FALL 2018 HOUSES

# Beds Location Rent

 11 1014 Vaughn $7700

 9 1015 Packard $6525

 7 1129 White St $5250

 6 415 N. Thayer $4350

 6 511 Linden $4800

 6 605 Hoover $4500

 6 708 E. Kingsley $4800

 6 722 E. Kingsley $4650

 6 1119 S. Forest $4350 

 6 1207 Prospect $4900

 6 1355 Wilmot Ct. $5075

 5 515 S. Fourth $3700

 5 935 S. Division $4000

 5 1016 S. Forest $5400

 5 1024 Packard $3700

 4 809 Sybil $3200

 4 827 Brookwood $3000

 4 852 Brookwood $3000

 4 927 S. Division $3100

 4 1117 S. Forest $3200

 4 1210 Cambridge $3400

Tenants pay all utilities.

Leasing starts Nov. 10th

 Reservations Accepted till 11/8.

CAPPO/DEINCO

734‑996‑1991

MAY 2018 – 6 BDRMS HOUSES

417 N. Thayer ‑ $4500

811 Sybil ‑ $4400 

Tenants pay all utilities.

Showings Scheduled M‑F 10‑3

24 hour noticed required

DEINCO PROPERTIES

734‑996‑1991

FOR RENT

ACROSS
1 Bunches of bucks
5 Strip of
latticework
9 Expels
14 For each one
15 Jackson 5 hair
style
16 IV part
17 Stacy Lewis’ org.
18 Severely harm
19 Use, as for a
snooze
20 “Well, __-di-dah!”
21 Finishing a
sentence?
23 In the air
25 Ancient Peruvian
26 “Fresh Air” airer
27 Diagram on a
golf score card
31 Attachment to a
movable sprinkler
32 Divinity school
subj.
33 John Irving title
writer
36 Romantically
involved with
38 Oscar Mayer
product
40 “And she shall
bring forth __”:
Matthew
41 Bordeaux
brushoff
42 Co. known for
music
compilations
44 Bad news for
subway riders
48 VW preceders?
51 Fabric mishap
52 Grecian urn
glorifier, e.g.
53 Grammatically,
“have” in “I have
spoken,” e.g.
57 Letters between
mus and xis
58 Ball co-star
59 Revered Tibetan
60 Paltry
61 Author Kafka or
composer Liszt
62 City west of
Tulsa
63 Neck of the
woods
64 Short-tempered
65 College Board
exams, for short
66 Wordless
summons

DOWN
1 Character actor
Eli who often 
co-starred with
his wife Anne
Jackson
2 Horse with a
spotted coat
3 Backyard pet
shelters
4 Massage venue
5 Unconvincing, as
excuses go
6 A long way off
7 Barely worth
mentioning
8 Grits, essentially
9 Dashboard
indicator
10 Textbook division
11 Oktoberfest
keepsake
12 Beat the pants off
13 More reasonable
21 GPS lines
22 Cpl., for one
24 No longer
encumbered by
28 South end?
29 Journey segment
30 Did terribly
34 Orthodontic
devices

35 Lays a guilt trip
on, say
37 Nervously
distracted
38 Took the title
39 Business abbr.
41 State of bliss
43 “Dinner!” ... and a
hint to the first
word of 21-, 27-,
44- and 53-Across
45 Stimpy’s sidekick

46 NFC East team
47 Take the wrong
way?
48 Unfair treatment,
with “the”
49 __ Haute
50 Forearm bones
54 Breathe hard
55 Give off
56 X-ray units
60 27-Across,
essentially

By Gail Grabowski and Bruce Venzke
©2017 Tribune Content Agency, LLC
10/25/17

10/25/17

ANSWER TO PREVIOUS PUZZLE:

RELEASE DATE– Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Los Angeles Times Daily Crossword Puzzle

Edited by Rich Norris and Joyce Nichols Lewis

xwordeditor@aol.com

Classifieds

Call: #734-418-4115
Email: dailydisplay@gmail.com

6A — Wednesday, October 25, 2017
Arts
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

