Hebe Hamilton reviews Jennifer Lawrence’s latest spy thriller.

CW: Rape, sexual assault/harassment.

Is it ironic I went to see Red Sparrow, a film that sees its female protagonist sent off to “whore school”, on International Women’s Day? Probably. Is it even odder that 20th Century Fox would choose to release a film like Red Sparrow against the backdrop of the Time’s Up and #MeToo campaigns? It’s certainly questionable.

I entered the screening unsure what to expect, beyond gruesome scenes of torture (as per the trailer), and hints of sexual exploitation on Lawrence’s character’s part, which is certainly an uncomfortable prelude to have in mind before any film. In Red Sparrow, Jennifer Lawrence plays Dominika Egorova, a Bolshoi prima ballerina whose career is cut short when her clumsy dance partner ends up breaking her leg mid-performance. To avoid losing the accommodation she shares with her sick mother, Dominika takes up an offer from her wealthy uncle (Matthias Schoenaerts) to begin working for the Russian Intelligence as a ‘sparrow’, capable of seducing her targets by giving them “what they need most”. Played out against Dominika’s story is that of Nate Nash (Joel Edgerton), an American CIA operative who uses a Russian mole to infiltrate the operations of the Russian authorities. Naturally, the two end up crossing paths in Budapest after Dominika is removed from training early in order to seduce Nash and learn the identity of the Russian mole. However, Dominika turns tail and decides to co-operate with Nash and the CIA as a double agent, as revenge against her uncle’s manipulative tactics and his attempts to sell her body.

Perhaps it’s already obvious, but viewers should be warned this is anything but a feminist film. Though Lawrence’s protagonist achieves victory against her uncle in the end, the sexual violence her protagonist has to endure to get there is degrading and, in all honesty, completely irrelevant to the overall plot. The only reason one can imagine an actress as high-profile as Lawrence would take such a role is to attempt to push the boundaries of how she is perceived for future roles. That, or she and the director, Francis Lawrence, are making an attempt to shock the audience in order to highlight the personal strength of Dominika, due to the character’s determined nature, but the effect is rather the opposite.

For the first half of the film, if not longer, Dominika is shown to be nothing more than an object for the sexual gratification of powerful men, and a pawn for her sadistic uncle’s ulterior motives. She is subject to two experiences of violent sexual assault, including one rape scene; she is ordered to strip naked at least twice with dubious consent, including in front of her fellow ‘sparrows’; and she is tortured and bound, at times semi-clothed, while being beaten on command by male guards. Her eventual relationship with Nash, if we can even call it that, is a breath of relief in comparison to these earlier scenes, ranging from sexual harassment and objectification to assault. Add in Charlotte Rampling’s matron and her sermon about the agents’ bodies “belong[ing] to the State”, and we’re given a sexist narrative which eliminates the meaning of consent, undermines young women, and sweepingly boxes the men into two categories: the abusers, and those who are targets for sexual exploitation.

Whether this form of espionage, dubbed “sexpionage”, ever did exist either in Russia or elsewhere in the world, the fact remains that the execution of the narrative by the director, and screenwriter Justin Haythe, is short-sighted and beleaguered by outdated views on women; their role in spy networks and the working world as a whole; and a stereotypical Cold War view of Russia when the Cold War ended nearly 30 years ago. I won’t attempt to comment on the political situation today, but the fact that the matron in Red Sparrow even mentions the Cold War and that it “shattered into a thousand sharp pieces”, rather than ended for good (apparently), reminds us that we are dealing with a superficial, highly stigmatised Hollywood view of Russia and its people. The fact none of the leading cast members are Russian speaks volumes about the dubious cultural viewpoints and portrayals in the film. An interesting thing to consider is if this had been a Russian language film with a Russian cast, instead of a Hollywood blockbuster: would the film have received the same level of controversy then?

This brings me onto my next point: accents. The film boasts a number of famous names, from Jeremy Irons to Ciaran Hinds, but the ability to master the Russian accent varies between cast members. Irons, as always, manages to convey the accent so subtly and accurately that he sounds almost like a native speaker. Jennifer Lawrence’s accent is overdone and stereotyped: she would probably get away with this in a stage environment, but it doesn’t really work onscreen. I will add that she certainly gives a very confident and polished leading performance apart from this. Hinds is not onscreen as much as his co-stars, and always has presence when we do see him, but his accent is another which sounds overly throaty when it needn’t be.

