Another element to the idea of film criticism is that it's not really there to serve the storyteller, to tell him or her how they messed up or how they got it right, it's there to inform the wider audience of the merits and flaws of the entertainment so that they can make an informed decision about whether to spend money on it. How that's communicated, a body gesture or a long tirade, is ultimately irrelevant.

I love Confused Matthew's review of No Country for Old Men, because it very effectively demonstrates why that movie is a complete and utter waste of your time. I wish someone had told me before I wasted mine.

I wish to emphasise this because an interesting development has recently occurred in the games industry with the release of Aliens: Colonial Marines. There was a review embargo on the game before it went on sale, which meant that no-one could post their review of the game before it was released (to have done so would have meant career suicide). Worse, no-one could also voice their concerns in previews due to NDAs. It has now received universal panning from critics, with scores far below what would be expected from a AAA title with 6 years of development time. It's a crap game really. And yet none of the critics could mention a word of it before it was released, before thousands of people pre-ordered the game or went out to buy it on its first day (based on PR and gameplay trailers which now appear to have been a lie). The entire review process failed.

We weren't too bad. I listened back myself.

You get the same type of embargo with movies. In the future, if the game industry goes farther in that direction, reviewers won't be sent copies of probable duds but will be forced to buy them and then write their reviews. Game buyers will just have to learn NOT to pre-order these games. It's the fact the companies know they can get all the money up front that's the problem.

If your primary goal is to make people laugh, I'm gonna have to give you guys 5 gold stars or a thumbs up or whatever for this Intermission. I was highly entertained! 

Now, as a frequent listener of Confused Matthew, I had to overlook much of what you guys said about him specifically, since you admitted to knowing very little about him before placing him at the nadir of your film criticism spectrum. But I loved that idea that sometimes people have this gut feeling that something is wrong with a movie yet lack the tools and expertise to explain exactly what that something wrong is. Like fireproof78, I love the No Country for Old Men review by Confused Matthew because he perfectly articulates my own gut feeling that something about that movie was just off. And now, knowing what I know about where Confused Matthew is coming from with his reviews, I perfectly understand his rants against Cloud Atlas and the Avengers (and I agree heartily - Avengers was bo~ring). Those are not his most shining moments, however and make poor introductions for an unfamiliar listener.

Certainly, Confused Matthew can be a total asshat at times, and despite his fervent desire not to, he does box himself in quite a bit with his choices. But he's still capable of being very thoughtful and intelligent with regards to those aspects of a film that he's most interested in.

And since my intense rage over his review of Spirited Away (a film I don't even like) is directly responsible for me discovering DiF, I've learned to temper my feelings and accept the good with the bad. 

The movie industry has been this way for some time. Review embargos, where no one can post reviews until the film goes into general release, are quite common, and when a studio is pretty sure they've got a turd on their hands they won't even host a screening for the critics. (IIRC, Warner eschewed a screening for MATRIX REVOLUTIONS, which means this is at least ten years old.)

I think if you're watching a direct sequel (and I would consider AVENGERS to be one), you should probably be familiar with at least the most recent of the previous films, as your inability to follow the story or keep track of the characters the movie hasn't bothered to spend the time re-introducing may not be a fault of the movie. But a movie which is an adaptation of a story from another medium, or a remake, should stand on its own, and you shouldn't need to be familiar with the source material, though it's sometimes useful to be able to speak to the comparison.

Sorry about that. I previewed that post twice and managed only one fuck up. I guess I'm improving! 

Hmm. I'm not sure if I agree with that. This movie isn't a direct sequel in the same way as, say, the sixth Harry Potter movie. I never felt lost watching it; the plot didn't escape me and I was roughly familiar with most of the lead characters. There must be plenty of people who saw and enjoyed The Avengers without seeing all of the previous films. And I personally gave The Avengers a lot of leeway because I was unfamiliar with the other movies. But despite the best efforts of Joss and his writing partner, I thought this movie was pretty bad. Bad in the same way that Trey expected it to be bad (I'm guessing), except that I'm not as charmed by Mr. Whedon as he is, so there was less there to win me over.

Confused Matthew, on the other hand, has said many time that he only likes one superhero and that's Batman. So I highly doubt watching the inferior series of films that lead up to The Avengers would have improved his opinion of it much. Really, this movie never had much chance of winning him over, and he should've just told his fans, "No."

I'm of the opinion that a reviewer should have more foreknowledge going into a movie than the average audience member/reader of their reviews without hitting insane, internet fanboy levels of awareness. If your job is thinking deeply about the movies you watch, then I think you should prepare yourself to be able to do that.

If the DiF guys want to place themselves higher on the film criticism spectrum than Confused Matthew for this reason, then it's not cool for them to do the exact same thing.

I don't think I have anything insightful to add, really, because the reason I came into it cold is that popcorn movies like this aren't really my thing, either. I'd seen the first Iron Man movie once and enjoyed it and watched the majority of Thor before falling asleep. Twice. But because so many movies get a delayed release in Japan, by the time they come out over here, I'm over the hype and have usually lost interest. Hulk, Iron Man 2, and Captain America all passed me by unnoticed. In the end, I watched only The Avengers for the DiF commentary, which for some reason, I haven't actually listened to yet.

I didn't hate The Avengers, or anything like that, I just thought it was kind of boring. Except for the whole poor dead Agent Coulson pep talk scene. That shit was hilarious. But aside from Robert Downey, Jr. being his usual brilliant self, there wasn't much there for me to like.

I love me some SFDebris, and I'm so glad he's decided to take baby steps into reviewing some anime. Although he views himself as just "a viewer with an opinion," he's usually very thoughtful and adds a lot to it other than excessive fanboy knowledge. Those Evangelion reviews were really good, and I think a fair assessment of the films. It would have been interesting if he'd decided to watch them with greater knowledge of the tv series and other background info, but I think he does a great critical review regardless.

But it's not the exact same thing. That's the joke. Confused Matthew isn't a film. DIF gives every film its full due when they analyze it. Confused Matthew doesn't.

My problem with Confused Matthew is that he gets really angry at movies that are doing their best to entertain him. The Last Samurai isn't a hack job. It just doesn't quite work. Wagging his finger at the writer and saying, "Too obvious, John. Too fucking obvious." isn't film criticism. It's something else.

Last edited by Zarban (2013-02-17 19:03:09)

Oh I think Wanted got everything it was due. 

That was a fun fucking day