Reviews: Confused Matthew

Confused Matthew: The Only Sane Man of Caustic Criticism.

Confused Matthew is a web critic. He delivers his reviews in a slide show format. This minimalistic format may be boring, but it is practical as it not only ties into the "Talk is cheap, art is priceless" motto all reviewers should take to heart, but his anti masturbatory fluff motif with his vendetta against movies that get greenlit when they should not have.

Confession time.

I thought The Matrix trilogy as a whole was deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep. Matthew, who is an actual Philosophy major, gave a crash course in "obscurantism."

I thought Saw was scary and deep. I thought Jigsaw as a well intentioned extremist type anti villain. I even bought into the "he's not technically a killer" statement. Matthew gave me a crash course in law.

I'm an anime fan. Being a fan of classic 16 bit-32 bit era video games, I'm all over those over the top tropes. I was also led to believe that Miyazaki was an animation god. Matthew deconstructed Spirited Away as obscurantist trash with zero plot and weak characters with stilted dialogue in a world not well defined. "Like all other anime ever made." Matthew gives a simple reason for his detesting of anime. "It's stupid, it's stupid. I hate it I hate it." Which is not far off. Most anime is misogynistic in its unrealistic portrayals of women. And Giant robots can be brought down with Square Cube Law. There is only one anime Matthew likes... Ironically, it's Lucky Star. Either it is the shining beacon of world building and deep characterization in an obscurantist, fan pandering cesspool... Or girlfriend(I'll explain in the comments.)

I thought Minority Report was an intelligent film. Matthew made Ebert and Speilberg his bitches.

Confused Matthew isn't perfect. He's not the best comedian, and sometimes his logic falters... *Avatar* *Cough* He is also slow on updates, but he is always insightful and knows his tropes.

If you want to laugh at bad movies that you are already pre-conditioned into hating, watch the TGWTG circle jerk. If you want to be challenged with critical thinking, watch Confused Matthew. Definately check out earlier youtube reviews. Those are the best and are very short and to the point. He is not egotistical as these other tropers are painting him. He is very humble, and shy. His beef is with the movies, not the fans.

Confused Matthew vs. Irate Gamer

So long as we're talking about things that confuse us, here's something that confuses me: out of any aspect of Confused Matthew's reviews or reviewing style that one could potentially comment on, all anybody ever talks about is, a) how his reviews piss people off, or b), that his points of view go against the norm of film opinions, as if either of those are the reason his reviews are good or worth watching.

News flash: they aren't. If either of those were the case, then you could rightfully say that the Irate Gamer is the greatest unsung game reviewer of our time. Also, you've probably got a gnarly persecution complex going.

But I digress. Whether or not you think he's a good reviewer beyond that point is entirely up to you. Personally, I enjoy his stuff; among other things, I like his methodicalness, I like his demand for events in a movie to happen in a logical progression, and I like his straight-to-business presentation. You may not like him, but that's your prerogative.

But he's not good solely for the fact that he riles people up or goes against the norm. That's ludicrous.

This Guy Is The Definition of Unwarranted Self-Importance

Watching Confused Matthew's review is seriously one of the most frightening experience of my life.

Okay, I get it. He's a Caustic Critic. He's a Deadpan Snarker. He watches films that are bad and gets angry about them in videos - we see that all the time on the internet, right? Nostalgia Critic... Spoony... these things are so damn common that the typical internet denizen is figuratively drowning in them. But those two reviewers exemplify a quality that is sadly lacking in Confused Matthew: humour. They are trying to entertain people. Confused Matthew, on the other hand, takes his craft deadly seriously, and has a massive ego to match.

He obviously thinks he is so intelligent, so concise, so enlightening, that he believes people would be willing to sit through 50 minutes of him just stating his opinion, WITHOUT A SINGLE JOKE, and taking it deadly seriously through out, as if the a bad movie killed his grandmother or something. I'm honestly frightened that a human being with a soul could take his opinion on a FREAKING movie so damn seriously. He is exactly the type of person who would instantly judge you, your intelligence, and your personality based on whether or not you like any given film film, just because he's so obsessed with his opinion.

More proof that he has an over-inflated ego: He sent a letter to Steven Speilberg, ONE OF THE BIGGEST DIRECTORS IN HOLLYWOOD, asking for a six-dollar refund for sitting through a movie, and honestly expected a reply. Seriously.

