After years of waiting and following its production closely right from Prometheus 2 to Alien: Paradise Lost, Alien Covenant is finally upon us! Ridley Scott’s Alien Covenant is released nationwide today in the UK. Starring Michael Fassbender and Katherine Waterston, the film revolves around the crew of a spaceship called the Covenant landing on an uncharted planet. While there, they meet David, a synthetic android from the Prometheus expedition and soon the crew have to fight for survival from alien life-forms.
The reviews from critics, particularly from the UK press, have been generally quite positive praising the tension, location, cast and visual style and the film is currently sitting on 74% on Rotten Tomatoes which is slightly higher than Prometheus’ 72%.
Will you guys be seeing Alien Covenant tonight? For those that have seen it, feel free to post what you thought below or in the Fan Reviews thread in the forum. Alien Covenant will be released next week in the United States and Canada.
Right.... can we all get back on topic now? This is supposed to be a fan review board for covenant, whether good or bad. Not a review of some boy's blog entry about the movie.
Lol.
So you actually liked covenant, huh? I'm honestly surprised by that! I thought for sure you'd dislike it! What about the movie did you like?
One thing I've seen a lot of, which is weird to me, are people saying the hated the film, then after a second viewing they loved it. I sort of did the opposite. I walked out thinking it was good, but not great. In the poll, I was one of the many who rated this film as a 3. But after a few days of thinking about it more and more, I find myself disliking it more and more. If I could re-vote in this poll now I'd give it a 2 or a 1.
Have you read the novel yet? If so, did you like that more, less or about the same?
Nick is smart wrote a "paper" on how Covenent is better than Blade Runner and nobody read it.
I only made 1.5 paragraphs with a couple of rapid finger flicks on the phone which I think is less than SM.
I did stay for all the credits and didn't see nothing.
(That's a 'no'.
Disappointment.
Still waiting for a reply to this.
Not being abusive, I'm just genuinely curious what you think is innovative about Covenant, because I thought it was simply rehashing things that had already been done.
Here we go.
SM, Jonesy1974, you are correct. Ash and bishop did not have character arcs. I was not thinking about the term character arc correctly, and I stand corrected now. My bad! :-)
Hey SM! Quick question... I didn't stick around long enough to watch all the credits for covenant, but I was just thinking about it and got curious... did you have any sort of involvement in this film??
No, I judged the part I read and decided I didn't want to read anymore - I'm not judging you personally.
There's really no need to continually misrepresent what I'm saying.
David's character is clearly the anchor of the prequel films; his whole story of becoming sentient and self-aware — and what comes with it — has not been done before in the series. Comparing the mad scientist idiot in Resurrection to David is simply disingenuous.
And yet, despite not being in a position to judge because you haven't read it, you are judging me all the same. Or is "pretentious condescension" something other than judgement rendered, where you come from? You not having read my piece doesn't wash your hands of being judgmental, it just invalidates anything you say, in regards to my arguments, and ironically makes what you say in and of itself pretentious.
As for you "not wanting to be treated with pretentious condescension for any longer than [you] have to," the act of judging a book by its cover (or in my case, my article by its introduction) makes for a lazy reader.
Could've fooled me, in that you fail to actually give any examples from the article.
An example from the paper is not the same thing as the entire paper, itself. The fact that you think otherwise suggests that you don't know how to cite quotes. You don't provide a single example of anything that I actually wrote in my paper, except the title. Why should I think that you actually read what I wrote if you can't actually specify the contents of my writing?
Maybe not.
A census-taker once tried to test me...
We need to get Nickissmart to interview Ridley
and shirtless too, like in his 40minute youtube vids.
and with Goodbye Horses blaring in the background.
Yeah I was the same. I expected a religious zeolot, a figure to hate but I found him to be very real and sympathetic. It subverted my expectations which is one of the reasons I like the film.
Lambert, Parker, Dallas etc are no less meat for the grinder than Farris or Karine.
For me, Oram is one of the most complex characters in the entire series. Alien 3 and Covenant are the strongest entries character wise IMO.
