Category: Viral

Mulatto has had a year worth paying attention to and the Atlanta-based rapper looks to add on to her success with her newly-released Queen Of Da Souf album. Across the thirteen tracks, a highlight comes on her “Pull Up” collab with 21 Savage. Lending a rare 2020 verse to the fellow ATLien, 21 Savage backs up Mulatto’s confident raps that center around her preference with men, expensive bags, and other braggadocios bars with a verse laced with his trademark sinister demeanor. Taking the moment to celebrate a big life accomplishment before ending his verse, 21 Savage raps, “Never been friendly I don’t dap n****s / I done won a Grammy, I’m a rap n****.”

Queen Of Da Souf arrives after Mulatto landed a spot among the 2020 XXL Freshman class. Her inclusion in the class was well-deserved honor after her “Queen Of Da Souf” single went viral and was eventually remixed by Trina and Saweetie. The remix was followed by her “Muwop” release with Gucci Mane, which preceded a phenomenal rollout that earned her the attention of many new fans. Out now, in addition to features from 21 Savage and Gucci Mane, Queen Of Da Souf also sees guest appearances from City Girls, 42 Dugg, Trina, and Saweetie.

Listen to “Pull Up” above.

Queen Of Da Souf is out now via RCA. Get it here.

While they both appear on Pop Smoke’s posthumous album, Shoot For The Moon, Aim For The Stars, the last collaboration between Swae Lee and Future arrived in 2018 on “Buckets” off Rae Sremmurd’s third album, SR3MM. Striking the match once again, Swae and Future connect once again thanks to Internet Money’s new single, “Thrusting.”

The track gives off a heavy dance vibe, one that would’ve been ideal for a lockdown-less summer. Swae Lee steps to the mic first on the song as he gets into his pocket with a verse and hook of his own. He then allows Future to step in and tap into his R&B side with his own verse, but Swae returns to close out the song.

This song serves as the second single off Internet Money’s upcoming album, B4 The Storm, following their “Lemonade” release with Don Toliver, Nav, and Gunna. In an interview with Complex, Taz Taylor of the group spoke on landing the collaboration with Swae Lee after tweeting his desire to work with the “Unforgettable” artist.

So Swae was in Miami and — shout out my boy Resource — he FaceTimed me and Swae. Then Swae was like, “Yo, they told me you wanted to get in the studio. I’ve got to be on your album, bro.” Come to find out, Swae has actually been following me on Twitter for like six years. I had no idea. After we get off FaceTime, he just DMs me. He’s like, “Bro, I’m serious. Don’t turn this album in without me.” So, we got in the session literally the next day.

Listen to “Thrusting” in the video above.

B4 The Storm is out 08/28 via 10K Projects. Pre-order it here.

Swae Lee is a Warner Music artist. Uproxx is an independent subsidiary of Warner Music Group.

In conjunction with his Time magazine cover stories, “The New American Revolution,” Pharrell announced Thursday morning that he and Jay-Z would release their new collaboration, “Entrepreneur,” the following night. With the announcement being made through the magazine, a preview of Jay-Z’s verse was shared, one that caused a bit of controversy. “Black Twitter, what’s that? When Jack gets paid, do you?” Jay-Z asks on the track. “For every one Gucci, support two FUBU’s.” Many fans on social media were not happy with the verse and criticized Jay-Z diminishing the Black community’s support of Black businesses, all before the full song arrived.

Now that the song is here, fans will be able to judge the song and its lyrics all at once. Clocking in at just over four minutes, the song begins with Pharrell leading the way with whispering chants before his voice comes alive. Jay-Z appears later on in the track with lines aimed to motivate listeners to take a step towards entrepreneurship, rapping, “If you can’t buy the building at least stock the shelf.”

Prior to its release, Pharrell gave some insight on the song to Time magazine. “The intention for a song was all about how tough it is to be an entrepreneur in our country to begin with — especially as someone of color. There’s a lot of systemic disadvantages and purposeful blockages. How can you get a fire started, or even the hope of an ember to start a fire, when you’re starting at disadvantages with regards to health care, education, and representation?”

