Reviews WebVideo / Confused Matthew

You know, I already posted my defense of his work in general but I have to agree with you somewhat here. He really went over the top with it in part 1 of his review. There's also the part where he says (approximately) "Even if you've followed me so far and are outraged by [the redressing of an established legal concept as something new]. You still don't seem to understand."

Who is he talking to? How does he know we don't understand?

Also "Hey moron! . . . F—-ING MORON!!" was a bit shrill even for me and I'm kind of used to his occasional high pitched yelling.

Matthew, you don't have to emote this much for us to get it. That's not your strength anyway. Just tell us what you don't like about the movie. You do that well and you sold me on that score.

As I said above, I'm not blasting his work in general, or him; I was just expressing my discomfort at the way he targeted a specific person and started to throw personal attacks at them. He's never needed to go that far before and didn't do it then, so why start now?

On the score of Minority Report itself, I knew it was a dumb chase film right from the start, so I don't hold it against them. On the other hand, it'd be nice if they did put some more brains into it, instead of the pseudo-intelegence that the movie emits.

I was discomforted too. Not that any critic is beyond criticism, but to call one like Ebert "an idiot" for having an opinion contrary to Matthew? On the contrary, it is unimaginative of Matthew to not perceive that someone else might genuinely enjoy the film. He says (I paraphrase) "that for Spielberg and Ebert to say Minority Report is a good, clever film, they must be either stupid or they are lying." That seems a bit off to me.

I agree with Gibberingtroper - if he wants to say something about a film, that's what he should do; what's with constant swearing and yelling? Makes him sound like a retarded idiot even when he's got a point. IMO he's not reviewing, he's Complaining About Shows You Dont Like.

Well. He has one defense for this posted now. Its his review style. He tries to express how he felt when he was watching the movie point by point (which is why he reviews the scenes one by one.)

To maninhat. Its more that Roger Ebert has panned movies like this in the past. Matthew shows that by playing Ebert's critiques from that past film at the moments when it would be relevant to this one. Ebert praised this film in part for supposedly exploring issues that, in reality, the movie only pays lipservice to. His feelings are still a bit strong, his statements a bit rash, but they're valid.

Remember, Matthew's prime target is films that are not what they're supposed to be and/or are more successful than they deserve to be.

But Minority Report remains his one review that I just can't rewatch.

Everyone seems to forget on the subject of Roger Ebert that.....he didn't had a real reason for saying it, even if he may have a point, we're here to watch you review the movie, not a guy who liked it. The characters, the plot, specific events, actors, directors, yes, but not someone who like it, if he's going after people who had no part in the making of the movie what's stopping him from complaining about chad from accounting at his work for liking it.

"To summarise, Minority Report is what Matthew considers the worst film of all time. All fair to him on that, his opinion"

I can't even believe that is his opinion. Reminds me of someone who once said Amazon.com is the worst site on the internet. The internet is a big place. A really, really big place, with lots and lots of bad sites. Moviedom is perhaps not as big, but close. To call genuinely flawed but overall competent works like Minority Report the Worst Movie of All Time in a world with student films and Manos: The Hands of Fate is pure hyperbole.

I know, specially since he goes after films that are popular, like the Minority Report and No Country for Old Men, saying that people just didn't realize why they are actually bad, but the whole worst movies ever claim is too over the top, what about the movies that were so bad they didn't even managed to make people think they were good, like Gigli or Disaster Movie, or movies that were so bad the directors, or actors apologized for it, there's the Razzies etc. etc.

I completely agree. I liked Confused Matthew and his reviews before I saw the Minority Report trailer. Now I hate him.

He says he doesn't usually agree with Ebert, justifying this with the remark "This is after all, the man who called The Golden Compass a deeper film than the Lord of the Rings trilogy, for God's sake". This comes shortly after Matthew says "Minority Report is the worst movie I have ever seen in my life." And this really just shows how arrogant he is. Ebert's opinion on The Golden Compass is such an unconventional opinion it sounds like it came right out of the mouth of the man who said 2001: A Space Odyssey does not qualify as a film and Timon and Pumbaa are some of the greatest Disney villains.

