It's always interesting to see, how difficult scores cause lay critics a lot of reviewing trouble. Evident is the following sentence:

"That doesn't necessarily mean that Goldsmith's score, despite its effectiveness in the few portions of the film where it was allowed to flourish, is readily enjoyable."

What does "enjoyable" mean in this context? Does the enjoyability of music really rely on its tonal qualities as implied by Mr. Clemmensen? The answer has to be "No!". So this word "enjoyable" is just hiding a more appropriate word like "catchy", meaning that after the first listen, you already got accsess to the music. Well this word would have already blown Mr. Clemmensens's cover, that he couldn't and did not want to listen to this difficult music and maybe find something that you may call hidden structure or grandeur. Within the die-hard-melodic thinking of Mr. Clemmensen atonality seems to be maybe something mysterious and dangerous, but definetely something distracting and let's say - unenjoyable. This is also evident in his once again ludicrous theory, that Goldenthal over-intellectualized his film scores. Not to mention how early over-intellectualization may already begin in Mr. Clemmensens view, this is simply the most imprecise formulation the author could find to give his personal and from an intellectual point indiscussable opinion the semblence of anything at least related to objectivity. It's that simple. Two words and your view of the world, although reliing on ignorance and/or a lack of knowledge, is saved for the next time, when a distracting atonal score lands on filmtracks' personal conveyer belt of phrase-mongering with the goal of degrading it just because it is too intellectual for the author. Or the author too unintelligent for the score. Choose your answer.

Greetings,
Matthias Noe