*SPOILER ALERT FOR BACK TO THE FUTURE: CITIZEN BROWN #4*
Marty escapes the alternate present of 1986-B, fleeing back to 1931 to correct the time stream — all he has to do is break a couple of hearts. But one man sets out to stop him: Doc Brown! The future hangs in the balance!
Writing
The story by Erik Burnham, based on the original video game, has really experienced some highs and lows. This issue though is somewhere right in the middle. It picks up from last issue’s cliffhanger and finds a way for Doc and Marty to break out of their predicament. From there though, the issue slows down and almost lets itself coast to the finish line.
Keeping in mind this was based on a game, this issue almost feels like they could have ended the game (story) here and everything would have worked out in the end. It kind of makes it so the last episode is just tacked on the end because they needed one more good twist to keep the game play interesting. This isn’t really Burnham’s fault, but unfortunately it feels like the next issue will be unnecessary.
Artwork
The art still remains on point with helping to showcase the difference in the settings and the characters thought the two time periods. One of the better details through the issue is how Doc Brown’s thick beard helps to make him look haggard and exhausted. It’s the little details by artist Alan Robinson that shine through.
Conclusion
The story is coming together, but the more of this series which comes out, the more it feels like it will work better as a full graphic novel. Basically it might be best just to wait for the entire miniseries to be collected before finally taking the time to read this book. Only hardcore fans of Back to the Future should consider picking this up issue by issue.
When Steve Rogers dropped his shield in Captain America: Civil War he was giving up more than we thought. The Huffington Post recently caught up with Directors Joe and Anthony Russo, ahead of Civil War’s Blu-Ray release. The directors, who are currently working on Infinity War revealed that Steve Rogers is no longer Captain America after the monumental events of Civil War.
“I think him dropping that shield is him letting go of that identity,” said Joe. “[It’s] him admitting that certainly the identity of Captain America was in conflict with the very personal choice that he was making.”
Don’t worry, Cap will still have a major role in Infinity War. Thanos is set to tear the Marvel Cinematic Universe apart and we can’t imagine Rogers will just stand by and let that happen. Title or no title, he’s still a hero. Not to mention Chris Evans still has a few movies left on that contract.
Will We See A New Captain America?
Marvel Comics fans will know that Rogers has given up the Captain America title on multiple occasions. Characters such as Falcon and The Winter Soldier have previously picked up the shield, and taken the name. It’s unlikely that the Russo brothers will introduce a new Cap but I wouldn’t put it passed Marvel to surprise us all.
With the Captain America title up for grabs, which MCU character would you like to see hold the shield? Be sure to let us know in the comments below!
Avengers: Infinity War will land in theaters on May 4, 2018.
The Rogues will be the main villains in the DC Extended Universe ‘Flash’ film starring Ezra Miller, according to Umberto Gonzalez of The Wrap.
Gonzalez does not know which Rogues will appear but has a source that confirms they will be the focus of the film. Flash already defeated Captain Boomerang in ‘Suicide Squad.’ Other possible Rogues include Captain Cold, Mirror Master, Heat Wave, Weather Wizard, the Trickster, Pied Piper, and the Top.
The plot is also unknown at this time. It could be a prequel like ‘Wonder Woman’ or take place after the events of ‘Justice League.’ It has been established from the ‘Justice League’ trailer that the Flash has his own Batcave type hideout and has been fighting crime for some time.
Which Rogues do you want to see in the DCEU film? Comment below.
Geoff Johns and Jon Berg are producing ‘The Flash’ with direction from Rick Famuyiwa. The movie stars Ezra Miller as Barry Allen / The Flash, Kiersey Clemons as Iris West, and Ray Fisher as Victor Stone / Cyborg.
The American humorist Erma Bombeck famously wrote ‘there is a thin line that separates laughter and pain, comedy and tragedy, humor and hurt.’ Ricky Gervais attempts to follow this quote when returning to his David Brent character in his big screen outing.
