Drexl Spivey: The Savage Animal of 1993's TRUE ROMANCE

During the motel scene, Drexl begins the conversation with a vulgar comment, showing his and his company’s topic of choice as they eat Chinese food and make a drug deal. Only Tarantino could write dialogue about going down on a chick like he does.  

He actually wrote the screenplay with the motel scene to appear right after the opening credits. Director Tony Scott reorganized the story when he became involved. Similar to Reservoir Dogs intro about Madonna and her song, Like a Virgin, which Mr. Brown, played by Tarantino himself, alleges its lyrics are about a man with a big penis who stretches out a whore, Drexl, and the others were to begin the movie here in the same fashion. Pulp Fiction broke that streak with Pumpkin and Honey Bunny’s diner conversation about race and robbery. 

True Romance 1993

But sex comes up later just before Jules and Vincent enter the apartment to get the briefcase. Much of Tarantino’s early filmography uses similar themes and scenes, and dialogue because he wrote them around the same time. And it’s safe to say that sex was surely on his mind. 

Here, Drexl uses the sex talk to fool one of the drug dealers into letting his guard down. And this is when we not only see Oldman’s fluidity as an actor but also of Drexl’s scheming as a character. He quickly dispatches both dealers, one of whom is Sam Jackson in a brief cameo, and a dog, too. Only in the director’s cut do we see the dog, though.  

Drexl’s strategy to take advantage of the situation is important because we’ll see him do this again during the party scene, and then we’ll see Clarence incorporate his own scheming throughout the story. But I’ll get into that in the next section.  

Along with being violent, Drexl is arrogant and a strategist, a manipulator of everyone around him. If he can deceive coke dealers, then he can easily scheme against a comic book nerd on his own turf. Or so he thinks. 

I know fans of True Romance typically point out the Sicilian scene with Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken as their favorite. My favorite is the party scene with Drexl. It allows for Drexl’s character to shine through Oldman's great acting and Tarantino’s excellent dialogue.  

Before Clarence enters the house, the audience knows something is rotten in Denmark because of the red lights shining through the windows. It’s a whore house run by drug-dealing pimps, and they’re not afraid to highlight it. They even have hookers dancing and offering their services to passers-by. There’s a pimp wearing a mink coat there to make sure his hoes do their jobs. 

So, there’s certainly a braggadocios vibe going on here. They’re flashing their lifestyle to the world. They’re untouchable. At least they think they are. That is, until the trick who just married a prostitute after knowing her for one day shows up to avenge her honor. This guy literally wife’d up a whore, and now he’s gonna kill for her. 

True Romance 1993

When we first see Drexl in this scene, he’s eating Chinese food alone on a tiger print couch. The story symbolizes him as an apex predator. His robe is a leopard print. He wears two necklaces: one with a single, large talon and the other with several smaller talons. Talons, of course, are from birds of prey, like hawks or eagles, and are used to grab and stab their live food. 

His massive scar tells of a past horrible scuffle. It left him disfigured with a badly damaged eye. He’s been around the block, this guy. He’s likely done prison time and hurt people along the way. So, Clarence is about to confront, on a turf not his own, not just a pimp who sells women for cash, but a violent, battle-hardened psychopath.  

When Marty brings Clarence before Drexl, Drexl refers to Alabama as a bitch and goes further with his insult by implying that knowing Alabama makes them family, which is a slick dig that he had known her sexually, and is also another symbolic moment that suggests Drexl and Clarence’s connection as characters. 

After Clarence refuses to sit and eat with Drexl, Drexl turns up the aggression. Drexl takes the rejection as a rightful insult and immediately calls out Clarence for his obvious disrespect towards Drexl’s hospitality in sharing the Chinese food with him.

He tells of his ability to sniff out the weak, of which he assumes Clarence is. And the playful throwing of the ceiling light towards Clarence is just the start of Drexl’s violence towards Clarence.  

But what Drexl didn’t expect was Clarence’s smartass ways, too. Like Drexl, Clarence plays a game before he intends to unleash his anger at Drexl. He gives him an empty envelope. Now, with that insult, Drexl knows what his next step must be. They fight brutally, with Drexl and Marty winning, for a moment. Drexl sits atop Clarence in dominance and laughingly suggests he’ll keep Clarence sexually busy while Marty returns with Alabama.  

Drexl represents more than just a Detroit pimp. He's really the most savage villain of Tarantino's entire repertoire.

The Creative Genius of Wes Craven's NEW NIGHTMARE

Audiences just weren't ready for New Nightmare when it was released in 1994.

Viewers had expected a beat-by-beat continuation of the Nightmare saga like they had seen many times before. Sometimes that worked, but many times it didn't. 

Wes Craven's New Nightmare 1994

After a while, you realize that killing off Freddy doesn't work, which makes the series redundant and an overall insult to your intelligence. 

It can't help but tire itself out. That's why they chose Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare as a title in one entry. New Line Cinema was smart in that regard. They knew the Elm Street saga was hanging on to dear life, and it was time to mercy kill it.

But obvious now, in retrospect, that Craven's intention from the beginning was to treat the Elm Street movies as a one-off. They were never meant to go that way. That was just pure corporatism milking the franchise to make money and pay the bills.

That philosophy worked in the 1980s because slashers were huge back then. 

But again, according to the only person that matters in this conversation--WES CRAVEN--the goal was to end the Freddy story with Nancy in the 1984 film. Craven knew that Freddy's return would only dilute his presence. 

The only way to bring back Freddy in a realistic way, without the tropes and dullness that sequels bring, was to go full META.

