" [...] E aquela música pavorosa de John Williams, que vem demonstrando sinais reais de senilidade já há algum tempo (vide Inteligência Artificial)? [...]"

Translation:
"[...] What about that awful music by John Williams, who is demonstrating real signs of senility since some time now (see ARTIFICIAL INTTELIGENCE)? [...]"

For the full review, CLICK HERE!

Poor John... He was so good!!
Lets hope he get back to his old good shape on EPISODE 2!

I'm not even going to go into the horrendous sound quality every one of his releases has had since 1997.

Tomorrow I'll love the score again. But today, I'm noticing its flaws.

You guys need to get a grip on reality for a change...

AI...ughhh.
Harry Potter was serviceable, but just like with James Horner...I've heard it all before.

Spielberg and William's sappy coating should never have been applied to A.I.

quote:

---

Originally posted by André Lux:

Masterpieces? Wow! If average scores for bellow the average movies such as A.I. and HARRY POTTER are masterpieces, what THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK are??

You guys need to get a grip on reality for a change...

[Message edited by André Lux on 01-17-2002]

---

EXACTLY DRE'!!! I have wondered this for years as every wow-factor score that came along was declared Masterpiece. This distinction seems to be awarded far too easily by film music folk.

Perhaps I know Raiders just too good. It might well be that I *like* Raiders more, but I wouldn't say it's so much *better*.

To each his own.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HAL 2000:
EXACTLY DRE'!!! I have wondered this for years as every wow-factor score that came along was declared Masterpiece. This distinction seems to be awarded far too easily by film music folk.

When you put it into the context you just did it puts it all into perspective.

---

Indeed Hal! I belive Williams is a genious and all, but he just lost his touch over the last years.

And honestly, being part of such lame productions as HARRY POTTER and A.I. won't help him...

But we must understand these self called "die-hard-fans". Most of them people who stoped in time and live from memories of times that will never return. For these gentlemen, everything new with their beloved "masters" tag on it will be called a "MASTERPIECE".

Marian, I am sorry, but when you said that HARRY POTTER is on the same level as RAIDERS you lost your reason, completely... POTTER is not only derivative, but also detract the movie most of the time.

It was confused at best...but we shouldn't mistake confused with profound. Spielberg pretending to be Kubrick was laughable. And the score...well, it was so forgettable that it has nearly ivaporated from my memory banks already (lucky me!)

I find Harry Potter to be enjoyable, but as Andre said "derivative." I've listened to it quite a bit, but I have yet to discover the depth the Marian mentions. Perhaps it's just me...or perhaps I simply won't embrace every score the man puts out.

In a year with Final Fantasy and Lord of the Rings, I'm happy to relegate these scores to "who cares" status.

1) "I grew up with all the thrills mr. Spielberg was able to deliver when he did great fantasy movies. He was like a father to me. Now he is just a pretentious prick, but I MUST continue to worship him!! I MUST!! Even THE LOST WORLD!! Even if A.I.!!"

2) I love HARRY POTTER and STAR WARS since a long time, so I MUST hate LORD OF THE RINGS, because both HP and SW are cloned from LOTR!! I can't stand that!!! I MUST HATE LOTR AND EVERYTHING RELATED TO IT, EVEN HOWARD SHORE OUTSTANDING SCORE!!!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by André Lux:
Marian, I am sorry, but when you said that HARRY POTTER is on the same level as RAIDERS you lost your reason, completely... POTTER is not only derivative, but also detract the movie most of the time.

---

It didn't detract me from the movie. On the contrary, concentrating on the score I found that it added a complete subtext that wasn't in the visuals and dialogue. And I wouldn't call it derivative - just because the man has found his OWN style? Raiders was composed in a different style, which IMHO - while certainly just as great - is much more derivative.

quote:

---

Better luck next time.

---

Thanks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marian Schedenig:
And I wouldn't call it derivative - just because the man has found his OWN style?

---

Hummmm... lets see... I call it derivative because the man used the same music he previously composed for HOOK, HOME ALONE, THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK.

I think we might say that Williams has pulled out a Horner! It was the first time I've heard Williams cloning from himself, note by note. Sorry, but this usually detract movies for me - even more with such an intrusive and bombastic score.

But I can't say I blame him, since the movie was so weak and, guess, derivative...

quote:

---

Originally posted by André Lux:
Hummmm... lets see... I call it derivative because the man used the same music he previously composed for HOOK, HOME ALONE, THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK.

---

Where??

quote:

---

But I can't say I blame him, since the movie was so weak and, guess, derivative...

---

Weak? No. Derivative? Yes. More derivative perhaps than LOTR, probably less derivative than Star Wars.

And the movie is quite weak, thanks to the lame screenplay and to the mediocre director.
Looks like "HARRY POTTER's Highlits", with each scene having no connection to the next. Maybe for those who read the book, things makes more sense. But for those who didn't it's a perfect boring mess. And by this I am no saying that I didn't understand what's going on, since the "plot" is very simple.

As for LOTR being derivative... How is it possible, since all the other you mentioned are "inspired" by Tolkien's work??