Oh, and another thing... two minutes into his review of Minority Report, he broke Godwin's Law. Twice. The first time, he compared Steven Spielberg to Hitler. At that point, I paused the video, face-palmed and burst out laughing.

Armond White on meth

Having sampled an hour and half of Confused Matthew's reviews, I know immediately why he's confused. He's a philosophy major who, to the misfortune of the internet, swallowed the old claptrap about Campbell's Hero Journey being the template for all good fiction.

Granted, by and large, theater and film grads can be kind of pretentious (check out Gore Vidal's story about Tennessee Williams' cold reception at Duke). But I never expected this kind of militant orthodoxy from a philosophy geek. Is he a deep cover religious nut? A low-functioning sociopath? Only Matthew knows the truth but his obvious and glaring deficiencies aren't going to stop him from insisting he, and only he, knows what good and everyone else (his betters) is the delusional one.

Because that's Confused Matthew. His fetish for the traditional, the venerable, the unimaginative is bordering on a mini Poe's Law. He hates foreign films. He thinks Carl is a poor protagonist in Up. Paradoxically, he keeps shouting advice at John Anderton which amounts to, "kill yourself," and "exit the movie." He missed the point to Simba's bratty personality, despite the fact he got his comeuppance and later matured. (This part is particularly creepy, because he thinks anti-heroes shouldn't even enjoy screentime lest they pollute the audience.) He claims "Far Beyond the Stars" was the worst episode of Star Trek — NAY, the worst forty minutes of television in general.

What else can you say. He's gained a following of other twenty-somethings who like to think of themselves as ahead of the curve. In the land of the blind, the moralizing smartass is king apparently.

One of the Worst of the Caustic Critics

Now when it comes to caustic critics, I always try to go in with an open mind, even if I like said movie being reviewed I listen to the points in the review and try to consider them. However for Confused Matthew, I just never can take his arguments seriously. Now don't get me wrong, he can be insightful and he is good at finding plot holes, it's just a lot of times for me he really just comes off as irrational. Let me make something clear, no one likes a ranter and despite many caustic critics often coming off as that a lot of times, I can often stand the likes of The Nostalgia Critic, The Spoony One, and even Mobrostudios in his Spongebob countdowns because they're funny and often make good points. Confused Matthew is not funny and rarely makes any good points, at least in my opinion. Now Matthew knows what he wants in a film, and can point out flaws at times, but to be honest if you ask me, he's too damn close minded when it comes to movies. If he thinks a movie is bad, apparently that means it's bad, and we're all idiots and/or wrong for liking said movie.

His reviews of The Lion King and The Nightmare Before Christmas are the ones that really bother me the most. And it's not because he hates them (everyone has an opinion) but his points really didn't come off as valid to me. He hated Simba and called him and asshole for lying once and unintentionally putting his friend in danger. What?! He's a kid, kids are gonna lie at least once in their life. But it's not only that he speaks as if his opinion is fact and if we think other whys, then we're wrong.

On top of that, he refuses to accept otherwise, he doesn't consider other people's arguments (as seen in his response 2 responses videos) and is determined to stick to the belief that he's right, and the movie is bad, and that we should all stop liking it. Now as I said I would probably be able to sit through his videos if he was at least entertaining, and well..he isn't. His reviews are just boring to me, if he ever tells a joke often it's a bad joke, and really I just can't sit through his reviews all through.

So yeah, for me, he's one of the worst of the caustic critics. He isn't funny, he thinks too highly of his opinion, and his reviews just come off as ranting on something because it's popular. So yeah he really isn't my cup of tea.

Has a Limited and Narrow Understanding of Film

Talking about Confused Matthew is somewhat difficult. The first thing one has to bear in mind is that he isn't from the Thatguywiththeglasses school of showmanship, and thus he doesn't really put effort into making his reviews entertaining the way that someone like Doug Walker et al does. His reviews are more straight-faced criticism, more in the vein of Scifidebris with its basic recap format.

His basic format is this: after the opening jingle, he will give a short introduction to the film, and then proceed to discuss the film in a scene-by-scene walkthrough of sorts, with his various comments and criticism along the way. To his credit, he's very good at picking apart a story and spotting internal inconsistencies. However, I find that that's pretty much all he's good at.

