Skip to main content

Alien: Romulus Languishes in the Shadow of its Source

Nobody can say that Alien: Romulus is an unfaithful Alien movie. It’s a great many things, most of them not particularly valuable, but one cannot accuse it of disrespecting its source -specifically the original Alien from 1979. Director Fede Álvarez, like a great many of us, holds that movie in high esteem, and his driving ambition on this film -the eighth in the franchise to follow it- is to honour that movie as much as he can in style, in iconography, and with any luck in tone.
And yet, it says something that the only truly successful sequel in this series, 1986’s Aliens, was the one that most brazenly departed in style, iconography, and tone from its predecessor. Generally, the Alien series works better when it tries new things -when it mixes up the old premise of a group of people who just happen upon the aliens, someone gets impregnated, and they all are then gruesomely killed off one by one. And while there are a few distinct set-pieces and concepts, and even a character dynamic to Romulus, too much of it is concerned with that same old formula and evoking the past -in ways that range from dull little bits of fan service to egregiously offensive technical choices.
Set somewhere between the first and second movies, Romulus hones in on a group of scavengers desperate to escape bleak prospects under the Weyland-Yutani corporation by hijacking a derelict ship with cryo-chambers that can take them to a prosperous planet. It is of course on this ship however that they encounter a xenomorph that Álvarez goes to pains to emphasize is directly connected to organic specimens gathered from the debris of the Nostromo -the ship that the first movie was set on.
It should be noted though that it isn’t just the first movie that Álvarez references here, either in plot beat or iconography. In fact he seems to take pride in connecting the dots of Alien and it’s original sequel timeline with Ridley Scott’s Prometheus and Alien: Covenant -likely a reason for Scott producing and giving this film his seal of approval where he mostly disparaged all the other Alien movies not made by him. Álvarez finds ways wherever he can to work in replications of iconic images from past movies in the series -the ‘how to use a gun’ lesson underpinned by romantic tension from Aliens, the shot of the xenomorph up close in the heroine’s face from Alien 3, and multiple scenes where the foreground actor is unaware of the alien descending behind them in the background as in the very first fully-grown xenomorph kill forty-five years ago.
Many of these images and a few lines of dialogue (you know exactly the big one) feel fairly cheap, though not all of Álvarez’s nostalgia-baiting is groan-inducing. Certainly the aesthetics are one of the film’s better attributes, as it adopts the same grungy look and analogue technology to the spaceship that is still one of the most charming facets of those early Alien movies. Snippets of the original moody score relay a similar effect of putting you in a mere sense of the familiar without overloading on obvious hallmarks. But that latter is the more preferred method, and while referential bits and pieces here and there can be ignored, the biggest one certainly can’t -which is the non-alien major villain: a ghoulish digital corpse of a dead actor’s likeness and AI-generated voice. I guess it should be expected with Disney now at the helm of this franchise, and their recent history of preferring digital copies of dead or de-aged actors over living ones they’d have to pay. If this actor were alive and consenting, there’s in fairness a degree to which the creative choice would work in lieu of the context -but it is still nakedly corporate a move in itself, exactly in that anti-human spirit of Weyland-Yutani. And apart from the ethics, the effect just looks bad, with a flat face on a 3D body bereft of any natural expression. Some might argue an intentionality in this, but it’s a hollow and meaningless rebuttal. Just a disgraceful concoction all around.
There are real people in the movie though, all of whom are naturally significantly better but only a few really stand out.  Still, the choice to draw them as distinct underdogs, related to the blue collar aspect of the original crew, is a good one -making them more instantly sympathetic. Cailee Spaeny, hot off of Priscilla and Civil War, makes for a decent replacement Ripley and audience surrogate as Rain -joining the team headed up by ex-boyfriend Tyler (Archie Renaux). When the plot calls for her to transition to action heroine, she does so perfectly fine -in a survivalist manner that again recalls Sigourney Weaver in the first movie. There’s some good terror played by the cast all around her, particularly Isabela Merced as Tyler’s sister Kay. But the only real stand-out of the movie is David Jonsson as Andy, the obligatory android for an Alien movie, here established as an outdated Weyland-Yutani model reprogrammed and adopted as Rain’s “brother”. Required at various points to be both friendly and implicitly hostile, Jonsson takes to the character’s dimensions and low-key personality distinctions with compelling nuance. The character’s neurodivergent coding is handled sensitively, especially in how it relates to the mechanisms of his programming and the movie’s general theme on corporate inhumanity. A rich, finely-tuned performance that can stand along the best of this series.
Some of the filmmaking reaches those heights as well -Álvarez can stage a pretty decent horror beat, and in particular may be the first director in this series to creatively utilize the alien's acid-for-blood as both obstacle and weapon in its own right. While most of the visuals and action are rather underwhelming, there are a couple genuinely inventive set-pieces in relation to this, as well as a sequence that plays in zero gravity.
But for as moody as Álvarez tries and occasionally succeeds in making the film, it is still not very engaging. The biggest weakness in both the last two Ridley Scott movies was where they tried to imitate a conventional Alien movie, that felt like intrusions on Scott's more profound ideas and vision. Here, that imitation is a much larger part of the movie -down to the structure note for note. And for the bulk of the story there isn't much of a creative bent to be found, outside of some of the things done with the Andy character and his relationship with Rain. The film brings back and adapts a pervasive theme of corporate inhumanity -as Weyland-Yutani is once again positioned as the real evil of this universe through their deep ambivalence towards human life combined with the recklessness of their genetic engineering. But it rings entirely hollow in the film's brazen capitalist construction and inhumane concessions. The customary second climax introduces a freaky new monster -though only half as unsettling as the aforementioned necromancy; its novelty means little bathed in so formulaic a function.
That’s ultimately the issue for Alien: Romulus, a movie interested in its universe only so far as it provides structure and material to be referenced and replayed. Even its new ideas have to be ensconced in the safety of the old. The first movie in this franchise made under Disney, it is reminiscent of another series’ turn to nostalgia in the wake of Disney acquisition -Star Wars; though its Force Awakens at least had a modestly new personality. Romulus can’t summon that, and is even without the egregious sin, one of the more meagre Alien outings. Back to the basics in the dimmest way possible.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...