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.
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.