Perhaps more telling than what he discusses in his reviews is what he doesn't discuss in his reviews. Now, I haven't seen all of his material, but I cannot, at any point in watching his videos, recall him talking about: acting, direction, editing, use of color and lighting, camera angles, cinematography in general, any form of visual symbolism, or indeed, anything that defines film as a medium. The ultimate problem with Confused Matthew is that he doesn't actually review films. He reviews screenplays.

This becomes a very noticeable problem in some of his reviews. For example, he criticizes No Country For Old Men for not establishing its characters, but harps on and denigrates the very scenes that use visual cues to establish said characters.

In addition, I find that he doesn't have a very good grasp on subtext or implications. For example, in his review of The Golden Compass, he emphatically states that The Chronicles of Narnia isn't religious propaganda. He's more than able to see when Pullman is proselytizing in his works, of course, because Pullman has absolutely no sense of subtlety and has his characters flat-out say what he's thinking. Lewis, on the other hand, conveys things through allegory and metaphor, which CM seems to miss. If the film doesn't flat-out say something, he's prone to missing it.

And ultimately, he seems to want to cram things into a box, and if they don't fit, then it's a problem. I have to wonder what'd happen if he were faced with something by Bergman or Fellini.

Maybe Should be Renamed "Angry Matthew"

I say that, because this guy seems to find the notion of people liking something he didn't like personally offensive. At least that's the impression I'm getting.

I think of other critics I've seen, and many of good ones will go out of their way to say that its just their opinion, and people are free to disagree. The critics of TGWTG are characters created to review something while creating jokes. But I've also seen them doing reviews of stuff that's more mixed or positive as themselves, not as their character. And they also will often clearly state that its just their opinion. Doug Walker did a whole two videos about his different opinion. Matthew doesn't seem to have it; to him, a movie he doesn't like is bad, no other way of looking it, its just a terrible movie, and nobody should like it. I remember seeing a recent comment he made about Marvel, that people are essentially idiots for liking it.

He'll use VERY harsh language when describing something he didn't like, and why it is objectively bad. I've seen people below saying that he has some very strict requirements for movies to live up to, and if a movie doesn't have them, to him its god awful. And if what I read on the tropes page is correct, he won't even finish a movie or do proper research before reviewing it. That's being a critic, that's being a jerk.

Now like all people he's free to think what he will about a movie, but the impression Matthew gives me is that everyone who disagrees with him is wrong, and his opinion is the sole correct one. He will sometimes deride people who disagree with him, and outright insult some directors as if they are bad people, example being when he very angrily insults Peter Jackson in his take on The Desolationof Smaug. I don't know if that's a character, but there's nothing to indicate that it is.

Sometimes, there's also the impression that he's a contrarian, taking up the opposite side so that he be the smartest person in the room.

In all, maybe I'm missing something, but from the videos I've seen, he seems to have a severe case of Opinion Myopia.

The Scrappy of Caustic Critics

I've watched several reviews of his in the past, but unlike those of the The Nostalgia Critic, The Spoony One, Red Letter Media, and S Fdebris? I can only stand him once. He's not funny, his points rarely are good or even make sense in the long view of things. He has a high Opinion Myopia and he honestly thinks that if he doesn't like a film, its a bad film. In the end he comes off as a mean-spirited bully who thinks he knows everything, and that if people disagree with him they're wrong and stupid.

Case in point, his reviews of Mel Brooks' films, as well as those of Spirited Away and The Lion King. On Spirited Away, he could have been like Doug from The Nostalgia Critic does: review something he has no experience with and try to make it funny (like his Thomas The Tank Engine The Movie review). But no, Confused Matthew goes and groups Anime into a single genre and says it sucks. Instead of even honestly analyzing the film as a whole too, he picks apart Spirited Away like he has a vendetta against it.

He also goes so far in the Mel Brooks films to insult people who like and adore them, and then goes out to say that the films he thinks are good, Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstien had limited influence from Mel Brooks in their writing and production. It shows he just doesn't care about research or truthfulness, and at the end, like during his review of Men In Tights he asserts 'no one likes this movie, you think you do but you don't'.

And finally his clusterfuck known as The Lion King review. Simba acts like a child whose excited to be a king: Matthew labels him as an unlikable Royal Brat. Timon and Pumbaa are called 'greatest villains in Disney' even though they take Simba in, raise him, and treat him like a friend-Matthew thinks they are characters who only look out for themselves and were only interested in Simba for protection of them.

