"CATCH YOU FUCKERS AT A BAD TIME?"

Alien: Romulus

The first part of ALIEN: ROMULUS, after the prologue and as we’re being introduced to the characters and their situation, is about as transportive as I can ever expect from a sci-fi movie. The look and sound are stunning, and the sense of being thrown into a world that actually exists somewhere is overwhelming. Rain (Cailee Spaeny, PRISCILLA) and her brother Andy (David Jonsson) live on the mining colony Jackson’s Star. It’s a place that gets literally no sunlight, it’s crowded and dirty, and many of the workers (including their parents) die from some futuristic equivalent of black lung.

Today’s a big day, though – the day she thinks she can get a travel pass to sunny Yvago. Well, sorry, they tell her. The quotas have changed, she owes Weyland-Yutani more hours, another 5-6 years, approximately. Tough luck, kid. That’s Jackson’s Star for you.

Director Fede Alvarez (EVIL DEAD) absolutely goes to town with the ALIEN universe future tech – 1979 screen graphics, glitchy analog TV screens, chunky Commodore style keyboards. The booth Rain goes to to get her pass is the coolest and realest mundane sci-fi thing I’ve seen in ages. Life here is a symphony of voices distorted through radios, intercoms, mini-monitors. This all comes from what Scott and Cameron created, but it feels like an extension, not a copy, as if the camera from ALIEN pulled way back and tilted way over to show us what’s going on in a totally different part of the same universe. The systemic cruelty here is both in the spirit of the original films and our current impression of how it works here on earth circa 2024, so it feels very true.

Some of Rain’s friends have a plan, though. Her boyfriend Tyler (Archie Renaux, MORBIUS), Tyler’s sister Kay (Isabel Merced, SICARIO: DAY OF THE SOLDADO), their cousin Bjorn (Spike Fearn, THE BATMAN) and his cool girlfriend Navarro (Aileen Wu) have access to a small mining ship called Corbelan, and its scanners have detected an abandoned, decommissioned ship orbiting the colony. It has working cryo pods on it, which they could use to make the 9 year journey to Yvago. She’s hesitant, but they need Andy, and she doesn’t want him to go without her.

The reason they need Andy is that he’s a synthetic, a robot. He “can read MU/THR,” meaning he can plug into and access the computers R2-D2 style, and you need something like that even just to open the doors. (You need an app for everything these days.) He’s an old model, in danger of being put out to pasture, acts twitchy and timid. But Rain considers him her brother, because her dad “found him in the garbage” according to Bjorn, fixed him up, programmed him to always do what’s best for Rain. (She seems uncomfortable with that.)

They also need Navarro, since she’s the pilot. They were willing to go without Rain, but she seems like the calm and sensible one who comes up with plans when shit goes bad. Tyler and Bjorn know how to get the pods, Kay seems to be along for the ride. She reveals to Rain that she’s pregnant, and though she’s kept it from her brother I wonder how much that has to do with the urgency to go through with this plan. She wants to have a kid, so she wants to live in a place that doesn’t suck.

One of my favorite little moments in ROMULUS is when one of those boys shows off by lighting a cigarette during the brief period when the ship jerks into space (I think Navarro calls it “the pull” or something like that). It causes the flames from his lighter to stretch about a foot high, and the cigarette to burn through in seconds. This goofing around shows how experienced and casual they are at this stuff compared to “space virgins” Rain and Andy, but also it’s just one of those details that shows you people are living normal lives outside of the needs of the plot. They have things they do for fun, for laughs. They have a lifestyle.

This really is an incredible looking movie. The stormy atmosphere of the colony, the floodlights bleeding through fog, the awe-inspiring ring of debris that surrounds it, threatening to devour the derelict outpost in 36 hours. Alvarez claims he tried to do everything practically first before redoing or enhancing with digital effects, so there are more giant sets, miniature models and animatronics (even a little stop motion) than most movies these days. But for the most part I wasn’t cognizant of the techniques – it just seems real. That’s not make-or-break for me, but it’s something I appreciate considering how much a beautiful and one-of-a-kind movie like ALIEN 3 can be held back by the compositing of the running xenomorph puppet looking so fake.

It goes without saying that there is gonna be one or more alien creature in space to make you scream, whether or not anyone can hear it. Alvarez chooses the ol’ “there’s a lab here and they were experimenting on something” set up, which I gather might be similar to the beloved video game Alien: Isolation. Even if not, there is definitely a video game feel to some of this, the Myst type where there was something that happened here that they piece together through clues and recordings. I’m glad they don’t spend too much time on that.

(Side thought: It occurred to me that this might appeal to COVID conspiracy kooks and anti-vaxxers, if they’re paying attention. First of all, a deadly contagion escapes from a lab. Second, the company offers a quickly concocted shot it says will protect from it, but it’s actually a way to experiment on people. Our hero convinces Kay not to risk taking it, because she’s pregnant, but later she takes it anyway, with disastrous results. I hope this is just a case of the conspiracies being inspired by the same sci-fi tropes as the sci-fi.)

I think ROMULUS could use more Alvarez brutality, but I enjoy what’s there. You don’t just get knocked down in your ship, you manage to bump your chin on each rung of a ladder as you fall. There are some great chestburstings and things but I notice that they cut away quickly, almost like they had trouble with the MPAA, though I doubt that’s the case. The best gore moment has got to be a guy watching his fingers dissolve to the bone from acid blood. He kinda deserved it for ramming a cattle prod into the vaginal xenomorph cocoon. That was a scene where I really felt like Alvarez was finding a new angle on old material.

The most interesting character drama involves Andy. Bjorn is, in Rain’s words, “being such a dick” to him because his parents were killed by a toon. I mean a synthetic. It sounds corny for a second but it’s effective because his parents died when a robot allowed three miners to die in order to save twelve. So it’s not only playing off of Isaac Asimov’s 3 Laws of Robotics, and our fears of cold calculations without empathy, but also the times in Ridley Scott’s films when humans made harsh decisions to leave people to die to enforce a quarantine. In ALIEN it was the hero, Ripley, in PROMETHEUS it was sort of a bad guy, Charlize Theron’s Vickers. And of course it comes up again in a gutwrenching scene when only Andy has the ability to open a door to save Kay, but he refuses because it would let the xenomorph out. If it was Ripley refusing they’d all yell at each other and she’d insist she was doing the right thing, but because it’s Andy he stands there emotionlessly as Rain and Tyler drop to their knees and beg him, to no avail, and it seems even harsher.

After that I thought it was time to get rid of Andy. Tyler implies the same in a scene where he teaches Rain to use a pulse rifle. For practice why don’t you aim it at – oh, I don’t know, let’s say Andy’s head. But Rain is smarter than me. She knows she needs him and also that she can change him. When they use him sort of like a disc drive to get information out of a more advanced model he basically gets firmware upgrades that improve his abilities but turn him into a company man. Suddenly he cares more about his job than his family. But he doesn’t have to be that way forever.

I’m glad Alvarez didn’t give these youths a bunch of made up space-slang or too many wisecracks, that can take you out of a movie like this. The only line that felt too current to me was when Rain calls Andy’s corny jokes “dad jokes.” But I suppose if Stephen Stills’ accordion survived until the 2093 of PROMETHEUS and people still made references to the 1970s TV show Ironside in the 2381 of ALIEN RESURRECTION then maybe the recent phenomenon of referring to bad jokes as dad jokes will stick through 2142.