I did, i read the first, like, 10 paragraphs, maybe is you who didnt read what i wrote lol, i am not gonna put the 10 paragraphs here, is pointless, i got bored of reading it because in the title said "Covenant review" and was more like a rant against people who did liked the movie
what hipocrisy? what are you even talking about?
You can say whatever you want bro, i dont care, and i know a lot about not saying something just to make everyone happy, i liked Covenant, is a good movie, but is not great, not by a long shot, though it does have some GREAT moments
Reviews are about objectively talking about a movie, about its virtues and flaws, and how good or bad is overall
Maybe rant is not the exact word, english is not my first language so excuse me everybody for any typos, but is just like: This is what i think of the people that dont liked Covenant, for 10 paragraphs at least, and also, it might be just me, but you sound a little agressive and superior in your tone, we can have a civilized debate without accusing anybody of anything about stuff we like or dont like
Also, lets be honest, Covenant is good with some great moments, no doubt about it, but it could, and it should have been so much better, it lacks connection to Prometheus, the characters but David and Walter are bland and generic, the ending is like a dumbed down, rushed, modern recycled version of the Alien ending, the pacing after the first hour is rushed (it shows that footage is missing), some dialogues are not so good, etcetera, all movies have flaws of course, and except 2001 and Solaris (the Russian version, of course) no movie is perfect, but Covenant is far from being even a great movie
Ash and Bishop- yep, no arc. We learn more about them, but they don't change over the course of the story.
I would hardy call them story arcs. These are far from complex characters. Call probably has the most I guess but it's an incredibly contrived one, in a film I can barely bring myself to watch.
David is the only android so far to have a story arc because he's the centre of the story. Ash and bishop are peripheral and serve Ripleys story arc.
More nonsense then
Which character are you referring to?
Not to mention robots as developed characters along with other characters who also have 'story arcs.'
The entirety of David's story arc.
It's not laziness or hypocrisy - it's not wanting to be treated with with pretentious condescension for any longer than I have to.
On top of that, I specifically said I'm not in a position to judge because I hadn't read the whole thing.
Alien also received mixed reviews. Many critics condemned it as just a haunted house movie in space and said it was all style and no substance. Some of the reviews were actually pretty savage.
Masterpieces become so over time, not on initial release.
I'm curious as to what your definition of 'deep' is. Merely serving up a more complex (convoluted) plot doesn't make something deep. The fact that Alien is a monster movie at it's core hasn't prevented academics from writing hundreds if not thousands of pages of critical, theoretical analysis on the film. I can scarcely think of a movie so straightforward on the surface that is so densely packed with subtext. I highly doubt we'll see as much intellectual engagement with Covenant in 40 years outside of Youtube videos.
Care to elaborate on literally any of these responses? They might as well be Tweets.
Lol come to think of it. I was meeting, you can sort of call it dating one chick a decade ago. I decided to watch Blade Runner with her. We never got laid, though. Fill the dots yourself.
Yes, sadly it did. At the time the critics response seemed to be, this is the guy that did Alien, so let's bring him down a peg or two and bash it. Vangelis' music was ridiculed for being chosen because it was fashionable in the wake of Chariots of Fire. Critics had by this stage decided that The Duellists was style over substance - Alien also received that accusation but it was with Blade Runner that the detractors felt they had the definitive proof of their negative bias. So again Blade Runner was a film that was considered to be all about visuals with no worthwhile substance. One critic accused Scott of stealing Kubrick's footage from the opening of The Shining for the closing of Blade Runner. Scott was even criticised by an American critic for the way he himself looked. The knives were out for Blade Runner and it only got proper re-evalution after the accidental screening of an early voice-over-less cut years later when the negative clamour surrounding it had faded into insignificance.
I took the neutrino burst as a negative. Neutrinos are harmless and pass through all of us every second of every day. A quick google search would have informed the writers of that, so in my opinion it was a lazy and sloppy plot devise. There are plenty of other harmful "bursts" that would have served that purpose well enough.
The positives I take away from Covenant are that finally an Alien film, with Alien in the title, has some epic and breathtaking shots and sequences. Mainly talking about the nitrino burst, the solar panel repair, landing on Paradise, the Engineers' decimation, and the xenomorph entering the cargo bay.
