You know his words will get you farther than the film will ever go! Give him a moment of your time he'll tell you what's wrong with the show! He knows what's good What's bad What's really bad His face is just a sign! Say hello to Confused Matthew!
What is Confused Matthew so confused about? Why so many people like so many bad films and TV shows, of course!Confused Matthew is a film critic (or, in his own words, a screenplay analyst) whose main reviews consist of pointing out why he doesn't like the story and/or characters in films that were generally well-received by the public. He's also known to dabble in the various Star Trek franchises and for this reason he's often compared (and paired) with SF Debris, and he's borrowed one of SF Debris's catch phrases ("Too good for 'em, I say!") in a couple of reviews.His twin brother, "Stand in Stan" does infrequent reviews of his own. Stan composed the theme song for Confused Matthew, as well as his own theme song.He now has his own website and blip.tv channel.Be forewarned: he typically reviews fan favorites and never looks back.
As of 2012, Matthew does the following review formats:
Confused Matthew reviews: These were originally the only type he did. Usually they consist of negative reviews of films that were well-received, and whose success confused Matthew because he considers them to be bad. Occasionally he may invert this with a positive review of a film he considered to be undeserving of its bad reputation, often a sequel to one of the former type. These reviews are long and detailed, usually three videos long plus a summary epilogue.
Requested reviews: Reviews of films requested by his viewers. These are less in-depth reviews and are usually only one video long. Matthew is often seeing the film in question for the first time and the review represents his first impressions. Some of the requested movies later go on to have longer Confused Matthew or Matthew's Favorite Movies review, depending on how he feels about the work after the requested review.
Matthew's Favorite Movies: An inversion of his usual review type in which he talks about his favourite films, but in similar detail, with typically three videos plus a summary epilogue. These films were usually well received by the general public, but Matthew may like them for different reasons than the usually stated ones.
Miniviews: Similar to requested reviews, except not requested. Matthew gives a short one-video summary of his view on a film. These are often films that are part of a wider trilogy or series whose other entries Matthew has given longer reviews of, such as the Matrix films. As Matthew has stated, these are for movies, good or bad, where he feels he doesn't have enough material to justify a longer review.
Random Rants: As the title suggests, Matthew rants about something that has recently pissed him off, not necessarily film-related but usually media-related in general.
Observe and Report: Matthew talks about weird things he's encountered in his daily life.
General reviews: Matthew, and sometimes his friends, make off-the-cuff podcast-style reviews immediately after watching a new film at the cinema. Sometimes he will follow this up with a more detailed review if his view of a film changes after re-watching it later.
Actor Role Confusion: He will sometimes refer to characters by the name of the actor playing them—this is usually a subtle way of indicating he either regards the character as uninteresting and can't be bothered to learn their name, or thinks the actor is just playing themselves.
All There in the Manual: He really didn't care for the number of things in Iron Man 2 that required knoweldge of the Marvel Universe to understand, especially Nick Fury suddenly coming in halfway through the film and the film acting like we're well aware of who he is, after just one brief scene after the credits in the first film. He ended up declaring that he now refuses to see The Avengers just out of spite over this.
Although he mostly keeps his anger in check (i.e., down to a state of mild irritation at best), definitely do not, if you are a screenwriter, have a character make two contradictory statements in the very exact same scene, or you will be kindly instructed to KEEP THE FUCK TRACK OF WHAT YOUR CHARACTERS ARE SAYING, as happens in his Knowing review.
Big Lipped Alligator Moment:invoked Not in the films he reviews, but he posted a video about one he encountered in Real Life: he and his girlfriend went to see a film, only for a group of people dressed in formal evening wear to arrive and sit all in one row at the front. When a trailer for Bratz: The Movie came on, they all stood up and applauded, before remaining silent for the entirety of the rest of the sitting.
"What the hell kind of Jedi are these? Guardians of peace and justice my ass!" in the Star Wars prequel reviews. A variation on this was in his Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Season 7 review. "What the hell kind of Bajorans are these? Pious religious believers my ass!"
"Oh, now [[something that should've happened much earlier in the story happens]]!"
Caustic Critic: His raison d'être. However, he's been inverting it starting with his review of Moulin Rouge! and his new feature Matthews Favorites.
Cliché Storm:invoked One of this two main beefs with Titanic (see Very Loosely Based On A True Story for the other).
Complete Monster:invoked He believes Syndrome is enough of one that it actually makes it harder for him to enjoy the film.
Couch Gag: The sign shown during the line "his face is just a sign" is different in every episode.
Creator Backlash: He redid his Minority Report review, feeling that the first time around he had spent more time bashing Spielberg and Ebert than the movie itself.