This is the first ALIEN movie about a group of young people. Why? Maybe because Alvarez comes from the horror tradition, making his bones with EVIL DEAD and DON’T BREATHE. In the broad strokes ROMULUS is actually very similar to DON’T BREATHE. Its protagonists are more innocent, but they’re similar in that they live in a miserable capitalism-ravaged hellscape, out of desperation attempt a crime that they think will allow them to leave for a better (and sunnier!) place, but they don’t count on the dangerous monster up to weird shit in the place they break into. There are also direct connections through the pregnant character and the setpiece about sneaking quietly, trying not to be detected by a blind foe (we learn that facehuggers sense people through body temperature, so instead of don’t breathe it’s don’t sweat).

Come to think of it there’s a little EVIL DEAD also, because they come to this place where something bad happened in the past, and accidentally let the evil thing out. Plugging in a robot to hear what happened sort of takes the place of playing the tapes of ancient chants.

I think there’s also meaning and timeliness in the choice of characters. This is a generation that has been served up a shit sandwich of a life, not as much by the previous generations as by the corporation that pretty much seems to decide how humans are gonna live. The protagonists explicitly say they don’t want to end up like their parents, spending their whole lives mining for Weyland-Yutani, and they decide to try to find a better way to live. It’s easy to understand that as the corporations and others who control us fail to do anything about climate catastrophe, gun massacres, and soul-less Wall Street fuckfaces smooshing our culture into slimy piles of tax write-offs and a.i. vomit. If we could just steal some pods and go somewhere better we would definitely consider it.

On the other hand Spaeny is only four years younger than Sigourney Weaver was when she did ALIEN, so what am I even talking about?

Like every ALIEN movie after ALIENS, this is a movie I think is really great that I also have some misgivings about. One of them you’ve probly heard about, because it’s been very controversial. I’m marking it as a SPOILER because I saw people posting about it before the movie was even released, thankfully I didn’t get the specifics but I got an implication and I’m afraid that yes, intentionally interfering with a sacred religious activity like me seeing a new ALIEN movie fresh does make you an asshole, a chump and a weasel, even if you did it because you’re on a courageous crusade against the 20th Century Fox corporation for allowing Fede Alvarez to do a thing that you and I didn’t like in a movie.

The thing they did involves the character Science Officer Rook, voiced by Daniel Betts (FURY, ALLIED). He’s the torn off torso of a synthetic who they find in the outpost, they get information out of him and he becomes the villainous embodiment of the company’s priorities. Unfortunately Alvarez chose to give this character the appearance of Ian Holm when he played Ash in ALIEN.

An article in Entertainment Weekly says “The creation of Rook was achieved through a combination of animatronics built to resemble Holm and actor Daniel Betts performing his lines.” I don’t buy that that’s exactly right. My guess while watching it was that they built an animatronic and then added deep fake Ian Holm eyes and mouth over it. At any rate it doesn’t look natural. It bothers me because there’s not a reason to believe androids in this universe have to look the same. Andy doesn’t look like Ash. I don’t mind gimmicks, but this one distracts more than it adds.

That’s not why it’s controversial though. There’s a school of thought that’s very passionately represented on Film Twitter, including some very good critics who I respect, who have a sort of superstitious zealotry about likenesses of the dead. In this case, according to the EW article, Alvarez and producer Ridley Scott wanted to use Holm’s likeness because they thought Ash was a great character who was never brought back in any of the sequels. Alvarez worked closely with Holm’s widow and family to make sure they were happy with it and they supposedly thought it was a good tribute and acknowledgment of his importance to ALIEN.

I’d probly want my family to be happy (and get paid) if I was Ian Holm (and dead), but I’ve seen people saying it doesn’t matter if an estate says it’s okay, it’s still “ghoulish” (that’s the adjective used 100% of the time). I do understand it as a hardline stance, because I don’t want a world where it’s common to animate actors who had no say in it. But I’m not entirely convinced that’s something that would happen outside of gimmicks like this. What is the danger in this specific case? It does not look like a real person, it’s not even a real person in the story, it’s not going to make people believe that Holm was involved in the movie. So to me this kind of outrage about it, people calling it unethical, believing it is actually their moral imperative to not let people be surprised by it, it seems very silly.

But I agree it wasn’t worth looking wrong and pissing people off for an idea that doesn’t even make that much sense. In the article Alvarez says, “I can’t wait for the fans to lose their minds at seeing one of their favorite faces from the original.” That they did!

For me it broke the spell of a movie that had up to that point completely swept over me. Only then did I start to feel like it was becoming too much of a remix of things we’d seen before. Fortunately, I love Alvarez’s setpiece chops, he establishes all these dangers (attacking xenomorphs, zero gravity swirl of acid blood, broken elevator, space station on the brink of destruction), and before you know it he’s juggling them behind his back and under his leg. It’s thrilling. I just disagree with him that it’s good or even okay to throw in obvious references to the other ALIEN movies. Specifically, a character repeats a beloved one-liner from a previous movie in the series. The joke is that he says it in a different way, and there must’ve been some part that I didn’t pick up on setting up why he would say it, but I still think it’s below the ALIEN movies to pull that shit. Excluding the VS. PREDATORs, you’ve got four movies each by really great directors with their own visions. Then you have two prequels by Ridley Scott that defy expectations in their own ways. I believe the first two films are literally perfect. The flaws and mistakes of the rest are made in pursuit of something pure. Reaching and exploring, not looking back. That’s what I want in an ALIEN movie.

Others may disagree. The line I’m complaining about went over really well in my crowded IMAX screening.

I think ROMULUS is a gorgeous rendering of the ALIEN universe, and I don’t consider it a rehash – it shows us some new types of places and people and doesn’t follow the same structure. But I do have some apprehension that it doesn’t give us something new enough. It’s trying to fit onto the timeline, it’s trying to connect, it’s not trying to be reborn. Every previous sequel or prequel, less so COVENANT but even that one, did something truly crazy. And that was special. I was elated in the last stretch here when it started to introduce weird new imagery – a pod with glowing yellow goo inside, clawed footprints in ash, a strange new hybrid. And when we glimpsed the guy, this time, there were gasps across the theater. That’s more valuable than applause. But when I realized his face was that of an engineer from PROMETHEUS…

I don’t hate it. I love that movie, and that face, and I see how they set it up. I get it. But that’s sort of the problem. I want something I don’t get. I want something I’ve never seen or thought of before. I don’t want the same ingredients mixed up in a different order. This is a good movie. If it had some wilder, newer flavors it would be great.

Alvarez wrote ROMULUS with his usual co-writer Rodo Sayagues. He’d already worked with production designer Naaman Marshall on DON’T BREATHE and costume designer Carlos Rosario on DON’T BREATHE and THE GIRL IN THE SPIDER’S WEB. But he’s got a new director of photography (Galo Olivares, GRETEL AND HANSEL) and editor (Jake Roberts, HELL OR HIGH WATER). His brilliant EVIL DEAD d.p. Pedro Luque came along as second unit director. I like the score by Benjamin Wallfisch (A CURE FOR WELLNESS), which at first sounds like Goldsmith but starts layering in eerie space odyssey choirs and then fritzes out into synthesized electro stabs and weird electronic rhythms.

