Your reviews for Zimmer's work are consistently negative and it is obvious you have serious issues with his scoring methods. The man, in your eyes, can do nothing right. You even make point in several reviews that on the rare occasion when there is something within a Zimmer album that you like, that it wasn't Zimmer's work (e.g. Lisa Gerrard for Gladiator/MI2).

You are of course entitled to your opinion on the man, but why not just call it a day with his albums and stop reviewing them. The reviews all end up the same way, it starts a war in the forums, insults are thrown back and forth. It never ends.

As a huge Zimmer fan I think for the sake of this site, please stop reviewing his albums. It just makes you seem bitter every time. Like I've said before in these forums, you never review a score based on it's effectiveness within a film, you simply rate it on how good you thought it was on repeat in your CD player. This would be perfect for reviewing a chart album but when it's to do with film, Zimmer's gift is writing (on 95% of occassions) a perfect score for the particular film it accompanies. The Dark Knight was a prime example a near-perfect film/film score matching which got a near-scathing review. It matched the tone of the film perfectly and that is exactly what Zimmer's job is - a FILM score composer.

Your site is called Filmtracks. You just seem to forget that during your reviews. Your knowledge of music is certainly extensive but your reviews would be better suited to a classical music website. I would not have an issue if your site called "Classic Tracks" or some equally unimaginative title and was dedicated to classic music in general (not just film) and then based on standalone quality was given a rating. But your site is specific to film and so in my humble opinion more balance needs to be given to the fact the music was written to accompany a film and not just to be popped into a CD player.

Tony.

> As a huge Zimmer fan I think for the sake of this site, please stop
> reviewing his albums. It just makes you seem bitter every time.

All four-stars or above:

http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/crimson_tide.html
http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/lion_king.html
http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/beyond_rangoon.html
http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/prince_egypt.html
http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/hannibal.html
http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/backdraft.html
http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/king_arthur.html
http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/house_spirits.html
http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/last_samurai.html
http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/spanglish.html
http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/as_good.html
http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/lauras_stern.html
http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/invincible.html
http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/radio_flyer.html
http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/peacemaker.html

Now shut the f*ck up!

First of all, calm down. You'll have a stroke.

Secondly, perhaps I generalised a bit but my issue still remains the same. From the extensive list below, only five of the soundtracks have been released in the last ten years and we all know Zimmer pumps out more than his fair share every year.

CK has obviously liked some older scores by Zimmer as demonstrated by your list, but steadily over the years the reviews have gotten progressivly worse (even though I would argue Zimmer's work has gotten better) and the other point of my post was that CK no longer cares on the effectivness of a score within a film. I kind of thought the main point of writing a film score was to enhance the film and surely this should be the focus of reviews on a site dedicated to Film Soundtracks.

Now I'd tell you to [bleep!] off too, but that would be rude.

> All four-stars or above:

> http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/crimson_tide.html
> http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/lion_king.html
> http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/beyond_rangoon.html
> http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/prince_egypt.html
> http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/hannibal.html
> http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/backdraft.html
> http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/king_arthur.html
> http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/house_spirits.html
> http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/last_samurai.html
> http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/spanglish.html
> http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/as_good.html
> http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/lauras_stern.html
> http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/invincible.html
> http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/radio_flyer.html
> http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/peacemaker.html Now shut the f*ck up!

> First of all, calm down. You'll have a stroke.

> Secondly, perhaps I generalised a bit but my issue still remains the same.
> From the extensive list below, only five of the soundtracks have been
> released in the last ten years and we all know Zimmer pumps out more than
> his fair share every year.

> CK has obviously liked some older scores by Zimmer as demonstrated by your
> list, but steadily over the years the reviews have gotten progressivly
> worse (even though I would argue Zimmer's work has gotten better) and the
> other point of my post was that CK no longer cares on the effectivness of
> a score within a film. I kind of thought the main point of writing a film
> score was to enhance the film and surely this should be the focus of
> reviews on a site dedicated to Film Soundtracks.

> Now I'd tell you to [bleep!] off too, but that would be rude.

Who is CK? He's called Clemensen, not Kühn

If his reviews are becoming similar, ever thought about the possibility that Zimmer has settled into an unimaginative routine as well? And he has!
Clemensen cares very much about the effectiveness in the film, that's why it's SO painful to hear always the same routine in vastly different movies.

The more fame Zimmer gathered, the lazier he has become.
When you listen to film scores or/and watch movies on a regular basis, how can you accept this immovable, ever- returning style as effective anymore?

It has reached a point where it actively hurts films.

Darn you! You win on the name! For some reason I always thought his surname began with a "K". Anyway, CK sounds cooler. CC is rather feminine :-)

May be it's because I know nothing about the technical aspects of music (I really don't) but I do know a thing or two about the art of filmmaking. I just find Zimmer's work diverse, interesting and more importantly exciting.

I mean, taking just a few of his scores of recent scores, none of them sound anything like the others. My examples in this case would be Pirates: At World's End (awesome), Simpsons Movie (nice but admittedly functional), Da Vinci Code (hauntingly beautiful), Dark Knight (creepy as [bleep!]) and even Kung Fu Panda (loads a fun) - I really believe you can't get scores so different sounding from one another.

I guess we need to agree to disagree because we seem to be hearing two different things every time.

At least you didn't tell me to [bleep!] off. You're much politer than the other guy.

> Who is CK? He's called Clemensen, not Kühn

> If his reviews are becoming similar, ever thought about the possibility
> that Zimmer has settled into an unimaginative routine as well? And he has!
> Clemensen cares very much about the effectiveness in the film, that's why
> it's SO painful to hear always the same routine in vastly different
> movies.

> The more fame Zimmer gathered, the lazier he has become.
> When you listen to film scores or/and watch movies on a regular basis, how
> can you accept this immovable, ever- returning style as effective anymore?

> It has reached a point where it actively hurts films.

(Message edited on Sunday, September 28, 2008, at 6:18 p.m.)

> I guess we need to agree to disagree because we seem to be hearing two
> different things every time.

When you are so quick in "agreeing to disagree", in other words this means we should stop the discussion, then why are you posting that comment on a discussion board in the first place?

Ok then, I don't agree with you. At all. However I've said pretty much all I wanted to but if you wish to continue then please, carry on. I'm all ears, well, eyes.

> When you are so quick in "agreeing to disagree", in other words
> this means we should stop the discussion, then why are you posting that
> comment on a discussion board in the first place?

> When you are so quick in "agreeing to disagree", in other words
> this means we should stop the discussion, then why are you posting that
> comment on a discussion board in the first place?

To get his voice heard? What's the use in debating with you anyway?