Alien: Romulus (2024 film directed by Fede Álvarez) (previously: So Disney has ordered a direct-to-Hulu Alien movie)

[Andy 5,213]

So I took my 21 year old to see it. She’s never seen any of the Alien films before.  She enjoyed it and gave it about a 7/10.   She was freaked out by the facehuggers, no doubt playing to her arachnophobia.  She also remakes that audience engagement was noticeable. She looked over and saw people on the edge of their seats.  She thought the cocooning effects were quite disgusting.  Interestingly, she made little of the chestburster, as the film itself sort of downplayed it as well, as though its shock value has expired by now.  She doesn’t have a strong desire to go back and watch the first two with her old m, but she will eventually. She goes back to college tomorrow so we are out of time. 
 

As for my review? It was fine to pretty good.  There is definitely a soft reboot legacy feel to this, and that’s okay. It probably is what the franchise needs to survive.   I’m surprised they haven’t done Aliens come to Earth yet. 
 

The extra ending was a bit bonkers, but then it settled into a beat for beat replay of ALIEN. 
 

Having Ripley’s original Xenomorph been recovered by the Company was a little like the beginning of Alien3, retroactively diminishing that story conclusion. 
 

Rook was a bit of a cheap and unnecessary stunt. But again, it played fine.  Cute that he was named after a chess piece like Bishop. 
 

As this was my daughter’s first Alien movie, I did notice that it skipped one of the scariest and most iconic parts of the Alien Life Cycle: this film has no Eggs!

[crumbs 14,904]

2 hours ago, Andy said:

this film has no Eggs!

 

Well, the lady at the end gives birth to an egg, right? That was my interpretation anyway.

 

Still digesting what I thought of the film but overall I had a great time watching it. Visuals, creature effects, sound and music were fantastic on a big screen. That opening sequence was dope, especially the 2001 music for the reveal of the Nostromo Xenomorph. I do wish we'd seen that creature waking up and wreaking havoc on the WY base, instead of just the aftermath (and its hanging corpse) but admittedly that would lessen the impact of the newer Xenos.

 

I also liked that we not only got new creatures/hybrids, but saw new elements of the classic lifecycle. That Chestburster>Xenomorph cocoon was grotesque (and perfectly Giger-esque, kudos to the designer) with a memorably gruesome death to boot. The birthing sequence where it emerged from the cocoon (like a hellish, nightmare-fuelled hatching butterfly) was legitimately terrifying and captured a sense of terror the Xenomorph hasn't had since, probably, the second film.

[The Train Station 8,850]

What's disappointing about modern Alien scores is they're missing that gritty edge that Goldsmith's original had. For all the lip-service references that Wallfisch makes to the Goldsmith and Horner scores in little itty bits, the element it's conspicuously missing in the wider fabric of the Romulus score is that primitivism, barbarism, and feeling of desolation that Goldsmith made so overt in the '79 score. Especially in the use of exotic instrumentation like didgeridoos, serpents, and other crazy shit. I'm not asking for a pastiche of that stuff, but I lamant that nobody goes bold anymore.

[MaxMovieMan 301]

8 minutes ago, Unlucky Bastard said:

What's disappointing about modern Alien scores is they're missing that gritty edge that Goldsmith's original had. For all the lip-service references that Wallfisch makes to the Goldsmith and Horner scores in little itty bits, the element it's conspicuously missing is that primitivism, barbarism, and feeling of desolation that Goldsmith made so overt in the '79 score. Especially in the use of exotic instrumentation like didgeridoos and other crazy shit. I'm not asking for a pastiche of this stuff, but I lamant that nobody goes bold anymore.

“The Offspring” from the latest score by Wallfisch did a lot of this I feel.

[The Train Station 8,850]

37 minutes ago, MaxMovieMan said:

“The Offspring” from the latest score by Wallfisch did a lot of this I feel.

 

Best track on the album and reminds me of The Brotherhood of the Bell.

[Thor 8,493]

7 hours ago, Andy said:

As for my review? It was fine to pretty good.  There is definitely a soft reboot legacy feel to this, and that’s okay. It probably is what the franchise needs to survive.   I’m surprised they haven’t done Aliens come to Earth yet. 

 

They did in the two AvP movies.

 

I hope your daughter finds it in her to watch at least the first two at some point, but if it's not her thing, it's hard to blame her.

[Andy 5,213]

5 hours ago, Thor said:

 

They did in the two AvP movies.

