Confused Matthew

I'm sorry, I'll take my meds.

It's just that people are one day going to realize that they don't know what is "good" anymore. Either that, or they buy into the opinions of all the critics who have sold out thanks to the invisible hands of the lulzkilling anti-lulz Furluminatti shadow cabal!

Chickenzhit, I'm finding it increasingly hard to distinguish between hyperbole and your sincere opinion. Could you please clarify what you said about Matthew's girlfriend?

edited 15th May '11 1:27:45 PM by silver2195

Okay, I took my meds. Here's my point about Beth in short, readible sentences:

1. Baffled Beth has come into Confused Matthew's life, and he claims he feels he's on cloud nine. Matthew is giddy. He gives Scott Pilgrim a positive review. "I think I liked it."

2. My theory: Baffled Beth is there to sabotage Confused Matthew and his Internet Super Critic abilities, by giving him drugs, being "touchy feely" with him and making him feel warm & cozy, decreasing the cynicism that fuels his rational judgement that allows him to see a movie for what it is.

3. Even deeper: Baffled Beth is pawn in a huge anti-troll conspiracy to undermine and kill lulz.

edited 15th May '11 1:58:45 PM by Chickenzhit

Oooooookay, even though I'm convinced you're some kind of troll...

Didn't he give positive reviews to Independence Day and Transformers 2?

edited 15th May '11 2:10:45 PM by Pannic

@hypocrisy: To be fair, upon rereading your post there, you did say "some". Oh, how vexing.

Point is, you still called out people on being biased while clearly being biased yourself. It's bias all the way down the rabbit hole.

Independence Day, yes; Transformers 2, no. He said he didn't like the first one, either.

Actually, he reviewed TF in his usual style, while TF 2 was more of a discussion between him and someone else.

edited 15th May '11 2:13:59 PM by Videogamer07

Oh, he liked the first Bayformers movie, he just reviewed it as bad movie, because it had the makings of a bad movie. (Which if you have been following my posts, those "makings" are poor plot, poor characters, poor world building, overall badwriting covered with audience pandering fluff in the form of explosions, robots, and Megan Fox boobies. Masturbatory fluff all over your face, and you lap it up.)

So like me, he liked this bad movie, but he admitted to falling for the fluff. Does that make it good? "No," he says. And it must be given the criticism it deserved, and he gave it.

You see, you are a dealing with a rare kind of critic. One that isn't bought and sold by advertisers. One who is intelligent, and good at winning arguments (philosophy major, bitch).

That is, until Beth pulls something. Like BALEETING his site. Or financially ruining him with a marriage divorce. Typical "relationship."

edited 15th May '11 2:47:13 PM by Chickenzhit

Okay, now I'm confused. But not about why people like so many bad things.

If you don't stop using that word, it might make you go blind.

What I was trying to ask is how seriously you take these "theories" about Beth.

edited 15th May '11 7:28:39 PM by silver2195

lol whut?

Okay I'm going to be honest this sounds sorta kinda misogynistic with the way you phrased it. Just saying. Also hahahahaha don't think so.

I know nothing about Beth, what she may or may not be doing to Matthew, and quite frankly that's none of my business. Or ours as a whole.

So, he's reviewing Heavy Rain next. Interesting; his first "all-out" game review. Any thoughts?

I suspect he'll say pretty much what everyone else who doesn't like it says - complain about plot holes.

I know absolutely nothing about it (apart from people complaining about plot holes), so I can't comment.

Heavy Rain is one of those games that is so commonly considered to be overrated that it is now underrated.

<Mod Hat ON>

Don't make this thread about other posters.

<Mod Hat OFF>

I saw some of his reviews and find him pretty mixed. Sometimes, his explanations are well thought-out, but other times, they're the sort of things you'd point out only if you didn't like the movie, rather than reasons you didn't like the movie (yes, the "Be Prepared" song in Lion King is pointless, but nobody would really focus on that point unless they didn't like the movie).

Edit: Watched some more stuff. He's grown on me. Plus, philosophy major FTW. But of course, I don't always agree with his philosophy.

edited 21st Oct '11 7:13:59 PM by PrinterThorn

Matthew's taking on Kill Bill!

http://confusedmatthew.com/Kill-Bill-Vol-1.php

Yay?

I actually agreed with all the points he made. I personally don't get what is supposed to be so great about Kill Bill.

Yes, it felt like a jumbled mess of set pieces. Good ones mind you but as a movie it's still a mess.

Soooo I went through the first part of his review of No Country For Old Men. I have come to the conclusion that this is not a man who understands film criticism. Or film in general. Apparently the concept of a suspense film using slow, quiet scenes in order to build atmosphere and tension is lost on him.

This conclusion is only reinforced when I click on his review of Moulin Rouge in his "favorite movies" thing, expecting some sort of thing where he talks about how it's just a bunch of cheesy fun, but no, he actually thinks it's a case of masterful storytelling.

No. No it isn't. That film's strengths lie in its humor, its visuals/cinematography, and its musical numbers. As far as storytelling goes it's nothing more than La Traviata with a cameo appearance from Tolousse-Lautrec - an inoffensive but very shallow love story. And here he talks about how the framing device and the story-within-a-story bits add "a third dimension" to the proceedings of a film that barely even has a second dimension.

Given how he rails against 2001 and No Country For Old Men for having "no plot," I can only wonder how he'd react to...

8 1/2
Gamorra
Wild Strawberries
The Seventh Seal
Fuck, anything by Ingmar Bergman
Death of a Salesman
Company
Cool Hand Luke
The Graduate

edited 21st May '12 2:38:11 PM by Pannic

I don't think he doesn't understand it. I think it's more that he feels that they aren't building too anything and that the quiet scenes aren't good enough to build tension when they cannot even hold your interest. I might not agree with that, (have not seen either of those movies) and a friend of mine does like No Country For Old Men but admits it has flaws. I think Matthew understands film well enough though. He does offer details on the films background and often explains what it was that didn't work for the film in his opinion. He is probably reading more than the author intended into Moulin Rouge though.

There are also points where he just doesn't get it though. Like that whole thing with trying to murder a spirit or whatever from The Golden Compass. It was pretty obvious that killing the thing was an equivalent to torturing the girl and he seemed to think that this was a rightful disciplinary action! My point is though that although he just doesn't get it some times most of the times he does offer explanations and sees where the film maker was coming from from what I've seen. It just didn't work for him.

I generally like his reviews, but currently I'm mad at him for bashing Avengers before it even came out in his Iron Man 2 review...

Joss Whedon directed a masterpiece, and it's generally not a smart thing to write off a movie before it is released...

Looks like he's seen the wrongness of his deeds. I'm glad he did it — it's good to see someone learn from their mistakes.