On February 25, 1996, the New York Times published a very good opinion piece titled “The Decay Of Cinema,” which is written by the essayist, critic, and novelist Susan Sontag.
Sontag wrote: “Each art breeds its fanatics. The love that cinema inspired, however, was special. It was born of the conviction that cinema was an art unlike any other: quintessentially modern; distinctively accessible; poetic and mysterious and erotic and moral — all at the same time. Cinema had apostles. (It was like religion.) Cinema was a crusade. For cinephiles, the movies encapsulated everything. Cinema was both the book of art and the book of life.”
Sontag went on to write about the decline of cinema not only as an art form, but also as a vital element of American culture. I thought about her essay after seeing “Alien: Romulus” at a theater the other day on its opening afternoon. If movies are decaying, then “Alien: Romulus” is a drab and dreary contemporary symbol of its decline.
Additionally, during an interview, director Martin Scorsese famously condemned so-called “comic book” films as being “closer to theme parks than they are to movies as I’ve known and loved them throughout my life, and that in the end, I don’t think they’re cinema.” For the record, Scorsese has nothing but praise for director Sam Rami’s 2002 “Spider-Man,” which stars Tobey Maguire. It’s the only “comic book” film he likes.
There have been eight previous modern era feature-length movies in the “Alien” series. They can be watched chronologically — representing the time in which their stories take place, or they can be watched in the order the movies were released. With the 9th film in the franchise, the people behind “Aliens: Romulus” should at least have made an effort to try something different. Instead, we have what amounts to a compendium of old tropes and tried-and-true terrors from the previous motion pictures.
Of course, the masterworks are 1979’s “Alien” and 1986’s “Aliens.” Nothing else in the series comes close. Appreciating, even understanding, “Alien: Romulus” requires knowledge of what came before. In some regard, extensive knowledge is required. Although perhaps no one should really worry about that. Why? Because the new movie will repeat scenes, dialogue, action moments, and myriad other elements from its predecessors. If you expect someone to be covered in alien goo, it will happen.
However, if you expect Sigourney Weaver’s head to be superimposed on Cailee Spaeny’s body when the toothsome monster oozes drool, well, you’ll be disappointed because you don’t get that surprise, although it would have been a nice touch. I have seen Weaver’s iconic franchise performances; in fact, I have talked to Weaver. Cailee Spaeny, as the youthful character named Rain, is no Sigourney Weaver. Not even close.
In “Alien: Romulus,” the only real questions, and what fanatics are really looking forward to, are what part of which character’s body will explode, and when. Unfortunately there’s a long haul to anything interesting happening. Even though the overall tedium clocks in at only 119 minutes, it feels longer. For a while, not much happens except a “synthetic human” (you know, a robot type), played by David Jonsson, spends most his time telling bad jokes. Weak puns are not what’s needed.
Something different, something, new, something fresh is warranted because an audience has the right to not expect the same old attacks by familiar gruesome creatures against a bunch of freshly scrubbed acting faces. But that’s what moviegoers get: the same old, same old.
By the way, except for Spaeny, who was good in “Priscilla” and blah in “Civil War,” who are most of these young folks in the cast? Clearly, they are youthful performers who were willing to work cheap. There’s a boring extended set-up during which not much happens until a group of them gets on an outer space cargo carrier and heads out to somewhere else from the mining colony where they work in slave-like conditions.
In this movie, it takes a while for the action to get going. The goal of the space cadets is to secure something that I’ll keep secret, which is really important only to the lazy screenwriters, including Fede Alvarez, who also directed, and a fellow named Rodo Sayagues, who seems to work just with this specific director.
The action will then involve arriving at, and eventually running around, that battered old space ship/station – a bifurcated floating garbage dump called Romulus and Remus – being threatened by monsters. Facehuggers abound. There’s a Xenomorph. The end result requires that someone will survive for the tenth alien escapade. Who?
The first third of “Alien: Romulus” looks as if it were filmed through a mud mask. Scenes are badly under-lit. And it wasn’t the projection. Folks around the country are noting how dull and murky the imagery is. Additionally, the sound in the first third is also atrocious. Again, not a local problem. I noticed an actual improvement in image and sound at about an hour into the tedium. The dialogue became clearer. The focus sharpened. I guess a budget of $80-million doesn’t buy very much these days.
Who is to blame for these failures? Director Alvarez? Primary producer Ridley Scott? Cinematographer Galo Olivares? The Sound Department credits reveal 31 names; therefore, it’s difficult to figure out who was in charge in that regard.
Is anything worthwhile? Yes, the performance by Jonsson as Andy the “synthetic human” stood out, in spite of the fact that he did have to tell a lot of corny jokes. Jonsson actually dared to create a character. He generated true empathy. He delivered a performance. Bravo to him.
“Alien: Romulus” has hints of both “The Wizard Of Oz” and “2001: A Space Odyssey” within its framework, but it’s nowhere near as brilliant as either. Good grief, absolutely not. These hints mostly involve what I will simply describe as a television monitor in which a scratchy black and white image of a talking head named Rook (represented by visuals of Ian Holm) takes center stage.
If your idea of fun is a bleak, poorly constructed, technologically failed motion picture regurgitating eight other better films, then have at it. For the rest of you, well, you’ve been properly advised.