In Theaters: "The Ides of March"

"The Ides of March" is a well-made film that you won't give a second of thought to after you leave the theater. It is an average movie with an Oscar-season cast. I'm not sorry I saw it, but I probably wouldn't have bothered if I had been the one paying for the ticket. (I started out wanting to see "Margin Call," which looks fantastic, but then realized that it's only playing in New York and LA.)

As a person from Cincinnati, if anyone should have been biased in favor of this movie, it's me. "The Ides of March" was shot there and it was big news in the area when Clooney & Co. came. I constantly heard about sightings of cast members and people were always guessing where they would film next. Like many others, I felt obligated to see it just to play "spot the Cincinnati landmark." However, I also read many reviews beforehand so my hopes weren't sent ridiculously high.

"The Ides of March" has all the hallmarks of an Oscar movie, except the release date. The cast is A-list all the way, the plot is about heavy drama, and the tone is cynical. Ryan Gosling plays Stephen Meyers, working on a political campaign for candidate Mike Morris (George Clooney). Morris is competing against another Democrat in Ohio for the party's presidential nomination. Meyers is experienced yet idealistic as he gets wrapped up in the dirty inner-workings of a major campaign.

I was disappointed in how sorely underused most of the cast was. Gosling and Evan Rachel Wood figure prominently, while Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, and Marisa Tomei are used sparingly and each hardly get one big scene to shine. Even Clooney gets little to do aside from canned speeches until the final act. He gets some more material in a scene that is supposed to be revealing and striking, but it's actually underwhelming and predictable. All this being said, everyone does a good job. It's not surprising considering how little their roles ask of them, though. You wouldn't expect any less from these people, but you don't get any more.

What struck me most was the length of the movie - it comes in at 101 minutes, but feels much shorter. As I felt the movie wrapping up, I couldn't help but think "that was it?" It's not insulting or stupid, but the script isn't saying anything new and it is certainly not as poignant as it thinks it is. It's hard to sympathize with a disillusioned protagonist when he was very naive to begin with. Back-room deals and scandalous cover-ups are nothing new to the audience, so why does Stephen Meyers take it so hard? How could a man so experienced in political campaigns be encountering these things for the first time? Gosling has a natural intensity and grounded performance that proves he's more than a pretty face, but the script just doesn't give him enough to work with. The covered-up scandalous act, while ripped from the headlines, was tired and predictable. (If men can't keep it in their pants, they should hire uglier interns.)

This is a perfectly adequate movie. Like I said, I'm not sorry I saw it, but I certainly didn't take anything away from it. The idea of Oscar talk around it seems absolutely ridiculous to me - it's smooth, efficient filmmaking but certainly not Oscar material in any way. Perhaps it's just difficult to make a compelling story about great, big scandals that don't happen. But "The Ides of March" was never about media-rocking scandals anyway - it was about one man's path to accepting that politics is not where people play nice. This could have been an engrossing film, even without saying anything new, but it just wasn't. Instead it plays more like an after-school special as told by the Academy.

My grade: C

NOW why isn't "Cougar Town" on?

The unfortunate thing about less successful sitcoms is that they get shoved around the schedule constantly. "Cougar Town" is being held back until mid-season. It'll come back on an as-of-yet unannounced date in January. Although, if you watched "Community," you already knew that.

In the meantime, the cast members are going to be very busy guest starring on other shows. Bill Lawrence even tweeted that he'll give away prizes to people who correctly identify all shows the actors guest on (apparently a lot of the guest stints will be uncredited, making it much more difficult). For a list of some of the known shows featuring the "Cougar Town" actors, click here.

Comparing Action Movie Franchises (Worldwide & Domestic Grosses)

And now for a comparison of the box office statistics instead of the critical ratings. Take these with a grain of salt, though, since I'm not aiming for absolute statistical accuracy. I'm using a combination of Wikipedia and IMDB stats and rounding them, so these are rough numbers. However, they're still accurate enough to get the trends across. The only major difference between the worldwide and domestic grosses seems to be the fact that "Die Hard with a Vengeance" did better than "Die Hard 2: Die Harder" worldwide, but did worse domestically.