That's ingenious on Craven's part. I know fans respect and adore Craven for his talents as a filmmaker, but Craven really was a creative genius storyteller. Expert-level writers and directors like him don't just grow on trees. They're one in a million. Craven was that one.

But there's a problem with meta--it only works once. 

Metafiction is unique because it provides a perspective that's unusual for the viewer. Audiences aren't accustomed to experiencing a story that acknowledges itself as the story is being told to the viewer. Meta can be a thrill ride if it's done correctly. But once it's performed, any sequels will be forced to increase the meta level or abandon it. 

Craven knows meta only works once. That's why his involvement with the Elm Street series was limited, as compared to the Scream series. He knew the Scream series was more bankable because it was light meta. It was more understandable meta. It wasn't as complicated to follow as New Nightmare. 

Craven learned from New Nightmare's lack of box office success that he shouldn't overdo the self-awareness of Scream, which worked, and allowed for the series to thrive as a massive franchise.

Wes Craven

Craven's intentions with the Elm Street saga were to end it quickly with no sequels.

New Nightmare comments on the effects of horror movies on it's audiences. There's a blatant message in New Nightmare. Scream's message is more diluted. Not as strong or obvious, and because of its watered-down subtext, Scream actually prospers for it. 

New Nightmare is the end of the Freddy story. The film trades the Freddy character for the overall message of the film. That's why the Freddy character is hardly in the film. He's a backdrop for what Craven wants to say about horror movies. That message was his true intention from the onset.

The real problem that awaits the Elm Street saga is what story will they do next? 

Every possible angle has been used and analyzed. Will studios go the meta route or not? Craven boxed everyone else out of the Elm Street saga with New Nightmare. He excluded them from continuing the Freddy character in any way other than just simple routine stories. 

ALIEN: COVENANT Ruined the Franchise

Covenant's first mistake was in its own title.  

Ridley Scott reversed his idea to call the sequel Paradise, which would have had Shaw and David venturing to the Engineer's home world, and would likely have been representative, to some degree, of Heaven, because it was noted by Shaw’s father in her dream sequence in Prometheus. 

Fans of the first film had expected to see Shaw’s next move and the continuation of the engineers. Yes, it would have been deeply philosophical and theological, which isn’t a bad thing, especially if it had been merged nicely, which would have required its viewers to think on a subtextual level to understand the story. It would have been worth it, I guess. 

Instead, what we got in Covenant was a total abandonment of Prometheus’s themes and main character. (Check out the YouTube video here.) David became the central focus in Covenant, which was a stupid move because Shaw was already being built up as the protagonist in the trilogy. But Shaw was too complex, too emotional a character for a story that now wanted to tell an agenda with its sequels rather than a story about the human experience.  

Alien: Covenant 2017

Fans didn’t like it when Newt and Hicks were killed off-screen in Alien 3, which is the same trope used here, but Scott thought it was a good idea, anyways. Covenant isn’t just a soft reboot. It’s also a big middle finger to its core audience. 

The switch from the symbolic Prometheus title was reduced to a more literal title that included Alien, as if fans had forgotten. The title card even reverted to the 1979 style, which was nothing more than a pathetic attempt at nostalgia. The Prometheus title card was beautiful and intelligent. The breakdown of the engineer from the black goo and the reformation of the DNA was a visual masterstroke.  

Whereas Prometheus was symbolic on many levels for its obvious Greek mythology roots and Peter Weyland’s God complex to create life, Covenant suggests a mutual agreement between parties. 

Similar to the story of Noah’s Ark, the Covenant ship brings various couples from Earth to a new planet with hopes of establishing and populating that world. Just as Prometheus borrowed from Greek mythology, Covenant uses Biblical scripture for its themes.  

In the Old Testament, God made a promise to Noah, a covenant, that He would never again destroy the earth with a flood. Because of man’s sinful ways, God chose to end most life on earth with the Great Flood and start over. He allowed only Noah, his family, and two of every animal to board the ark, saving them from the deadly waters.  

In Alien: Covenant, besides the specifics of the crew, it carries 2,000 other sleeping passengers and multiple embryos in cold storage. I can’t help but view the 2,000 people in cryosleep as a subtextual number dating back to the birth of Christ, which, sadly, if meant to be symbolic, goes nowhere because the Jesus angle was abandoned after Prometheus. And if the Covenant is supposed to mimic the story of Noah’s Ark, then where are the animals? There’s no mention of animals aboard the ship—only drugs, booze, and a Woke agenda that fucking destroyed a franchise. All things that should not be on an interplanetary spaceship looking to populate new worlds. 

Deadbeat Dad in BLADE RUNNER 2049

The deadbeat dad theme is an element that Hollywood has used many times over the last decade or so. 

Along with the misandrist/feminist messages designed to guilt-trip men while also symbolically castrating them by holding them accountable for perceived injustices, all done through obvious Hollywood propaganda, the message that often appears is of rejected fatherhood duties. 

With divorce rates always bordering around 50%, the deadbeat dad theme is more than just a statistic. It’s a real-life situation for many people. 

Blade Runner 2049

Harrison Ford ironically also played another deadbeat dad in his return to his Han Solo character he made famous decades prior. 

When The Force Awakens was released in 2015, audiences saw Solo revert to his anti-hero ways with a son who became a villain. 

In Blade Runner 2049, Deckard’s relationship with his child is even worse than in The Force Awakens. At least he knew for a fact what happened to his son, Ben. In 2049, he doesn’t even know if his kid is alive. Deckard lives out his days as a drunkard in a destroyed version of Las Vegas, completely oblivious of what happened to Racheal or his child. 

