“Kill List” is as ridiculous as it is dull; it is as poorly made as they come. This movie is very unlikely to impress many people but it is very strange and very awkward.

Jay (Neil Maskell) and Gal (Michael Smiley “The World’s End”) are two hitmen that accept a new job. They are tasked with killing three individuals: a priest, a librarian and a MP. The job starts off like any other job but soon things becoming increasingly complicated. The final act comes with a big twist that will likely disappoint any viewers that were enjoying the film up until that point.

The characters in “Kill List” are absolutely terrible. Jay is arguably the worst hitman I’ve ever seen in a movie as he completely fails to keep a low profile. His mistakes include making a disgruntled phone call about not wanting to draw attention to himself while in earshot of a hotel reception desk and he even has a massive rant at a group of Christians in a restaurant. Gal is very boring. The two have virtually no chemistry. The dialog in the movie is terrible and the acting sometimes makes it difficult to even hear what the actors are saying.

“Kill List” is a very slow movie as we spend a painful amount of time before Jay and Gal even embark on their mission. The scenes where they take out their targets are unnecessarily bloody and then comes the third act, which is the most exciting act and contains an intriguing twist but it fails to improve the characters or anything like that. This is a movie that is so unconventional that it will only appeal to a fringe market but I think that the film is so technically bad (bad acting, bad cinematography etc… ) that pretty much everybody is going to be left alienated by this movie.

“Kill Command” is a sci-fi film about killer robots. The action sequences are only moderately entertaining and what the movie has to say about the future of warfare is not especially profound. It feels like a cross between “Screamers”, “I, Robot” and “Predator” with perhaps a little bit of “Short Circuit” throw in.

Set in the near future, we see the United States military is increasingly relying on technology. A team of soldiers, who are facing redundancy due to the increased use of robots, are sent to a remote island training facility for an exercise. They find themselves up against high-tech robots that are programmed to learn and adapt. It’s a deadly battle between man and machine.

The characters in “Kill Command” are not very memorable and that is one of the big problems that I have with this film. We spend a lot of time with a small cast of characters yet none of them really grab our attention. There’s a cyborg among them, which creates some friction. However, this sort-of thing was handled much better in “Aliens”, “RoboCop”, “Ghost In The Shell” and in the “Star Trek: The Next Generation” tv series. Some of the killer robots look quite impressive but I wish there was a greater variety of machines on the loose.

It’s not a bad movie by any means but it’s not really worth the effort. The big shootouts with the soldiers versus the machines should have been a lot more enjoyable than they were. The special effects are fairly good but are unlikely to wow you. I would have also preferred it have they had jettisoned all the philosophical dialog because frequently grinds the film to a halt. If you want a better killer robot movie then try the “Terminator” films, “Westworld” or “Chopping Mall” instead.

I loved the first “Kill Bill” because it wasn’t about getting from A to B, it was about style and “Kill Bill Vol. 2” has everything a sequel to “Kill Bill Vol. 1” needed, except for the style. It lacks the quality that made the first film work successfully as both a genuine action film and a satire of one.

In “Kill Bill Vol. 2”, the ‘Bride’ (Uma Thurman “Batman & Robin”) is back to kill the assassins that left her and an unborn child for dead several years earlier. The first film was all action and not much story, this one is the other way around.

The Bride character is still strong and the new level of depth given to her as she is developed is definitely interesting. Unfortunately, it feels all unnecessary as I liked the fact we did not know much about her in the first one. The most exciting character here is Bill, who is played by David Carradine (“Death Race 2000”) really well. I like the cameo by Samuel L. Jackson (“Die Hard With A Vengeance”). It’s surprising that the characters in the first film are more memorable despite having less dialog than the ones here; actions speak louder than words.

“Kill Bill Vol. 2” is one of the weaker films directed by Quentin Tarantino (“Reservoir Dogs”, “Django Unchained”) and that is a shame because usually he’s a very good guy to have in charge of your movie. The problem is “Kill Bill Vol. 2” serves as means to fill in the blanks left by the first film but that sadly means the cheesy feel of the original is somewhat missing. Sure, some of the fights are pretty good, the training montage is kind of funny and the dialog is entertaining but for me this just didn’t work on the same level. Maybe if you see this one first then you’ll like it but seeing it the way I did, it’s underwhelming.

“Kill Bill Vol. 1” works in the same way that “Starship Troopers” does in that it is serves as both a satire and a ‘real’ movie. It is so far my favourite film by director/writer Quentin Tarantino (“Pulp Fiction”, “Reservoir Dogs”), who has finally nailed the dialog so it flows flawlessly.

In “Kill Bill Vol. 1”, the ‘Bride’ (Uma Thurman “Batman & Robin”) is seeking revenge after she was left for dead on her wedding day whilst expecting by the Deadly Viper Squad and Bill (David Carradine “Death Race 2000”). It features some of the most incredibly choreographed fight sequences as well as some of the funniest ones too.