If ALIEN 3 and PROMETHEUS are any indication, time will reveal the true measure of ROMULUS. If on further viewings our complaints about certain choices melt into acceptance, and other things start to poke out from beneath the surface and capture our imagination, it will be worthy of the series. Until then it’s at least pretty damn cool. Either way, I’m itching to see it again.

This entry was posted on Monday, August 19th, 2024 at 7:32 am and is filed under Reviews, Horror, Science Fiction and Space Shit. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

58 Responses to “Alien: Romulus”

  1. Great review, Vern. Yeah the “necromancy” of using Holm’s likeness wasn’t what I found so onerous about that character, it’s the way he hijacked the movie to send the kids on exposition-laden missions. The secret at the core of the space station was…nostalgia. The black goo from Prometheus. The alien life cycle. The company’s priorities. It was all demystified immediately after he showed up. I think some energy came back into the movie in the final stretch but from that character’s frequent inclusion I felt such a supreme lack of confidence from the filmmakers. They used to call these things “Easter eggs” but now they’re entire sections of the film.

  2. The Ian Holm deepfake took me right out of it too. Both because callback and because it’s the worst faceswap I’ve seen in a major movie. There’s one shot where his *teeth* warp along with his lips.

    ROMULUS has a solid premise and a promising story undermined by all the callbacks and references. It’s okay to let things stand on their own!

    Vern, I don’t think you missed anything re. Andy’s one liner. I knew about it going into the viewing and there was no setup for it that I could find.

  3. When I walked out of the theater, I was okay with it. None of my friends loved it, but we were all more or less on the same boat with it being at least 55% good. But the longer I thought about it, the less I liked it.

    Now I sadly spent too much time on the weekend spreading negativity about it, so let’s start with the things I liked:

    – It’s competently made. I never LOVED a Fede Alvarez movie, but I have to say that he is a good director on a technical level and this surprisingly cheap movie, looks as great as any of the other entries. And I loved the shot of the dead alien hanging on the ceiling of the lab.
    – I was absolutely ready to hate Andy, because how he was played like the mentally challenged guest character who the child protagonist in a 80s/90s sitcom befriends in a very special episode, really felt like a bad choice. But then he got the upgrade and suddenly he not just became the best character (admittedly an easy task), it instantly put the actor on my watchlist! I’m still not on board with his acting choice for the “broken” version of the character, but it felt like he was played by two different actors! Not everybody can pull that off in the same movie!
    – Despite my dislike for a certain “Hey, remember that?” tendency that the movie had, I loved the moment when the pregnant woman has to hide from the newly hatched Xenomorph, because there was no way in hell that this was not inspired by the ALIEN: ISOLATION game and including something like that was actually a nice touch IMO.
    – It’s surprising that nobody called the movie “woke” (in a demeaning way), considering that it’s about a group of young people trying to find a better life instead of being forced to work as paid slaves in a society that doesn’t want to hand them better cards. Don’t think any of the ALIENs ever had such a timely angle and I appreciate it.

    But…

    – It is sadly also a timely movie in the way it treats the audience as idiots and feeds them save shit, because “Hey, I recognize that from another thing!” is always a good cheap pop. I’m okay with small easter eggs, like when the protagonist wears the same shoes as Ripley, but at some point the stuff got so overwhelming, that around the midpoint I just knew that the movie would end with “This is _____, last survivor of the ______, signing off”. What I didn’t know was that they would go so far and remake the ending of RESURRECTION, with a fucked up birth scene of an Alien hybrid that gets sucked into outer space. Although no, wait, that was totally original, because it was also a mash up with the finale of part 1, re-enactment of “Ripley hides in her space suit” scene included.
    – I don’t really have a moral objection to the use of computer animated archive footage, but I also can’t find a reason why the android had to be THAT model, if it wasn’t even the same one as in part 1.
    – The bad timing of the coolest setpiece. Ever since we caught glimpses of the floating acid scene in the trailer, I was excited for it! But then it happened so late in the movie, that it was really clear that she would survive unharmed, because there was no way in hell the the movie would continue with the defective robot and the injured, pregnant woman as the protagonists.
    – The characters. I mean, by horror movie standards they were almost likeable. And not every ALIEN movie had interesting side characters. But apart from Andy I think they were also played by typical, bland looking youngsters who struggle to make their thin characters interesting.
    – The movie really wasn’t subtle with its foreshadowing. As soon as we learned why that one asshole hates droids, it was obvious that Andy would have to do the same thing. And then he did it twice, once by holding a door open, once by keeping it shut.
    – Unless there is a huge theme that I missed, I have no idea what was the point of the space station having two halves. Did they come up with the ROMULUS title first, then had to write a half-assed explanation into the script? (“The movie takes place on a space station named Romulus. Who was the brother of Remus. So name one half this and one half that.”)
    – And it’s a bit odd how the poster spoils the first death.

    In conclusion, I think the main problem really is its director. Like I said, I think Alvarez is good on a technical level, but he is also a bit of an anonymous journeyman. I mean, can anybody say what “A Fede Alvarez movie” is, outside of good looking and R-rated? It’s a huge step down from a series, where even when a sequel was boycotted by its own studio, you can still feel the fingerprints of its director all over it. I love part 4 and Ridley’s last two outings, but accept that they have huge flaws on a script level. But it doesn’t matter, because he and Jeunet directed the hell out of them! It really needed someone more stylish or seasoned. Someone who isn’t just a workmanlike b-movie director, even if he is indeed talented. But so is Ron Howard too!

    Seriously, this movie really does the bare minimum of what we expect from an ALIEN sequel and it’s baffling to me, how everybody goes gaga over it. Really gives me DIE HARD 4.0 flashbacks.

    PS: Just when I thought “Hey, at least Alvarez didn’t put any right wing shit into the movie, like in the TEXAS CHAINSAW one that he wrote”, Vern brings up the anti-vax theory.

  4. Overall, I did like it. Especially the Andy stuff, really great performance there. David Jonsson is so good, we’re probably going to have to endure twitter campaigns to recast him as Kang in the MCU soon (moot point now but still).

    As far as Rook goes… I think there’s missed opportunity there. Just have the face damaged by acid blood so there’s only a synthetic skull leering out at us, yet speaking calmly in that perfectly proper British voice. That could have been THE standout visual for this movie that sets it apart.

    As it is, a great theater experience, but nothing pushing into the uncomfortable or weird to make it stand out, or draw people back to it in a few years. If someone makes another fan-callback-type movie like this in 20 years from now, what scene or visual from this movie would they even call back to? (Maybe the acid dripping vulva sack?)

    I thought form the trailer that the setup looked like sci-fi version of DON’T BREATH. But hey, it works here.

  5. The spoiler-free explanation for Andy’s one-liner is that he’s using a word Bjorn used on him a few times earlier in the film. Was filled with civic pride when my fellow audience members greeted it with an even laugh/groan split.

