Alien: Romulus.

Review #2247: Alien: Romulus.

Cast: 

Cailee Spaeny (Rain), David Jonsson (Andy), Archie Renaux (Tyler), Isabela Merced (Kay), Spike Fearn (Bjorn), Aileen Wu (Navarro), and Daniel Betts (Rook) Directed by Fede Alvarez (#839 - Don't Breathe)

Review: 

Admittedly, there isn't much of an excuse I can come up with that explains why I forgot to watch Prometheus (2012) or Alien: Covenant (2017), which if you remember were the previous two films of the Alien franchise released into theaters (counting the Alien vs. Predator films sounds futile). Plans for this film first came out in 2022 for...release on Hulu. These plans changed for the best, if only because, well, we are not friends of promoters of streaming experiences. The film was written by Fede Álvarez and Rodo Sayagues, who have previously worked together on Alvarez's 2013 Evil Dead film and Don't Breathe (2016). Evidently, the film has already made back the money on its $80 million budget in a week.

Admittedly, the pursuit of better things by the youth when it comes to exploring space is at least a useful way to approach making a standalone film for a series built on, well, alien terror. Of course, the one thing I really should have learned was to not peek at the Internet for even the slightest second, if only because hearing the vaguest of early reviews comparing this film to Rogue One (2016) gave me the tiniest bit of pause. I might get the opposite effect that I did with that film in which maybe I will appreciate Alien: Romulus better if I saw it again a few months removed from the initial sense of optimism that was soon met with mild entertainment that has a really good look befuddled by a mild script (when not deluged with trying to reference every single Alien film, for better or worse). Ever get a decent film that you have to carefully say "yes, I liked it despite saying these quibbles that seem like gripes"? This is Exhibit A, right here and there. It seems pointless to say to watch the movie rather than just hear gripes so you can interpret on your own, but hey, you have your time and I have mine, let's just run it down. For starters, I like the general look of the film, mostly because if you are going to wedge yourself between the Scott/Cameron films, you'd better have the commitment to not stick out like a sore thumb (so yes, there are some pretty well done effects) It manages to invoke some of the terror involved in deadly creatures that happen to be desirable in the corporate human sense. The dynamic between Spaeny and Jonsson is actually pretty interesting from the perspective of surrogate relations and examining just what matters most in the lines of loyalty and beyond. Each of them are pretty good in their roles, especially when it comes to handling the dilemmas of the last act (some created by themselves, some by circumstance). In terms of actual factual moments of the last act, it is a pretty neat one in getting to the point.

And then one gets to the "Rogue One" part of the film and one immediately wonders who the hell thought this was a great idea. Yes, one does in fact see a face from the past in the film through the art of effects (such as an animatronic). The character of Rook happens to look like Ian Holm (who passed away in 2020), although it isn't exactly just seeing Ash from the original 1977 Alien. Nothing about seeing Rook seems necessary here (the Holm estate can be happy, of course) beyond just doing a reference just for the sake of it, which pretty much hinders the movie in some respects to actually, well, get moving on its own feet. One is watching a 119-minute movie that only seems to really get going when it strikes the familiar vein of people getting chest-bursted (as opposed to trying to ape bits from Aliens because...?). The characters are mildly involving, but maybe I have missed something from previous films, because it seems this one had the most folks where I was basically waiting for them to get killed (well there was Alien 3, the one that thought taking out most of the survivors of Aliens and putting Ripley on a dude-criminal planet, but it's been a while), particularly in the case of Fearn, who at least has the most satisfying end scene. With so few people around to start the film, one really has a spaced-out amount of terror that is, well, decently executed. As a whole, it invokes some of the wonder and terror that had shaped the first two Alien movies (i.e. the only ones that are really, really good) before trying to play familiar with the others one for a synthesis that is touch-and-go in actual effective power. It is a fine crowd-pleaser that has most of the right elements when it comes to atmosphere and conviction while doing mildly fine in the overall outcome that reminds one that there is a fine line between familiarity and checklist material. I'm not sure exactly where the movie rests in the series when it comes to quality a few years down the line, but being a decent ride sure seems worth remembering.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next time: Ishtar.

Civil War.

Review #2199: Civil War.

Cast: 

Kirsten Dunst (Lee Smith), Wagner Moura (Joel), Cailee Spaeny (Jessie), Stephen McKinley Henderson (Sammy), Nick Offerman (The President), Nelson Lee (Tony), Evan Lai (Bohai), Sonoya Mizuno (Anya), and Jefferson White (Dave) Directed by Alex Garland (#884 - Ex Machina and #1581 - Annihilation)

Review: 

"There is something in the film which is trying to be protective of [journalists]. I think serious journalism needs protecting, because it’s under attack, so I wanted to make those people ‘heroes’ to put them front and center.”

