Ok, here's one- True Lies is a bit shit. It is racist, misogynistic rubbish with some admittedly good action but thoroughly unlikeable characters and a middle hour that is so boring, it borders on ridiculous. The first act and the finale are perfectly fine but holy shit that whole 'my wife is cheating on me, let's put her through Hell' storyline is atrocious.

Hey, I've got a new one: Terrence Malick is awful.

"Hey, look at me! I'm filming people walking around in nature and mumbling banal philosophical platitudes! My films don't mean anything, but they sure seem like they do!"

I've been meaning to see Badlands, which I've heard is his crowning achievement, but based on The Tree of Life and The Thin Red Line, I just can't stand this guy. Everything he does just seems like the easiest form of intellectual engagement. "Here's a scene of Jessica Chastain chasing a butterfly, while she whispers about the importance of grace or something in voiceover! What does any of this mean? Who cares! It'll trick you into feeling really smart for watching." Ughhhh.

Last edited by Doctor Submarine (2013-11-03 04:30:12)

I'll probably rewatch it now.

Also, love the Cameron-Bay comparison

TREE OF LIFE was so close to working for me for a little while there. I watched it as part of the Best Picture showcase and I knew a lot of people had hated it, but about an hour and a half in I found myself thinking I was going to have to be the contrarian and carry its torch.

Then it kept going... and kept going... and marched steadily further and further up its own ass. It had me, it really did, and then it lost me.

YES. This is exactly what made me think I might just love the movie, then it went the opposite way and so did my feelings on it.

That would be closer to the Herzog version of the story. Now there's a filmmaker who takes many of the same ideas as Malick and explores them in complex and interesting ways.

I have two strong opinions on Malick. 1) TTOL's birth of the universe sequence was more fulfilling than 99% of everything I've ever seen, 2) Badlands ftw.

Other than that, le yawn.

That's true. You really could fan-edit TTOL into the movie some of us thought it was shaping up to be. All the raw materials are there. The scant dialogue makes it easier.

I wasn't totally on board with TM's last movie, To the Wonder, but it's apparent message didn't bug me as much. It's much more of a "Life's crazy and perplexing. Yet, you know, somehow there is fleeting beauty/bliss/love [or whatever]" kind of theme. (The movie also proves that a Carhartt jacket can be sexy if Rachel MacAdams is wearing it.)

Ya, when I say cut it down, I don't mean changing the whole idea and meaning. Malick is a very spiritual guy, and I don't mind the "we'll all be reunited one day" stuff. It doesn't push any specific theology at all, nor does some form of afterlife imply a god-figure pulling the strings. The best thing about the movie is the way it suggests that either a creator doesn't exist, or if he does, he doesn't give a fuck about you as he's kinda busy creating and shaping the universe and all of space-time.

I would keep the intent and meaning the same, just trim out 20-30 minutes throughout.

Sidenote - I hope his IMAX documentary assembled from all this footage happens at some point, cause it's probably the best-looking representation of the creation of the universe and life on earth that's ever been put together

That's interesting. Like you, I didn't think it was flogging a specific theology, per se. But there were  some Christian commentators (Andrew Sullivan is one) who took TTOL as an explicitly Christian tract. I didn't get that exactly, but they make a good case.

*cracks knuckles*

Ok. I hate to hijack this thread with the first reply to it, but this is one of those oft-repeating topics that I feel the need to clear up.

My credibility: If you don't already know, I'm a composer living in LA. I have lots of friends that work at Remote Control (Hans' production company), and I've talked to all of them at great lengths about the nature of Zimmer's work and business. Long story short, there are a lot of things said about him that are correct, and many that are dead wrong. I spend a lot of time analyzing and dissecting scores--his included.

I should also note that I will only be addressing what TechNoir has addressed, and not some of the other claims one commonly hears about him (such as "he doesn't actually write his music.")

Lastly, this is not about if you subjectively like his music. Arguing that is pointless. What TechNoir is basically trying to defend in his argument is that Hans Zimmer's music is devoid of artistic intent, and I believe that he couldn't be more wrong.

So.

This is one of those sentiments that you hear a lot. And for good reason. He is absolutely repetitive, and he definitely aurally assaults you (in some--not all--of his scores. And honestly, I think he'd be happy to hear that you think so!)

But his music is absolutely not lacking intelligence or subtlety. Quite the contrary.

What most people don't realize about HZ is that he is a minimalist. His goal is to reduce his themes and sonic palette to the simplest form possible. Why? He believes that this is more dramatically effective, and also helps create a sonic palette that is instantly recognizable. One could compare the music of Hans Zimmer to the aesthetic of the Matrix, in the sense that the Matrix excluded and limited its self to a small set of aesthetic ideals. When you see an overly green color palette, you instantly think Matrix. Same with trench coats and sunglasses.

Did a sonic palette remotely resembling Inception even exist before that movie?

