Alien Covenant Fan Reviews

[NickisSmart]

So you're telling me to enjoy an Alien movie, it is now a requirement to be versed in Bryon, and be familiar with the compositions of Wagner, and if not, you should be ashamed of your uncultured self while only the intellectual elites enjoy the film?

It is if these things are if they are used in the film AND you want to say something about their use in the film that actually communicates that you know what you're talking about, rather than demonstrating your own ignorance on those subjects, yes.

If you don't understand the allusion, how can you comment on it belonging or not belonging in the film other than by simply saying you don't get it, because you are not well-read and it sailed right over your uneducated head?

First of all, you must be fun at parties!

I don't go to parties. I do give good head, though, for what that's worth.

Second, rest assured I'm quite familiar with the ideas being thrown around.

Hearing about them in everyday speech and actually recognizing them from close inspection (aka: reading) of the parent material are two completely different things. Do you read scholarship on Byron, or Shelley? Have you read their works. Or did you read the name Byron on the internet and assume that that qualifies you as being "familiar" with him or his works?

Third, so a moviegoer has to "understand something intimate about the novels, poetry and music on display" (these were your words) to truly enjoy or criticize Covenant?

Enjoy? Who knows why people enjoy anything. As for criticism, then, yes, if those are subjects that film concerns itself with. If you enter a room and the discussion of the day is free indirect discourse in Austen novels, and you've never read a Jane Austen novel nor do you know what said discourse is, how can you effectively contribute anything substantial to the conversation? If all you can say is "I don't know what those things are," that's not criticism. That's you being ignorant. Likewise, if you know f**k-all i nregards to these subjects, how can you say they're pretentious?

Fourth, I did not attack the ideas, I attacked their clumsy use in this particular film. Do you understand the difference?

You did not make that distinction. You wrote "the intellectualism and philosophy of this film is so pretentious..." Perhaps if you wrote "the intellectualism and philosophy of this film, which is largely ideas borrowed from Shelley and Byron, is clumsily implemented, to the point that it fails to communicate what the original authors intended, and is pretentious." It all boils down to a good thesis, which yours wasn't.

[Bughunter S. Thomson]

Are you sure it's a problem of ignorance on the philosophical concepts being explored? I'm familiar with those concepts, but I don't feel that it fits in with the series as established. It would have been better explored as a tangent or a completely different movie franchise. They just kind of shoved 'alien' and these philosophies together and it feels out of place to me. Interesting? yes, but just out of place.

Both Cameron made Aliens, the series was one film, an exercise in Gothic Horror. Then, with the sequel, it's Starship Troopers, or Zulu Dawn in outer space. If you can make that jarring of a switch, then why not explore the Romantic poets? How is Byron anymore out of place than Robert A. Heinlein, given how radically different Aliens is, in style and execution, to Alien. Stylistically those films are heading north and south. If Cameron can do whatever he likes with the series, why Scott, and why are his choices interesting but out of place? I'll tell you why, it's because Cameron's had a choke hold over the franchise for 32 years, and nowadays people don't expect anything else.

When Cameron made his changes, it was a fanboy geeking out over a single film. Scott, on the out hand, has to contend with a fanbase that's had over three decades to grow and establish its own expectations. That's why his ideas feel out of place. That's why people call them unwelcome or pretentious, because they run counter-current with what they know and are familiar with as an audience, and as individuals. Yet I suspect a majority of the people who label Scott's changes as pretentious probably don't read poetry or books, and are only familiar with these authors by name. Given their lack of understanding with these concepts, they assume them to be empty and contribute nothing to the franchise, but what's really empty in this case are their own heads.

There were plenty philosophical ideas presented in aliens. And alien...

Alien was all about gender role reversal. Men being raped and forced to bare a child. And ripley being the hero which was a first for women in a film like this at the time (common place now). Aliens continued that idea, but in a different way... ripley was still the hero. But then add in an emphasis on motherhood instead of child birth. Ripley becomes the surrogate mother for newt. Has a showdown with the queen, mother to the aliens. Etc...

