(Photo: Plan B Entertainment)

Zombies are all the pop culture rage: films, books, TV shows, games, apps and even viral video clips of enthusiasts posing as zombies. Therefore, another movie about zombies might seem like beating the undead more dead. But Marc Forster’s latest remixes, reinvents and reboots the walking dead phenomenon like audiences have never seen before — World War Z is arguably the best zombie film since 1968’s Night of the Living Dead.

Brad Pitt is retired United Nations investigator Gerry Lane, who is called upon after an outbreak of “rabies.” After one bite, the victims reanimate into blood curdling, rage-filled, hungry killers in only 10 seconds. Forget the walking dead — these zombies are the sprinting dead, clawing away at their victims with eye-popping speed. The infection spreads to every corner of the globe … zombies in Philly, zombies in Jerusalem, zombies on an airplane — even zombies in the projects of Newark! No one is safe.

Innovative and terrifying, the superb script includes unexpected (and logical) twists, memorable characters — and is even more enjoyable than Max Brooks‘ book, which was written as a collection of interviews with no narrative voice. As the lead, Mr. Pitt is a pitch-perfect blend of movie-star cool yet the relatable family man on the run. His diverse supporting cast — some who vanish as quickly as they appear — help elevate the film to a human level, escaping the trap of bland, horror movie gore.

The true star of World War Z is the director, Marc Forster. The Paramount Pictures film required imagination and originality. Forster, who directed Halle Berry in her Oscar-winning role of Monster’s Ball, found new ways to scare audiences. Just when it doesn’t feel possible, the tension increases from frame to frame. Moving forward, it’ll be a difficult task for any other zombie film to match the cinematic roar of Marc Forster’s World War Z.

World War Z is in theaters Friday, June 21.

(Photo: Warner Bros.)

Superman returns to theaters tomorrow. But this time it appears the man of steel got some life coaching from Iyanla Vanzant. Mr. Kent is contemplative, stoic and Henry Cavill’s voice is nearly in the same lower register as Christian Bale’s Batman. Clark Kent is grappling with what life truly means … he somberly wanders the Midwest, pondering the struggles of being an incredibly handsome alien with good hair, perfect pecs and a natural six pack — plus, he’s a single man in his early thirties whose impressive gifts remain on the down low. Not to mention childhood memories of being bullied, daddy issues and trying to save Earth from his native people. This is some heavy weight on the hero’s shoulders and audiences should prep themselves to soak up two hours and twenty-three minutes of a reflective Clark Kent/Kal-El (the title of Superman is only used a handful of times).

Directed by Zack Snyder, Man of Steel’s kryptonite is following The Dark Knight formula. The reboot of Mr. Kent is produced by Christopher Nolan and written by David S. Goyer — who were also behind The Dark Knight. Batman was reinvented with a darker storyline, making the flick less comic book and more of a thriller. However, at the heart of Bruce Wayne, there is a bit of a horror element, especially for a story set in cryptic Gotham City. But Clark Kent/Superman/Kal-El is an All-American hero who doesn’t have a similar dark side similar to the Caped Crusader.  Superman is the granddaddy of all superheros and storyline we already know.  Therefore, Snyder, Nolan and Goyer’s epic rehashing of every molecule of Kryoton’s last son was exhausting. The film tumbles and crumbles with 90 minutes or so of tiresome back-story and, eventually, typical summer movie CGI’d action scenes.

Like most films based on comics, can the action save the day? While visually stunning, how many times can we see New York City suffer the blows of good and evil? Buildings fall, New Yorkers run for their lives, the battle travels from Lower Manhattan to Times Square to Grand Central and you can always predict who will be victorious. Loud, huge and explosive, even the action was anti-climactic.

Appropriately cast, Man of Steel actually works when Superman isn’t on screen — the supporting characters stayed true to their roots versus the star. Lois Lane is still the nosy reporter, played enjoyably by Amy Adams — plus, her boss at the Daily Planet is the great Laurence Fishburne. The villains are ferociously entertaining. Clark’s adoptive mother (Diane Lane) and father (Kevin Costner) are fitting, but the clinically depressed Superman fails to engage, which is no fault of Henry Cavill. He clearly delivered what Snyder and the creators of Man of Steel wanted.

