Alien: Covenant, Ridley Scott’s 2017 science fiction horror prequel, earned a Metacritic score of 65 out of 100 based on 52 critic reviews. This score falls into the “Generally Favorable Reviews” category, indicating a film that received moderately positive but decidedly mixed critical reception.
- Metacritic Rating Alien: Table of Contents
- How Does Alien Covenant's Metacritic Score Compare to Other Franchise Entries?
- What Critical Concerns Drove the Mixed Reception?
- How Do User Scores Differ from Critical Consensus?
- Should You Trust Metacritic Scores When Choosing Films?
- Why Do Prequel Films Often Struggle with Critical Reception?
- What Production Aspects Influenced the Metacritic Assessment?
- What Does Alien Covenant's Score Suggest About Franchise Health?
- Conclusion
- You Might Also Like
The rating reflects critics’ divided opinions on Scott’s ambitious follow-up to Prometheus, with praise for its production values, atmosphere, and performances balanced against reservations about its narrative direction and thematic messaging. The 65 rating places Alien: Covenant in an interesting middle ground within both the broader Alien franchise and contemporary blockbuster cinema.
Unlike the clear critical consensus that surrounded Ridley Scott’s original 1979 Alien or the strong embrace of James Cameron’s Aliens, Covenant provoked genuine disagreement among professional reviewers, making it a fascinating case study in how critical reception can be simultaneously positive and fractured.
Table of Contents
- How Does Alien Covenant’s Metacritic Score Compare to Other Franchise Entries?
- What Critical Concerns Drove the Mixed Reception?
- How Do User Scores Differ from Critical Consensus?
- Should You Trust Metacritic Scores When Choosing Films?
- Why Do Prequel Films Often Struggle with Critical Reception?
- What Production Aspects Influenced the Metacritic Assessment?
- What Does Alien Covenant’s Score Suggest About Franchise Health?
- Conclusion
How Does Alien Covenant’s Metacritic Score Compare to Other Franchise Entries?
The Alien franchise has experienced remarkably inconsistent critical fortunes across its four primary entries. The original 1979 Alien remains a near-universal classic, while Aliens captured similarly strong acclaim.
Prometheus, Scott’s 2012 prequel, received a metacritic score of 63—nearly identical to Covenant’s 65.
This suggests Scott’s prequel films, while well-crafted, have struggled to achieve the consensus brilliance of the earlier entries in the franchise, a pattern reflected across professional critical circles worldwide.
When compared to other major science fiction franchises and blockbuster sequels from 2017, a score of 65 was respectable but unremarkable. For context, that same year saw Wonder Woman earn an 76 on Metacritic and Thor: Ragnarok reach 74.
Alien: Covenant’s score positioned it closer to films that critics recognized as accomplished but flawed, rather than as a clear artistic success. This discrepancy highlights how franchise history and high expectations can influence critical assessment—reviewers held Scott’s film to the standard set by earlier, more beloved entries.
What Critical Concerns Drove the Mixed Reception?
The moderate score masks significant disagreement about Covenant’s fundamental direction. Critics divided roughly into two camps: those who praised Scott’s commitment to exploring philosophical questions about creation and consciousness, and those who felt these themes overwhelmed character development and narrative coherence.
The film’s shift in tone from Prometheus—becoming more action-oriented while retaining its philosophical pretensions—confused some critics who couldn’t fully embrace either approach. This tonal inconsistency likely contributed to the dispersion of scores within that 52-critic sample.
A major limitation of relying solely on the Metacritic score is that it compresses these nuanced disagreements into a single number. Some prominent critics delivered genuinely negative assessments, citing poor dialogue, underdeveloped characters, and a plot that felt simultaneously overcomplicated and derivative.
Others appreciated Scott’s ambition and the film’s technical mastery. The 65 score doesn’t capture that polarization—it merely indicates the mathematical center of those opinions, which can be misleading when evaluating a film that generated genuine controversy.
How Do User Scores Differ from Critical Consensus?
Metacritic maintains two rating systems: the Metascore derived from professional critics (65), and the User Score contributed by audience members.
The gap between these scores on Covenant reveals a significant divide between professional critics and general audiences. Where critics were guardedly mixed, broader audiences leaned more negative, suggesting that Scott’s intellectual ambitions resonated more with seasoned critics than with casual moviegoers seeking traditional Alien franchise thrills.
This discrepancy illustrates an important distinction in film evaluation—critical scores measure professional assessment and framing, while user scores reflect immediate entertainment satisfaction. Someone evaluating Alien: Covenant strictly as a blockbuster action film might rate it lower than a critic assessing it as part of Scott’s artistic exploration of AI ethics and existential horror.
The Metacritic score of 65 reflects only the professional critical perspective, a limitation worth noting when determining whether a film might appeal to you personally.
Should You Trust Metacritic Scores When Choosing Films?
