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. Aladdin (2019)
    2. Pokémon Detective Pikachu
   3. Avengers: Endgame
  4. Shazam!
 5. Dumbo
6. Captain Marvel
   CURRENT MOST POPULAR REVIEWS:
         1. Gladiator
        2. Batman
       3. Nightmare Before Christmas
      4. Titanic
     5. Justice League
    6. Star Wars: The Last Jedi
   7. Harry Potter: Sorcerer's Stone
  8. Maleficent
 9. Star Wars: The Force Awakens
10. Edward Scissorhands
Home Page
Menu Options ▼

Edit | Delete
Re: Go back and read my January 2003 announcement about review format...
• Posted by: Tomek   <Send E-Mail>
• Date: Thursday, September 9, 2004, at 11:46 p.m.
• IP Address: pb138.glucholazy.sdi.tpnet.pl
• In Response to: Re: Go back and read my January 2003 announcem... (Jonathan Broxton)

> 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 >>


Copyright © 1998-2019, 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.