|
Grex > Music3 > #45: The Irish Music Discussion from Agora Conference |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 72 responses total. |
anderyn
|
|
response 40 of 72:
| 
Oct 31 16:04 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 41 of 72:
|
Nov 1 00:44 UTC 2001 |
Enya is goopy, but it's amazingly high quality goop. I like every song
she's ever done, with one exception: "Marble Halls".
"The Lord of the Rings" will not be the first film she's had songs in.
Songs from her albums also appeared in "Toys" (the underrated Robin
Williams film) and "L.A. Story" (the superb Steve Martin film). And
those are just the ones I've seen.
|
michaela
|
|
response 42 of 72:
|
Nov 1 01:08 UTC 2001 |
She also did some music for the game and/or movie "Final Fantasy". I like
Enya. I just consider her more new age than Irish (though she IS Irish in
heritage).
|
micklpkl
|
|
response 43 of 72:
|
Nov 1 16:28 UTC 2001 |
re: resp:40 & Corvus Corax: I have one of their CDs. It's called TRITONUS.
|
edina
|
|
response 44 of 72:
|
Nov 1 17:55 UTC 2001 |
Thank you! I always loved "Toys" but everyone just looks at me like am on
crack when I say it.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 45 of 72:
|
Nov 1 23:33 UTC 2001 |
"Toys" also features an excerpt from Tchaikovsky's unjustly neglected
First Symphony. A great film, and not just for the music.
|
edina
|
|
response 46 of 72:
|
Nov 2 14:58 UTC 2001 |
Well - Joan Cusack makes any movie wondrous.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 47 of 72:
|
Nov 2 16:20 UTC 2001 |
..shame about her sitcom, though.. has that been cancelled yet?
|
brighn
|
|
response 48 of 72:
|
Nov 2 16:23 UTC 2001 |
#46> I couldn't agree less. I find her very grating. Her brother, OTOH, tends
to be a shining light in a mess of a movie (with a few exceptions); he needs
better taste in scripts.
|
krj
|
|
response 49 of 72:
|
Nov 2 19:19 UTC 2001 |
resp:47 :: I believe that WHAT ABOUT JOAN was cancelled. It was odd
that it was renewed for this year, and then cancelled so suddenly in the new
season.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 50 of 72:
|
Nov 3 05:03 UTC 2001 |
If this is going to become the Cusack item, I must express my regret
that John has become a big enough star that apparently he is now only
going to appear in really sucky pictures. That often happens to big
stars. =High Fidelity= was really fine - an actor even infinitesimally
grating would have been unable to carry it off - but I have not the
slightest desire to see any of his subsequent films to date.
|
lynne
|
|
response 51 of 72:
|
Nov 3 18:12 UTC 2001 |
Hmmm, I thought "serendipity" looked like it had some possibilities.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 52 of 72:
|
Nov 4 07:26 UTC 2001 |
Until I read the reviews.
|
edina
|
|
response 53 of 72:
|
Nov 5 15:17 UTC 2001 |
John has gone on record saying that he makes movies like "American
Sweethearts" so that he can make smaller films like "High Fidelity".
|
brighn
|
|
response 54 of 72:
|
Nov 5 17:22 UTC 2001 |
#50> John Cusack has only had two films released since "High Fidelity." That
sounds like an awful small sample size, given his pre-"HiFi" filmography, to
decide he's sold out.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 55 of 72:
|
Nov 5 23:57 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 56 of 72:
|
Nov 6 00:50 UTC 2001 |
resp:54 - given Cusack's pre-"HiFi" filmography, it's even more
striking that he seems to have "sold out" (as you put it) than it would
be if he'd made films like these latest two before. To me, Cusack is
the "bury himself in the role but do it splendidly" actor
of "Malkovich" and "Cradle Will Rock". By the reviews, "America's
Sweethearts" and "Serendipity" are romantic star turns - a very
different genre even from "HiFi". I didn't use the term "sold out",
which implies a cynicism on the actor's part I did not suspect: rather
I tried to describe him as a victim of the scripts he's offered. Nor
did I "decide" he's done it - I posted a speculation only. If one
can't note a trend without being told that one's jumped to conclusions,
that will certainly put a damper on conversation.