Comparing Action Movie Franchises (Die Hard, Mission Impossible, Indiana Jones)

As I wrote my previous blog post and started comparing movie franchises in my head, I wondered how they stacked up against one another over time in the ratings. I'm talking solely about their quality, not their box office revenue. So I went to Rotten Tomatoes and charted their trajectories according to the general consensus of professional critics.

"Die Hard" franchise includes:
"Die Hard" - 1988 (94%)
"Die Hard 2: Die Harder" - 1990 (65%)
"Die Hard with a Vengeance" - 1995 (50%)
"Live Free or Die Hard" - 2007 (82%)

"Mission Impossible" franchise includes:
"Mission Impossible" - 1996 (60%)
"Mission Impossible 2" - 2000 (57%)
"Mission Impossible 3" - 2006 (70%)

"Indiana Jones" franchise includes:
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" - 1981 (94%)
"Temple of Doom" - 1984 (85%)
"The Last Crusade" - 1989 (89%)
"Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" - 2008 (77%)

I don't entirely agree with all of these ratings, but they do manage to give you an idea of what direction each franchise has gone. The second "Die Hard" is in no way better than the third. "Live Free or Die Hard" suffers a lot of backlash among fans, but it deserves its rating. It was not the complete and utter mess people say it is, it just wasn't what they were expecting/wanting. And I think it's a downright travesty that "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is rated at 77% while "Mission Impossible: 3" stands at 70%. Not that MI3 needs to be that much higher, it's more like that last Indy movie was horrendous and superfluous.

12 years passed between the previous two "Die Hard" movies, while a whopping 19 years passed between the previous two "Indiana Jones" movies. To put even more weird perspective on this, when Sean Connery played Indiana Jones' father in "The Last Crusade," Connery was 58 years old. In "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," Harrison Ford was 65 years old. I love you Harrison Ford, but Bruce Willis and Tom Cruise can still handle being action stars while I think your time has come and gone. And really, with characters like Han Solo and Indiana Jones under your belt, you really shouldn't have to stoop to doing any more "Indiana Jones" movies today.

"Die Hard 5" - How about "Just Die Already...Hard"?

I adore "Die Hard." "Die Harder" was a big letdown. "Die Hard with a Vengeance" is pretty entertaining, and has Samuel L Jackson, so that's a plus. "Live Free or Die Hard" is very divisive but I fall on the side of loving every insane minute of it. But I do agree that it's not entirely a true "Die Hard" movie. John McClane was no longer the everyman, but the classic indestructible cop hero of action cinema.

Lately it's been announced that the next movie is about to be shot and is called "A Good Day to Die Hard." Really? That doesn't sound very badass. It will be set in Russia, which is helping sell it for me. I love a good action movie set in Russia, even though Russians as antagonists is a wildly outdated movie concept. Who knows, maybe it'll be set in Russia for some ridiculous reason but the whole country won't be portrayed as the villain. I don't know how they're going to get John McClane there, but I'm curious as hell to find out. Can we work Putin in here somehow? Yippi-ki-yay, comrade.

And now, according to this Variety article, they're searching for an actor to play McClane's son to take over the franchise. My first reaction was, 'because that worked so well for Indiana Jones.' My second immediate reaction was, 'why not just go with Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Lucy McClane?' I loved her in the fourth movie. Even though she had to be the damsel in distress, she held her own and I could definitely see her stepping up to the plate. I guess as long as they don't go with Shia LaBeouf, I'm good. It's just that I would really love to see them be unique and let a woman step up and take over. Why does this even have to continue though? Short answer, money. But creatively, the series just needs to end. With all the 80s remakes coming left and right, it's almost cliche to say it, but think of a new idea already! I just blogged about what to do when your favorite TV shows go downhill. Well, what do you do when a film franchise you loved starts going downhill?