    I love the Alien series, including Isolation, but I felt this one was limited by the imagination of its predecessors whereas the others looked outward for inspiration and broke new ground. What worked best for me here was the sense of entire lives crushed under capitalism, and the Rain/Andy relationship. (David Jonsson is the MVP here, in the same way Michael Fassbender elevated Prometheus and Covenant.) Pretty much every other element of the film has been done before and better, so I’m not sure why I’d watch this one in particular on any given night. But it’ll probably grow on me.

    Someone on Twitter suggested that instead of Ian Holm’s “likeness” they could have had that character be an evil Andy. Maybe they can re-deep-fake him for the BluRay.

  6. At the risk of going overboard, I’m gonna join the chorus and say Dear Lord, what in the hell were they thinking? The callbacks…the callbacks…the damned callbacks. None of them helped. A few were nice touches – the drinking bird, bagging on the cornbread–a few were harmless, but most of them were like a needle screeching across a vinyl record. “Busy little creatures,” “Get away from her you bitch,” the Alien3-style xenomorph getting up and close and personal with Cailee Spaeny…”last survivor of the Nostromo I mean Corbelan signing off.” And the reeking horror of digitally manipulating Ian Holm’s face for absolutely no reason whatsoever…seriously, why did that have to be Ash? It served no purpose other than “just because we can.”

    Man. I wanted to like this movie. And there’s quite a bit to like. But why on earth couldn’t they have restrained themselves?

  7. While I think I personally rank this one dead last in term of Alien films (or second to last above AVP2 if we include vs Predators) at the moment I still liked it more than I didn’t, and I am still thinking about things I liked a day later so it could be one that grows on me. I will definitely see it again when it is available for home viewings.

  8. BTW, remember when they teased a few months ago a scene that was so horrifying, that when Alvarez showed a rough cut to his cast, they all had to look away? What was it? I can only imagine the acid fingers, but I don’t think that pushed any limits. (Although I appreciate its inclusion. For a movie series about monsters who bleed acid, there have been surprisingly few acid related deaths so far.)

  9. @CJ Holden

    At a guess, I think it was the “breastfeeding” shot near the end of the movie, the one seen so far away and from such an odd angle that it was hard to make out what was actually happening.

    Given the setup with the gooey breast milk and the baby having a sucking mouth-tongue, I assume they were setting up a more gruesome version of that shot and either cut it or didnt film it.

  10. On the whole, this movie was a net positive for me. I think, in the entire franchise, this is the movie that came closest to feeling like the original without being the original. The tone and atmosphere felt very connected and synchronous.

    I personally find the original to be maybe the greatest film ever made, but if not, it’s very near the top. It doesn’t “feel” like I’m watching a movie. I feel like I’m there on the Nostromo with a tugboat crew trying to survive a mission they were not equipped to handle. I like Aliens, but I just don’t find it as timeless as Alien. Aliens feels very much like a product of the 80s to me.

    Romulus FELT like an Alien movie, and I can’t really been able to say that for a vast majority of the franchise. I WANT to like Prometheus-I saw it in 3D Imax, own two copies of it, and have watched it more times than I can count because, when I see others defending it I think maybe I’m being unfair, then I go watch it again and the moment the crew of the Prometheus begins waking up and…speaking, I remember why I’m so critical of it.

    My main issues with Romulus are mostly what everyone else has said. Literally no need to for Rook to be Ash 2.0. Completely yanked my ass right out of the suspension of disbelief. I also feel like they sort of overdid it with the sheer quantity of the facehuggers and xenomorphs. Making the baby resemble a Prometheus engineer was also completely unnecessary. Could have taken the opportunity to do something completely unique and new.

    There were some things I really enjoyed, however. The acid death was pretty fresh and interesting. Rain and Andy disengaging the gravity controls and having to kill the xenos, then float around their acid blood was pretty cool and tense. I thought the characters were all fine-to-good. Andy was great.

    Among the “franchises that can’t let go” (Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, Alien, Predator, to name a few), I think Romulus is one of the better quality modern installments (up there with Prey).

  11. Lost in the debate of Ian Holm’s resurrection (my take: I hate that stuff) is the really interesting interaction he has with Andy. He sort of implies that not only is Andy an earlier model, but in fact one of the original models. So when Weyland-Yutani started making synthetic people, they started with Black people. I think he says something about how grateful he is to be in the presence of someone who gave so much to the company, something like that.

    There was a lot of intriguing racial stuff involving Andy, the idea that he “speaks the language” to operate the ship, but they won’t let him come with them in the end, and that he should be grateful to boost the others. I thought it was really rich stuff, and David Jonsson gave a delicately layered performance. I really like this guy — if anyone has Hulu, he’s very charming in a romantic lead in the adorable British romcom “Rye Lane” from a couple years back. Here, it’s funny — early on, his character frequently adopts this furrowed brow look, as if to say, I’m confused and not sure of what is happening. Once he gets the “upgrade”, he adopts a version of the same look, but instead it reads as, YOU GUYS have no idea what you’re doing.

    So of course, by Act Three, he’s just a prop. I agree with most everything in this review, but the chopped-and-screwed-remix in Act Three really lost me.

  12. I felt that Andy should have been the sole survivor. The first act was doing some pretty interesting stuff with the concept of loyalty – the humans are loyal to the Company because they have to be, are loyal to each other because they ant to be, and Andy is loyal to Rain because he was built that way. But unlike the humans he doesn’t seem to suffer over it.

    That all got mudlded by the last act, but I keep thinking about a THE GRADUATE–style edning where i’ts just Andy, sitting alone on the ship, a blank look on his face as he has to finally define his own existence. Would be a real gut punch of an ending if the one character to win true freedom might not be capable of taking advantage of it.

    If it not clear, I thought he was the standout character of the movie and he deserved more payoff than getting kicked around and put into a cryopod.

  13. Great review Vern, I had a similar experience. I liked it but that made the issues I had with it that much more frustrating. I am curios to see how I will respond on a rewatch.

  14. I think I must be the ideal audience member for this movie. I think that ALIEN & ALIENS are amazing, fantastic movies, but I don’t watch them yearly or anything like that. It’s been several years since I’ve seen either. So, things like the Reeboks she wore amused me because I didn’t realize they were the same exact shoes Ripley wore. I’ve never seen 3 or 4 and am okay with that. I saw PROMETHEUS and didn’t like it. I didn’t hate it, but I didn’t think it was good. So I never saw it’s sequel. All that taken into account, I loved this one. I thought it was a lot of fun. I was immediately sucked into the beauty of how it looked. Speaking of, Vern, I think the kid called it the suck when they were going up.

    I know it’s not perfect, but I liked it. I didn’t know that Ian Holm was dead until after the movie, so his appearance didn’t bother me until then and it was just to say, “Huh, I don’t know how I feel about that.” I also didn’t know about that line coming, and I don’t think there was anything to lead up to it, so when it happened I reacted with delighted laughter. I think if I’d seen it on paper I would’ve said, no, don’t do that. But in the moment I reacted like a toddler, clapping my hands and laughing. For clarification, this is my natural reaction when I am surprised with delight – it’s just a single slap of the hands together, not extended clapping. I don’t want you all to think I’m one of those applauders.