After the events of The Office David Brent has lost his job at Wernham Hogg, has had a nervous breakdown and now works as a traveling sales rep for a company making cleaning products and female personal health items. Despite this, Brent still harbors dreams of being a rock star and tries to achieve this by taking unpaid leave and uses his savings to pay for a glamorous tour of Berkshire.
The British version of The Office was a big hit when it was first broadcast and helped to make Gervais, Martin Freeman, and Mackenzie Crook into stars, making Gervais into a comedic force. However Gervais is a divisive comedian, he has made a career on cringe humor and telling politically incorrect jokes, having a viewpoint that is based it being okay to make these jokes if you don’t really mean it.
Gervais is trying to play it both ways with the film spin-off: he wants us to laugh at Brent’s failures while also feeling sorry for him. It is a tough balance for any movie or TV show to achieve and David Brent: Life on the Road leans too much on the tragedy of Brent instead of being funny. Gervais was clearly going for a This is Spinal Tap/Ed Wood vibe about it – telling the story about someone who has a passion but not the talent to back him up. Those two movies were genuinely funny, and they were upbeat moments to mitigate the setback. David Brent: Life on the Road is much more mean-spirited because of Brent’s isolation and everyone using him as an ATM and ridiculing Brent behind his back.
During one of the interviews with Brent’s bandmates they say they don’t know whether to laugh or cry at his antics – that is a great description of the movie as a whole as we see Brent trying to live the rock star lifestyle and failing miserably. The songs are cringeworthy as well as his jokes based on race, gender and sexuality as were his attempts to be politically correct. This is expected because this is the type of comedy portrayed in The Office and is Ricky Gervais’ shtick – it is harder to find scenes where Brent is kicked off his own tour bus and gets rejected by the band at every opportunity. It’s not funny like Gervais thinks it is.
The comedy is sparse throughout the movie. It starts with a promise by playing a terrible song with a literal music video, and there were some funny lines occasionally making their way through. Rapper Doc Brown as Dom Johnson gets a laugh and he acts as the closest thing to a friend Brent has – someone who Gervais can bounce off from. Other jokes are funny but only really work for a British audience like Brent’s tattoo mishap and the pop culture references during an interview.
The other avenue of comedy is Brent terrible songs like the ones in This is Spinal Tap. The band is forced to play a variety of styles and made sing on the nose lyrics. One of the big numbers is ‘Don’t Make Fun of the Disabled’ which was brilliantly awkward – but there is only so many times the movie can flick back and forth to the audience’s baffled reactions.
One of the big features of The Office was it mockumentary style that was so authentic that some people who watched it initially thought it was a real reality show. David Brent: Life on the Road continues in that style with crisper camera work because better quality cameras are available for these types of production. However at times the movie breaks its own rules by trying to be like a documentary – there are times where Gervais cuts between two people – showing a therapy session and showing Brent barge into a room for a cruel punch line.
Most comedies aim to make their audiences laugh and feel good after seeing them – David Brent: Life on the Road will end up leaving viewers with a feeling of despair.
Movie villains are getting rather boring these days, aren’t they? Particularly within superhero films. If a great villain makes a film stronger, to paraphrase Alfred Hitchcock, there’s at least one clear reason why blockbusters are becoming rather unremarkable. That was rather apparent in “Suicide Squad” earlier this month.
While The Joker wasn’t ultimately the main villain (though he might’ve been better than The Enchantress), David Ayer’s film ultimately underutilized the character. It falsely assumed his presence would forgive its limited screen-time. For better or worse, though, Jared Leto’s interpretation shrunk under the shadow of Heath Ledger’s masterful, Oscar-winning portrayal in Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight.”
Ledger’s supporting antagonist character not only stole the superhero film single-handed; he practically cemented it into greatness. He’s what people reflect upon the most upon retrospect, and he’s also what arguably makes it the best superhero film of all time. This is explored in-depth with “The Dark Knight — Creating the Ultimate Antagonist,” YouTube’s Lessons from the Screenplay latest video essay which breaks down why The Joker is the perfect opponent for Batman, as seen through Christopher and Jonathan Nolan’s shooting screenplay.