And yes, Nick is right, Blade Runner flopped extremely hard and was scorned by critics for nearly a decade.
Alien is more effective than Covenant, IMO, but isn't as deep.
Blade Runner is a greater artistic achievement than either Alien film, but it has some glaring plot holes in the early cuts and Harrison Ford's performance is pretty weak. It's his most interesting character, but one of his worst performances, IMO.
So there's wiggle room to rank Covenant up there with great sci-fi cinema by Ridley, but I would personally rank it much lower for my personal tastes. It is closer to Legend in terms of quality than Blade Runner. The Martian is probably the most effective overall, although maybe not as personal, idiosyncratic, or artistic Blade Runner, Prometheus, or even Covenant.
Different strokes.
clapping my hands over my ears and going "lalalalalalalalala! I'm not listening to you!"
In what way?
I say it is.
Sure it does.
And why not? I love Alien. It's a great film. I like Aliens. Good movie. So why can't I categorize the three of them together? Because you think it's absurd? These are merely films. I love Alien and Blade Runner but give me a break.
I'd go out on a limb and say that's a bit of a stretch, for a plethora of reasons. Not big on soothsaying. Sorry.
I think the planet will keep on turning regardless.
I second that! Bravo!
Wow.
Actually, no you could not say that. Covenant is nowhere near the same tier as Blade Runner. It's nowhere near the same tier as Alien. And since so many people here seem to--for some reason--consider Aliens to be an enemy or rival of Alien, instead of a companion, then I'll ruffle all your sensitive little feathers to definitively state that Covenant is also nowhere near the same tier as Aliens either. Alien, Aliens, Blade Runner; those are each individually groundbreaking films outside of the context of Ridley Scott, James Cameron, or the science-fiction genre. Alien Covenant doesn't break new ground within the Alien series, and sure as hell doesn't within general cinema.
Like I've mentioned before, people liking the film doesn't bother me. Whatever, people like Prometheus and I've had to get over that over the last five years too. But defending Alien Covenant, which many are saying is the 3rd best film in the series, by putting it on the same plane as some of the best films ever made is absurd, and makes one come off as insecure that they won't be surrounded and validated by other proponents of Covenant at all times. You can like Covenant, but give me a break.
Not to mention, Blade Runner's theatrical situation is not the same as Covenant's at all. The film's production was not a rose garden, hence we didn't see the film originally intended. There's no indication that this is the case with Covenant. We know ~20 minutes were cut for mere running time, not for content. Covenant will be the exact same movie in 35 years, unlike Blade Runner. Scott has had absolute control over this film, so we have the definitive finished product right now. Second, Blade Runner was blown out by ET (like every other genre film in 1982), not the critics. Go ahead and compare that to Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 absolutely destroying Covenant at the box office if you want, but it's also not the same. Guardians of the Galaxy may have been a surprise, but its anticipated sequel was not, and Covenant's reviews weren't all that bad.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a loyal fan and will purchase the Blu-Ray. But let's not trivialize film masterpieces in defense of something that at best is objectively 'decent,' especially in the context of Scott's career.
I'd be very surprised if Covenant is ever held in the same regard as Blade Runner.
For one thing, Blade Runner was innovative.
And you could say the same of Blade Runner when it completely and utterly bombed, and was torn apart by critics. As far as I'm concerned the information that "peopled didn't like Covenant" simply isn't useful or interesting to me. For me, it's about looking beyond the simple facts that "people don't like the movie" and analyzing the movies, themselves. I don't expect to change people's minds if they're dead-set against it. But I do get annoyed if people attack what I write without demonstrating that they've read it, in any shape or form. Yes, this means citing quotes.
They're free to attack me, if they want, but that doesn't mean I have to care. At the end of the day I don't. Sure, I wish Covenant did better, but the reasons for its poor performance aren't mysterious to me. And in my arguments, I don't simply dismiss people who attack the film. Maybe in the title. But in my arguments, I provide plenty of their own statements through my own lens. I at least can interact with their rhetoric via my own in actual discourse, as opposed to clapping my hands over my ears and going "lalalalalalalalala! I'm not listening to you!"
I've been waiting for this. Thanks Hicks! :-)
Oh, and well said SpeedyMaxx