    ***SPOILERS*** At the end after they escape and you know it’s not over because she injected herself, even though you know it’s not over, I still felt like maybe it didn’t need another huge action scene. It was a bit of fatigue, a bit of not wanting anyone else to die, but then the scene was super awesome, so I got over it. The he first appeared crouching in the hallway I said, “Oh fuck” out loud. So creepy. But when the guy started turning into an engineer I did think, “No, please let’s not get into all of that shit again!” Luckily that’s as far as it went down that path.

    One thing I was confused about – why did they have to leave Andy behind? I missed why they said it because I was too busy trying to figure out if it was news to Rain or if she knew all along and if I was supposed to have known. And yes, Jonsson was phenomenal. I also second the RYE LANE is good.

  15. After stuff like DON’T BREATHE 1 and 2 I noticed how Fede Alvarez likes to create these godless universes populated by characters that exist in a gray area between right and wrong and good and evil, where there is no true North on the moral compass. So he seemed like a perfect fit for the ALIEN franchise, a nihilistic series where the banal evil of the Weyland-Yutani corporation tries to profit off the “perfect organism,” which is the deadliest creature in the galaxy, the living embodiment of the cold cruelty of both outer space and capitalism, pitch black and dripping wet. But I actually think ROMULUS has probably his clearest sense of morality onscreen. (Offscreen, with the CGI deepfake stuff, is another matter.) My issue with the last couple Ridley Scott ALIENs is that they are very thematically interesting, but not very fun or exciting to watch. This one has almost the opposite problem. Though I do like how it refutes the myth of Romulus and Remus– the brother who killed his sibling to found Rome– and has Rain embrace her brother in the end instead of leaving him behind.

    I agree that the film is visually spectacular (I caught it in IMAX and it looked great). Spaeny and Jonsson were both very good. I didn’t think it was too nostalgia-heavy– some echoes of past movies and a couple quotes, but not as egregious as other recent studio films, and it still works if you’re a newbie or casual fan. The script could’ve used another polish, and I also had trouble making out some of the dialogue from those characters with thicker accents, so if stuff like the “bitch” line was set up better, I missed it. I was surprised that not only did they not ignore PROMETHEUS, but embraced it with some of the bigger swings in the story.

    Was tickled to see Phil Tippett’s studio in the credits. Apparently they did some stop-motion on the lab rat footage.

  16. Maggie, they said the planet where they wanted to go wasn’t Wayland/Yutani territory, so androids weren’t allowed there. They didn’t say why though, so fingers crossed we won’t get a prequel that focuses on a needless backstory for this.

  17. Count me in with the “I like it despite its problems” camp.

    I wasn’t bothered by Rook being Ian Holm (I get why others are) but i was bothered by the Deep Fake quality of it. Using a beat up prosthetic like Lance in Alien3 would have been just fine, would’ve justified it being Holm and would add to the creepy factor. As it is, it looks fake and took me out.

    (And honestly I was genuinely shocked it wasn’t either Fassbender or Lance, as thats what I was anticipating and never even once thought of Holm)

    If this was a straight up genre flick like Pitch Black or Underwater, with no ties to Alien, we’d be singing its praises. (I stopped watching trailers a few years ago due to being surprised when I see movies, and to have more time to smoke in the parking lot so that Zero G acid blood sequence was DOPE to me!)

    And yeah, seeing the Alien world inhabited with people on a planet was great in the opening. I think there are more people in that opening scene than the combined casts of the first 4 flicks.

    I enjoyed it more than the previous Scott films (beautiful flicks with interesting ideas but truly dumb characters repeatedly making bad and/or inexplicable choices that take me out more than fake Ian Holm) and will watch it again in IMAX if i can.

    And my money is on the birthing scene being the One that grossed out cast and crew because it had that effect on me)

    And as always when Alien or Predator flicks come out, feel free to check out AVP: Annihilocalypse my combination cut of the AVP films. Less Humans. More Wu Tang. Barely an hour!

    https://vimeo.com/218215651

  18. CJ Holden: I read an interview with Isabela Merced who said that the horrifying scene that no one could watch involved her character, Kay. Since I watched the newest Hallmark instead of going to the theater Saturday night (“A Costa Rican Wedding”, in case anyone cares, which I doubt Vern will review), I have no idea what she’s talking about.

  19. Meh, I enjoyed this just fine, but am less enthusiastic than you. Considering how much time Alvarez has spent studying Scott’s visual contribution to the first one, I wish he’d paid a bit more attention to Hill and Giler’s contribution to the script of said movie, as Romulus could really have benifited from a Hawksian approach to the characterizations. Also, this has been a franchise greatly benifiting from filmmakers with a strong vision, unafraid to go in new directions. It’s a bit hard, then, to be all that interested in a new movie more concerned with emulating what has come before.

    The top tier films in this franchise are the first three. Bottom tier AVP:Requiem and Covenant. Middle tier: Ressurection, AVP, Prometheus and now Romulus. Coming home from the theatre, I had a strange urge to revisit AVP, and among the middle tier it’s probably the one I like the most after this revisit.

    I’ll also use this opportunity to let you know that I think you’ve been slacking on the Seagological front. It’s now been six years since Attrition, a movie crying out for a thorough structural comparison to On Deadly Ground. And someone recently gifted me Seagal’s novel “The Way of the Shadow Wolves – The Deep State and the Hijacking of America”. I’m only a few chapters in, but Bill Jack has already been referenced, as has the Fast and the Furious-franchise. The novel seems to be made up of roughly 1/3 vintage Seagal-awesomeness, 1/3 vintage Seagal-eccentricness, and 1/3 not-vintage Seagal right-wing lunacy. Highly enjoyable read so far. How I wish this was a major movie with Seagal in the lead.

  20. I am hoping that this movie becomes popular enough that Rain gets like 3-4 movies of her crazy adventures with aliens that all take place between Ripley’s first and second adventure with aliens.

  21. I’m a little tired of their being just one big bad corporation here. I mean is it explained why in the second movie during the debrief scene, none of the execs have ever heard of the Aliens if they were secretly growing them in a lab that whole time?

    Like the whole meaning of why they send the Sulaco out there is kind of pointless if they already know what they’re going to find.

    If you’re going to play the “remember this” game, you shouldn’t have to be selective about what you were to remember.

    Of course this could all be fixed if you just introduced a Burger King to W/Y’s McDonalds.

  22. Hurtado, furthermore, why wouldn’t they even try to recover that serum and just let it get destroyed together with the Romulus/Remus station? If some kids from the planet below were able to both locate and enter the station, there surely would’ve been some Weyland/Yutani workers available to at least try to get there. It’s not like that company would be above sacrificing their employees and I can imagine there would at least be some skilled military or police force down there, to protect their property. So why not put a few of them on a spaceship, which apparently is very easy to get on that planet and everybody is able to freely leave the planet whenever they want without being hassled for take-off clearance. If nobody plays around with the cooling system, they wouldn’t even wake the facehuggers up!

  23. Having worked for some large companies, it’s not a very hard sell for me to believe that one part of Weyland-Yutani doesn’t know what some other part is doing.

    That said, if they know where the aliens are (which stands to reason since they rerouted the Nostromo there), I don’t know why they didn’t just go back there instead of that deep space fishing exploration but what do I know?