Yes, I loved the last "Die Hard" entry, but what are the odds that this next one is any good? Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, considering this is all coming from a person who is counting down the days until "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol." Who cares if the franchise distances itself so far from its original premise that it's something entirely new? Can't it be a good action movie in its own right, even if it bears no resemblance to its predecessors? "Live Free or Die Hard" still had some call-backs to the other films. John McClane wasn't the vulnerable hero anymore, but in the end the villains were executing a highly convoluted, complicated scheme just to commit a robbery (like in "Die Hard"s 1 and 3). On one hand, we have the Indiana Jones franchise, that sputtered and turned out a crappy attempt to continue the series. On the other hand, we have the Mission Impossible franchise that came back with a very strong third installment and what looks like a solid fourth movie as well that will try to hand off the leading man role to Jeremy Renner. Perhaps this could work. (One thing that would certainly help is if they reinstated the R rating. Let the blood and swearing fly, McClane! I want a grown-up action movie, and an R gives it that freedom.)

No matter how this turns out, I still know where I'll be Valentine's Day of 2013 - going to a theater to see "A Good Day to Die Hard." And quite honestly, any day is a good day for "Die Hard." (So long as they don't fuck this up as bad as the last Indiana Jones movie!)

What to Do When: a beloved show goes downhill (RIP "Family Guy")

I've always been partial to the Seth MacFarlane universe over the Matt Groening universe. I realize that just saying this will cause people to make all kinds of assumptions about me. So be it. It's something I don't readily admit in public, but I will admit it. The reason I bring this up is because I've run into a bit of a problem - "Family Guy" isn't even a shadow of what it once was. I opened this post with my personal preferences to preempt the obvious retort from non-fans - "It always sucked, moron." This isn't helpful. Right now, I want to talk about a familiar dilemma to TV fans. What do you do when a show you've loved isn't great anymore? It could've succumbed to a steady decline in quality over the years, as many shows organically do, or it could've suddenly and drastically become awful. I could write this post about many different shows I've fallen out of love with. "Brothers and Sisters" or "House" definitely qualified. But the "Family Guy" dilemma bothers me the most and has been on my mind recently, so I'm going to focus primarily on it here.

"Family Guy," for all its criticisms and accusations of plagiarism ("The Simpsons" does not own the nuclear family mold. That's like saying JRR Tolkien owns the wise old man archetype), was a clever show. It could be toilet-bowl crude and hilariously poignant. The "PTV" episode is a classic that comments on modern censorship. The "Road to..." episodes were a pleasant change-up from their formula. The cutaway gags were random, but in all the right ways. The musical numbers set it apart and showed that no matter what character he's playing, Seth MacFarlane can sing. But, like many shows, it declined in quality. I hung on for a long time because, while newer episodes were nothing special, they normally contained at least one joke that made me laugh my head off. The "London Gentlemen's Club" and "Distracting Trumpet" gags were in later episodes and I'm thankful I stuck around for them. And there was, of course, the comfort food quality of spending time with characters I'd enjoyed for so many years.

But these days, I can't even bring myself to tune in for old time's sake. I don't know what went wrong, but the writing is sloppy and the humor is nonexistent. The cutaway gags are now entirely a lazy crutch, the characters are all exaggerated manifestations of their worst qualities, and the 'messages' are self-indulgently preachy. Compare the early episodes with Peter's ultra-religious father with the later episodes about alcoholism or politics. The show relied too heavily on guest voices in later seasons, but stunt casting is nothing new and one of my lesser complaints.One of my bigger complaints it that "Family Guy" blew a huge opportunity when it parodied "Star Wars." Parody isn't even the right word because it was more like a shot-for-shot remake with "Family Guy" characters with an occasional quip here and there.