These are deep messages that make you think just the same. These motifies are what fits 'alien' and switching now to 'creation' just doesn't jive well... of course, this is just my opinion :-)

Oh and Cameron doesn't have a choke hold over the franchise. He hasn't been involved since 'aliens.' That's all fox, my man...

Are you sure it was gender reversal that was on the minds of the filmmakers at the time, or the interpretation by fans in the following years? I think it's the latter.

[echobbase79]

Long time since I've posted here, but like Kane (and others) I also need to get something off my chest...

Saw Covenant last weekend. Probably the worst film I've ever sat through. I think I actually felt my brain cells die while watching it.

First of all, the flute scene. Five minutes of an android teaching another android how to play the flute. What was the point of this scene? Same with all the name dropping of poets and composers. If they were meant to add some sort of depth to the film, the result was a failure. Overall, the intellectualism and philosophy of this film is so pretentious it's not even funny, just infuriating.

Do you actually know anything about the philosophy being explored or the artists and poets? Maybe it's your ignorance of those subjects that infuriates you, and not the subjects themselves. I certainly wouldn't give what you say much credence if you're haven't read Shelley or Byron, or listened to Wagner, and actually understand something intimate about the novels, poetry and music on display. For me, what's infuriating is the ignorance of people like yourself who attack ideas that they know nothing about.

While I agree that understanding the ideas behind an the intentions of an artist is very valuable and makes the experience more enjoyable, I don't think a person has to have all of this knowledge to form an opinion.

At the heart of the flute scene is an interesting moment where an older brother (David) is trying to teach his younger sibling (Walter) that it's okay to use free will to be able to create and be something more than what you were intended for. But Walter lives by the natural laws of how he's made, and even though he learns how to play the flute, he could care less because it's not part of his programming. He even throws what David tried to teach him in his face by saying his model disturbed people because he was to human.

It's one of the best scenes in the movie and perfectly played by Michael Fassbender.

[Engineer]

Are you sure it's a problem of ignorance on the philosophical concepts being explored? I'm familiar with those concepts, but I don't feel that it fits in with the series as established. It would have been better explored as a tangent or a completely different movie franchise. They just kind of shoved 'alien' and these philosophies together and it feels out of place to me. Interesting? yes, but just out of place.

Both Cameron made Aliens, the series was one film, an exercise in Gothic Horror. Then, with the sequel, it's Starship Troopers, or Zulu Dawn in outer space. If you can make that jarring of a switch, then why not explore the Romantic poets? How is Byron anymore out of place than Robert A. Heinlein, given how radically different Aliens is, in style and execution, to Alien. Stylistically those films are heading north and south. If Cameron can do whatever he likes with the series, why Scott, and why are his choices interesting but out of place? I'll tell you why, it's because Cameron's had a choke hold over the franchise for 32 years, and nowadays people don't expect anything else.

When Cameron made his changes, it was a fanboy geeking out over a single film. Scott, on the out hand, has to contend with a fanbase that's had over three decades to grow and establish its own expectations. That's why his ideas feel out of place. That's why people call them unwelcome or pretentious, because they run counter-current with what they know and are familiar with as an audience, and as individuals. Yet I suspect a majority of the people who label Scott's changes as pretentious probably don't read poetry or books, and are only familiar with these authors by name. Given their lack of understanding with these concepts, they assume them to be empty and contribute nothing to the franchise, but what's really empty in this case are their own heads.

There were plenty philosophical ideas presented in aliens. And alien...

Alien was all about gender role reversal. Men being raped and forced to bare a child. And ripley being the hero which was a first for women in a film like this at the time (common place now). Aliens continued that idea, but in a different way... ripley was still the hero. But then add in an emphasis on motherhood instead of child birth. Ripley becomes the surrogate mother for newt. Has a showdown with the queen, mother to the aliens. Etc...

These are deep messages that make you think just the same. These motifies are what fits 'alien' and switching now to 'creation' just doesn't jive well... of course, this is just my opinion :-)

Oh and Cameron doesn't have a choke hold over the franchise. He hasn't been involved since 'aliens.' That's all fox, my man...

