Alien Covenant Fan Reviews

[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."

Dan O'Bannon, Ron Shusett, Walter Hill, David Giler, and of course Ridley Scott. 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.

This is very true and I agree. Ridley is a master of getting good imagery nailed down. I just don't think he's a good story teller.

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.

That's all I was really getting at. I don't think it's fair to assume or call anyone ignorant for criticizing the the film and it's themes.

[Gash]

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."

Many 'fans' seem to hold this view in recent years. It's not a view shared by anyone who worked on ALIEN - from O'Bannon, Giger and everyone further down the tree, they all cite Scott as the man who orchestrated the pool of talent, and brought the best from their work. Scott's own storyboards alone massively increased the budget and the studios aspirations for the film. ALIEN would have simply been Inseminoid without Scott.

[Engineer]

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."

Many 'fans' seem to hold this view in recent years. It's not a view shared by anyone who worked on ALIEN - from O'Bannon, Giger and everyone further down the tree, they all cite Scott as the man who orchestrated the pool of talent, and brought the best from their work. Scott's own storyboards alone massively increased the budget and the studios aspirations for the film. ALIEN would have simply been Inseminoid without Scott.

My comment was only in reference to the story. Ridley didn't write. But yes his contributions were important.

[Snake]

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."

Many 'fans' seem to hold this view in recent years. It's not a view shared by anyone who worked on ALIEN - from O'Bannon, Giger and everyone further down the tree, they all cite Scott as the man who orchestrated the pool of talent, and brought the best from their work. Scott's own storyboards alone massively increased the budget and the studios aspirations for the film. ALIEN would have simply been Inseminoid without Scott.

My comment was only in reference to the story. Ridley didn't write. But yes his contributions were important.

He's Herr Direktor It's his film and no one else's.

[Engineer]

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."

Many 'fans' seem to hold this view in recent years. It's not a view shared by anyone who worked on ALIEN - from O'Bannon, Giger and everyone further down the tree, they all cite Scott as the man who orchestrated the pool of talent, and brought the best from their work. Scott's own storyboards alone massively increased the budget and the studios aspirations for the film. ALIEN would have simply been Inseminoid without Scott.

My comment was only in reference to the story. Ridley didn't write. But yes his contributions were important.

He's Herr Direktor It's his film and no one else's.

And he's a fantastic director as long as he's not involved in writing the story. ;-)

[Jonesy1974]

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.

That contradiction is half the point though, these are the things that make him so interesting. To me anyway.

[SpeedyMaxx]

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

Yeah, I'm well aware. The point is Alien became much more than that due to top-quality production, capable talent and careful storytelling and smart screenwriting.

AC has the first two but comes apart due to the utter lack of original or compelling new story. It leans on fan service and falls victim to hackeneyed horror tropes Alien would've pissed on. It's a pastiche of tired old storylines this franchise and its many merchandised products have rehashed for decades (evil android! alien rampage! you guys like the alien, right?? domestic box office will do well, right???). It does nothing new for itself. That's why it fails its cast and its production crew. And its audience.

Ridley Scott is a brilliant visualist and a great idea man; he also needs people to tell him 'no'. When he has none, no structure, and is speedballing based on the latest thought to cross his mind, you get this. The entire Alien franchise spelled out to the last detail and now centering around his latest obsession: Talented actor Michael Fassbender. Other characters, ideas, innovations rendered irrelevant. Just give the rubes the alien and we'll call it a night. And when he did give them the alien (wholly unnecessary) he squandered it. The film is a studio-tested IKEA widget of a variety of existing movie parts designed to wow at Comicon, wrapped in the shiny ribbon of a brilliant thespian to make Ridley feel slightly less lazy. And it still hasn't succeeded.

I can appreciate Byron just fine, BTW. That still doesn't make this movie any more than a lukewarm greatest hits platter with a few literary references from SparkNotes. I'll eat it if it's the only thing around - that doesn't mean I'm going to convince myself it's filet mignon.