Does he even know that she died in childbirth? I don’t think so.

2049’s use of Deckard, it feels, is just shoe-horned in to connect it with the original. Deckard’s presence is so unnecessary that the story could have gone on without him just fine. And what does it say about the offspring of a replicant and a human? She says she has a compromised immune system and cannot ever again be in direct contact with anyone or anything, and must live, basically, in total isolation, forever. 

What kind of life is that? Seriously. And why would the writer allow that horrible fate to befall the messiah of the story? 

Is that the goal that both Wallace and the underground replicants are fighting for? A new race of hybrids that cannot physically coexist in nature and society? 

There are so many problems with this movie. 

Die Hard with a Clever Plot and Racial Tension

DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE is a damn good movie. It can't top the O.G., but it's a worthy sequel still.

Besides the racism and terrorism subplots that run concurrently, both of which are very important, and you can see the film analysis I made for it on my YouTube channel here, I want to briefly talk about the "Simon Says" aspect. 

Die Hard with a Vengeance 1995

I think a major reason why Vengeance is so good is that it uses riddles to keep the plot going. By doing so, it forces the momentum to never stop. It keeps the characters guessing and the viewers guessing, too. 

Right off the bat, we see the penalty for failing to solve a riddle. Deadly bombs scattered throughout Manhattan will go BOOM if one of Simon Gruber's puzzles is not solved. 

Whereas in the first film, John McClane seeks ways to kill the bad guys and save the day, Simon takes total control over John in this story. John is more passive in this film...because he has to be. 

Simon takes away any agency John has under the pretense that if John doesn't do what Simon says, then a bomb will go off. 

There's a reason for John's (somewhat) lack of free will is to highlight the true message of the film--the sublot--which is race relations with the Black Samaritan, Zeus Carver. The story of a White cop and a Black man from Harlem is what the filmmakers are really commenting on.

Race relations.

I go into it more deeply in my YouTube video, where I discuss the racial elements that had led up to this story. 

Die Hard with a Vengeance 1995

While on the hunt to solve the next riddle, John and Zeus must argue, overcome, and bond to save the day. They start off at odds with Zeus, taking an immediate dislike to John because of John's profession. 

Zeus ends up realizing that not all White cops are bad and also convinces John to reconcile with Holly. 

Samuel L. Jackson is known for his many famous roles. He's a legend. But I think his role in Vengeance gets overshadowed because it's a Die Hard movie. The O.G. Die Hard is really all that comes to mind when the series is mentioned. How many times do fans actually say that Vengeance is the best? Hardly ever. It's barely even mentioned.

I think it's great, and it doesn't get the credit it deserves. 

ALIENS vs. PREDATOR: REQUIEM Deserves a Rewatch

ALIENS vs. PREDATOR: REQUIEM is not as bad as everyone says.

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem 2007

Sure, the lighting is too dark, and the characters aren't that fully fleshed, but I've sat through far worse films. Let me break down why REQUIEM is actually really good, why people don't like it, and why ALIEN: ROMULUS owes REQUIEM  credit.

REQUIEM is an homage to the entire ALIEN and PREDATOR series up to that point. Right from the opening credits, we hear the famous sound effects of both films to let us know it's going to be heavy on the homage tip. Even the opening titles that appear in Cameron's ALIENS and end with an explosion like the nuke that blows up the city in the third act all make a return.

REQUIEM isn't just a sequel to its predecessor; it's a new beginning. I think that's because it doesn't mention the ancient pyramids or anything to do with the mythology of Anderson's film, that audiences resisted it. They had followed Anderson's story and were expecting something that connected REQUIEM to it, something worthy. 

But all we got was a Predalien.

Don't get me wrong. The Predalien is different. But REQUIEM basically ignores the previous movie and starts over as if it didn't exist. 

We see the small town of Gunnison, Colorado--the complete opposite of an epic setting. It's not about space exploration or military dominance or even buried pyramids. 

REQUIEM is about the nuclear family. It's about relationships and everyday scenarios.

Enter the Predalien...

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem 2007

This monstrosity comes to small town, USA and creates fucking havoc. I don't think audiences were ready to see how much insane and repulsive shit the Predalien was going to unleash on your average American. The depravity sets people and critics back. 

But the nastiness of the Predalien is also, weirdly, what makes REQUIEM so unique. 

Never before have ALIEN audiences seen a creature that isn't a face hugger, act like a face hugger, and also kills victims, too. Up until that point, your average face hugger would die after it implants its seed. 

As unique as it is, it's the brutality of the Predalien that is hard to watch. It only impregnates already-pregnant women. The life cycle of the ALIEN franchise has lived and died by its ability to create new reproductive abilities in each film. 

Other than that, REQUIEM is a beat-by-beat story. Survivors must survive. Some get picked off. Some don't. The monsters die. The end.

But it's the homage of the movie that exists on a meta-commentary level, here. 

Like I said earlier, the SFX, score, character names (Dallas!), similar cinematography, and much more are all a perfect homage to the ALIEN and PREDATOR series. 

It doesn't feel forced...

like... ALIEN: ROMULUS.

Prometheus 2012

Everything about ROMULUS feels forced. From the bullshit plot of the Big Chap not dying at the end of the first film to the Black Goo in PROMETHEUS to the recreation of Ash and the fucking SFX used at weird times just to garner a "Hey, I remember that noise. It's from..." all of it feels forced.

But as much as I want to dump on Alvarez for it, I can't.

Cinema is dead. Original ideas are dead. All we see are sequels and requels. Hollywood is too scared to spend money to finance anything new. So, they make a sequel nobody asked for and overload it with memberberries and nostalgia.

