Artifice, a device or expedience to trick or deceive others. Or yourself. And it does make for a pretty cool sounding title too. I’ve always had this strange fondness and fear of films that look into the psyche of the main character. I know that’s what all good films (and other story telling medias) should do. I mean when imagery and themes and other such designs are used to weave the world of fiction and reality together. Films like Jacob’s Ladder, In the Mouth of Madness and Trainspotting, even videogames like the Silent Hill franchise, all fall into that category for me. So, upon hearing the story to Artifice I got pretty excited.

Artifice follows the story of small time actor Jacob Hynes. Jacob has starred in nothing, not really. The odd play here, the extra there, nothing that really stands out. That is until he has been accepted as the lead in a new film by acclaimed, yet heavily controversial director Howard Rulin. Rulin is a very Nicholas Winding Refn like character, in that he films what he wants, how he wants and keeps everything about his films secret. He is also asking an immense amount of work from his actors. Jacob, willing to impress, starts method acting his very unconventional role and soon gets lost within the characters. Unfortunately, playing the character doesn’t stop when the cameras aren’t rolling. And reality is feeling more and more blurred by the minute.

It’s the kind of concept I can get behind. A kind of parody, in a way, of the acting methods of Daniel Day Lewis, Jared Leto, Viggo Mortenson and the late Heath Ledger. A parody told in the vein of a serious, dark psychological thriller. So, it does upset me to say that I really couldn’t get into this one. My issues with it most have something to do with the film’s tone. There is never that jarring feeling of tonal shift, it is at least constant in its tone. My issue with it is that it takes itself very seriously, trying to be as psychedelic as the likes of Jacob’s Ladder. But the story, the acting and the themes all give the impression that Artifice is intended to be a dark comedy, in the same vein as Dr Strangelove. It’s an exaggeration of well-publicised events or people, in this case method acting. But these are two separate tones that just don’t gel together. I could never tell if I was meant to laugh or be disturbed by what I was seeing or hearing. This works when the film calls for it (such as Split), but I don’t believe Artifice did.

The acting didn’t help this film much either. While it did get better towards the third act, the acting felt pretty wooden. Especially in the first act. The lead actor, before he starts to fall too far into the role, is just so unengaged and uninteresting in his performance that I couldn’t get into his character. And for the most part it’s the same with all other actors. Whenever the film within a film was not going on everyone was either downplayed or passable. This is with the exception of the actress for ‘The Queen’ and the actor for Howard. Again, come act three all the actors start engage in their performances and the film starts to become compelling. Sadly, before then the performances really do drag the film down. I do have a feeling that the underplayed nature of the performances was intentional, as a way of initially separating reality from fiction until they blend together in the end. But if that was so, then the plan had somewhat backfired for me.

The writing didn’t help out much either. I get the feeling that this film within a film was supposed to be a pretentious art project, oozing with meaning and philosophy and questions that only the audience could answer. Therefore, it makes sense that the dialogue is how it is during those scenes. I can even attribute that to Howard as a character. Howard being something of an unhinged artist and perfectionist, so there is the excuse to use such dialogue as well. What doesn’t make sense is who the dialogue throughout the film, even before the characters start filming, always feels a little of kilter and slightly pretentious. The story itself is very well paced and the blending of scenes is well thought out, but once again the tone bogs it down.

Oddly enough I also found the film making to reflect the acting. When the film starts I found the cinematography and editing to be very dull and unengaging. There was a moment where the cinematography actually felt a little homemade, when Jacob came home from his audition. But as the film continues it gets more creative, and then compels in the final act. It’s almost like the director was trying too hard to make things feel so mundane and realistic in the opening that he made the film uninteresting to look at. It is when we have the film within a film that the director really starts to show his passion for this project. And it is clearly a labour of love; this is a film that director Steven Doxey wanted to make.

So when his passion is shown it is at least fun and interesting to look at. But this does turn out to be a double-edged sword. Because of how bland the rest of the film is compared to the fantasy sections I could always tell whether we were in reality or fantasy. There are scenes that bank on the audience not knowing where they are in the film. These scenes would always fall flat because I could tell where I was. This is with the exception of the films excellent ending, that did catch me and have me wondering what had truly happened here.