Confused Matthew has no right, absolutely none, to mock anyone for having an unconventional opinion. You'd think somebody who hates as many popular movies would be advocating people's right to their opinions, right? But nope, he is so arrogant he believes that only his opinion could be right, and cannot fathom the possibility he could be wrong. And he then goes on to prove this further by FLAT-OUT SAYING TO ROGER EBERT, "YOU'RE AN IDIOT" (although he tells him "You know damn well this movie sucks" shortly after) and saying that if someone likes this movie, "they are either stupid or are they lying. There is no other option".

All of these words are coming from a person whose favorite movie is Moulin Rouge, which the Nostalgia Critic's actor named as the #1 entry on his Top 10 Movies I Hate That Everyone Else Loves list, and utterly tore it apart. And then he went on to review the movie in which he tore it apart even more, at one point saying "How could anyone possibly enjoy this?", mocks the idea it could even be considered a good movie, and brings on people who like it who eventually end up admitting it is only a guilty pleasure. Whereas Confused Matthew has stated multiple times it is the greatest movie he has ever seen in his life, and has also said if he were stuck on a desert island with nothing else, he would want his girlfriend and this movie. He even plays the poster of Moulin Rouge when singing "which movies rock" during his requested reviews theme song. When he was asked to change it by a fan, he replied that Moulin Rouge is the greatest movie he has ever seen in his life, therefore no other movie is appropriate.

At the end of Matthew's Minority Report review, while he admits Spielberg is not an "asshole" as he originally stated, he only wishes Ebert good health and hopes he reconsiders his thoughts on Minority Report.

Doug Walker could say this and every other offensive comment Matthew has made towards Roger Ebert to Matthew for liking Moulin Rouge, but he hasn't. Because he respects people's opinions. Granted, he didn't in the review, but he has said he loves the Nostalgia Critic because of how he tries to ruin movies he hates for everyone else, and constantly states in his Top 10 Movies He Hates That Everyone Else Loves list that he doesn't mind that people like these movies, and that what movies you like and dislike doesn't say anything about you or not anything anyone should care about, and even that THERE ARE NO GOOD MOVIES OR BAD MOVIES, JUST MOVIES YOU LIKE OR DON'T LIKE. This is the last thing Confused Matthew ever believes. He even said he didn't think Doug could come up with evidence to support this.

Yes, I am aware that Confused Matthew said that he liked Doug Walker's list which he thought was "awesome", didn't think his points were stupid or even necessarily wrong, so that seems to go against what I'm saying about Matthew, doesn't it? No. He only said it because he likes the Nostalgia Critic videos, doesn't want the Critic to hate him, and doesn't want to get involved in an Internet war.

He actually said about Ebert's review "This is the most irresponsible act I have ever seen a critic engage in, to deliberately and forcefully encourage people to see a Godawful film." Doug Walker could easily have attacked Confused Matthew in his review and applied this comment to Matthew's playing the poster of Moulin Rouge over the "which movies rock" song in his general reviews intro, but he didn't. Whereas Confused Matthew found a video of negative comments Ebert made about another movie that could be applied to Minority Report, which he said he would be playing periodically during the video, and actually said "I will REVEL in your embarrassment, Roger Ebert..."

Matthew, you weren't embarrassing him. You were embarrassing yourself. He is such a petty, vindictive, hypocritical, arrogant ASSHOLE that I now can safely say that I hate Confused Matthew.

It sounds like Matthew has become a little bit confused about the seriousness of watching films and writing reviews for them :D

I sense an Ad Hominem coming.

"Confused Matthew has no right, absolutely none, to mock anyone for having an unconventional opinion."

To be fair, he was no going after Ebert for being unconventional; he was going after him for being wrong. Just because Matthew trashes some movies most people love does not mean he can't go after other people for doing the same. That is, if what they like and dislike does not match up. I, for instance, also hate 2001, though I do consider it an actual film (a bad film). But that won't stop me from going after Matthew for overdoing it on Minority Report, which was not that bad.

If there was anything incorrect about his attack on Ebert it was the suggestion that Rog isn't on the up and up, though I don't doubt that someone who reviews as much as Ebert after so many years probably doesn't have a genuine response to most of what he sees. I'm not saying he was paid off or anything, but maybe he said Minority Report is a masterpiece (if that's what he says) for no good reason. Like, he was bored or something and realized he hadn't called anything a masterpiece for a while and arbitrarily decided to give Minority Report unearned credit.