[Side note: Most people will read that rhetorical question and go, "But it's just one long BRWAH!" Disregarding the fact that that's just wrong, and proves nothing except that they've never actually paid attention to the score, the BRWAH that is so commonly associated with it isn't even present in the score itself. Nor was it written by Hans Zimmer. It's a track called Mind Heist, written by Zach Hemsey and used exclusively in the Inception trailers. If you hate the BRWAH, blame Hemsey, not Zimmer.]

If you want to hear all this from his own words, go to the vi-control.net forum and look up posts by the username rctec. That's Hans. He posts there quite frequently.

All this shows is a fundamental lack of understanding in regard to the point of film music. By that I mean no offense, but it's hard to take anything else away.

The point isn't that we write interesting or complex or cool music. The points isn't even that we write music that's nice to listen to apart from the movie. If we do, that's an added bonus, but it's by no means essential.

The point is that we write music that supports the drama.

Again, Hans is a minimalist. And beyond that, he is a fantastic dramatist. Why do you think he's hired so much? Sure, his name is great and it draws a bit of prestige to the film, but even though I suppose one could consider him to be a household name…how many households really know Hans Zimmer? Not many.

He gets hired because he supports the drama better than just about anyone. How he specifically pursues that--what particular aesthetic he adopts for his music--is besides the point when he supports the drama as well as he does. I believe that I used this example in the mega 4-hour-long "The World of Film Scores" episode, but it's worth repeating again:

Hans is a great dramatist in the sense that he approaches his scores with a heavily chiseled concept. Case in point: Batman Begins. The 2-note melody is a tiny little nugget that is, a) instantly recognizable as Bruce Wayne/Batman's theme, b) represents the duality of his existence, c) "feels like a perpetually unanswered question," as Zimmer put it in an interview, and d) [this is the most important one] is able to be developed like crazy. Seriously. That 2-note melody is everywhere.

Notice that up until Bruce self-actualizes as Batman, the 2-note melody never resolves (for the musical folk here: in the key of D minor, the two notes would be D and F all over a static D minor chord). The first 20 seconds or so of this video show what I'm talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a3L242qYWo

But when he finally masters his fears, the bass resolves--the melody itself self actualizes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL_DDvgE0nU

(For the second note, F, the D minor chord resolves down to a Bb major).

But in The Dark Knight, the Joker turns his "little plan on its head." And with that…so too turns the melody onto its head (The Bb major chord turns to a 1st inversion Bb minor…fun fact, that same progression of Im to VIm is the same as the Imperial March). I'm having trouble finding a scene on YouTube--most of the scenes up are of Joker scenes that use the sliding cello note (another absolutely brilliant idea, btw)--but it's all over the movie.

This whole time you might be thinking that "It's just two notes!" Thing is, it didn't start that way. As I said, he comes to these concepts by whittling away at much more complex ones (apparently, it took him forever to whittle his Man of Steel theme to something he was satisfied with--coming from the John Williams approach made him start with an idea that was a bit overly complex). He isn't the first to do this. There is a very long line of minimalist composers--John Cage, Philip Glass, Steve Reich. They're all coming at music from a direction of "less is more." Often, the path of getting to "less" means starting at "more" and really working your way down. Many find that more meaningful and more beautiful than, say, a bombastic John Williams space battle. Steve Vai shredding vs BB King making one note sing sort of thing.

Which brings me to my next point:

I completely, completely agree. As much as I respect HZ's conceptualization and intent, it has definitely affected the industry in a pretty bad way. One reason is that most people hear the ostinato or the two-note melody and think, "Oh, that's simple! I'll just do that!" Instead of arriving at something minimal through the inherently artistic process of mindful simplification, they begin with something simple and arrive at something watered-down. And because it's simple--and yes, easy to grasp, which is not a bad thing in and of itself--it's copied and re-copied until all we hear are the aural equivalents of a dead horse.

Not that that hasn't happened before. The 90s had awful re-hashes of John Williams and Thomas Newman everywhere. I think it's safe to say that film scoring is no exception to the "90% of everything is crap" rule.

And not that this is the other composers' faults (that is, that they have to copy it--it shouldn't be a terrible, watered-down version of it. That's inexcusable). A director wants Hans Zimmer but can't afford Hans Zimmer. What am I gonna do--not eat? He wants Hans Zimmer and Joe Composer has to deliver so that he can survive. Such is the way of this business.

Now, I should note that Hans Zimmer isn't nearly my favorite composer. It sounds like you generally favor the more "involved" scores--the older John Williams sound. So do I. But I respect the shit out of Zimmer, because he single-handedly ushered in a new sound, and did it by thinking hard about it. You may not like the music, but you can't say that it's devoid of intelligence or subtlety.

Ok I'm done now.

I am a fan of film scores, I listen to them on their own but, while I don't think Zimmer is shite, I tend not to listen to his stuff much. He has done good scores in the past but a lot of his recent work just isn't really for me. Although,a  lot of modern film scores are a bit shite, sadly, I still give them a chance. Some are good but for re-listens, I often to back to older scores.