Of course, The Joker was already great on his own. He’s quite possibly one of the best fictional characters of all-time, not merely one of the best villains ever. But the Nolans make Ledger’s Joker exceptionally good at attacking the hero’s greatest weakness, most notably in situations where the villainous character uses Batman’s strengths his weakness. The Joker’s laissez faire attitude towards Batman killing him is in direct opposition of the hero’s no-death policy, and since the only way to stop The Joker is to murder him, Batman is constantly haunted by his one moral code.
From there, he pressures the protagonist into various difficult situations, terrorizing our masked vigilante and forcing him to make difficult situations, ones that test his true character. In that regard, editor Michael Tucker believes “The Dark Knight” earns comparisons to David Fincher’s “Se7en,” in more ways than you might initially think.
But above all else, what makes The Joker such a great opposition for Batman — particularly in Nolan’s masterpiece — is knowing they both have the same goal, even if their moralities are on two separate sides of the same coin. Both have grand visions for Gotham, but one wants hope, justice and order, while the other wants to upset the establishment, disrupt order and ultimately embrace chaos. In the battle for Gotham’s soul, Batman (or, more specifically, Bruce Wayne) becomes both stronger and weaker fighting The Joker, possessing a stronger understanding of self, while also realizing his greatest weaknesses.
He’s not The Joker simply due to his wacky laugh, green hair, powdered make-up and manic mannerisms. Rather, he’s great for how he has a specific effect on our titular Dark Knight, and allows Batman to become the hero that shares the film’s title. That, in part, is why Ledger’s take on the character still resonates, and why Nolan’s film remains so definitive, particularly in regards to The Joker’s character. To get a better analysis, however, check out the video below.
The United States Presidency has been the subject of many great films over the years. And many bad ones. We’ve had fictional U.S. Presidents, from Michael Douglas to Harrison Ford to Kevin Kline, but as Southside with You is set to open this weekend, let’s take a look back at films about real former U.S. Presidents. Sadly, Harrison Ford never held down the Oval Office.
Of course, there have been a number of films surrounding presidencies, films like All the President’s Men and JFK. But they are satellite films dealing with controversies, removed from any direct narrative involving the Commander in Chief. Now that I’ve added enough qualifiers, here are some of the best and worst stories of U.S. Presidents, and a couple in between success and failure.
THE BEST
Nixon (1995) – Oliver Stone has examined the presidency all throughout his career, both on and off screen. His 1995 biopic about the paranoia-fueled presidency of Richard Nixon, arguably our most controversial sitting Commander, has somehow fallen to the back of Stone’s filmography over the years. Perhaps it’s due to the fact this followed up his incredible JFK, his unhinged Natural Bon Killers, and many of the editing techniques and camera tricks in those two films are on display here. The Stone aesthetic may have begun wearing thin by the time Anthony Hopkins showed us the darkest sides of Tricky Dick.
But those Stone gimmicks – switching film stock, changing saturation, bouncing back and forth between color and black and white – still fit perfectly here in the context of an erratic and emotional man. And beyond this, Nixon is an absolutely captivating look at a complicated man. Hopkins and Joan Allen (as his wife, Pat), both grabbed Oscar nominations for their work. And even at three hours plus, Nixon hums along with a terrific mix of energy and dread.
Lincoln (2012) – Liam Neeson had originally agreed to star in Steven Spielberg’s biopic about one of our most important presidents. Because, let’s be honest, the guy looks exactly like Abe. But schedules conflicted – I suppose Neeson was already working on another film where he saves his offspring from baddies – and Daniel Day-Lewis stepped in. The rest is history, in more ways than one.
Rather than try and encapsulate the entire presidency of Lincoln, Spielberg focused on the struggles the president had with emancipation in the midst of the Civil War. The cast is awe inspiring, from Day-Lewis (who won the Oscar, of course) to Tommy Lee Jones (nominated) as Thaddeus Stevens, to Sally Field (also nominated) as Abe’s unstable wife, Mary Todd. Spielberg’s narrative is deliberate and patient, and allows room for these tremendous actors to fill the shoes of legends.
