The best way to convey the mediocrity of “Alien: Romulus” is to consider why “Aliens” (1986) was a brilliant sequel–one of the rare films to equal its successor. Ridley Scott’s celebrated “Alien” (1979) is a horror/sci-fi “haunted house in space” whereas James Cameron’s “Aliens” curiously evolves the storyline into the action genre. “Alien”’s elegant narrative relies on mystery and atmosphere for effect, and though “Aliens” offers a more elaborate 3-act structure, it is still lean and fueled by interesting character relationships which are almost entirely absent from “Romulus”.
Like “Romulus”, “Aliens” upped the ante by making the alien threat a lethal horde instead of a single juggernaut, but whereas the pair of facehuggers in “Aliens” are more menacing than their predecessor, the legion of facehuggers in “Romulus” are less so: a leaping carpet of threat is a visually exciting concept made innocuous in its execution. (And no spoilers but the final boss in “Romulus” is anemic next to Ripley’s legendary nemesis in “Aliens”.) “Romulus” also seems allergic to good lighting, mistaking muddled darkness as grounds for authentic suspense. The action and the title figures in “Aliens” are starkly visible–and to great effect. Good horror is articulate in its gradual revelation of terrible things.
Finally, Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley in “Aliens” was revelatory as a powerful heroine, but repeating a familiar trope is not always a recipe for success. Strong female protagonists (especially in sci-fi) are always welcome but despite the work of talented actress Caliee Spaeny, the thinly written character of Rain seems like a cynical checking of a box. Overall, “Romulus” is glibly self-conscious with its winky fan service to former movies, prompting us to yearn for the former films rather than dwell in this new world. “Romulus” isn’t a terrible film, but it moves too quickly and superficially to be a worthy successor to two historic films.