Point is, Matthew doesn't establish anything of the kind. His review does little toward proving Minority Report is so obviously bad that Ebert could not possibly have legitimately thought it was good and therefore must be guilty of all manner of misrepresentation. Most of his criticism was, like most of his reviews, neither here nor there for people who aren't him and didn't share his immediate reactions.

For instance, he makes much of how there's already a law against what the future cops (or whatever they're called) arrest people for, and it is attempted murder. Well, no, that's only if you catch them late enough for them to be in the midst of attempting murder. If you get to them before their attempt, you are arresting them not for attempted murder but for future murder. Even so, in the cases where the perpetraitor goes so far as to attempt murder, there is a difference between attempting murder and being fated to commit murder unless interfered with. Minority Report is based on these being certain future acts—at least so long as the seers aren't being tricked—not just possibilities.

Suffice to say much of his criticism is suchlike. Not that Minority Report isn't flawed, nor that he doesn't score palpable hits. He simply doesn't rise to demonstrating that Ebert is a fraud and we don't need to listen to him.

Yes but we're there for the review on the movie, not his thoughts on some other person who has absolutely no relation to said film. Imagine for example, the reviewer suddenly going on about how knightofthecolossus is a moron.

So the whole, you're either an idiot or a liar, irresponsible for liking this movie, I will "revel" in the embarrassment, etc. etc. is all peaches then?

I think the saddest thing is that despite all that, Ebert most likely doesn't care or even knows who Confused Matthews is.

I've noticed you have an odd take on things.

"Yes but we're there for the review on the movie, not his thoughts on some other person who has absolutely no relation to said film."

Ebert is the most famous film critic in the country, and Confused Matthew is a film critic of sorts. People don't necessarily base their ticket-buying decisions on Ebert's thumb, but he does exert influence over the moviegoing public. If Matthew thinks Ebert has sullied criticdom by misrepresenting Minority Report, I think it is appropriate to the format.

It was an unfair attack, as Minority Report is not so obviously bad as Matthew avers, you are free not be interested in it, and he definitely did spend too much time on it. But that a critic criticizes other critics should not be that surprising. If it's off topic for most viewers, not so much as if he suddenly started lecturing us on ancient Sanskrit, or something.

"So the whole, you're either an idiot or a liar, irresponsible for liking this movie, I will 'revel' in the embarrassment, etc. etc. is all peaches then?"

Huh? I just said the problem was his suggestion that Ebert wasn't on the up and up. That pretty well describes the above. With the exception of the "revel" part, which I think is covered by my insistence that Matthew did not sufficiently demonstrate the obviousness Minority Report's badness. Since I don't think Matthew thinks Ebert is an idiot, I have him as leaning toward the liar side. Lying and not being on the up and up are synonymous.

"I've noticed you have an odd take on things."

Okay. I didn't come up with a good non-good reason for Ebert to have overpraised Minority Report, but you must know it happens. Critics don't often admit they're wrong, but sometimes. I seem to recall specifically Ebert retracting his crowning of Ace Ventura as the worst movie ever made. It is possible that he didn't really like Minority Report that much. If he originally panned Jim Carrey because, I don't know, he had a stomachache that day, maybe he found a really good new restaurant the day he saw Minority Report. Maybe he went in thinking it would be better than it was and rationalized away the flaws. Maybe he had been too hard on Spielberg lately and unconsciously wanted to tip the scales back the other way. Come up with your favorite explanation.

All this is not so important as what I was trying to do by admitting the possibility of Matthew's charge of disengenuity. Because the argument was that Minority Report is so bad there's no possible way Ebert was anything but disengenuous. Either that or he's an idiot, which none of us think. I merely took some of the steam out of Matthew's argument by offering other possibilities for Minority Report's greatness besides him being an out and out liar.

The problem is not with a critic criticizing another, it's when and where the criticism took place. Ebert's opinion on the movie, or anyone specific person's opinion on the movie don't matter in this instance. He's not an actor, director, producer, character or has any relation to said film, because they don't have any effect on the film, as I said, he's reviewing the film, not the people who liked it. That's why I used the example of Gerkuman attacking Knightofthecolossus in the review.

