Alien: Romulus Is a Slick, Empty Franchise Pastiche
The taut, grisly new entry plays like a greatest-hits reel.

Before we talk about the energetic-but-empty Alien: Romulus, we need to talk about the Alien movie franchise.
When Ridley Scott's Alien debuted in 1979, it helped set the template for both horror and sci-fi films for decades to come. The film, which pitted a slimy, chest-bursting xenomorph against a crew of what were essentially space truckers, was a monster movie set in space, a slasher film, like Halloween almost, except with grizzled laborers complaining about corporate stinginess instead of libidinous teens frolicking in the 'burbs.
But it wasn't just a sci-fi slasher film: It was also a movie about the era's labor and gender politics, in which blue-collar workers are exploited and oppressed by the omnipresent Weyland Yutani corporation and female strength and sensibility are overlooked due to the less-humane interests of the overseer class. Alien practically invented the Strong Female Character, at least as we know it today. It was a blood-pulsing thriller about an alien monster who seeded inside people's lungs, tore open people's chests, and had acid for blood. But it was also a social commentary about surviving the perils of an uncaring modern world.
James Cameron's 1986 follow-up, Aliens, changed the game again, transforming the franchise into a neo-Vietnam film that, among other things, skewered both America's military bravado and the macho excesses of the decade's muscle-bound action heroes. (Amusingly, shortly before making Aliens, Cameron had co-scripted one of the films that defined that macho ethos, Rambo: First Blood Part II). In the 1990s, French director Jean-Pierre Jeunet made Alien Resurrection, a gooey meditation on the pain of both literal parenthood and middle-aged creativity. When Ridley Scott returned to the franchise in the 2010s with Prometheus and Alien: Covenant, he once again explored the idea of survival in a cold and pitiless world.
Even David Fincher's much-maligned, incredibly underrated Alien 3, had, at its heart, a sort of gorgeously gloomy nihilism—a profound sense of existential futility and, er, alienation that would remain present in Fincher's later, more celebrated work. Even if you think it's a bad movie, it's still recognizably a David Fincher film.
(And then, yes, yes…there were the two Aliens vs. Predator movies, both of which were just bad. We'll ignore those.)
But the point is that, ill-advised franchise crossovers aside, the Alien films have always been showcases for directorial obsessions and sociological observation, reflections of their eras and the people who made them.
Which brings us back to Alien: Romulus. Directed by Fede Álvarez, who made the excellent monster-in-the-house thriller Don't Breathe and a snazzy reboot of Sam Raimi's Evil Dead franchise, Romulus is punchy, slick, and occasionally ingenious, with a handful of chest-pounding action set pieces.
But its big idea seems to be…that the Alien films are really, really cool. Which is true. But it's also not enough.
The result is a movie that plays like a spiffy highlight reel from the franchise, a greatest hits album of elements drawn primarily from the first two films, but with clear nods to all the other entries in the series. These warmed-over bits are stitched together with just enough story to maintain a veneer of plausibility, and the execution is taut and tense. But these are leftovers, expertly reheated.
It's rarely a good sign when a movie's marketing team has to invent an ungainly new term to describe what kind of sequel it is, but Alien: Romulus has staked out new ground as an "interquel," set in the decades between the first and second films in the series.
The film opens on a brutal, sunless Weyland Yutani mining colony, where a group of workers just want to escape the corporate drudgery. Among them is Rain (Cailee Spaeny), whose dysfunctional robot companion Andy (David Jonsson) she treats as a sort of disabled brother. Rain is lured into a scheme to rob an abandoned Weyland Yutani research station orbiting the planet.
Things do not go as planned—and by "do not go as planned," you understand that I mean there are a bunch of slimy aliens with acid for blood waiting for them, and a lot of people end up dead. From this familiar setup, Álvarez plays the hits, getting out a plussed-up version of the pulse rifle from Aliens and practically replicating that movie's elevator-oriented third act. There's a final twist that calls to mind both Aliens and the gloopy body-horror erotica of Alien Resurrection, as well as a heavy dose of Ridley Scott's Alien mythology, including direct references to the divisive prequel Prometheus.
It's a reasonably effective pastiche, but that's all it is: a pastiche. And because it's so devoted to serving up franchise comfort food, it ignores the deft character work and intricate world building that helped keep the franchise alive for so many years. Andy undergoes a dramatic personality shift that makes him the movie's most interesting character, and there's a surprise late-movie appearance that attempts to connect to the franchise's multidecade lore, but too much of the cast is forgettable or vaguely annoying. Indeed, the movie improves after several of the supporting players inevitably die off. (Spoiler alert: It's an Alien movie, folks! People die.)
What's missing is the sense that the movie exists to serve something other than franchise fandom and fond memories of the earlier entries. Romulus isn't a bad movie, exactly, but it's disappointingly vacuous, a slick franchise placeholder that's been strangled into submission by the ruthless, unkillable monster it created.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Alien vs Predator was much better than it sounds.
We'll ignore those.
Everything after Aliens should be ignored.
watching Charlize Theron get smooshed by a spaceship is a top-ten delicious moment in movie history.
But it was also a social commentary about surviving the perils of an uncaring modern world.
No. It was about a fight for survival against an evil giant bug. Stop nerding it up.
But it was also a social commentary about surviving the perils of an uncaring modern world.
Are you sure it wasn't a social commentary about neocolonialism and the dangers of intruding on foreign lands and disrupting the natural ecology of habitats of feel free to continue babbling psuedo-intellectual gobbledygook that essentially comes down to "I saw what I wanted to see in it" and "not all movies need to be a social commentary, especially ones about alien killing machines in deep space."