Ahh I’ve never seen them.  
 

My kid and I will watch the original two Alien films. It’ll just be a while from now as she goes back to college today and she won’t want to watch them when she’s home for the holidays. 

[The Train Station 8,850]

I just watch Alien with the isolated score track. No need for dialogue and sound effects.

[Muad'Dib 1,876]

14 hours ago, Unlucky Bastard said:

What's disappointing about modern Alien scores is they're missing that gritty edge that Goldsmith's original had. For all the lip-service references that Wallfisch makes to the Goldsmith and Horner scores in little itty bits, the element it's conspicuously missing in the wider fabric of the Romulus score is that primitivism, barbarism, and feeling of desolation that Goldsmith made so overt in the '79 score. Especially in the use of exotic instrumentation like didgeridoos, serpents, and other crazy shit. I'm not asking for a pastiche of that stuff, but I lamant that nobody goes bold anymore.

 

I just love when Frizzell went absolutely bonkers here:

 

 

That brass section earned their paycheck that day for sure!

[Thor 8,493]

Yeah, insane cue for an insanely tense scene. Frizzell's score is very underrated.

[Marian Schedenig 9,147]

20 hours ago, Andy said:

She also remakes that audience engagement was noticeable. She looked over and saw people on the edge of their seats.

 

The guy on my left reacted nicely to one or two of the jump scares.

 

20 hours ago, Andy said:

Having Ripley’s original Xenomorph been recovered by the Company was a little like the beginning of Alien3, retroactively diminishing that story conclusion. 

 

Not for me. I've actually always wondered if it was really truly dead at the end of Alien.

 

20 hours ago, Andy said:

Cute that he was named after a chess piece like Bishop. 

 

Yes, but it messed up the alphabetic chronology.

 

18 hours ago, crumbs said:

That Chestburster>Xenomorph cocoon was grotesque (and perfectly Giger-esque, kudos to the designer)

 

 

That reminded me a lot of Species. It must also be the most explicitly "erotic" (Giger-style) image in the entire series.

[Hego-Damask-II 52]

On 20/08/2024 at 7:31 PM, Andy said:

Having Ripley’s original Xenomorph been recovered by the Company was a little like the beginning of Alien3, retroactively diminishing that story conclusion. 

This was one of my biggest issues with the film. The xenomorph simply being dead would have been a bit easier to swallow, but the line about it still being alive and taking out a ton of personnel was ridiculous, just for (as you say) what it does to the end of Alien.

On 17/08/2024 at 11:18 AM, crocodile said:

I forgot to mention I really liked the artificial person Andy, think he really stole the show. But then, that often seems to be the case with these movies.

 

Karol

Yeah, far and away the standout member of the cast.

10 hours ago, Muad'Dib said:

 

I just love when Frizzell went absolutely bonkers here:

 

 

That brass section earned their paycheck that day for sure!

Happy to see this mentioned here!

7 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

That reminded me a lot of Species. It must also be the most explicitly "erotic" (Giger-style) image in the entire series.

There's a part of me that likes the idea of linking the two series, even it's just a subtle nod. When that shot came on the screen, I thought it might happen for all of half a second XD

[leeallen01 2,179]

Just saw it. Wow. Awful...

 

If I wanted to watch a clip show of all the past Alien films, I'd just watch all the past Alien films.

 

It was so driven by disconnected producer notes to include the "I member that!" moments.

 

Sir Ian Holm... I'm sorry. You don't deserve whatever the hell they did to your face.

 

The "get away from her, you bitch" good god. I physically felt my theatre cringe. The signing off at the end...just stop, please.

 

The production design, cinematography was good. But the script was atrocious. The dialogue was worse. WHY must every character be stupid for things to happen?! In Alien and Aliens, they were smart, but their ideas just didn't work out. But today, everyone has to be stupid for the plot to progress. So lazy.

 

Overall, very disappointing. 

 

Stop stealing and bastardising more talented people's works and pretending you made something new. 

[Hurmm 91]

I actually don't think the android was a good performance in this one, despite what everyone else seems to think. 

 

The squinty-eyed schtick didn't fool me! 

 

Ash and Bishop were far more nuanced and interesting beings. 

[Marian Schedenig 9,147]

2 hours ago, leeallen01 said:

WHY must every character be stupid for things to happen?! In Alien and Aliens, they were smart, but their ideas just didn't work out. But today, everyone has to be stupid for the plot to progress. So lazy.