Liste to the track in the video above.

I don’t say this lightly: Love On The Spectrum might be the greatest dating show ever made. At the very least, it’s the most earnest. So much of the conversation on shows like The Bachelor and The Bachelorette (and its 27 other spinoffs I can’t keep track of) consists of contestants asking the question: Is he/she here for me?

Which is to say, is this other person on the show really trying to find love or do they just want to be on a show? On virtually all dating shows the question is practically rhetorical. Obviously they’re there to be on a show; otherwise they’d just find love on their own dime and their own time.

By contrast everything about Love on the Spectrum feels like some kind of normal veneer has been torn away. The characters, all young Australians on the autism spectrum, are hoping to find love, without, in some cases, seeming to entirely grasp what that means. As if dating wasn’t hard enough already for the non-spectrum disordered, these subjects have a condition whose first defined attribute is “difficulty communicating and interacting with other people.”

Yet their desire for true human connection is so pure and so uncluttered with the usual trivial matters that you can’t help but experience every possibility and setback right along with them. The characters are all so inexperienced with dating, and have such a detached, God’s eye view of what a relationships even is that going on the journey with them is a little like taking mushrooms. You experience all the things you normally would but with the jadedness of human experience stripped away, such that the familiar feels brand new — dating as it might be experienced by a baby, or a visitor from another planet.

It also helps the show’s binge-ability that one of autism spectrum disorder’s chief effects seems to be producing fascinating eccentrics. Michael dresses and speaks a bit like a politician, always seeming to be projecting to the back of the room even when he’s just chit-chatting at the dinner table. He’s consistently hilarious, often not on purpose, and can recite Spongebob episodes verbatim. Mark wears a constant, slightly pained smile and is filled with various facts about dinosaurs. Thomas loves being a bus driver, seemingly more content with his job than anyone I know and even more so since he met Ruth, an Earthy animal lover. I watched them all try to find love with a mix of wonder and mortification, so impossible was it not to experience every emotion along with them, at times maybe more intensely than the subjects themselves. You can’t help but want the best for all of them.

Love On The Spectrum was at points heartwarming romance, at others comedy of errors. I can never forget the look on Chloe’s date’s face the moment he accidentally squirted himself in the eye with a lemon while trying to eat salad. It is fascinating, edifying, occasionally hilarious television.

Naturally I wondered how it came about. The awkwardness was at times too intense to watch, I can’t imagine being there to shoot it. And then there are the questions about how it came about, what organizations are helping these characters in their love quests, and the specific challenges of filming those with spectrum disorders. Love On The Spectrum director Cian O’Clery, an award-winning director of multiple previous documentary series, was on location this week but agreed to answer a few of our questions by email.

—

How did you come up with the idea for this project, and who did you first approach to make it happen?

Having previously made two documentary series telling the stories of people with disabilities looking for employment, we spoke to and worked with many young adults on the autism spectrum. We were hearing from many of them that they wanted to find love but were struggling to meet people to date. Looking into what supports there were for young adults on the spectrum when it comes to dating and relationships, we found there was very little, and felt there was an opportunity to tell these stories. We approached some key autism organizations here in Australia as well as psychologists who specialize in the area, and of course many young adults on the spectrum and their families. This confirmed that the dating and relationships space was one where more support would be very welcome, and that telling these stories would be a positive thing.

What are the specific aspects of being on the spectrum that making dating hard?

I think dating is hard for anyone, and it’s important to make it clear that the autism spectrum is really diverse, each person has their own unique experience. Difficulties with social interaction is one of the more common areas people on the spectrum can struggle with, which can make dating tricky. For the many young autistic adults I’ve met, the most difficult thing seems to be meeting people to date, not necessarily the dating itself. Finding people who are on the same wavelength, maybe share some interests, which can be hard for anyone.

What are some of the organizations that are helping people on the autism spectrum learn these skills?

Again, the autism spectrum is very diverse and plenty of people on the spectrum don’t feel the need for support and have happy healthy dating lives, but many do find support helpful. Teaching social and dating skills is slowly starting to become more common, sometimes it can be government-funded, sometimes it isn’t. Navigating disability services in Australia can be complex. What we found that can be really helpful for many people are social groups and events that help people get together and meet others. Often these are run by parents in their own time, which is why arguably there aren’t enough of them.