[Gash]

That's why it fails its cast and its production crew. And its audience.

According to the poll at the top of this thread, the vast majority here enjoyed it.

[Darth Vile]

To be honest, it actually makes more sense that a facehugger would implant a host quickly. Perhaps not within 5 seconds, but certainly within an hour. It just isn't efficient to do it so slowly... especially for a "perfect organism".

Something like that happening so quickly makes less sense if you ask me. It taking a long time gave it a sense of believability, whereas if it's just instant it crosses over into movie super monster territory for me.

If you look at many of the parasite beasties here on Earth, that lay eggs in their hosts, the process is a rather quick one. The time the facehugger spent on Kane was more a device to buld suspense and mystery (which was obviously great), rather than one based on logical/practical reasons for a facehugger staying attached for hours.

[NickisSmart]

https://youtu.be/s5VrG6R99MQ?list=PLOBrIn_hAaGe-fEMNQzpER40lNk4hglA6

^ This is a good review, I think. It's not glowing but it feels honest, by a couple of fellas who don't just skewer the film, but they don't worship it either. James loves Alien(s) and liked Prometheus, and he doesn't really like the others. My views feel similar to his, in general, in regards to the series, so I expect I may have a similar reaction. Time will tell.

My favorite thing about their review is that they explain how the first two films are the best, and that they are way above par. Then, to call a film like Covenant above par, they further explain that while it rises above the median, it doesn't climb to the same acme or zenith as the first two films, do. In other words, while Covenant is, according to them, the 3rd best in the series and a good film, it doesn't come anywhere close to the heights that Alien(s) reach.

And it's important to be able to classify things like that, I think, when tossing around terms like "good" and "bad." It's like people who call Pluto a planet, but according to Neil deGrasse Tyson, it's so small compared to them--similar in size of our moon, or smaller than it, even (I forget its exact size)--that to call it planet is a blatant misnomer, requiring further terms and specificity. When calling a film good, you have to be able to further clarify things by establishing the acme of the series, and its nadir, and explaining that good is anything on one side of the fence, and bad, the other. Yet, just because something is good, this doesn't mean it is the best, so it's important to attach names to the poles (Alien(s) vs AvP:R) and then put your film on the sliding scale accordingly. In relation to where that film is on the scale compared to the poles, you will have effectively illustrated your argument in a way that most people can understand.

But a good critic should be able to take it a step further and persuasively explain why he chose any object for either pole in his dichotomy. I'll admit, James and Mike's review is a little light on detail, but James is one to appreciate a film for what it is, even if this requires him to check his brain at the door. He can enjoy popcorn flicks, and recognize when films are truly entertaining. He is, I would posit, an effective connoisseur, selective about what he views, but able to appreciate what he selects to watch; he's consistent, and the movies he likes, I like, and the trash he boycotts, I wouldn't watch short of you holding a gun to my head.

[SpeedyMaxx]

That's why it fails its cast and its production crew. And its audience.

According to the poll at the top of this thread, the vast majority here enjoyed it.

I'm shocked, shocked to find mass approval on the Alien-themed Internet forum!

[Darth Vile]

https://youtu.be/s5VrG6R99MQ?list=PLOBrIn_hAaGe-fEMNQzpER40lNk4hglA6

^ This is a good review, I think. It's not glowing but it feels honest, by a couple of fellas who don't just skewer the film, but they don't worship it either. James loves Alien(s) and liked Prometheus, and he doesn't really like the others. My views feel similar to his, in general, in regards to the series, so I expect I may have a similar reaction. Time will tell.

My favorite thing about their review is that they explain how the first two films are the best, and that they are way above par. Then, to call a film like Covenant above par, they further explain that while it rises above the median, it doesn't climb to the same acme or zenith as the first two films, do. In other words, while Covenant is, according to them, the 3rd best in the series and a good film, it doesn't come anywhere close to the heights that Alien(s) reach.