Sure, you could have a few pre-conceptions about what the film is or what the film is not, blah blah blah. I went into the film with the bare minimum of attention given to it, which either meant that it would be fine or pretty bad. Admittedly, the first image that came to mind when watching the film was different from what I thought I would be wondering. Specifically, "Saigon Execution". It is perhaps one of the most famous images to come out of the Vietnam War, one that went far beyond just being awarded the 1969 Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography. On February 1, 1968, Eddie Adams was a member of the Associated Press that was in Saigon (as known at the time, as opposed to Ho Chi Minh City) alongside an NBC News TV cameraman in Võ Sửu that saw a capture of captain Lem (a member of the Viet Cong) by a general named Nguyễn Ngọc Loan. Both Adams and Võ Sửu captured a moment crystallized in time: Loan shooting Lem in the head. But the thing about Adams is that he was a man of numerous things as an observer: if he was to be remembered for anything, he wanted to be remembered for what he did beyond a photo caught in reflex, because above all, he had his principles to stand by. He was once quoted as saying that "Death is the greatest kick of all. That's why the save it for last." However it worked out, the photo has endured far more than the video (perhaps most notably, it was featured in 1968's Head)., to where even Adams has endured in memory more than Suu. I figured that this was a more interesting way to start talking about the film than simply saying that right before its release, its director stated his intention to lay off directing in the near future, among other things when it came to promoting the film and its intent.

It's interesting, Garland wanted to make a movie about journalists on the frontlines (and there are a few good journalists among a cadre of others that blur the lines), but really, he might have made one long dark joke instead, which basically has the one idea that above all, the observer is not really just an observer just because they wear a vest saying "PRESS" on it. One is observing the observer observing events in their own viewpoint and decisions made to get this coverage (because they aren't just shooting it on their own), basically. Admittedly, once you have a title like "Civil War", you pretty much have put a bullseye on your head, because what else could you have called it? (besides, I went into it barely noticing that there was meant to be a map of which places were fractured from each other because, what difference does it make?) This is a film that has one of the first lines involve a president say "Some are already calling this the greatest victory in the history of mankind" to go alongside footage of unrest, because if one thought the age they live in was bleak (what with the various things one could protest for, such as a less intrusive Israel or other worldly concerns), try this on for size. It doesn't go into too many specifics of exactly how one is in a civil war with various separated territories, but I think using a bit of imagination works out here, particularly since this is basically a road movie with journalists that either have their souls hollowed out or on the verge of it happening, which makes for a fairly unsettling film for those into what it shows (and doesn't show). Trying to frame it as some sort of centrist filmmaking is pretty shortsighted when you get down to it. Besides, the performances work out best when it comes to showing the trials and tribulations of wanting to go out to gunfire with a ready camera on hand. Dunst excels here with no false notes detected when it comes to a tired old soul that could actually play for anyone familiar with the beats of a job that nevertheless seems to have lost a bit of themselves in that grind of production. They know what lines they can cross and shouldn't cross, and it gnaws at them for one can't unsee even when one closes their eyes, so Dunst being paired with Spaeny in a mirror of experience on the frontlines makes for a pretty compelling dynamic to watch play out to the most reasoned conclusion, for which each handle deftly. Moura probably ranks as the most thrill-seeking among the core four, which actually works out pretty well in showing levity along with the craven nature that comes in being gripped in the chase, at least when compared to a more seasoned pro on the last steps on a road in Henderson. Offerman is around for both the start and finish of the film as the object of fascination that has more said around him that, well, use your imagination on how it goes to see a face meant to be playing a dictator.  Probably the most gripping scene is the one with an uncredited Jesse Plemons that exudes the certain terror that I'm sure comes with encountering the back woods on the road. He handles it masterfully for a certain amount of time that keeps the film firmly on its toes. It is certainly a loud film at times that is expected with a dystopian war film that doesn't let a stone go unturned, even in a supposedly quiet moment where a trip to a friendly-looking place leads to a darkly amusing realization. The ending helps seal the film's fate in terms of realizing just where one will find themselves when it comes to the demands of an occupation and what it might do to their soul in the process as a certain image plays out in the credits that really might not be as emphatic in its ending as one assumes at first. In the end, it is a solid 109-minute effort in tension as carried by its main quartet to make for an interesting recommendation for those who know what they are getting into in terms of imagination and the grind that arises from it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.