So why am I complaining so much about a show whose decline has been obvious and a long time coming? Because it brings me to the larger issue at hand - what does a loyal viewer do when a show isn't the same one you loved in previous seasons?

You could...

- Keep on watching and hang on until the bitter end.
If you can still stand it, maybe the comfort food quality is enough to overlook bad writing or acting. However, returning to a show after you drop it and realizing that it's still terrible can cause you to go through the mourning process all over again.

- Watch a show that's by the same people.
This is the solution I went with in this case. This way, you have a better chance of ensuring you'll get the same kind of humor or writing. I started watching "American Dad" this summer and have now seen every episode at least twice. Without the cutaway gags, it's forced to have a plot every week. Also, Roger is my favorite character in the entire MacFarlane universe. He's flexible and layered enough that I don't think he'll fall victim to the same kind of character change that happened to Stewie on "Family Guy." Stewie was rather one-note in the beginning of the series and kept developing to the point where he's actually been several different Stewies throughout the series. Luckily, we still get some musical numbers on "American Dad" to ease the transition. I don't care what anyone else says, Cee-Lo Green as a homicidal, singing hot tub is entertaining.

- Find a show similar to it.
If you can't find a show by the same people and just want a show similar in structure or genre, do that. Watch "The Simpsons," "The Cleveland Show," "South Park," or old "King of the Hills" if you want to stay in the realm of adult animation. If you're abandoning a sci-fi show, find another sci-fi show to fill the void, and so on. Not rocket science.

- Re-watch the show's old episodes.
...until you can't take it any more, that is. The reason I didn't jump ship to "American Dad" sooner is because I kept watching reruns of "Family Guy." Well, after you practically memorize each episode, it's time to move on. But until you get sick of it, re-watching the show from the beginning is as good an option as any. And some shows might never get old. I've been watching the same episodes of "Seinfeld" pretty much my entire life and I still enjoy them. "Will & Grace" has similarly never lost its charm with me.

- Bombard the Internet with your pent-up bitterness.
Like I'm doing now! Honestly, I get really annoyed by people who can't admit that shows they loved are not good anymore. You can admit that it sucks now and it won't diminish the affection you have for the show's earlier seasons. You don't have to swear off the entire show. Beyond just ranting to fellow viewers, commenting about the show's decline on the Internet at least helps raise awareness to the people in charge that the show is suffering and the fans know it and will not stand for it. Unwavering loyalty to a show is pretty crazy when the writers/producers/actors aren't putting in the same commitment and care that the viewer is.

My Top 10: Internet Habits that Need to Die

I haven't posted in a while, so I thought I'd rant about some things that have been bothering me for a while - the annoying Internet habits of others. Most of them concern youtube comments outside of the run-of-the-mill "pointless fights" complaint. We can all agree that we hate trolls and spammers, but I'm talking about the littler things that so many people do that just plain get on my nerves. [Warning: I am going to sound very bitter]

10. Youtube: "X brought me here!"


This isn't a huge pet peeve, but it's a pet peeve nonetheless. It's fun to show solidarity if a certain website or show brought you to a video. But it's also incredibly irrelevant to most other people. Then there are inevitably the people who are like, "well, I brought MYSELF here!" and it erupts into bitterness. Can't we all just agree that we like the video, whether we were were brilliant enough to find it on our own or not? People act like there's some pride to be had from finding a song on your own while discovering it through a TV show or movie is beyond reprehensible.

9. Any comments section: Liking your own comment

The absolute height of comments desperation and self-absorption. Like the crazy cousin of the troll, the person who likes their own comment tends to be someone with deeply passionate contrarian beliefs who wants to show they mean what they say and they are smart, damnit! Although I'd probably be more concerned if someone posted an opinion and then disagreed with themselves.

8. Facebook: Treating Facebook like Twitter
Unless you're actually posting your Twitter updates to Facebook, don't use hashtags. Hashtags are pointless on Facebook.

