Confused Matthew

You know his words will get you farther than the film will ever go!
Give him a moment of your time he'll tell you what's wrong with the show!
He knows what's good
What's bad
What's really bad
His face is just a sign!
Say hello to Confused Matthew!

This page needs a better description. You can help this wiki by expanding or clarifying the information given.

What is Confused Matthew so confused about? Why so many people like so many bad films and TV shows, of course!

He's also known to dabble in the various Star Trek franchises and for this reason he's often compared (and paired) with SF Debris, and he's borrowed one of SF Debris's catch phrases ("Too good for 'em, I say!") in a couple of reviews.

His twin brother, "Stand in Stan" does infrequent reviews of his own. Stan composed the theme song for Confused Matthew, as well as his own theme song.

Available here and here.

Be forewarned: he typically reviews fan favorites and never looks back.

Confused Matthew provides examples of the following tropes:

• Actually Pretty Funny: He admits the hula scene in The Lion King made him laugh very hard.
• All There in the Manual: He really didn't care for the number of things in Iron Man 2 that required knoweldge of the Marvel Universe to understand, especially Nick Fury suddenly coming in halfway through the film and the film acting like we're well aware of who he is, after just one brief scene after the credits in the first film. He ended up declaring that he now refuses to see The Avengers just out of spite over this.
• Alternative Character Interpretation/Ron the Death Eater: "Timon and Pumbaa are the greatest Disney villains ever."
  • Also, Child Simba being an asshole and Adult Simba being a blank slate.
• Art Evolution: He changed his old face icon in late-2008 to his current one (The One Above).
• Author Appeal: He has a strong interest in philosophy, being most annoyed by those films that claim to pose philosophical conundrums but he thinks don't (such as the Matrix sequels).
• Berserk Button: Woodstump. Just, Woodstump.
  • Although he mostly keeps his anger in check (i.e., down to a state of mild irritation at best), definitely do not, if you are a screenwriter, have a character make two contradictory statements in the very exact same scene, or you will be kindly instructed to KEEP THE FUCK TRACK OF WHAT YOUR CHARACTERS ARE SAYING, as happens in his Knowing review.
• Bias Steamroller: "Like almost all Animes ever made, the world in which this is set is not very well-defined."
• Non Sequitur Scene: Not in the films he reviews, but he posted a video about one he encountered in Real Life: he and his girlfriend went to see a film, only for a group of people dressed in formal evening wear to arrive and sit all in one row at the front. When a trailer for Bratz: The Movie came on, they all stood up and applauded, before remaining silent for the entirety of the rest of the sitting.
• Brick Joke: In his Deep Space Nine review, early on Sisko is stabbed by a creepy Bajoran kid. Near the end of the review.

Confused Matthew: Wait a minute... what the hell was up with that creepy Bajoran kid? Did we ever get back to that? *pause* ... the fuck?

