TheUlyssesian

I admire the fact that the film had literally 6-7 subplots going on, so that in any given scene, there were literally 2-3 things happening. Blockbuster filmmaking of the day rarely takes such care instead barreling the viewer with a single minded story or relentless cross cutting. This did not just introduce a large cast of characters but gave everyone atleast something to do. I am very easily bored by blockbuster films because they demand so little from you. So I liked the fact that this film had so much going on. And as for the end of this series, I daresay the old adage that the journey is more interesting than the destination might be the operative motive here. Yes we know how things will pan out but even with that, if Rowling can make us care, that would be something. I think Tina and Jacob atleast are pretty good characters and I'm interested to see where they go next. I must give credit to Rowling that she didn't half ass this film. You can see the clearly see the effort that went into it. She adds a lot of color and detail and maybe ends up giving you a bit too much instead of too little but that's a plus. The story on its own works despite this one not having any deep connection to the harry Potter series.

I think it served multiple purposes plot wise. It set up muggle characters who could be killed to raise the stakes for the wizards. So when the senator's son got killed, it was an Oh Shit moment for the magical Congress. It also gave a reason to jail Tina and newt and made the environment even more hostile for the wizards, so that they had to pull the elaborate stunt of erasing the memory of the entire city. I daresay the film turned out way better than it had any business being. I thought it would be a rubbish cash grab like her horrible stage play but this actually turned out to be a very solid story by Rowling with some very good characters.

I quite liked the movie though I admit the beasts were not my favorite part. The beasts were actually the macguffin. They were the subplot rather than the main narrative.

Review of the album http://www.movie-wave.net/spider-man-homecoming/ Reads like a rave to me despite the 4 star rating. This reviewer LOVES the main theme.

Tomorrowland was a complete triumph for Gia, a magnificent score. One of his absolute best.

I agree. I don't trust modern film critics on scores at all. The majority of these people thrashed Williams in their reviews for War Horse. It was over-scored I agree but still a great score. Also film reviews praised Gia to the high heavens for Doctor Strange in the film reviews and I thought it was a decent score but nothing special. So yeah, taking these reviews with a grain of salt.

Ron Howard will Make Star Wars Great Again!

After Howard is fired, Kennedy might hire James Comey. Afterall he has been a director before and is currently available.

Also Kennedy tried to broker a power sharing agreement with Lord and Miller and writer Kasdan. She had successfully pulled off this coup on Rogue one allowing writer Tony Gilroy to ghost direct with Gareth Edwards without falling afoul of DGA rules. Edwards and Gilroy retained their director and writer credits and it worked out for everyone. But apparently Lord and Miller didn't want to share power with Kasdan so Kennedy fired them. I trust her judgement to be honest. She has made some very great films. And she does not needlessly interfere. Johnson had Abrahms had complete authority on their films.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-wars-han-solo-movie-firing-new-details-behind-phil-lord-chris-miller-exit-1016619 New reports. The editor was fired too. Acting coach hired for lead Alden E after Kennedy and Kasdan were unsatisfied with his performance. Shooting initially was going to end in July but still now end two months later in September.

True! As already stated the theory cannot be blanket applied to the entire medium but it is a potent lens through which you can explore the work of some film-makers including many working in Europe today. Think about it, it is not that much different from books written by any artist in a way. It just seeks to see the artist as the author of his works and identify his signature and worldview.

I don't think it's a narcissistic position. It is attributing credit where it is due. We attribute some of the most monumental achievements of human thought and artistry to single persons, why not cinematic works too? War and Peace was written by one man, so was Ulysses. Sistine Chapel ceiling is attributed to one man too. So why not films?

The auteur theory was always a bit nebulously applied to American cinema because America cinema simply does not operate on the same terms. But it is very easily applied to the work of many European directors and beyond, film systems which allow much greater control to the film-maker. Only in Hollywood is making films by committee primarily a thing. Take the films of von Trier and Haneke, they are so absolutely a projection of the worldview of their directors, so utterly singular to them that they are more or less literally the product of one mind. No one else can make a von Trier and Haneke movie and therefore the theory can be successfully applied to that. Film is a collaborative medium but the director has control over every single element. I definitely know this is true of Haneke because I have read and seen vast amounts of interviews with himself and his cast and crew and you just realize how much control he has. In a scene in Amour when Isabelle Huppert drinks tea, Haneke even directed when she drinks the tea, how big of a gulp she takes and how much tea she drinks. Everything you see in any frame of any Haneke film is absolutely and completely decided by him, including the hankerchief in an extra's pocket. Of course a director has helper but the auteur theory absolutely bares out. Take von Trier. His films are absolutely bizarre in a lot of ways but take a film like Melancholia. It is the product of his mind entirely. No other director could have conceived it or made it or executed it as he did. Paul Bettany, an actor who mainly works in Hollywood films said he HATED working with von Trier in his masterpiece Dogville because he said it is NOT a collaboration. He said it is entirely von Trier's gig and he said you realize you are just a prop for the director. He tried to take some ideas to von Trier about his character and von Trier simply shut him down and told him to do as he was instructed. In American cinema, directors don't have as much control and stars are more powerful. Producers are more powerful too. But some auteurs do flourish. Take Wes Anderson or even Woody, two absolutely singular directors who make films that are unmistakably theres and could not be made by anyone else.

