SUPPORT FILMTRACKS! CLICK HERE FIRST:
Amazon.com
Amazon.co.uk
iTunes (U.S.)
Amazon.ca
Amazon.fr
eBay (U.S.)
Amazon.de
Amazon.es
Half.com
Glisten Effect
Editorial Reviews
Scoreboard Forum
Viewer Ratings
Composers
Awards
   NEWEST MAJOR REVIEWS:
     1. Incredibles 2
    2. Solo: A Star Wars Story
   3. Deadpool 2
  4. Avengers: Infinity War
 5. A Quiet Place
6. Ready Player One
   CURRENT MOST POPULAR REVIEWS:
         1. Star Wars: The Last Jedi
        2. Gladiator
       3. Blade Runner 2049
      4. Batman
     5. Thor: Ragnarok
    6. The Avengers
   7. Spider-Man: Homecoming
  8. Avatar
 9. Dunkirk
10. Phantom Thread
Home Page
Menu Options ▼
Another over-long, pseudo description of the film in the review...

Tomek
<Send E-Mail>
(pb138.glucholazy.sdi.tpnet.pl)


  Responses to this Comment:
Morlock
Christian Clemmensen
Another over-long, pseudo description of the film in the review...   Tuesday, September 7, 2004 (12:26 a.m.) 

Mr. Clemmensen, not for the first time I'm tired of description of the films here, so please save us Your pseudo-reviews concern. merits of the films and stick to the music itself. I was yesterday irritated reading Your "reflections" about "Radio Flyer" and today I see the same it. The sentences like "whose mostly television background has obvious impacts on the film's camera movements" sound really trashy...

I respect Your thoughts about film music, but please stay focused only on this.


Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Morlock
<Send E-Mail>
(1-18-132-169.idt.net)

  In Response to:
Tomek
Yup. Ain't it great?   Tuesday, September 7, 2004 (5:31 a.m.) 

> Mr. Clemmensen, not for the first time I'm tired of description of the
> films here, so please save us Your pseudo-reviews concern. merits of the
> films and stick to the music itself. I was yesterday irritated reading
> Your "reflections" about "Radio Flyer" and today I see
> the same it. The sentences like "whose mostly television
> background has obvious impacts on the film's camera movements" sound
> really trashy...

> I respect Your thoughts about film music, but please stay focused only on
> this.

It's his site. I enjoy his writing in general, why not expand it to film reviews?

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Christian Clemmensen
<Send E-Mail>
(chevrolet.filmtracks.com)
Profile Picture
  In Response to:
Tomek

  Responses to this Comment:
greg
Go back and read my January 2003 announcement about review format...   Tuesday, September 7, 2004 (7:09 a.m.) 

...on the Scoreboard. There are reasons the reviews are the way they are. All the regular readers were given reasons for the current format in advance. If the format puts your ass in a knot, then that's too bad, because this current review format has been the most successful for the widest variety of readers since the site began.

If you don't like the 150 words of background in a 800 word review, then you'd be horrified by the print standard for soundtrack reviews. Have you ever read Scorehound reviews, for instance? Half of their review is background (or film) related. Filmtracks is written for same audience. Not just the die-hard score nuts, but the mainstream moviegoer who owns three soundtracks and is considering buying a fourth.

End of story. My wife refers to people like you as "unappreciative little shits."

Christian

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


greg
<Send E-Mail>
(65-100-83-84.chyn.qwest.net)

  In Response to:
Christian Clemmensen

  Responses to this Comment:
Jonathan Broxton
Re: Go back and read my January 2003 announcement about review format...   Tuesday, September 7, 2004 (9:11 a.m.) 

> ...on the Scoreboard. There are reasons the reviews are the way they are.
> All the regular readers were given reasons for the current format in
> advance. If the format puts your ass in a knot, then that's too bad,
> because this current review format has been the most successful for the
> widest variety of readers since the site began.