WARNER BROS

It’s a bad movie
‘Geostorm’ is disastrous 
(but still kind of funny)

New disaster movie stays true to its genre in its poor quality

“Geostorm” will probably be 

heralded as one of the worst movies 
of the year. Filled with bad CGI, 
insipidly stupid characters and 
a plot so confusing that hours of 
trying to dissect it afterwards will 
still lead one to failure, there’s no 
doubt “Geostorm” is a bad movie. 
It is a very, very bad movie. But it’s 
not the worst movie ever made. 
For all of its faults, against all odds, 
with absolutely nothing going 
for it and not a single character 
that is likable in even the loosest 
sense of the word, the third act 
of “Geostorm” is actually a really 
good time.

Dean Devlin directed and wrote 

“Geostorm” as his directorial 
debut, and it seems more likely 
he simply went with the first idea 
he had every single step of the 
way and never bothered to think 
through any moment of the film 
for longer than three seconds. 
The plot, which stems from the 
seemingly simple idea of weather-
controlling 
satellites 
going 

haywire, quickly becomes mired in 
confusing government allegiances, 
unclear character motivations and 
an evil plan so nonsensical that it 
renders almost every single action 
taken by a character in the film to 
be meaningless.

The villain’s goal appears to 

be to use the weather satellites to 
unleash extreme weather upon 
countries and peoples he doesn’t 
like, but then he later initiates the 
self-destruct mechanism of the 
satellite control station, which if 
successful would render all the 
satellites worthless, returning the 
earth to a state of global warming-
induced chaos. Why the villain 
would be okay dying with everyone 
else on earth when the satellites 

go down is not explained in the 
movie. How or why the villain is 
doing anything that he does is not 
explained in the movie. There’s an 
attempt to explain why the space 
station even has a self-destruct 
feature, but the explanation falls 
flat on its face and only serves to 
call out the idiotic story that is 
being told to the audience.

Gerard 
Butler 
(“London 

Has 
Fallen”), 
Jim 
Sturgess 

(“Kidnapping Freddy Heineken”) 
and Abbie Cornish (“6 Days”) all 
fall completely flat as the main 
characters of this film. Only Andy 
García (“Passengers”), as the U.S. 

President Andrew Palma, shows 
any signs of life, and it is the third 
act in which he begins to throw in 
one-liners that the movie finally 
becomes watchable. After an hour 
and a half of what essentially 
amounts to different people sitting 
in rooms, staring at computer 
screens and exclaiming, “Ahhhh 
— so that’s what’s going on!” the 
movie finally arrives at the actual 
storms, and a semblance of what 
could’ve been an entertaining 
movie begins to assert itself.

Make no mistake: the final act 

of “Geostorm” is still completely 
asinine. Butler, at one point, 
survives 
a 
giant 
spaceship 

explosion by wearing nothing more 
then a spacesuit. But unlike the rest 
of the movie, the last half hour is at 
least fun to watch. It’s dumb fun, 
rather than dumb drivel. It’s what 
the trailers and advertisements for 
“Geostorm” actually promised. At 
last, the movie finally acts like the 
garbage disaster flick that it is. At 
last we get to watch Andy García 
utter lines like, “I’m the goddamn 
President of the United States.” 
This is what we came for. Not for 
the hackneyed plot. Not for the 
terrible special effects. Not for the 
actors and not for the first-time 
director. For dumb punch lines 
and famous people running from 
falling buildings. “Geostorm” isn’t 
enough of a disaster to be worth 
the effort.

DAILY COMMUNITY CULTURE COLUMN

How far would we go to 

achieve fame?

Columnist Bailey Kadian contemplates the price of fame

In one of the greatest works 

of 
Old 
English 
literature, 

“Beowulf,” there is a scene 
in which Beowulf heroically 
defeats the monster Grendel and 
is told, “You have won renown: 
you are known to all men far 
and near, now and forever.” 
This is an extraordinary sort of 
fame, one that will live beyond 
Beowulf’s lifetime. From ancient 
texts to beloved stories to our 
modern realities, our desire 
for fame appears. Beowulf is 
the archetypal hero — and his 
never-ending fame serves as the 
reward for his act of defeat.