 

I've actually heard people say that about the first film, but I don't agree. I think in context they behave like you would expect them to, and the film does a good job of underlining that: They're blue collar workers, re-routed on a secret surprise mission that they know nothing about and suddenly confronted with an enemy that they were never trained for, don't understand, and that leaves most of them too terrified to think straight.

 

With Aliens, there's a lot of stupid things happening in the beginning to get the plot moving, but again makes sense: The film clearly points out that these are marines who are so full of themselves that they have no idea what they're getting into, and once they find out, it's too late for most of them.

 

1 hour ago, Hurmm said:

I actually don't think the android was a good performance in this one, despite what everyone else seems to think. 

 

The squinty-eyed schtick didn't fool me! 

 

Ash and Bishop were far more nuanced and interesting beings. 

 

Ash (the original one) was played by Ian Holm, so he's on an olympic acting level to begin with. Lance Henriksen, who played Bishop, always had a very magnetic presence that was exploited well for his character, so that's again hard to match

 

But that doesn't make David Jonsson's performance bad. And at least his character was one of the more interesting, inspired things about the film.

[Taikomochi 1,257]

1 hour ago, Hurmm said:

I actually don't think the android was a good performance in this one, despite what everyone else seems to think. 

 

The squinty-eyed schtick didn't fool me! 

 

Ash and Bishop were far more nuanced and interesting beings. 

I don’t think the performance is the problem. It’s the way he’s written. By continuously having him be reprogrammed and resetting his motivations, there is none of the depth or agency that made Ash, Bishop, or David fascinating characters. The film repeatedly reminds us that he is an automaton with no actual humanity. We can’t be surprised by anything he does because at every point, we know he is just basically following the directive he was given. No performance is gonna be able to fix that.

[Thor 8,493]

My review of the score, for anyone interested:

 

https://celluloidtunes.no/alien-romulus-benjamin-wallfisch/

[The Train Station 8,850]

Why does everyone use that same publicity still when reviewing this movie?

[Hurmm 91]

36 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

Ash (the original one) was played by Ian Holm, so he's on an olympic acting level to begin with. Lance Henriksen, who played Bishop, always had a very magnetic presence that was exploited well for his character, so that's again hard to match

 

But that doesn't make David Jonsson's performance bad. And at least his character was one of the more interesting, inspired things about the film.

 

I don't think it's a bad performance, but neither do I think his performance nor how the android was written is one of the standouts of the movie. If anything, I was more impressed with Cailee Spaeny's outing here. Innocent yet steely. 

 

31 minutes ago, Taikomochi said:

I don’t think the performance is the problem. It’s the way he’s written. By continuously having him be reprogrammed and resetting his motivations, there is none of the depth or agency that made Ash, Bishop, or David fascinating characters. The film repeatedly reminds us that he is an automaton with no actual humanity. We can’t be surprised by anything he does because at every point, we know he is just basically following the directive he was given. No performance is gonna be able to fix that.

 

Actually you're right. The problem isn't the performance itself (I brought that up, albeit wrongly worded, as many reviews seemed to highlight his performance). You listed the precise reasons why Andy doesn't quite work. He is written as a rote robot that we have seen countless time in any sci-fi movie in the last 20 years. 

[Marian Schedenig 9,147]

38 minutes ago, Taikomochi said:

I don’t think the performance is the problem. It’s the way he’s written. By continuously having him be reprogrammed and resetting his motivations, there is none of the depth or agency that made Ash, Bishop, or David fascinating characters. The film repeatedly reminds us that he is an automaton with no actual humanity. We can’t be surprised by anything he does because at every point, we know he is just basically following the directive he was given. No performance is gonna be able to fix that.

 

But that's not necessarily a problem (to be "fixed" by a performance or not). It's just a different take on the whole man/machine relation issue that has been a fixture of the series since 1979 - and once of the more interesting and original bits about the film, as I mentioned before. Sure, they could have done much more with it, but I thought it was one of the better things in the film - or at least, I would have been even more annoyed with the film without it.

2 minutes ago, Hurmm said:

Actually you're right. The problem isn't the performance itself (I brought that up, albeit wrongly worded, as many reviews seemed to highlight his performance). You listed the precise reasons why Andy doesn't quite work. He is written as a rote robot that we have seen countless time in any sci-fi movie in the last 20 years. 