That's the times we live in. And some people (not me) eat it up. They love it. They either don't get the references or they do like it. 

I don't. 

ROMULUS, I'll admit, had potential. But it was saturated with stupid callbacks. Nothing original. Not really. The Black Goo is the main primary MacGuffin again. I thought we were over that nonsense in ALIEN: COVENANT.

Anyways, ROMULUS was boring crap. REQUIEM was better.

THE WOLVERINE gets wrong what SPIDER-MAN 2 does right

The X-Men films are not without their flaws. Much of the dialogue is hokey. The CGI is questionable, and too many characters appear at once. It's difficult to focus on any one specific character. 

The Wolverine 2013

But James Mangold's 2013 THE WOLVERINE learns from those mistakes. 

THE WOLVERINE is a very compact, tight story. It has limited characters, and CGI only appears in the third act. 

But aside from the technical and plot issues, what THE WOLVERINE does exceptionally well is that it forces the Logan character to lose his healing factor to a certain degree. He still has it, though it is reduced in its power. Logan could always take multiple bullets and knives and whatever other superpower is used on him, and he would just shrug it off. 

Logan was unstoppable in prior movies. But as cool as that is, it's also a hindrance because there isn't any threat against him. He can do anything, and nobody can stop him.

The writers here strip away Logan's healing factor and force him to experience pain as it's normally felt by non-mutants.

However, I can't help but think they (the writers) missed the mark.

Having seen Sam Raimi's SPIDER-MAN 2 countless times, I must compare THE WOLVERINE to it because it mimics the same plot. Sort of.

Just as Logan loses his ability to heal his wounds, Peter Parker loses his Spidey mojo, too. Peter's loss of his powers is related to his love story with Mary Jane. She has found another man of interest since the first film. She's moved on. But Peter hasn't. It's because of Peter's desire to have her as his love interest that affects his abilities as Spider-Man.

He actually embraces his loss of powers at one point. Because he disregards his Spidey requirements to fight crime, he excels in college and finds happiness. He even saves a kid from a burning building.

Spider-Man 2 2004

Of course, he chooses to be Spider-Man when Doctor Octopus kidnaps MJ. It's a very powerful scene because Peter makes the choice.

Logan doesn't have that in THE WOLVERINE.

When he loses his healing factor, he doesn't experience life differently. So, when he gets his powers back, it doesn't feel missed or earned. There wasn't any doubt that Logan would still want his immortality, which acts as a curse just as much as it is a gift. There isn't any doubt from the audience that, of course, Logan would save the day again.

That's my only gripe with the story. 

The writers could have made it more difficult for Logan to decide to want his powers back. They could have shown how much he enjoyed being with Mariko as a non-mutant, something he could only have if he stayed as a non-mutant. So, when the time comes for him to remove those bugs in him, it would have made for a much more powerful scene. 

Pacino's homage to his friend in DONNIE BRASCO

1972’s The Godfather gave birth to the worldwide popularity of Italian Mafia movies. Since then, everything cannot help but be compared and criticized in that subgenre’s discussion. 1997’s Donnie Brasco acknowledges The Godfather’s influence and turns it upside down while paying homage to it. In this film analysis, we’ll discuss how Al Pacino’s iconic role as Michael Corleone in the Godfather series connects to his role as Benjamin “Lefty” Ruggiero by examining the Fredo Corleone character.  

Just like how Pacino resurrected his ruthless Scarface character from 1983 to play a reformed dope dealer in 1993’s Carlito’s Way, he also cured Michael Corleone’s overwhelming guilt he’s suffered since 1974’s The Godfather: 2 by playing a similar version of Fredo in Donnie Brasco.  

Italian immigrant and New York mafia crime lord, Vito Corleone, played expertly by the legendary Marlon Brando in 1972’s The Godfather and then by Robert Deniro in The Godfather part 2, had 3 sons, Santino “Sonny” Corleone the eldest; Frederico “Fredo” Corleone; and Michael Corleone, the youngest.

Even though Sonny was the strongest of the 3, his temper and inability to strategize like his father got him killed. Michael, we know, goes on to save the Corleone empire. His time served as a World War II marine veteran, and his potential to calmly strategize against his enemies and in business make Michael a prime successor to his father’s legacy. Fredo, the simple-minded, middle-child of the Corleone dynasty, exists in a weird limbo. He lacks both the hot-headed temper that makes others fear Sonny and doesn’t have the chess-like disposition of Michael.

He enjoys the fruits of being associated with his father’s success, like money, women, and protection, but doesn’t possess the ability to contribute to it. That makes him a burden to the family, and he knows it. Fredo is weak, constantly disrespected, and seen as a leech and a hindrance to the progress of the Corleone empire.   

He’s a liability. So, the family pawns Fredo off to another family in Las Vegas. When Michael visits Moe Green and Fredo in Vegas, we see Fredo’s low-status reputation has followed him there, too. He was unable to begin a new reputation in Vegas and possibly become an asset to the Corleone family over time.

Rather than learning the casino business, which Michael likely had been planning on buying out from Moe since before sending Fredo to Vegas, Fredo indulges in sex and debauchery. Fredo even shows his potential to betray his own family when he defends Moe. Fredo’s disloyal behavior in this scene will bleed over to what his character chooses to do in part 2.   

The Godfather 2 1974

In the sequel, Fredo takes on a much bigger role than in the first installment. Although he is still portrayed as helpless and weak, he’s secretly a connecting link to Hyman Roth’s plot to have Michael killed. Fredo accidentally makes his mutiny known. His plan is foiled and, from that point on, Fredo’s arc spirals downward. The scene where Fredo opens up to Michael about why he did what he did is the highlight of the film.

