ALIEN: COVENANT (2017) - May 19th

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Message
Author
User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34185
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: ALIEN: COVENANT (2017) - May 19th

#61 Post by AndyDursin »

My review is up on the front page:

http://andyfilm.com/2017/05/16/5-23-17- ... -releases/

BTW if you are hoping to see Noomi -- watch the "prologue" that Fox produced for the web (linked above). She's in THAT more than she is in the film! :evil:

As for the music, I do give Jed Kurzel credit for using so much of Goldsmith's ALIEN score, extensively in the opening half-hour, and utilizing some of Gregson-Williams' theme from PROMETHEUS in key places. The rest of his music does nothing, as expected, but it at least stays out of the way, and it's definitely superior to the PROMETHEUS score.

The movie, however, is not.

Eric W.
Posts: 7569
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

Re: ALIEN: COVENANT (2017) - May 19th

#62 Post by Eric W. »

Good write up. By and large the consensus building more or less matches what you're saying.

Gore fest...Fassbender is good... after that it's jump through the hoops, etc. etc.

We all know the music scene is completely dead. That's a sad given.

Who is this composer? Never heard of him.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 9713
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: ALIEN: COVENANT (2017) - May 19th

#63 Post by Monterey Jack »

Andy's assessment is, sadly, pretty much my own...the film delivers the requisite jolts, and looks great (not to mention enough usage of Goldsmith's original music to have earned his obligatory "theme from Alien by" credit in the opening titles), but, in the end, it adds nothing to the overall "lore" of the franchise, basically coming off compared to Prometheus what Alien: Resurrection did to Alien 3...a slick, propulsive "monster jumping out of the dark" action potboiler that "gives the fans what they want" in the most reductive, backpedaling way possible. :? At least Resurrection, lame as it was, had Sigourney Weaver's assured, wryly amusing lead performance to hold it together and a more memorable crew of expendable supporting characters (you know just how forgettable the cast of a movie is when Danny McBride delivers the best performance :shock: ). All in all, it was certainly easy enough to sit through, and is the fourth-best overall in a franchise that has still, almost forty years later, only generated two genuinely exceptional installments, but you have to wonder why Scott wasted his time on something as forgettable as this. Prometheus, for all its flaws, was nevertheless a film that tickled a genuine sense of awe in its strongest passages, but here, the "answers" Noomi Rapace's Shaw went questing for at the end of the film are swept away with appalling casualness, making it every bit as dramatically pointless as Ripley's rescue of Newt was in Aliens when she was callously killed off in the opening credits of Alien 3. :evil: Who knows if Scott will ever get to finish his "trilogy", considering his advancing age, so to waste a year or so of his time on Earth with such a slick-but-routine franchise placeholder seems downright negligent.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34185
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: ALIEN: COVENANT (2017) - May 19th

#64 Post by AndyDursin »

Estimates have this doing very well this weekend at a possible $40 mil opening, but a couple of observations:

-This is absolutely going to tank in its 2nd weekend. That ending is such a downer, makes you feel like you wasted all of your time on this film, that you can see it having terrible word of mouth. PROMETHEUS hung around enough in subsequent weekends to do $125 million domestic, or thereabouts, but I wouldn't be surprised if this fails to hit $100 million U.S. and fades very quickly.

-Another movie that shows the worthlessness of the Tomato Meter. 77% fresh? Yeah, sure.

-The movie did not cost massive dollars and will probably turn a profit regardless. Budget was supposedly $110 mil but under that after various incentives, allegedly. Likely enough to generate another one even if it fades quickly, which I'd guess it will.

The biggest mystery is why Ridley Scott, at his age, and stage of his career, wants to continue making these movies. Do his kids really need this money? I mean, maybe he's taking care of his late brother's family also. I have no idea, but outside of financial interests, creatively there is nothing left in the tank after this sequel to warrant his participation.

mkaroly
Posts: 6214
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: ALIEN: COVENANT (2017) - May 19th

#65 Post by mkaroly »

I will post my review here since it seems appropriate to do so! SPOILER ALERT...please don't read unless you have seen the film!!!!

I think the movie is very disturbing and definitely is a downer; the moment David and Walter got into their fight and the cut was made before the last punch, I though, "Uh-oh," and my fears were confirmed at the end. I too was somewhat confused as to what the point of this movie was - it is a mix of ALIEN, ALIENS (as far as the colony theme), and a continuation of the PROMETHEUS storyline. Everyone knows that the people are going to die, so why THIS story? And why so downbeat? I have defended ALIEN 3 as a solid conclusion to Ripley's story, as depressing as that film was...and yet now I felt a little cheated at the end of COVENANT because I felt the helplessness of the characters who will be the hosts for David's Aliens. I really liked Dany's character; she has doe eyes but an inner resolve and strength that made her a solid female leader. I wanted to see her overcome it all and, in essence, be something of a Ripley character.

But then again, after reflecting on it, I don't think that is what Scott is going for. It seems clear based on this film and PROMETHEUS (where he had the chance to preserve Dr. Shaw and secure Noomi Rapace's return) that Scott is not concerned with the relationship between a human and the alien (and I wonder if he even wants to create another Ripley-like heroine in the series). All four of the "older" ALIEN films were about Ripley's relationship with the Alien species; now it is about David's relationship with the Alien species. If Scott's goal in a three film arc is to work these "prequels" into a link that flows into the 1979 ALIEN, then this film at least gets us to the point where we finally have the Alien species we are familiar with from the older films, and it is explained that David engineered them. So that genetic mutational part is complete. But one wonders where it could all go from here. As yet there is no Queen (I half expected a Queen to show up in COVENANT) - David, for the time being, plays that role. Will Dany be the host that will produce a Queen? Or will one of the other colony members, maybe one of the embryos, get us to a Queen? And then will some colony member figure it all out and rise up to defeat David (albeit too late), and how do the Engineers factor in to it (i.e. do they have another planet that they colonized) since, in ALIEN, the Nostromo crew discover an Engineer with his chest open?

I liked that COVENANT pursued the theme of Creator and created (much like BLADE RUNNER and PROMETHEUS did); David's power (as it were) to destroy and create were foundational to me as to why the movie was so disturbing. He is psychopathic with his God complex and is essentially eternal (unless someone figures out a way to shoot him up or deprogram him). I really loved the visceral terror in the film - the visuals and sound effects all made me very squirmy in my seat, and Face Huggers continue to be terrifying to me (since we know what's coming). I really liked the film score composer's willingness to use Goldsmith's themes and infuse the film with them and HGW's Life theme from PROMETHEUS. I also liked the way the film drew parallels between the other films and it (for example, with the bobbing stork on the white table and with the android/human female conflict). And as with any Ridley Scott film, I loved the visuals...he has such a great sense of screen composition, environments, and scale. I can almost sit there and watch his films frame by frame just to soak everything in.

There are some things I did not like about the film. For one, I do not understand how David could make the statement that he loved Dr. Shaw (that he grew to love the Aliens, yes) and then turn around and say that Walter loved Dany...where did that come from? Secondly, I still want to know more about the Engineers and am disappointed that, for all we know, David wiped them all out with their own weapon (unless there is an Engineer colony somewhere out there on some other planet). I want answers! Lol...I also did not like the shower scene toward the end of the film. Although it was tastefully done, it seemed at that point in the film more of a convenient setup to get rid of two more people than a legitimate scene in the movie. Finally, some of the dialogue seemed very awkward. For example, Captain Oram's line of dialogue early on about his faith as a means of giving the character a "theme" or dimensionality seemed very unlike what someone would say in reality. Nor do I think that theme was developed very well (though I have only seen the film once and so I can't remember everything I saw or heard in it).

Ultimately, if Scott makes another one (and personally I hope he does), its success or failure will hinge on a couple of things: first, are people interested in David's story arc and his relationship with the Aliens? He is a heinous villain - seems risky to be following this story arc. Second, will Scott provide viewers with a heroine like Ripley and infuse the story with some hope? That's what I think people want with the ALIEN franchise (generally speaking), but I wonder if that is even possible given his desire to link these prequels with the 1979 ALIEN film. If there was a heroine, wouldn't she have to die anyway? Or maybe, since these prequels seem to be about David and the Aliens, does he eventually realize (albeit too late) that he has done something wrong and try to rectify it? I guess the next script is already done...we'll see if it gets made. I will give some credit to Scott in this: the Alien universe is nightmarish and depressing on the whole - they had an opportunity to go in a different direction with ALIEN 3 and didn't, so the universe is what it is for now. If these prequels have to lead into 1979 ALIEN, then unfortunately there is quite a bit of darkness to follow. That doesn't mean there can't be some hope (and I wish Dany could find a way to survive the ending of COVENANT), but it appears that Scott is sticking to the darker path, so despite how bad I felt at the end of COVENANT, I will go along for the ride. Those are just some of the bunches of thoughts I had after watching the film once - lots of holes in them. I will give the film a 7/10...I liked PROMETHEUS more, but I need to see COVENANT a few more times.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34185
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: ALIEN: COVENANT (2017) - May 19th

#66 Post by AndyDursin »

The problem is screenplays have never been the strong suit of Ridley Scott's films -- even in GLADIATOR, the story as laid out has some fundamental issues. Visuals are what he cares about, but details are often lacking. Is Deckard a replicant? Well, Scott didn't really know while he was shooting BLADE RUNNER what he was doing -- he decided afterwards and in re-cuts to fashion the movie to provide an answer, but it was never there initially. Or was a half-baked concept if it was.

Reflecting more on COVENANT, I just don't understand what the point of all of this is. It's like Ridley thinks "David" is the new Hannibal, some anti-hero the audience loves (to hate), but I truly doubt the character resonates with anyone to that degree. Positioning him as the main character in these movies looks like a total miscalculation. Katherine Waterston was obviously cast as a Ripley type, but the end provides a massive middle finger to the audience. Gee, thanks! Can I get my money back? I am telling you right now, all you have to do is look at audience feedback comments, that this movie is absolutely going to tank next weekend. They will be lucky to pass much more than $60 million+ domestic once it craters.

Who CARES how the Space Jockey ended up at the beginning of ALIEN with the facehugger? What difference does it make? I've seen people claim this is all intended to lay out how the Nostromo found the derelict ship, but it seems to me David misfired in his creation of a master alien race if the only thing it does is result in a single spaceship being picked off one by one by one single monster.

I think Scott has totally missed the boat in the big picture. Fans always wanted to see the planet the Aliens came from, yes -- but in Scott's mind, all we got was a group of bald people who were wiped out in 60 seconds and an empty group of sets that looked like leftovers from Star Trek. The "big questions" from PROMETHEUS are basically forgotten about or glossed over (like you said Michael, what even happened to Shaw is never specifically explained), and the movie is really just a rehash of the first ALIEN, in the guise of a "sequel" like THE FORCE AWAKENS.

It's just a shame Scott seemingly killed off the ALIENS sequel Blomkamp wanted to make...I am sure it would've been more warmly embraced, and ambitious, than COVENANT. And why Scott is interested in telling this story is beyond me. All I can figure is this is all about $$$, which is usually where most Hollywood decisions are made.

mkaroly
Posts: 6214
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: ALIEN: COVENANT (2017) - May 19th

#67 Post by mkaroly »

AndyDursin wrote:Reflecting more on COVENANT, I just don't understand what the point of all of this is. It's like Ridley thinks "David" is the new Hannibal, some anti-hero the audience loves (to hate), but I truly doubt the character resonates with anyone to that degree. Positioning him as the main character in these movies looks like a total miscalculation.
Good point - Hannibal was actually likeable and someone you could root for. The problem is that David is not. And that is the big risk Scott is taking in making the story arc of these films center on David's relationship with the Aliens. So it turns out that the Engineers created the weapon to remove their creation from the planets they seeded, but David ultimately perfects the Alien with his genetic experiments? If so, to what end? This is why I want him to make a third film...I want to see him resolve it and then kick back, think about it, and agree or disagree with it. Lol...he made his bed so now he has to sleep in it!

I will end up watching it a few more times, but I am surprised at how dark it was. I was expecting a hellish nightmare of sorts, but this film really pushed beyond that in a lot of ways. Although...if Scott had allowed Dany to survive with Tennessee at the end, would people be crying "FOUL!" because it might have been perceived as something that was too ALIENS-like (granted that there is no romance between the two and no kid, but one COULD make the case that having gone through everything both Dany and Tennessee might have found common ground on which to build a relationship on the new planet; and in that scenario Dany would have had to defeat the Alien "Queen" [i.e. David])? Again, just some silly train-of-thoughts thoughts.

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7031
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: ALIEN: COVENANT (2017) - May 19th

#68 Post by Paul MacLean »

AndyDursin wrote:The problem is screenplays have never been the strong suit of Ridley Scott's films -- even in GLADIATOR, the story as laid out has some fundamental issues. Visuals are what he cares about, but details are often lacking.
I think many people get that sense.

Back in 1992, there was a documentary about Scott shown on British television, and one of the people interviewed was David Puttnam, who mused, based on Scott's work up to that point, "What does he care about? And what is he going to leave behind, beyond a set of absolutely gorgeous images?"

There is no question, Ridley Scott is one of the greatest directors who ever lived, but unlike most other "high concept" filmmakers of the past 40-45 years -- Coppola, Spielberg, Lucas, DePalma, Scorsese, Zemeckis, etc., Scott is not a writer-director. All of those other guys have written screenplays, and often have an active hand in the writing of their films, on some level. Scott's strength is in the realm of telling stories, but not necessarily creating stories.

Even one of his greatest films, Blade Runner, is more of an abstract narrative (though it certainly works). I love Legend, but more for its arresting visuals (and Goldsmith's score) than for its plot, or characters. And tellingly, one of Scott's most acclaimed pictures -- Thelma & Louise -- was a spec script he directed as it had been written.
AndyDursin wrote:Fans always wanted to see the planet the Aliens came from, yes -- but in Scott's mind, all we got was a group of bald people who were wiped out in 60 seconds and an empty group of sets that looked like leftovers from Star Trek.
I was VERY frustrated with the destruction of the Engineers' civilization. Considering David was wiping out an entire race race, it was treated in a very throwaway manner. And it wasn't very plausible either -- are you telling me that if one of the Engineers' ancient ships suddenly showed up above their world, they wouldn't send another ship to investigate who might be flying it, before it entered their atmosphere? If an aircraft carrier which had been presumed lost during WW II was spotted sailing toward San Francisco harbor, you can bet the US Navy would dispatch several ships and fighter jets to intercept it, contact it -- and blow it to smithereens if no one responded. I guess the Engineers aren't as smart as we are.

The Engineers have no defense against their own biological weapons? Are there Engineers living on other worlds (likely, if they can travel to other planets)? Is David concerned other Engineers will arrive on the planet and punish him? Is this the Engineer's home planet?

So, David is the creator of the "face hugger"? Ok, then how does one of the Engineers' ships (with a hold full of eggs) wind-up on the planet where the Nostromo lands? Also, in Alien, the derelict ship looks as if it's been there for hundreds (if not thousands) of years. What is the time frame of the original Alien vs. that of Covenant? Because the technology in Covenant doesn't look less-developed than that in Alien (if anything it looks more modern)!

And like all of you, I despised the ending. I also spotted the twist ending fairly early on. I even suspected it around halfway through the film.
AndyDursin wrote:The "big questions" from PROMETHEUS are basically forgotten about or glossed over (like you said Michael, what even happened to Shaw is never specifically explained), and the movie is really just a rehash of the first ALIEN, in the guise of a "sequel" like THE FORCE AWAKENS.
And what added insult to injury was that we had to sit through a trailer for War of the Planets of the Apes -- which is ALSO a pointless remake which cops-out with "more of the same" rather than taking the story in a new direction.

I think I'll just stay home and watch television from now on!
Last edited by Paul MacLean on Sun May 28, 2017 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34185
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: ALIEN: COVENANT (2017) - May 19th

#69 Post by AndyDursin »

The more I think about it, the more I find it stupid that Scott felt the need to explain where the Alien came from. You watch Alien Vs Predator and it's established the alien has existed for centuries back to ancient times...this wipes it all out and establishes that a psycho robot with too much time on his hands created it instead centuries into the future!

Some things simply do not need to be explained or "retconned" into a "new canon" only die-hard fans would ever care about.

Post Reply