I agree with this. When I think of a Zimmer score, I see it as a production, something produced. There is that whiff of anonymity with comes with all mass produced things. When I think of a Williams score, I see it is as the work of an artist, something written by an individual. It is his and entirely his. I might be speaking just for myself here, but the allure of even consuming art is that someone put thought into it. THAT is the attractive part which renders art created by others worth studying and taking pleasure in. Something thoughtful is something that will appeal to me atleast, where even though I am not blown off by the quality, I can appreciate the work and thought that went into it. It lends the crucial connection element and the human element to art, specially in terms of music. A work of art is just a paean to the skill and thought process of the artist. We as much revel in the expression of the artist as the work itself. (Think of this as the equivalent of the auteur theory from film criticism applied to music.) With Zimmer I get none of the above. Sometimes his work might be categorized as "innovative" but his work is innovative just for the sake of being innovative. It is entirely thoughtless betraying a barren imagination that is dressing up the absence of any discernible skill with so many bells and whistles.

4. Overcoming Sadness (0:51) has I believe what is the Sadness motif in a comical setting beginning at 0:10 D - C D b - F# E - D E C I think one of the film's most important concluding scenes, as Sadness starts gaining more importance is actually scored with a deconstructed version of Sadness's theme, using just the last note from every phrase. 23. Joy Turns to Sadness/A Growing Personality (7:49) starting from 1:48 D - b - E - C Had anyone else noticed that before? @Jay's theme breakdown did not mention this one. So just thought I would point out something I noticed which I think is pretty nifty. I should also point out that the Sadness theme deconstruction in the context of the movie is absolutely devastating as it scores one of the lowest points in the story. This is a SMALL but extremely effective score by Gia.

Or genius.

His Batman "theme" had 2 notes and Joker "theme" had 1 note (and I am using the term "theme" rather broadly here). His Han theme will go one step further and have no notes at all, or maybe even negative number of notes!

It is an absolutely outstanding theme and one Williams' best but it's a heavily romantic theme. It can represent Han's relationship with Leia but it can't represent him alone and his exploits. It's much too romantic for that. Han's theme would be for lack of a better word a manlier theme. Representing Han with the Love theme would be like representing Indy with Marion's Theme.

Both Nolan and Hans are insufferable when they talk about their work. Both are borderline hacks to me frankly, their work is extremely mediocre and doesn't remotely match in quality the garbage they spew during promo. But that's most of Hollywood for you. And this ridiculous posturing is very popular with both of their fan bases. So I guess they are just playing to their base which is fine by me.

Did some say song???

Don't call me Shirley ever again. Haneke would make a killer Star Wars film!

I actually do NOT want Williams for this. Because we will all start second guessing ourselves. Han Solo is one the main character's in Star Wars who Williams chose not to grace with an identity. There is a motif/theme for Luke, Leia, Ben, Vader, Emperor, Rey, Ren, Anakin, Poe, Finn - basically all the main characters have identities except Han Solo. Now we have three classic scores, 4 actually from movies which feature Solo. It would start all kinds of speculation as to which scene in the old trilogy and TFA might Williams have scored with Han Solo's theme etc. and on and on and it might cast those scores in a strange light knowing that in this universe there is a John Williams Han Solo theme but not in those films. I think this Han Solo thing should remain a stand along thing with a stand alone score by some other composer.

Star Wars shouldn't be a Marvel film - that much I will agree - basically a jokey snippy character film with action and jokes galore. Star Wars has always been a more dramatic franchise. So it frankly would have been jarring to see a Star Wars comedy film.

http://www.movie-wave.net/the-liberator/ https://moviemusicuk.us/2014/08/19/the-liberator-gustavo-dudamel/ Top 10 of the year in Filmtracks for 2014 though Clemmy does not have a review up. And many other good notices. He being a famous conductor there were also many profiles written at the time of release and in general it was supposed to a be successful debut as a film composer for him.

How about Rahman? Also how about Gustavo Dudamel? His epic score debut for The Liberator was highly praised and didn't he conduct the main title for TFA?