In The Matrix: Reloaded review part 3, Matthew gets distracted by Persephone's cleavage.
Admits that Scarlett Johansson managed to do this in Iron Man 2, though he apologised in a later review that could have chosen a better choice of words than what he used at the time.
Divergent Character Evolution: Stand-In Stan. Stan seems to be taking almost the opposite approach from Matthew's with his own reviews: instead of criticizing movies of which public opinion is positive to neutral, he takes unpopular films and picks out the good parts. He also posts more general videos about religion and politics (especially where the two have been mixed). Though Matthew himself occasionally does this as his real venue is any film where he feels the love or the hate is largely unwarranted. See Pet the Dog.
The Faceless: Until recently, that cartoon face was all the visual reference we got on what Matthew looks like. Then Stan started posting live action videos and told us that despite them being identical twins, they still don't look the same (most notably Stan highlights that he has put on weight.) Finally, Matthew showed his face in a recent video but has taken that back down.
Lampshaded when he confesses he liked Transformers (even though he stated it still wasn't good).
Has put forward the theory that the reason most of the people who bash the Twilight franchise seem to be men, is because Vampires have always been mostly male, and depicted as utter badasses. Hence why, as he puts it, "Men love Vampires". This is the reason why the Twilight vampires, who are more akin to romance-novel love interests than creatures of the night, have gained such utter hatred from male audiences. In fairness, he might be onto something.
Confused Matthew: These people aren't arguing that Twilight is a bad work, they're arguing that "Vampires are our thing and you can't have it"... and that is fucking ridiculous!
Fauxlosophic Narration: Matthew is a philosophy student and put his education to use picking apart the second and third Matrix movies to demonstrate that they fit this trope. Especially Neo's conversations with the Oracle and the Architect.
Follow the Leader: Another Caustic Critic. While some of his reviews do go after soft or non-controversial targets, he gets his name from doing negative reviews of well-liked movies through a scene-by-scene analysis instead of reviewing the work as a whole. His negative reviews of The Lion King and 2001: A Space Odyssey earned him no small amount of hate mail.
Genre Throwback: Discussed Trope in his Kill Bill review. Specifically he contrasts the original Star Wars trilogy as an example of the trope, while saying the prequel trilogy was just making a new bad 1930s science fiction movie serial with modern technology, rather than being inspired by them.
Hate Sink: Easily one of his least favorite Tropes. If a movie he's reviewing has such a character, chances are he'll dock it points for that alone.
Hype Aversion: invokedThis trope is what prevented him from watching Pulp Fiction until 2005. When he finally did watch it, he was quite impressed and it's now one of his all time favorite films.
Idiot Plot:invoked Most, if not all of his negatively reviewed films have these, especially the Star Wars prequels.
Katanas Are Just Better: Discussed Trope in his review of Kill Bill. Matthew says he could suspend his disbelief to allow this in a modern setting, but this is ruined by the protagonist using a gun at the end of the second film (especially when her sword had been talked up so much).
The Messiah: In his review of Terminator 2, believes that this is the reason why John Connor is one of the greatest movie characters of all time. Despite being raised to be a warrior, he repeatedly shows nothing but utter respect for the value of human life. Matthew points out that even as a kid, it's obvious why Connor is going to be the leader of humanity in the future, he's the only genuinely good person in the entire franchise!
In his review of The Dark Knight, he regrets his initial lukewarm reaction to the film, based largely on his distaste for Batman simply walking around and hitting people rather than his clever tactics from Begins. Then he figured "All these great themes and ideas, and I'm complaining about how he beats people up?"
He grew to feel this about his Minority Report review, as he came to see it more as an attack on Steven Spielberg and Roger Ebert than an actual review of the movie. He actually said it was his biggest mistake so far, took it down and uploaded a version of the review that removed all the personal attack on Roger Ebert and (paritcularly) Spielberg.
While reviewing The Last Airbender, he apologized for his overly broad statements about anime in his Spirited Away review, ironically while falling into the trap of thinking the Avatar franchise is anime.
He put out an addendum to his review of The Incredibles, after it became clear that his repeated attacks on the film going too far into Darker and Edgier territory made it sound like he thought the film should be Tastes Like Diabetes instead, when actually he just wanted more of a balance, like in Pixar's other films.
When the 'Matthew is Annoyed' card comes up, especially for "IT. DOESN'T. WORK!"
RESPECT?! MY! ASS!
"What's the joke? THAT'S NOT FUNNY!"