As viewers, we care about them all so much that certain moments are kind of mortifying. What was it like to film the ups and downs and awkward moments?

It’s important for us that audiences do care about the participants and their stories, and it’s great that people have been so engaged with them. It’s a credit to them all for being so open, honest, and, well, they’re just nice people! I did feel for people when things weren’t going so well, but we were always making sure people felt as comfortable as possible given the situation. We made it clear that people could put their hand up if they were feeling stressed or overwhelmed, we weren’t pressuring people to keep filming if they weren’t comfortable.

Can you talk about the importance of pop culture to people on the spectrum? I notice most of them were incredible at remembering and mimicking, and sometimes they seemed to struggle with the “off switch” part.

Many people with autism have very strong interests and passions, and yes often pop culture, video games, movies, anime, etc. can be something they are into. But not always. For Mark it’s dinosaurs, and when you get him started talking about them his passion comes out and he can maybe struggle to switch off – but it’s great for people to have a strong interest in something. The way Thomas (from Thomas and Ruth) described it to me recently is that it’s like seeing the things you’re into in technicolour.

I loved the series, and I feel like it was pretty respectful. But when you’re talking about depicting disabled people there’s always the question of whether you’re exploiting them. Did you have any rules or thoughts on how to do it the “right” way?

It’s a good question, and this is something we were acutely aware of throughout the whole production of the series. I think it comes down to one important word that you have referenced: respect. People are people, regardless of a disability or condition they may have, and we treated everyone as we would want to be treated ourselves. When it comes to filming and editing a series like this, there is a line you don’t want to cross, and this line is something you just have to use your judgment about. The most important critics of the series are the participants themselves, and thankfully they are all happy with how we have put the show together.

Did the parents have any qualms about participating? Does that come into play at all? Because you’re dealing with subjects on the spectrum, but they’re also adults, so where do you get the okay from in terms of filming?

Again, good question, and all depends on the participant and their individual situation. If someone lives at home and their family is a big part of their life, absolutely it was important for them to be on board and supportive of the series. Not only were we filming people in their homes, we also wanted to see them with the people they are close to.

Certain characters, like Michael especially, seemed almost hyper-articulate and funny almost in a way that he didn’t realize he was being funny. Did you find yourself trying to put your finger on the missing ingredient on how they relate to others?

I wouldn’t refer to people missing anything, it’s just a different way of seeing things. It is interesting though, Michael loves making people laugh, regardless of whether he is doing it on purpose or not. He says himself, when he tries to be funny, he isn’t, but when he isn’t trying to be funny, he is. And the fact that he likes making people laugh regardless of his intentions means it felt ok to show this, and for audiences to find him funny. If Michael’s happy with it, we’re happy with it.

‘Love On The Spectrum’ is available now on Netflix. Vince Mancini is on Twitter. You can access his archive of reviews here.

After a Game 1 loss that inspired a flurry of discussion, the Los Angeles Lakers responded with a thoroughly dominant performance in Game 2 against the Portland Trail Blazers. LeBron James, Anthony Davis and company led by as many 33 points in the second half before cruising to a 111-88 victory and, in a 48-minute statement, the Lakers seemingly reasserted control of the series.

However, Game 3 looms on Saturday and, in advance of that tilt, we take a glance at three major themes of Game 2.

Anthony Davis is (still) quite good

LeBron was LeBron in Game 2, serving as an engine on both ends of the floor, but it was Davis that was the dominant individual force. The uber-talented big man asserted his will from the opening tip, scoring 11 points in the first quarter, and he finished the night with 31 points (on 13-of-21 shooting and 3-of-4 from three-point range) and 11 rebounds in only 29 minutes of action.

It isn’t ever shocking to see a player of Davis’s caliber operating at a high level but, after an inefficient performance in Game 1 (particularly in the second half), Davis left no doubt that the Blazers will have trouble dealing with him throughout the series. More than anything, it is wild to see a night in which LeBron finished with only ten points and the Lakers were able to dominate to this degree.

