Re: #53 - Film Criticism
But it's not the exact same thing. That's the joke. Confused Matthew isn't a film.
I didn't make the initial comparison, and I appreciate that you were being glib. However, if you're gonna make the statement that he represents the worst of film criticism, then you should have a good idea of what the guy does.
My problem with Confused Matthew is that he gets really angry at movies that are doing their best to entertain him.
But these movies have failed to entertain him, and he doesn't have to give them a "C" for effort, especially if he feels like they didn't actually put in the effort. Confused Matthew has a pretty narrow focus on story, plot, and characters, and a movie has to tick all of those boxes for him to consider it successful. Personally, I think he gives too much credit/blame to writers and not enough to directors, but that's neither here nor there. The real question, when it comes to the quality of his film criticism, is whether or not you think he has a point. There are times when I think he goes a bit overboard, but rarely would I say he's completely missed the mark.
My own problem with Confused Matthew is that he's way too abrasive It's okay to have a minority opinion, but no one's going to listen to you if you annoy them before you get to your actual point, which seems to be exactly what happened here. If they were gonna mention him on the podcast, I wish the guys had called him out for being too obnoxious to listen to rather than claiming that there was no inherent quality to stuff that they hadn't even bothered to listen to.
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.
This makes me think that you haven't watched much of Confused Matthew, either. Not even the review you're quoting. His The Last Samurai review is 30+ minutes long and goes into great detail about specific problems he has with the writing and direction. He even suggests simple changes that he feels would've improved the story and characterization. The "Too fucking obvious, John" line is a one-off comment he makes very early on in the review. His bigger point, which he also clearly states early on in the review, is that many of the story elements are overblown and contradictory and that they fail to support the characterization and plot.
Your insights are probably more valuable than you realize. I am a curious sort and try to understand why people do (or do not) enjoy certain films. Avengers is a mixed bag because it is regarded as a tent pole film for the popcorn viewer but tries to do more with the characters. I think the character development can be missed if Captain America and Thor are not viewed first.
I don't mind sharing my thoughts. Posting this here doesn't seem quite right, but I'd feel like I was derailing an interesting discussion on gender politics if I post if where it belongs. 
Anyway, I can't argue against your point, mostly 'cause I have no intention of ever watching those movies and then re-watching The Avengers in order to find out. And I think that's this movie's biggest problem. I totally get that it's a sequel and there's a lot of backstory I may not know. But this movie doesn't make me want to go back and find out what I'm missing. It's hard for me to understand why this movie so great if it can't stand on it's own in any way and is entirely reliant on a bunch of other no-so-great films to establish all of its most compelling elements. If I was confused but engaged, then I would reconsider Thor, Iron Man 2, and Captain America for the sake of The Avengers, but The Avengers itself didn't inspire me to do that.
I know I have mentioned my reluctance to be a film critic but there is one other aspect of myself that can come across a bit, well, pretentious and dickish...I have studied psychology for about 10 years now and so think about characters and their motivation and influence in the world more than anything else. So I kind of get inside many character's heads easier than a lot of other people do and sometimes I sound like a complete jerk for saying that a character works for me when others don't.
I quite often get accused of being nit-picky, but I also like anime, which in many circles means I have zero credibility. The most important thing for me is knowing what a film is trying to say, and it needs to say it effectively without dicking around too much. Characters are important, too, but I don't worry about whether or not I like them unless their actions don't make sense in the context of the story and theme.
The reason I couldn't get interested in The Avengers is because it isn't about anything. Stuff happens, characters do stuff, and so more stuff happens, but at its core, this movie feels hollow.
It being called "The Avengers," you'd think it would be about the team, but it isn't. Not really. I mean, it starts off with a bunch of individual superheroes bickering with each other for no reason, and then later on, they form a team. Not for any actually compelling reason, however, they just get tricked into it. At the end, they go their separate ways, but I guess they'll get back together in the team again at some point, 'cause the next movie has already been green-lit. Sure there are some good character moments in the mix, but overall I have no idea why I'm supposed to care.