WE! DON'T! NEED! TO! WATCH! THIS!, when something plot-irrelevant or gratuitous is going on for too long. So like, for instance, the whole 2001 review. He does yell a lot there, but realizes it: "I shouldn't yell at my viewers, I shouldn't yell at my viewers..."
Reality Is Unrealistic: Thinking Kirsten Dunst's singing didn't sound like her, he apologized when he found out it really was hers.
All fight scenes are generally described thus: "So they fight. Fight fight. Fight fight fight. Fight fight fight fight fight..."
Simba, Anakin and Lyra are given this speech following their first scenes: "_____, our supposed hero and protagonist... IS AN ASSHOLE! I mean, he/she doesn't listen to anyone, he/she's not very nice, he/she treats everyone around him/her like shit, and he/she only cares about him/herself!" This was subverted, however, in his Simba's Pride review where he uses the same lead up to comment on how a character is not an asshole but instead quite nice.
Sarcasm Mode: In his review of 2010: The Year We Made Contact, he periodically makes comments along the lines of "I can see why this film was shunned, I mean all it has are (list of positive things). But where's the (negative thing from 2001: A Space Odyssey)?!"
Self-Deprecation: In his Kill Bill review he mentioned how being buried alive is a primordial fear to anyone, even if it's very unlikely to happen to him in reality "unless the Lion King fans catch up with me".
"Right, stop that. It's silly. Very, silly indeed. Started out as a nice little idea about a small girl's paper predicting future events and now it's just got silly."
Small Name, Big Ego: Confused Matthew got considerable backlash for attacking Roger Ebert and claiming he was either an idiot or a liar for recommending Minority Report. And for attacking Stanley Kubrick in his review of 2001: A Space Odyssey. He did later apologize for and remove the Minority Report review, believing that he spent more time bashing Ebert than actually reviewing the movie and vowed to do it again properly.
"Matthew's Favorite Movies", a new segment devoted to Gushing About Shows You Like. He was concerned that only talking about what he disliked meant his critical position could not be fully appreciated.
He has also begun new video series "Observe and Report", brief commentaries on strange things outside the world of cinema, and "Mini-reviews", for films which he does not consider bad or confusing but have a few things he wants to discuss. These often consist of the other films in trilogies where Matthew has made a conventional review of the remaining parts, such as The Matrix.
So Okay, It's Average:invoked His opinion of several movies, including 2010: The Year We Made Contact (which he nonetheless considerably prefers to its predecessor) and the Tom Cruise version of The War of the Worlds—in that case he praised the film for trying an original slant on an alien invasion film, following an ordinary family and sharing their lack of knowledge about the scale of the invasion, but added that there was a reason why it hadn't done before—it didn't make for that good a story.
Spotlight-Stealing Squad: A large part of his criticism of Kill Bill was based on the fact that an inordinately large part of the first film's running time was devoted to the backstory of Lucy Liu's character, whom he did not consider to be at all important to the film.
Take That: Matthew's sarcastic comments on the differences between 2001 and 2010 in the latter's review.
They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot: In his review for 2010: The Year We Made Contact, he says it would have been more interesting for HAL to come to grips with what he did in the first film rather than have it conveniently turn out that he had his memories wiped after his confrontation with Dave. invoked
Has made this point repeatedly in some of his more recent reviews. For example, in his review of Moulin Rouge! he pointed out that his problem with the easy romance in The Lion King was not that he dislikes loves at first sight, but that (he feels) it didn't fit in or contribute to the story and he actually likes the trope too much to see it used incorrectly.
Much of his criticism of 2001 was based on its interpretive nature, and he later reviewed Pan's Labyrinth as an example of a film which (in his view) uses an interpretive conclusion very well.
Clearly his single biggest pet peeve. Two of his three loudest angriest reviews have been about this attitude or its variations.invoked
He's not a huge fan of things that would be covered under What Do You Mean, It's Not Didactic? or Everyone Is Jesus in Purgatory.invoked He generally rejects the idea that a movie has any meaning other than what is obviously presented. If the movie has to be heavily analysed to grasp some meaning, then he feels that the meaning is likely just made up.
Very Loosely Based on a True Story: He took issue with the way in which Titanic played fast and loose with the actual events, feeling that a very real human tragedy was overshadowed by a hackneyed love story. He also considered the film's fabrications such as the wholly undeserved Historical Villain Upgrade of William Murdoch and Third Class passengers not being allowed on the lifeboats to be very offensive.
What the Hell, Hero?: Calls Rhodey out on this in Iron Man 2, pointing out that even if he's worried about Tony Stark accidentally harming someone while drunk in the Iron Man suit, intentionally stealing a spare suit and starting a robot fight is most likely end with someone getting either killed or injured.