Are you sure it was gender reversal that was on the minds of the filmmakers at the time, or the interpretation by fans in the following years? I think it's the latter.

At the time, no it wasn't on my mind, admittedly. But after some thought and hearing Dan O'Bannon's intent made me think about it. And as a 5 year old seeing the movies for the first time, I wasn't smart enough to understand all that. As I got older it became more obvious...

[Bughunter S. Thomson]

You can pose philosophical questions in many ways, sometimes without even using words. Copy and pasting Bryon is not only lazy writing, but alienates audiences, who won't care enough to do research of David quotes to see the meaning behind a lot of what he meant by those words. This is NOT the fault of the movie goer.

[NickisSmart]

There were plenty philosophical ideas presented in aliens. And alien...

Yes, though generally visually through cinematic imagery and not dialogue. The moment you have a dialogue or soliloquy pertaining to direct quotes from a book, it's a different kind of discourse. It's not longer the audience simply looking at pictures and requires a part of the brain that isn't used when processing what you're seeing onscreen. It also requires a certain amount of education, which in terms requires literacy and the patience to read books, which people who watch movies don't always have.

Alien was all about gender role reversal. Men being raped and forced to bare a child. And ripley being the hero which was a first for women in a film like this at the time (common place now). Aliens continued that idea, but in a different way... ripley was still the hero. But then add in an emphasis on motherhood instead of child birth. Ripley becomes the surrogate mother for newt. Has a showdown with the queen, mother to the aliens. Etc...

Again, communicated visually for the most part. But had these characters discussed the rapes onscreen through the quoting of "The Fig Tree" by Sylvia Plath or "The Tree" by Ezra Pound, doubtless individuals would call it pretentious without knowing the significance of the allusion, with Daphne avoiding the rape of Apollo by being fashioned into a tree. I would have enjoyed a good poem or two cited in Alien, but that's just my opinion. My brother is a classical pianist, and when he learned of Wagner being performed, onscreen, in Covenant, he didn't think it was pretentious at all. He was delighted by the idea, because he could appreciate the selection, just as he and I appreciated the reading of a passage from "The Love Song of Alfred J. Prufrock," by T. S. Eliot, in the movie, It Follows.

These are deep messages that make you think just the same. These motifies are what fits 'alien' and switching now to 'creation' just doesn't jive well... of course, this is just my opinion :-)

We all have them, don't we?

Oh and Cameron doesn't have a choke hold over the franchise. He hasn't been involved since 'aliens.' That's all fox, my man...

Regardless, his vision has a legion of fans that expect nothing else, and cry "Havoc!" when their favorite themes are shunned for alternate ones.

[Snake]

Are you sure it's a problem of ignorance on the philosophical concepts being explored? I'm familiar with those concepts, but I don't feel that it fits in with the series as established. It would have been better explored as a tangent or a completely different movie franchise. They just kind of shoved 'alien' and these philosophies together and it feels out of place to me. Interesting? yes, but just out of place.

I believe it fits in perfectly. If covenant was just another bug hunt like Alien(s) it would be forgotten pretty easily by most people. Religion sparks some of the most interesting debates about what our purpose in life is and what will become of us after we die. These are some of the most important questions of all time and have shaped history by influencing both great and lesser minds. Again, Covenant is a thinking man's sci-fi and on the same level as Stanley Kubrick's 2001 : A space odyssey imo. It shows we shouldn't tamper with nature too much and that we will ultimately destroy ourselves by our own genius and creativity.

For example: If it were possible in the next 50 years or so to create androids to do all the difficult chores for us, should we? What if the AI we created does eventually turn on us since we're physically much weaker than it...These themes have also been addressed in films like Terminator or A.I. I believe this is food for thought and Ridley, turning 80 next year, seems to wonder about these questions as well...I think it's great all these themes are represented in my all-time favourite franchise.

[SpeedyMaxx]

Judging by the box office it's already being forgotten.

I don't think a handful of quotations make it more than an upscale Friday the 13th. IMO that's what it is after they reach the citadel.

