In the interest of fairness, as well as an attempt to educate, here's a link to Confused Matthew's review for The Dark Knight:

http://www.confusedmatthew.com/The-Dark … Review.php

I link to this because the other CM material I've shared in the past has been more on the obnoxious/angry/loud side. I wanted to balance things out with one of his quieter and well thought out reviews. CM lists The Dark Knight in his "Favorite Movies" section, so this particular review is calm, insightful and extensively considerate. It's very accessible and "user friendly".

This is a really interesting, thought-provoking (and very well edited) defense of Sucker Punch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQm1rBqh53Y

It basically takes you through a point-by-point explanation of the film and its themes, while also discussing sexism, women in "geek culture" and makes a pretty strong case against dismissing it as mindless, popcorn fluff. I strongly urge you all to check it out, regardless of if you like the film or not.

Hmmm, the forums have immediately accepted you as a valued member with respect and equal treatment, regardless of your gender. Does that make Down In Front an unrealistic, unrelatable fantasy land?

Does "Dredd" count? I mean, I know on the surface Dredd is the main character and the guy we're following, but as discussed in the DiF commentary and in the thread for that episode, Anderson is the more human character, the one we can empathize and sympathize with and the one whose head we get into more, sometimes quite literally. There's also the dark side of that with Ma-Ma, another Woman of authority who is not to be underestimated and wields some kind of power.

Solid episode. I remember it as if it happened yesterday.

I can understand that. In those last couple minutes of the video (after Trey walked away), Matthew expresses confusion over Roger Ebert's belief that Cloud Atlas was one of the best films of the year, even though he admittedly didn't fully understand it. I think Matthew feels that to be a contradiction of sorts, or that one cannot occur without the other.

I'm not sure I agree. There are lots of films I love but don't understand or "get", simply for how they effected me or my experience of them. Alternatively, there are films that I didn't understand AND didn't like, such as Mullholland Drive. I think the key distinction is that once Mullholland Drive had been explained to me (by DiF), I came to the conclusion that I still didn't like it because I felt the movie failed to adequately explain those things to me and I found the execution of telling that story to be very poor.

I think Matthew's view that understanding or not understanding a film equates to it being good or bad is a bit too simple-minded. It's never that cut and dry.

Sorry, I didn't realize you felt that way about Kevin Smith in general (I merely assumed you did regarding Confused Matthew). I don't link this stuff with the express intention of pissing off you or anyone else. I'm interested in the discussion of film criticism and how it's changed, good and bad. I'm curious about the different methods and criteria people have when perceiving art and any sort of value to be pulled from it, even from the "obnoxious" ones, through a point/counter-point exchange.

Let me be clear, I strongly disagree with Confused Matthew a majority of the time, but I'll at least hear him out, as he's only asking for a few minutes out of my day and I would want someone to show me the same courtesy. Besides, even if I don't agree with his opinions, I can usually be entertained by them (or laugh hysterically at how angry he gets, to the point where he's not even reviewing something, like The Avengers). I'm open to a different opinion and hope to find, between all the yelling, something I had not considered before or even noticed.

So far, the only review of his I can't seem to bring myself to watch is his episode on "No Country For Old Men". Apparently, he considers it "objectively bad", similar to Brian Finifter's feelings on "Spider-Man 2". I hope to one day get to a place where I can hear him out without weeping for humanity.

Probably, but I was referring to redxavier's response to the mystery quote I posted.

I think you're taking it too literally. When Down In Front does their thing during a commentary, they "make" better films all the time.

Referring to Scott Weinberg's article on Kevin Smith's comic-con video about critics, some of the comments are proving to be far more interesting and spot on for me.

I don't think Kevin is arguing that only those who create can criticize. I think he's merely saying, "Feel free to criticize, but eventually, do something with that. Don't be content with being an outsider looking in. Become an insider and express outward." I forget who said it, but I'm reminded of this quote: "The best way to critique a film, is to make another one."

I do agree with you that Kevin does tend to be a bit too thin-skinned. I mean, C. Robert Cargill from Ain't It Cool once suggested that Smith's work has lost its relevance and Kevin became that internet emo bomb he was talking about (in the second video). However, pretty much all creators/performers are like that. They take it all so personally. They're putting themselves out there and expressing themselves so to them, an angry mob attacking their "art" is akin to attacking them, specifically. They're being told they suck as a person. They work hard at something and a bunch of people, who have never walked in those shoes rants about how it was such a travesty that it didn't just ruin their day, it raped their childhood or something. Honestly, if all it takes to ruin your day is a stoner comedy or whatever and that's the only bad part of your day? There's a serious problem here, and it's not the movie or album or book.

I also agree with you that art cannot and should never exist in a vacuum. If you only focus on the resounding, extreme praise, you can really inflate your own ego and possibly turn into a raging asshole, a self important jackass who at the end of the day, just gets paid to play make believe in some way. If you just dismiss and ignore everything that's remotely negative, you miss out on something you didn't know that may in fact be worth knowing. I'm not talking about the mean people who complain about movies so much, you start to wonder if they even like movies and why they have that job. If you're right, and criticism is defined as elaboration of dislike? That's too limiting. I prefer analysis. A discussion is more productive than a fight.

I'm talking about someone being constructive. That's why I love Down In Front. Not only do they talk about what doesn't work for them and why, they often make suggestions as to how it could be fixed, or prevented from happening again with future projects. I wish Rian Johnson had listened to all of DiF's Looper commentary. My stopping after a few minutes, he deprived himself of hearing something that might make him go, "Oh! Shit, that one I had never considered before! Interesting!" or "Hey, you know what? That example IS better!". Never just assume that you're 100% right about your own art, or that you're infallible. Good advice can come from ANYWHERE and ANYONE, and you don't necessarily need to have had "training" to think of the occasional nugget of wisdom.

Armond White's sour grapes against Roger Ebert is so baffling and counter-productive. One critic is yelling at another critic, not only claiming that he's better at his job than Ebert, but flat out stating Ebert is just awful at his job and doesn't have the proper, "training". As if we're talking about being a fry cook. Let's not forget, Roger Ebert was awarded a Pulitzer for his work. Also, look at what White is saying. He's mad at Ebert because he doesn't dislike enough movies. Somehow, that makes him a shill. Maybe it's just a matter of taste in movies, or maybe Ebert just tries to find more to like and that will eventually win him over as enough to make a recommendation?

I've read some of Armond White's reviews and listened to him on a few podcasts. Dorkman is right. I really liked what Armond White said about Real Steel (even though I've yet to see the film), but so far, everything else has been laughable absurdity. He claimed Inception was bad because A Nightmare On Elm Street did it first and better in being about dreams. What he fails to realize is that "the power of dreams" is about the only thing those two films have in common. Oh, and they're in color. In fact, they're both not actually really about dreams. That's plot, not story.

There's also his recent disdain for Django Unchained. He thought Schultz was who the movie was really about and he didn't like that. Hey buddy, it's called Django Unchained and Django is CLEARLY the protagonist of the story and the one who we get into the headspace of the most (or, you know, at all). Armond White was also "offended" at "a white guy named Dr. King". Says the Black Man named White. Also, his last name is Schultz. He's Dr. Schultz. Also, HE'S A FICTIONAL CHARACTER! How dare Quentin (a white guy) name his made up white character "King".

Sigh.