 

He's (for much of the film) not much of a character, unlike Ash, Bishop, and the others. But intentionally so - the series has always been about what motivates androids and whether they can be trusted from a human point of view. Going down to the core concept that androids are programmed and can be re-programmed is an inherent part of that concept (at least in real artificial intelligence), so I think it's a valid contribution to the series - and one that would work better if the film focused on it instead of throwing as many xenomorphs, tropes, quotes, and easter eggs as possible at the protagonists.

[Thor 8,493]

19 minutes ago, Unlucky Bastard said:

Why does everyone use that same publicity still when reviewing this movie?

 

The PR package included 8 stills to choose from. Several of them, I already used in my review of the film itself, so just took one I hadn't. But yeah, it's all over the place.

 

15 minutes ago, Hurmm said:

I don't think it's a bad performance, but neither do I think his performance nor how the android was written is one of the standouts of the movie. If anything, I was more impressed with Cailee Spaeny's outing here. Innocent yet steely. 

 

Agreed. For a film with ZERO adult characters (Rook doesn't count!), she at least acted more adult and resourceful for her age. I've enjoyed her in the past, like in CIVIL WAR and PRISCILLA, so she brings some of that strength into this. But a new Ripley, she's not.

[The Train Station 8,850]

14 minutes ago, Thor said:

Agreed. For a film with ZERO adult characters (Rook doesn't count!), she at least acted more adult and resourceful for her age. 

 

How old were these people meant to be, 17?

[Marian Schedenig 9,147]

14 minutes ago, Thor said:

Agreed. For a film with ZERO adult characters (Rook doesn't count!), she at least acted more adult and resourceful for her age. I've enjoyed her in the past, like in CIVIL WAR and PRISCILLA, so she brings some of that strength into this. But a new Ripley, she's not.

 

There's a few moments in the film where she looks uncannily like Ripley - for someone who generally doesn't look much like Sigourney Weaver. I haven't seen here anywhere else yet, but I liked here in this.

[Jay 39,742]

7 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

I haven't seen here anywhere else

 

She's been in some good projects.  Civil War and Mare of Easttown are worth a watch

[Edmilson 9,104]

1 hour ago, Marian Schedenig said:

The film clearly points out that these are marines who are so full of themselves that they have no idea what they're getting into, and once they find out, it's too late for most of them.

Years later James Cameron kinda repeated this same plot (twice) for the Avatar movies 

 

Actually, grouping the marines from Aliens and Avatar with the people behind the Titanic ("not even God can sink this ship!"), seems to be a common theme with his movies. People so full of themselves but then the forces of nature are shown to be greater than they expected.

[Thor 8,493]

24 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

There's a few moments in the film where she looks uncannily like Ripley - for someone who generally doesn't look much like Sigourney Weaver. I haven't seen here anywhere else yet, but I liked here in this.

 

Well, she's staged in similar ways to Ripley (like the top photo in that review I linked to), but didn't get a lot of other vibes in that regard.

[crumbs 14,904]

13 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

People so full of themselves but then the forces of nature are shown to be greater than they expected.

 

That's a recurring theme in all of Cameron's films. Understandably so, because it makes for great drama!

[Taikomochi 1,257]

1 hour ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

But that's not necessarily a problem (to be "fixed" by a performance or not). It's just a different take on the whole man/machine relation issue that has been a fixture of the series since 1979 - and once of the more interesting and original bits about the film, as I mentioned before. Sure, they could have done much more with it, but I thought it was one of the better things in the film - or at least, I would have been even more annoyed with the film without it.

 

He's (for much of the film) not much of a character, unlike Ash, Bishop, and the others. But intentionally so - the series has always been about what motivates androids and whether they can be trusted from a human point of view. Going down to the core concept that androids are programmed and can be re-programmed is an inherent part of that concept (at least in real artificial intelligence), so I think it's a valid contribution to the series - and one that would work better if the film focused on it instead of throwing as many xenomorphs, tropes, quotes, and easter eggs as possible at the protagonists.

It certainly is a problem when the entire emotional core of the film revolves around his relationship with Rain. It’s like asking the audience to be involved in the wellbeing of a stapler. If the film didn’t attempt to put so much pathos and weight into him and Rain, I would agree with you, but that is not the choice the film made. For all its faults, even Resurrection got this right.