  24. This one’s…shrug. In terms of filmmaking and overall story, it’s alright, but the characters are so flat that it’s difficult to give a shit about them. I liked the robot, but only after he got upgraded. Prior to that, I felt he was perilously close to disobeying Robert Downey Jr’s advice about going full R-word. Everybody else was just shrill and hysterical and uninteresting in basically the same way.

    I also spent an inordinate amount of the movie wondering how a girl with no British accent had a brother with one, even though they both grew up in space.

    Count me on Team Ghoulish. Not Ash looked fake and distracting every second he was onscreen. An real unforced error.

  25. I’ve long since given up on the idea that the Alien franchise will be fresh or exciting again. But I’m glad that they finally realized that we all want the now retro-futuristic 70s aesthetic instead of the sleek look of Prometheus.

  26. I feel like an old man yelling at clouds over this complaint, but it made me nuts the way they accelerated the xenomorph’s lifecycle in this movie. There’s like 10, MAYBE 15 minutes of narrative time between the pilot being implanted by the facehugger and a chestburster popping out. Given the aggressive countdown timer set into motion after the ship hits the station, there can’t be more than 15 minutes of narrative time between the chestburster’s arrival and it’s evolution into full-size warrior alien. Don’t even get me started on the MAX 2 minutes between infant and 8 foot weirdo monster dude.

    I recognize that this is me being real REAL fussy, but it’s just so dumb and it took me out of things.

  27. The Cleaner (totally missed your post), then I guess the scene in question was the birth scene, but honestly, even that one was pretty tame, unless there is a more fucked up version somewhere on the cutting room floor.

  28. I haven’t seen this one yet, so I don’t have an opinion. But every damn time the ALIEN franchise gets mentioned here I get flashbacks from the PROMETHEUS debate back in the stone age. Please remind me to just state my opinion and then leave, this time.

  29. ducki3x – A friend was complaining about the same thing, which I think is fair. But the main thing he didn’t like was that they used imperial units of measurement, which to him is an absolute no-no for science fiction. I don’t get it, but hey!

  30. Dreadguacamole – hahaha I was surprised to see fahrenheit instead of celcius when the facehuggers were warming up, but that one’s not a hill I die on

  31. I liked it I think a little more than most here, even though it’s a very flawed movie.

    It’s basically split into two halves, isn’t it? The first hour is procedural, methodical, grounded, with a focus on troubleshooting and building suspense. Then… it turns into an over-the-top, silly space adventure that just drops any pretense of even pretending to make sense and tries way too hard to recapture both ALIEN and ALIENS (and to a much lesser extent, PROMETHEUS, for some reason).
    I mean… it’s not just visual references and little gags, but whole story elements like [SPOILERS] Rain deciding to go back to get her brother, action beats like the turrets/automated rifle laying waste to a horde of oncoming xenomorphs… hell, they even redo the first two movies’ post end-ending, but with a far, far lamer monster.

    I was able to readjust to it and enjoy it – there’s a lot of cool stuff in that second half, like the beautiful acid whorls of death and Rain’s use of Newtonian physics to escape them – but if they had stayed course from the film’s way superior first half, I’d happily consider it at least as good as part the third, probably better.

    And yeah, the very prominent Ian Holm necropuppet is a cheap, extremely fake-looking hot mess. It hurt this film more than the crappy running xenomorphs did Alien 3, IMO.

  32. TKF and Winchester are right. The worst aspect of Rook is that they keep showing him. We get what he is. Now keep him in shadows/obscured by some damage or what not. Even the shots on the grainy video screen looked ok, but to keep showing it full frontal in IMAX…

    The hubris.

    Otherwise I loved the film

  33. I think i’m with the general consensus with this one – I love what works about it, love the cast, Alvarez is so good at setpieces and tension. One of my favourite scenes in the whole thing might be the cigarette bit, which just shows proper attention to detail, who these people are how they live.

    Likewise not keen on the callbacks and references which feel oddly dated already- this is movie-making in the 2010s to me, and the series’ that embodied this trend the most (Star Wars, Halloween) already burned themselves out. I think audiences are already half trained to view this as a creative dul de sac. But towards the end the callbacks become so layered and dense, combining parts of the series you could not expect, that it does start to feel a bit interesting. The execution of the returning cast member idea is bad. But it is still a strong 4/5 for me.

    I do think the anti-vax read is a stretch – there’s a needle involved but that’s kind of it, and the motivation for their useage is much closer to steroids, adrenaline or pain relief really. I don’t see any presentational overlap at all with antivax conspiracies, and the aim of the meds is to keep people working after mining injuries – if anything, it reminded me of the presentation of oxycontin in dopesick. But really i think it is just straightforwardly a continuation of how the blackstuff was introduced in the prior 2 prequels.

  34. re: anti-vax reading.

    I can’t help but think that internet discourse would be much improved if we could all stop imagining woke/anti-woke crusaders and how they would hypothetically love/hate a thing. Why should I care whether a guy I’m role-playing in my head liked or didn’t like a movie–did I like it or no?

  35. I didn’t have a problem with Ian Holm’s likeness being in it, but in hindsight, considering how many people are so hyper focused on it, maybe it wasn’t the best idea. Maybe it was tooo big a distraction.

    I loved the film, cannot wait to see it again, and it is one I can see myself watching over and over when I have it at home.

    I would love a movie or series just focused on the day to day life at Jackson’s Star alone. I found myself looking at every nook and cranny of those shots at the beginning, soaking in the whole place.

    I also loved the introduction of a new life cycle stage for the xenomorphs between the chestburster and the Big Chap, the hanging wall vagina.

    The most common criticism I hear online about this is there is too much FAN SERVICE. You know, quite honestly, the Alien Franchise deserves a little fan service. We got two prequels and in 4.5 hours of Alien film time, we got one face hugger, one chest burster, one xeno morph. And a bunch of gooey, weird, sometimes cool variations in between. I don’t know how a fan of the lore of the Alien films, particularly the first two, could be grumpy about this.

  36. I really don’t at all have a problem with the anti-vax reading, even if I don’t really see it except on a broadly conceptual level. But @Kaplan, I think the problem isn’t people reading movies like that, but being overly obnoxious, strident and/or pedantic about it (which Vern never is, for the record). Like, I’m all for alternate, conservative takes on stuff, as long as someone doesn’t act like an asshole about it. That being said, the internet.

  37. The Antivax reading is a joke, though? At least I thought it was pretty clearly one. Spoofing the degree to which some people twist and stretch things to get a reading they agree with / can get angry about, looking for probably unintended interpretations.

    That sort of thing can be fun! But as Glaive Robber says that hasn’t been a case for a while, at least outside a close group of friends.

  38. No, I wasn’t making a joke, I did wonder if that was what Fede meant or if not if people who believe that would latch onto it. Seemed notable. I thought surely Kaplan would be impressed with my politics this time though. :(

  39. Nah, you’re too accepting of the special guest CGI effect.

    I did think it was hypocritical for the movie to try and be this critique of capitalism, and then have a dead actor show up for memberberries. It’s so much something an evil megacorporation *would do* that, well, here’s Disney doing it. And surely they could’ve deaged Lance Henriksen or gotten Michael Fassbinder to show up for a few days if they needed this character to be another callback that much (as The Winchester said).

