I have a real weakness for this franchise. Even at its worst, I'm having a pretty good time. Slightly disappointed that it's stepping back toward square one instead of venturing further into Scott's crazy theological horrorshow, but goddammit I'll take what I can get.
I'm curious about the way critics dance around a spoiler - basically every review I've seen has said some version of what Scott's review included - in such a way that, for someone familiar with the series, it's pretty immediately obvious what the spoiler in question is (and which is confirmed by looking at the films iMDB page). I get wanting to raise it, but if doing so in this way likely spoils it for the people who would actually get the reference, should it be included at all? Or should the review just go all-out and be explicit about the details, spoilers be damned?
I was a little annoyed about having to withhold this spoiler at the studio's request, just b/c you feel hamstrung dancing around an important part of the movie. But since I wasn't inclined to go into great detail about how [spoiler] impacts the story, I left it vague.
Yeah, I wondered if that was a studio request. It seems like this is the kind of topic that will result in essays and thinkpieces. Is there a secondary embargo from the studio on these? Or once it's released to the public, does anything go in terms of discussion of details?
From your description, you didn't know for sure until you looked at IMDB, which you didn't need to do. I've seen all the Alien movies and I have a guess who's being described but I won't know until I see the movie, so IMO nothing has been spoiled here. I think "likely" in your comment is inaccurate.
Overall , if spoilers are a big deal to people, I think the onus is on the spoiler-averse to avoid reviews and social media until they see the thing. But I clearly lack sympathy for the spoiler-averse, so ymmv.
Everyone I know who was excited for this movie was so specifically because it was supposed to avoid any franchise morass and just be a good thriller starring some xenomorphs. Been a real bummer to read the reviews.
Those elements felt like if your friend's ex from years ago all of a sudden kept crashing your parties and tried to be the center of attention and everyone was too polite to ask them to leave.
As much as I admire Fede Alvarez, when I saw photos of the pretty young cast I had a sinking suspicion that Romulus didn't get what made those first few Alien films click. What else can you expect from an August film release?
Oh well. I've been working through Scavenger's Reign and that series understood why Alien was so successful even more so than Ridley Scott (judging by the prequels). Maybe give those guys a shot at it? It seems the franchise is too reliable to fail.
At the risk of traipsing too close to spoiler territory: if they were gonna bring back anybody in such a fashion, it should've been Dan O'Bannon as Sgt. Pinback from the good ship Dark Star.
A retread of previous Alien(s) with just much more gore is exactly what I was worried/assumed Romulus would end up being. Still going to go see it though, so I can hardly complain if they keep making them.
This is thing that always gets me about movies — far moreso than books or music or any other creative medium: ones that not work are often more interesting than ones that do. Me would rather spend Sunday afternoon watching Jaws or Singin' In Rain than Caligula, but what is there to say about those first two except that they do everything extremely well? Caligula, we could talk about that movie for days.
And it would be sacriledge on order of burning down Sesame Street to change single frame of Jaws, but you could recut dozen different versions of Caligula and each one would be interesting for different reasons. (Maybe someone should just take all that footage and put it into Brian Eno machine and get different movie every time.)
The double-edged sword is that bad movies, music, paintings, etc. for the most part fade out of the cultural consciousness; but out of economic necessity and due to their method of production, bad movies and TV shows are at the outset drilled into our heads through incessant marketing, and can still float around the collective aether with easily accessible copies for decades on end. A bad painting is thrown away. A bad book gets a single print run. But we still might think about Caligula or Cop Rock or The Room because for a brief period of time, they were EVERYWHERE—even if it was to talk about how fatally flawed they were. And perhaps we more hold onto that feeling of a maelstrom rather than the inferior object at the middle of it.
That’s all solid. There was a lot going on pre-Peckinpah and Leone that shorthand versions of movie history can breeze past. I just wouldn’t want to throw the revisionist western babies out with the dirty revisionist bathwater. UNFORGIVEN, for one, which is on my short list of favorite movies. I think that’s an example of a movie truly interested in the genre’s underpinnings where HIGH PLAINS is more interested in seeing what it can burn down. But then, _deeply_ problematic elements and all I like that movie too.
What I want to know about this Caligula is, has the colorization improved? Is there any way in the editing of this new version it could have improved on the absolutely ugly look of the film? Mind you, I'm not talking "ugly" as a moral aspect, but visually. Per my recollection when I saw it on DVD 20 years ago (yeah, judge away... I was curious and finally rented it at a Hollywood Video after having given it dozens of side-looks), the lighting and color palettes were so hideous, that nothing spoken or done in front of the camera could rise above terrible. That may be more of an issue to take up with the late Silvano Ippoliti, but still.
I briefly considered being coy about the “ethical red line” that ROMULUS crosses in my Letterboxd review, but figured it’s Letterboxd. I am under no obligation to the studio to keep their dirty little secret.
Especially once it's out in the world. But reviews here are a different story and, honestly, I think we'd get more complaints for spoiling it than not spoiling it. And it's just in my nature to minimize spoilers anyway. As for the film, the only way I can justify the choice in my head by the way is it comments on the perils of AI going too far while also being an example AI going too far. But that's a stretch.
Also, as much as it’s about how heartless and soulless The Company can be (whether it’s Weyland Yutani or Disney/20th Century), it’s a corporate product itself, beholden to The Company’s interests.
I'll be seated for Alien this weekend - there's only been two Alien flicks released in my adulthood so far, I'm not missing any of 'em.
I have a real weakness for this franchise. Even at its worst, I'm having a pretty good time. Slightly disappointed that it's stepping back toward square one instead of venturing further into Scott's crazy theological horrorshow, but goddammit I'll take what I can get.
