Confused Matthew's Ridiculous Lion King Review
Also, Live-blogs are supposed to be broken up into installments. That's why we have an "add installment" button. Oh, and a link to what you're reviewing (since it's publicly available and all) would be good.
Hey, China called. They want their wall back!
I've never seen any of Confused Matthew's work before, and if such diatribe is common in all of his reviews, I doubt I'll ever want to again. Your points, on the other hand, are logical and understandable, written in a comedic tone that made this liveblog enjoyable to read (despite that one flaw that everyone else has already pointed out). Overall, I think that you did an excellent job with this, and I would certainly enjoy reading more of your work in days to come.
I really liked Matthew's Lion King review. Many of the things he said are things I thought when I was a child myself. (And the Nostalgia Critic's actor thinks The Lion King is overrated and mentions flaws he spotted in it as a child, too. As Roger Ebert noted in his review of Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory, children notice small things/details more than adults do.)
The only thing Matthew actually complimented in his review was the scene with Timon dancing the hula. (He complimented Simba and Mufasa's father/son scene in/of itself, but disliked it for ruining the characterization in the overall film. And he complimented Timon and Pumbaa for being great villains before he realized they were not meant to be ones.)
In a response video, Matthew addresses the response that Simba was just being a little kid, and compares the scene negatively to a similar one in Finding Nemo where Nemo is happy and excited, whereas Simba is consistently annoyed and aggravated even when Mufasa gets up. Matthew has said that he was rebellious as a child, but never "as much of an asshole" as Simba, and his main complaint is that we're supposed to like Simba despite the way he acts. My opinion is Simba was just intended to be a mischievous kid, but it was taken too far.
And the Beast is intended to be a jerk. The whole point is that he becomes a better person over the film as a result of Belle. We were not meant to like the Beast in the beginning. And Aladdin didn't want the treasure just to be rich. He wanted it so he could impress Jasmine so she would marry him because he was in love with Jasmine.
Simba's behavior goes far beyond simply disobeying adults. Look at the way he treats Zazu during the "I Just Can't Wait to be King" number.
No, Matthew doesn't think Simba brought Nala along "to be an asshole". In a response video, Matthew shows what Simba's real reason for bringing Nala along was, in Simba's own words: "I just wanted to be brave like you." And what's the point in being brave if there's no one there to see you being brave? So it was for a selfish reason that he endangered Nala.
Do most children conspire to endanger their friends and directly disobey 4 of their elders? Do most children cause their guardians to be trampled more than once by a stampede of wild animals?
What Matthew didn't understand was how Simba could have the deep respect displayed for his father in the scene and still CONSPIRE to directly disobey him.
"Clearly, Confused Matthew doesn’t seem to understand that a kid can be mischievous without being a total bad seed."
No, that's what the filmmakers failed to understand.
Before "Be Prepared" begins, Banzai asks "What did you want us to do, kill Mufasa?" and Scar replies, "Precisely." Thus we already knew he had a scheme to kill Mufasa before the song.
I've never found Mufasa's death sad, either, but this is a criticism I might have left out, because it has made a lot of people cry and we did get to know Mufasa pretty well when you look over his scenes.
When I was a child I was baffled by how it could have been Simba's fault. I decided that it did make sense for Simba to be convinced he was responsible for Mufasa's death then, but I remember watching the ending when I was 7 or 8 thinking that it was ridiculous for Simba to still believe he caused Mufasa's death after all those years.
I agree that it was a weak criticism to say Simba as a child would have been a bad King. He said later that Simba would be just as bad a King as Scar.
I agree that the pride had no real reason to doubt Scar's word, but they should have at least been suspicious that his body was missing. But Scar could have explained that as it being carried away and eaten by vultures by then, and they did have no reason to doubt him.
I think calling Timon and Pumbaa evil is going too far. When I was 7, while I realized what a bad influence Timon and Pumbaa were, I thought that they were good people because they sincerely believed their philosophy was good. But someone should have talked it out of them or they shouldn't be portrayed as good guys. And they did selfishly use Simba, and when I was 7 I was surprised by Timon approving of Simba going back and didn't think it was in character.