[Marian Schedenig 9,147]

9 minutes ago, Taikomochi said:

It certainly is a problem when the entire emotional core of the film revolves around his relationship with Rain. It’s like asking the audience to be involved in the wellbeing of a stapler. If the film didn’t attempt to put so much pathos and weight into him and Rain, I would agree with you, but that is not the choice the film made. For all its faults, even Resurrection got this right.

 

Well, maybe. On the other hand, you *could* argue that makes it more relevant (and actually applicable to today's stage of AI technology) - he used to have one personality, that Rain (rightly or wrongly - that's the interesting bit about it) got attached to, but then a simple software update replaced that with a new personality. So either he was just a toaster to begin with (and by extension, any programmable AI - and perhaps, by further extension, human beings, whose brains change over time and can be damaged), or the psychological/philosophical implications go beyond that. Of course, the film only slightly scratches the surface of all that, but nevertheless I find it a valid and interesting (and "relevant") approach.

[The Train Station 8,850]

51 minutes ago, Thor said:

 

Well, she's staged in similar ways to Ripley (like the top photo in that review I linked to), but didn't get a lot of other vibes in that regard.

 

Seattle Ellie

 

[Andy 5,213]

1 hour ago, Edmilson said:

Years later James Cameron kinda repeated this same plot (twice) for the Avatar movies 

 

Actually, grouping the marines from Aliens and Avatar with the people behind the Titanic ("not even God can sink this ship!"), seems to be a common theme with his movies. People so full of themselves but then the forces of nature are shown to be greater than they expected.

Funny. Cameron himself could fall in that category of people.  Perhaps he’s projecting?

[Taikomochi 1,257]

1 hour ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

Well, maybe. On the other hand, you *could* argue that makes it more relevant (and actually applicable to today's stage of AI technology) - he used to have one personality, that Rain (rightly or wrongly - that's the interesting bit about it) got attached to, but then a simple software update replaced that with a new personality. So either he was just a toaster to begin with (and by extension, any programmable AI - and perhaps, by further extension, human beings, whose brains change over time and can be damaged), or the psychological/philosophical implications go beyond that. Of course, the film only slightly scratches the surface of all that, but nevertheless I find it a valid and interesting (and "relevant") approach.

I agree with you that would be very interesting thematically, but Blade Runner this is not. This is thin, popcorn entertainment that places (poorly-developed) characters over thematic concerns. Like you said, they barely scratch the idea and leave a lot on the table that could have had more thematic value. I don’t mind that it’s popcorn entertainment, but it’s frustrating to see the film struggle to have its cake and eat it too.

[A24 4,597]

[paleo 70]

I don't quite understand all the negative comments regardind the score. It's Wallfisch in best dark gothic fantasy mode, and it is my favorite soundtrack of the year so far. Just listening to it again

[Thor 8,493]

1 hour ago, paleo said:

I don't quite understand all the negative comments regardind the score. It's Wallfisch in best dark gothic fantasy mode, and it is my favorite soundtrack of the year so far. Just listening to it again

 

Many of the individual cues are fine in and of themselves. It's the disparate style of the music, especially in the film, that sticks out in a negative way (as I touch on in the previously mentioned review). But I've made a playlist of 34 minutes that I think works pretty well.

[paleo 70]

Yes, I read your review. I agree to many of your observations, but those more accessible cues are so beautiful, I would definitely give it a three to four star overall rating... especially compared to all the other stuff out there. 

[Thor 8,493]

Sure. As I said, this playlist turns it into an "album" I can return to more often:

 

[crocodile 8,589]

23 hours ago, paleo said:

Yes, I read your review. I agree to many of your observations, but those more accessible cues are so beautiful, I would definitely give it a three to four star overall rating... especially compared to all the other stuff out there. 

I agree. There's probably about 15 minutes if really grating material on the album. The entire 10-minute climactic newborn sequence is one of them, sadly. But remove all that, along with few more additional tracks, and you end up with a pretty solid 40 minutes.

 

@Thor your playlist is pretty much spot on. 😀

 

Karol

 

[Jurassic Shark 13,351]

On 21/08/2024 at 2:31 AM, Andy said:

She also remakes

 

A remake already?!?

[Andy 5,213]

I make no apologies for not proofreading my posts for autocorrect. 

[Mr. Hooper 3,541]

So, I'll preface this review by saying that I was among those who really wanted to like this movie...

 

The setup was good, and the young cast wasn't annoying, as I feared they might be. They're likeable enough—more so than the 'Prometheus' crew, anyway—but are still mostly just expendable bodies. The synthetic character "Andy" was, strangely enough, the most sympathetic character.

