Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: Yep. They’re back! ‘Alien: Romulus’ introduces next-gen Xenomorph foe Cailee Spaeny

Published

on

Movie Review: Yep. They’re back! ‘Alien: Romulus’ introduces next-gen Xenomorph foe Cailee Spaeny

“In space, no one can hear you scream,” went the tagline for the original “Alien” in 1979, a terrifying thought on multiple levels.

Movie Review: Yep. They’re back! ‘Alien: Romulus’ introduces next-gen Xenomorph foe Cailee Spaeny

There may indeed be a scientific rationale for a space scream to be inaudible, but isn’t it scarier to simply realize nobody’s around to hear you? That was the case for Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley, once she became the last one standing against the fearsome Xenomorph. Nobody could hear her scream — nobody human, that is — because, duh, everyone was dead.

In any case, hearing won’t be a problem here on Earth at any multiplex showing “Alien: Romulus,” the much-anticipated new installment to the “Alien” franchise This is a very big, very loud, very jumpy horror flick, and the screams will come, and they’ll be audible. Which is precisely what “Alien” fans are surely waiting for.

And speaking of Ripley, no, neither she are present in this new version by Fede Álvarez, closer in feel to the horror roots of Ridley Scott’s original than James Cameron’s more action-focused 1986 “Aliens.” But now we have Rain Carradine, played by rising star Cailee Spaeny , a new-generation Ripley in everything but name. Spaeny takes up the mantle of badass space fighter with aplomb, and is easily the best part of a movie that, like the 1979 original, is short on character development.

Advertisement

There are many other parallels to the original . But like we said, don’t call it a sequel. In fact it’s an “interquel,” which wouldn’t be a bad horror film title in itself. The dictionary explains that it’s neither sequel nor prequel, but rather a “middlequel” between installments, known as “quels.”

Just kidding! It’s not in the dictionary. But it’s worth noting that Álvarez, in placing his movie between existing versions to form a new trilogy, yet aiming also for standalone entertainment, risks some tonal confusion. Not that you’ll be able to hear your thoughts, should this occur to you.

The premise is new, sort of. Álvarez, who co-wrote the screenplay with Rodo Sayagues, has said he got the idea from a deleted scene from Cameron’s film, in which young kids were seen amongst workers in a mining colony, and wondering what their lives would be like when they reached their 20s.

At the beginning, we find out: life is bleak indeed in the colony on Jackson’s Star, owned by the worker-exploiting Weyland-Yutani firm.

Rain’s miner parents have died of lung ailments. They’ve left her a caring brother, Andy, who is actually a “synthetic,” or humanoid robot. The “human” element is crucial because it allows an empathetic David Jonsson, in the role, to connect to the audience in a way that otherwise only Spaeny does — the rest of the cast is given virtually nothing to work with.

Advertisement

In any case, the two are not long for Jackson’s Star. After Rain is turned down for a travel permit to finally escape dark colony life, she and Andy join a risky venture.

There’s an decommissioned space station hovering above, and if they can raid it of hardware and other loot, they can bypass the brutal wait for permits and finally make it to a new home. And so, reluctantly, the two agree to join the others — Rain’s ex-boyfriend Tyler , his sister Kay , Bjorn and Navarro — on a bumpy flight to the Renaissance station.

Surely we’re not spoiling much to say that it’s best not to get attached to anybody.

Because, we all know what’s waiting up there, don’t we? It’s already been teased in the opening, with the rickety old station looking much like USCSS Nostromo, that ill-fated space tug in the original.

We hardly needed the hint, though. This is an “Alien” movie and it’s all about the Xenomorph, that terrifying creature who is diabolically “perfect,” able to survive in any atmosphere and to multiply, obviously, in the most disgusting of ways.

Advertisement

It’s not really a party — or a movie — until the creatures show up. And that, they do. Much has been made of this film’s use of practical effects, rather than a CGI-created universe. The actors have said this — as well as shooting in a linear fashion — helped them feel the genuine horror needed for their portrayals.

Does all this elevate the film beyond any of its predecessors? Like so many franchises that depend on intense fandom, that truly depends from what vantage point you’re joining in. Fans of the original will appreciate the many respectful echoes of that film Fans of Cameron’s take will appreciate the action that comes later in the film.