As passionate, sorrowful, and genuine as Fredo’s explanation is, it doesn’t save him. He’s weak. He’s so weak, he subscribed to a plot to have his brother assassinated. And he even failed at that. Even if Michael hadn’t been killed, Fredo would have been a pariah among the Corleone family and the other families, too.

Fredo’s inability to climb the mafia ladder and gain respect and responsibility, whether personally or in his professional future, connects with the character Pacino would play 23 years later.  

As the oldest member of the crew, you would figure Lefty would have more sway and overall influence among his peers. He’s been involved in organized crime for over 30 years, and he’s failed to reach the heights he’s wanted. Within the first 15 minutes, we’re introduced to Lefty’s character and his low status. His friend refers to him as senile. So, while there’s a friendly relationship among them, Lefty is weak enough to be teased and insulted to his face. He doesn’t have the respect of his peers.  

When he speaks with Donnie about the ring, Lefty tries to appear dominant and alpha because first impressions are everything, but we find out that the ring is fake. Lefty has been scammed by a sleazeball owner of a strip club for 8,000 dollars. Although Lefty’s a battle-hardened soldier in his crew with dozens of murders under his belt, his decision-making isn’t the best, and it’s damaged his reputation.   

Throughout the movie, we see more and more instances of Lefty portrayed as both mentally incompetent and of low status. When Lefty brings Donnie to meet the crew, Sonny Red puts Lefty in his place in front of everyone. Lefty’s reputation is hurt, and let's Donnie know that Lefty doesn’t hold much sway in the mafia world.

And during a montage, Lefty is seen mumbling to himself as everyone else dances and parties. Senile, as Paulie said earlier. He’s also given a pet lion from Sonny Black as some sort of weird gift that symbolizes Sonny’s rise and Lefty’s low status.  

Donnie Brasco 1997

Lefty is a complainer, and that mostly has something to do with his inability to rise. If he complains to Donnie, whom he barely knows, then he’s surely complained to his friends.

Moving up the ranks of any group or business is proven by hard work and by never complaining about upper management, which Lefty does.

That’s why he’s left out of whacking the boss with Sonny Black. And then, he’s told right to his face by Sonny that he’s now, more or less, owned by him. Sonny does the same to Donnie later while on the yacht. Lefty’s reputation among his crew amounts to nothing. He's only useful for whacking his good friend later.

Sonny Black gave Lefty the most degrading and backstabbing assignment of the night. You have to wonder how many times Lefty’s killed his friends. He just walks away after killing Nicky as if shooting him was nothing. Lefty is a soldier and good for nothing else.     

The scene aboard the yacht is when the story truly proves that Lefty is a nobody. He attempted to hide the yacht adventure and King’s Court from his crew, but Sonny Black found out. And as a result, Sonny Black excludes him from joining the inner circle with Traficante to discuss potential mafia dealings in Florida. Sonny Black chose Donnie, of all people, making the insult worse to Lefty. 

So, what’s the connection between Fredo and Lefty? Why would the legendary Al Pacino, who is known for such a commanding role in the Godfather movies, take on the low-status role of Lefty in Donnie Brasco?  

Pacino’s Godfather role is so iconic and worthy of respect that it’s crystallized in cinema forever. Pacino will always be associated with Michael Corleone. He certainly knows this now, and he knew this when he chose Lefty’s character in Donnie Brasco. Lefty is such an inverse character from Michael Corleone that you have to wonder why he would risk his reputation.  

By Pacino taking on the low-status wise guy in Donnie Brasco, it pays homage to the Fredo Corleone character. John Cazale, the actor who played Fredo, worked with Pacino many times in films and stage plays. Most notably in the first 2 Godfather films and Dog Day Afternoon.

All 3 films had major success, and Pacino is known for crediting Cazale for that success, and that Cazale taught him about the craft of acting. So, Pacino attributes his success in Hollywood, to some degree, to Cazale. But what else does the meta-commentary say?  

After Michael discovers Fredo’s betrayal, Michael has him killed. It was a very difficult decision for Michael to make, but being the patriarch of a major crime organization, he had to do it to preserve that organization. The way The Godfather 2 ends is tragic, and I don’t think it gets considered enough when discussing the film because the Robert De Niro scenes as a young Vito Corleone mostly steal the movie away from Michael. But without Fredo’s betrayal of his brother, Michael couldn’t finish his character arc.   

The Godfather 1972

Michael, of course, has much guilt, and we see this twice in The Godfather 3, when he suffers a diabetic stroke, he calls out for Fredo, and when he confesses his sins to the cardinal at the Vatican.

As much power and respect Michael’s position had, it also put him in situations to make horrible choices, leaving him consumed with guilt and remorse.   

Pacino, knowing how iconic his Michael Corleone role is and how much of a friend Cazale was to him, chose the Lefty role to not just pay homage, but also to absolve Michael’s guilt from having Fredo killed.

Pacino’s Lefty character is Fredo reincarnated. Just like Fredo was the weakest in the Corleone crime family, Lefty is the same. He sees the others climb the ladder and take on responsibility, which builds status and respect—two things Fredo never had.   

Although The Godfather: 3 saw Michael lose his daughter and eventually die alone in Sicily, he never got closure for killing Fredo. But the Donnie Brasco film does just that. It allows Pacino to right what he wronged as Michael Corleone by stepping into the shoes of someone like Fredo. Pacino as Lefty is a form of penance to honor Cazale as a friend and to pay his respects to Fredo.  