On another note, Superman is not the patriotic hero in the 1978 version by Richard Donner, which some might find disappointing. But I was less concerned about patriotism and more focused on a solid film. Even without comparing Man of Steel to the original, the film struggles, never finding the balance of action and the “deep” storyline.

Man of Steel is not a terrible film. With editing, less exposition and a bit more fun, the film could’ve been a critical and box office success. Nonetheless, even with all of the obvious flaws this does not mean Man of Steel will not break box office records faster than a speeding bullet — sorry, I couldn’t resist!  The fan base is there, even if the story isn’t.

Man of Steel is in theaters tomorrow.

(Photo: Courtesy CINDIGM Pictures)

Summary: A documentary about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda and how it’s affecting the country’s citizens — straight and gay.

Review: If there is one documentary to see, it’s Call Me Kuchu, directed by Katherine Fairfax Wright and Malika Zouhali-Worrall, the movie deserves every ounce of its critical acclaim. The bold film tells the horrific story of a country being torn apart by homophobia. Chronicling over a year in Uganda, LGBT individuals are harassed demonized, murdered and accused of being terrorists — as are LGBT allies. White preachers from the west are encouraging anti-gay laws to be Uganda’s platform — not poverty, not HIV rates, not corruption in the government — but gays.

The well-publicized Anti-Homosexuality Bill includes: requiring teachers, parents and doctors to report LGBT children, banning landlords from providing lodging to LGBT individuals, putting anyone perceived to be homosexual at risk of incarceration, banning LGBT people (or people who are believed to be LGBT) who are HIV-positive from receiving treatment and more. Call Me Kuchu exquisitely puts a human face to those who are affected by the laws and hate, including David Kato — an LGBT activist who was violently murdered in his home.

Call Me Kuchu is not just a doc with only Uganda’s LGBT community speaking out. The other side of the debate is presented from preachers, lawmakers and citizens. Even though their perspective is disturbingly hateful, putting a face to the homophobes was paramount to understanding the country’s prejudices. For example, the managing editor of Ugandan paper Rolling Stone beams with joy when he talks about the 100 pictures printed in the newspaper of people who were allegedly gay. “I think Ugandans are interested in looking at pictures of homosexuals,” he said with a laugh. Even when David Kato was murdered, the editor was just as cheery, reconciling that gays get what they deserve.

In addition, the film breaks down the beginnings of Uganda’s anti-gay laws from white preachers from America who introduced the bill to the country’s roots of colonization — quickly debunking the myth that homosexuality is “un-African” and magically imported from Europe.

Call Me Kuchu wonderfully highlights the resiliency of Uganda’s LGBT people and their allies.  These are not sad, ruined people who are giving up on equal rights — they are fighting to death. The movie is simultaneously difficult to watch and a must-see. Many people think homophobia solely affects the LGBT community, but the Cinedigm film proves hate permeates and manifests beyond its bounds.  The flick implores us to turn the mirrors on ourselves and question the injustices we are upholding.

Call Me Kuchu opens in theaters in New York City on Friday, June 14 and Los Angeles on Friday, June 21.

(Photo: BH Productions)

Summary: For one day out of the year, the “new founding fathers” started the “purge,” an annual event where citizens commit crimes with no consequences from the law. James Sandin (Ethan Hawke) is a successful business man who built security systems to protect homes for the annual purge. However, he is not as protected as he believes when his family attempts to help a man running for his life.

Review: In theory, The Purge is an excellent concept for a film. In 2022, unemployment is at 1% percent, crime is nonexistent and it’s all due to the success of purging, which allows testy Americans to release their inner killer once a year. Written and directed by James DeMonaco, the movie includes interesting commentary on politics, race and class — only the rich can afford to protect themselves from the annual purge, which lasts twelve hours.  A central character is a homeless Black man (we never learn his name) played by Edwin Hodge, who is on the run from “purgers.”  Race and class are never explicitly stated in The Purge, but it’s the one angle that prevents the flick from being a total dud: white versus Black, poor versus rich, etc.  The moments leading up to the purge are interesting, but when the “beast” is finally released, the movie loses its entertainment value.