 

I was left wishing that the lead guy had survived. Like Hicks in 'Aliens'. But he was quickly dispatched, and didn't even go out in a heroic way. He was wasted, I thought.

 

So, yeah... The lead-up to the action was well done, but the action itself and the kills felt kinda rushed and half-assed, and not skillfully handled. Fede Álvarez is not the patient craftsman Ridley Scott is.

 

Indeed, it felt like a poor imitation, and the movie quickly devolved into a Creature Feature, with ho-hum shocks and thrills. The psychological aspect of being stalked by the xenomorphs wasn't really utilized to ratchet up the tension at all, as it had been in previous instalments of the franchise.

 

Yes, "xenomorphs". I was expecting (and hoping for) just one, but we get a bunch, because "more is more" in Hollywood.

 

And, for all the talk of going back to practical effects for this movie, I found the puppetry to be stilted, and even the simple opening of the (all-important) mouth looked phoney in spots.

 

It was done much more convincingly decades ago. But it comes down to the talent of the crew. Not everyone can be a Stan Winston... And, almost five decades later, the most realistic-looking "facehugger" is still the one attached to John Hurt's face.

 

Still on the topic of effects, the Ian Holm deepfake was another trip down uncanny valley à la 'Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny' and Luke Skywalker in 'The Mandalorian'. And I don't know why, because I see excellent deepfakes on YouTube, and ones that even improve upon Hollywood's attempts. But here we still are. Again, it comes down to the talent of the crew.

 

Now, the divisive ending, which has Ridley Scott's sticky, primordial black goo-covered fingers all over it...

 

Just "no", for me.

 

"No" to building on or tying it into the lore. I just didn't need it, and wanted a straight-ahead xenomorph versus people flick with taut suspense and clever action. But I guess that's what you get for wanting Scott to bless the project.

 

The music, by the way, was okay in spots. I liked the Jerry Goldsmith and György Ligeti-influenced bits, but wasn't crazy about the use of beats in the action music. Just not my thing.

 

So, overall verdict:

 

Should've gone direct to Hulu.

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

Lighten up. It's a kid's movie.

[A24 4,597]

The TV series is are only hope now. 

[Mr. Hooper 3,541]

4 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Lighten up. It's a kid's movie.

I'm setting my phaser to "Ignore". 

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

4 hours ago, A24 said:

The TV series is are only hope now. 

 

No. There is another.

[Mr. Hooper 3,541]

5 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

No. There is another.

'Romulus' is doing good box office, so I'm afraid you're right.

[A24 4,597]

 

 

The movie judges have spoken. It's a great movie!

[pixie_twinkle 60]

I absolutely loved the first half. The look of the planet was great - kudos to the designers. I also adored the look of the rotating rings around the planet - particularly from a distance as seen in the first half. The idea of the ship slowly falling towards the rings was a plausible and effective background threat that made the entire film feel uneasy.

 

My main issue came in the second half with all the ghastly one-liners and references to earlier movies. It became too daft. The climb up the lift shaft segment with the "Get away from her...you...bitch?" line was just awful. They had the potential for one of the best films in the series, and the last 35 minutes or so let it down.

Spoiler

Digi-Ian Holm was great from a distance, but unconvincing up close. Ultimately the uncanny valley made it more distracting than effective. Also, why the daft alien-human hybrid... again??? It was the worst part of Alien Resurrection, so why make the same mistake all over again?

 

Despite reservations, though, this is my favourite Alien film since Resurrection (which I actually like despite the silly alien human hybrid.) 

 

Edit to add - I loved Andy the Android in this one, despite some dodgy dialog in the second half.

[Naïve Old Fart 10,507]

@pixie_twinkle, nice to see you, dude!

[Mr. Hooper 3,541]

2 hours ago, pixie_twinkle said:

The climb up the lift shaft segment with the "Get away from her...you...bitch?" line was just awful.

When he said "Get away from her...", I was like, "No, don't say it!" And then he did, and I rolled my eyes.

 

Ripley calling the queen a "bitch" made sense, but Andy didn't know the sex of this particular xenomorph, so, why??

 

2 hours ago, pixie_twinkle said:

Also, why the daft alien-human hybrid... again??? It was the worst part of Alien Resurrection, so why make the same mistake all over again?

Just to tie it in with Ridley Scott's lore-building—with the "engineers" and the primordial, black goo.