From Aliens to Alien 3: The Evolution of the Xenomorph

In the first sequel, and dare I say slightly better film, is when we see the xenomorph change in appearance. James Cameron doesn’t change too much about the life cycle, other than providing an answer for the creation of Alien eggs, which we’ll discuss soon. 

Stan Winston, the creative genius who helped invent many practical effects throughout his brilliant career, kept the appearance of the face huggers mostly the same except for elongating its tail for jumping and running during its famous scene with Ripley and Newt. And Winston also added fingernails to the face hugger. You can hear them clicking along the floor when it pursues Ripley. The nails give the face hugger more relatability to that of an actual animal. Like the claws of a cat or the talons of a velociraptor, its prey knows that when the face hugger approaches and catches them it will have the ability to cut them and inflict pain on them. 

Aliens 1986

Before we get to the Queen, we should discuss the chest-burster in Aliens. Cameron improved on the original design. He gave the overall movement of it more flexibility. Whereas the original chest burster robotically turned from left to right, Cameron’s version has full flexibility. The two arm stumps in the first film have been replaced with full arms, giving the chest burster longer arms and hands it uses to wiggle from the host’s chest. Even the ferocity of the chest-burster is amplified in Cameron’s version. Whereas Ridley’s chest burster was relatively quiet when it birthed from Kane’s chest, only making a slight squeal before it slithered off, Cameron’s chest burster is psychotic on sight. Ridley’s version was that of a creature taking in its surroundings first, learning and observing the Nostromo crew. The chest-burster in Aliens seems to not care about its surroundings. It comes out from the host ready to kill.  

Cameron’s version of the adult xenomorph has been reimagined somewhat, too. Its smooth, shiny head has been replaced with a ribbed look, giving the xenomorph a blatant insectoid appearance this time around. Its dorsal spines are the same, but its hands and feet have been improved with more attention to the nails of their digits. Also, the overall body suit of the xenomorph has been tweaked to include numerous patches of ribbed skin, as if we’re seeing what it looks like underneath its fleshy exterior. This constant use of ribbed lines over its body and head certainly gives Cameron’s xenomorph a more hellish look, like it's still molting into another form.  

But the real gem of Cameron’s film is the Queen. The reveal of the Alien Queen is Cameron’s twist surprise to his audience. Whereas Ridley gifted us with the unexpected chest burster nobody saw coming, the presence of the Alien Queen does the same for the sequel. The Queen is totally original in the vast scope of cinema and earns its right as a monumental achievement in practical effects.  

Its ovipositor lays each large egg covered in thick residue. The massive ovipositor itself hangs from the ceiling by residue the xenomorphs use to create the hive. The Queen sits on her throne made of large, single protrusions, like the dorsal spines used to breathe. Again, the appearance of singular lines like bones or ribs is used with the xenomorph species to convey an insect design, like the Queen is sitting in the middle of a web and she’s the spider awaiting her prey.  

Other than being much larger than her warrior xenomorphs, she has four arms, too. Two massive arms she uses for reach and for battle, and two smaller arms she uses for close-up grabbing. She isn’t just a xenomorph giving birth. She holds status over the others. Her appearance suggests this. Her head has a three-pointed crest to it, like a crown. She’s royalty. Her mouth section is withdrawn inside a carapace, like that of a turtle shell. It protrudes when she greets Ripley and Newt. Also, this section can move fluidly. It can turn left and right without using its entire head.  

Aliens 1986

The Queen also has some type of non-verbal communication with her underlings. Perhaps it’s just body language she gives or some type of telepathic ability, but they understand her and obey her orders.  

Another addition Cameron made was the use of the xenomorph tail. In Ridley’s version, the tail wasn’t a primary concern other than to give it an animal-like appearance. Cameron weaponized the tail in his version. The xenomorph's spiked tail tip can incapacitate its victims and the Queen’s tail can fully pierce through a body. 

Whereas the insect traits were lightly suggested in Ridley's film, the xenomorph’s primary symbolism was that of corporate greed. The Queen bears the weight of individual symbolism in Cameron’s film to represent and mirror Ripley’s motherly protection.  

Alien 3 is where the story of Ripley and her dealings with the xenomorph become muddled. Mainly because of studio interference David Fincher’s vision was complicated, to say the least. However, the life cycle of the Alien is on full display here. The filmmakers knew that after telling two stories of face huggers and xenomorphs attacking humans it was risky to once again repeat. That’s where they went wrong. Not only did they kill Newt and Hicks, but they left unanswered plot holes within their own story.  

The mysterious egg plastered to the wall is just as ridiculous as the face hugger impregnating Ripley and also impregnating the dog. For two films, it’s known that after a face hugger implants its embryo in the host, the face hugger dies.  

The face hugger attacks a dog off-screen and later pounds its way through the dog’s chest. This version of the chest burster is far different from the one we’ve seen before. It comes from a dog, so the xenomorph expectedly takes on attributes from the dog. It moves on all fours like a dog. But the main difference is that it’s not a chest burster that needs to morph into an adult xenomorph. This version is already a xenomorph (in the Special Edition), just smaller. It will later grow and somehow develop a spitting technique it uses on one of the prisoners. Other than returning to the smooth head of Ridley’s xenomorph, the creature in Alien 3 seems discombobulated. It’s as if the filmmakers didn’t have a clear vision of the xenomorph they were creating.  

Queen Facehugger

They should have included the Queen face hugger that had impregnated an ox in a deleted scene. That may have provided more answers. The Queen face hugger, sometimes referred to as the super face hugger or royal face hugger was specifically birthed from the Queen. The royal face hugger was quite larger than the average face hugger and much darker in complexion. The most notable difference is its webbing between each digit. Giger designed this version with webbing and retractable fingers to adapt to its environment. Its skin was tougher than the common face hugger, suggesting an armor that would defend against attacks. Its tail also had a barb, like a scorpion, to attack its prey.  