> If you don't like the 150 words of background in a 800 word review, then
> you'd be horrified by the print standard for soundtrack reviews. Have you
> ever read Scorehound reviews, for instance? Half of their review is
> background (or film) related. Filmtracks is written for same audience. Not
> just the die-hard score nuts, but the mainstream moviegoer who owns three
> soundtracks and is considering buying a fourth.

> End of story. My wife refers to people like you as "unappreciative
> little #####s."

> Christian

Jon Broxton has even longer movie movie sum-ups. And don't forget the extra length if the movie was based on a book, event, or stirred controversy.

I suppose its tolerable, even if your movie tastes are questionable.....

You STILL haven't told the puking in Burger King

Did you know that "Stella" means ancient Egyptian burial stone?


Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Jonathan Broxton
<Send E-Mail>
(dyn137201.shef.ac.uk)
Profile Picture
  In Response to:
greg

  Responses to this Comment:
Tomek
Re: Go back and read my January 2003 announcement about review format...   Thursday, September 9, 2004 (3:05 a.m.) 

> Jon Broxton has even longer movie movie sum-ups. And don't forget the
> extra length if the movie was based on a book, event, or stirred
> controversy.

Indeed I do. I personally think a FILM music review is absolutely worthless unless it is put into some kind of the context (i.e. you have some idea of the kind of FILM it is supporting) and without a little historical information about the composer, and (if any) the events surrounding the CD release.

My standard review format (based on a 900-word average length) is 75 words introduction, 250 words about the movie, 500 words about the score, 75 words summary/conclusion. This seems completely logical to me.

Tomek's point about "leave the commentary about the movie out of the review" is completely ludicrous to me. That's like writing about an opera without mentioning the libretto, or writing about ballet without mentioning the dancing.

Jon

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Tomek
<Send E-Mail>
(pb138.glucholazy.sdi.tpnet.pl)

  In Response to:
Jonathan Broxton
Re: Go back and read my January 2003 announcement about review format...   Thursday, September 9, 2004 (11:46 p.m.) 

> Indeed I do. I personally think a FILM music review is absolutely
> worthless unless it is put into some kind of the context (i.e. you have
> some idea of the kind of FILM it is supporting) and without a little
> historical information about the composer, and (if any) the events
> surrounding the CD release.

> My standard review format (based on a 900-word average length) is 75 words
> introduction, 250 words about the movie, 500 words about the score, 75
> words summary/conclusion. This seems completely logical to me.

> Tomek's point about "leave the commentary about the movie out of the
> review" is completely ludicrous to me. That's like writing about an
> opera without mentioning the libretto, or writing about ballet without
> mentioning the dancing.

> Jon

Hi Jon,

I'm visiting Your website quite often and probably You missed my point a bit. The difference between Your reviews and Clemmensen ones is that Your thoughts/reflections/info about the film (except the paragraph which describes the film's plot and actors etc.) are based on already watched movie (for example great section "Music as heard in the film"), which is honest! Reading it I can say: "Yes, the guy have seen the movie and this is his opinion - that's OK". The problem I have with Clemmensen's reviews is that he does not seem to watching these films. I'm watching quite lot of movies so this is not hard to assume reading his "descriptions and reflections" that the man has absolutely no idea what he's writing about. It is important to say few words/sentences about film, history of the score release, connection between composer/director/even actors, but Clemmensen clearly has no idea how to tell about it and instead he's writing this artificial "essays" how film is "ridiculous", "laughable" or "box-office failure". It is totally unproffesional.

That's why I enjoyed Your "Passion of the Christ" review (even that the film's background took few paragraphs) and was highly irritated by Mr. Clemmensen's and I'm not alone there seeing how much controversy it evoked...

Tomek


Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display



Copyright © 1998-2018, Filmtracks Publications. All rights reserved.
The reviews and other textual content contained on the filmtracks.com site may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Christian Clemmensen at Filmtracks Publications. Scoreboard created 7/24/98 and last updated 4/25/15.