If the earlier scenes of sexual violence were removed from the film, it would actually make quite an interesting story, especially regarding Dominika’s relationship with the American Intelligence teams and the role of double agents in international espionage. The film weaves between at least four different cities, including Budapest and London, with excellent cinematography and aerial shots of both, and this provides a suitable contrast to the extreme brutalist architecture and landscape in some of the scenes in Russia. There is also enough suspense in the narrative that the audience are constantly left questioning who Dominika really supports, until she intervenes in a gory confrontation between Nash and Russian assassin, Simyonov (Sergej Onopko). Finally, the writers leave the revelation of the mole’s identity carefully concealed until the denouement, but when we learn who it is it makes a satisfying resolution, and allows Dominika to eventually achieve freedom from her uncle’s control.

Wherever Jennifer Lawrence chooses to take her career after Red Sparrow, she would be best advised to think carefully in the future about pursuing roles which could overshadow her performances with sexist plot lines and the degradation of her female protagonists.

Red Sparrow is out now in UK cinemas. Check out the trailer below:

Hebe Hamilton reviews Craig Gillespie’s Oscar-nominated biopic about the controversial figure skater.

Prior to the release of I, Tonya I had never heard of Tonya Harding, nor of the infamous 1994 attack on her teammate Nancy Kerrigan. Maybe this is unsurprising considering my general lack of exposure to ice skating, apart from occasional Christmas fairs over the years, which consisted of clinging to the wall until the ordeal was over. The opposite can be said for a Canadian friend of mine, for whom figure skating was a regular pastime as a child. When I asked if she knew about Tonya Harding, her response was immediate: “Oh yeah, everyone know’s about her – she’s crazy”.

Clearly Harding’s story was an unforgettable one for those acquainted with skating and Winter Sports history, and one heavily scrutinised by the media, who enjoyed portraying her as a pantomime villain. But why tell the story of a so-called disgraced competitor instead of – perhaps – Kerrigan’s, herself an Olympic medallist?

Director Craig Gillespie and screenwriter Steven Rogers answer this almost as soon as the film opens: it is a reclamation of Harding’s life, reputation, and legacy. But it is naive to assume there will be a sugary-sweet ending to Harding’s story. The film is effectively a tragedy, not least thanks to Harding’s background, and her failure – beyond her control – at appealing to the American ideal of the perfect family girl on the world stage.

Taking the style of a mockumentary, the narrative is interspersed with interviews from Harding (Margot Robbie); her former husband, Jeff Gillooly (Sebastian Stan); his best friend, Shawn Eckhardt (Paul Walter Hauser); and her formidable mother LaVona (Allison Janney). We learn about Harding’s difficult childhood at the hands of an emotionally and physically abusive LaVona, determined to make her daughter “a champion” at the cost of resentment and hatred between the two. The cycle of abuse continues with her relationship and eventual marriage to Gillooly, who alternates between obsessive neediness and violent control of Harding. Finally, her initial success in the 1991 National Figure Skating Championships, and her unique achievement as the first female to nail the triple axel in a competition, is eventually overshadowed by the 1994 attack on rival Kerrigan, for which her husband and Eckhardt were responsible. Harding maintains her innocence but nonetheless is implicated in the attack, found guilty of perverting the course of justice and is banned from competitive figure skating for life. This devastating decision ends Harding’s short career prematurely and earns her lasting notoriety and the enmity of the American people.

There are fine performances from all involved in the cast, but Margot Robbie and Allison Janney stand out and well-deserve their Oscar nominations for their portrayal of the dysfunctional mother-and-daughter duo. Janney effortlessly presents a waspish antagonist in the form of LaVona, ranging from darkly sharp and witty one-liners to abominable acts of emotional torment and violence, including throwing a table knife at her on-screen daughter’s arm. The worst we see of Janney’s character comes when she seemingly attempts to console and comfort her daughter during the FBI investigations, only to be found hiding a recording device in her coat pocket. The look of betrayal on Robbie’s face is matches ours: the one time we expected to see redemption for their broken relationship, and it was lie all along. What were we, and Harding, to expect?

