In defence of Pine, however, both Spock and Scotty have more to work with for an actor than the heroic leading man that is Captain Kirk.

Even now, after you should have seen the movie, I won't give away any twists or secrets. That is just wrong. It might even be wrong to let you know that there ARE twists and secrets but by this point you know at least that.

This movie is one to see on a big screen and in 3D. It looks great and the 3D, while not intrusive, is done well enough to add something and not just give you a headache.

One of the reasons this new version of Star Trek works is why other reboots of the series worked--the new movie embraces changed and is not over-worried with upsetting the fanatics. It worked with most of the other Star Trek series as well. The new captains were different from Kirk. In this new version Kirk himself is different because the circumstances of his life has changed. In fact, Star Trek fans have never seen Kirk this young before. We've traveled back before the advent of the series.

It is to be hoped that Star Trek doesn't fall into the trap of each movie requiring larger and larger roles for the bit players in the film, that they do not succumb to the fear of killing off characters in the movies and that they use the universe Gene Roddenberry to its fullest.

So far it is all good. Maybe Abrams can even pull the Star Wars universe out of the trash can George Lucas' last three films dumped it into.