[Gash]

Before Cameron made Aliens, the series was one film, an exercise in Gothic Horror. Then, with the sequel, it's Starship Troopers, or Zulu Dawn in outer space. If you can make that jarring of a switch, then why not explore the Romantic poets? How is Byron anymore out of place than Robert A. Heinlein, given how radically different Aliens is, in style and execution, to Alien. Stylistically those films are heading north and south. If Cameron can do whatever he likes with the series, why Scott, and why are his choices interesting but out of place? I'll tell you why, it's because Cameron's had a choke hold over the franchise for 32 years, and nowadays people don't expect anything else.

When Cameron made his changes, it was a fanboy geeking out over a single film. Scott, on the out hand, has to contend with a fanbase that's had over three decades to grow and establish its own expectations. That's why his ideas feel out of place. That's why people call them unwelcome or pretentious, because they run counter-current with what they know and are familiar with as an audience, and as individuals. Yet I suspect a majority of the people who label Scott's changes as pretentious probably don't read poetry or books, and are only familiar with these authors by name. Given their lack of understanding with these concepts, they assume them to be empty and contribute nothing to the franchise, but what's really empty in this case are their own heads.

Agree completely.

[NickisSmart]

You can pose philosophical questions in many ways, sometimes without even using words. Copy and pasting Bryon is not only lazy writing, but alienates audiences, who won't care enough to do research of David quotes to see the meaning behind a lot of what he meant by those words. This is NOT the fault of the movie goer.

Audience members have expectations, but those vary. In regards to keeping things dumb enough for them to understand, if they aren't educated, this could be those individuals expectations. In my case, I expect a film to be intelligent enough to engage my mind and my interests. It seems Ridley also expects something out of his audience, such as being able to appreciate the classical selections he's peppered his film with. Perhaps his expectations are misguided, but I don't blame him for inserting these quotes into his picture and making his film for a certain audience. Perhaps he wasn't interested in bread and circus for the masses, like Cameron is? 

So, no, it's not the audience's fault they can't appreciate Byron, quoted or otherwise. Infants are innocent by accident of birth, and yet their little brains are still empty all the same. Should I ask them about Byron and expect anything of substance to come pouring forth from their little mouths? Those who attack Covenant can do so all they like, but they need to realize that movies aren't always made for them. These persons aren't the center of the universe in regards to the franchise; and just because they don't like the film doesn't mean that it is a poorly-made picture. It just means they themselves don't like it.

Clearly Scott has demonstrated that he can make a film with other things in mind other than the needs and wants of a particular group of individuals. He kept the name "Alien" because it can be whatever he wants it to be. He's the creator.

Judging by the box office it's already being forgotten.

Good thing its budget is so low and Scott is relying on foreign markets and not just domestic ones. More than one way to skin a cat.

I don't think a handful of quotations make it more than an upscale Friday the 13th. IMO that's what it is after they reach the citadel.

Interesting. Similar criticisms were made in regards to Alien, when it was in theaters, almost 40 years ago: the slasher film in space.

[Engineer]

You can pose philosophical questions in many ways, sometimes without even using words. Copy and pasting Bryon is not only lazy writing, but alienates audiences, who won't care enough to do research of David quotes to see the meaning behind a lot of what he meant by those words. This is NOT the fault of the movie goer.

Audience members have expectations, but those vary. In regards to keeping things dumb enough for them to understand, if they aren't educated, this could be those individuals expectations. In my case, I expect a film to be intelligent enough to engage my mind and my interests. It seems Ridley also expects something out of his audience, such as being able to appreciate the classical selections he's peppered his film with. Perhaps his expectations are misguided, but I don't blame him for inserting these quotes into his picture and making his film for a certain audience. Perhaps he wasn't interested in bread and circus for the masses, like Cameron is? 

So, no, it's not the audience's fault they can't appreciate Byron, quoted or otherwise. Infants are innocent by accident of birth, and yet their little brains are still empty all the same. Should I ask them about Byron and expect anything of substance to come pouring forth from their little mouths? Those who attack Covenant can do so all they like, but they need to realize that movies aren't always made for them. These persons aren't the center of the universe in regards to the franchise; and just because they don't like the film doesn't mean that it is a poorly-made picture. It just means they themselves don't like it.