It helps that, after the consternation of Game 1, the Lakers made a relatively normal percentage of long-range shots, but Davis opened many doors offensively and proved that no one on the Blazers is equipped to deter him when he’s aggressive and moving towards the basket.

The Lakers turned on the jets defensively

Defense wasn’t the problem for Los Angeles in Game 1. In fact, the Lakers held the previously scorching hot Blazers to less than one point per possession and, as such, it was actually shocking that Frank Vogel’s team didn’t win.

Instead of taking their foot off the gas, though, the Lakers were even better defensively in the follow-up performance. With some help from the Blazers (we’ll get there), the Lakers held their opponent to well below one point per possession (again) and genuinely stifled Portland throughout the night.

As evidenced by L.A.’s own struggles in Game 1, shooting luck can swing games in the postseason, but the Lakers didn’t allow either Damian Lillard or CJ McCollum to generate quality looks throughout the evening. The Lakers own a size and physicality advantage in this matchup and they utilized it well in Game 2, cutting off driving lanes and forcing Portland into suboptimal shot attempts.

That isn’t to say that the Blazers aren’t “due” for an explosion as one of the most dynamic offensive teams in the NBA, but the Lakers swallowed them up on this night. Given that Los Angeles owned the third-best defense in the league during the regular season, it also didn’t feel like that much of a fluke. They were dominant against a high-octane offense.

Everything went wrong for the Blazers

As noted previously, the Blazers struggled mightily on the offensive end in this game. In fact, they were better defensively (at least on a per-possession basis) in Game 2 than they have been in the bubble at large, and the result was still a thoroughly lopsided defeat.

First, Portland no answers for Davis and, with the Lakers making a more appropriate percentage of their shots, Los Angeles made the dent that many assumed they would in this series. Candidly, the Blazers are a team driven by their offense at the highest level and, on a night in which Portland simply couldn’t find any room against a suffocating Lakers defense, there was no path to overall team success.

From there, Lillard suffered a dislocated finger in the second half, and when it rains, it pours. Quite obviously, Lillard is the key to everything for the Blazers and, while he wasn’t at his best in Game 2, Portland’s path to competitiveness in the rest of the series revolves around their point guard operating at a superstar level. That isn’t to say that Lillard can’t get there again, even if limited by injury, but the Blazers now have a much smaller margin for error after the Lakers found their mojo in Game 2.

Game 2 of the Blazers-Lakers first round series went about as poorly as it could have for Portland. After three quarters they found themselves being blown out by 30, having scored just 58 points in the first three periods, and making matters far worse was seeing Damian Lillard leave the game late in the third with an left finger injury.

Lillard walked to the bench shaking and pulling on his left index finger after a defensive possession in which he reached in on an Anthony Davis drive, and was then being looked at by a number of members of the Blazers medical staff before leaving the court area for treatment, throwing a towel in frustration.

Given Lillard’s incredible significance to this Blazers team, having at times single-handedly willed them into victories in the Bubble just to make the playoffs, it’s very concerning for Portland to see him walk off the floor like that. He would return to stand off to the side and then the bench, looking obviously frustrated. The team announced shortly after that Lillard suffered a dislocated finger but not any sort of fracture, and that his day would be done.

The hope now is that Lillard will be able to be close to full strength for Game 3, where the Blazers will need him to be great, but he’s certainly going to be dealing with some pain going forward. Managing that is the name of the game for the next two days, and surely further updates will come.

In a shocking twist, the most exciting part of Unhinged, the movie in which Russell Crowe plays a sweaty, road-raging lunatic, isn’t watching Russell Crowe play a sweaty, road-raging lunatic. Oddly, the most compelling part of Unhinged is seeing just how much mayhem director Derrick Borte and writer Carl Ellsworth can squeeze out of this most mundane of premises. It’s like they got a waiter who didn’t smile once and based an entire revenge fantasy on it.