Alien [Insert Anything] is no different than all the rest of the nostalgia porn that has polluted our screens over the last two plus decades. It's taking a commercial success with a strong following to this day, then husking it out and wearing it like a skinsuit devoid of any soul or merit that made the originals so great, usually with some overt social messaging that has nothing to do with its plot or storyline, so that it can be pranced around in front of green screens like a modern day minstrel show in hopes of obscuring that any and all Western creativity and originality in art and cinema is 100% dead.
Heh heh... ATF, like the rest of the Jesus Caucus, is really bothered by Sigourney's endorsement of individual rights and bodily autonomy for females.
Please don't smoke crack before you come online.
I think Sigourney Weaver is one of the most talented actresses in modern history. Her personal views don't particularly concern me, because nobody gives a damn what Hollywood has to say about anything.
I was 15? when Aliens was in theatres we went every day for a week,
I was about 15 when Alien came out. Absolutely loved it and still think it's one of the best horror movies ever made. Hell, one of the best movies ever made. Then Aliens was one helluva sequel. It was different. Less intimate and claustrophobic and more expansive, but great in it's own right. Bill Paxton as Hudson was a great character with a couple great lines we still quote around here. Lines like "Game over, man!" and "Why don't you put her in charge!"
“Why don’t you put her in charge!”
That should be Kamala's campaign slogan.
Ha, yeah, I can think of a lot of reasons. At least the little girl in Aliens was competent and capable.
mme. dillinger hates Newt lol.
And didn't spend half the movie cackling like an idiot.
Even post-Biden, I'm still wearing my "Ripley/Hicks 2024" shirt.
Of course the slogan is "The only way to be sure".
As loose as Romulus got with certain parts of the universe canon, at least it held back a bit from just being another post-covid "girlboss" shitshow in which the main character's lack of a Y chromosome (and in most cases implicit/explicit lack of sexual interest in those who have one as well) amounted to some kind of super-power. The central character had particular skills, and a back-story explaining them, but didn't become some kind of ninja-commando supersoldier when confronted with physical danger.
The hilarious irony of Burke’s corporate-inspired justifications to not “nuke it from orbit” is that they sound beat for beat like today’s academic and media sophistry in the face of arguing against anything that threatens their political self-interest.
Paul Reiser starring as Anthony Blinken that is irony.
I think you are overlooking the obvious. It's in the title. They are social commentary about what happens when you let uninvited aliens into your home
Or when impregnated with an unwanted and inimical thing.
So basically, it was time for another Alien movie. And so one was made. No deeper meaning than that.
It sounds like a fun enough movie - easy to enjoy on a surface level. Sometimes thats all one needs.
It was fine.
You probably won't want the time back if you go to see it.
Staying home and watching Aliens for the 200th time on streaming is also a perfectly good alternative though. The story-telling and performances in Aliens (or actually in Alien Resurrection) are better than in Romulus. That said, Romulus is an OK movie, not as disappointing as Covenant and a little more coherent (but also much simpler) than Prometheus.
So is this an Alien / Star Trek crossover?
it's disappointingly vacuous, a slick franchise placeholder that's been strangled into submission by the ruthless, unkillable monster it created.
Kinda describes certain politicians...
"gloopy body-horror erotica"? You should probably have kept that thought to yourself.
Suderman is useful or having negative movie taste--his panning is the best endorsement. Alien, like Body Snatchers, was the pro-choice acid movie of the season. Beekeeper is the Christian National Socialist version of Aryan Trumpanzistas v. Bidenismo, and so on. Cameron is by elimination a teensy bit less disgusting, so I'm absolutely watching this movie.
Suderman is another data point in the plot showing that millenials (and probably younger) shouldn't be allowed to talk about movies made in the 1970s.
I think it was maybe in the Atlantic that I first saw a breakdown of the original Alien which called out the scene of the Captain over-ruling Ripley's insistence on quarantine protocols and allowing Ashe back onto the ship (although if I remember the scene correctly, it was actually the "synthetic" who opened the airlock, and maybe would have done it based on instructions from "The Company"/"Mother" regardless) as a glaring example of the misogyny of the times (never mind that it was an event needed to advance the plot), despite having earlier in the same article lauded the writers for being so progressive in only ever referring to characters by surname and leaving the casting of all of them completely open in terms of race/gender.
How was a plot-necessary interaction between genderless/raceless characters also intended to re-enforce misogynistic patterns if the intent of the writers was that a female captain overruling a male first officer should be equally likely to the way the production ended up being cast? Would the same reviewer have called the choice of a male "Ripley" and female "Dallas" as misogyny for having made the movie's central character a male when the script opened the possibility of a female-led ensemble?
Minor Spoilers Ahead:
I must admit I was positively surprised as the movie was not at all woke and it wasn't unwatchable like some of its predecessors. Sure, it wasn't a great movie and it's far from being a perfect one but compared to the myriad of woke schlocks nowadays it was okay. It has a "diverse" cast but the characters weren't just some annoying, 4th wall breaking, current-year-politics expo dumps as (at least most of them) had decent personalities, fears and goals and all that. The lead actress was the closest Ripley-clone we got so far as she was smart, brave and cautious in a believable way, not le stronk womyn defeating all the evil straight-white-males of the galaxy. In fact, her (ex?) boyfriend was played straight too in a completely traditional way, not unlike portrayals from the 80's: he was manly, responsible, aggressive (so not a beta cuck), and the men did most of the fighting themselves (unlike in ultrawoke trash). The creators also respected the saga, chiefly the original movie which was visible and audible all throughout the movie.