The Purge purges every trite home invasion scenario. There is the horny teen, the illogical child who nearly kills off the entire family with dumb decisions, the damsel-in-distress wife and the daddy who might save the day. About half way through, you realize there is nothing special about The Purge. But similar to the interesting beginning, The Purge delivers a satisfactory — but unoriginal— ending.

The flick constantly teeters between good and below average.  The scares are so obtrusive and random you become desensitized.  That said, audiences will enjoy The Purge more than critics. We’re suckers for screeching villains, big explosions and victims getting their gory revenge.

The Purge is in theaters now.

(Photo: Paramount Pictures)

Summary: In J.J. Abrams’ second Star Trek installment, the Enterprise crew are hunting  down a traitor in their own group who has massive plans to destroy Earth and beyond.

Review: J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek Into Darkness is a nearly perfect appetizer for the upcoming summer blockbuster season. The Paramount film doesn’t take itself too seriously yet still delivers wit thanks to Zachary Quinto with his superb performance as Spock. All of the ingredients are there: likable characters, standard but enjoyable storyline, funny one-liners and full-blown action. The movie safely does its job and is easily the first must-see action flick of the year.

Surprisingly, it’s not the action that makes Star Trek a hit, it’s the undeniable charm from the legendary characters brought together by a magnetic cast. Whether it’s the realistic relationships between Caption Kirk and his one night stands or Spock and his boo, Uhura, it’s the chemistry of the actors that makes the trite not too painful. Yes, every action scene is predictable and sometimes the script feels a bit soap-opera-in-space, but viewers will enjoy how each character arrives from one point to another.

The relatable tone of the Kirk, Spock and Uhura rise above the camp of the original and iconic series. The younger and fresher version of Star Trek will satisfy trekkies yet you don’t have to be a Star Trek guru to follow. But one major element Star Trek brought to the reboot is diversity. The series was known for breaking the color barrier on television. On the big screen, mostly everyone is represented, unlike many action films we see today. 

Into Darkness is another blockbuster success for Abrams and team. Clocking in a little over two hours, the film is not flawless, but the pros definitely outweigh the cos.

Star Trek Into Darkness is in theaters now.

(Photo: Universal Pictures)

Summary: Directed by Joseph Kosinski, Oblivion takes place in a post-apocalyptic New York City (It’s always New York isn’t it — can’t we ever get a post-apocalyptic Midwest?). Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) and his sexy, red-headed partner are attempting to control the remains of an alien invasion who destroyed the moons 60 years before, which caused devastation to the planet. But, as always, things are not what they seem. Who is the real enemy? The aliens? Jack Harper? Maybe it’s the self-imploding script.

Tom Cruise is arguably one of the greatest action stars Hollywood ever created. Minority Report, Mission: Impossible, War of the Worlds — even the films that suffer a beating by critics still perform well at the box office. Audiences can depend on Cruise for the adrenaline rush of his own stunts and the high-octane drama of beating the enemy. Oblivion is easily low on the list of Cruise’s action greats, but the film is still a thrill ride — even with a muddy storyline bogged down with anticlimactic plot twists.

First, the look of Oblivion is spectacular. The high-budget special effects paid off, which weren’t overstuffed with video game-ish CGI. Most action films today resemble a Playstation game versus a movie. The eye-popping flick is visually exquisite and you’ll never whisper to the person next to you, “That looks so fake!” However, Oblivion is fairly standard. The flick does its job but obviously Kosinski was going for the impact of The Matrix, Avatar or Mission: Impossible.

Oblivion misses the mark with a confusing, uneventful and eventually disappointing storyline. Talk of drones, scavengers and clones are tiresome — and trying to decipher the film’s ludicrous plot holes is pointless. Applying more and more logic to Oblivion only results in a less enjoyable film. Even though the movie wants to be a “deep” action flick, you’ll enjoy it more the less you think about logic. The Universal Pictures movie will more than likely earn solid numbers at the box office, but will probably disappear into celluloid oblivion in less than a month — but that doesn’t mean Cruise’s latest action effort isn’t a fun ride.