All in all, he's one of the worst internet critics and is genuinely and unlikable person.
  • Roo
  • 6th Jul 13
  • 0


Having watched several of Confused Matthew's reviews, I think the guy's main problem is that he thinks he's much more intelligent and objective than he actually is.

Oh, he's certainly not unintelligent. He's a good speaker, he can argue well for a movie's virtues or flaws, and he frequently makes very good points — the problem is that for an "analytical" reviewer his analysis is frequently very shallow and reveals a rather close-minded attitude. He doesn't seem quite capable of grasping that a movie, or any kind of work, can be viewed in more than one way; at least not more than one valid way. In this, he's a lot like John Kricfalusi with his utter refusal to consider that any viewpoint other than his has any sort of value. It's best summed up by his opinion of Mel Brooks's Robin Hood Men In Tights: "Nobody likes this movie. Even if you think you do, you don't."

Confused Matthew knows exactly what he wants and expects out of a movie, and if a movie fails to deliver he considers it to be "objectively" without value. If anyone claims to like said movie despite of this; well, they must be wrong, or delusional, or lying, because it doesn't make sense that people would like something that objectively has no value. (At times I think he's confused —see what I did there? — Opinion Myopia for objectivity, and his videos on objectivity haven't really convinced me otherwise.) Now, wanting certain things in your entertainment or having opinions that are contrary to everyone else is fine. Insisting that yours is the only valid opinion is not.

Another problem is, sometimes Matthew's wants and expectations are so removed from what the movie is actually trying to do that it feels like the equivalent of him trying to describe why a chair is poorly-made by listing all the ways it fails to be a table.

It is often interesting to hear his thoughts and opinions on popular movies and why he doesn't like them. Occasionally he will have good points that writers could do well in taking to heart. But no, on the whole his words will not get you further than the film will ever go. Sometimes they don't even get you as far.

Good...if you agree with him.

Here's his schtick: He does videos about how he does not understand that people like a specific movie. Hence, "Confused". Now that you know this, guess how the reaction to his videos will be. Thing is, if you agree with him, he's good. If you do not, his reviews generally leave no space for an opposing view. His infamous "Minority Report" video (now removed) was a big sign of that. Sometimes he is actually informative, discussing some background things to dispel misinterpretations (the whole "is Jigsaw a killer" for example). He has an ego. A big one. If you do not believe me, check his video about why he is enraged that the first trailer for Amazing Spider Man was not a teaser and came out a year in advance. He makes a huge deal out of the fact he has to wait a year for the film. Fyi, the Hobbit and LOTR did the same thing, but apparently people just got excited for the movie. This would be a bit more tolerable if he didn't have very apparent biases. If the film is anime, there are children as main characters, or a plot that focuses on emotions, he generally will give it a hard time. Is this necessarily bad? Not really, because everyone has pet peeves and internal biases. It's just that he doesn't see himself as fallible. He accuses Ebert of inconsitency, which is okay, but then he ignores his "you can't tell someone how to interpret it" rule (from his 2001 a space odyssey vid)when he tells the audience how to interpret Pan's Labyrinth.

The show comes down to this: If you agree, you will like his show. If you do not, you will likely hate his work. With Matt, there is no room for maneuvering.

Minority Report: Or, when criticism ends and when pummeling begins.

Let's get this out of the way first and foremost, I like a lot of the reviews on the site. The reason is because I like it when people have different opinions to me, and aren't afraid to say it. I'm sure that's why a lot of people like him. He's eloquent and enjoyable to listen to.

However, I listened to his in-progress Minority Report review, and unfortunately I was hit with the one thing I will not abide from a reviewer or critic. I'll say what that is in a minute, but I need to get one thing out of the way first. I am a fan of Roger Ebert, but I wouldn't accept this thing even if the reviewer was Richard Nixon. Matthew overstepped the boundary between criticism of a person (which is completely acceptable) to an OUTRIGHT AD-HOMINEN ATTACK.

To summarise, Minority Report is what Matthew considers the worst film of all time. All fair to him on that, his opinion. The problem though is that not only does he hold Ebert responsible in some way for this, but he continues to drop F-Bombs on him and accuses him of being a liar. Why is Ebert responsible? Ebert recommended the film. His argument boils down to this statement, and correct me if I'm wrong:

'Ebert liked and went out of his way to recommend this horrible movie, when he criticised another film with the exact same issues. Either he is being an idiot for not noticing this, or he knew this and is intentionally misleading us, making him a liar'.