By odd take on things is that I've seen you go for the very odd and unlikely option (as in not even reaching the 1% of probability). Sure unlike is not impossible, but it's in a way that, for example, demanding that a driver always looks both ways before going forward on an intersection even when the street only goes one way, because of the small, tiny and off chance that someone does against traffic and hits you. There are many chances when it comes to probability. It is possible that his family was threatened by someone to make him say that, however that is an extremely unlikely thing to had happen.

"By odd take on things is that I've seen you go for the very odd and unlikely option (as in not even reaching the 1% of probability)"

Does it help to know that my objective in doing so was to disarm Matthew's argument? As if to say, even in the unlikely case that Ebert didn't really believe what he said there are other explanations than he's stupid or a liar.

I don't know about that figure, by the way. Surely it is less than likely, but do you really think 99% of his reviews are honest? Maybe Ebert only admits he was wrong as he did with Ace Ventura 1% of the time, but it has to happen more often than that. Think of how many movies the guy has to watch, and think of how rote the duties you perform your job or jobs you've had in the past became with time. Think, also, how easy it is to control the opinion you're going to have before you see a movie, or how easy it is to rationalize away honest reactions when they don't fit what you've decided you should think about something. I do it all the time.

RESPONSE TO TUBLECANE'S ORIGINAL POST ATTACKING ME:

Yes, but he never says why Ebert is wrong about The Golden Compass. He simply says it as if it is obvious that Roger Ebert's sentiments on The Golden Compass must be wrong because they are unconventional. Yet his own sentiments on movies are equally ridiculous and yet he can justify them. So why does he feel the need to pretend the status quo is always right now? Because he believes only his unconvential opinions could be right, because he is an arrogant asshole.

I agree that it is wrong that he accused Ebert of lying, but I think it was wrong to insult Ebert to begin with because the Nostalgia Critic could have said the exact same things in his review of Moulin Rouge!. He clearly hates Moulin Rouge! as much as Matthew hates Minority Report, and says in the review "How could anyone possibly enjoy this?" and brings on people who like it who end up admitting it's only a guilty pleasure. Yet Matthew thinks it's the greatest film he's ever seen in his life, and gives a lengthy review of it as a genuine art form! And his playing its poster during the "which movies rock" intro could be seen as encouraging people to see it. But Matthew thought it was a good movie, so why should he be attacked for this? Why should he be attacked for liking a movie?

Maybe Ebert was lying, maybe not. Maybe he honestly thought it was a great movie! Why should he be attacked for doing his job and saying what he thought? It is ludicrously unprofessional to mock someone simply for liking a film! Yes, Ebert encouraged people to see it because that's his job! Every other critic was encouraging people to see it by giving it a good review! And in his Knowing review, he brings up the fact that Ebert gave it a good review just to say "Really?" And of course he never explains why Ebert's thoughts on The Golden Compass are wrong. He just takes it for granted that the majority opinion must be right except when it goes against his opinions because he's the smartest man in the world.

Whether Matthew made good arguments for Ebert being a liar doesn't matter, though. Because he can't prove Ebert is a liar, and it is wrong to mock someone just for liking a movie and tell them they shouldn't like it. Every defense of Matthew attacking Ebert could be construed to support the Nostalgia Critic attacking Matthew for liking and recommending Moulin Rouge!.

Confused Matthew has taken down all his Minority Report review videos. He made a video 2 hours ago explaining why, apologizing to Steven Spielberg and Roger Ebert, saying the video has been his biggest shame, and announcing his plans to do-over his Minority Report review.

I can't help but think it was because of me that he has done this. Not only did I post this extremely harsh comment on here, but I sent him 3 or 4 e-mails under different names telling him how hypocritical and disgusting he was. While it may have been other people's influence, too, I still can't help but feel I caused the overall decision.

I feel really guilty. I liked his actual Minority Report review, and I thought the ending of Part 3 was so hilarious I kept re-playing it. Even when he called Spielberg an asshole, he actually made the film, so it wasn't entirely wrong.

This and the taking off of the responses to Chase Melendez after his death show that Confused Matthew is a better and wiser man than his haters could ever hope to be.