Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings2.6K
RMurray847's rating
Reviews171
RMurray847's rating
I was able to catch a sneak preview of BONHOEFFER: PASTOR. SPY. ASSASSIN. On November 18. I know some folks will immediately discount the film because it's from a "Christian" move studio, and they assume it has a "point-of-view" that will be objectionable.
For the most part, the film just tells the story of a real-life person who happened to be a strong man of faith. Yes, his evolving ideas about God, faith, belief and organized religion are a big part of this film, but these WERE critical to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the real-life person who was a pastor and wrote 34 books about God, faith & religion. But this movie follows a journey of faith. So what? Other movies follow the evolution of people's morals, ethics, beliefs, etc. And we don't eschew them.
The fact is, Bonhoeffer was a very interesting person (whom I knew next to nothing about) and it is very worthwhile to make a film about his extraordinary life. My frustration is that the film isn't better.
Star Jonas Dassler certainly looks the part. When you see photos of the real Bonhoeffer, Dassler is like a slightly exaggerated version of the real guy. He gives a very committed and earnest performance. I didn't always buy it, but he was solid. The supporting cast is equally somewhere just below great but just above mediocre. But the story itself is gripping and I was rarely bored. The film is 132 minutes and could have lost about 10-15 minutes of fat and been even more engaging.
Bonhoeffer is first shown as a child, playing with his older brother at an idyllic German home. A large home. His family is well off, and there are lots of happy kids. When the oldest brother loses his life in WWI, the family is certainly shaken, and young Dietrich turns to a study of religion and spends time at seminary. He goes to the US for school, where he is exposed to jazz and to the religious services in Harlem. He's never seen people expressing their faith in such an enthusiastic manner, and he's moved to distinguish between "religion" (as in "organized religion") and faith. He comes to believe that Jesus would repudiate the stuffy Lutheran church that he's a part of. And just as he begins to decry the German church, the Nazis come to power and begin to reshape that church to their own purposes. This part of the movie was most interesting to me; I've not seen a film depict that incredible ways in which Hitler embroiled key religious leaders into remaking the church and the bible for his own purposes. It sends more than a little chill up the spine. Bonhoeffer and a few of his colleagues speak out against this, with predictably unhappy results for many of them.
But dramatically (and structurally), the film is a tease. First, the film begins near the end. Dietrich is a prisoner of the Germans near the end of the war, and it's clear he and his fellow captives are expecting to be executed at any moment, yet they're kept in some strange limbo as to their fates. As Dietrich writes about his life in a diary, we are given extended flashbacks to those recollections. It's a big clumsy, for sure. Also, part of the (unwieldy) title of the film is "ASSASSIN", yet we don't get to see this part. There is an attempt on Hitler's life, and the events leading up to it are shown, but we're left scratching our heads as to Bonhoeffer earning the title "assassin." He is not. Simple as that. Either a key part of the story was left out, or the "assassin" title was given to drum up interest in the film. It's a huge failing. Also, at one point, we casually find out that Dietrich has published dozens of books, yet other than his hurried scratchings in his diary, we never see him writing nor does anyone talk about his books or his writing, other than the aforementioned brief scene. What the heck?! I gather his writings are the biggest legacy he left behind, and yet barely touched on. I can imagine, based on his sermons and such, what the writings may have touched on, but we're left in the dark.
BONHOEFFER...is a worthy film featuring a worthy subject. It's told in a clumsy manner though and while locations are often beautiful and glowing, it also often looks cheap in a TV movie way. And the most damning thing I can say...the final scene of the film left me mostly cold. In more skilled hands (director/writer Todd Komarnicki is in over his head), the film could have left the audience a blubbering mess. Instead, it is uninspired and abrupt.
I'd like to find out more about Bonhoeffer now, so I guess the movie did THAT much. But it's a near-miss for me.
For the most part, the film just tells the story of a real-life person who happened to be a strong man of faith. Yes, his evolving ideas about God, faith, belief and organized religion are a big part of this film, but these WERE critical to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the real-life person who was a pastor and wrote 34 books about God, faith & religion. But this movie follows a journey of faith. So what? Other movies follow the evolution of people's morals, ethics, beliefs, etc. And we don't eschew them.