Perhaps the biggest difference from the previous Alien films is the ability for the Runner Alien in Alien 3 to see, or should I say, for the film to show the audience that a xenomorph can see. Xenomorphs do not have eyes. The two previous films suggested the xenomorphs know their surroundings and the people in those surroundings from unknown methods. The attempt to explain their sight just further subtracts this film’s prestige and inclusion into the Alien franchise. As much as I do enjoy Alien 3, it’s where the series began to take a downturn.

The Mighty Dollar in New Jack City

As the movie begins and the camera takes us through a tour of the New York skyline, voiceovers of journalists tell of the current news. It’s 1986 and the country is in disrepair. Poverty, murder, and drugs seem like unfixable elements throughout inner-city America. So, in just a few minutes, the story has told us the horrible world we’re about to experience. And once the helicopter camera brings us to the Queensboro bridge, we see this begin to act out. 

The Duh Duh man, a large henchman, dangles a guy in a suit by his feet off the bridge. Nino Brown, played perfectly by Wesley Snipes, opposes the man’s cries for help. The guy didn’t have Nino’s bread or drugs for him. And in that world of deadly drug dealers, there are no second chances, especially when it comes to money. They drop the guy. He falls to his death and we know who we are dealing with. Nino is a venomous drug lord who doesn’t mess around when it comes to his money.  

Even during the drug deal scene with undercover detective Scotty Appleton and wannabe-stick-up kid, Pookie is involved in a debate over an exchange of money for dope until Pookie runs away with the bag of cash. 

New Jack City 1991

Even Gee Money refers to others paying him as the IRS for nailing a basketball shot. He collects their cash before being called into the jeep with his buddies. Even his name, Gee Money, is a blatant reference to not just his character’s goal in life but to the story’s primary motif. Gee Money introduces crack to Nino and Nino immediately accuses him of his disloyalty to Nino’s current drug business. This is a theme we’ll see again later in the movie. 

During the Spotlite nightclub scene, Nino and his crew meet to discuss taking over the Carter, a large city project building. Nino gives a quick speech before he introduces his plans to sell crack. Nino wants to come off as righteous by justifying his drug dealing lifestyle by blaming the lack of money people can make on the economic times brought on by the Reagan administration. Under President Ronald Reagan, in the mid-80s when NEW JACK CITY took place, America was experiencing the trickle-down effect from Reaganomics. 

While middle to upper-class citizens sometimes benefited from this system, the lower class certainly felt its wrath. Nino’s reference to the Reagan Era and its capitalist policies is ironic in a way because Nino is a capitalist if I ever saw one. He even calls himself an entrepreneur later in the story. To Nino, the effects of America’s free market are bad, unless he can be part of that free market to make money for himself. Nino is seen watching SCARFACE twice in the film. The story of Tony Montana is very similar to Nino in that they came from the gutter and rose to great success by drug dealing. SCARFACE, just like NEW JACK CITY, is a blatant critique of American capitalism, too. 

When the messenger of the Italian mafia visits Nino to discuss the future of their partnerships, Nino doesn’t hide that he’s gone into business for himself. He cut the mafia out of their contracted deal. Nino makes a power play here against the mafia. He knows the amount of money he can make from the crack business and he doesn’t want to let anyone else in, even if that means going to war with the Italians. Keeping his 10% promise with them or perhaps even letting them in on the Carter operations would have been a nice gesture with the mafia. Keep the peace and make them money at the same time. That’s just good business. But Nino’s greedy. He wants it all for himself.  

Shortly after Carter was infiltrated, Gee Money found a new connection to begin another drug empire and maybe take over another New York project. He cuts a side deal in hopes of building his own drug business. He’s a disloyal friend and employee to Nino. Gee Money's disloyalty is foreshadowed during the jeep scene and comes to fruition as a result of Nino embarrassing Gee Money in the most famous scene in the movie.  

New Jack City 1991

Nino even hands out money to the neighborhood kids and the reverend, too. The old man reprimands Nino, making biblical references we’ll discuss later. But as devious as Nino is, he has no illusions of his predicament living in the poverty and crime-filled streets of New York. He knows that as successful and powerful as he is, he’ll never escape the drug dealer lifestyle. There’s no other option for him. He’s good at what he does and whatever obstacles are in his way, he’ll always return to pushing dope. Nino’s hopeless in that regard and has no problem taking other people with him. 

And after the big shootout when Scotty’s true identity is revealed, Nino meets Gee Money atop a building. They haven’t seen one another since they escaped. You would figure Nino would scold Gee Money for allowing undercover police in their crew. But Nino instead brings up that he knows Gee Money was making a side deal with Scotty. Nino considers loyalty to the drug game and to him personally in higher regard than the drug empire. It hurts Nino the most that his money was affected by Gee Money wanting more than what Nino was making with him.  

In the capitalist system, which Nino represents in the story, the betrayal by a business partner is an unforgivable offense. Gee Money showed this earlier on and it’s the main reason why Nino went to war with the mafia. There's no honor amongst thieves and it’s always business. It's never personal. 

