[Closed] HANS ZIMMER

Except that the result doesn't seem to sound no where as good as Pearl Harbor.

Indeed.

Pearl Harbour? Apart from a great attack sequence the film is stoopido beyond stoopido, why did nobody spend any money on a decent script and a leading man who can actually act? Zimmer's score is amongst the least of this films problems.

Thor, you'll probably disagree but Pearl Harbour is far from Zimmer's worst score ( IMO it ain't very good but does have it's moments ).

Don't expect to learn anything about Pearl Harbour from watching the film which shares its name. It's not fit to be on the same shelf as Tora! Tora! Tora! - that much is for sure.

Indeed, it's actually one of the most interesting. The love / romantic themes are gorgeous and the battle material is very good too.

Zimmer on auto-pilot is much much better than the majority we get these days. And yes, i DO like this style of Zimmer, he does it very, very good. As for the film, i don't think it's horrible, at all. It's entertaning big cheesy hollywood fun but it never pretended to be anything else...It's not good for sure, but i've seen so much stuff which is even worst, actually being elevated. For instance, the hugely overrated americanized crap that is the supposedly best comedy of the year, HANGOVER.

"Zimmer on auto-pilot is much better than the majority we get these days"

True! But how bleeding sad is that!!!?

Well, I should perhaps add that my experience of the movie - and of how WRONG the music was in that - has tainted my overall experience of it, so that I'm not able to enjoy it fully alone. Which is very, very untypical for me (I usually don't give a rat's ass about the film or how the music worked in the film when I listen to soundtracks).

Ravi, see Tora! Tora! Tora! instead.

And since "tora" translates to "now" in Greek, you can alternatively watch Later! Later! Later! instead.


















Getting my coat...

I saw it, great sequel.

Is it really so much different than Titanic, film-wise, really?

Yes it is. Except very cheesy death of DICaprio's character (why on Earth did Cameron film it THAT way??), Titanic is better than Pearl Harbor on numerous levels:

1. The characters are better and more human with more human and better dialogues. Pearl Harbor's dialogues is a bunch of cliches written all the time, the Irish scenes in Titanic got some meat, not only dialogue-wise, but also character-wise. During the sinking, there were more dramatic scenes with not only main characters, but also secondary characters which we rooted for. Titanic's sinking worked, because we seriously cared for everybody and some of the tragedies happened in the background (which is also shocking as a device)

2. Cameron has better choreography. He goes a bit handheld sometimes, but doesn't overuse it. A lot of it is made with wide long shots.

3. The acting is infintely better. Ben Affleck as an action hero has the charisma of a bench. Josh Hartnett did a decent job, but still. Bay CAN'T work with actors. That's as simple. The Rock is a notable exception.

4. Horner's score works much better, why? Zimmer hated the process of scoring Pearl Harbor (and the movie, but that's another story). He did it in the last time possible, not being able to find a theme and, really, get into the movie. They told him to score a drama, and he saw war anda ction. How did it influence his score in context of Horner and Titanic? One of the reasons why Horner's score works wonders (and why the film works on a general level) is that unlike Zimmer who underscored the attack with basically a melodramatic version of Journey to the Line (filtered through Morricone though, how much I love Attack), Horner gave it drama, pace and tension by giving those scenes action music (Zimmer kicks in with action when the characters go airborne).

It's all part of the film's emotional manipulation, which is of course the cornerstone of its gargantuan success. I'm no lover of Titanic the film but it's in a different league from Pearl Harbour and in terms of scoring, a different epoch.

when i saw Pearl Harbor in the theater, i really thougt, that's Titanic 2.0. the love story is in both movies more than cheesy. but i think the romance in Pearl Harbor is more believable than in Titanic because for me dicaprio and winslet are unconvincing as a couple. i also find the love story in Pear Harbor not so annoying because of the humorous scenes. those scenes decentralise the cheesy romantic aspect. i also find the thematical aspect in Pearl Harbor more interesting than in Titanic. as a film i prefer Pearl Harbor over Titanic.

the music is in both movies really good. what i dislike in Titanic are, like Christodoulides said, the synths and the synth choir. the love themes are in both movies really good, but i prefer the Horner theme. it's one of his best themes. the action muisc is in both movies typical for their composers. typical Horner action music style and typical Zimmer/MV action style. but in Pearl Harbor it's more fun. the action waltz theme, when rafe and danny strike back, is amazing. sadly it's missing on the soundtrack.
i like both soundtracks, but i think that the Titanic composition is superior to the Pearl Harbor score, because the romantic music isn't that cheesy as in Pearl Harbor and the end title song is also better than in Pearl Harbor.