The fact is, Bonhoeffer was a very interesting person (whom I knew next to nothing about) and it is very worthwhile to make a film about his extraordinary life. My frustration is that the film isn't better.
Star Jonas Dassler certainly looks the part. When you see photos of the real Bonhoeffer, Dassler is like a slightly exaggerated version of the real guy. He gives a very committed and earnest performance. I didn't always buy it, but he was solid. The supporting cast is equally somewhere just below great but just above mediocre. But the story itself is gripping and I was rarely bored. The film is 132 minutes and could have lost about 10-15 minutes of fat and been even more engaging.
Bonhoeffer is first shown as a child, playing with his older brother at an idyllic German home. A large home. His family is well off, and there are lots of happy kids. When the oldest brother loses his life in WWI, the family is certainly shaken, and young Dietrich turns to a study of religion and spends time at seminary. He goes to the US for school, where he is exposed to jazz and to the religious services in Harlem. He's never seen people expressing their faith in such an enthusiastic manner, and he's moved to distinguish between "religion" (as in "organized religion") and faith. He comes to believe that Jesus would repudiate the stuffy Lutheran church that he's a part of. And just as he begins to decry the German church, the Nazis come to power and begin to reshape that church to their own purposes. This part of the movie was most interesting to me; I've not seen a film depict that incredible ways in which Hitler embroiled key religious leaders into remaking the church and the bible for his own purposes. It sends more than a little chill up the spine. Bonhoeffer and a few of his colleagues speak out against this, with predictably unhappy results for many of them.
But dramatically (and structurally), the film is a tease. First, the film begins near the end. Dietrich is a prisoner of the Germans near the end of the war, and it's clear he and his fellow captives are expecting to be executed at any moment, yet they're kept in some strange limbo as to their fates. As Dietrich writes about his life in a diary, we are given extended flashbacks to those recollections. It's a big clumsy, for sure. Also, part of the (unwieldy) title of the film is "ASSASSIN", yet we don't get to see this part. There is an attempt on Hitler's life, and the events leading up to it are shown, but we're left scratching our heads as to Bonhoeffer earning the title "assassin." He is not. Simple as that. Either a key part of the story was left out, or the "assassin" title was given to drum up interest in the film. It's a huge failing. Also, at one point, we casually find out that Dietrich has published dozens of books, yet other than his hurried scratchings in his diary, we never see him writing nor does anyone talk about his books or his writing, other than the aforementioned brief scene. What the heck?! I gather his writings are the biggest legacy he left behind, and yet barely touched on. I can imagine, based on his sermons and such, what the writings may have touched on, but we're left in the dark.
BONHOEFFER...is a worthy film featuring a worthy subject. It's told in a clumsy manner though and while locations are often beautiful and glowing, it also often looks cheap in a TV movie way. And the most damning thing I can say...the final scene of the film left me mostly cold. In more skilled hands (director/writer Todd Komarnicki is in over his head), the film could have left the audience a blubbering mess. Instead, it is uninspired and abrupt.
I'd like to find out more about Bonhoeffer now, so I guess the movie did THAT much. But it's a near-miss for me.
STRANGE DARLING is so much fun. I just wanted to get that out there right at the top. It has a certain zing of creativity that only comes along occasionally. Where it feels like the film was made on pure energy and adrenaline, with everyone on the same wavelength, and the result is a movie a bit unlike anything you've seen before, yet the influences are clear to see. A film made by people who love films and are inspired by films, but have made their own "thing." At the conclusion of this breezy 97 minute movie, I wanted to just jump out of my seat in excitement.
That said, I would also say that STRANGE DARLING is a bleak and bloody film that will stress you out and perhaps even depress you just a little.
Writer/director JT Mollner directed one other feature, a film I was not at all familiar with, OUTLAWS AND ANGELS. It was not critically well received, apparently, nor are ratings from viewers very high. An inauspicious debut. Then comes STRANGE DARLING, nearly 8 years later, and it feels like we're now meeting a director and writer that we'll be eager to follow in the years to come.