And while some will applaud the wild, outlandish, creative and possibly ridiculous swerve of those final minutes — not to spoil it — others may even laugh rather than scream.

It’s all good, though. In space, probably no one can hear you laugh, either.

“Alien: Romulus,” a 20th-Century Studios release, has been rated R by the Motion Picture Association “for bloody violent content and language. “ Running time: 119 minutes. Two stars out of four.

Advertisement

This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

Movie Review – Reminders of Him (2026)

Published

on

Movie Review – Reminders of Him (2026)

Reminders of Him, 2026.

Directed by Vanessa Caswill.
Starring Maika Monroe, Tyriq Withers, Rudy Pankow, Lainey Wilson, Lauren Graham, Jennifer Robertson, Zoe Kosovic, Monika Myers, Sindhyar Baloch, Bradley Whitford, Nicholas Duvernay, Jillian Walchuck, Hilary Jardine, Skye MacDonald, Rick Koy, Susan Serrao, Anne Hawthorne, Laird Reghenas, and Kevin Corey.

SYNOPSIS:

After prison, a woman attempts to reconnect with her young daughter but faces resistance from everyone except a bar owner with ties to her child. As they grow closer, she must confront her past mistakes to build a hopeful future.

Advertisement

Given that Maika Monroe’s just-released-from-incarceration Kenna immediately desecrates the gravesite of her love Scotty (which is unintentionally hilariously on the side of the road where a tragic car accident took his life) by stealing the wooden cross (with an inner voice muttering that he hated memorials anyway), tells another character she doesn’t like cats, and complains to someone else that all music is sad and that she doesn’t like it, it’s reasonable to get the impression that the latest adaptation from Colleen Hoover, Reminders of Him, is intentionally aiming for an unlikable lead. Nothing says “get the audience on the side of our protagonist” like all of the above.

The reality is that Maika Monroe is capable enough to inject a modicum of emotion and grounded sincerity even into a Colleen Hoover character, but that, directed by Vanessa Caswill (with Lauren Levine writing the screenplay alongside the author), these are all characters stuck reaching for depth far out of grasp in a hollow romance that is less about someone with a criminal record ingratiating themselves back into society after a seven-year vehicular manslaughter sentence and earning the trust of her dead boyfriend’s parents (Bradley Whitford and Lauren Graham), now the legal guardians of her five-year-old daughter, for visitation rights or anything that would force the novelist (this is her third book translated to screen in as many years) to write an actual character, and more a dull push-pull possible relationship with the former NFL star best friend picking up the pieces, living next door to those grandparents, and assisting taking care of the young girl.

Asking the question “what would it be like to fuck your dead boyfriend’s best friend” should be a hell of a lot more morally thorny and emotionally charged than this. Rather than engage with that, the filmmakers need to dedicate 70 minutes to an outrageously contrived setup in which Kenna and that best friend, Ledger (Tyriq Withers, also visibly trying to express some personality and humanity, but is left hanging by the script), have never met before. Yes, you read that right (and yes, those are the real ridiculous names of these characters, although the latter is presumably intended to honor the late great Heath Ledger, who once starred in romantic dramas and made them a hell of a lot more watchable).

Despite being best friends, Ledger not only never met his best friend’s girlfriend, but he apparently had never even seen a picture of her until her mugshot (which he conveniently forgets, never mind that Maika Monroe looks mostly the same seven years removed) following the car accident on Scotty’s (Rudy Pankow) birthday, which he bailed on for fitness exams in preparation for the NFL draft. In the present, he no longer plays, having “blown out a shoulder”, yet appears physically fine and in no pain during the numerous shirtless scenes and a couple of sexual ones. Before the film gets there, he is skeptical of going anywhere near Kenna once he discovers her identity. Of course, that doesn’t last long because these two hot leads are gravitating toward spending time together.

Much of this is, to put it bluntly, airless and lifeless despite an ensemble trying their best to elevate the proceedings, with what feels like significant chunks of the novel cut out; there is a single flashback to Kenna’s time in prison – being taken under the wing of a mentor of sorts on how to survive – and Scotty is allocated such a minimal screen time that he hardly feels like a character and is never allowed to feel like a presence looming over the story and the choices these characters make. For some reason, there is also a friend Kenna makes here with Down syndrome (Monika Myers) who seems to exist as a vessel for comedic relief, which might have sat better if, once again, there were actually a damn character behind that.