Artifice finishes great, and the final act succeeds in capturing what the film had set out to do. But it’s sadly not worth an uninspired opening and an overall tonal mess. I do wish to see this story again, as I do still love the idea and the themes to be had. If Artifice was more focused on being a dark comedy or a psychological thriller then more would have worked in its favour. As it is, I am still glad I saw it but I was left mostly dissatisfied. The film has been deceived by an artifice of its own making.

I really find myself in a paradox with King Arthur. I love the story, or stories as it were. It’s full of heroism and noble righteousness, as all good medieval fantasies should be. But it also has some warped and twisted, and even sick at times, elements to it; again as all good medieval fantasies should. So, yes I do really like the Arthurian legends. But, I have not liked a single film based on the legend. Not one. I know John Boorman’s Excalibur is seen as a fantasy classic, and is a pretty loved film all in all, but I was never impressed by it. Mostly in a “not my cuppa tea” way. So, it pleases me to say that Snatch director Guy Ritchie has finally…continued that tradition of underwhelming Arthur films.

The legend of King Arthur is a rich banquet of great stories and grand ideas. So, of course it only makes sense that this film takes these qualities and throws them out of the nearest window. Yep, we have completely abandoned all the intrigue and classic legend for a much more straight forward evil uncle fable. Although this one does have elephants big enough to make Godzilla feel inadequate. So there’s that I suppose. Basically, King Uther is betrayed and killed by his evil brother Jude Law, and Arthur escapes to Londinium to be raised in a brothel. A few years later, the cockney accent develops and Arthur figures that it’s time to get “the lads” together, find his father’s magical sword and put an end to his uncle’s tyranny. And thus, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is born.

My God, what to say about this one? I didn’t expect this to be a good film. No one who saw that trailer could ever think this would be a good film. But I had no idea how bad this was going to be. I am a bit of a cinema masochist; I love watching bad films. Partly because I enjoy them, and partly because they make me appreciate good films even more. But sometimes bad films really do surprise me, like this one did. The thing is though, this was bad in ways I didn’t expect.

King Arthur doesn’t feel like a film. It feels like a two-hour long montage. Remember those training montages from the Rocky films? Well that’s what this whole film basically is. The cinematography and editing are so obnoxiously quick and chaotic that it gave me an actual headache! The beginning was fine, if a little CGI heavy. The ending was way too CGI heavy but still okay. There was just this whole chunk in the middle that was so chaotic and nonsensical that I gave up even attempting to follow what was going on.

The focus is definitely on the characters on this one. But, with the exception of the villain none of them stood out at all. And the film making actually had me either forgetting who a character was altogether, or more often than not, had me mixing them up. I remember that the film attempted to make them memorable by giving them the stupidest names; but it failed because I can’t remember their names at all. Outside of their stupidity at least. And the actors, again with the exception of the villain, are all very talented but completely wasted on this film. Charlie Hunnam as Arthur might sound like a decent choice, but I don’t think I’ve come across a more bland hero all year. He’s not bad, but he’s not good either…he’s inoffensively okay. The rest of the cast is just full of those “ooh, what’s that person been in” actors. There’s Maximus’ friend from Gladiator and Littlefinger from Game of Thrones, and ironically the woman who played Morgana in TV’s Merlin at one point. Oh, and David Beckham, lest we forget. To be fair, the only one who was bad was the lead woman. But wow she was bad! I mean Sharknado couldn’t-care-less bad!

I know, this is a Guy Ritchie film. The man has made himself a staple with his style of film making. But it really feels out of place here, and it’s just too much. It wasn’t bad in those Sherlock Holmes films, but here Ritchie could very well leave you feeling physically sick. Between the camera work, the editing and the ear-assaulting soundtrack he’s made an almost completely insufferable film. This has got to be the worst, most out of place soundtrack I have heard since The Amazing Spiderman 2. And then we have gargantuan elephants and snakes and so much more in-between all of that. I really cannot work out what anyone was thinking with this film. How did anyone look at this and think it was a finished film?