But what is it, you may well ask? Well, it's a movie that is difficult to fully describe because to say much about it will ruin many of the joys of discovery. Let me try to describe the beginning. There is an opening crawl (red against a black screen) that tells us something like: "Between 2018-2020, America's most prolific serial killer embarked on a multi-state slaughter from Colorado to Oregon, and this saga is the final chapter of that spree." So we know we're in for a serial killer movie. Then see a scene of a very distressed looking young women, left ear mutilated, lips puffy madly running through an open field in slow motion (as a version of the classic song "Love Hurts" plays over the titles). We watch her run slowly directly towards us as the credits roll, introducing Willa Fitzgerald as "The Lady" and Kyle Gallner as "The Demon". That's pretty bold...to have Gallner's character described as a "Demon" certainly raises the stakes and our expectations of just how bad a killer we might be dealing with. Then we're told that the film will be in 6 chapters. And, we start with Chapter 3. Then 5, then 1. You get the idea.
Many film-makers have told movies out of order (Tarantino springs first to mind, as many of the early moments of this film evoke him quite strongly, even the style of the opening credits), but STRANGE DARLING requires to be told out of order, or there is little fun to be had in watching the film. It plays with our assumptions right from the start. We think we know what kind of film we're watching (and it's a tense and terrifying film) and yet we are watching something else, even MORE tense and terrifying. It's a blast of bloody good fun.
When we do eventually go to Chapter 1, we see that The Lady and The Demon are in his truck, parked by a cheap motel. Given what we know already, we really, really don't want The Lady to go through with her one-night stand. Their conversation is full of teasing, and not only do we hear Fitzgerald telling her prospective beau how dangerous the world is for women just looking to "have some fun" but she bluntly asks him if he is a serial killer. It's a joke, sure...but she's also quite serious. But how would you expect a real serial killer to answer anyway? (Maybe she hopes to see something in his eyes as he answers?) Their scene together in the truck is a marvel. All the filming is done in the truck (we never look in on them from the outside) and we very much feel how tiny and intimate a space they are in. Colored purple by garish lights from outside, it feels like they are trapped in a dangerous lava lamp or something. The movie progresses (out of order) from there, and it is simply full of one credible surprise after another.
There are a few other characters in the film certainly (including a mountain home dwelling "old Hippie couple" played delightfully but distractingly by Ed Begley Jr & Barbara Hershey...distracting because we know them so well and we're aware, "hey, familiar actors"), but this is pretty much a two-hander. I was only vaguely aware of Gallner, but he is excellent. When we first meet him, chasing The Lady in his truck and eventually leveling his rifle at her, we know this is a single-minded man no one should want to mess with. But he's also convincingly charming in the early scenes. Just a guy who was out on the town, looking to enjoy some beer, and if he's lucky, a night with a fun woman. Gallner is certainly on my radar now. But Fitzgerald is in another category. You've not seen a character quite like this before. Even the scene where we see her running in terror in slow motion is not ordinary. Emotions play across her face. Terror. Anger. Thinking ahead to her next move. Enduring pain. And when she's in the truck with The Demon, we see her teasing, her trepidation, her desire and her sharp wit. While we don't really find out much about either of these characters, they still seem like real, complex people. Fitzgerald is called upon several times to do long, single takes where she doesn't say a word, but we understand quite well what she's thinking. In a fair world, this would be a star-making performance.
The violence of the movie IS disturbing, but not terribly gratuitous. A lot happens of screen, and we only see real "gore" on occasion, when the shock of what's happening is important to advancing the story and our understanding of what's going on, not just to make us cringe.
The movie is short, but it felt even shorter. It's just immediately gripping and it never lets go. For much of it, I felt like I was holding my breath. It is shot full of humor, a welcome relief, but never forgets for a moment what it is about. It is about propelling us through a horrific story that we are nonetheless glad to be on.
Mollner is to be congratulated on taking the viewer on such a creative rush of filmmaking joy. You can feel him, and thus everyone on the film, just sensing that they are on to something special here. It is unapologetically good, and feel it while watching it. That sense of "we made this amazing thing; grab hold!".
Is it perfect? No. Many of the tiny supporting roles are actually performed quite poorly. I might argue that there are one or two too many tight close-ups; I became aware that I was seeing a lot of close-ups. But these nits I'm picking are quite small. This is a film that I can recommend to anyone (not kids!) without reservation.
If you can see it now, on a big screen...do so. Let it swallow you up.
That said, I would also say that STRANGE DARLING is a bleak and bloody film that will stress you out and perhaps even depress you just a little.
Writer/director JT Mollner directed one other feature, a film I was not at all familiar with, OUTLAWS AND ANGELS. It was not critically well received, apparently, nor are ratings from viewers very high. An inauspicious debut. Then comes STRANGE DARLING, nearly 8 years later, and it feels like we're now meeting a director and writer that we'll be eager to follow in the years to come.
But what is it, you may well ask? Well, it's a movie that is difficult to fully describe because to say much about it will ruin many of the joys of discovery. Let me try to describe the beginning. There is an opening crawl (red against a black screen) that tells us something like: "Between 2018-2020, America's most prolific serial killer embarked on a multi-state slaughter from Colorado to Oregon, and this saga is the final chapter of that spree." So we know we're in for a serial killer movie. Then see a scene of a very distressed looking young women, left ear mutilated, lips puffy madly running through an open field in slow motion (as a version of the classic song "Love Hurts" plays over the titles). We watch her run slowly directly towards us as the credits roll, introducing Willa Fitzgerald as "The Lady" and Kyle Gallner as "The Demon". That's pretty bold...to have Gallner's character described as a "Demon" certainly raises the stakes and our expectations of just how bad a killer we might be dealing with. Then we're told that the film will be in 6 chapters. And, we start with Chapter 3. Then 5, then 1. You get the idea.
Many film-makers have told movies out of order (Tarantino springs first to mind, as many of the early moments of this film evoke him quite strongly, even the style of the opening credits), but STRANGE DARLING requires to be told out of order, or there is little fun to be had in watching the film. It plays with our assumptions right from the start. We think we know what kind of film we're watching (and it's a tense and terrifying film) and yet we are watching something else, even MORE tense and terrifying. It's a blast of bloody good fun.
When we do eventually go to Chapter 1, we see that The Lady and The Demon are in his truck, parked by a cheap motel. Given what we know already, we really, really don't want The Lady to go through with her one-night stand. Their conversation is full of teasing, and not only do we hear Fitzgerald telling her prospective beau how dangerous the world is for women just looking to "have some fun" but she bluntly asks him if he is a serial killer. It's a joke, sure...but she's also quite serious. But how would you expect a real serial killer to answer anyway? (Maybe she hopes to see something in his eyes as he answers?) Their scene together in the truck is a marvel. All the filming is done in the truck (we never look in on them from the outside) and we very much feel how tiny and intimate a space they are in. Colored purple by garish lights from outside, it feels like they are trapped in a dangerous lava lamp or something. The movie progresses (out of order) from there, and it is simply full of one credible surprise after another.
There are a few other characters in the film certainly (including a mountain home dwelling "old Hippie couple" played delightfully but distractingly by Ed Begley Jr & Barbara Hershey...distracting because we know them so well and we're aware, "hey, familiar actors"), but this is pretty much a two-hander. I was only vaguely aware of Gallner, but he is excellent. When we first meet him, chasing The Lady in his truck and eventually leveling his rifle at her, we know this is a single-minded man no one should want to mess with. But he's also convincingly charming in the early scenes. Just a guy who was out on the town, looking to enjoy some beer, and if he's lucky, a night with a fun woman. Gallner is certainly on my radar now. But Fitzgerald is in another category. You've not seen a character quite like this before. Even the scene where we see her running in terror in slow motion is not ordinary. Emotions play across her face. Terror. Anger. Thinking ahead to her next move. Enduring pain. And when she's in the truck with The Demon, we see her teasing, her trepidation, her desire and her sharp wit. While we don't really find out much about either of these characters, they still seem like real, complex people. Fitzgerald is called upon several times to do long, single takes where she doesn't say a word, but we understand quite well what she's thinking. In a fair world, this would be a star-making performance.