  40. Let’s be honest. Every movie with an anti-capitalistic theme is hypocritical by default, considering that even indie flicks are made to earn money. And Disney isn’t the first who digitally revived an Actor (Warner did it with Marlon Brando in SUPERMAN RETURNS, Sony did it with Harold Ramis, whatever studio produced SKY CAPTAIN did it with Laurence Olivier and FORREST GUMP pretended that Tom Hanks shook hands with JFK and John Lennon. I’m sure I forget a few.), so let’s not pull the “Oh noes, there is nothing more worse than Disney!” card. Unless they come up with a law that bans stuff like that, even if the dead folks’ families sign it off and get paid, that shit is here to stay and honestly, none of us can do anything against it. So why waste our time on doing more than stating how displeased we are with it online and then move on?

  41. Well, at the end of the day, I do wonder who it is for, and who it pleases. I guess for a certain subset of “Alien” fans, there’s a thrill in seeing Ian Holm again. But we’re going back nearly fifty years. I bet there were plenty of normies who had seen the first Alien but didn’t remember that the character in “Romulus” was Holm. For those people, as well as the younger fans who don’t know Holm, there has to be the reaction — why does Andy look like a real human, but this synthetic look so unusual? Because as good as the effect looks, it still looks like an effect. So the very action of reanimating a digital likeness of Holm just so a few hardcores in the theater will be surprised to see him doesn’t seem worth it, considering the scorn the procedure receives, considering the cost and labor of said procedure (including contact with the Holm estate) and considering a huge portion of young fans will have zero reaction. It’s a lot of work, just for something that gives off uncomfortable vibes in a lot of people. For story purposes, you have a lot of synthetics and actors from which to choose.

    If they did it and it looked real, and not an iffy deepfake, I might feel differently.

  42. “Memberberries” is some South Park thing, right? Could someone explain why it’s berries so I can attempt to find the word less annoying, as this is obviously a concept people find useful.

  43. According to the wiki it’s some sort of riff on sour grapes. They were actual little talking berries in the show, and they would wax nostalgic about older pop culture.

    Occasionally – and this is imo classic South Park incoherence – they’ll yearn for outdated social values like “member when marriage was between a man and a woman?” with the same wistful tone. Which… if there’s a connection to be made between wanting to see Luke and Han again, and wanting to RETVRN to a more oppressive society, you’ll have to explain that to me.

  44. The point is that memberberries make you yearn for the good ol’ days, but then remind you of why those days weren’t actually all that good.

  45. So the assertion South Park is making is that Morgan Freeman and Chewbacca were never good?

  46. From what it sounds like more like “Remember Chewbacca? He was awesome! And when the first Star Wars came out, gay people had zero rights!”

  47. Gotcha, my brain somehow edited out the “of why” in Mr. Maj’s statement.

  48. It’s also worth pointing out the episode came out during the run up to Trump’s election. The memberberries were a commentary on the toxic undertones of his whole ‘make America great again’ brand of nostalgia.

  49. I thought this was a pretty good ALIEN movie that the bad parts damaged a bit for me. I’m kind of indifferent about using Ian Holm’s likeness but oof, it didn’t look good. I would’ve far preferred an animatronic to this deepfake hackery. He looks okay on a TV screen but terrible in a 3/4s view, as if they couldn’t map it onto the head correctly. At best, it felt like one of those museum things where they project footage of a talking face onto a mannequin.

    And in my theater at least people laughed out loud at the humalien. I haven’t seen the prequels so to me he just looked like a big, weird, slightly-Giacometti-ish dude. I did not find him scary. And how did he get so big so fast? Does the Aliens’ special blood let them violate the conservation of mass?

    Speaking of which, there was a hint of midichlorians in the science-lab exposition about their blood (?) having some crazy non-Newtonian properties. Feels like they’re trying to make the Aliens a little bit magical, and I don’t know how I feel about that. But now I’m thinking this might be shit explained in the prequels. Still, I think I prefer them as just insanely scary non-magical parasites.

    Anyway, what worked, worked well. Like Vern says the production design and “world-building” is fantastic. The element of the asteroid rings was novel and thrilling—the piling on of different, simultaneous threats reminded me, weirdly, of an Indiana Jones movie. And this movie made a lot of good and novel use out of the facehuggers (or, as I accidentally saw a captioned screening and can say this definitively, Parasitoids). It was fun seeing a herd of the little guys skitter about! I also enjoyed Andy and his different personalities. And the protagonist is terrific.

    I agree they coulda done more, but mostly I wish they’d been a little tighter with what they did do.

  50. I think at the end of the day, my issue with these digital resurrections is that they’re cameos, which are supposed to impress you with the studio managing to get an actor back, and–they didn’t get the actor back. What if Sigourney Weaver was going to do a cameo, but they couldn’t afford her or she couldn’t clear her schedule, so they decided to Deepfake a celebrity lookalike and say it was Ripley. Wouldn’t that be kind of dispiriting? It takes something human out of the equation–this is a person you’re a fan of and they decided to help this story–and replace it with a kind of AI-like gloop–here’s something you’ve seen before and it looks the way it looked before! Clap! Clap!

  51. Right, Kaplan, but your example of Ripley/Sigourney undercuts your point, because she’s still alive, where Holm or Peter Cushing is not. So, it’s disanalogous. I think the bigger problem here is when it’s either or both of (a) questionable motivation (gimmicky, emotionally manipulative, smacking of lack of original ideas or lack of confidence in them) and/or (b) poor technical execution/realization. I think these are the things that sink this sort of stuff. And I think the questionable motivation part can play out in a lot of ways and at different levels. Even when you bring back the actual actor, like Sigourney in RESURRECTION or Harrison Ford in RISE OF SKYWALKER, in those cases, I think you are somewhat violating the questionable motivation criterion. Basically, you’re bringing the actor back for the fan service factor alone or (in the case of RESURRECTION) for a lack of confidence in your ability to draw an audience or tell an impactful story without that actor. It’s contrived and feels a bit cynical in both cases, even if the actors in question bring their A-game and do their part. To me, that is what sunk the RISE OF SKYWALKER and ultimately that trilogy. Story and the more organic qualities were secondary to the imperative to churn out product and the desire to provide easter eggs and check a bunch of fan service boxes and whatnot. I’m not saying a fun cameo or easter egg never works, but if you’re really going out of your way to try to share a bunch of in-jokes and fan service type moments (like it sounds like this one does), it betrays a lack of confidence. The casual fans won’t get those references anyway, and you’re betraying a lack of confidence in your own ideas. Sounds like this one is overall a mixed bag in this department, and Alvarez brough a lot of his own stuff. And probably he was just geeking out and wanted to do these fan service things because he wanted to see them as a fan. I still think that’s generally an impulse better resisted.

  52. Yeah, I think it’s one thing if the dead actor you bring back is essential to the plot. I haven’t seen the FF with digital Paul Walker but people seemed to accept it and even find it moving despite the effect being less than 100% believable. And I don’t think any level of execution would have made the Holmbot acceptable to a lot of people, because it’s gratuitous pseudo-casting for a new character. BUT if it had been done really well it would’ve at least made for a more interesting ethical dilemma. As it is, I did find it “ghoulish” simply because it looked so weird and bad.