resp:53 - If Cusack is going to use his star power to make more small
films, what of that kind does he have in the works?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 57 of 72:
|
Nov 6 01:34 UTC 2001 |
As far as I'm concerned, Cusack's role in "Better Off Dead" will always
be his shining moment..
|
brighn
|
|
response 58 of 72:
|
Nov 6 17:42 UTC 2001 |
Cusack wasn't a romantic lead in "Say Anything..."? It looked like it from
the bit I saw (only about fifteen minutes, though, I couldn't stand it).
"Serendipity" looks from the teasers like a rehash of his old "Say
Anything..." and "Better Off Dead" persona, with a little of the "HiFi" biz.
For that matter, his "Grosse Pointe Blank" role had plenty of romantic comedy
bits, and that's probably what I'd call my favorite Cusack movie (as opposed
to my favorite movie that Cusack was in, which is probably "Midnight in the
Garden...", which I'd call my favorite Spacey movie ;} ).
A "trend" has not been established by only two movies in a filmography
the size of Cusack's. You're jumping to conclusions.
|
slynne
|
|
response 59 of 72:
|
Nov 6 19:55 UTC 2001 |
You know, I think "Better Off Dead" is my favorite movie with Cusack in
it although I like almost all of the others. That movie is genius!
|
dbratman
|
|
response 60 of 72:
|
Nov 7 00:58 UTC 2001 |
resp:58 - I wasn't judging Cusack's latest films by their teasers, but
by their reviews. Their differentiation from his earlier films - noted
by the reviewers themselves! who know at least as much as you or I do -
is so sharp that two films indeed make a trend. And these are major
roles, not cameos. Stars tend not to make as many films as successful
lesser players (or are you going to tell me I'm jumping to conclusions
by calling Cusack a new star?)
Look, here's an analogy - Russia had dozens of czars before Kerensky
and Lenin. But to suggest in 1918 that their advent marked a trend in
Russian history couldn't be dismissed as "jumping to conclusions"
because they were "only two leaders in a history the length of
Russia's". Admittedly there's a much sharper difference between a czar
and a Menshevik (let alone a Bolshevik) than between any two Cusack
films, but the point is that the relative weight of the two sides
doesn't invalidate the observation of a trend.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 61 of 72:
|
Nov 7 01:57 UTC 2001 |
I know what I'm nominating for "Strangest Analogy of the Week".. :-)
I agree partially with both sides -- I don't think two films necessarily
constitutes a trend, but I also think that after a couple of successful
high-profile films, the types of roles offered to actors start to change.
Were "America's Sweethearts" or "Serendipity" successful, though?
|
brighn
|
|
response 62 of 72:
|
Nov 7 04:00 UTC 2001 |
#60> Cusack has been a "star" for a while. He's been put up against Cage,
Spacey, and Broderick, all stars when the movies in question were made (Con
Air, Midnight in the Garden..., and Road to Welville, respectively). "Lesser
players" don't tend to get billing like that.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 63 of 72:
|
Nov 12 06:35 UTC 2001 |
Major billing in a given film isn't the same thing as being a star, in
the sense I'm discussing it. In the IMDB poster for "Road to
Wellville", Cusack, Broderick, Dana Carvey, Bridget Fonda, and Anthony
Hopkins all get their names in precisely the same size lettering, but
surely you're not going to claim that makes them stars of equal
magnitude?
|
brighn
|
|
response 64 of 72:
|
Nov 12 14:37 UTC 2001 |
At the time the movie was made, they were of comparable levels, with Hopkins
perhaps edging the rest of them out. Carvey was still hot from SNL, Fonda has
pretty much always been at a same just-below-the-radar buzz level, and Cusack
and Broderick were names that had been around for a while, and that people
were aware of (the same, I think, could be said for Hopkins).
Your sense of "star" appears to be "David Bratman thinks X is a star." I don't
believe that many sources, if any, use that specific gauge for determining
who is and who isn't a star.
|