response 46 of 72:

Nov 2 14:58 UTC 2001

Well - Joan Cusack makes any movie wondrous.

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.

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.

response 52 of 72:

Nov 4 07:26 UTC 2001

Until I read the reviews.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

response 66 of 72:

Nov 13 19:47 UTC 2001

I didn't say Cusack wasn't a star. Now you're putting words in my mouth. I
said that Cusack wasn't a NEW star. When Midnight... came out, he got equal
billing with Spacey, a major new star at the time. Grosse Pointe Blank was
a star turn for Cusack, although the clear star of Aykroyd (with, granted,
a much smaller role, almost a cameo) and the nearly-as-famous Alan Arkin both
received lesser billing (the IMDb poster shows Cusack and Driver, and lists
the four of them). Wellville *was* an ensemble, and superstars can be in
ensembles, too (recent examples include Heist [are you suggesting that Hackman
and Devito aren't stars?] and Swordfish [are you suggesting that Travolta
isn't a star?], as well as Snatch [where superstar Brad Pitt is tucked in
amongst the British actors, being less well known over there]). For that
matter, Cusack received higher billing than David Ogden Steirs (M*A*S*H) and
Kim Darby (True Grit) for "Better Off Dead," even though Darby's role was
certainly large enough to give her higher billing. 86's "One Crazy Summer"
gave him higher billing than Demi Moore and Bob Goldthwait, while 88's
"Tapeheads" saw him sharing billing with Tim Robbins. I've already answered
the claim that only America's Sweethearts and Serendipity are sappy... I
couldn't even get THROUGH "High Fidelity" because of his
Allenesque-cum-romantic lead performance.

Cusack has gotten lead billing for most of his career. Most of his movies have
been commercial successes. NOW you're claiming he's been a character actor
until just last year? Methinks you haven't been paying a bit of attention...
just because YOU just noticed Cusack a few years ago, the rest of the world
noticed him back in 1985 ("It's a damn shame, throwing out a perfectly good
white boy.")

response 68 of 72:

Nov 14 19:17 UTC 2001

Now, Curtis Armstrong, THERE's a character actor. Although he usually plays
the same sort of character (Booger in the "Nerds" movies, the "What the fuck"
kid in Risky Business, and something in Moonlighting, but I never watched that
show). Curtis Armstrong and Marshall Crenshaw (singer, "Buddy Holly" in La
Bamba) are the two most famous graduates that I know of of Berkley (MI) High
School, my alma mater. I even heard Armstrong mention my Middle School drama
teacher, Mr. Young, in a national interview once. Go Bears. =}

(I've also heard rumors that Vincent Furnier, aka Alice Cooper, also attended,
but didn't graduate from, the Berkley schools, but I don't think it's true.)

(And yes, in case anyone was wondering, I *did* get asked a half dozen times
if I was Marshall's younger brother. =P It's KERshaw, people, not CRENshaw.)