Margot Robbie triumphs in the title role. She manages to recreate the sarcastic feistiness akin to some of her well-loved earlier roles, such as Harley Quinn and Naomi LaPaglia, but this time we see a crucial level of fragility and vulnerability in her performance, reminding us of the bitter reality of Harding’s story and of a woman who was repeatedly shunned and ridiculed in both her personal and professional life. An unforgettable moment comes when Harding is seen alone in her dressing room, pre-1994 Olympic performance. She attempts to smile at herself in the mirror, but even that facade is failing: between every smile, Robbie convincingly lets slip a grimace of anxiety and despair, effectively revealing the protagonist at her breaking point.

The costumes and make-up are well researched and manage to make the cast look uncannily like their real-life counterparts, as revealed by the original interview clips shown in the ending credits. This is particularly true in the case of LaVona and Eckhardt, which is credit to casting directors Lindsay Graham and Mary Vernieu. An interesting point to make is that Rogers wrote the dialogue and characterisation of LaVona with Janney in mind, though this was their first film together. Both Harding and her mother are shown throughout the film to be hand-making her skating costumes, in various styles and colours, to emphasise the family’s inability to afford the proper and, importantly, suitable skating outfits.

Although unexpected, the mockumentary style of the narrative works extremely well, not only reminding the audience of the grave reality of the 1994 attack, but that Harding and her contemporaries remembered the events of her life and the attack very differently. Coupled with the actors’ attempts to break the fourth wall, we are given both an insight into their differing personal opinions and the varying biases in their accounts. This allows the audience to feel involved in the narrative, yet able to reach their own conclusions at the end of the film.

Considering the significance of the 1994 attack on Tonya Harding’s life and career, it is unfortunate that the film barely focuses on Harding’s relationship with Kerrigan (played by former dancer Caitlin Carver). In one short flashback scene we see the two smoking and laughing together in their hotel room before an unspecified competition, as Harding relates that the media portrayed Kerrigan as “a princess” compared to her (just because they could). Apart from that, we only see Kerrigan sparingly during the rest of the film, with no dialogue apart from her cries of pain during the assault scene.

Gillespie and his team have created a thought-provoking piece of cinematography, which manages to touch upon the real story of a disgraced protagonist with a suitable level of black comedy to counteract the rest of the film’s tragic elements. More importantly, the film represents Harding’s long-awaited chance to get her story across to the rest of the world, which is emphasised both by Harding’s appearance at the film’s premiere, and the fact Robbie met and interviewed Harding herself during pre-production. The film ends with information about Harding’s current life and the emphatic final line that she is a “good mother” to her only son: yet another example of her reclamation of her identity in the public eye.

I, Tonya is out now in UK cinemas. Trailer below:

Hebe Hamilton reviews the film adaptation of Jo Nesbo’s novel.

I must confess: I have never read any of Jo Nesbo’s books. Initially upon watching the trailer for The Snowman in the cinema, I had high hopes. The film promised a creepy murder-mystery, with a strong cast to complement it. Fast-forward to its release and the dismal reviews littered the internet, at odds with what I had viewed in the trailer. More worryingly, if I liked it, what does that say about my taste in films?

Therefore, heading into the cinema in anticipation, all I could think was: what am I letting myself in for?

The film initially presents itself much like a new Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, complete with suspense, murder, Scandinavian settings, and an amateur detective / journalist. This time our amateur comes in the form of Michael Fassbender, who plays the central protagonist Harry Hole. He is supported by fellow journalist Katrine Bratt (Rebecca Ferguson), and the duo work together to attempt to uncover the perpetrator behind a series of murders of neglectful mothers in Oslo and Bergen. The only clue to his identity is a string of snowmen he leaves at the scenes of his crimes.

The cast features Toby Jones, Chloe Sevigny, and J.K. Simmons in supporting roles, all giving strong performances as always. The scenery and cinematography is stellar: sweeping landscapes of snowy Norwegian mountains, the fjords, and the city of Bergen and the bay around it. So where does the film go wrong?

The plotline, or lack thereof, is the biggest issue. There is no singular continuous storyline throughout the film. This itself is not necessarily a sin: Quentin Tarantino famously uses non-linear storylines in some of his greatest films, framed in ‘chapter’ sequences. However, the difference between Tarantino’s masterpieces and The Snowman is that it is clear that Tarantino’s chapters are individual pieces of one major plotline.

In The Snowman, on the other hand, there are too many plot threads running against each other to maintain focus on the main story at hand: finding the culprit. First, we are faced with a tragic prologue, featuring a young boy (Leonard Samuelsson Heinemann) who loses his mother (Sofia Helin) when she drowns herself, clearly foreshadowing the events to come. Then there is the backstory of Katrine Bratt’s father (Val Kilmer), who attempted to uncover the identity of the Snowman murderer in Bergen, eight years before the main events of the film. Then there is Simmons’s Arve Stop, and his team’s bid for Oslo to become the next host of the Winter Olympics (this section never really makes sense in the narrative and has little connection to the other parts). On top of this, we see Harry Hole attempting to resolve his relationship with his ex-girlfriend (Charlotte Gainsbourgh), her son, Oleg (Michael Yates) and her new partner, Mathias (Jonas Karlsson).

To put it simply, there is too much going on at once for us to get a sense of the serial killer’s story, because it is marred by irrelevant interjections from the juxtaposing storylines.

The ending is also a total disappointment. After the building web of stories finally starts to come together, and the killer’s identity is revealed, what initially promises to be a worthy showdown between Harry Hole and the killer ends prematurely when the killer (rather conveniently) falls through a hole in the ice. This abrupt ending is a disappointing anticlimax, and the final nail in the coffin of a film which fails to deliver on suspense, action and even drama.

5/10

The Snowman is now showing in UK cinemas.

Hebe Hamilton reviews Christopher Nolan’s World War 2 action thriller.

‘Dunkirk’. This is what greets the audience as Christopher Nolan’s latest film opens. There are no opening credits to lead us in gradually, no music, nor a mention of Nolan’s name. The lone title, white words on a black background, signal that this is a war film like no other – that the story to come will be honest, unembellished, and to the point.

The world has waited three years for Nolan’s latest film, since the widely acclaimed Interstellar in 2014. Make no mistake, Dunkirk is a different beast entirely from his previous efforts. Nolan is best known for his work in the action and sci-fi genres, and for good reason: films like The Dark Knight, Inception and Interstellar have changed the way people think about time, space, humanity, and even the Batman franchise.

This time, there is no place for the special effects and characterisation that triumphed in Nolan’s previous films. Dunkirk is a re-telling of historical events. There is nowhere for the production team to hide. But this is where Nolan has succeeded in going above and beyond the work of his predecessors in the war genre. He does not rely on heroes to tell his story, or crude levels of violence and gore to shock his audience. Instead, adopting a minimalist approach, he has let history tell the story on his behalf.

The opening sequence, featuring the surround-sound effects of gunfire, immediately places the audience within the war-ravaged French town of Dunkirk. We are less observers than extras within the scene itself, as we watch the first protagonist (Fionn Whitehead) run for safety and the infamous beaches of Dunkirk. He is later joined by Harry Styles and Aneurin Barnard in supporting roles, as the camera pans to reveal the other 400,000 evacuee soldiers awaiting their fate on the shoreline, where they lie vulnerable and exposed to German Messerschmitt gunfire and bombs.

From this point onwards, Nolan’s plot creates tension by focusing on three distinct, but key, locations of the Dunkirk evacuation: The Mole – the beach and pier where the soldiers await evacuation; The Sea – which combines home efforts from both sides of the English Channel; and The Air – where British Spitfires and German Messerschmitts meet in a foreshadowing of the Battle of Britain and Blitzkreig to come.

Dialogue is few and far between, and names are mentioned sparingly. This is not a story for individual heroes. Dunkirk emphasises that the experiences of Nolan’s protagonists were the experiences of the masses. In times of war, people are insignificant on their own.

The enemy also remains mysterious and undefined. Apart from Messerschmitt planes and one ending sequence we do not see any German soldiers, and when we do their faces remain blurred. The screenplay emphasises the word ‘enemy’ as opposed to ‘the Germans’, perhaps an underlying comment on the ways warfare destroys humanity.

Dunkirk’s story is told through masterful camera and sound effects, alternating between the land, sea, and air. Notable sequences include submerging camera effects to emphasise the sinking of the naval ships, and the use of specially adapted IMAX cameras, attached to the cockpit of the Spitfires, to create a viewpoint from the front of the plane. The latter has never been achieved by a filmmaker until this point, signifying Nolan’s expert creative vision and experience in pushing the boundaries of filmmaking.

Hans Zimmer’s score provides a powerful backdrop to the unfolding drama. For the most part the music is abstract, an obscure mixture of sounds to accompany the gunfire and bombing. But at two significant points in the film the score comes into its own: once when the fleet of British civilian boats are seen heading towards Dunkirk to save the soldiers (emphasised further by the facial expressions conveyed excellently by Kenneth Branagh’s Commander Bolton), the other at the climax of the story when the soldiers arrive back in Britain; both to an adaptation of ‘Nimrod’ – one of the most recognisable passages of classical music by Edward Elgar, who is one of Britain’s most beloved composers.

It is unfortunate there were not more panoramic shots of the Dunkirk beach to emphasise the sheer volume of men stranded there. The number 400,000 is repeated by the senior officers, played wonderfully by Branagh and James D’Arcy, yet we rarely are given a visual idea of that volume of soldiers during the film. Nevertheless, Nolan can rest assured that his latest offering is arguably the greatest masterpiece of his career so far. That this is one of his shortest films, at one hour and forty seven minutes, indicates the director and his production team have succeeded in conveying the power of this pivotal historical event without sensationalising the evidence.

9.5/10

Dunkirk is out in UK cinemas now – we strongly recommend seeking out the IMAX 70mm experience at London’s BFI IMAX and the Science Museum if possible. See the main trailer below:

Hebe Hamilton reviews Patty Jenkins’ long-awaited big-screen take on the most celebrated female superhero.

WARNING: This review contains minor spoilers.

In the latest offering from the DC Extended Universe, the Ancient Greek myths meet World War I and Gal Gadot’s Diana of Themyscira realises her destiny as the eponymous heroine…

The DC movie universe has been in desperate need of a change of supervision after last year’s disappointing offerings of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Suicide Squad. Recent films have boasted high levels of CGI-induced battle sequences with little, if any, plot at all. Would Wonder Woman suffer the same fate? After all, it has taken years of frustrated efforts to get the all-clear for a standalone Wonder Woman movie. Step forward director Patty Jenkins, and the results so far have been more than promising. The film has a 93% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes so far, from nearly 200 reviews, making it safe to assume that Jenkins and her crew are taking the franchise in the right direction compared to its predecessors.

The film starts off in a style very similar to Marvel’s Thor. We are introduced to Diana’s (Gal Gadot) home world of Themyscira, a Grecian paradise hidden from the rest of the human world and home to the Amazons, warrior women of the Ancient Greek legends. Diana’s mother, Queen Hippolyta (played effortlessly by Connie Nielsen), introduces a tale of Ares’ (the God of War) destructive influence on the human race, foreshadowing Diana’s destiny. Cue the arrival of Steve Trevor (played by classic leading man Chris Pine), and the chain of events by which Diana leaves the safety of Themyscira to aid Steve and his comrades on the Western Front of the First World War, and face Ares himself…

The film certainly has its strengths. The costumes and special effects are delightful, and special mention must go to the epic battle scenes; CGI here gives us an impressive interpretation of the Western Front battlefield and Diana’s super-human abilities, and manages not to feel coarse or overdone. Similarly, the effects used to create Themyscira, combined with real life footage from Palinuro and Camerota in southern Italy, make for a beautiful setting for Diana’s home world, and a perfect contrast to the darkness and chaos shown on the battlefield.

As for the costumes, the outfits seen in the London scenes and the Western Front are accurate and believable interpretations of World War I and early 20th-century fashion, whilst Diana’s iconic red and blue attire (complete with the indestructible bracelets and boomerang tiara) is as iconic and exciting as promised. The eventual reveal, during a brilliantly-choreographed battle scene in No Man’s Land, is delivered at just the right turning point in the film, which is the highlight of Allan Heinberg’s script.

There is notable acting from Chris Pine, who plays a dynamic leading man, yet one that does not overshadow the focus on Gadot’s Diana. Nor is there an overblown love story involved to diminish their characterisations. Another significant performance is Robin Wright in a short-lived role as Diana’s aunt and mentor, General Antiope. Wright’s performance, alongside those of the other actresses portraying the Amazons, brings a refreshing stance to an otherwise male-dominated genre, as Antiope leads the Amazons in their training and wields weapons better than their male rivals are shown to be capable of. But then again, these are mythical female warriors facing mere humans, so what else could we expect?

Finally, stand-out comedic performances that deserve to be mentioned are Lucy Davis’ Etta Candy, and Ewen Bremner’s Charlie. Candy – Trevor’s assistant – provides a series of witty one-liners nearly every time she is onscreen, battlefield ally Charlie’s heavy drinking and wise-cracking ways provide much-needed comic relief during the heavier scenes.

Wonder Woman is not without its weaknesses. Not only is the World War setting too reminiscent to Marvel’s Captain America: The First Avenger, but Heinberg’s plot seems to lose track around the halfway point. In fact, prior to Diana’s epic reveal scene, the pace of the story almost feels like it is grinding to a halt, to the extent that it is easy to forget that the focus is ‘Wonder Woman’ at all. Similarly, the World War I setting seems out of touch with the attempts to combine it with a (highly modified) version of Greek Mythology. Despite being an ‘origins’ story, these attempts to combine the two are futile, although Heinberg certainly makes a valiant effort.

As for Gadot’s title character, who is never addressed as ‘Wonder Woman’ during the film, the actress breathes a lively and vivacious personality into the part. It doesn’t hurt that Gadot is visually ideal for the role, with her glossy dark hair and natural beauty. However, there were several instances where her acting was not quite believable, especially during the more emotional scenes, where her performance was wooden and did not convey the pain and loss she was supposed to be feeling.

Nevertheless, Patty Jenkins can be proud that her efforts have taken the DC universe down a more meaningful and, dare I say it, feminist path. No longer do these films need to rely on plots riddled with overly ambitious battle scenes in order to attempt to highlight the superheroes’ strengths. If anything, Wonder Woman raises questions about human nature. War is certainly shown to bring out the best and the worst in people during the film, and the plot manages to use a circular structure, featuring Diana in the present day looking at a picture of her team, to ponder upon the complexity of humanity and what it means to be human.

What Chris Pine’s Steve Trevor makes clear to Diana is that no one is all good, nor all bad, which dispels the shallow interpretation of former superhero films, with an ‘all good’ superhero facing off against an ‘all evil’ super villain. Instead, the nature of team work is addressed and its ability to give strength to the protagonists. Hopefully the example set by Wonder Woman will help the DC Extended Universe on its way to establishing a more sincere series of superhero themed movies. But, with the release of Justice League later this year, only time will tell.

7/10

Wonder Woman is out now in UK cinemas. See the final trailer below:

Hebe Hamilton reviews Ridley Scott’s return to the Alien universe.

WARNING: This review contains spoilers.

In the second instalment of Ridley Scott’s ‘Alien’ prequels, ‘Alien: Covenant’ addresses the age-old question of mankind, evolution, and the questionable influence of machines and artificial intelligence.

It is five years since the original Alien prequel, Prometheus, was released in 2012, and by the end of that film many questions remained unanswered. Where were the infamous facehuggers and chestbursters from the original 1979 film, and its subsequent sequels? How could the Alien species possibly multiply with only one adult produced by the end of Prometheus? And as the latest instalment approached, we wondered: could Alien: Covenant bring us closer to bridging the gap between Prometheus and Alien? It appears the answer is yes. Ridley Scott’s newest addition to the franchise, which has already earned a 75% rating on Rotten Tomatoes at the time of writing, gives us many more clues to the evolution and origins of the ‘Alien’ species and has been received to both fan and critical approval.

Synopsis

This time around, the year is 2104. It is ten years since the events of Prometheus, and we are introduced to the Covenant, a space shuttle on a colonisation mission from Earth. Headed by a crew of 15, the film features a very polished performance by Katherine Waterston in a leading role as the Covenant’s ‘terraforming expert’, Daniels. So far, the situation seems familiar.