Advertisement

One waits and waits for the inevitable moment where, after snowcone dates and playful arguments about music, there is a release of sexual tension. However, the drama resulting from this is childish, dumb, and resolved about three scenes later. You won’t need a reminder that Reminders of Him, like all Colleen Hoover adaptations thus far, is bad, once again searching for a romantic pulse and eroticism at the expense of characters who feel like actual people or anything that gives weight to the attempts at thorniness.

Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★

Robert Kojder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=embed/playlist

 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

“Resurrection” Movie Review: To Burn, Anyway

Published

on

“Resurrection” Movie Review: To Burn, Anyway

“What can one person do but two people can’t?”

“Dream.”

I knew the 2025 film “Resurrection” (狂野时代) would be elusive the second I walked out of Amherst Cinema and into the cold air, boots gliding over tanghulu-textured ice. The snow had stopped falling, but I wished it hadn’t so that I could bury myself in my thoughts a little longer. But the wind hit my uncovered face, the oxygen slipped from my lungs, and I realized that I had stopped dreaming.

“Resurrection” is a love letter to the evolution of cinematography, the ephemerality of storytelling, and the raw incoherence of life. Structured like an anthology film and set in a futuristic dreamscape, humanity achieves immortality on one condition: They can’t dream. We follow the last moments before the death of one rebel dreamer, called the “Deliriant” or “迷魂者,” as he travels through four different dream worlds, spanning a century in his mind.

Jackson Yee, who plays the main protagonist of the movie. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Being Bi Gan’s third film after the 2015 “Kaili Blues” (路边野餐) and the 2018 “Long Day’s Journey Into Night” (地球最后的夜晚), “Resurrection” follows Gan’s directorial style of creating fantastical, atmospheric worlds. Jackson Yee, known for being a member of the boy group TFBoys, stars as the Deliriant and takes on a different identity in each dream, ranging from a conflicted father-figure conman to an untethered young man looking for love to a hunted vessel with a beautiful voice. His acting morphs unhesitatingly into each role, tailored to the genre of each dream. Of which, “Resurrection” leans into, with practice and precision.

Advertisement

Opening with a silent film that mimics those of German expressionist cinema, “Resurrection” takes the opportunity to explore the genres of film noir, Buddhist fable, neorealism, and underworld romance. The Deliriant’s dreams are situated in the years 1900 to 2000, as we follow the evolution of a century of competing cinematic visions. The characters don’t utter a single word of dialogue in the first twenty minutes, as all exposition occurs through paper-like text cards that yellow at the edges. I was worried it would be like this for the whole film, but I stayed in the theater that Tuesday night, the week before midterms, waiting for the first line of spoken dialogue to hit like the first sip of water after a day of fasting.

Supporting female actress Shu Qi. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Through a massive runtime that spans two hours and 39 minutes, this movie makes you earn everything you get. Gan trains the audience’s patience with a firm hold on precision over the dials of the five senses and the mind.

The dreams may move forward in time through the cultures of the twentieth century, but on a smaller temporal scale, the main setting of each dream functions to tell the story of a day in reverse. The first dream, being a film noir, is told on a rainy night. Without giving any more spoilers, the three subsequent dreams take place at twilight, during multiple sunny afternoons, and then at sunrise. “Resurrection” does not grant sunlight so easily; we are given momentary solace after being deprived of direct sunlight for a solid 70 minutes, until it is stripped from us again and we are dropped into the darkness of pre-dawn – not that I am complaining. I love a movie that knows what it wants the audience to feel. I felt a deep-seated ache as I watched the film, scooting closer to the edge of my seat.

“Resurrection” is a movie that is best watched in theaters, but a home speaker system or padded headphones in a dark room can also suffice. Some of its most gripping moments are controlled by sound. Loud, cluttered echoes of the world, whether from people chatting in a parlor or anxiety in a character’s head, are abruptly cut off with ringing silence and a suspended close-up shot. We are forced to reckon with what the character has just done. I knew I was a world away, but I was convinced and terrified at my own culpability and agency. If I were him, would I have done the same? I could only hear my thoughts fade away as we moved onto the next dream.