The violence of the movie IS disturbing, but not terribly gratuitous. A lot happens of screen, and we only see real "gore" on occasion, when the shock of what's happening is important to advancing the story and our understanding of what's going on, not just to make us cringe.
The movie is short, but it felt even shorter. It's just immediately gripping and it never lets go. For much of it, I felt like I was holding my breath. It is shot full of humor, a welcome relief, but never forgets for a moment what it is about. It is about propelling us through a horrific story that we are nonetheless glad to be on.
Mollner is to be congratulated on taking the viewer on such a creative rush of filmmaking joy. You can feel him, and thus everyone on the film, just sensing that they are on to something special here. It is unapologetically good, and feel it while watching it. That sense of "we made this amazing thing; grab hold!".
Is it perfect? No. Many of the tiny supporting roles are actually performed quite poorly. I might argue that there are one or two too many tight close-ups; I became aware that I was seeing a lot of close-ups. But these nits I'm picking are quite small. This is a film that I can recommend to anyone (not kids!) without reservation.
If you can see it now, on a big screen...do so. Let it swallow you up.
The world most certainly did not need another ALIEN movie, and yet, I've discovered that "ALIEN" must be some kind of siren call for me. I'm old enough to have been around for the original ALIEN, and I saw all its sequels in movie theaters, usually opening weekend. Apparently, I'm a bit of a sucker for a simplistically brutal story, whether told by Ridley Scott, David Fincher (the least successful of the bunch) or James Cameron (whose take is the one I watch the most). Now, add horror director Fede Alvarez to the mix. He built it, and I did go.
So, let's just get this clear. This is not a great movie. But ALIEN: ROMULUS is a very solid entry in the series, and had much to admire. It certainly also has weaknesses, but when the closing credits began, I felt I had been well entertained. Just a gut reaction, which really is what this sort of film is all about. Getting you in the gut. You either happily go along for the ride, or you wonder what you're doing wasting two hours of your life.
ALIEN: ROMULUS (from now on, just ROMULUS) begins with an quick opening segment showing the giant space craft Romulus & Remus collecting a giant "rock" sample from some space wreckage. The wreckage happens to be from the Nostromo, which ALIEN fans will recall was that original film's spacecraft. Where we first got to experience the xenomorph and its sharp, pointy teeth, acid blood and unfortunate breeding methods. This rock, they believe, has a dead monster in it. The ship heads back into deep space, ready to begin its exploration of the creature they've brought on board.
Jump ahead some time (and space) to a mining planet that literally never sees daylight, and we meet Rain and her gentle, thoughtful and possibly slightly "off" friend Andy. Rain has put in her required 12,000 hours of work and we meet her as she eagerly goes to what passes for an HR office to ask for her transfer off-planet. She's told there is a worker shortage, and her contract has been increased to 24,000 hours. It clicks pretty fast for Rain that she's essentially enslaved on this absolutely horrible planet (no daylight, lots of mud and uneducated jerks everywhere). So she is in the right mood to go along with her boyfriend Tyler's plan to take a ship, fly up to a derelict spaceship hovering in orbit (but merely 36 hours from hitting the planet's rings and being destroyed), grab some of its cryo-tubes (you know, to allow for years of suspended animation) and fly on to a planet 9 years away, that offers a respite and sunlight. Tyler's sister Kay, as well as a couple of friends (Bjorn and Navarro) join in on the ride. They're all young people, full of energy and maybe not so much good sense. It's an adventure for them, and it's a very understandable grab for a better life.
Well, you guessed it...the ship turns out to be the Romulus and Remus, and I'll bet you also guessed that the xenomorph was not, in fact, dead. And maybe even that the experiments scientists conducted before meeting their doom where not all that wise.
The small group docks with the much, much larger space station and begin their salvage efforts. But were it not for those pesky aliens, they would have succeeded in their quest. But, this is ALIEN: ROMULUS afterall, and they are in for quite a lesson in jumping to poorly thought-out plans.
