The scariest part about alien romulus…

is this abomination

(spoilers ahead: Alien 1979 and Alien Romulus 2024)

I am Rook

Weird technological necromancy posing at Ian Holm posing as relevant key point in the story…

Honestly, I don’t get it. I watched Alien Romulus a few months ago, and what dawned on me from this movie, is the dreadful character of Rook. This abomination has been haunting my thoughts ever since and I personally believe it is the scariest part of the movie. What I don’t get is why. Why they chose to go down this ridiculous path.

Ian Holm as Ash in Alien (1979)

For the fans of the original movies and the Alien franchise, I don’t need to tell you about Ian Holm’s amazing portrayal of Ash, and the importance of androids in the film’s universe.

The original Alien movie still holds his ground to this day, a film way ahead of it’s time. Sometimes I cannot believe it was released in 1979. It was so brilliantly shot, edited and acted that it managed to stay relevant and remove itself from the constrictions of time, something that very few movies achieve. It is also the best movie in the series, in my opinion. The set designs, the creature designs (thank you H.R. Giger) are absolutely phenomenal and helped ground this film in a very firm position of king or queen of space horror. And what I said here is in no way enough to describe the brilliance of Alien, but it is not the movie I want to talk about and I hope whoever reads this knows all about it. The detail that I wish to bring up is Ian Holm’s performance as Ash as it will connect more or less with the choices made in Alien Romulus (2024).

Ash was cold, calculated, firm, the Science Officer on the ship. And while his intentions or role were questionable throughout the movie, there was a humanity about Ian’s performance that was felt through the character. The reveal that he was in fact one of the company’s androids was a profound shakeup for the viewer that strongly contributed to the element of horror and provided one of the most memorable scenes in the movie, making Ash one of the key characters in the story.

“Bring back life form. Priority One. All other priorities rescinded.”

…

“You still don't understand what you're dealing with, do you? The perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility.”

…

“I can't lie to you about your chances, but... you have my sympathies.”

Alien (1979)

Fast forward 45 years and we are here…

What the fuck is going on?!

Ok, so first of all, the actor died in 2020. From what I know he was nowhere near the production of Alien Romulus.

Second of all, the android in Alien Romulus is not Ash, it’s some random droid named Rook.

Putting these points together, I cannot help but wonder, what on Earth possessed the film maker or whoever made the decision, to bring back from the dead, in this grotesque amateurish display, the likeness of a beloved actor who is no longer with us. Cheap thrills and the fear of originality?

It seems like Fede Alvarez chose to rehash one of the most memorable scenes in Alien and put it in his own movie, with no actual connection to anything. Rook is a destroyed android they found lying on the floor…he could’ve been anyone. At first I was like “wait, is this Ash? How?”. Then I remember what happened to Ash in the Alien movie and realized it cannot be. Which was later confirmed in Romulus. He just looks like Ash, talks like Ash…behaves like a deranged doll someone put 10$ worth of tech into. The look is off…way off. The voice can fool you at times, although it’s evident. The result of this weird necromancy is …laughable at best. It is disturbing and unsettling, but I don’t believe as it was intended.

It’s not convincing, and it stands out as bad VFX compared to the rest of the movie. So my first why is pointed at the visual direction. Why would you choose to include a shitty detail like this, through-out your movie, when it’s so obviously bad? Just to have a weird flex about what AI can do, even though the result lacks in every way compared to the rest of the movie?

Fine I guess…we have AI. It’s amazing, absolutely charming, makes our lives so much better. But it’s not quite there yet, is it? There is quite some potential there, not gonna lie, but that doesn’t mean you can start cutting corners with no interest for the final result. And the problem here is standard. You would expect someone like me or whoever else, random dude to use AI in order to generate some shit. And that’s fine and dandy, but why include it in an actual production with actual budgets and talented people that can do wonders with visuals? And I guess the answer is a bit too obvious - make it faster, make it cost less and gain more. Quality standards out the window. I’d expect the use of AI in minimal form, filling up background details that are easily ignored, certain VFX that can be populated easily, etc. But for a shitty close-up character that’s a key element in your story …eehmm…why? Just because something exists, doesn’t mean you have to use it.

Which brings me to my second why. And this is the heaviest one. Why rise someone up from the dead for your shitty movie, when it didn’t even matter for the plot, story or otherwise anything else? There’s a morality issue here that I believe the big studios are fast tracking on ignore mode. A world populated around profit and greed, with no interest for the arts, ideas and the reason people watch their movies.

Remember when I wrote about Ian Holm’s humanity in Ash? Well, there is no humanity regarding Rook. That stiff, ugly looking doll has no humanity about it’s “performance”. It’s just there.

And you know how when you bring someone back from the dead you expect a memorable dialogue or maybe a monologue or you know, something dramatic and important? Don’t. Unfortunately Rook’s contribution to this movie was probably AI generated as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if the script was written by ChatGPT.

So given the facts, the whole thing feels like a cash grab. Someone counted on a cheap thrill - if it worked in the original Alien, it’s gonna work here too, right? No. Just, no.

I have no idea how these things work…did the actor’s family gave consent for his likeness to be used? Did the actor himself do it? I don’t know. And I don’t think it matters. If you’re gonna do something like this, fucking do it right or just don’t. I’m not sure what right would be in this situation.

I think there’s something memorable about what a person leaves behind. And when we think of that, we should appreciate what they actually did and revisit his or hers work, while they were alive. Not come up with some bullshit to “bring them back to life”, in a lifeless inhuman way, made up for profit. A person’s humanity is one of the most important factors in acting, art, whatever you might think of. And when you replace that, completely, with some generated crap…well, maybe it’s time we question our actions.

I’m not going to comment on the rest of the movie and what not, as this aspect completely ruined everything about it for me. And I feel like it’s something that should be expressed.

Ash’s end in Alien (1979)

After so many fails in the Alien universe lately, I’ve come to a conclusion - film makers and studios have no idea why the original movie worked so well. They have no idea. Not even the original director unfortunately. If they did, we wouldn’t have so many mediocre Alien movies rolled out. Perhaps it was a happy accident that it worked so well. Or maybe it was the involvement of certain people that are no longer with us, that made the Alien movie what it is. And whether you liked the story up until the 4th movie or stopped earlier, I think one thing is clear:

Alien’s brilliance and appeal died with Ripley.

Sigourney Weaver as Ripley in Alien (1979)