Timon and Pumbaa cried at Simba leaving them for Nala because it meant they would no longer have their lion for protection. As Matthew pointed out it never seemed like they actually cared about him.
Many people say in responses to Matthew Hakuna Matata's purpose in the movie, and they're right, but they ignore the question of why Timon and Pumbaa should be good friends to Simba without being taught that Hakuna Matata is a bad philosophy.
Simba has no personality at all as an adult. I have heard fans of The Lion King on the IM Db
board say the one thing they would change about the movie is to make the adult Simba less of "a Disney prince".
His main criticism is that Simba being a jerk had no relevancy to Simba as an adult and that Simba was completely bland as an adult.
It clearly was intended to show that Simba was still mourning Mufasa's death. But if Simba still remembers his father and mourns him and regrets turning back on the kingdom, why not have Mufasa's ghost show up now? He's full grown. This would seem to be the perfect time. The film would work better without this scene because it would make it seem like Nala, Rafiki, and Mufasa's ghost make Simba remember his past.
Matthew loves Moulin Rouge!, in which the couple fall in love without knowing each other for very long, and has stated this is not unrealistic. And in addressing this apparent hypocrisy in his Moulin Rouge! review, he explains that his main argument is that The Lion King is not a romance, so the romance between Simba and Nala being emphasized strongly was wrong for the film.
Simba was already shown to be mourning Mufasa and thinking about his past. It would only have taken Mufasa's ghost to convince him to go back. Rafiki himself was unnecessary, as was Nala.
Simba didn't become full grown and able to take care of himself the day Nala arrived. As I said before, Mufasa's ghost could have shown up when Simba was thinking about his past on his cliff side and Timon and Pumbaa left. Given the fact that he's thinking about his past regretfully, he probably could have been persuaded by Mufasa's ghost then. And the pride was already on the brink of starvation then.
Matthew said the lions should have been asked questions after Simba turned up alive. They should have asked Scar how he could have made a mistake, how Simba could have survived and asked Simba how he survived. (A good point would have been during the pause when Sarabi goes up to Simba.)
I agree with you about why Scar told Simba he killed Mufasa and Simba. This part was a place I really disagreed with Matthew on. It was for the same reason he grabbed Mufasa by his paws and said "Long live the King" before dropping him. He wanted Mufasa to know it wasn't an accident, so he would die knowing that he was being murdered by his brother. Scar is sadistic and wanted to see the look in Simba's eyes as he died realizing this and that he would die unable to tell anyone.
And you are right about the time skip, but it wouldn't have hurt to see the lionesses driving them out and the hyenas fleeing after Simba's roar and the lionesses driving them out. This would have made it more clear.
And it was completely unnecessary to mention Death Note. That's a major spoiler for people who are watching the show and haven't gotten there yet or have decided to watch the show.
So that, my friends, is why Patworx’s review of Matthew's The Lion King review is a load of bullshit. Almost every point he makes has at least one valid counterargument. He only made one or two good points and those don’t even come close to making the movie good. I hope you enjoyed this liveblog and I would love to make more in the future. Munchable, out!
I remember when people used to think critically instead of just leaving the work to someone else.
I can agree with you in this case, but I did think critically in my realization that Water for Elephants is an utter piece of crap.
There was nothing out of left field about my comment. You criticized how I didn't think critically but let someone else do it and I told you, "I did this time, but I don't always." That seems perfectly on point.
Ok let me just say, there is nothing valid about Confused Matthew's "review". He didn't give the movie solid criticizim, he nitpicked it to death and ranted on how because he didn't like it, that makes it bad. And another thing Confused Matthew and his supporters may not want to believe but we DID like Simba, why? Because we got that he was supposed to be an adventurous kid and really Matthew is being WAY too hard on Simba, he may have disobeyed his father ONCE but that was because he was manipulated by Scar.
Also he's so hard on Simba and yet so leniant towerds Ariel who is FAR more disobedient than Simba.