But, believe it or not, King Arthur isn’t all bad. The special effect, despite one or two noticeably bad examples, we actually surprisingly good. When the camera stays still for long enough, you can see that it is a nice looking film. The make-up is pretty spectacular too. Numerous times we see someone with a broken lip or swollen eye after a fight, and it’s completely convincing. There’s this really cool octopus monster that reminded me a little bit of Ursula from The Little Mermaid, and that was really great to see. But my biggest praise goes to Jude Law as the villain. I thought that I was going to get the big, shouting, hamming it up performance with this one. But no, Law actually plays the character extremely well. And to top that he’s well written. He’s a good and interesting character. He’s smart. And the chaotic film making calms down whenever he’s on screen. This guy could fit into Game of Thrones perfectly, and it is such a shame that such a great villain (possibly one of the best of the year) is wasted in such an awful film.

Basically, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword would make a great video-game, like God of War or something. But as a film it’s just a complete failure. It has some applaud worthy elements to it, most certainly, but they can’t save it. It is fascinatingly bad. You can find yourself pretty entertained in trying to find out what happened to make this end product. But it’s still not worth it for that. I’m glad I saw the villain. But everything else is just nausea-inducing.

In space, no one can hear you scream. That’s probably because nobody will be screaming. Not this time at least. Alien Covenant is the sixth instalment in the Alien Franchise, and the eighth Alien film in total. It also happens to be the sequel to Prometheus and a prequel to Alien. Already things are sounding pretty confusing, but roll with me here. I was really looking forward to this one. Already it sounded pretty cool. Prometheus, but with the Alien. It promised to answer questions, deliver horror and thrills in equal amount and fix Prometheus’ problems. Ridley Scott returns after wowing everyone with The Martian, and we have an all-star, talented cast. Sounds great, right?

The story to Alien Covenant is about the crew of the ship, Covenant. Its purpose is to deliver the human race to a terraformed planet lightyears away from our own. The crew of this ship must care for a, well cargo I suppose, of 2000 people and 8000 embryos destined to live on said new world. But circumstance brings the crew to a planet half way along the journey. One that seems perfect for human colonisation. But investigation proves this world to be far from a paradise, as the crew come face-to-face with an alien threat, more deadly and vicious than any ever encountered before.

What I will say about Alien Covenant is it looks great. Yes, I know it’s Ridley Scott and the man has always wowed with amazing visuals. But still give the man credit. The sets of this film and the sheer scale are amazing. The attention to detail is even more so. It’s probably the nicest looking film of the year. So, far at least. Not to mention the film has a great soundtrack. Mixing the operatic theme of Prometheus and the unnerving symphony of Alien was an oddly great mix. And, true to form for a Scott film, the acting is really good too.

Michael Fassbender, in a duel role this time, works wonders with what he has. Being both dutiful and ego-maniacal, and constantly morally ambiguous. We also have Katherine Waterston (from Fantastic Beasts) as Ripley 0.2 – I mean Daniels! She does a pretty good job too, nothing outstanding but good. Billy Crudup plays the Covenant captain, and does an equally fine job. But the stand out to me was Danny McBride, of all people. Apparently, the usually comedic actor loves this series, and it shows. He tries, and succeeds to create a great character for us to root for. The rest of the cast, including cameos from Guy Pearce and James Franco oddly enough, are again fine. There’s not much for these actors to chew on, but they all do a good job.

Sadly though, while I will call Alien Covenant a good film, I am very disappointed by it. Once again, the script isn’t that good. But that’s not really my issue with it. My issue is how messy the film is. I don’t mean gory, although it is certainly that at points, I mean how unfocussed the story is. What Alien Covenant tries to do is be Prometheus 2, and also Alien 0, and also its own thing. And when you tried to be everything, you end up as nothing. I will say that it is a better film than Prometheus. But give Prometheus this, it had structure. There was a story to tell, and it was told in three acts. Covenant has three to tell, and is told in five. It’s just a mess. A good looking and well filmed mess, but a mess. And, if you have seen Alien and Prometheus, then you have seen this film. It does nothing new, not really. Nothing was gained from this. Except a few answers as to where the alien came from.