To be remembered is our 

inherent desire. We hope our 
identity will stretch far beyond 
our short-lived existence. It’s 
intriguing 
how 
enthralled 

we are by the idea of doing 
something to be remembered. 
It’s complicated in that much 
of what we do for our earned 
recognition is fundamentally 
good. Why we do it is harder 
to 
understand. 
Some 
claim 

their fame came as a surprise, 
for their efforts towards their 
campaign, their organization, 
their business or their movement 
were totally directed towards 
a specific purpose. It wasn’t for 
personal recognition — their 
fame just came as a byproduct. 
Others were passionate about 
the potential of earning fame 
and therefore used some other 
platform to go about attaining it.

In leading a movement of 

some sort, does the glory rest in 
the original intent? Or perhaps 
if we traced the root of the 
movement, would we find a 
desire for esteem at its core? If 
the overarching goal is fame, the 
initial motive or passion loses its 
significance.

Let’s 
consider 
a 
singer 

writing her own music. Music 
starts as a passion, in hopes to 
reach audiences that can relate 
to her lyrics and experiences. 
Maybe 
after 
enough 
years 

in the spotlight, the artist 
is encouraged to shift her 
priorities. Now that she has 
overwhelming fame, everything 
suddenly feels different. What 
once was a genuine interest 
has now become one strand 
of a larger image; an image 
revolving around the person, 
not the passion.

If I lead a movement to 

provide clean water for people 
in 
impoverished 
countries 

who cannot access it, and I 
gain publicity for my efforts, 
I imagine much of the lasting 
impact would be about myself, 
and not entirely about the act 
that earned the recognition. The 

idea we once pursued, a generous 
act of public service, becomes 
the thing we must pursue for us. 
For the fame. For being known. 
And of course, for that fame to 
surpass our lifetime.

There is a plaque hanging up 

on the wall at my high school. 
My sister’s name is on it. She 
won some award during her 
senior year. I can’t remember 
what the award was called, or 
even why she specifically won 
it, other than the fact that she 
was one of the most talented 
people who ever joined our 
school’s 
drama 
department, 

and the award recognized that 
accomplishment. I remember 
noting the significance of the 
plaque, and how it would last 
for years beyond her time 
there. Why is that worth more? 
There was something distinctly 

valuable about her name being 
planted on the wall. It was a 
name that would be known and 
seen by those passing through 
the hallways for years following 
her time there.

We 
often 
assume 
that 

acquiring fame will make our 
circumstances better. Or maybe 
it just reminds us that we 
have indeed “made it,” in life, 
because our efforts have been 
noted by many people, thus 
making them worth something.

What does this desire for 

fame say about our intentions? 
In an age where you can be 
“exposed” on social media, 
or publically hated, there is 
more risk to acquiring fame. 
In becoming a “known name,” 
there is great potential for 
immense criticism, almost to an 
inhumane degree. If you make 
one wrong move, it can stain 
your name. It is permanent 
— marked with the stamp of 
impossible removal, for that one 
mistake is just a Google search 
away, locked in the histories of 
our devices that never forget. 
Our eternal glory may last, but 
it rests in the hands of all of 
us, with our widespread ability 
to make whatever we want 
known to the world. Our use 
of technology has bridged the 
gap between those in the public 
spotlight and those who simply 
observe the figures illuminated 
by the light.

Now, more than ever, we have 

the ability to be remembered. 
But it does not promise a 
favorable result. If anything, 
there 
is 
more 
risk, 
more 

publicity and more knowledge 
about oneself that can circulate 
all over this universe. Your 
name may very well be known, 
possibly resulting in a lasting 
legacy, or likely, leaving the 
remnants of its antithesis — 
a tainted identity “known to 
all men far and near, now and 
forever.”

BAILEY 
KADIAN

“Geostorm”

Warner Bros. 

