Reviews WebVideo / Confused Matthew

I don't think Matthew ever promised to be funny. It isn't a comedy series, it is more like a collection of lengthy essays told through the medium of youtube reivews. Incidently, the bit about him sending a letter to Spielberg? That probably was meant to be taken as a joke.

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.

I seriously doubt it. Most of his reviews of recent films are recited between him and one of his friends who went to see the film. They often disagree with one another over movies, but there is never any snobbery between the two. In fact, he strikes me as extremely unsnobbish considering the time of day he gives critics of his work (including one who compiled a 90 minute bashing of his Space Odyssey review). Ironically, you're the one who seems to have judged his character based only on his reviews, and not his actual person.

So you're going to watch something that isn't a comedy and then complain when it's not funny?

I agree with the two above me. I'm not his biggest fan, but you're attacking him for not being funny (when he never tried to be) and for having a massive ego (when in his Irate Gamer video, he refuses to judge IG due to not having not enough information to make a decision, and allowing people to call him stupid and an asshole in his comments).

Don't get me wrong, I don't think he's the best reviewer ever, and I do think he does have some problems keeping his views irrelevant to the movies he's reviewing out of his videos. But I don't think he's as bad as you make him out to be.

I agree its not a comedy series, but he does try the occasional joke with mixed results.

But thats not his m.o. He's more of a critical reviewer than a funny one. He evaluates story logic and dissects philosophy when it's put forth.

And you missed an important element of his show, namely what makes him "Confused." He doesn't just dissect bad movies, he dissects popular movies that have a better reputation than he feels they deserve (and he's entitled to think that and try to defend his position.)

And as others have posted here above me, he does indulge fan responses, constantly. In addition to the above, he has a video series called "Responses to Responses" and he's active on his forum.

I'm not criticizing him for not being funny, I'm criticizing him for not even trying to be entertaining in the slightest. He just rants about movies, that's all he does - not really entertaining to watch.

Also, apparently he's never judged anyone based on their opinion of a movie - except that one time he judged someone based on their opinion of a movie? I'm talking about that time in the Minority Report review, where he said that Roger Ebert is either a liar or an idiot for giving the movie a positive review.

He judged Ebert for being inconsistent, or did you miss the part where Ebert's criticisms of another chase flick were played where they applied to Minority Report?

Maybe we should complain about dictionaries next.

Hey guys, dictionaries suck because they aren't trying to be entertaining. They just define words for you - not really entertaining to read.

There's a difference, dictionaries provide an objective purpose, to explain the definition(s) and sometimes the pronunciation of words, CM doesn't provide anything like that...so what does he provide? He isn't entertaining and he isn't a great critic ergo he serves no purpose whatsoever.

The emphasis is on analysis: exposing the kind of inconsistencies, plot holes, and flaws in movies that for some reason, other viewers take for granted. They're essays and reviews that offer illuminating and in-depth commentary. I was especially pleased to see him challenging Space Odyssey.

Are you guys honestly telling me that Confused Matthew can justify being boring and obnoxious because he intends to be boring and obnoxious?

He doesn't intend to be boring and obnoxious. The fact that you keep discussing humour in your review led us to believe that you were labouring under the misunderstanding that his reviews should be funny.

Yes, I agree a joke here and there does pep up a long dialogue - though I argue that Matthew does have plenty, considering that he doesn't place an emphasis on humour. I also agree that some of his reviews are needlessly long and tedious - but I don't think it would be necessary to remedy this problem with more jokes (a la Red Letter Media). He isn't a comedian. Instead, he should just edit down his reviews, emphasising the salient points and avoiding repetition of the same criticisms.

In response to the point about dictionaries, CM provides a service by offering a comprehensive analysis of movies. Just like your review here is providing a service to the readers (despite the lack of jokes in it).

Sorry, maybe you should go back to your magical happy fun land where everyone is a comedian and your subjective opinion is a fact that everyone agrees with.

Well spoken anonymous ip address guy. You may find it boring and obnoxious Dr Depo and I can't tell you you're wrong though I can tell you that you shouldn't let CM upset you. You should just express your opinion and move on. Its the internet. There are millions of places to go that don't feature CM.

On the other hand, some of us do find this entertaining. He's been paid by at least 40 people to provide requested reviews and he had to cut that off because he couldn't keep up with the pace the requests were coming in at (because he does this on the side). We only have a couple of places on the internet to watch him.

Christ, I didn't know Confused Matthew had fans on here. His points have remained invalid and will always remain so ever since his L Ion King review.

^Looks like someone's butthurt over getting his favorite movies criticized.

I just find CM to be a boring reviewer that makes way too long videos that doesn't make very enlightened points about movies and sometimes misses things that are quite obvious.

I have to ask what someone else asked a bit ago: are people seriously trying to justify the fact that Matthew's videos are (1) almost as long as half the movies he's reviewing, (2) that he has a massive ego, (3) that he is completely unentertaining and obnoxious, (4) that he views concepts like Character Development as inconsistent writing, and (5) that his "reviews" are just an hour of him whining about movies in the most masturbatory manner possible?

I understand everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that it's a critic's job to voice his, but if you're going to attempt to be a critic, do at least one of three things:

1. Be at least somewhat entertaining. Someone tried to justify this based on the fact that he never promised to be entertaining. Very well. Being obnoxious/boring is a great way to get viewers.

2. Be fair. During the course of a review, have at least some degree of civility, or class. This means not comparing a director to Hitler just because you didn't like his film. Especially when that man has dedicated huge sums of money to aiding holocaust survivors. This also means not calling Roger Ebert a liar and an idiot for liking said film.

3. Understand basic concepts of storytelling, as well as the medium you are critiquing. As I said, he has frequently criticized Character Development, accusing it of being inconsistent writing. He has completely misunderstood the idea of a character flaw, clinging to this one flaw, and claiming it makes a character unlikable. He has also repeatedly completely missed the point of lots of the films he's reviewed, and bases his entire opinion of both the film and those who like it on this single Critical Research Failure. In addition, his comments about the alleged poor definition of "most" universes that anime are set in really is indefensible. It's simply a classic case of someone expressing clear ignorance of an entire medium, and then expecting his opinion of it to be taken seriously.

In regards to bullet 3, I strongly suggest you watch the Spirited Away review again. He clearly understood what type of story it was supposed to be and how the character development was meant to work (a spoilt girl forced to mature in a strange environment). His primary criticism of the movie was that it failed to establish this development; the girl was not spoilt, she was already mature, and she does not appear to develop much.

The guy was making an effort with Spirited Away. He warned the viewer that he hates anime, but would try to review it fairly, thus he places his cards on the table from the start. Imagine if he didn't mention his dislike of anime at all and he pretended to be completely neutral over the subject; we'd get a dishonest review that didn't show his true opinion.

In the case of point one, I do find him to be somewhat entertaining. I tend to not get bored, even during his longest reviews. I recognise that they shouldn't be so long, but they are not exactly arduous. I guess it is all down to taste though. Considering you seemed to take his hyperbole over Speilberg being comparable to Hitler on face value, maybe his writing just isn't to your taste.

Yes, but claiming to hate "anime" and then reviewing it would be like me claiming to hate all forms of animation, and then reviewing The Secret Of Nimh. "Anime" is not a genre, and any reviewer who is ignorant enough to claim that it is has no business thinking his opinion is worth the air drawn to speak it.

As for you finding him entertaining, all I can say, as it is your opinion, not fact, is that in my opinion, you have low standards.

In respect to your final point, I consider invoking Godwins Law to be a sign of three things: immaturity, ignorance, and quite frankly, a lack of anything else interesting to say. It's a cheap move, and not in the least bit amusing, whether hyperbolic or not.

What if you invoke Godwins in a discussion on global politics?

It's very simple. If a person advocates en masse extermination of certain people groups, then Hitler is an apt comparison.

If you simply don't like them, and do so, then you are an ass.

^The price of doing the right thing is being an ass.

Again with the IP only trollposts. You know, if you're going to be a dumbass, at least be proud of it and sign it with your name.

