Confused Matthew is infamous for dividing opinion on movies. Sometimes you'll agree with his analysis, and sometimes you won't. Sometimes you'll disagree savagely, to the point where you want to write down lengthy explanations as to why he must be wrong. This review is not going to be one of those. This review is purely about his technique and presentation. Confused Matthew reviews use the technique of going through a movie scene by scene, examining each one in great detail. This causes two big problems. The first is that it makes his reviews really long. His review of The Golden Compass is 50 minutes long. I feel this is on the excessive side, especially when it comes to reviewing films like 2001:A Space Odyssey, in which he makes the same basic criticism (that it goes on for too long, ironically) over and over again, scene after scene. We get the picture, and we did not need to see this particular observation reiterated so often - his review could have easily been condensed to five minutes. The Second problem is that Matthew's scrutiny of individual scenes can seem fragmented. He'll complain about a supposed flaw in one scene, like the unlikeable degree of arrogance Simba exudes in The Lion King, but fails to see how this alleged flaw serves a purpose in the over all progression of the film. For example, Simba's character is supposed to appear arrogant and irresponsible as a child, so his character can transition towards becoming ultimately selfless and responsible in the end. That is obvious to the casual viewer. Matthew however appears to ignore long term elements like plot progression, preferring each individual scenario to carry its own weight when removed from the rest of the film and scrutinised to excess. This second problem is what gives Matthew his unusual perspective on films. He has a knack for finding plot holes, but only because he regards a film, not as a whole, but as individual fragments (I'll provide an example of this in the comments section). Much of his confusion about character/plot elements stems from him ignoring story/character progression. This really damages the credibility of his arguments, as it feels he often cannot see the forest for the trees. Despite all this, he is funny and insightful, especially when he is not being shrill and whiney.
In order to post comments, you need to