I'm curious about the way critics dance around a spoiler - basically every review I've seen has said some version of what Scott's review included - in such a way that, for someone familiar with the series, it's pretty immediately obvious what the spoiler in question is (and which is confirmed by looking at the films iMDB page). I get wanting to raise it, but if doing so in this way likely spoils it for the people who would actually get the reference, should it be included at all? Or should the review just go all-out and be explicit about the details, spoilers be damned?
I was a little annoyed about having to withhold this spoiler at the studio's request, just b/c you feel hamstrung dancing around an important part of the movie. But since I wasn't inclined to go into great detail about how [spoiler] impacts the story, I left it vague.
Yeah, I wondered if that was a studio request. It seems like this is the kind of topic that will result in essays and thinkpieces. Is there a secondary embargo from the studio on these? Or once it's released to the public, does anything go in terms of discussion of details?
From your description, you didn't know for sure until you looked at IMDB, which you didn't need to do. I've seen all the Alien movies and I have a guess who's being described but I won't know until I see the movie, so IMO nothing has been spoiled here. I think "likely" in your comment is inaccurate.
Overall , if spoilers are a big deal to people, I think the onus is on the spoiler-averse to avoid reviews and social media until they see the thing. But I clearly lack sympathy for the spoiler-averse, so ymmv.
Everyone I know who was excited for this movie was so specifically because it was supposed to avoid any franchise morass and just be a good thriller starring some xenomorphs. Been a real bummer to read the reviews.
FWIW I don’t disagree with Scott’s points but I still had a really good, scary time with it.
I am still planning to see it as soon as possible. 😂 I guess I'm just a little shocked at the studio's inability to read the room.
Those elements felt like if your friend's ex from years ago all of a sudden kept crashing your parties and tried to be the center of attention and everyone was too polite to ask them to leave.
Ugh. Confirmed everything I’ve seen on Twitter, in that this is just a rehash of all things Alien past. Disappointing but far from shocking
The words "a blood- and semen-drenched plunge into nihilism" have never made me want to see a movie more.
That's a pull quote if I ever saw one, and the pun might even be fully intended.
I immediately thought of the old “The AV Club” pull quote gag when I read that. IYKYK
As much as I admire Fede Alvarez, when I saw photos of the pretty young cast I had a sinking suspicion that Romulus didn't get what made those first few Alien films click. What else can you expect from an August film release?
Oh well. I've been working through Scavenger's Reign and that series understood why Alien was so successful even more so than Ridley Scott (judging by the prequels). Maybe give those guys a shot at it? It seems the franchise is too reliable to fail.
At the risk of traipsing too close to spoiler territory: if they were gonna bring back anybody in such a fashion, it should've been Dan O'Bannon as Sgt. Pinback from the good ship Dark Star.
Benson, Arizona, blew warm wind through your hair
My body flies the galaxy, my heart longs to be there
A retread of previous Alien(s) with just much more gore is exactly what I was worried/assumed Romulus would end up being. Still going to go see it though, so I can hardly complain if they keep making them.
This is thing that always gets me about movies — far moreso than books or music or any other creative medium: ones that not work are often more interesting than ones that do. Me would rather spend Sunday afternoon watching Jaws or Singin' In Rain than Caligula, but what is there to say about those first two except that they do everything extremely well? Caligula, we could talk about that movie for days.
And it would be sacriledge on order of burning down Sesame Street to change single frame of Jaws, but you could recut dozen different versions of Caligula and each one would be interesting for different reasons. (Maybe someone should just take all that footage and put it into Brian Eno machine and get different movie every time.)
The double-edged sword is that bad movies, music, paintings, etc. for the most part fade out of the cultural consciousness; but out of economic necessity and due to their method of production, bad movies and TV shows are at the outset drilled into our heads through incessant marketing, and can still float around the collective aether with easily accessible copies for decades on end. A bad painting is thrown away. A bad book gets a single print run. But we still might think about Caligula or Cop Rock or The Room because for a brief period of time, they were EVERYWHERE—even if it was to talk about how fatally flawed they were. And perhaps we more hold onto that feeling of a maelstrom rather than the inferior object at the middle of it.
That’s all solid. There was a lot going on pre-Peckinpah and Leone that shorthand versions of movie history can breeze past. I just wouldn’t want to throw the revisionist western babies out with the dirty revisionist bathwater. UNFORGIVEN, for one, which is on my short list of favorite movies. I think that’s an example of a movie truly interested in the genre’s underpinnings where HIGH PLAINS is more interested in seeing what it can burn down. But then, _deeply_ problematic elements and all I like that movie too.
What I want to know about this Caligula is, has the colorization improved? Is there any way in the editing of this new version it could have improved on the absolutely ugly look of the film? Mind you, I'm not talking "ugly" as a moral aspect, but visually. Per my recollection when I saw it on DVD 20 years ago (yeah, judge away... I was curious and finally rented it at a Hollywood Video after having given it dozens of side-looks), the lighting and color palettes were so hideous, that nothing spoken or done in front of the camera could rise above terrible. That may be more of an issue to take up with the late Silvano Ippoliti, but still.
I briefly considered being coy about the “ethical red line” that ROMULUS crosses in my Letterboxd review, but figured it’s Letterboxd. I am under no obligation to the studio to keep their dirty little secret.
Especially once it's out in the world. But reviews here are a different story and, honestly, I think we'd get more complaints for spoiling it than not spoiling it. And it's just in my nature to minimize spoilers anyway. As for the film, the only way I can justify the choice in my head by the way is it comments on the perils of AI going too far while also being an example AI going too far. But that's a stretch.
Also, as much as it’s about how heartless and soulless The Company can be (whether it’s Weyland Yutani or Disney/20th Century), it’s a corporate product itself, beholden to The Company’s interests.