Oh, is that what that is, SG? Huh.

Well, I don't know about him, but I can't seem to log into the site on my phone and sometimes I post replies to reviews and such on there. Your scenario is probably more likely, but give a guy the benefit of the doubt.

You haven't really given any convincing reason for saying that Matthew has any USI, let alone that he is the poster child for it.

Posting reviews to the internet, however long they are, isn't USI — it's when you start telling people that your opinions matter in some substantial way, or start creating a cult of personality around yourself (see: The Spoony Experiment, The Angry Joe Show for examples), that you get into USI territory. From what I have seen, Matthew has never once asserted that his opinions matter; he recognizes that they are his point of view. There's also the fact that he is basically anonymous (if his full name is floating around out there, I've never seen it). Internet reviewers with USI issues tend to narcissistically plaster their full name onto everything they touch, along with a closing credit sequence where they think of as many production roles as they can possibly come up with because it will allow them to list their own name several times.

As for the letter to Steven Spielberg, my understanding was that that was more of a humorously symbolic gesture. I guess more importantly, do you think he wrote, "Hi, this movie was shit and I want my money back," or "Hi, this is Confused Matthew from confusedmatthew.com, which you have undoubtedly heard of. I would like my $6 admission back, please, or I will unleash my massive fanbase upon you." No, I really doubt that he mentioned the fact that he is an internet reviewer because Matthew is probably smart enough to know that nobody gives a fuck about such things.

Great review! You summed up that cocksucking asshole the best way anyone can: calling him out on his bullshit.

What's so bad about sucking cocks? At least read the comments above, because the only one who's being an asshole right now is you.

I just don't like the guy for his scene-by-scene analysis, mainly because I watch the whole movie and go by its overall development, instead of seeing each scene by itself and then complaining that something is different in a scene afterwards. It just seems like a pointless method.

If the only reason he attacked Ebert was for being inconsistent, why didn't he attack Scott Weinberg? He gave Run a negative review for the same reasons as Ebert and he praised Minority Report for the same reasons as Ebert.

And that wasn't even the only time Confused Matthew insulted Roger Ebert. He randomly brought up in his Knowing review that Ebert gave the film a positive review, and compares him negatively to another critic, A.O. Scott. Also, in his video "A Word On Objectivity", he gives an example of Ebert's criticism of War of the Worlds as the type he tries to avoid.

It's clear he just has a problem with Roger Ebert personally.

"So you're going to watch something that isn't a comedy and then complain when it's not funny?"

If it's not supposed to be funny, I really don't get the point. I realize he's supposed to be recapturing the exact mindset he had upon first viewing the movie. But if so, and if it's not a comedically hightened version of his real internal anger, then he might be a psychopath. Which means it may work as an intense psychological drama, or perhaps a harrowing documentary of mental illness.

Anyway, I don't often want to listen to someone yelling at me without laughter payoff.

Just so you know, Confused Matthew has taken down his old Minority Report review and put a video explaining how he regretted insulting Ebert and Spielberg so much and apologized to both of them and said he would re-film the review.

Which was a dick thing to do, since the review was hillarious. I've managed to dig out three parts, does anyone knows where I can find the fourth one?

People are actually defending Confused Matthew? That is hilarious

:D

he's right Tom, you can just see all the rage, attack and aggression in your reply, specially after all the maturity he displayed.

Admin notice: Knock it off with the ad hominem attacks, you guys. I deleted them, this time. Next time, editing privileges go away.

I just had a quick look at his review for Titanic and he asserts that the only thing the film had in common with real life events was that the ship sank. So my question is having submarines investigate and loot the wreck, having Molly Brown and Captain Smith, being told to increase speed, the iceberg, not having enough lifeboats, the different classes being separated, these are all elements of fiction?

I think one thing people forget in this comment section (from years ago) is that most reviewers online add comedy because they usually say some obsured things in their reviews that if taken at face value, would really make you question the persons sanity. Or if they're being a snarker and trying be valid with the crituqe, it's to get the criticisms out in a more bareable way. Because hearing one man basically beat up on a film for a long period of time is exahusting mentally.