Clearly Scott has demonstrated that he can make a film with other things in mind other than the needs and wants of a particular group of individuals. He kept the name "Alien" because it can be whatever he wants it to be. He's the creator.

Judging by the box office it's already being forgotten.

Good thing its budget is so low and Scott is relying on foreign markets and not just domestic ones. More than one way to skin a cat.

I don't think a handful of quotations make it more than an upscale Friday the 13th. IMO that's what it is after they reach the citadel.

Interesting. Similar criticisms were made in regards to Alien, when it was in theaters, almost 40 years ago: the slasher film in space.

Actually Dan O'Bannon and another guy who's name escapes me at the moment are the creators of 'alien.' Ridley scott had surprisingly little creative control over the story. I think he's given too much credit for being the "creator of alien."

There were plenty philosophical ideas presented in aliens. And alien...

Yes, though generally visually through cinematic imagery and not dialogue. The moment you have a dialogue or soliloquy pertaining to direct quotes from a book, it's a different kind of discourse. It's not longer the audience simply looking at pictures and requires a part of the brain that isn't used when processing what you're seeing onscreen. It also requires a certain amount of education, which in terms requires literacy and the patience to read books, which people who watch movies don't always have.

Alien was all about gender role reversal. Men being raped and forced to bare a child. And ripley being the hero which was a first for women in a film like this at the time (common place now). Aliens continued that idea, but in a different way... ripley was still the hero. But then add in an emphasis on motherhood instead of child birth. Ripley becomes the surrogate mother for newt. Has a showdown with the queen, mother to the aliens. Etc...

Again, communicated visually for the most part. But had these characters discussed the rapes onscreen through the quoting of "The Fig Tree" by Sylvia Plath or "The Tree" by Ezra Pound, doubtless individuals would call it pretentious without knowing the significance of the allusion, with Daphne avoiding the rape of Apollo by being fashioned into a tree. I would have enjoyed a good poem or two cited in Alien, but that's just my opinion. My brother is a classical pianist, and when he learned of Wagner being performed, onscreen, in Covenant, he didn't think it was pretentious at all. He was delighted by the idea, because he could appreciate the selection, just as he and I appreciated the reading of a passage from "The Love Song of Alfred J. Prufrock," by T. S. Eliot, in the movie, It Follows.

These are deep messages that make you think just the same. These motifies are what fits 'alien' and switching now to 'creation' just doesn't jive well... of course, this is just my opinion :-)

We all have them, don't we?

Oh and Cameron doesn't have a choke hold over the franchise. He hasn't been involved since 'aliens.' That's all fox, my man...

Regardless, his vision has a legion of fans that expect nothing else, and cry "Havoc!" when their favorite themes are shunned for alternate ones.

Communicating the themes are not what I'm questioning here. Visual or verbal, doesn't matter. I'm purely referring to the themes that are being explored. Had NO verbal references to poems etc... been provided in covenant, only visual references to the same themes, it would still feel out of place to me.

[Alien³]

After seeing it 3 times at the cinema, I thought I'd record an updated review...

[426Buddy]

You can pose philosophical questions in many ways, sometimes without even using words. Copy and pasting Bryon is not only lazy writing, but alienates audiences, who won't care enough to do research of David quotes to see the meaning behind a lot of what he meant by those words. This is NOT the fault of the movie goer.

Audience members have expectations, but those vary. In regards to keeping things dumb enough for them to understand, if they aren't educated, this could be those individuals expectations. In my case, I expect a film to be intelligent enough to engage my mind and my interests. It seems Ridley also expects something out of his audience, such as being able to appreciate the classical selections he's peppered his film with. Perhaps his expectations are misguided, but I don't blame him for inserting these quotes into his picture and making his film for a certain audience. Perhaps he wasn't interested in bread and circus for the masses, like Cameron is? 