THE WORST
Hyde Park on Hudson (2012) – Bill Murray was an interesting choice to play FDR in this strange, offbeat comedy about FDR and his uncomfortable relationship with a distant cousin. Murray looks the part, but Roger Michell’s film never adheres into anything coherent, funny, or memorable. The actors give it their all, but in the end these fell like caricatures of people in American History more than true performances. Definitely the lesser of the 2012 Presidential biopics.
SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN
Frost/Nixon (2008) – Ron Howard’s screen adaptation of Peter Morgan’s stage play has moments of brilliance. In yet another on-screen look at Nixon, this time three years after the Watergate scandal forced him out of office, Frank Langella balances the idiosyncrasies of his subject with the realization that leaning into those tics too much would easily devolve into parody. Yet still, Frost/Nixon never really comes together.
As a stage play, Morgan’s story would be fascinating to sit and watch. The hostile banter between Nixon and David Frost, played here by Michael Sheen, would captivate in person. But the distance created by the cinematic adaptation steals some of the power of these two men sitting and debating one another. It’s a solid film, but too distant at times, the dramatic highpoints weakened by the medium itself.
W. (2008) – At the time of Oliver Stone’s biopic, President Bush was on his way out of office with almost three quarters of the country disapproving of the job he did. And the openly liberal Stone making a movie about “Dubya” definitely felt like it was going to be, on the surface, a blatant skewering of the President’s failures as Commander in Chief. But then, what Stone actually delivered was something down the middle, so much so that it derailed the film.
Of course, there was no need to light up Dubya on his way out, but the movie felt so concerned with staying centered it never materialized dramatically. As Josh Brolin, great in the role, showed us Bush’s early alcoholism, his desire to please his disapproving father, and the way he was pushed around in the Oval Office by his agenda-driven advisors (Richard Dreyfuss as Cheney is especially oily), Stone’s film stays shockingly bland. It’s almost as if he was too aware of his own bias, and worked against this to try and make something appealing to a larger audience. W. would have worked better, at list cinematically, if Stone had taken the gloves off.
‘Don’t Breathe’ Remains Subtly Suspenseful Until The Great Over-The-Top Third Act!
There’s no surprise on why ‘Don’t Breathe‘ is projected to trump ‘Suicide Squad‘ at the box office. Not only has the superhero film worn out its welcome BUT this horror film is simply awesome. With amazing suspense throughout, you are on the edge of your seat the entire time. Then they kick off a grand gross-out finale. This is type of movie that, love or hate, you will run out to tell someone about it right away.
‘Don’t Breathe‘ director Fede Alvarez promised after his gory remake of ‘Evil Dead‘ that he’d stay away from blood here. I was surprised that he mostly kept up his promise. While there is some violence and blood in the movie, it was kept rather tame compared to his previous work. But he makes up for all that blood with one scene involving another bodily fluid. Don’t want to spoil it much but the audience reaction was priceless once the film got to this level.
That’s something I loved about ‘Don’t Breathe‘. You knew it was building up to something the entire time. That plays into the great direction and solid screenplay by Alvarez. He spoon-feeds you enough hints throughout to give you what you need but then sweeps the rug from under you with great mis-directions. This is how to use genre tropes and cliches to your advantage. The audience knows what to expect from horror by now so you give them what they think they want but keep them guessing. Honestly, it’s refreshing to see a mainstream horror film not use cheap jump scares as their source of shocks.
“Just because he’s blind doesn’t mean he’s a saint, bro.”
–Money (Daniel Zovatto)
‘Don’t Breathe‘ follows the story of three robbers who are out to do that “one final heist” and then they’re done for good. We all know how that turns out in movies. They are introduced in the middle of a random robbery where we establish each character perfectly. Jane Levy plays Rocky, someone who is doing these crimes to better her and her sister’s trailer trash life. Dylan Minnette is the obvious love-struck Alex who is the reason they have access to all these houses. And then you have Money played by the great Daniel Zovatto; he’s obviously the hustler of the group. Each character comes with proper motivation and enough explanation.