Oblivion is in theaters now.

(Photo: Sony Pictures)

Summary: A remake of the 1981 cult classic. Five twenty somethings (and a dog) — with no common sense — are trapped in a cabin in the woods.  An evil (and dead!) spirit with a love for profanity is hellbent on killing them all.  But of course one person must survive — blah, blah, blah…

Review: The Evil Dead is a cult classic.  But unlike The Texas Chainsaw Massacare (1974) 0r Poltergeist (1982), the horror film doesn’t stand the test of celluloid time.  Sami Raimi’s’81 version toed the line of camp with bad acting, awful special effects and ludicrous characters.  But the indie flick was in on the joke — the same can’t be said for the 2013 version.  Evil Dead (without “the”) is continuing the tradition of sucking the cinematic life out of iconic franchises.

With a cast of unknowns, the Fede Alvarez-directed film is offensively bland with cartoon-ish gore, simpleton characters and the worst of horror film clichés: tripping in the woods, stupidly entering creepy basements, brunettes possessed by evil and the lone Black character meeting their maker sooner than everyone else. The flick includes random throwbacks to the original, but Evil Dead stands alone as its own terrible film — it’s demonic possession meets torture porn.

As someone who appreciates the horror genre, making a good horror film is no easy task.  Audiences are immune to scares, therefore, the film needs a solid plot and characters you root for — someone a few rows behind me shouted, “Kill ‘em off already!”   It’s not enough to slap CGI blood on screen with screaming pretty people in crisis.  There is actually a craft to making a solid horror movie, redundant plots and inexcusable predictability equal another trite disaster.  The worst moment: A cursing demon who spat: “Kiss me you dirty c***!” and “Come down here so I can suck your c***, pretty boy!” The lines gave the audiences more giggles than creeps.

The plot, score, special effects and cinematography were all deadpan. As for the unknown actors — well, you’ve got to start somewhere. In one bloody scene, the leading lady cried, “It was so horrible! It was so horrible!” Girl, I know how you feel — that’s exactly what I said when the credits rolled.

Evil Dead is in theaters today.

(Photo: Emergency Films)

Summary: Jordan Turner (Halle Berry) is a veteran 911 dispatcher.  After hearing a brutal murder, she becomes emotionally involved with a teenager who is kidnapped and is determined to save the girl.

Review: The Call is not a cinematic masterpiece, but formulaic thrillers never are — the most important, after years of indie flicks and flops, Halle returned to number one at the box office, proving the Oscar winner still can deliver a crowd pleaser.

Directed by Brad Anderson, the film maintains suspense, keeps the viewer excited and includes clever plot twists that are interesting enough for the genre. The Call is a movie you want to see in theaters with an animated audience who comment on everything from Halle’s “I’m Your Baby Tonight” Whitney Houston wig to Abigail Breslin’s fighting-for-her-life character to Morris Chestnut still maintaining his sexy at 44. No, The Call won’t be a film we’ll remember five years or even a year from now, but the popcorn flick isn’t meant to rock the souls of viewers, it’s meant to entertain.

Clearly not set out to bring strong performances, but Halle Berry, Abigail Breslin and Morris Chestnut were surprisingly realistic, which helped redeem the flick that could’ve easily got lost down cheese-ball lane. These are character you are routing for and up until the weak ending, The Call keeps you on the thrill ride.

Due to an abduance of clichés, the last 15 minutes nearly ruin the film: walking in dark basements, thinking the villain is dead when he isn’t it and the overzealous hero.  It appeared the writer and director weren’t sure what to do with the characters so they sloppily tied the plot together with a girl-power message. Nonetheless, the ride of The Call is so worth it.

The Call is on DVD June 25.

(Photo: Warner Bros Pictures)

Summary: A family of sort-of-kind-of witches settle in South Carolina so their teenage girl can transition into “light” or “dark” on her 16th birthday.  But a boy comes along and the two fall in love, which is a n0-no in witch land. Their fate is at risk because teenage love and witchcraft don’t mix.