Rain is played by Cailee Spaeny (PRISCILLA & CIVIC WAR). She's had quite a last year or so, and this was the perfect movie for her young career. Much like Sigourney Weaver did 45 years ago, Spaeny gets to show us a tough, resourceful, fast-thinking but empathetic character. She's an action hero both tough and vulnerable (she's a small young lady who looks even younger than her 25 years). She gets to kick *ss! She is also, quite frankly, the only human character with much character development at all. She's strong enough to take us through this adventure rooting for her and urging her on.
And that's good, because the other performers (with the exception of David Jonsson as Andy, who has his own interesting acting opportunities) are just about as generic as they come. The ALIEN films often have thin characterizations, but ROMULUS may have the most flimsy of all. I think back on Bill Paxton in ALIENS or even the generic actor Logan Marshall-Green being generic in PROMETHEUS, and they look practically Shakespearean compared to ROMULUS's offerings of alien fodder.
But, think back on director Alvarez's other films. THE EVIL DEAD starred a fantastically tough Jane Levy and then mostly a bevy of generic young actors. The deeply creepy and effective DON'T BREATHE again featured Levy as a tough but vulnerable young lady, accompanied by a bunch of very stock young actors. (To be fair, it also featured Stephen Lang unforgettably as the monster of the piece). I think Alvarez is only interested in these other characters as not just fodder for the baddies, but as something against which his leading ladies can react. We experience their deaths often through the eyes of the lead character. I don't know if this is a deliberate choice (and Alvarez writes or co-writes these films as well), or a directorial blind spot. His focus is so tight on his lead. And putting that lead through increasingly stressful and icky situations. Fortunately, he does so EXTREMELY effectively. Alvarez can build a nice action sequence, but he understands even better the power of dread. Not just dreading something happening, but dreading that it will happen in an icky and painful way.
In ROMULUS, he comes up with a few new spins on just how the xenomorphs can dispatch their prey. And towards the end, we meet a variation that's just so...WRONG...on so many levels that we can't help but shudder. Yes, it's a creature that can kill...but it's a creature that shouldn't exist. Alvarez wrings fun from the film by not so much re-inventing the wheel as running that wheel over its victims in new and creative ways. High art, this is NOT! But it does get the heart pumping, and I heard more than one person talking back to the screen at time. To me, that's a sign that the movie, despite any storytelling or characterization shortcomings, has gripped its audience and dragged them along for the ride.
I'll also note that there are some cool visuals here. The scenes featuring the rings around this mining planet are just lovely to look at.
Finally, for fans of the series, a "fan favorite" makes a return of sorts and plays a big part in the outcome of the proceedings. I won't say more, because I want you to be as pleasantly surprised as I was.
Just put aside your wariness, and put aside the "literary" side of yourself, and immerse in the fun, gross, loud and gripping world of ALIEN: ROMULUS.
So, let's just get this clear. This is not a great movie. But ALIEN: ROMULUS is a very solid entry in the series, and had much to admire. It certainly also has weaknesses, but when the closing credits began, I felt I had been well entertained. Just a gut reaction, which really is what this sort of film is all about. Getting you in the gut. You either happily go along for the ride, or you wonder what you're doing wasting two hours of your life.
ALIEN: ROMULUS (from now on, just ROMULUS) begins with an quick opening segment showing the giant space craft Romulus & Remus collecting a giant "rock" sample from some space wreckage. The wreckage happens to be from the Nostromo, which ALIEN fans will recall was that original film's spacecraft. Where we first got to experience the xenomorph and its sharp, pointy teeth, acid blood and unfortunate breeding methods. This rock, they believe, has a dead monster in it. The ship heads back into deep space, ready to begin its exploration of the creature they've brought on board.