Speaking of which, let’s talk about the thing that everyone is coming for. The alien! There’s actually two different types in this film. For those who don’t know, the official name for the Alien series monster is xenomorph (it literally means alien lifeform). This film gives us the officially named neomorph, as well as the xenomorph. The neomorphs are a very strange and not particularly interesting creature. They do bring two of the films creepier moments (including the back-bursting bit from the trailer), but are mostly just kind of silly. There is a particular moment when they attack someone, and it was laughable. When the xenomorph finally does arrive, the film is nearly over. And, while it was great seeing alien do what alien does, it was also a let-down. It’s arrival actually messes with the pacing and the climax is underwhelming because of how quick it is. I actually think that the bit everyone was looking forward to, is the bit that hurts this film the most. Alien should have been saved for another film, in my opinion.

What else is there to say? Alien Covenant let me down. It’s still good, and worth a watch. It’s better than Prometheus, and is far better than Alien Resurrection and the AVP movies. But it doesn’t reach the height of the original two, or even Alien 3. For those who read my list, I’d put this in place number 6, between Prometheus and Predators. There is a sequel on the way, I know because this film sets one up and it’s already been announced. But, this film has sobered me up I suppose. Before I would have been looking forward to it with gleeful anticipation. Now, I know I’m going to see it because I want to give it a chance, but I’m feeling very indifferent about it. I guess I now feel that we have hit the heights and are probably not going to reach them again. Maybe The Predator next year can prove me wrong. But until then, I’ll watch the first one again and wait for the DVD with this one.

Kids Might Fly is among the most natural feeling films I’ve ever experienced. The film is only six minutes long and has to tell a lot in that time, so it is a great achievement to see how well the film works as a whole in the end. Kids Might Fly doesn’t really have a plot, at least by the definition of the typical three act structure of the like of Hollywood and the typical independent film that seem to rely on it. All it is, is a telling of the lives of children in London.

What we have are characters, and their exploits within this period of time dedicated to them. And I really hesitate to use the word “characters” for them, because they felt more like actual people who I could meet on the streets, even in Yorkshire. Every single one of them was so convincing, so well written, so perfectly acted and all so charming that I was engaged after the first use of dialogue. These are people that I want to know more about, and that is helped by how they are used. Nobody outstays their welcome, and nobody is felt underused at all. It might sound like a strange comment to make, given the runtime, but in a film like this, that is of upmost importance.

Of course, placing and usage of characters does come down to the direction. Writer/director Alex Taylor clearly has a passion for this film and every moment of it pays off. Not only has he given us characters more than engaging enough to carry the film, and a big number in a short time at that, but he also makes the film look nice. East London is a fairly well known area (for better or worse), and there’s not a person in Britain who couldn’t tell you what it typically looks like. But Taylor makes the setting feel like a nice place for this community to live in. In fact, community is a major part of what makes this film work. Everything feels close and comfortable, like a home. It is the perfect set-up to tell these characters exploits. There’s feel like multiple, interesting stories all compiled into this one film. The one that stuck out to me was the girl with a great sense of imagination and creativity, telling stories about the Pig of Happiness. It felt childish, yet innocent and heart-warming. It made me want to learn more about her and about this story.

But what I can really praise Taylor for is that I never saw his hand behind the camera. There was nothing about this project of passion that felt pretentious. The lighting, the cinematography, the audio, it all felt, well natural. It was almost like a documentary, like someone had decided to film these people within this community and show it to the world. Almost like a home video of friends and family, only more expertly crafted. With the cinematography in particular I felt that everything was planned and set up with painstaking detail, but I never thought that. I only thought that they had chosen to film a girl playing a flute to her dog, or another feeding the pigs, or a group of boys talking about how they aren’t stupid enough to self-harm themselves. The character I mentioned before, the imaginative girl, is one who we never really see talk, we only hear her narration. This gives us the illusion of hearing her thoughts, which in turn gives the film a dreamlike twist to it. Especially when she is talking about the Pig of Happiness.

The word that I would use to describe this film would definitely be pleasant. It has all the charm, pleasantry and good-will as Paterson does. It makes a great case for the art of short films, proving that there are no limitations provided that you aim to work and actually make it. Kids Might Fly is strong, yet humble, and is definitely more than worth checking out. Watch it and find the story for you.