• Catch Phrase: Several, including "Oh no, I'm sorry, that's what someone who wasn't retarded would have done," "A Wizard Did It", and "You're better than this!" (shouted at a photo of the writers).
  • Used to review Star Trek: Generations and Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End: "Oh! No one take evasive action, or anything. We'll just float here and DIE!"
  • Used in Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End and others: "Aside from (...), y'know what she does? Nothing. NOTHING! (...) all that crap, FOR NOTHING?"
  • "So they fight. Fight fight. Fight fight fight. Fight fight fight fight fight"
  • "What the hell kind of Jedi are these? Guardians of peace and justice my ass!" in the Star Wars prequel reviews.
    • A variation on this was in his Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Season 7 review. "What the hell kind of Bajorans are these? Pious religious believers my ass!"
• Caustic Critic: His raison d'être.
  • He's been inverting it starting with his review of Moulin Rouge and his new feature Matthews Favorites.
• Cliché Storm: One of this two main beefs with Titanic (see Very Loosely Based On A True Story for the other).
• Complete Monster: He believes Syndrome is enough of one that it actually makes it harder for him to enjoy the film.
• Couch Gag: The sign shown during the line "his face is just a sign" is different in every episode.
• Curse Cut Short: Oddly enough, in his Minority Report review, after he finds out that the film continues even when it "should have ended".
• Deadpan Snarker: To a quite ruthless extent.
• Death of the Author: Invoked during the epilogue of his Pan's Labyrinth review. He believes that the fantasy-elements were in Ophelia's head while Dell Toro says that they were actually there.
• Department of Redundancy Department: In the epilogue of his No Country for Old Men review he refers to Cormac McCarthy as "a shitty writer who doesn't know how to write.
• Distracted by the Sexy: In The Matrix: Reloaded review part 3, Matthew gets distracted by Persephone's cleavage.
  • Admits that Scarlett Johansson managed to do this in Iron Man 2.
• Divergent Character Evolution: Stand-In Stan. Stan seems to be taking almost the opposite approach from Matthew's with his own reviews: instead of criticizing movies of which public opinion is positive to neutral, he takes unpopular films and picks out the good parts. He also posts more general videos about religion and politics (especially where the two have been mixed). Though Matthew himself occasionally does this as his real venue is any film where he feels the love or the hate is largely unwarranted. See Pet the Dog.
• Expository Theme Tune: See the page quote, above.
• The Faceless: Until recently, that cartoon face was all the visual reference we got on what Matthew looks like. Then Stan started posting live action videos and told us that despite them being identical twins, they still don't look the same (most notably Stan highlights that he has put on weight.) Finally, Matthew showed his face in a recent video but has taken that back down.
• Fan Hater: Lampshaded when he confesses he liked Transformers (even though he stated it still wasn't good).
• Fauxlosophic Narration: Matthew is a philosophy student and put his education to use picking apart the second and third Matrix movies to demonstrate that they fit this trope. Especially Neo's conversations with the Oracle and the Architect.
• Follow the Leader: Another Caustic Critic. While some of his reviews do go after soft or non-controversial targets, he gets his name from doing negative reviews of well-liked movies through a scene-by-scene analysis instead of reviewing the work as a whole. His negative reviews of The Lion King and 2001: A Space Odyssey earned him no small amount of hate mail.
  • Though he's really an aversion since most Caustic Critics hate the same movies the rest of us dislike.
• George Lucas Throwback: Discussed Trope in his Kill Bill review. Specifically he contrasts the original Star Wars trilogy as an example of the trope, while saying the prequel trilogy was just making a new bad 1930s science fiction movie serial with modern technology, rather than being inspired by them.
• Katanas Are Just Better: Discussed Trope in his review of Kill Bill. Matthew says he could suspend his disbelief to allow this in a modern setting, but this is ruined by the protagonist using a gun at the end of the second film (especially when her sword had been talked up so much).
• Old Shame: In his review of The Dark Knight, he regrets his initial lukewarm reaction to the film, based largely on his distaste for Batman simply walking around and hitting people rather than his clever tactics from Begins. Then he figured "All these great themes and ideas, and I'm complaining about how he beats people up?"
• Pet the Dog: His positive reviews of Star Trek Nemesis and Independence Day.
  • After catching some heat for getting... upset about Stephen Spielberg in his Minority Report review, he made a point of praising aspects of Spielberg's direction in The War of the Worlds.
    • Similarly, after criticising Roger Ebert in the same review, he praised Ebert's take on Blade Runner`s two different cuts (they're both good, and you should watch both and make up your own mind).
  • His written review of WALL-E was quite positive.
  • He also defended Two Thousand Ten the Year We Make Contact.
  • After savaging No Country for Old Men as the new worst movie he's ever seen, he makes sure to start the final video on it by telling the Coen Brothers how much he loves their other work.
• Refuge in Vulgarity: Combined with No Indoor Voice during many of these moments.
• Reality Is Unrealistic: Thinking Kirsten Dunst's singing didn't sound like her, he apologized when he found out it really was hers.
• Running Gag:
  • In his Star Wars prequels reviews --
    • "What the hell kind of Jedi are these? Guardians of truth and justice, my ass!"
    • Consistently referring to Padmé Amidala as "Queen Oobadooba", Count Dooku as "Count Dracula", and Darth Maul as "Darth Time-Filler".
    • Referring to Palpatine by a different P-word every time he's mentioned
    • Later in his Star Wars: The Clone Wars reviews, referring to Anakin as "Woodstump", Ahsoko Tano as "Sudoku Tampon", Asajj Ventress as "Ventriloquist", and so on.
  • In his Matrix sequel reviews, referring to Locke as "Commander Angryfuck".
    • "What's at stake here, the running time?", whenever the movie goes into an action sequence.
  • In his Independence Day review --
    • Referring to protagonist David Levinson as "David The Genius Cable Guy"
    • "This is 'MURIKA!" (followed by clips of the song America, Fuck Yeah!)
  • In his Transformers review --
    • Referring to Bumblebee as "Herbie the Love Bug"
  • All fight scenes are generally described thus: "So they fight. Fight fight. Fight fight fight. Fight fight fight fight fight..."
  • Simba, Anakin and Lyra are given this speech following their first scenes: "_____, our supposed hero and protagonist... IS AN ASSHOLE! I mean, he/she doesn't listen to anyone, he/she's not very nice, he/she treats everyone around him/her like shit, and he/she only cares about him/herself!"
    • Subverted in his Simba's Pride review where he uses the same lead up to comment on how a character is not an asshole but instead quite nice.
  • In his Minority Report review:
    • "HEY MORON! FUCKING MORON!!!"
    • "THAT'S WHAT SOMEONE WHO WASN'T RETARDED WOULD DO!"
  • In his The Incredibles review, regarding the darker/depressing scenes of the movie, "Are ya having fun yet kids?"
• Public Medium Ignorance: He describes anime as a "genre."
• Punctuated! For! Emphasis!: When the 'Matthew is Annoyed' card comes up, especially for "IT. DOESN'T. WORK!"
  • RESPECT?! MY! ASS!
  • "What's the joke? THAT'S NOT FUNNY!"
    • WE! DON'T! NEED! TO! WATCH! THIS!, when something plot-irrelevant or gratuitous is going on for too long. So like, for instance, the whole 2001 review. He does yell a lot there, but realizes it: "I shouldn't yell at my viewers, I shouldn't yell at my viewers..."
• Sarcasm Mode: In his review of 2010: The Year We Made Contact, he periodically makes comments along the lines of "I can see why this film was shunned, I mean all it has are (list of positive things). But where's the (negative thing from 2001: A Space Odyssey)?!"
• Self-Deprecation: In his Kill Bill review he mentioned how being buried alive is a primordial fear to anyone, even if it's very unlikely to happen to him in reality "unless the Lion King fans catch up with me".
• Shout-Out: Near the end of his review of Knowing, he summarizes the film in the style of The Colonel from Monty Python's Flying Circus.