Unhinged begins with a montage of real-life road-rage incidents — entertaining, though oddly positioning road rage as one of the greatest challenges facing society, up there with climate change and global inequality. Hey, points for clarity of purpose. That fades into the background as we meet our protagonist, Rachel (played by Caren Pistorius) a young mom who can’t seem to get out of her own way. She’s going through a divorce, she woke up late, and now her son (Kyle, played by Gabriel Bateman) is headed for yet another tardy and detention, thanks to congested freeways and Rachel’s poor choice of route (“Mom, no, don’t take the freeway!”). A client has just fired her by phone (again, thanks to her inability to show up on time) when she comes to a stoplight. That’s where Russell Crowe’s big pick-up truck awaits, parked ominously at the intersection even though the light has turned green.

Rachel sits there, annoyed for a beat (seems like she could just go around?) until she lays on the horn to express her discontent. At this point I turned to my fiancée and said, “Oh come on, just give a little tap to get the guy’s attention.” (This will become relevant in a second.) Rachel speeds around, but a second later ends up right next to the same pick-up at a red light. Crowe leans over in his seat, motions for Rachel’s son to roll down the window, all so he can ask, “Excuse me, ma’am, have you ever heard of a courtesy tap?” (Thank you!)

This failure to courtesy tap becomes, Seinfeld-like, the inciting incident around which this entire wild film revolves. Crowe’s character, sweaty, southern, and with a pronounced pot belly, the kind of Alex Jones-esque mien that screams “just received bad news at a custody hearing,” spends the rest of Unhinged trying to murder Rachel and everyone she knows to punish her (and all women) for this unconscionable breach of the social contract.

Again, you have to credit Carl Ellsworth and Derrick Borte (the latter of whom once directed a film called “H8RZ“) for clarity of concept. That being said, I thought I’d signed up to be bellowed at by a fat Aussie, rendering Crowe’s Southern twang slightly disappointing. There’s no narrative reason why this guy had to be a Southerner, and in fact Unhinged in every other way attempts to disguise its own geography. It was shot in New Orleans. Why not just make the setting New Orleans? Make it any place, but choose one. A movie set in a place always beats one set in no place.

There’s little to complicate the chase plot after the inciting incident and throughout, Unhinged’s biggest asset is its willingness to kill off characters at the drop of a hat. It’s a one-note movie (almost gloriously so) that has basically one trick, the smash-cut-to-gruesome-and-gratuitous death.

Yet within that monolithic structure there is a certain intriguing nuance. Crowe’s character, a man at the end of his rope, is not quite an anti-heroic psychopath in the vein of Michael Douglas in Falling Down or Travis Bickle; the movie is more like a straight-up slasher flick where an evil killer stalks a spunky woman. Yet Unhinged takes pains to make clear that Rachel could’ve avoided this predicament, if only she’d been a little nicer, as if the intended moral of the story was “come on, sweetie, show us that smile.”

Crowe’s character is clearly the antagonist, a sweaty, overweight divorcee with a bone to pick with society, essentially Alex Jones with the dial turned one more degree towards homicidal. Yet he’s also, vaguely, a romantic figure, enforcing a social contract that the movie itself ends up validating. That Unhinged‘s ads screech “only in theaters!” feels a bit like a plea to Jones’ audience.

Yet where Alex Jones stokes a culture war, Unhinged‘s One Big Issue is, of all things, road rage. Ah, horn etiquette, one of the defining issues of our time. Part of me wishes that the entire film had turned out to be a Watchmen-esque film-within-a-film at the end, pulling back to reveal that director’s child had been killed by some road rage incident. At least that way the movie would’ve left me with some feeling other than, “Wow, he sure overreacted, huh?”

‘Unhinged’ opens in theaters August 21st. Vince Mancini is on Twitter. You can access his archive of reviews here.

Former ‘Veep’ and ‘Seinfeld’ star Julia Louis-Dreyfus hosted the final night of the 2020 Democratic National Convention and she brought jokes, something not typically found at American major party political conventions. (On the bright side, maybe now they will be?) Dreyfus opened the program by taking some shots at Vice President Mike Pence’s (probably deliberate) mispronunciations of Sen. Kamala Harris’ name — (“I cannot wait to see [Harris] debate our current Vice President, Meeka Pints.”) — then urged viewers to text “VOTE” to 30330 to get information on voting in the areas they live. She added, “An easy way to remember 30330 is that’s the year Donald Trump will finally release his tax returns.”

