The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (The Complete Recordings)
at Amazon.com: $50.61
 
This Week's Most Popular Reviews:
   1. Schindler's List
   2. Gladiator
   3. Star Wars: A New Hope
   4. Finding Neverland
   5. Edward Scissorhands
   6. Moulin Rouge
   7. The Hunt for Red October
   8. Legends of the Fall
   9. Batman
   10. Titanic
Newest Major Reviews: Best-Selling Albums:
   1. 2012
   2. A Christmas Carol
   3. Couples Retreat
   4. Astro Boy
   5. The Vampire's Assistant
   1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
   2. Varèse Sarabande 30th Ann.
   3. Schindler's List
   4. Transformers: Revenge/Fallen
   5. Angels in America
 
Section Header
 
 
Post Response
View Responses
Edit Post
Return to Comments
Read Previous Comment
Read Next Comment
Expand Entire Thread

Password: 

 
 
    Promo Scores on eBay:
  Comments about: Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid (Nerida Tyson-Chew)
• Posted by Tomek <Send E-Mail>
• Date: Friday, September 10, 2004, at 12:46 a.m.
• IP Address: pb138.glucholazy.sdi.tpnet.pl
• In Response to: Re: Go back and read my January 2003 announcement about review format... (Jonathan Broxton)

  Re: Go back and read my January 2003 announcement about review format...


> 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




 Comments in this Thread:   ( Expand )


   
  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 Filmtracks Publications. Filmtracks comment areas created 7/31/00, most recently updated 8/11/06. Version 2.0. Copyright © 1998-2009, Christian Clemmensen (Filmtracks Publications). All rights reserved.