The group, after some hesitation, finally decided to score big and steal cash from this seemingly perfect house. The man they are robbing is a military veteran with a sad backstory that gave hims loads of cash. When they found out he is blind, this robbery seems easier and easier by the minute. That is until they get into the house and instantly found out The Blind Man, played by Stephen Lang, is more than they can handle. This typical home invasion movie becomes an action-filled fight to live for these robbers.
With its low budget, ‘Don’t Breathe‘ allowed for less studio interference and you can tell the filmmakers were allowed more room to play. It had a unique feel to it with some masterful visuals; something you don’t get too often anymore. Cinematographer Pedro Luque used amazing camera tricks like an awesome one-take scene to give you a layout of the house. Also, the “lights out” scene was amazing. Really seemed like the actors were lost in the dark with a wild man!
Final Thoughts:
That nearly $10 million budget can easily be made back its first week, which will please the higher ups at Ghost House Pictures and Screen Gems. I also think it will have a strong second week with all the positive word-of-mouth.
Love seeing horror like this push boundaries rather than sitting through those Hollywood-style dull supernatural movies. These twisted real-life situations terrify me far more than some ghoul could ever.
Some artistry on displace throughout ‘Don’t Breathe‘. All the major key players like the director, writers, cinematographer, and actors really came together to make a thrilling night at the movies. I can see this being in the top 3 best horror films of 2016, just behind ‘10 Cloverfield Lane‘ and ‘The Witch‘.
You have to go see ‘Don’t Breathe‘ immediately! Horror fans, thriller fans, action fans, and fans of nasty twists will all love this movie.
The film stars Stephen Lang, Jane Levy, and Dylan Minnette.
Check it out in theaters nationwide on August 26th!
Don’t forget to leave a comment if you liked or disliked this review.
Thanks to the diligence of Egon Spengler, the Ghostbusters are now finally aware of who and what they’ve been up against… but that information has come at a cost! The boys and girls in grey will need help to deal with this new threat, and they’ll go to the ends of the earth (and beyond) to find it!
SPOILER ALERT
Writing
When characters are in trouble, it’s always good to have individuals you can call upon at a moment’s notice for reinforcements. In this case, the team decides to use interdimensional travel and get the help of the Real Ghostbusters. Yes, the comic team once again meets up with the cartoon team and they work to find a way to solve the recent threat. Sure, it’s a bit out of nowhere but it is the kind of incredible storytelling which can only come from a comic book. Also, the Real Ghostbusters appear and they are always a welcomed site of old fashioned nostalgia. Writer Erik Burnham really has the entire story line plotted out effectively, and is telling a story which started slow but is starting to pick up steam here in the later issues.
Artwork
The artwork by Dan Schoening really shines this issue. There is a distinct contrast between the two different dimensional worlds. The ghosts and blasts effects are as stunning as they are with every single issue. Also, the appearance of one of the classic ghosts from Real Ghostbusters as the villain for this issue was definitely an entertaining sight.
Conclusion
This issue gave the fans exactly what they want, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes the fans need to be pandered to be reminded of just how they are appreciated and thought about. As the story makes its way towards the face off against the big threat, issues such as this are really a welcomed sight.
When you sit down with Dave Gull to talk about New Helvetia Brewing Company be prepared because you’re about to get a history lesson. Gull is the founder of New Helvetia and he’s also a self-proclaimed beer history geek. So it is no wonder that before you can truly understand the history of New Helvetia, you first have to understand the history of another long-lost Sacramento beer maker, Buffalo Brewing Company.
“The story we’re telling is how an industrious Sacramento at the turn of the century built this major brewery on the back of agriculture, infrastructure and a population that knew how to make beer,” Gull says sitting near a Buffalo Brewing sign that hangs in the taproom.
An advertisement for one-time Sacramento brewing giant Buffalo Brewing Company
History of Buffalo Brewing
Buffalo Brewing Company was founded in 1890 by a man named Herman Grau and quickly became a leader in the industry. “We were home to the largest brewery west of the Mississippi in Buffalo Brewing Company. We were the region that grew the hops, we grew the malt, we had the water coming from the Sierra snow melt and we had the transportation infrastructure to get that beer to market.”