Beyond sight and sound, the plot also deals intimately with the senses of taste, smell, and touch, but you will have to watch the movie yourself to find that out.

My high school acting teacher once told us that whenever a character tells a story in a play, they are actually referencing the play’s overall narrative. This exact technique of using framed narratives as vessels of information foreshadowing drives coherence in a seemingly ambiguous, metaphorical anthology film. Instead of easy-to-follow tales that mimic the hero’s journey, we are taken through unadulterated, expansive explorations of characters and their aspirations. We never find out all the details of what or why something happens, as the Deliriant moves quickly through ephemeral lifetimes in each dream, literally dying to move onto the next, but we find closure nonetheless through the parallels between elements and the poetry of it all.

Advertisement

That is why I like to think of “Resurrection” as pure art. It is not bound by structure; it osmoses beyond borders. It is creation in the highest form; it is a movie that I will never be able to watch again.

Perhaps because the dream worlds are so intimate and gorgeous, the exposition for the actual futuristic society feels weak in comparison. We learn that there is a woman whose job is to hunt down Deliriants, but we don’t see the rest of the dystopian infrastructure that runs this system. However, I can understand this as a thematic choice to prioritize dreams over reality. Form follows function, and these omissions of detail compel us to forget the outside world.

What it means to “dream” is up for interpretation, and we never learn the specifics of why or how immortality is achieved. Instead, “Resurrection” compares dreaming to fire. We humans are like candles, the movie claims, with wax that could stand forever if never used. But what is the point in being candles if we are never lit?

The greatest reminder of “Resurrection” is our own mortality. Whether we run from the snow-dipped mountaintops to the back alleyways of rain-streaked Chongqing, we can never escape our own consequences. “Resurrection” gives me a great fear of death, but so does it reignite my conviction to live a life of mistakes and keep dreaming anyway.

Dreaming is nothing without death. Immortality is nothing without love. So, I stumbled back to my dorm that Tuesday night, the week before midterms, thinking about what I loved and feared losing. So few films can channel life and let it go with a gentle hand. I only watch movies to fall in love. I am in love, I am in love. I am so afraid. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Project Hail Mary’ Review: Ryan Gosling and a Rock Make Sci-Fi Magic

Published

on

‘Project Hail Mary’ Review: Ryan Gosling and a Rock Make Sci-Fi Magic

In contrast to other sci-fi heroes, like Interstellar’s Cooper, who ventures into the unknown for the sake of humanity and discovery, knowing the sacrifice of giving up his family, Grace is externally a cynical coward. With no family to call his own, you’d think he’d have the will to go into space for the sake of the planet’s future. Nope, he’s got no courage because the man is a cowardly dog. However, Goddard’s script feels strikingly reflective of our moment. Grace has the tools to make a difference; the Earth flashbacks center on him working towards a solution to the antimatter issue, replete with occasionally confusing but never alienating dialogue. He initially lacks the conviction, embodying a cynicism and hopelessness that many people fall into today. 

The film threads this idea effectively through flashbacks that reveal his reluctance, giving the story a tragic undercurrent. Yet, it also makes his relationship with Rocky, the first living thing he truly learns to care for, ever more beautiful. 

When paired with Rocky, Gosling enters the rare “puppet scene partner” hall of fame alongside Michael Caine in The Muppet Christmas Carol, never letting the fact that he’s acting opposite a puppet disrupt the sincerity of his performance. His commitment to building a gradual, affectionate friendship with this animatronic creation feels completely natural, and the chemistry translates beautifully on screen. It stands as one of the stronger performances of his career.

Project Hail Mary is overly long, and while it can be deeply affecting, the film leans on a few emotional fake-outs that become repetitive in the latter half. By the third time it deploys the same sentimental beat, the effect begins to feel cloying, slightly dulling the powerful emotions it built earlier. The constant intercutting between past and present can also feel thematically uneven at times, occasionally undercutting the narrative momentum. At 2 hours and 36 minutes, the film feels like it’s stretching itself to meet a blockbuster runtime when a tighter cut might have served better.

FINAL STATEMENT

Project Hail Mary is a meticulously crafted, hopeful, and dazzling space epic that proves the most moving friendship in film this year might just be between Ryan Gosling and a rock.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending