Alien: Rubicon

I cannot believe Asylum got Michael Paré to play in this Alien Romulus copywrite infringement garbage. This studio has got to be breaking laws somehow by duping unsuspecting theater goers who may mistake this for the latest Alien movie Romulus, or even a newer one than that due to the "different" title "Rubicon" It is a crying shame that resources have to be wasted on trash from people who obviously have nothing to offer original in their lives but to steal others ideas and trash them so miserably. I couldn't get through just a few minutes in when I looked up the studio company and saw "Asylum" then I shut it off. Don't waste your time unless you have NOTHING else to watch at all.

Like another reviewer I thought it was something to do with the Aliens franchise but this movie doesn't even deserve the title of movie, instead it should be called a hodgepodge of how not to act. All the main actors were over doing their roles, especially the man playing the helicopter pilot. Possibly the only actor who played their role correctly was the daughter, she sort of held back her "enthusiasm" and seemed the most normal.

Some of the special effects were good, possibly the only saving grace, though someone needs to learn how to do explosions properly.

All up a waste of money and time.

I will usually give a movie 20-30 minutes and that was a challenge with this one. I started it based on the Glamour Shots preview and if cream rises to the top this sunk quick. The B budget acting didn't have a chance with the cheesy script. I've seen four or five of these actors in other things and they did a lot better given the tools they had in those movies. This one just needed to be cleaned up from every corner because it had a decent story to be based on. In theory this story has been told multiple times but they did have a different twist with Rubicon. Overall it was a huge strike out.

When I stumbled upon the 2024 movie "Alien: Rubicon" here in 2025, there wasn't even a moment's doubt in my mind that this was a mockbuster from The Asylum. Now, I hadn't even heard about the movie prior to watching it, so I had no idea what I was in for. But the movie's cover, which was quite nice actually, and the movie's title just screamed The Asylum to High Heavens.

And true enough, this was indeed a movie from The Asylum.

I have to say that writers Glenn Campbell and Tammy Klein didn't really put together a particularly thrilling or exciting script and storyline. And sitting through "Alien: Rubicon" proved to be somewhat of a challenge of wills. And to make things even more dragged out, director Adrian Avila spends a lot of the movie's run time of filming Preston Geer (playing Dr. Jeff Morrow) and Paul Logan (playing Captain Sean Jeffe) as they sit in a helicopter cockpit following the unidentified sphere around. And it grew rather tedious and boring quite quickly.

The only faces on the cast list that I was familiar with was Michael Paré, Paul Logan and Lindsey Marie Wilson. The acting performances in the movie were fair, but nothing outstanding. Truth be told, then the actors and actresses didn't really have much of any solid material to work with.

Visually, then I will say that The Asylum definitely upped their game. The CGI effects in the movie were quite good for a The Asylum movie. But it just wasn't enough to make up for the lackluster script and storyline.

I doubt that even the most hardcore of sci-fi fans will get a kick out of watching "Alien: Rubicon".

Actually, the best thing about this movie was actually the cover, sad fact, but true. And you see the aliens for maybe 2 seconds in the entire movie. Unbelievable.

My rating of director Adrian Avila's 2024 movie "Alien: Rubicon" lands on a generous three out of ten stars.

You can always spot a poorly made film lazy direction, weak screenwriting, and uninspired performances. Casual viewers might be fooled into giving it four stars, but those who truly understand cinema see the flaws immediately. From the very first scene, everything feels off flat cinematography, predictable dialogue, and a lack of artistic vision. A great film is more than just aesthetics and spectacle; it requires depth, intentional storytelling, and performances that breathe life into every frame. This one fails on all counts.

The problem with bad films isn't just technical flaws it's the absence of passion and originality. A director with a true vision knows how to craft tension, evoke emotion, and make every frame meaningful. When a movie lacks that, it becomes nothing more than a forgettable, soulless product. Some audiences might accept mediocrity, but for those who truly appreciate cinema, it's impossible to ignore when a film is nothing more than a hollow imitation of better works.