Uma Thurman is definitely good as the Bride, a character so tough that she could probably put Rambo and Harry Callahan in the hospital. The character is driven by basic revenge and she is written so that she is both funny like any action movie protagonist should be. She even gets the tracksuit from the Bruce Lee film “Game of Death”. The villains are good and I especially like the one played Lucy Liu (“Charlie’s Angels”). The real credit though has to go to the seemingly endless supply of goons in this film, who lose limb after limb during their encounters with the Bride. I’m also a fan of the animation during a particular sequence that seems straight out of a Japanese cartoon yet also a satire of one with the most over the top gore.

After seeing this masterpiece, I immediately went in search of “Kill Bill Vol. 2” so expect a review of that soon. People always say Tarantino is one of the best directors around and I’ve always felt his films were close to being classics but just missed out but the first “Kill Bill” definitely fits the term. It’s so funny and so darn right incredible that you simply can’t help but fall in love with it from the first frame.

“Kiki’s Delivery Service” is a wonderful little film from Hayao Miyazaki (“My Neighbour Totoro”, “Howl’s Moving Castle”). It certainly isn’t a particularly ambitious animated picture but it has a great deal of personality and a lot of heart.

Kiki is a witch and has just turned 13 so she leaves home with her talking pet cat to begin her witch training. She enters a busy city and ends up working in a bakery as well as starting a delivery service on the side. It’s a pleasant experience that feels genuinely refreshing as it doesn’t feature a villain or anything like that; this is just a charming little film about a witch girl and it’s great.

I was very fond of Kiki and you feel genuinely sad for her when she loses her powers. I’ve think the young girls in all of Miyazaki’s movies are very easy to like. The talking cat is rather amusing but it cannot compete with the Cat Bus from “My Neighbour Totoro”. The other characters in the film are all pretty decent but the focus of the film really is on Kiki as it’s her personal journey to becoming a witch with her own delivering business.

I’m sure young girls will love “Kiki’s Delivery Service” as much as many of the Disney films such as “Sleeping Beauty”, “The Little Mermaid” and “Alice In Wonderland” because this truly is a delightful experience. If, like me, you’re not a young girl, I think you will still be sucked in by the gentle nature and good fun of this film. We need more films, both animated and live-action, like “Kiki’s Delivery Service”. While this film is truly impressive, what is more impressive is that Miyazaki has done multiple films that no only equal this one but surpass it such as “Spirited Away” and “Princess Mononoke”.

I have a feeling scripts were lying on shelves until studios rang filmmakers to tell them “We’ll make your film but only if it can have Elvis Presley in it” as the movies starring Elvis Presley (“G.I. Blues”, “Blue Hawaii”) are terrible and only offer Elvis instead of story, characters and anything else a movie requires. “Kid Galahad” with Elvis is a remake of a 1937 film with the same name.

This time, Elvis stars as Walter Gulick, who has just left the army. For money he decides to take up boxing, which is where he gets the name ‘Kid Galahad’. Gulick doesn’t block or move so he gets hit a lot but he can take his opponents out with one hit. A gambler wishes to use Galahad as his pawn to make a load of money.

Elvis is a great singer so the singing bits are good. His acting skills are on par with Arnold Schwarzenegger (“Commando”) as he makes everything so amusing to listen to. I don’t think Elvis had any boxing skills as the fights in this are clearly faked and seem to be unlike any boxing match I’ve ever witnessed. Charles Bronson (“Death Wish”) is sort of good in it but his character lacks any depth or interestingness just like everyone else.

The fight scenes are hideously choreographed and very poorly filmed. They nowhere near the level of the ones featured in films such as the “Rocky” franchise. Everything else is done badly as well but it does at least have some comedic value and I’m sure Elvis fans will enjoy the music despite it not being among his best work. I wish Elvis had done a few films where he’d done something like him being an astronaut or being a tough police officer as those could have worked from a comedic point of view.

I don’t might seeing young children die in movies, any more than I do seeing adults die as a human being is a human being and we are equal so age shouldn’t be a factor but when I see a young child use bad language and murder people, then I have problems. “Kick-Ass” is a movie with violence that is too dark to be funny and it lacks the dignity to justify it.

In “Kick-Ass”, a comic book nerd named Dave (Aaron Taylor-Johnson “The Illusionist”) decides to become a real superhero in the form of Kick-Ass. He soon teams up with fellow superheroes Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage “Face/Off”, “Con Air”) and Hit Girl (Chloë Grace Moretz “Hugo”) in order to take on a crime boss.

The idea of a real superhero is a novel concept but “Kick-Ass” doesn’t do it in a clever way but it sure as hell does it in a brutal way. I guess the Big Daddy character is actually quite funny and Nicolas Cage plays it very well but his sidekick Hit Girl is horrible. She is a girl round the age of 10 and she’s doing the most mature stuff, innocence has been lost; this is not the kid in “Home Alone”.

“Kick-Ass” has a few moments where it works and the initial concept is good but as it goes on, it delves into the disturbing and depressing realms of violence. How is it funny where the hero is tied up and being punched repeatedly with knuckle-dusters and receives blows from baseball bats? Plenty of other films get violence to work because you care either because you feel emotionally involved or you think it’s hilarious. If this was “Monty Python” or a cartoon, they’d get the tone right but a live-action film like this is unsettling.