So, no, it's not the audience's fault they can't appreciate Byron, quoted or otherwise. Infants are innocent by accident of birth, and yet their little brains are still empty all the same. Should I ask them about Byron and expect anything of substance to come pouring forth from their little mouths? Those who attack Covenant can do so all they like, but they need to realize that movies aren't always made for them. These persons aren't the center of the universe in regards to the franchise; and just because they don't like the film doesn't mean that it is a poorly-made picture. It just means they themselves don't like it.

Clearly Scott has demonstrated that he can make a film with other things in mind other than the needs and wants of a particular group of individuals. He kept the name "Alien" because it can be whatever he wants it to be. He's the creator.

Judging by the box office it's already being forgotten.

Good thing its budget is so low and Scott is relying on foreign markets and not just domestic ones. More than one way to skin a cat.

I don't think a handful of quotations make it more than an upscale Friday the 13th. IMO that's what it is after they reach the citadel.

Interesting. Similar criticisms were made in regards to Alien, when it was in theaters, almost 40 years ago: the slasher film in space.

Actually Dan O'Bannon and another guy who's name escapes me at the moment are the creators of 'alien.' Ridley scott had surprisingly little creative control over the story. I think he's given too much credit for being the "creator of alien."

Dan O'Bannon, Ron Shusett, Walter Hill, David Giler, and of course Ridley Scott. *EDIT * I forgot to include Giger, probably the most important. All of them came together to make Alien what it is.  All were integeral and without one of them the movie would not have been as good.

If i remember correctly, Ridley had to weigh in and demand Gigers involvment, otherwise no one would listen to OBannon and we wouldnt even be here today talking about this lol.

[Bughunter S. Thomson]

You can pose philosophical questions in many ways, sometimes without even using words. Copy and pasting Bryon is not only lazy writing, but alienates audiences, who won't care enough to do research of David quotes to see the meaning behind a lot of what he meant by those words. This is NOT the fault of the movie goer.

Audience members have expectations, but those vary. In regards to keeping things dumb enough for them to understand, if they aren't educated, this could be those individuals expectations. In my case, I expect a film to be intelligent enough to engage my mind and my interests. It seems Ridley also expects something out of his audience, such as being able to appreciate the classical selections he's peppered his film with. Perhaps his expectations are misguided, but I don't blame him for inserting these quotes into his picture and making his film for a certain audience. Perhaps he wasn't interested in bread and circus for the masses, like Cameron is? 

So, no, it's not the audience's fault they can't appreciate Byron, quoted or otherwise. Infants are innocent by accident of birth, and yet their little brains are still empty all the same. Should I ask them about Byron and expect anything of substance to come pouring forth from their little mouths? Those who attack Covenant can do so all they like, but they need to realize that movies aren't always made for them. These persons aren't the center of the universe in regards to the franchise; and just because they don't like the film doesn't mean that it is a poorly-made picture. It just means they themselves don't like it.

Clearly Scott has demonstrated that he can make a film with other things in mind other than the needs and wants of a particular group of individuals. He kept the name "Alien" because it can be whatever he wants it to be. He's the creator.

Judging by the box office it's already being forgotten.

Good thing its budget is so low and Scott is relying on foreign markets and not just domestic ones. More than one way to skin a cat.

I don't think a handful of quotations make it more than an upscale Friday the 13th. IMO that's what it is after they reach the citadel.

Interesting. Similar criticisms were made in regards to Alien, when it was in theaters, almost 40 years ago: the slasher film in space.

The quotes didn't even fit the context of David. Would it not make sense for him to have his own philosophical take on existence? He's had long enough to ponder the mysteries of life. For an android who sees humans as inferior, he sure looks to the word of man for enlightenment, which seems a complete contradiction. Having his own thoughts as dialogue would give the character the exposition he really needed. 

[NickisSmart]

Communicating the themes are not what I'm questioning here. Visual or verbal, doesn't matter. I'm purely referring to the themes that are being explored. Had NO verbal references to poems etc... been provided in covenant, only visual references to the same themes, it would still feel out of place to me.

To each his own.