Review: Teen love fantasy flicks are all the rage. From Twilight to Hunger Games, these movies pull at the heartstrings of young girls and annoy the eyeballs of everyone else outside of the demographic. That said, the first Twilight and last year’s Hunger Games were somewhat enjoyable. Twilight was an accidental phenomenon and Hunger Games‘ commentary on media, fame and class was surprisingly interesting. Based on the book by the same name, Beautiful Creatures clearly wants to be the next teen franchise epic, which makes the Richard LaGravenese-directed film calculated and terribly predictable.

Beautiful Creatures is not the fault of the actors (although the majority of the southern accents are embarrassing) or the cartoon-like special effects, it’s a terrible screenplay that is a toxic mix of Beetlejuice and Mean Girls. From the yawnfest build up to laughable one-liners — “Love is a risk for anybody!” — even if you lower your standards to teen-dream melodrama (similar to Twilight), Beautiful Creatures is far from spellbinding.

The only saving grace is the female lead, Lena (Alice Englert), is not the powerless damsel in distress like Bella Swan from Twilight. She is not giving up her soul for Ethan (Alden Ehrenreich). The message of independence is a bit more palatable. Unfortunately, the film and the actors’ bland chemistry need movie-making magic to create the next Edward and Bella. Of course fans might balk at the Twilight and Beautiful Creatures comparisons, but it’s impossible to not notice the goal for a cash cow.

Acting giants Jeremy Irons, Viola Davis and Emma Thompson give Beautiful Creatures some thespian creditability. Nonetheless, even this trio of screen perfection can’t save a calculated, snooze-inducing and unoriginal heap of film-making. Don’t be surprised if the film doesn’t resonate with its target demographic.

Beautiful Creatures is in theaters today.

(Photo: Universal Pictures)

Summary: Sandy Bigelow Patterson (Jason Bateman) hunts down a crafty criminal (Melissa McCarthy) who steals his identity.  The two form an implausible bond.

Review: Melissa McCarthy is a refreshing “It” girl in Hollywood. She is talented, attractive, but not the norm for Tinsletown. However, the Oscar nominee’s shining star is not immune to a bad movie — which is exactly the result in the annoyingly ludicrous Identity Thief.  As most road trip comedies go, McCarthy and Bateman fight, love, fight again and reconcile with eye-rolling clichés.

An audience must suspend disbelief in most comedies, but Identity Thief was wildly illogical — ruining the film’s handful of chuckles. Directed by Seth Gordon and written by Craig Mazin, it’s one of those films where you scratch your head and whisper to the person next to you, “This doesn’t make any sense. Why don’t they just …” fill in the blank.  For example, McCarthy’s thievery crosses state lines — she resides in Florida and Bateman is in Colorado.  Law enforcement (one being the always smooth Morris Chestnut as Detective Riley) cannot pursue her, so Bateman volunteers to go to Florida (leaving his pregnant wife and two kids behind) to abduct McCarthy with handcuffs and bring her back to Colorado where she’ll magically be inspired to confess.

Why not call the credit card company?  Hire a lawyer?  How would abducting someone across state lines be possible or legal? Oh! And Bateman only has one week to complete the impossible task or his boss will fire him for his deteriorating credit rating (he works in the financial industry and somehow he wasn’t intelligent enough to not give his social security number over the phone to McCarthy, who was fishing for victims).  This is just one example of an unfunny jumble of absurdities.

McCarthy stumbles along with stereotypical big girl shenanigans: loud, eating, hyper-sexual and can’t find a man. Bateman plays his usual — all American family man who is shaken up by an edgy sidekick. While the two work well on-screen, the awful script guts out the comedy. T.I. and Morris Chestnut have disposable roles.

A scoop of one-liners, McCarthy’s likability and the polished comedy chops of Jason Bateman cannot save Identity Thief.  Hollywood is in a comedy recession; making a laughable comedy is as hard as making a scary horror movie.

Identity Thief is in theaters now.