> So Christian...I don't know if you remember me or not...you called me a
> fanboy when I posted a comment on the Gladiator forum and then you blocked
> my I.P. address...well anyway, yes I'm back. I just wanted to clear
> something up...a 4 star rating is great...but the only reason you didn't
> give it a 5 star is because Zimmer uses his synths? Where's the logic in
> that...I mean, ok i'll agree with you if the music was horrible then
> lesser stars are deemed appropriate...but just because he uses synths? You
> even said that this score is elevated above Crimson Tide...but yet Hans
> Zimmer used a bit of synths in Crimson Tide (heaven forbid) and yet that
> received a 5 star...I just don't understand your logic.

> -Zimmer_Fan(returned)
A.K.A. Zimmer's Fanboy!

It's logical. Clemmensen rates some of his score on the "historical" basis. "Crimson Tide" was a completly "new sound" in film music back in 1995. Webmaster was thrilled by the anthemic main theme plus some unique use of the electronics (IMHO they're annoying) so he gave it ***** rating. No matter how good "King Arthur" would be it could only get ****, because webmaster noticed some style similarities to "Crimson Tide". Additionally, notice that these massive electronics are not such fresh and impressive as they have been in 1995. I partly agree with Clemmensen that Zimmer should finally leave these electronics and composing for the full orchestra only - he should evaluate as a composer in this direction, because his electronic-MV style is becoming more and more tiresome these days. Further, take a look his latest "Prizoner of Azkaban" review. Until almost very last line it was ***** score review, but he found some silly explanations at the end how not to give it such rating, simply because the previous 2 scores didn't have ***** rating.

Tomek