You're allowed to consider someone inconsistent, or even a hypocrite but we still hit the same problem. You are judging a person ON A FILM. You are inferring that someone is a bad person because they liked a movie that you didn't, regardless of the nuances that are put on it. I personally find that a hurtful thing to imply about anyone.

I don't know if I'll ever get a reply to this, I hope I do, but it was something I felt I needed to say anyway. Will I return to watch his videos? Yes. The fact that I don't agree with him doesn't make him a bad person, or that his opinions are invalid. It just makes me feel sad, because to quote one of his most famous lines. “You're better than this.”

Avoid like the Plague

Why are this guys reviews unwatchable?

Because this guy is a Jerk Ass.

He is clearly suffering from narcissism and delusions of importance. He thinks we will actually enjoy just watching him and his opinions for 50 minutes (The Golden Compass review) when in fact we watch them to stare in awe at how much of a dickbag he is. He feels that he is the centre of the universe. We all do from time to time, but for this fellow it is constant. He was likely born with a pre-disposition to Narcisisstic tendencies and was only egged on by his parents who refused to see the bad of what they were doing when they told him to ignore the kids who were (Quite rightly) picking on him at school. They probably said he was better than them.

His review of Watchmen is a huge example of his underlying idiocy. Despite stating outright that he knows nothing about comics, he still criticizes a film which is in every way so much like a comic book and so utterly close (Almost too close according to some, even) to its source material for being NOT LIKE A COMIC BOOK.

He picks up on a cynical message in The Incredibles when in fact it was never supposed to be a lighthearted cartoon that kiddies could fall asleep to. It was a surprisingly complex, genuinely thought-provoking post-modernist study of the superhero genre formatted in a totally groundbreaking way so that both children and adults could enjoy it, albeit for entirely different reasons. And even then, the core theme is of family, which is by any means a good moral.

I dislike most anime myself, but even I cannot see what the hell he's trying to prove in his Spirited Away review.

The Lion King review was just a pile rubbish showing that he has no mental capacity for understanding the mindset of a child and that he is a hypocrite, given his Incredibles review.

The fatal flaw of Confused Matthew reviews is that the man delivering them is simply so loathsome, so revolting in manner and so annoying that it is hard to sit through his long, LONG, reviews. He is the flaw. Dont watch his reviews, he's just looking for more ego-fuel.

Re-Written Review — This Time, It's Serious.

Confused Matthew takes on works that he considers over-rated, approaching them with an Aristotelian demand for plot-logic. In doing so, he antagonizes many viewers, who depend more on suggestiveness and emotional effect. Matthew wants movies that make one think; most people seem to prefer movies that make them feel. His zeal for promoting logic in films makes him routinely overstate and exaggerate to make his points, amusing some and enraging others.

The main criticisms offered of Matthew's reviews are 1) unnecessary vehemence and 2) medium ignorance. The first is purely a matter of taste: some find his violence amusing, some do not. The latter is more arguable, and depends on fundamental assumptions about the nature of drama itself. Matthew asserts that all the works he reviews present themselves as "films" and should be judged as such. His opponents insist that they belong to different categories from "Traditional Drama," and must be judged on their own terms.

His attacks on Spirited Away and 2001 have inflamed opinions primarily for this reason. Matthew demands that both fit into a category of drama with a strict succession of events depending on causation; their fans insist that they must be judged under different criteria and by different rules, just as one would judge Titian's "Assumption" differently from Pollack's "Blue Poles." The fact that Matthew admits to a bias does not excuse his reviewing such works; rather, it aggravates it — an arguable position.

Matthew's position vis--vis The Lion King is more straightforward: it is a "traditional film." Here his attackers clearly are exalting feeling over logic. Matthew might well have expanded his case against this film to include more technical considerations. He does take into account its moral dimension; he feels the film offers the wrong lessons to its viewers.

This moral attack forms his main objection to The Incredibles. As George Bernard Shaw attacked Macbeth, so he attacks this film for its unnecessarily dark philosophy. Whether one accepts this critique will depend to an extent on one's own Weltanschauung.

Interesting ideas, poor technique

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.