Why Doc Holliday is the Heart and Soul of Tombstone

In the later 1980s, Hollywood saw a resurgence of Westerns. Emilio Estevez and Kiefer Sutherland's YOUNG GUNS films (the sequel was better than the first). Then Clint Eastwood graced us with his final Western as an aging gunman who regretted his murderous past in UNFORGIVEN. In 1993, Kurt Russell led the classic TOMBSTONE. Just like UNFORGIVEN, it's more of a character study than a plot-driven narrative. That's why TOMBSTONE is still so popular today. The film focuses on its characters to move the story forward. 

And while Russell's portrayal of Wyatt Earp is fantastic, as are the other cast members, Val Kilmer's role as John "Doc" Holliday steals the show. 

Tombstone 1993

Holliday's snappy lingo and sarcastic personality set him apart from his Earp comrades. Whereas the Earps care more about law and order (like Virgil and Morgan), and Wyatt focuses on establishing businesses, Holliday's anti-hero attitude and moments of lust and debauchery give the audience a taste of his rebellious nature. Holliday doesn't struggle with any moral justice of his conscience. He cheats, steals, and insults others. He knows he's dying of tuberculosis and likely won't live to see himself cured of it, especially with the Hungarian devil Kate by his side to fill his need for booze, smoke, and sex.

But what he lacks in his ability to refrain from earthly temptations, Holliday shines with his allegiance to his friends. 

He never breaks from the Earp family. Even though Virgil quietly mentions he doesn't particularly care for Holliday, he never turns Doc away or disrespects him because Virgil knows Holliday will always be there to support the Earp brothers. Holiday is an unofficial adopted brother of the Earps, especially by Wyatt.

As rough and rugged and righteous as Wyatt is, he's a softy for the people in his circle. Although he eventually leaves his druggy wife Mattie for the playful Josephine Marcus, Wyatt spent much time putting up with Mattie's drug use. The same goes for holding Holiday's criminal lifestyle. Wyatt knows Holliday can be trouble for him, but he stands by Holliday anyway. And Holliday knows this. Wyatt doesn't judge him.

Doc Holliday Doctor Holliday GIFfrom Doc Holliday GIFs

That goes a long way in a friendship. Keeping boundaries with friends keeps friends. In only one moment Wyatt attempts to save Doc from his drunkenness, to which Holliday quickly refutes his lecture. Wyatt quickly backs away, respecting Holiday's wishes. 

Holliday isn't only the anti-hero, he's the tragic hero of the story. 

He never had any family or love in his life. Even friendship was very limited. It's because of Wyatt's genuine friendship with Doc that he represents a lost soul who wants to family but he isn't able to achieve it. Whether because of the tuberculosis that afflicts him or his cheating skill as a poker player, Holliday's fate is a tragic one because of what stands in his way to living righteous like Wyatt.

That's why Holliday is the standout character in TOMBSTONE. He represents, in a way, everyone who isn't able to get the things they want and instead falls into despair, but still helps his friends along the way. 

Blade Runner 2049 Told the Wrong Story

Ridley Scott's 1982 Sci-fi masterpiece BLADE RUNNER was ahead of its time. It wasn't well received back then. It was seen as too unreliable and dragging in many spots. I guess the world didn't see the onslaught of Artificial Intelligence coming. BLADE RUNNER gave birth to a new subgenre of science fiction--Cyberpunk.

Blade Runner 1982

Nowadays, cyberpunk is commonplace and celebrated by its millions of fans. This includes myself. The subgenre has rightly found its respect and place in movie history with the several cyberpunk films released since BLADE RUNNER. 

Because of the genre's success through the past few decades, with great films like THE MATRIX, TOTAL RECALL, and MINORITY REPORT, the buzz began happening to produce a sequel to BLADE RUNNER.

Not a good idea, in my opinion.

It didn't need a sequel. It needed a definitive ending from Scott. He created several versions of BLADE RUNNER through the years, each with its own new spin. (I refuse to think Deckard is a replicant. It doesn't make any sense and negates the sequel.)

The reason 2049 sucked, besides the stale acting and 2-D texture of digital filmmaking, is because of the retcon of Rachael. PROMETHEUS, another one of Scott's offshoot sequels to his prior franchise ALIEN, fell victim to the same retconning. The space jockey was related to humans? Really?

via GIPHY

Whereas Rachael, in the first film, was said by Deckard's superior, Bryant, was a Nexus-6 version of the current replicants manufactured by the Tyrell Corporation, in 2049 she's suddenly now a Nexus-7. And the only one in the world. Apparently, Rachael was unique. But it was never conveyed as such in the 1982 version. She was just as smart as Roy, Leon, Zhora, and Pris (just not deadly).

But because Hollywood thinks audiences are stupid and won't remember such details, Scott and his team retconned Rachael to be a newer model. Thus, her new prototype model gave her two specific gifts. 

1. She could live just as long as a human being.
2. She could procreate.

Don't get me wrong. I respect the grand idea, but such ideas weren't mentioned at all, not even slightly, in the 1982 story. 

Because Scott and this team decided to go with this storyline, what followed was a storyline that was unable to grab the attention of the audience. Not only was the Rachael character not in the film, but it was a mystery as to who the child of Rachael was. 2049 led audiences to a boring mystery, thinking that Agent K (Ryan Gosling) was somehow the offspring of Rachael and Deckard. 

And then we find out he is nothing special. He's still just a replicant sellout who tracks and kills other replicants. At the very least, they could have had a father/son adventure storyline. Deckard and K could have gone through the cliche moments of getting to know one another. And then one could have died to show the other the importance of life. Or whatever. Something superficial, cliche, tired, or expected. It still would have been better than the out-of-touch story we got in 2049.

To the filmmakers involved, it probably felt like a good idea to retcon the Rachael character. But it truly was the worst choice they could have made for a sequel to one of the greatest science fiction films of all time.