In the film “Alien: Romulus,” the title purports (as in “Prometheus”) to reference the name of the ship. Yet, akin to “Prometheus”, it is a ruse. The film alludes to the tale of the two brothers from antiquity, Romulus and Remus. Let us recall this story, penned in 800 BC, which itself inspired the myth of Abel and Cain (with its earliest written traces dating back to 400 BC):

Romulus founds the city of Rome by plowing a furrow to mark the location of the new city’s walls. According to Roman legend (which favors Romulus, the founder of the capital), Remus mocks his brother and challenges him by leaping over the furrow. What might begin as an innocent jest between two brothers turns tragic: Romulus slays his brother Remus for this act. Romulus justifies his deed by declaring that no one shall ever breach the ramparts of Rome.

It is evident that Romulus is not the hero the Romans would have us believe. He is the killer, the villain, the Cain of the Jewish narrative.

In the film, which is a precise reiteration of Ridley Scott’s original “Alien,” it is more expedient to identify the differences between the two films than to find their similarities. There exists but a single distinction between them: there are two siblings.

Rain and her brother Andy.

Kay and her brother Tyler.

In the first “Alien” of 1979, the crew shares no familial ties. However, as in “Romulus,” they approach a vessel that has emitted a distress signal. They must explore this ship. The diverse crew (a mix of male and female, Spanish and English) does not get along. They must encounter the aliens. A facehugger attacks a crew member. A chestburster escapes from a human body. The heroine is clad in scant attire to emphasize her vulnerability in her struggle against the primary alien. An alien is ejected into space as the heroine screams, “Take that, you son of a bitch.” For, as in “Alien,” the heroine is a woman, and the sole survivor, while the men exhibit toxic masculinity and meet their demise.

Of course, the most significant commonality (and the key to the film’s true message) is the android Andy. While Rain is presented as the main character, there is no doubt that the true hero of the film is Andy. Rain has no reason to be so effective against the aliens. How can she conceive of utilizing the ship’s gravity when she is a “space virgin”? How does she wield a weapon when, unlike Tyler, she has never shown a passion for combat? How is she so resolute when the film’s beginning portrays her as ineffectual (to the extent that others assure her she will not have to leave the ship)?

Certainly, Rain is the heroine, for Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) was in the original “Alien.” Yet Ripley was a pilot, and the rest of the crew admired her worth at the film’s outset. Thus, when she acts with such determination, it does not come as a surprise, as it does with Rain. Andy, on the other hand, though initially depicted as weak, becomes competent with a mere change of programming. This is why the android in the film appears more credible than the suddenly indestructible Rain, who lacks explanation for her transformation.

The issue with Andy lies in his name. In the four preceding films of the series, the androids are named in alphabetical order: In the first film, “Alien,” the android is called Ash. In the second film, he is named Bishop. In the next, it is Call. In the previous film, “Prometheus,” he is called David (which presents another problem). Therefore, Andy should have a name beginning with an E, as he appears here in the fifth film of the series. In the film, Rook, the other android, refers to Andy by his construction designation N.D. Does the android’s name begin with an N? Is the film meant to be the 14th in the series? Unlikely. No! Andy begins with an “A” because he is the twin brother of Ash, the first android in the series.

Returning to the legend of Romulus and Remus, as in the legend, Andy kills a sister, Kay, by refusing to open the door for her to escape the alien. Similarly, Rain kills a brother, Tyler, when he rushes toward her and is struck from behind by the alien’s prehensile tail intended for Rain.

Two deaths that are more symbolic than real. The evidence: having endured an assault worse than her brother Tyler, Kay manages to reach the ship. Tyler should have survived. So should Kay, if she had not used the product developed by Weyland Industries. The deaths of a brother and sister at the hands of another brother and sister merely echo the film’s theme: to kill Remus.

For this is precisely what Alvarez attempts here. Like in the Roman legend, his film is the twin brother of the original “Alien” from 1979, replicating scene for scene the same narrative. Just as in the legend, “Alien: Romulus” claims to establish a new series, one superior to that which followed “Alien” in 1979. Like in the legend, “Alien: Romulus” seeks to slay its brother, “Alien: Remus” (1979). Alvarez hopes to rid himself of the entire legacy and strength of the original “Alien” by employing the symbolism of the Roman legend. As in the tale of Abel and Cain, “Alien: Romulus,” out of jealousy, attempts to kill the film that started it all. Undoubtedly, like in the legend, we are not deceived and take sides with the original “Alien.”

Mary Pearcey, like many other famous Victorian-era murderers, has been suggested as a suspect in the Jack the Ripper slayings. She was apparently the only female suspect mentioned at the time. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, speculated at the time that the Ripper might have been female, as a woman could have pretended to be a midwife and be seen in public in bloody clothing without arousing suspicion or notice.

This theory was then expanded upon in 1939 by William Stewart in his book Jack the Ripper: A New Theory, which specifically named Pearcey in connection with the crimes. All evidence given is circumstantial, and there is no physical evidence or eyewitness reports linking Pearcey to the Ripper crimes.

F. Tennyson Jesse, the British criminal historian, explained the theory in her study of Pearcey’s case: “It was no wonder that, simultaneously with the discovery of the crime, legends should have sprung up around her figure. The rumour even arose that the notorious Jack the Ripper had been at work in the locality, and though this was quickly disproved, yet the violence and horror associated with the crime was such as to make it understandable how the rumour arose in the first place. Even in the earliest paragraphs which announced the discovery of the crime, several false statements were suggested.”

In May 2006, DNA testing of saliva on stamps affixed to letters allegedly sent by Jack the Ripper to London newspapers, and thought by some modern writers to be genuine, appeared to come from a woman. This led to extensive discussion of Pearcey and her crime in the global press.