7. Youtube: "If I get X many thumbs up I'll do something wacky!"

Oh, really? If you get 100 thumbs up, you're going to perform the dance in the video at a club? If you get 500 thumbs up, you'll perform this wacky routine in class? And you'll post it on youtube so you can prove you really did it, right? Yeah, I thought so.

6. Any comments section: "First-world problems!"



Nothing annoys me quite like this. It surfaces a lot with Facebook redesigns and, lately, the Netflix clusterfuck. Someone inevitably declares that everyone is a moron and they should count themselves lucky if their biggest problem is Netflix raising prices. First of all, no one said that a site redesign or price hike is their biggest problem in life. But this breed of commentor insists that no one can complain about the little annoyances in their life because someone, somewhere is SUFFERING. By this logic, pretty much no one can ever complain about anything, because there will always be a worse issue to make your issue look small. The funniest ones are when the commentor complains about how everyone is talking about a "frivolous issue when there are wars going on" on an entertainment news site. But my biggest problem with this commentor is the fact that it's 95% likely they themselves live in a first-world country. And I doubt that they never, ever complain about anything.

5. Facebook: Constant resdesigns
"First-world problems!" Yes, I know it's silly to get irked over this, but it just doesn't make sense to me to keep fixing what isn't broken. A redesign every few years or once a year, I get. But the redesigns every few months just irritate your users who have to relearn how to use your site each time. This is especially annoying for the older generation who didn't learn the ropes very quickly the first time around. At this point, someone naturally says "then stop using Facebook, dumbass!" I would like to remind everyone that not every person who uses Facebook is an attention-starved fake who hoards "friends" to seem popular and loved. Some of us use it because it's a great way to stay in touch and share things with friends and family scattered around the country.

4. Youtube: Jokes about the number of people who disliked a video

These are funny the first couple of times you see them. I can still stand them if they're clever. But after a while, you just want people to shut up already about the people who disliked the video. And for some reason, these types of comments are probably the most popular, right up there with my Number 1 complaint. This is also annoying because the number of dislikes is constantly changing. And it smacks a little of "anyone who disagrees with me should be shot." (The above example comment is from Devo's "Whip It," hence the whipping comment. It wasn't really a violent outburst, although it's the Internet so this could pop up word-for-word on any video and it wouldn't seem too weird, unfortunately.)

3. Youtube: "I love this music, and I'm X years old! Today's music is crap!"


I'm a big fan of Motown, Disco, and 80s music despite the fact that I wasn't even alive in any of these eras. But people still seem to think that liking any decade of music outside your own is something rare and commendable. It's almost like it's impossible to praise one genre/decade without putting down another. Is there a law against liking Classic Rock AND Disco? Is there a law against loving music from today and music from the 50s? Is there a law that says kids can't like music from past eras? No, but people online act like there is.

2. Facebook: "Repost this as your status if you support X/if you're my true friend!"

I only have one friend who posts these, but one is enough. I blocked her updates after a while because I just couldn't stand it anymore. I am obviously pro-cancer because I didn't post your Fight Breast Cancer message for an hour as my status. I am obviously not your true friend because I didn't repost that sweet message about friendship. I'm obviously a sheep because I'm one of the 99% of people who won't repost your message. And you are obviously making a difference in the world by posting all those messages about such important issues. Bravo.

1. Youtube: "Thumbs up if you're listening in 2011!"


This one makes me want to reach into my computer and strangle the commentor when I see it. How the hell does this comment keep getting thumbs up from everyone? Do you think someone's going to respond, saying, "I don't listen to this anymore but I came to the video today to make sure everyone knows that"? Or "I'm listening to this in 2045!" "I'm listening to this in 1994!" This started out as someone making a point that they were still listening to a song from another era regularly, but it devolved into this inane statement. And it drives me crazier than any other Internet habit does.