“K-9” is apparently a police comedy but I certainly didn’t find it to be funny. The film feels like a cheap by-product of the time that is simply trying to make money instead of trying to entertain like it should be doing.

In “K-9”, we get a basic story that seems to rip-off “Beverly Hills Cop” as police officer Dooley (James Belushi “Red Heat”) tries to stop wealthy businessman Lyman (Kevin Tighe “Another 48hrs”), who is actually a drug lord. In order to catch this crafty criminal Dooley gets help from a police dog named Jerry Lee but the two don’t exactly get along.

I don’t find anything about the character Dooley or the performance from James Belushi amusing in the slightest. He also doesn’t seem very good at playing a police officer as he lacks the charisma of Eddie Murphy (“Beverly Hills Cop”), Arnold Schwarzenegger (“Kindergarten Cop”) and Clint Eastwood (“Dirty Harry”). The dog isn’t funny. The chemistry between the two is awful as Dooley talks to Jerry Lee as if he were a human instead of an animal, which just makes the film stupid. The bad guys are standard. The other characters feel very formula driven and none of them will leave an impression.

“K-9” is a woefully unfunny comedy film and it barely resembles a police film. The pairing of a police officer with a dog isn’t really a good idea in my books but I expected it to be done better. The film feels very unoriginal as it blatantly steals from a variety of police films but the problem is it doesn’t do anything better than we’ve seen it before. It’s not funny, the police aspect isn’t thrilling, the idea of a cop and a dog working together isn’t really very good and all-round it feels slapdash. “K-9” is a movie that should not just be skipped but ignored entirely.

Proving that “Wonder Woman” was not just a fluke, DC finally gives us a “Justice League” film and it’s worth checking out. It’s nothing revolutionary but it is entertaining.

In “Justice League”, the entire world is threatened by the arrival of Steppenwolf (voiced by Ciarán Hinds “Silence”). Batman (Ben Affleck “Gone Girl”) decides he must unite the world’s superheroes if they are to defeat this new foe. With the help of Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot “Fast Five”), he recruits the Flash (Ezra Miller “Trainwreck”), Aquaman (Jason Momoa “Bullet To The Head”), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and of course, Superman (Henry Cavill “Man Of Steel”).

I really did not like the decision to cast Ben Affleck as Batman but I think he is a little better in this one than he was in “Batman v Superman”. Gal Gadot is great as Wonder Woman and she is easily the best character in the movie. Ezra Miller is fine as the Flash. Jason Momoa is enjoyable as Aquaman. I did not particularly care for the version of Superman in “Man of Steel” but I thought he was okay in this film because this movie is a lot more light-hearted than the last few DC movies. I was not interested in seeing Cyborg in a “Justice League” film and I think it would have been better to have had Green Lantern in the movie. Steppenwolf is a decent villain.

“Justice League” is no classic but it delivers a very enjoyable superhero flick where you see various heroes team up to do battle against the forces of evil. It’s not as good as “Wonder Woman” but it is still so much better than “Batman v Superman” and “Suicide Squad”. I think this film got the tone just right because I think “Man Of Steel” took itself way too seriously. I hope future DC movies will remember that they are making a superhero movie and not be trying to make Shakespeare. I’m not saying dark superheroes movies cannot work (“The Crow” and “V For Vendetta” are both fantastic) but they can go drastically wrong.

Pauly Shore (“Bio-Dome”, “Son In Law”) stars in “Jury Duty”, it’s allegedly a comedy but the case could credibly be made that some diseases are funnier. The film begins with the abominable sight of Shore dancing in a strip club so your expectations are lowered within a matter of seconds.

Tommy Collins (Shore) is a jobless slacker that gets a notice to serve jury duty. He is initially resistant to the idea but he then realises that a lengthy trial means that he will get bed and board for free. Assigned to a murder trial, he is determined to drag the case out for as long as he possibly can.

Pauly Shore is beyond irritating. He’s belongs in the same group as Adam Sandler (“Big Daddy”) as he is consistently awful. There is nothing funny about seeing Pauly Shore strip for cash (and we are ‘treated’ to this experience twice) nor is there anything funny about seeing him in drag. The other jurors are played by some famous faces including Tia Carrere (“True Lies”), Stanley Tucci (“The Terminal”) and Brian Doyle-Murray (“Groundhog Day”) and all of them must have been wanting to hang their agents upon discovering they had been secured roles alongside Shore.

“Jury Duty” is merely more evidence that Pauly Shore is not funny. The movie might well be about a murder trial but the only person getting away with murder is Pauly Shore. Those last few sentences that I have just written are funnier than at least 95% of the gags in “Jury Duty”. The acting is weak, the jokes are terrible and the premise is depressingly stupid yet apparently there is audience for these sort-of films. I imagine the people that liked “Jury Duty” are the same people that have been funding the careers of Adam Sandler, David Spade (“Joe Dirt”) and Rob Schneider (“The Animal”).