Pictures

Quality 16, Rave 

Cinemas

IAN HARRIS
Daily Arts Writer

TV REVIEW
Ron Livingston thrives 
as lead in ‘Loudermilk’

Loudermilk to join the ranks of Bojack and Frank Gallagher

In a world of Frank Gallaghers 

and BoJack Horsemans, the trope 
of the alcoholic male lead has found 
sufficient footholds in recent years. 
On Oct. 17, the Audience Network, 
 

accessible 
only 
to 
DirecTV, 

AT&T U-verse and DirecTV Now 
customers, premiered the pilot 
of its new show “Loudermilk,” 
from co-creators Peter Farrelly 
(“Dumb and Dumber”) and Bobby 
Mort (“The Colbert Report”), 
ushering 
in 
another 
abrasive 

drunk protagonist to add to the 
list. 
“Loudermilk” 
stars 
Ron 

Livingston (“Office Space”) as Sam 
Loudermilk, a caustic recovering 
alcoholic and substance abuse 
counselor.

In the first few scenes, Sam tells 

one of his AA attendees that “life’s 
about fucking things up — and then 
unfucking the things you fucked 
up,” and the theme of this pilot 
episode seems to be Sam doing just 
that. Due to his acerbic attitude 
and behavior, the priest (Eric 
Keenleyside, “Godzilla”) of the 
church where Sam holds meetings 
informs him that his meeting 
space will be revoked if he does not 
help one of the church member’s in 
rehabilitating her stubborn, drug-
abusing daughter Claire (Anja 
Savcic, “Extraterrestrial”).

While 
the 
boozehound 

character is not a new one, not 
often do we find him as the focal 
point of a TV show — probably due 
in part to the fact that the attributes 

of someone truly suffering from 
alcoholism don’t lend themselves 
well to making a loveable lead. 
“Loudermilk,” however, creates 
a compelling twist on the role of 
the classic drunk. It may not seem 
fair to categorize Sam in this trope, 
considering he is four years sober 
and leading sobriety meetings, 
but he has the biting, me-against-
the-world attitude of someone just 
getting “off the sauce.”

The 
most 
defining 
points 

of Sam’s character build are 
dichotomous to the point of 
verging on unbelieveable. Sam is 

depicted as an extremely dedicated 
counselor — denoted more by his 
actions than his usually apathetic 
comments — but he also goes on to 
display an utter callousness toward 
his fellow man, exemplified by 
him pushing past an elderly man 
going up the stairs. I believe it is 
this same disconcerting, polarized 
quality about him that makes him 
a suitable lead — he’s constantly 
pushing you away and pulling you 
back in.

For many of the doubts I did 

have, the writers would close the 
gaps with the occasionally self-
aware comment from Sam. He tells 
his budding love interest Allison 

(Laura 
Mennell, 
“Watchmen”) 

that he’s learned to be blunt and 
harsh to cut through the lies and 
excuses of the addicts he works 
with, which bleeds over into his 
personal life.

While so many of Sam’s traits 

are abrasive to the point of 
discomfort, I saw a lot of my darker, 
hidden qualities in him, which 
helped me relate much better to 
the show and feel justified in my 
own grating characteristics. When 
Sam’s roommate and “only friend” 
Ben (Will Sasso, “MADtv”) asks 
why he pushed past an old man on 
the stairs, Sam replies, “Maybe I 
just wanted to get nowhere faster,” 
and I’ll be damned if those words 
didn’t come out of my own mouth. 
These humanizing moments in the 
face of otherwise atrocious actions 
are what endears Sam to the few in 
his life strong enough to withstand 
his rough edges — and the same 
can be said for the viewers.

Where the show does falter, 

however, is in the strength of 
the dialogue. Often times it 
feels as though the writing is 
more of a vehicle for delivering 
social commentary and setting 
up overthought jokes than it is 
for carrying the plot along, or 
communicating 
relationships 

between characters. Don’t get 
me wrong, the show is definitely 
comedic in nature, but the humor 
wavers when it tries too hard. 
While the show does have its 
flaws and lulls, the pilot episode 
and the show’s namesake present 
a compelling case for viewers to 
tune in again next week. 

SOFIA LYNCH

For the Daily

“Loudermilk”

Season Premiere

Tuesdays at 8:30 

p.m.

Audience

FILM REVIEW

