Critical response
Alien: Romulus received positive reviews from critics. The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported that critics praised the film's "striking visuals and claustrophobic terror with gory action and a formidable lead performance from Cailee Spaeny", calling it "arguably the best installment since Aliens". On the website, 80% of 392 critics gave the film a positive review, with an average rating of 6.9/10. Its critics consensus reads: "Honoring its nightmarish predecessors while chestbursting at the seams with new frights of its own, Romulus injects some fresh acid blood into one of cinema's great horror franchises." According to Metacritic, the film received "generally favorable" reviews based on a weighted average score of 64 out of 100 from 57 critics. Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B+" on an A+ to F scale, while those surveyed by PostTrak gave it an 82% positive score, with 65% saying they would definitely recommend it.
Jordan Hoffman of Entertainment Weekly praised the film's direction, design, and writing, calling it "impressive, however, especially in how it looks like a new movie but is simpatico with the tech of the 1979 original" and deemed Spaeny "the finest weapon in the arsenal... differentiating herself quite a bit from the doe-eyed characters she played in Civil War and Priscilla. Her petite nature may not scream action hero, but, as has long been established, in space, no one can hear you scream anyway." Owen Gleiberman of Variety called Alien: Romulus "one of the best Alien sequels... It delivers the slimy creep-out goods in a way that none of the last three Alien films have." He further wrote that "Spaeny, with her clear eyes and serene resolve, makes her presence felt as Rain, the closest equivalent here to the fearless Ripley."
James Mottram, in a five star review for NME, described the film as "thrilling and scary" and coming "close to the brilliance of Ridley Scott and James Cameron". He praised the production design, digital work, practical and visual effects and the score. Mottram described the performance of Jonsson as Andy as a "stand-out" a view shared by Clarisse Loughrey writing for The Independent.
Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle criticized the film, writing: "The first 45 minutes are boring beyond description. [...] The script has the aliens waking up and falling asleep at the convenience of the screenwriters, not in a way that makes consistent sense. [...] The foundational mistake came when someone said, 'Hey, let's make another Alien movie.' News flash: The alien concept is dead. Leave it alone, and leave poor Ian Holm out of it." David Ehrlich of Indiewire wrote: "The director would rather torture his cast than develop their characters. There's nothing inherently wrong with that trade-off, but Álvarez doesn't satisfy the first half of the equation well enough to justify his disregard for the second. High on jolts [...] and low on more probing scares, Romulus isn't nearly inventive enough to forefront its slaughter at the expense of its soul." Bilge Ebiri, writing for Vulture, expressed disappointment in the film's lessened ambition in comparison with other installments, stating that it is "a film engineered mostly to provide some basic genre thrills and keep the IP alive so that the now-Disney-owned Fox can generate more Alien movies.... Alien: Romulus is diverting enough, but it's also instantly forgettable—something I don't think I've ever said about any other Alien film, good or bad."
In August 2026, Ridley Scott opined that, looking back on Alien: Romulus, he thinks the film "was OK", but could have been better. He thus saw it as a sign that the franchise "needs some help", hence his intentions to return to the property, which he announced to do so by rewriting the next Alien film.
The decision to digitally add the late Ian Holm for the character of Rook was widely criticized. Wendy Ide of The Guardian called it "a queasily misguided choice" that was "ghoulish, exploitative, disrespectful and unnecessary". In Slate, Sam Adams asked, "Why let the dead rest when there's IP [intellectual property] to be mined?" He went on to compare the film's studio to the franchise's villainous Weyland-Yutani corporation, in that it's "a massive conglomerate that puts profit ahead of respect for human lives". Loughrey called it "ethically problematic" and "cinematic necromancy" while Jesse Schedeen for IGN called it an "unforced error" that was "distractingly bad and completely unnecessary" and which almost ruined the movie. Similarly, SlashFilm reviewer Chris Evangelista wrote, "It's distracting and weird. It never, ever looks real [...] The simple truth here is that not only does this look bad, it's a bad idea all around". The Daily Telegraph critic Tim Robey commented, "One thing I never thought I'd complain about in 2024 was a film having too much Ian Holm in it".
In response to the backlash, Álvarez compared the use of CGI to recreate Ian Holm's likeness to other actors' wearing prosthetics to portray historical figures, such as Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill in Darkest Hour: "I don't think Churchill wanted that, and I think that's worse, because that is them pretending to be them... This is not me pretending it's Ian Holm... It's just the makeup that makes it look like him." Álvarez told the Los Angeles Times that he had obtained permission from Holm's family, and stated it had been done to honor Holm's role in the franchise. Reviewer James Mottram praised the digital inclusion, saying that it "works well, both technically and narratively."
The visual effects used to recreate Holm, which were incomplete for the theatrical release due to time constraints in post-production, were updated and fixed for the home video release. Álvarez said, "I convinced the studio we need to spend the money and make sure we give the companies that were involved in making it the proper time to finish it and do it right. It's so much better."