You're losing Marian...

quote:

---

Originally posted by André Lux:

[b]Kleber Mendonça Filho, one of the best movie critics of the world, just wrote on his HARRY POTTER's review:

Translation:
"[...] What about that awful music by John Williams, who is demonstrating real signs of senility since some time now (see ARTIFICIAL INTTELIGENCE)? [...]"
[Message edited by André Lux on 01-16-2002][/B]

---

But what about Angela's Ashes, Seven Years in Tibet, Jurassic park, Artificial Intelligence, Hook. Those are all brilliant scores!

This guy whoever he is doesn't know what he's talking about. John Williams as aged like a fine wine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TimT:
But what about Angela's Ashes, Seven Years in Tibet, Jurassic park, Artificial Intelligence, Hook. Those are all brilliant scores!

---

I am not him, but I have a clue about why he is saying that... lets see:

ANGELA1S ASHES: pretentious, melodramatic, boring.

SEVEN YEARS IN TIBET: melodramatic, pretentious, boring.

A.I.: Boring, melodramatic, pretentious.

JURASSIC PARK is nice and HOOK is very good, but these are old scores now. The guy was obviously talking about Williams late 90's output.

I suppose it's ok to present your opinions in fact form, but to then take shots at those who disagree with you; well, perhaps that's the way you all talk in Brazil, but tis not the way people talk here my friend.

I, of course, have never taken your posts seriously; you hate America, and you dislike a lot of good cinema.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TimT:
Well thats just shows how useless some opinions are. :-/

---

Tim, I am glad you are learnig some self-criticism for a change!

Its as simple as this if you don't like Harry Potter, you don't like it. If you don't like John Williams, fine you don't like him. Alot of people like John and the HP score. That is why it is a best selling soundtrack. Is is derivitive, depends on who you ask. I personally find it glorious. It reminds me nothing of Hook(a score I have never cared for), other than John's signature style, something all great composers have. Comparing it to Raiders is like comparing apple and oranges, except both have great action pieces.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoeinAr:
Andre always states his opinions as facts, though we all have a tendicy to do so. But given an opportunity to bash and trash John Williams, Andre is first in line..

---

Say what you want JoeinAr. I will always bash lame scores. No matter if they are by Williams, Goldsmtith or Sonrisal.

I love Goldsmith, but find his THE LAST CASTLE embarrassing.

BTW, I love EPISODE 1. John must be getting senile, yes, but is still able to deliver great music!

Thanks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quill:
...sales is not a sign of greatness.

---

Nor do I claim it to be. It is a simple statment supporting the fact that alot of people like it. Greatness is in the ear of the listener. And besides anything that sells well certainly enhances all soundtracks. Getting people interested in soundtracks is a noble cause even if we don't personally care for the soundtrack bring people in ie: Gladiator.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Criss:

No, Hasta! I don´t talk this way in Brazil.
Believe me!

Tha Catman

---

Of course. Rogério just "live" in a Brasilian favela. But his heart and mind belongs to another country...

Anyway, he never talks. He prefer the easier "back-stabing" technique... Much safer, isn't it? Indeed not the brasilian way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoeinAr:
Nor do I claim it to be. It is a simple statment supporting the fact that alot of people like it.

---

A lot of people like BACK STREET BOYS and CELINE DION too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by André Lux:
Where? Oh, Marian, everywhere... But if you can't hear it I can't do anything.

---

You could give me an example.

quote:

---

And the movie is quite weak, thanks to the lame screenplay and to the mediocre director.

---

What's wrong with the direction of the movie? Regardging the screenplay:

quote:

---

Looks like "HARRY POTTER's Highlits", with each scene having no connection to the next. Maybe for those who read the book, things makes more sense. But for those who didn't it's a perfect boring mess. And by this I am no saying that I didn't understand what's going on, since the "plot" is very simple.

---

The plot is vey much simplified and linearized, since taking it 1:1 from the book would make it too difficult (the hints are spread all over the book, but in the movie you can't make a break and try to figure it out for yourself). I can't and won't judge the movie from the point of view of someone who hasn't read the book. But for those who have, I think the movie, while not perfect, is about as good as it can possibly be - except if it were an hour longer, which I'd welcome of course.

quote:

---

As for LOTR being derivative... How is it possible, since all the other you mentioned are "inspired" by Tolkien's work??

---

Tolkien took tons of ancient tales and nordish mythology and incorporated lots of themes into his own myths, some nearly 1:1 (speak of evil talking black swords for example, taken from a story about which Sibelius wrote a tone poem).

quote:

---

You're losing Marian...

---

Can't see where - except that it's becoming more and more difficult every day to make a serious discussion with you. I don't know what's happening, but at the moment, all you seem to do at the boards is bitching about everything a composer you don't like does. When you say that you're glad you don't have to like everything John Williams does, I can also say that I'm glad I don't have to DISlike everything he does. And I guess you'll start making jokes about me as well now and stop taking me seriously at all, but please remember that I'm one of the few people left who still try to defend you (do you know how many people keep complaining about you and asking Peter to ban you?) and do serious discussions with you. (And no, it's not because you don't like Harry Potter - that's your opinion - but because of the way you state every single one of your arguments as a fact, though most of them are solely about whether you like or dislike a composer).