I've found this guy quite hard to review. Some things are easy to get down. He's not the super-analytical plot-hole spotting superhuman people make him out to be. He's done that sort of review, but he does plenty of others two. His reviews of things like Deathly Hallows 2 is completely lacking that despite it being very relevant. Equally he doesn't talk about the inconsistency of How To Train Your Dragon and his Rango review completely lacks that analysis. He openly states that he just let most of the Heavy Rain plot holes slide, even some quite serious ones, and the few he mentions he actually lessens in value of it. He lets Scott Pilgrim slide as it is and so on...

But he is special and there's something very worth listening to there. Is he more analytic than most even if he doesn't always take it to extremes? Not particularly he analyses (for the normal 1 pt reviews) less than say Movie Bob or The Nostalgia Chick, even Yahtzee has the same sort of level of analysis.

I think what he is is more genuine, at least in his short reviews. It doesn't feel like he's trying to entertain, or instruct, he hasn't strung everything up into some huge industry spanning overarching theme like Zero Punctuation does. He has an opinion of a film and he conveys it. Sometimes it's one thing that stands out and makes him like a movie (Rango) some times there were a whole multitude of things. It feels like he doesn't script it, and if he does script he's not scripting to please us, just to say what he wants to say.

The thing that really impressed me most about him, wasn't a review but merely that he managed to take a side on the Dawkins+Hitchens vs Pope debate that wasn't atheist or christian, but correct. That is an impressive ability and I couldn't believe that I hadn't seen what he had seen beforehand

Visually it can be lacking, but that's a problem with a lot of current movie reviews and he can repeat a point several times and um and ah a bit but if you want to hear what a genuine intelligent person really thinks of a film he's really worth listening to.

A Man with a Different Point of View on Films

Confused Matthew is a internet movie critic that is a tad different from the rest. He tends to criticizes movies that have received a lot of positive reception that he didn't like rather than those that have received a lot of negative reception.

Because of this one could easily be offended by his reviews just for that fact, but I encourage one not to get too offended just by that. Call him arrogant or a prick but I beg to differ. He is simply giving his side of the story, an opinion that he honestly believes.

I find his reviews very interesting because I don't know many people who would risk their reputation on the line to give their honest opinion on something that many people like. He has tackled on some of the most sacred films such as The Lion King. While I don't always agree with him, on the things that I don't I do enjoy to entertain the thought of what he means.

He takes on an approach to his reviews talking about what he finds to be the objective flaws in the core of those film's story. By objective he doesn't mean that his conclusions are correct or true, he simply means that he bases his conclusions on what happened in these films and points out the errors in their plot.

As an aspiring writer, I have found these very helpful to me because they give me a very good look into the structure of what works or doesn't in the structure of a plot and hearing someone I don't agree with but can see the point of view of certainly helps.

The only problem I have with Matthew is him and anime. Matthew doesn't like anime, seeing it as a genre rather than an art style. He comments that every anime he has seen doesn't explain its world, which I relate to.

Many of the anime we receive here are Shonen Jump Anime, which are based very strictly to a weekly comic that can go on for years, has a hectic schedule and gives the mangaka (the comic writer) very little time to think through on all their plot points and a considerable drop in quality over time.

I do think that Spice and Wolf and Claymore would be acceptable to him if he's seen them. The former is only 13 episodes for the first season and the latter is 26 episodes, so it won't drag out too long for him. Spice and Wolf is Funimation's youtube channel.

Agree or disagree with him, I think Matthew is a good reviewer to sit down and listen to if you want to listen.

A mixed bag

I would like to enjoy Confused Matthew's work, even if it's just to retain my iconoclast street cred, but as much as he beats, sometimes deservedly on the illogical points in movies, I find he misses the point. Instead of seeing the overwhelming cool and interesting things in movies, he points out movies weaknesses without giving any consideration to genre or target demographicf, in Spirited Away he picks on a weak story, in The Incredibles a cynical message, how about the infamous Lion King review, in which he treats it like an adult movie, when it's animated by Disney for gods sake. In all of those reviews, he decides to criticize things that most would forget about, or is even the whole point of the movie.

I personally disagree with most of what I've seen by him, but he redeems himself by refusing to give in to the usual, accepted opinions on things, by complimenting Transformers for its remarkable effects, and usually giving reasons for his dislikes, so I can't write him off for being a troll. Maybe you'll agree with his points, so give him a try.

p.s. Avoid the Spirited Away review, he hates anime so the entire thing is pretty much pointless.

p.s.s If you like anime at all, or even understand it, you'll groan and facepalm.