"Right, stop that. It's silly. Very, silly indeed. Started out as a nice little idea about a small girl's paper predicting future events and now it's just got silly."

• Small Name, Big Ego: Confused Matthew is considered this by many for attacking Roger Ebert as either an idiot or a liar for recommending Minority Report. And for attacking Stanley Kubrick in his review of 2001: A Space Odyssey.
  • Generally not the case though. He doesn't show much egotism, rather he is simply very opinionated, very opposed to common viewpoints on movies, and (most importantly) VERY LOUD!!!!!!!
• So Okay It's Average: His opinion of several movies, including 2010: The Year We Made Contact (which he nonetheless considerably prefers to its predecessor) and the Tom Cruise version of War of the Worlds—in that case he praised the film for trying an original slant on an alien invasion film, following an ordinary family and sharing their lack of knowledge about the scale of the invasion, but added that there was a reason why it hadn't done before—it didn't make for that good a story.
• Something Completely Different: "Matthew's Favourite Movies", a new segment devoted to Gushing About Shows You Like. He was concerned that only talking about what he disliked meant his critical position could not be fully appreciated.
  • He has also begun new video series "Observe and Report", brief commentaries on strange things outside the world of cinema, and "Mini-reviews", for films which he does not consider bad or confusing but have a few things he wants to discuss. These often consist of the other films in trilogies where Matthew has made a conventional review of the remaining parts, such as The Matrix.
• Spotlight-Stealing Squad: A large part of his criticism of Kill Bill was based on the fact that an inordinately large part of the first film's running time was devoted to the backstory of Lucy Liu's character, whom he did not consider to be at all important to the film.
• Surprisingly Improved Sequel: He thought Lion King 2 and 2010 were good movies, while he greatly disliked both originals.
• Take That: Matthew's sarcastic comments on the differences between 2001 and 2010 in the latter's review.
• They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot: In his review for 2010: The Year We Made Contact, he says it would have been more interesting for HAL to come to grips with what he did in the first film rather than have it conveniently turn out that he had his memories wiped after his confrontation with Dave.
• Tropes Are Not Bad/Tropes Are Not Good: Has made this point repeatedly in some of his more recent reviews. For example, in his review of Moulin Rouge he pointed out that his problem with the easy romance in the Lion King was not that he dislikes loves at first sight, but that (he feels) it didn't fit in or contribute to the story and he actually likes the trope too much to see it used incorrectly.
  • Similarly, much of his criticism of 2001 was based on its interpretive nature, and he later reviewed Pan's Labyrinth as an example of a film which (in his view) uses an interpretive conclusion very well.
• True Art Is Incomprehensible: Clearly his single biggest pet peeve. Two of his three loudest angriest reviews have been about this attitude or its variations.
  • He's not a huge fan of things that would be covered under What Do You Mean It's Not Didactic? or Everyone Is Jesus in Purgatory. He generally rejects the idea that a movie has any meaning other than what is obviously presented. If the movie has to be heavily analysed to grasp some meaning, then he feels that the meaning is likely just made up.
• Very Loosely Based on a True Story: He took issue with the way in which Titanic played fast and loose with the actual events, feeling that a very real human tragedy was overshadowed by a hackneyed love story. He also considered the film's fabrications such as the wholly undeserved Historical Villain Upgrade of William Murdoch and Third Class passengers not being allowed on the lifeboats to be very offensive.
• What the Hell, Hero?: Calls Rhodey out on this in Iron Man 2, pointing out that even if he's worried about Tony Stark accidentally harming someone while drunk in the Iron Man suit, intentionally stealing a spare suit and starting a robot fight is most likely end with someone getting either killed or injured.
• Your Secrets Safe With Me Superman: He will sometimes refer to characters by the name of the actor playing them—this is usually a subtle way of indicating he either regards the character as uninteresting and can't be bothered to learn their name, or thinks the actor is just playing themselves.