Jump ahead some time (and space) to a mining planet that literally never sees daylight, and we meet Rain and her gentle, thoughtful and possibly slightly "off" friend Andy. Rain has put in her required 12,000 hours of work and we meet her as she eagerly goes to what passes for an HR office to ask for her transfer off-planet. She's told there is a worker shortage, and her contract has been increased to 24,000 hours. It clicks pretty fast for Rain that she's essentially enslaved on this absolutely horrible planet (no daylight, lots of mud and uneducated jerks everywhere). So she is in the right mood to go along with her boyfriend Tyler's plan to take a ship, fly up to a derelict spaceship hovering in orbit (but merely 36 hours from hitting the planet's rings and being destroyed), grab some of its cryo-tubes (you know, to allow for years of suspended animation) and fly on to a planet 9 years away, that offers a respite and sunlight. Tyler's sister Kay, as well as a couple of friends (Bjorn and Navarro) join in on the ride. They're all young people, full of energy and maybe not so much good sense. It's an adventure for them, and it's a very understandable grab for a better life.
Well, you guessed it...the ship turns out to be the Romulus and Remus, and I'll bet you also guessed that the xenomorph was not, in fact, dead. And maybe even that the experiments scientists conducted before meeting their doom where not all that wise.
The small group docks with the much, much larger space station and begin their salvage efforts. But were it not for those pesky aliens, they would have succeeded in their quest. But, this is ALIEN: ROMULUS afterall, and they are in for quite a lesson in jumping to poorly thought-out plans.
Rain is played by Cailee Spaeny (PRISCILLA & CIVIC WAR). She's had quite a last year or so, and this was the perfect movie for her young career. Much like Sigourney Weaver did 45 years ago, Spaeny gets to show us a tough, resourceful, fast-thinking but empathetic character. She's an action hero both tough and vulnerable (she's a small young lady who looks even younger than her 25 years). She gets to kick *ss! She is also, quite frankly, the only human character with much character development at all. She's strong enough to take us through this adventure rooting for her and urging her on.
And that's good, because the other performers (with the exception of David Jonsson as Andy, who has his own interesting acting opportunities) are just about as generic as they come. The ALIEN films often have thin characterizations, but ROMULUS may have the most flimsy of all. I think back on Bill Paxton in ALIENS or even the generic actor Logan Marshall-Green being generic in PROMETHEUS, and they look practically Shakespearean compared to ROMULUS's offerings of alien fodder.
But, think back on director Alvarez's other films. THE EVIL DEAD starred a fantastically tough Jane Levy and then mostly a bevy of generic young actors. The deeply creepy and effective DON'T BREATHE again featured Levy as a tough but vulnerable young lady, accompanied by a bunch of very stock young actors. (To be fair, it also featured Stephen Lang unforgettably as the monster of the piece). I think Alvarez is only interested in these other characters as not just fodder for the baddies, but as something against which his leading ladies can react. We experience their deaths often through the eyes of the lead character. I don't know if this is a deliberate choice (and Alvarez writes or co-writes these films as well), or a directorial blind spot. His focus is so tight on his lead. And putting that lead through increasingly stressful and icky situations. Fortunately, he does so EXTREMELY effectively. Alvarez can build a nice action sequence, but he understands even better the power of dread. Not just dreading something happening, but dreading that it will happen in an icky and painful way.
In ROMULUS, he comes up with a few new spins on just how the xenomorphs can dispatch their prey. And towards the end, we meet a variation that's just so...WRONG...on so many levels that we can't help but shudder. Yes, it's a creature that can kill...but it's a creature that shouldn't exist. Alvarez wrings fun from the film by not so much re-inventing the wheel as running that wheel over its victims in new and creative ways. High art, this is NOT! But it does get the heart pumping, and I heard more than one person talking back to the screen at time. To me, that's a sign that the movie, despite any storytelling or characterization shortcomings, has gripped its audience and dragged them along for the ride.
I'll also note that there are some cool visuals here. The scenes featuring the rings around this mining planet are just lovely to look at.
Finally, for fans of the series, a "fan favorite" makes a return of sorts and plays a big part in the outcome of the proceedings. I won't say more, because I want you to be as pleasantly surprised as I was.
Just put aside your wariness, and put aside the "literary" side of yourself, and immerse in the fun, gross, loud and gripping world of ALIEN: ROMULUS.