Metacritic scores serve a specific purpose—they aggregate critical opinion to provide a snapshot of how a film was generally received by professional reviewers. A score of 65 accurately conveys that critics found Alien: Covenant moderately successful: worth watching for fans of the franchise, competently executed, but not essential.
However, this mathematical summary obscures whether a film’s flaws will bother you personally.
Some viewers found Covenant’s philosophical questions fascinating despite weak character work; others saw only wasted potential. The tradeoff in relying on aggregate scores like Metacritic’s is that you gain a broad consensus view but lose detailed context.
Reading individual critical reviews provides more useful information if you have specific preferences—whether you prioritize philosophical depth, action sequences, character development, or traditional horror elements.
For Alien: Covenant specifically, consulting reviews that address your particular interests would likely serve you better than the aggregate score alone, though the 65 rating does accurately signal that this is a divisive, imperfect film worth evaluating on your own terms.
Why Do Prequel Films Often Struggle with Critical Reception?
Alien: Covenant’s moderate score reflects a broader pattern: prequels face inherent critical disadvantages. Critics approach them with existing knowledge of where the story leads, making narrative choices and character arcs feel predetermined or unnecessary.
Scott’s decision to deemphasize familiar Xenomorphs in favor of exploring the Engineers and AI creation mythology divided critics—some saw it as bold reimagining, others as narrative self-sabotage.
A warning for franchise fans: prequels often score lower than their predecessors specifically because critics evaluate them against established legacy rather than on independent merit. The 65 score also reflects the specific challenge of following Prometheus, which itself earned only a 63.
Critics who disliked Prometheus’s ambitious but muddled approach might have approached Covenant with skepticism, while those who enjoyed Prometheus might have felt Covenant didn’t go far enough in either direction. This compounds the difficulty of achieving critical consensus for any prequel, particularly one following a divisive predecessor in the same franchise.
What Production Aspects Influenced the Metacritic Assessment?
Critics consistently praised Alien: Covenant’s technical execution and visual design. Cinematographer Dariusz Wolski’s work received recognition for its atmospheric cinematography, while the production design and visual effects demonstrated Scott’s commitment to creating a fully realized alien world.
Despite thematic and narrative concerns, reviewers acknowledged the film’s technical accomplishments, which likely prevented the score from dropping lower.
The competent craftsmanship ensured Covenant maintained its “Generally Favorable Reviews” classification despite significant story-related reservations. Michael Fassbender’s dual performance as Walter and David received particular critical attention. His work provided one of the film’s most consistent praised elements across reviews, offering some critics a reason to engage with material they otherwise found frustrating.
This example illustrates how strong individual performances can somewhat elevate a film’s critical standing even when broader narrative elements receive criticism.
What Does Alien Covenant’s Score Suggest About Franchise Health?
The consistent moderate scores for both Prometheus (63) and Covenant (65) suggest that Scott’s prequel vision, while respected for its ambition, hasn’t captured the critical enthusiasm that defined the franchise’s earlier peaks.
This pattern has implications for how studios evaluate franchise properties—a 65-rated film can succeed commercially yet fail to establish the critical prestige that often drives long-term franchise sustainability. Looking forward, the lesson seems to be that ambitious thematic exploration requires exceptional execution in every other element, or critical consensus will fracture.
The Alien franchise’s trajectory also reflects broader industry trends in how critics evaluate legacy sequels and prequels. As audiences and critics grow more familiar with franchise mechanics, the threshold for novelty and thematic depth rises.
A 65 score in this context isn’t necessarily a failure—it represents a film that tried to say something substantive while entertaining audiences, but couldn’t achieve full critical consensus on whether those ambitions were worthwhile.
Conclusion
Alien: Covenant’s Metacritic score of 65, based on 52 professional critic reviews, accurately represents a film that accomplished technical and creative goals while ultimately failing to achieve unified critical approval. The “Generally Favorable Reviews” classification conveys that most critics found merit in Scott’s approach, yet significant reservations prevented stronger consensus.
Understanding this score requires recognizing both what it communicates—moderate professional approval—and what it obscures—the genuine artistic disagreements beneath that number.
When evaluating whether Alien: Covenant deserves your time, consider that the 65 score provides only one data point. Your personal engagement with prequels, philosophical science fiction, the Alien franchise legacy, and visual spectacle will ultimately matter more than any aggregate score.
The film’s technical accomplishment and ambitious themes appeal to certain viewers despite critical reservations, making it worth evaluating on your own terms rather than dismissing based on the moderate Metacritic rating alone.
You Might Also Like
- What Is the Metacritic Rating for Wonka
- What Is the Metacritic Rating for The Zone of Interest
- What Is the Metacritic Rating for The Power of the Dog
For more on Metacritic Rating Alien, see the full breakdown above – the metacritic rating alien details cover what most viewers want to know.
