Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Spells &amp; Karma" data-source="post: 395479" data-attributes="member: 23">Alien: Covenant (2017) <img src="https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fhypebeast.com%2Fimage%2F2017%2F03%2Falien-covenant-official-movie-poster-2.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=e416be07c377d98ab29de34f695f16d0c604d1af02e4e9e3aa3681d9f0c82e86&ipo=images" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="width: 559px" /> For context, I actually watched this at the weekend but I'm only just getting round to writing about it. Even after a relatively short time, memories get a little fuzzy and logic takes over due to (over)thinking time. For these reasons, I find my views on Covenant perhaps a little harsher than they might have been three days ago. The not so good news with this film is that it disappointed. It wasn't big time disappointment - there's a lot to enjoy and it's certainly mostly a well-made film - but there's just an underlying feeling that it could have been better. The casting is mostly fine (if one can get past ghastly Jussie Smollett's presence). If Prometheus was Alien without the Xenomorph, Covenant feels rather like Ridley Scott's take on 1986's Aliens, with elements of Alien 3 and Resurrection thrown in for good measure. In this regard I'm reminded of how Halloween's 2018 reboot was a top-notch tribute to the spirit of the original while the follow up films delved tonally into the numerous Halloween sequels and were all the poorer for it. There's (1986's) Aliens' big stakes, with threat on a world scale and a large cast of characters armed with guns and whatnot. But this means there's also (1986's) Aliens'  boisterousness and muscle flexing The good news being that since this is Ridley Scott instead of Cameron and Hurd, Covenant mercifully lacks the air of chest-puffing, gum-chewing swaggering conceit that I find such a turn-off in Aliens (well-made and revered as it is). The new planet with its inbuilt threat and old-world feel conjures up Alien 3 (and probably some of what makes that film work for me). More controversially, Covenant takes a leaf from Alien 3's book by [ISPOILER]killing off one of its primary protagonists off-screen between films. It's a decision I cheered in Alien 3, Newt's incessant, annoying high-pitched scream  having been one of the main reasons I find Aliens so intolerable. [/ISPOILER]I'm less enthused about the similar choice in Covenant, though this stems less from attachment and more from disappointment at having to start this angle from scratch... again. There's also Resurrection's themes of experimentation as a means of speeding up evolution. Also in common with the original sequels is the "give 'em what they want" approach with the alien itself. When the xenomorph does show up, it's more in-your-face than it should be: on screen and nicely lit. What makes the original Alien the best of the films - still - is that it kept the alien in the shadows, where it's never been more terrifying. It's said that Ridley Scott understandably wanted Covenant to be a direct continuation of Prometheus, with a focus on AI (embodied by David) as the key threat and that he did not plan for the Xenomorph to even feature until there was interference from The Powers That Be based on feedback from Prometheus. Understanding this helps make sense of Covenant. It does pick up Prometheus's themes and run with them. There's also alien horror action. Neither quite achieves its potential because there's a sense of two differently toned films playing out at the same time, but a few days on, it's the Prometheus stuff that lingers in the mind, while the xenomorph stuff is already forgotten. That's where the interest lies.</blockquote>

Verification: Who played Sue Ellen in Dallas?

Poison your name this Hallowe'en

There's plenty of time to choose your spooky October username

Click here for more details

Reply to thread