Match Cut Director Consensus - Neil Jordan

[Sven]

Really, dude? I thought this was mega-forgettable. I mean, it's a watchable enough heist film, but it's no Bob le flambeur.

I have to admit, I have not seen the original. But Jordan's version is as stylish and entertaining as conceivable. And to suggest that Nolte is the same as in Life Lessons or Afterglow is to do yourself a disservice because it implicitly suggests that you are simply not as attuned to the nuances (or maybe pathosese) of Nolte as the likes of myself and others. Granted, he's definitely got a schtick, but the man transcends pigeon-holing, if only for his brute imagination. However I still concede that the roles are distinctly different.

However, I'm very happy you liked Breakfast on Pluto. It's getting moderately trashed here, and it's a-makin' me sad.

[Sycophant]

Oh, man. It's been like "Oh, I totally meant to check out that guy's films at some point" season in these consensus threads for me lately.

[Rowland]

Reverse Shot had a Neil Jordan Symposium a few years back, with lots of reviews of his entire body of work and an exclusive interview:

http://www.reverseshot.com/legacy/index.html

[Rowland]

Reading their piece on The Good Thief made me laugh aloud, as I'd completely forgotten about Ralph Fiennes' role in the picture:

"A movie that tosses in an unbilled Ralph Fiennes as a pretentious, ill-tempered art fence is a movie that’s having fun, especially when he’s ordering the knifing of a fake Picasso and hissing dialogue like “What I do to both of your faces will definitely be cubist. We’ll call it the New Aesthetic…without an anesthetic.”

[Sven]

Reverse Shot had a Neil Jordan Symposium a few years back, with lots of reviews of his entire body of work and an exclusive interview:

http://www.reverseshot.com/legacy/index.html

What's the point of calling it a "symposium" if you're only going to have one negative and moderately poorly written review for In Dreams. Also, even though it's a somewhat bad movie, the review for High Spirits is embarrassing.

[Sven]

Also, even though it doesn't have anything to do with Neil Jordan, Jeff Reichert's year end "get over it" review of Grizzly Man is one of the worst reviews I've ever read. Bah. I'm going to go lay down.

[Raiders]

What's the point of calling it a "symposium" if you're only going to have one negative and moderately poorly written review for In Dreams. Also, even though it's a somewhat bad movie, the review for High Spirits is embarrassing.

It is a symposium in the very definition of the word given the topic is Neil Jordan and the reviewers are submitting their arguments (reviews). There is also more than one negative review and considering you barely dislike any of his films, why would you wish more than a few? Should they make sure to assign people to dislike movies ahead of time?

[Derek]

It is a symposium in the very definition of the word given the topic is Neil Jordan and the reviewers are submitting their arguments (reviews). There is also more than one negative review and considering you barely dislike any of his films, why would you wish more than a few? Should they make sure to assign people to dislike movies ahead of time?

I just enjoy the irony of Sven's consistent ragging on ReverseShot and Slant whenever anything they write is mentioned.

[Sven]

Mainly, I'm thinking that the idea of a Director's Symposium is to feature a variety of positions about each entry. At least attempt to achieve some semblance of totality. Just as I dislike reading the negative In Dreams review, I'd love to see a negative review of The Butcher Boy or Mona Lisa. There's just not a lot of unity here, despite their (nonsensical) opening paragraph to their We're No Angels/Not I piece. Don't mistake me, there's some good writing here, but the examples I chose were certainly not it.

And Derek, I think this is the first time I've ever even commented on ReverseShot.

My lay down was real nice, btw.