Gull says that market not only included parts of the United States, but the Pacific Rim and into Europe, “In 1900, that’s about as close to world-wide distribution as you can get.”
Ultimately, Buffalo Brewing Company was just another victim of prohibition. Though it survived initially, the company was never able to reclaim its dominance on the West Coast closing its doors in the 1940s. Gone, but clearly not forgotten.
“I thought wouldn’t it be cool if somebody could bring back Buffalo Beer. Remind people of the time when Sacramento wasn’t just a government town, when Sacramento did accomplish big things. Then the lightbulb goes off and I think ‘wouldn’t it be cool if I brought back Buffalo Beer?’ ”
The year was 2008 and Gull decided to open his own brewery. The rest, as they say, was history… well not quite.
A CALCULATED RISK
“My wife told me ‘don’t open a brewery, go get a real job,’ ”says Gull with a smirk. “It took 3 years to get my biggest partner to come along on this idea.”
You can’t really blame her. Up until now, Gull had been mostly home brewing and he admits it wasn’t even great beer. Also at the time Sacramento, like the rest of the country, was in the grip of recession. Several area craft breweries had just closed their doors. Gull says he even had trouble finding a bank willing to take a risk on his brewery idea.
“It wasn’t pie in the sky. It was small, it was difficult, it was hard work and we were going to carry most of that risk ourselves.” Risk he was willing to take for one simple reason: supply and demand. “The city of Sacramento is 400,000+ and we also only had four breweries at that time. Quick math, we were grossly under-breweried in Sacramento.”
Gull found his funding, and signed his lease to occupy the historic Boyle Bros. Factory just outside of downtown Sacramento in 2011. With the name Buffalo Brewing Company already trademarked, Gull decided to go with New Helvetia.
The Boyle Bros. first occupied this building in 1926.
MAKING HIS OWN HISTORY
“New Helvetia was the name of the land grant that John Sutter got to establish what became Sacramento. Sacramento was not the name of his colony. His colony was going to be New Helvetia. His idea was to create a Swiss utopia in the wild interior of California,” Gull says giving another history lesson.
While the brewery is certainly no Swiss utopia, it is an homage to the history of the Sacramento region. From the Buffalo Brewery signs and old regional maps that adorn the walls to the names of some of their most popular beers, there’s a history lesson everywhere you look.
One of the many Buffalo references you’ll find in New Helvetia
“We have a beer called ‘Homeland Stout’. It’s about the neighborhood this brewery is located in. The original subdivision map that created this neighborhood was called ‘Homeland’. We had that map and we thought it was a cool tie-in.” Another beer is named “Rough and Ready” after the foothills town east of Sacramento that succeed from the Union during the Civil War, “That’s a pretty cool story and it’s also a pretty great name for a beer.”
History served as the inspiration for New Helvetia but Gull says the company will not get stuck in the past. “The history side was the spark. But where we go from here is not historic. Where we go from here is now our story.”
BEER ON THE RUN
“This young guy comes in and says “Hey, I just moved down here from Spokane and I was part of a running club there and I think I want to start a running club here.’ ”
Beer and running might not be the first combination you think of, but it was actually one Gull was already considering. He was thinking of starting a running team to take part in area events. Because of that, Gull wasn’t initially sold on the idea of a running club.
“He goes ‘I’m going to start something called Sloppy Moose Running Club. The running club I was a part of The Flying Irish in Spokane they started out really small and they’re up to like 2,000 members.’ And I go ‘why don’t you go ahead and start that then.’ ”
The Sloppy Moose Running Club meets every Thursday at New Helvetia from February to early December for an evening run. It’s nothing too long or too serious; just a way for people who enjoy running and beer to connect.
The orange shirts belong to members of the Sloppy Moose running club
The group has grown from six to seven members initially to a roster of about 2,000. New Helvetia has even begun hosting a 5K during Sacramento’s beer week. This year it sold out all 500 spots. Gull still marvels at how popular the running club has become.
“It’s built a community around New Helvetia that I never could have anticipated. My running team concept could have never accomplished what Sloppy Moose has accomplished.”