And it's important to be able to classify things like that, I think, when tossing around terms like "good" and "bad." It's like people who call Pluto a planet, but according to Neil deGrasse Tyson, it's so small compared to them--similar in size of our moon, or smaller than it, even (I forget its exact size)--that to call it planet is a blatant misnomer, requiring further terms and specificity. When calling a film good, you have to be able to further clarify things by establishing the acme of the series, and its nadir, and explaining that good is anything on one side of the fence, and bad, the other. Yet, just because something is good, this doesn't mean it is the best, so it's important to attach names to the poles (Alien(s) vs AvP:R) and then put your film on the sliding scale accordingly. In relation to where that film is on the scale compared to the poles, you will have effectively illustrated your argument in a way that most people can understand.

But a good critic should be able to take it a step further and persuasively explain why he chose any object for either pole in his dichotomy. I'll admit, James and Mike's review is a little light on detail, but James is one to appreciate a film for what it is, even if this requires him to check his brain at the door. He can enjoy popcorn flicks, and recognize when films are truly entertaining. He is, I would posit, an effective connoisseur, selective about what he views, but able to appreciate what he selects to watch; he's consistent, and the movies he likes, I like, and the trash he boycotts, I wouldn't watch short of you holding a gun to my head.

I'd imagine most of us would agree that none of the films come close to Alien and Aliens. Those two are up there with Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Empire Strikes Back, The Thing, Terminator 2...

[Gash]

That's why it fails its cast and its production crew. And its audience.

According to the poll at the top of this thread, the vast majority here enjoyed it.

I'm shocked, shocked to find mass approval on the Alien-themed Internet forum!

Yeah, so am I given the proliferation of very vocal Aliens fan boys. But there you are, apparently even on a forum that is going to have the hardest audience to please it hasn't failed by any reasonable measure.

[Dachande]

I'd say it evens itself out. Yes, you're gonna have people who like it purely because its Alien, but you're also gonna have the mega hardcore types who are going to critique it much more.

[Engineer]

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

Yeah, I'm well aware. The point is Alien became much more than that due to top-quality production, capable talent and careful storytelling and smart screenwriting.

AC has the first two but comes apart due to the utter lack of original or compelling new story. It leans on fan service and falls victim to hackeneyed horror tropes Alien would've pissed on. It's a pastiche of tired old storylines this franchise and its many merchandised products have rehashed for decades (evil android! alien rampage! you guys like the alien, right?? domestic box office will do well, right???). It does nothing new for itself. That's why it fails its cast and its production crew. And its audience.

Ridley Scott is a brilliant visualist and a great idea man; he also needs people to tell him 'no'. When he has none, no structure, and is speedballing based on the latest thought to cross his mind, you get this. The entire Alien franchise spelled out to the last detail and now centering around his latest obsession: Talented actor Michael Fassbender. Other characters, ideas, innovations rendered irrelevant. Just give the rubes the alien and we'll call it a night. And when he did give them the alien (wholly unnecessary) he squandered it. The film is a studio-tested IKEA widget of a variety of existing movie parts designed to wow at Comicon, wrapped in the shiny ribbon of a brilliant thespian to make Ridley feel slightly less lazy. And it still hasn't succeeded.

I can appreciate Byron just fine, BTW. That still doesn't make this movie any more than a lukewarm greatest hits platter with a few literary references from SparkNotes. I'll eat it if it's the only thing around - that doesn't mean I'm going to convince myself it's filet mignon.

That's the big thing I felt too... the movie hurt itself by throwing the alien in. Had he stuck with the Prometheus route, and made David's creation something reminecient of the alien but still different (like the neomorphs) it would have been better. Still in the alien universe but free to explore whatever themes he wanted and retaining a unique identity. But the second he added the alien to it, he's associating these new themes with the old and it just doesn't mesh well. The only purpose the inclusion of the alien served was to appease alien fans (and yes, I'm including myself in that). It wasn't necessary to have the alien at all for the story he was trying to tell, and I think by having the alien appear it backfired... the movie started going downhill at that point for me.