Alien Covenant Fan Reviews

[Engineer]

Hudson, if you ever come to Pasadena, CA I am buying you a beer! That was an amazing post that articulated everything I would want to if I had such a command of language.

I second that! Bravo!

[NickisSmart]

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.

I say it is.

Alien Covenant doesn't break new ground within the Alien series, and sure as hell doesn't within general cinema.

Sure it does.

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 [...] You can like Covenant, but give me a break.

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.

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.

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.

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 think the planet will keep on turning regardless.

[HuDaFuK]

Sure it does.

In what way?

[stroggificated]

Sounds familiare to:
clapping my hands over my ears and going "lalalalalalalalala! I'm not listening to you!"

[Protozoid]

Sure it does.

In what way?

I adore Blade Runner and Alien, but they do have flaws and limitations.

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.

[Salt The Fries]

To me Blade Runner is a faux-artsy exercise in style. But then again, deep deep down, the very first Alien is an exercise in style as well. Don't get me wrong, I was raised on those two films. I first saw them when I was 7 and loved them ever since. To me Covenant achieved things Blade Runner only superficially touched upon, though. And it incorporated its artsiness in a lot meaningful way, I'd say.

And yes, Nick is right, Blade Runner flopped extremely hard and was scorned by critics for nearly a decade.

[BishopShouldGo]

Sure it does.

In what way?

I adore Blade Runner and Alien, but they do have flaws and limitations.

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.

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.

[Engineer]

Sure it does.

In what way?

I adore Blade Runner and Alien, but they do have flaws and limitations.

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.

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.

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.

[Salt The Fries]

Sure it does.

In what way?

I adore Blade Runner and Alien, but they do have flaws and limitations.

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.

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.

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.

Paying attention to the film would also reveal that the neutrino burst was also a concomitant of a solar flare. It is SAID in the film.

[Gash]

And yes, Nick is right, Blade Runner flopped extremely hard and was scorned by critics for nearly a decade.

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.

[Engineer]

Sure it does.

In what way?

I adore Blade Runner and Alien, but they do have flaws and limitations.

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.

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.

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.

Paying attention to the film would also reveal that the neutrino burst was also a concomitant of a solar flare. It is SAID in the film.

I don't recall that, but then again I only saw the film once. I'll take your word for it...

[Salt The Fries]

Sure it does.

In what way?

I adore Blade Runner and Alien, but they do have flaws and limitations.

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.

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.

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.

Paying attention to the film would also reveal that the neutrino burst was also a concomitant of a solar flare. It is SAID in the film.

I don't recall that, but then again I only saw the film once. I'll take your word for it...

I saw it twice and the second time I took a mental note of all the common criticisms and I had a mindset to confront if any of them were actually founded Thanks for trusting me, bro

[Engineer]

No, thank YOU for pointing that out! I'd be too focused on that otherwise! Lol

[Salt The Fries]

And yes, Nick is right, Blade Runner flopped extremely hard and was scorned by critics for nearly a decade.

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.

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.

[Hudson]

Alien is more effective than Covenant, IMO, but isn't as deep.

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.

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.

I say it is.

Alien Covenant doesn't break new ground within the Alien series, and sure as hell doesn't within general cinema.

Sure it does.

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 [...] You can like Covenant, but give me a break.

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.

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.

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.

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 think the planet will keep on turning regardless.

Care to elaborate on literally any of these responses? They might as well be Tweets.