Like It or Don't, But Don't Go Overboard.

Due to an incident in the past where I was very disappointed in a review that was highly praised by another troper, I said that I wouldn't judge so harshly and research more on him. Sadly that only made things worst, don't get me wrong he makes good points, but sadly he starts saying things (not always but usually when he gets carried away by his angry emotions) that shock me (and apparently other people too) like the ones I'll address now. Confused Matthew has pre-emptive hate for some movies and we all can agree on that even the fans, but he also has pre-emptive standards on some of his reviews. The movie can be successful in accomplishing what they intended, but it will be barraged because it didn't accomplish what he wanted or expected, or a character didn't do what he thinks they should had done or the develop the way he thought they should had. Reviewers have to take a lot of things into account while reviewing their movies. What was the point of the movie: so they have that in mind the whole movie; What message was it trying to deliver: so they know if the film failed and actually delivered another message, even if it was a good one it wasn't the one intended; Character Development: so they don't judge a character before said character has a chance to show what they were intended. Overall I start losing interest all interest when he goes overboard with his hatred for some movies, like if all them were the same as The Birth Ofa Nation, no offence but requirements for hating shouldn't be so low. I was interested in the scene by scene review thinking it might had been a good method except that he seems to have the memory of a goldfish. Constantly complaining about development and saying things are just thrown in when he's the one who failed to remember all the previous instances when they were implied or even said and or shown. But in the end, everyone's gotta remember this is just his opinion. His not saying it's relevant(haters) because it's not always gonna be the best(die hard fans).

Whats to like? Whats not to like?

I have no problem with people not liking him. He dissects movies that many or most people want to just sit back and enjoy. And even those who do like to be more analytical will not always agree with his analysis (nor most anybody's).

I've certainly disagreed with some of his assessments. For example, I liked Star Trek 2009 a lot more than he did.

But I think if you understand what he's doing in his reviews, you may just appreciate him as much as I do. He doesn't just critique bad movies. He doesn't just critique cheesy movies. He specifically critiques movies that were better received or more popular than he thought they should be. In other words, movies that Confused Matthew. Its what makes him interesting to me. Its what I identify with. (Note, the reviews that don't conform to this format are generally done for his fans.)

When I keep that in mind, I understand where he's coming from and I agree with most of his reviews (he helped me unearth and deeply hidden contempt for the Lion King I've kept buried since I saw it all those years ago). Even when I don't agree, I respect him and he always finds something I missed.

He makes me think and for that, I hope Matthew will be Confused for many years to come.

Put some more effort into production?

All of the reviews posted here so far focus on Matthew's analytical approach to films, with one exception mentioned below. As far as Matthew's analyses go, I generally find his reviews articulate and thought-provoking, despite the occasional bad joke. I have never found any particular point of disagreement with him except in his blanket statement concerning anime. I kind of wish he had done Nausicaa Of The Valley Of The Wind or really any other film by Miyazaki, some of which he might find to be more accessible.

But anyway, I wish to focus instead on elements of CM's production. Another reviewer complained that CM's reviews tend to run long — the reviews of the Twilight films are 50 minutes in total. The Twilight reviews are all done in his informal review style, mostly with him discussing the movie with Stan just after watching it. With these informal reviews, you would be better off turning up your speakers and folding laundry or cleaning the kitchen, as there are no visuals to speak of beside the film logo.

But while one can easily excuse the thin production effort in the informal reviews, I do wish he would put greater effort into his primary review series. They consist in the following technical elements: intro song with photo montage; stills from the film; clips from the film; one or two very simple MS Paint drawings of Matthew; and Matthew's voice. And that's it. And the latter elements do little to help matters: his voice is sometimes very loud and shrill. Overall, they just aren't very engaging.

CM should really incorporate video footage. All of the many caustic critics at That Guy With The Glasses and Atop The Fourth Wall, along with The Angry Video Game Nerd, have the strength of character to appear on camera themselves and address the audience in person. And as they continue making videos, their techniques naturally improve over time, to the point where many of them produce videos that are so technically impressive that they are very fun to watch. In addition, they often do crossovers, where fans of two or more different reviewers can see them together interacting. CM's style comes across as lazy in comparison and is in a state of stagnation. It is certainly harder in many respects to do video than audio-only, but it's a challenge that CM should contend with.