ONE LAST HISTORY LESSON
Part of Gull’s appreciation for the area’s history may come from his own family history. His great-grandfather immigrated to the U.S. from what is now Croatia. He eventually settled in Sacramento taking a job with Southern Pacific Railroad.
His great-grandfather may have also passed down interest in area beer. Gull had one more history lesson to share, although he admits this one might be more of a family legend.
“My great-grandfather had a friend who worked at the Buffalo Brewery who worked the overnight shift. He could go on a Friday night with an empty bucket, his buddy would fill it with beer, and he’d walk home with a bucket of beer for the weekend.”
Fact or fiction that’s a story that would put a smile on the face of any beer history geek.
This weekend, Roadside Attractions invites everyone to relive Barack and Michelle Obama’s first date in Southside With You. This is a sweet and often times poignant film, a look at the struggles of inner-city families during late 1980’s, and many of their issues mirror the ones we face today. Director Richard Tanne uses this famous first date as a vehicle to shed light on these issues, but does so in a way that’s organic and doesn’t derail the film.
Michelle Robinson (The First Lady’s maiden name) was an advisor at a law firm in Chicago struggling to work her way up the corporate ladder. She lived at home to help tend to her father, who was struggling with Multiple Sclerosis. Barack Obama was an associate at the same firm and had spent the better part of a month trying to woo Michelle. Finally, she reluctantly agreed to go with him to a community organizers meeting, but didn’t realize that she was in for a day that she wouldn’t soon forget.
One of the biggest things that stands out is the casting of both the male and female leads. Parker Sawyers embodies a younger President Obama. It’s evident he studied up on a few of his mannerisms, but his portrayal was far from a Jay Pharoah impression. Often times when actors are cast in these roles as famous figures, their portrayal is much more of an impression than actual acting (see: Josh Brolin in W). Sawyers shows a great deal of warmth and compassion on screen. He’s charismatic and appropriately commands each of his scenes.
Tika Sumpter is fabulous as a younger Michelle. She exudes that same spunk and decisiveness that we’ve grown accustomed to from our First Lady these past eight years. I already miss her. Sumpter also exhibits a layer of pain stemming from the daily trials of dealing with her father. To be honest, the news about the First Lady’s dad having MS surprised me. But Sumpter shows strength (much like I Imagine the first lady had to) throughout the film earning the empathy.
Richard Tanne does a commendable job both writing and directing Southside With You. While he makes sure to keep a two-shot anytime Barack and Michelle are on screen to emphasize the intimacy of their first date, he also manages to include shots of the inner city that permeate these two budding lovers’ romance. One shot that stood out to me was a children’s playground right next to an old school house. The shot starts with a focus on what looked to be a barren playground, seemingly falling to bits. But it quickly transitions, pulling away to show an operating school, murky and well past its prime.
The most powerful shot is the inside of the church where Barack is set to speak during the afternoon. This church is old, has broken seating, has plumbing issues – which isn’t typical of most churches but certainly is in the inner city. Tanne certainly shows the need for investing in the infastructure of our cities, which is true in 1989 and sadly remains true today.
Tanne also deftly crafts a narrative that’s both sweet and topical, discussing issues of race and national anxiety. The film also perfectly approaches the African-American perspective when Michelle’s boss from the law firm runs into her and Barack after seeing Spike Lee’s Do The Right Thing. Her very caucasian boss doesn’t seem to get why the film ended the way it did (“Why did the African Americans riot in the end?”). Michelle and Barack both know too well why, but Barack proceeds to give a very safe answer to Michelle’s boss as to why they rioted, which he of course accepts as the reason and moves on. Why did Barack appease the head of Michelle’s firm? Why was this happening in 1989? Are things any different today?
One of the biggest things that stands out is the casting of both the male and female leads. Parker Sawyers embodies a younger President Obama. It’s evident he studied up on a few of his mannerisms, but his portrayal was far from a Jay Pharoah impression. Often times when actors are cast in these roles as famous figures, their portrayal is much more of an impression than actual acting (see: Josh Brolin in W). Sawyers shows a great deal of warmth and compassion on screen. He’s charismatic and appropriately commands each of his scenes.