This set the table for Louis-Dreyfus to channel her inner Selina Meyer and deliver the roundhouse punch of her opening monologue: “If we all vote, there is nothing Facebook, Fox News, and Vladimir Putin can do to stop us.”

Additionally, Louis-Dreyfus also worked in a dig at Trump for the excessive force used against protestors in June for a staged photo-op of Trump holding a bible outside of a church: “Just remember, Joe Biden goes to church so regularly that he doesn’t even need tear gas and a bunch of federalized troops to help him get there.”

Cue Trump tweeting that Julia Louis-Dreyfus is a “nasty woman” in 3…2…1.

Mark Jackson would like another coaching job in the NBA very much, if that hasn’t been clear by the last five years of him being in the top ESPN commentary booth. Jackson’s clear desire to get back on the bench is understandable, as he had success with the Warriors, helping to lay a foundation that became a dynasty after Steve Kerr took over for him — at the same time, there are reasons he was let go by the Warriors and reasons they reached their pinnacle after he left.

It has become a running joke that whenever a team with a potential coaching vacancy plays on a game Jackson calls that he gives a little extra breakdown and do a little light campaigning for the job. That wasn’t the case on Thursday night as the Lakers mowed down the Blazers in Game 2 of their first round series to even things up, but Jackson did find himself a hot topic of conversation on Twitter after he made a comment on the broadcast about George Karl’s coaching, namely how his teams were never great defensive teams.

Karl was watching the game and the former Sonics, Bucks, and Nuggets head coach decided he had plenty of time for Jackson, @-ing the broadcaster and asking some, well, pointed questions of Jackson’s coaching resume.

There are plenty of valid critiques of George Karl as a coach — ones some of his former players will happily tell you about — but he did have a great deal of success at various stops and certainly has a stronger resume than Jackson (albeit with many more opportunities). Jackson likely isn’t on Twitter during the game so a response won’t be coming anytime soon, if at all, but it’s always entertaining to have a little coaching beef going on, even if neither of them are active coaches in the NBA still.

The shooting incident between Megan Thee Stallion and Tory Lanez has left fans and peers in the music industry questioning the true nature of the night in question in the Hollywood Hills. Over a month after Tory’s arrest for possession of a concealed weapon, a charge that later brought to light Megan Thee Stallion’s gunshot wounds following her post to Instagram, the Houston rapper took to Instagram Live Thursday night to shed some truth on the situation and voice her frustration with comments and accusations made towards her on social media.

Making sure her viewers understood her loud and clear during her livestream, Megan confirmed that Tory Lanez shot her following an argument in the Hollywood Hills. “Yes, this n**** Tory shot me. You shot me and you got your publicist and your people going to these blogs lying and sh*t,” she said during the livestream. She would then question Tory and his team’s decision to spread false information about the shooting, saying “Stop lying, why lie? I don’t understand.”

Megan also gave a bit of detail behind the shooting in her livestream. “It’s only four muhf*ckas in the car. Me, you, my homegirl, and your security, everybody in the car arguing. I’m in the front seat, this n**** in the backseat. I get out the car, I’m done arguing, I don’t want to argue no more, I get out. I’m walking away, this n**** from out the backseat of the car start shooting me. You shot me! I ain’t get cut by no glass.”

Megan would also admit to trying to protect the rapper following the shooting, but could no longer do so after watching the false information spread. “I tried to keep the situation off the internet, but you dragging it, you really f*cking dragging it,” she said before addressing the false rumors surrounding the shooting. “Muhf*ckas talking about I hit this n****, I never hit you. Muhf*ckas was like ‘Oh she mad because he was tryna f*ck with Kyle,’ no I wasn’t.”

The Houston rapper’s livestream arrives after she posted pictures of her gunshot wounds in response to rumors about the shooting on social media.

Watch a portion of Megan Thee Stallion’s livestream in the video above.