  53. Zed, in case of FAST & FURIOUS it was obviously done to finish the movie that he had already started, like in the original THE CROW or certain scenes of Oliver Reed in GLADIATOR. And most people still don’t know which scenes exactly where manipulated, because they were smart enough to not give us minutelong close-ups of CGI models, but instead used editing tricks or simple face replacement with stuntmen and stand-ins, like they have been doing since JURASSIC PARK. So this is morally more justifiable than if they would suddenly come up with a CGI Paul Walker for the next sequel.

  54. CJ, I totally agree. I probably wasn’t very clear, but I referenced to the CG Paul Walker (which in the clips I’ve seen I have to say really isn’t 100% convincing) as an example of “essential to the plot,” whereas an android having Ian Holm’s face just isn’t. The shoddy technical execution is part of the problem but not all of it.

  55. I’m somewhat opposite to Vern when it comes to the opening stretch of this movie. To me it felt like a retread of Han trying to escape off-world at the beginning of SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY.

    I also had the same issue I had with the opening stretch of FURIOSA: If I think the whole story is going to be about the heroine’s struggle to escape their repressive upbringing then I’ll settle in for that journey, but if I think that the story is about what happens when she finally gets away from there (or works her way up) then I’m going to be much more impatient to get past that miserable first act.

    To me the ALIEN series is two great movies followed by a bunch of others struggling to justify their existence and only sporadically managing it. ALIEN 3 has effective atmosphere and music, and ALIEN RESURRECTION is IMHO an underrated movie with cool characters, and the movies after that I liked OK but don’t really remember much about.

    Plus I think there’s just not that many new places you can go with this monster and this gloomy-tech-future setting. So I approach each belated addition to the ALIEN franchise with a low JAWS-sequel level of expectations.

    By that standard I liked this one fine, especially in the action climax. The android was an interesting character, and the zero-gravity acid blood was novel.

    As CJ mentioned, the amount of nostalgic “fan service” in this movie is paradoxically the thing that makes it feel modern. That plus the younger cast made this seem to me like the first movie in this series since ALIEN 3 to actually feel like a contemporary and relevant movie in its own right and not *just* a nostalgic attempt to remind you of something you used to like years ago. Or maybe it just feels like the first one aimed at an audience not assumed to have been alive when the first two classics were made.

    Personally I liked the callbacks, and the sense that they’re trying to stitch the various iterations of this series into a coherent universe and aesthetic. I cheered when the opening Fox fanfare’s final note twisted into discordant menace as it did in ALIEN 3. Everyone is talking about the GAFHYB callback, but I appreciated the deeper cut “I can’t lie to you about your chances, but you have my sympathies.”

    Speaking of which, I have to defend Rook (like Bishop, ha ha I see what they did there) being played by a digital Ian Holm.

    First of all, the character is literally an artificial person, so that more than excuses any shortcomings in the realism of the effects work. (And using the electronically distorted damage to disguise any difference between the modern actor’s voice and that of Holm’s original performance was clever.)

    Second of all, I’m still impressed that they can do this sort of thing now. And I thought some of the power of sci-fi cinema as a genre is that it expands the boundaries of what’s visually possible, from 2001 to STAR WARS to TRON and THE THING and T2 and JURASSIC PARK and THE MATRIX. I don’t get how this of all genres can have such a strain of “new effects technology, booooo!” in its fanbase.

  56. Just when I thought I was done groaning at this movie’s stupidity, I learn what a rook is.

  57. I definitely will catch this on streaming. It has been a busy stretch with life, and I have not worked up the oomph to see this in the theatre. I could do so if I was deadset, but I’ve kind of landed at lukewarm on the prospect. The trailers werer not exciting me at all: it looked like essentially a soft remake of ALIEN, where you’ve got a small crew, one of whom is a cyborg, in a confined space getting picked off by an alien and culminating around a strong female lead/final girl. It was not really passing the bar of showing me why it needed to exist or had something really fresh or novel to do. Whatever variations on the formula there are happening here, it seems very close to that formula. I can just watch o.g. ALIEN if I want that kind of a film. Then when I started hearing about all the fan service and strained efforts to play franchise bingo and integration (e.g., bringing PROMETHEUS type mythology or easter eggs into the mix), that did not help. All to say — was only meh on the trailers, and what I’ve been hearing here has left me at meh. I will catch this one on streaming.

    I do think there’s a lot in what Curt is saying here as far as putting the franchise into some kind of perspective. I’m not even personally a huge fan of ALIENS (sorry!), and ALIEN 3 did not hold up all that great on a rewatch a few years ago. ALIEN 1 holds up very well. I think RESURRECTION is interesting in a werid and campy way, though I would not call it good. I liked AVP (also not conventionally good), did not see AVP2, thought PROMETHEUS was more interesting than good, and liked COVENANT pretty well. Truth be told, my general view of the franchise is this: I like Sigourney Weaver as Ripley, the Alien creature design and Giger world is singular and endlessly fascinating, and ALIEN 1 is a highly rewatchable, stone-cold classic by any standard. The main thing that keeps me watching these is a completist instinct, the primal appeal of the alien creature and its schtick, and general production values.

    I don’t really have a moral qualm about the Rook stuff, but I stand by my previous comment: Does it really add to the story, and is it well-executed or is it just a chintzy bauble? I would watch a new ALIEN with a de-aged Sigourney Weaver (or with multiple Sigourney Weavers of various ages) and with very brief never-before-seen Nostromo flashbacks with deepfake Yaphet Kotto and Harry Dean Stanton — if it were well-done and had some point to it. But a lot of these things seem to have little thought beyond the basic premise, as if an affirmative answer to the “could we?” question were also an answer to the “(why) should we?” question. Like, in what possible world — other than just showing off our godlike technological powers — is there a good reason to resurrect a clone Sigourney or shoehorn 60 more seconds of uncanny valley 1979-vintage Harry Dean into a new Alien film or whatever other thing they either have or could do?

    Llike, they could even go the TERMINATOR DARK FATE / HALLOWEEN 2018 route of pretending that ALIEN 3 never happened and Ripley never died, but why? Why? The Alien iconography remains sublime but finding novel and interesting stories to tell with it is no mean feat

  58. How I Got My Ex Back with the Help of a Spell Caster +2349161779461

    Hello everyone, my name is Kiara Hahn from California. I want to share my story about a powerful spell caster named Dr. Jakuta. I was heartbroken when my fiancé left me without warning, and I spent the last month feeling confused, guilty, and devastated. Desperate for help, I searched online for relationship advice and found Dr. Jakuta, who has helped many people with their relationship problems. I reached out to him, and he promised to bring my fiancé back to me within 72 hours. After following his instructions, my fiancé surprisingly showed up at my doorstep, apologized, and now we’re living happily together again. If you’re having relationship issues, you can contact Dr. Jakuta at:

    Email: doctorjakutaspellcaster24@gmail.com
    WhatsApp: +234 916 177 9461

Leave a Reply





XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>