However, this time it is not long before disaster strikes. Hit by a rogue neutrino shockwave, the ship is heavily damaged and quickly loses its captain (James Franco in a cameo role). Leaving command in the questionable hands of first mate Christopher Oram (Billy Crudup), the crew decides, against the advice of Daniels, to investigate a transmission from a nearby planetoid, which coincidentally displays seemingly perfect conditions for human life. And in a fashion identical to Prometheus and Alien before it, this decision proves to be a fatal one…

Old Meets New

There are certainly a lot of new elements that Ridley Scott has brought to his latest film in the series. Apart from Michael Fassbender and Waterston, a familiar face from last year’s hit Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the new cast boasts fewer blockbuster stars than its predecessor.

Meanwhile, the aliens of Alien: Covenant are prehistoric variants of their more infamous ‘xenomorph’ cousins, made notorious in the original Alien ‘quadrilogy’. Whilst the classic facehuggers and chestbursters still have a vital part to play, there is another species that poses the initial threat to Oram’s crew: the neomorph, or as I prefer to call them ‘backbursters’. Originating from spores made as biological weapons by the engineers we saw in Prometheus (so that’s what the cellular structures and black liquid were for), they infect their hosts via any available orifice, resulting in a particularly gruesome reveal by breaking through the host’s back. But how are the two species connected?

This brings us onto the role of the androids. This film re-introduces David (played by a  menacing Michael Fassbender) from Prometheus, alongside the Covenant’s ‘upgraded’ model Walter (also Fassbender). ‘Upgraded’ in this case refers to the fact that Walter has fewer capacities, or desires, for human emotional connections. Most significantly, he does not act in his own self interest, unlike David. But while the two may be identical in appearance, their motives could not be further apart. Walter’s main aim is to support the crew, particularly Daniels, in their colonisation mission; David’s is the experimentation and creation of new alien hybrids.

Man vs Machine

David’s role in both prequels so far is pivotal to understanding the evolution of the alien species. It also addresses the age-old debate of mankind vs machines, and whether human beings and artificial intelligence can co-exist peacefully. After all, it was David who, in Prometheus, tainted a crew member’s drink with the dark liquid, which ultimately lead to the birth of the trilobite: a giant squid-like creature, similar to the parasitic facehuggers. This time, David’s actions have taken a far more sinister turn, having willingly killed a colony of engineers and his former comrade, Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace), all in the name of ‘experimentation’.

It’s easy to compare David’s actions with Ash’s behaviour in the original Alien film, another android whose ultimate mission is to preserve the alien creature at the expense of the crew. But David, unlike Ash (Ian Holm), has deemed himself a creator. The opening scene of Alien: Covenant gives us a glimpse at David’s relationship with his own creator, Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce), and it is easy for Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein to come to mind. At this point, the human is the one in control in the relationship. By the time David is re-introduced, the tables have turned. Although intrigued by human interaction, as revealed through his fascination with Shaw and later Daniels, David is adamant that human loss is necessary in the evolution of the species.

Music

This is emphasised to dramatic effect by the music used in the film. Jerry Goldsmith’s motif from the original 1979 film makes a reappearance in Alien: Covenant, foreshadowing the terrifying events to come, although it is Scott’s choice of Wagner’s ‘Entry of the Gods into Valhalla’ from Das Rheingold (the first opera in Wagner’s four-part Ring Cycle) that truly stands out. It forms a notable bookend at both ends of the film, particularly in the last scene when the original orchestral version is played as David’s link to the future timeline is fully revealed, whilst the rest of the colonists remain in stasis, unaware of the threat looming on board.

Final Thoughts

Although there are still plot holes that need filling, Alien: Covenant takes us in a necessary direction for understanding the turn of events that led to the crisis on the Nostromo in the original film. I’ll admit that prior to seeing Alien: Covenant I had my doubts as to where the plot could go after the events of Prometheus. The conclusion was such an anti-climax that it left little obvious plot direction.

It is hard to define the genre of the franchise, as it has elements of horror, sci-fi and suspense. However, Ridley Scott’s latest feature proves to be a gripping thriller that also manages to provide thought-provoking ideas about human nature, the ever-growing role of technology in our lives, and whether artificial intelligence could benefit humanity in the future, or become the source of our destruction.

8/10

Alien: Covenant is out in UK cinemas now. See the red-band teaser trailer below: