Ha, he brings up how you can hate Hamlet if you want to... and I do. I hate Hamlet. And my reasons are that the plot seems almost random and based on chance more than anything, the dialogue is unrealistically poetic and the poetic nature of the words are already way too easy to decipher. It's really just an exercise in metaphor, not at all a matter of making a great play or story. And nothing really sticks out as a memorable moment for that matter.
"Let me get his straight: you openly admit that you are unable to grasp the intricate complexities pf the 'Scream' trilogy and 'Nightmare on Elm Street' films, but you've somehow seen right through the facade of Stanley Kubrick and 'his silly 2001.'"
^^^Brilliant, and it sums Confused Matthew and his retarded reviews made for retards.
Also you say Matthew fails as an audience member cause he doesn`t understand the film but the point is that it is purely enmtirpitable meaning he fails too write the film for the film, he doesn`t refrain from criticising a film of an art form he doesn`t believe in, because he hates on the artform, he shows that anyone can do that, that means it is not in the film itself and makes the film devoid of value, and that you don`t even need a film but just a blank wall or your imagination for this!!!!!
Actually many people just hate on people for disliking popular films, many just hate on matthew saying the lion king awesome!!!!! He doesn`t claim that the taboo came from a smal group nor that this lead to the popularity of the film, it came from the popularity and is used as an argument, as you will show Chase!!!!!! Also he doesn`t say this means people liking the film are wrong but that using the popularity as an argument is wrong!!!!!!
@reviewreviewer1 That's why it's a straw man argument and a non sequitur, Popularity isn't what made people like 2001. Audiences and critics love it because it's a great fucking film (fantastic Blu-ray as well). Popularity is why Roger Ebert gave Revenge of the Sith 3.5 stars.
@TheTVTastic So then why does Chase constantly use the films popularity as an argument?? Also Roger Ebert often goes against popular opinion and critics liked the film at it`s opening, and really the film with no plot and randomness better then the film which has a story, Matthew also ade a random series of clips remember.
@reviewreviewer1 Chase DOESN'T use the film's popularity as an argument! Sure, he refers to the film's popularity and acclaim, but that's different than using it as an argument. My advice to you is to go to your local community college and take a basic critical thinking course. CT 101 spends a good amount of time explaining argument and fallacies, and you are in severe need of a lesson. Also, take a writing course, as well. I couldn't decipher half of what you were saying in the prior post.
@TheTVTastic Then why does he constantly use the popularity as an argument, also Ebert often oposes popular opinion, and 2001 is random like Matthews videos demonstrated III had an actual plot caracters and messages.
@reviewreviewer1 Gender Confused Matthew is exactly what his name would imply; confused. His out of context clips prove nothing. You've never seen the film, have you? Funny how the rest of the world seems to get this film except for folks like yourself and Gender Confused Matthew.
I just wanna say I appreciate you standing up for Star Wars Chase. I will side with him on episodes II & III, but, The Phantom Menace is excellent. I noticed in his review for that one that alot ov his "confusion" was based on lack ov knowledge. Ok, so, obviously hes not a book nerd like I am, because if he was, he would have read up on the Star Wars novels to get his questions answered.
@Nergal8605 With all due respect, half of the viewers are not star wars "nerds" for lack of a better word, so I can see where both of you are at, but for most people, the story problems are only half of what makes the Phantom Menace an underwhelming film.
A friend of mine told me the Chase passed away. Out of curiosity, I had to look for myself. IIRC, I thought he made a video saying he was leaving YT for a while.(either him or someone else I'm thinking of that made that type of video...)
Matthew finds flaws in so much he'd find flaws in a porno.....like really? (Yes they are cheezy that's beyond the point) He's going to need some serious anti-depresants if he treats his life like he does movies, I can't watch one of his reviews without facepalming x20.
Hey I'm not gonna watch this whole thing but good on you for doing this. But this trend of movie reviews that are as long or longer than the movie they are critiquing is a waste of our time on earth. And "2001" is one of my favorite things ever.
2001, is basically.. the genesis, behind the idea of "the terminator".. the idea that somehow, the destiny of thought, implies that we as man, become victim to our own design, kind of ironic, how we were designed... it gets flipped on its head, once AI... artificial intelligence, becomes self aware... these 2 movies basically share the same concept, but IMO, the terminator is the better movie... DATA from star trek, is self aware, but in that show to my knowledge they havent explored that yet
You dont have that level power of thoughts and inteligence to "beef" with CM :D I think you just nerd trying to get attention and be cool liking that over the top drug trip 2001 :D Very, very weak response ....
Confused Matthew is clearly a guy who wouldn't appreciate good art of any kind - sculpture, painting, sound art, theatre, whatever - that doesn't have a storyline and straightforward character development. He has a limited imagination and under-developed appreciation of what can be good art, but you can't blame him really; it's just that some people become arrogant before they become intelligent, because they surround themselves with idiots.
@hardcorefakes1 I could give you a general idea of art in several thousand words, not 484 characters, and if you think I'm going to put such effort into entertaining your trolling, you can think again.
161 dislikes so far-- I guess these people really hate it when Chase calls out their strawman arguments and stereotyping about movies/fans they don't understand...
But yeah, I thought Confused Matt was trying to do a comedy thing with his "Space Odyssey" review-- but oh, the hypocrisy of setting all kinds of "ground rules" for Space Odyssey, which can conveniently be forgotten for other movies/genre...
But that's how some people try to "characterise" things they don't understand-- see para 1.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
rofl this dude is sucha fag hahah, stop doing the fkn quote signs with your fingers, its so fuckin gay and who the fk is confused matthew, who gives a shit, you both suck lmao
Matthew is right about not being allowed to like or hate certain things. Not in the sense that there is a law (obviously), but in the sense that it can hurt your respect when it comes to movie talk. I for one hate the Godfather, I find it very to slow paced, like its telling me to be sympathetic to gangsters doing bad things, and flat out boring. And I like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I have been criticized for both.
@southparkfan2717 See, I think CHase knows what he is talking about, but can't articulate it. You can hate The Godfather, but the reasons you hate it really influence your response. Matthew is trying to understand it narratively in the same way he'd understand Pulp FIction. BUt 2001 is a visual film, just like Closeup, Nanook of the North and other films. He isn't "wrong" for disliking the film, but his reasons, shows how little (suprisingly) he knows of the nature of film.
@UltimateSerge A visual experience is what I'd call it. As Matthew points out "no story", crap floating in space specially coordinated with music is not a story. To be a visual film it doesn't not have to be only visuals. Avatar gave me more aw and wonder from its visuals because I was able to stay awake because it had a story. Also the same goes for 2010, much better movie, Roy Scheider is a better actor then crap in space.
@southparkfan2717 See, my problem is that you are comparing two different kind of films. Avatar is made to communicate , and fascinate, while 2001 does not. It is a visual experience in the same way that Abbas Kiarostami's films are visual. Your view Matthew posts I believe is "wrong," even though I admit that sounds arrogant to claim opinion is wrong, because he believes Kubrick forgot to put a story in the film, rather than he purposefully eliminated as much story and detail as possible.
@UltimateSerge But that is not telling you anything. That is just watching stuff float in space. If I dropped a baseball off the top of a 100 story skyscraper and filmed it falling close up, and then put it in slow motion to last two hours, and maybe have a guitarist play a two hour guitar solo to it falling, coordinating it so it looks like the rhythm in motion with the ball spinning, I guess I got an Oscar winning work of art there.
@southparkfan2717 I can't promise you have a masterpiece, but if you filmed it, you would have a film. Maybe not one millions would go to, but at least A film. There was one example like what you cited which was released last year called You, THe Living
I am sorruounded by my bookshelf with countless books from Andre Bazin to other film scholars, my major is film so I read (am forced) a lot of scholarly stuff, but I won't bother giving you a definition of film. You can do that if you want.
@southparkfan2717 And I assure you, almost none of these film scholars define film as a narrative medium. The narrative is sure part of it, but it does not neccesarly have to be.
@UltimateSerge And I assure you a baseball dropping from a building would just be a baseball dropping from a building, music coordination and slow motion might make it seems cooler to some. But that doesn't make it a film, it still just makes it a baseball falling from a building.
@southparkfan2717 A baseball falling from a building is not film, tape it as it accelerates downward, and you have just got a film.
My problem with Matthew's review, response, and many people who agree with them is that they are wrong about the nature of film. 90% of people have watched narrative films to such a degree that they think film must have a cohesive narrative. While many silent works don't nor do many experimental films.
@southparkfan2717 And yes, I do believe Matthew, his fans, and you here (no disrespect) are wrong. Not wrong because you may not like 2001, but because your definition of film is extremely narrow.
If yo did'nt make your point without the blatant insults to a persons intelligence , the smug look of delusional intellectual superiority over what is by definition a subjective medium and did'nt contradict yourself numberous times throughout this counter attack it would have given more credence to the few relative points you made.. my advise would be consider humility.... indepthly
I watched every relevant video on the film - Matthew's review, Chase's rebuttal, and Matthew's counter-rebuttal, as well as Matthew's review of 2010.
I love 2001, for pretty much identical reasons to Chase's. I also think it's likely that his interpretation of Kubrick's and Clark's story is very close to what they intended. But, Matthew made some completely valid criticisms, and Chase never addresses them. Instead, he strawmans his case from beginning to end. This is not an honest response.
@drugsnbeer I just love how you "forgot" to provide any examples of these strawmen and valid criticisms. Could it be that you are lazy or more likely that you are just a butthurt Matthew fanboy?
Seeing as how you are the one who engaged me in conversation, I'm not sure you being the one to tell anyone to fuck off makes much sense.
Do you want to have a civilized discussion, or do you just want to play internet tough guy? It's it's the former, fine. If it's the latter, I have paint I could be watching dry.
@Blomsternisse The only real criticism Matthew has for the film is "it's about nothing", but in over 80 mins, does Chase ever really address this? He mentions it, but he never really addresses it.
@buc555 Chase addresses it on several occassions. Watch for example his analysis of the Dawn of Man sequence.
More generally though you could say that the long silent passages of travel from Earth describes Man's millennia of development of all manner of technologies. We see visually evidence of the creation of written language, mathematics, commerce, electricity, mechanics, hydraulics, aeronautics, computers, even the mastery of artificial gravity. This film is far from being about nothing.
@Blomsternisse Matthew's problem is that everything has to be interpreted, if it isn't then it's not really anything. Chase offers many interpretations, Matthew has admitt that he isn't going to write the movie for them, I don't really agree with that kind of attitude but whatever.
But Chase never addresses the issue of why there are long sequences that need these interpretations, and why they are so long.
@buc555 "But Chase never addresses the issue of why there are long sequences that need these interpretations, and why they are so long."
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Are you asking why the film just doesn't spell it out for the audience in words. Could you perhaps elaborate?
@Blomsternisse Matthew's problem is that everything has to be interpreted, Chase gives his interpretation but not why an interpretation is needed. A narrator might have been good in some parts.
@buc555 A narrator would only be a good idea if you wanted to be robbed of the pleasure of discovering and interpreting the movie for yourself. Why anyone would want that I don't know.
@buc555 Sorry if this is a double post. Almost certain I responded but it doesn't show up. Anyways....
"But Chase never addresses the issue of why there are long sequences that need these interpretations, and why they are so long."
Not sure I understand what you mean by this. Are you asking why these sequences aren't just spelled out in words through, say a narrator? Could you perhaps elaborate?
@buc555 He still brings up two relevant points in relation to those sequences: 1) The experience; and 2) Place in time. Cutting the long scenes short would potentially compromise the experience of the film, and while that experience may be boring to us, it may not have necessarily been the same for audiences 50 years ago. In any case, Chase illustrates that it is not particularly fair for someone to critique the film on that level without possessing that appreciation of place in time.
@buc555 2001 might be humanity's evolution and development into becoming aliens, extra terrestrials and so on when any other account assume something else. It had the original tongue-in-cheek working title "How the Solar System was won". It's like a silent film, a visual interpretation that follows Kubrick's comment that "the audience should listen more with their eyes", it's imagery before audio-based narrative. You're not going to get a talkie with spoken exposition and images digested to you.
I agree with you, but I wish you had done this without the anger and condescending sarcasm. Matthew's supporters will just write you off as some sort of elitist film snob.
You do realize that 2001 is possibly the most artistic and influential film ever made, while Back to the Future Part 2 is an entertaining popcorn movie, right? Consider this: Before 2001: A Space Odyssey, sci-fi movies were no more respected than porn films. It was this movie that turned the genre into what it is today. In other words, if 2001 were a bad movie, there wouldn't be a Back to the Future Part 2 TO defend!
Let me repeat: You do realize that 2001 is possibly the most artistic and influential film ever made, while Back to the Future Part 2 is an entertaining popcorn movie, right?
I like 2001 just fine, but the fact remains that landscapes, people/objects in space, and "slice of life" scenes do not constitute storytelling. Dave's flight through the stargate is a fine setpiece, but, like the rest of the film, is too long.
2001 is more of a special effects showcase than a story of guided evolution and, consequently, does not hold its own against other "actionless" science fiction films like Gattaca.
I think both people here are really obnoxious. Matthew is trying to be objective by comparing 2001 to a certain standard or precedent of movie storytelling, and he acts as if it is universally accepted that those standards or precedents are always what makes a great movie. The people who think this movie is great don't think it has an engaging plot or relatable characters. 2001 never set out to have these things, it set out to be a unique visceral experience that would evoke emotion and thoughts
Whatever you might think about Chase, you can't deny he has some valid points. Especially about Matthew recommending everybody not to see it. This is just plain irresponsible and discredits him as a movie reviewer.
@hanl9889 So every movie reviewer that ever said don't watch a particular movie is just plain irresponsible and discredits themselves as a movie reviewer? So pretty much ALL movie reviewers are just plain irresponsible people right? Or is it only irresponsible if someone says don't watch 2001?
There is a book behind the film. Written by Arthur C. Clarke. After I read the book, I understood the film. In some sense at least. I like the book. I like the film. Debate over (for me).
The part where mention CM's tendency to throw out blanket statements to "shield his criticisms FROM criticisms" was dead on. I just watched his review for the first time, and MAN, I'm not even a huge Kubrick fan, but listening to some guy continuously try to fend off critics as though he hears them inside his head already (which reveals an insecurity of monumental proportions) was so annoying I almost couldn't finish it--number one complaint about CM, whining over critiquing.
Sorry, by invoking the Nazis you have proved that you are utterly bankrupt in the arguments department, and you have therefore destroyed your own case. You lose.
You haven't pointed out any examples of this "racism", you claim to see. You are either delusional or just doing some really low effort trolling. I really hope it is the last.
Let me see, let us take the monkeys. Now in the book they were just these kind of protohumans and the monolith was clear. The monkeys learn skills that help them get more food and kill predators. In the film the monkeys represent white people and the Black monolith represents the evil influence of black people. Instead of helping the monkeys learn skills, it instead makes the monkeys kill other monkeys.
@EyeoftheU The thing about it is, it wasn't a waste of time. It completely proves CM's point about the film being about nothing. There is so little told to you that it's your responsibility to figure out what it all means and GuRiRu did exactly that in the allegory for black people being evil. It was totally necessary to see the entire thing in order so show that no one can refute that this may be the actual meaning of the film. It seems just as valid as Chase's interpretation.
My point is that he could have save himself the embarrassment and made himself look like less of of an utter lunatic by not putting up that ridiculous wall of text.
He really just manages to come across as an insane conspiracy theorist who thinks that everything remotely black is somehow an allegory for black people. I mean, he sounds like motherfucking Charles Manson
Then on the space ship going to the moon there are no black people at all. It is like the film is saying that blacks are too stupid or savage to escape a menial existence on earth. Again they monolith is black not clear and colorless and again the evil influence of the black monolith causes ill effect for the white people around it. The film is telling use that whites simply being around a black person will harm them.
Then we get to Hal, who is obviously black. Now Has has a red eye, to show us that since he is black he is evil. He only has one eye, this is to say that no matter how smart Hal has been made by his white makers, he still was less than the white astronauts. They also call into question if Hal is even a person or not, implying that blacks hare subhuman. Hal is a servant, the film is telling us that the only proper place for black people is as servants.
When Hal seems to make a mistake, the white immediately consider killing him off. The film is telling us that if blacks can not make good servants, if they every make a mistake, then the only correct response is to kill them before they go crazy, as Hal apparently does. The film tells us that it is either whites, who are human, or blacks who are subhuman, and it is life or death, one must kill the other. In the film we see the white man conquering the black servant.
Then David Bowman enters the black monolith floating in space. This causes great harm to the white man. The film is telling us not to get too close to blacks or their culture or face the consequences. Then we see the white man living peacefully in a very nice room but at the point of death the monolith comes, telling us that seeing a black person or accepting them into your home is a bad omen of death.
Then, as the white man and the monolith struggle, even as it seems that the black man might win since the white man is so weak from age, somehow the white mans is able to kill even the monolith and re-emerge from the conflict in some sort of higher state of existence, possible due to the fact that he was able to kill the black monolith. Now he returns to earth to complete the task and murder all the remaining blacks on the planet earth.
I've watched Confused Matthew since the beginning, way back to his first reviews...
I've agreed sometimes, and I've disagreed other times.
But NEVER did I feel Confused Matthew was ever 1. arrogant 2. self-righteous 3. pompous 4. dick-headed 5. small-minded 6. rude 7. idiotic 8. banal 8. insipid or 10. ALL OF THE ABOVE!
Take it frome someone who IS an asshole, folks--this guy makes even ME feel sick!
The only bright spot--CM DESTROYS this fool in his response!
Because I have to say, I sometimes agree with CM--like in this case, I think most of his criticisms of 2001 are valid, Chase later compares 2001 to Shakespeare...Shakespeare, though, DOES give 1. a definite plot and 2. definite characters with definite (for the most part) motivations, leaving you to ask 3. what it all means, but he DOES actually give a concrete story FIRST--and sometimes I disagree--I like First Contact--but never been rude like Chase here is.
@BartJ385 In a just world, those comments would bring an end to this shrill, irritating comments section through the sheer force of their own truth. You really don't need 80 minutes to point down what's wrong with CM's review. It's not that complicated.
You praise this film for having 'themes' but in that sense it is no different than any other film. Other than a few loose themes 2001 is vacuous. It's like John Stuart Mill pressing "On Liberty" with the footnote 'you think about it' without any other content written inside it. Sure, it'd probably provoke some thought but has no instrinsic value. It would be no more a masterpiece than the apple that hit newton on the head.
this person tries to project himself as intelligent and wise and ends up coming across as a patronizing conceited smug guy who is about to dissipear up his own back side oh and to top it all of he bores the shit out of me
its 3 minutes in and i am already bored part of giving your opinion to people is to keep there attention span no matter how clever you might think your sounding which reminds me of the film you are defending which is also boring and not as clever as it thinks it is just like you
@darkmindedsith i am sorry you feel that way about my long drawn out comments but i like to think they are more interesting and not as long as mr chases video here
its 3 minutes in and i am already bored part of giving your opinion to people is to keep there attention span no matter how clever you might think your sounding
Chase drew this out FAR longer than was necessary, but to his credit all of what he says is correct. Additionally, he presented a lot more points (about the historical implications of this film) than CM did which also took up a lot of the time. And while his manner is pretentious at moments, so is CM in my view. CM calls his point of view objective which means all others are secondary. That's just as (if not more) annoying as Chase's verbose response. At least Chase reviewed the film properly.
@mattsreviews1 Reviewing a movie based on its influence is not a review. One looks at a movie with no other input but the reviewer. If you don't like it, you give the reasons why. CM doesn't have to like this movie just because I, and so many others, do. I love how this film makes you feel your on a journey with the astronouts. It's historical implications are fascinating, but has nothing to do with why I like this film.
it's thought provoking because you have nothing to do during the movie but be bored and think. It's like saying a brick wall is thought provoking, because the way you entertain yourself during the movie is to think.
I adore 2001 - It's right up there in my Top 10 films of all time. It's a genius work of art, mindblowingly ahead of its' time, created a massive impact upon my cinematic education and is clearly one of the most important films of all time. Stanley Kubrick is my favourite film maker.
Almost everything that Chase says is correct.
However, that doesn't stop me from wanting to repeatadly kick him in his pretentious cunt of a face.
So at 6:45 you say that someone like Matthew cannot win a debate? Well I don't think he's trying to debate this with anyone. On the other hand I would like to know if you decided to debate all this with him in a direct conversation and record it.
@pzzn A real debate between Chase & Mathew would be awesome! It wouldn't even have to be live. They could just create or find a forum for the 2 of them to discuss things, & it'd still be great. They'd have time to fully think out their points that way too.
It'd take a whoooooole lot less time than making a 9 part video too. :-P
I am so, SO sorry of giving you some "views" to your "2001" vids, I´ve seen them all and, DUDE, what a waste, you have missed the entire point of Matthew´s review by a year light. What a waste of time and effort.
Although you totally fail at explaining why 2001 is a great FILM (you know, with a good plot, climax, resolution, etc,) I really must thank you. I never would've heard about Confused Matthew w/o your "rebuttal" vid. I clicked on your vid because I wanted to know why the bore-fest called 2001 was so good. The "Confused Matthew" part of the title made me think you would explain it to even us simple folk. I hadn't heard about either of you before this.
@mrnacj Really? Only 10% of a film is the plot, climax, resolution, etc? I'll bite. What's the other 90%? Enlighten me please. If the story is boring and drawn out, of what use is the other 90%?
@goldenheartOh It is to show the evolution of man, from his life as an ape to the contrastingly different life in space. And 10 % plot? That's just hyperbole.
AAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! Seriously dude? NINE part rebuttal?
I clicked your link out of curiosity. I didn't even know who either of you were. At first, I didn't care much, but decided to watch Confused Matthew's review 1st to get some context. Then, I watched 2 of your videos, got bored & watched CM's response to you.
CM is immensely entertaining. We agree completely about 2001. I was waiting for you to explain how we're wrong, but all I saw was CM totally & completely owning you!!!
If you cared about this enough to ramble on for 9 parts... I think you have too much time on your hands. Take a chill pill! Looks like a sunny day... maybe you should go outside...or something. =/
Some people actually do care about the art of cinema. And I applaud chase for taking it upon himself to expose CM for the amateur critic he really is. Its one thing to say a movie is bad. Its another thing to tell people they shouldn't ever watch it. Kubrick would roll over on his grave if he ever watch a CM review. In fact, anyone who has ever loved and studied film would probably take offense.
Why is everyone saying CM 'owned' Chase? I watched CM's response and he talks about how he 'objectively demonstrated' 2001 being about 'nothing' by comparing HIS OWN description of a Back to the Future scene with HIS OWN description of a 2001 scene. For one thing, the fact that CM described SOMETHING within the 2001 scene... and uses that as his basis for the film being about NOTHING... speaks chapters about his grasp on objectivity. I know he's not done yet, but so far it's not looking too good
Lol, Chase, you remind me of that guy from the big bang theory that over annalises everything. I think he's name is sheldon. yup. You're just like him.
i can remember you saying that the taboo matthew says does not exist, you can like or hate whatever movie you like
so why are you doing this response? Matthew doesn't like 2001, your hating on him for that, therefore proving his point and making your point seem like bullshit
Comment removed
prime465 5 days ago
Ha, he brings up how you can hate Hamlet if you want to... and I do. I hate Hamlet. And my reasons are that the plot seems almost random and based on chance more than anything, the dialogue is unrealistically poetic and the poetic nature of the words are already way too easy to decipher. It's really just an exercise in metaphor, not at all a matter of making a great play or story. And nothing really sticks out as a memorable moment for that matter.
Bassbait 3 weeks ago
Nerdiness is off the charts!
Leatherbubba 3 weeks ago
"Let me get his straight: you openly admit that you are unable to grasp the intricate complexities pf the 'Scream' trilogy and 'Nightmare on Elm Street' films, but you've somehow seen right through the facade of Stanley Kubrick and 'his silly 2001.'"
^^^Brilliant, and it sums Confused Matthew and his retarded reviews made for retards.
TheTVTastic 4 weeks ago
2001 isn't the first thing that CM hasn't understood. He doesn't understand a lot of SciFi. He isn't very bright nor is he very funny.
TheTVTastic 4 weeks ago
hello noone cares
walmartian555 1 month ago
Comment removed
tornadomaster96 3 months ago
Also you say Matthew fails as an audience member cause he doesn`t understand the film but the point is that it is purely enmtirpitable meaning he fails too write the film for the film, he doesn`t refrain from criticising a film of an art form he doesn`t believe in, because he hates on the artform, he shows that anyone can do that, that means it is not in the film itself and makes the film devoid of value, and that you don`t even need a film but just a blank wall or your imagination for this!!!!!
reviewreviewer1 3 months ago
Actually many people just hate on people for disliking popular films, many just hate on matthew saying the lion king awesome!!!!! He doesn`t claim that the taboo came from a smal group nor that this lead to the popularity of the film, it came from the popularity and is used as an argument, as you will show Chase!!!!!! Also he doesn`t say this means people liking the film are wrong but that using the popularity as an argument is wrong!!!!!!
reviewreviewer1 3 months ago
@reviewreviewer1 That's why it's a straw man argument and a non sequitur, Popularity isn't what made people like 2001. Audiences and critics love it because it's a great fucking film (fantastic Blu-ray as well). Popularity is why Roger Ebert gave Revenge of the Sith 3.5 stars.
TheTVTastic 4 weeks ago
@TheTVTastic So then why does Chase constantly use the films popularity as an argument?? Also Roger Ebert often goes against popular opinion and critics liked the film at it`s opening, and really the film with no plot and randomness better then the film which has a story, Matthew also ade a random series of clips remember.
reviewreviewer1 3 weeks ago
@reviewreviewer1 Chase DOESN'T use the film's popularity as an argument! Sure, he refers to the film's popularity and acclaim, but that's different than using it as an argument. My advice to you is to go to your local community college and take a basic critical thinking course. CT 101 spends a good amount of time explaining argument and fallacies, and you are in severe need of a lesson. Also, take a writing course, as well. I couldn't decipher half of what you were saying in the prior post.
TheTVTastic 3 weeks ago
@TheTVTastic Yes he mentions the popularity as reasons matthew has to be wrong and that the film does have meaning.
So I
reviewreviewer1 3 weeks ago
@reviewreviewer1 make bad arguments because we disagree, sure.
reviewreviewer1 3 weeks ago
@TheTVTastic Then why does he constantly use the popularity as an argument, also Ebert often oposes popular opinion, and 2001 is random like Matthews videos demonstrated III had an actual plot caracters and messages.
reviewreviewer1 3 weeks ago
@reviewreviewer1 Gender Confused Matthew is exactly what his name would imply; confused. His out of context clips prove nothing. You've never seen the film, have you? Funny how the rest of the world seems to get this film except for folks like yourself and Gender Confused Matthew.
TheTVTastic 3 weeks ago
@TheTVTastic Oke we get offensive that truelly support your case.
reviewreviewer1 3 weeks ago
@TheTVTastic
What didn't he get?
twooffour 2 weeks ago
@TheTVTastic Ad Hominem.
samikalastaja 3 days ago
I just wanna say I appreciate you standing up for Star Wars Chase. I will side with him on episodes II & III, but, The Phantom Menace is excellent. I noticed in his review for that one that alot ov his "confusion" was based on lack ov knowledge. Ok, so, obviously hes not a book nerd like I am, because if he was, he would have read up on the Star Wars novels to get his questions answered.
Nergal8605 4 months ago in playlist Chase explains 2001 to Confused Matthew full playlist
@Nergal8605 With all due respect, half of the viewers are not star wars "nerds" for lack of a better word, so I can see where both of you are at, but for most people, the story problems are only half of what makes the Phantom Menace an underwhelming film.
TheNapoleonnerd 4 months ago
A friend of mine told me the Chase passed away. Out of curiosity, I had to look for myself. IIRC, I thought he made a video saying he was leaving YT for a while.(either him or someone else I'm thinking of that made that type of video...)
If it's true, RIP Chase.
CoHScrapper 5 months ago
I can't help wondering how he died.
charlesvan13 6 months ago
Matthew finds flaws in so much he'd find flaws in a porno.....like really? (Yes they are cheezy that's beyond the point) He's going to need some serious anti-depresants if he treats his life like he does movies, I can't watch one of his reviews without facepalming x20.
xMasSaCreDx 7 months ago 3
And I love The Phantom Menace too, ha ha!
amaxamon 7 months ago
Hey I'm not gonna watch this whole thing but good on you for doing this. But this trend of movie reviews that are as long or longer than the movie they are critiquing is a waste of our time on earth. And "2001" is one of my favorite things ever.
amaxamon 7 months ago
2001, is basically.. the genesis, behind the idea of "the terminator".. the idea that somehow, the destiny of thought, implies that we as man, become victim to our own design, kind of ironic, how we were designed... it gets flipped on its head, once AI... artificial intelligence, becomes self aware... these 2 movies basically share the same concept, but IMO, the terminator is the better movie... DATA from star trek, is self aware, but in that show to my knowledge they havent explored that yet
johnnyrockerfella 7 months ago
You dont have that level power of thoughts and inteligence to "beef" with CM :D I think you just nerd trying to get attention and be cool liking that over the top drug trip 2001 :D Very, very weak response ....
ottobambussskudra 8 months ago
Confused Matthew is clearly a guy who wouldn't appreciate good art of any kind - sculpture, painting, sound art, theatre, whatever - that doesn't have a storyline and straightforward character development. He has a limited imagination and under-developed appreciation of what can be good art, but you can't blame him really; it's just that some people become arrogant before they become intelligent, because they surround themselves with idiots.
feckingbillgates 9 months ago 6
@feckingbillgates lol ifeel sorry for YOU
hardcorefakes12 7 months ago
@hardcorefakes12 No need, but thanks.
feckingbillgates 7 months ago
@feckingbillgates My pleaseure my good man.
hardcorefakes12 7 months ago
@feckingbillgates Randomness is art, well Matthew made such videos remember?????????
reviewreviewer1 3 weeks ago
@feckingbillgates
He reviewed it as a MOVIE, so his criticisms were legitimate (albeit delivered annoyingly).
twooffour 2 weeks ago
@feckingbillgates What is art? Define art, please?
hardcorefakes1 1 week ago
@hardcorefakes1 In 484 characters? There are plenty of books you can read, you know.
feckingbillgates 1 week ago
@feckingbillgates You can't even give me a general idea? I don't think art can be explained.
hardcorefakes1 1 day ago
@hardcorefakes1 I could give you a general idea of art in several thousand words, not 484 characters, and if you think I'm going to put such effort into entertaining your trolling, you can think again.
feckingbillgates 1 day ago
161 dislikes so far-- I guess these people really hate it when Chase calls out their strawman arguments and stereotyping about movies/fans they don't understand...
But yeah, I thought Confused Matt was trying to do a comedy thing with his "Space Odyssey" review-- but oh, the hypocrisy of setting all kinds of "ground rules" for Space Odyssey, which can conveniently be forgotten for other movies/genre...
But that's how some people try to "characterise" things they don't understand-- see para 1.
ApocalypticAang 10 months ago 3
@ApocalypticAang Chase is dead. R.I.P.
MrFaulconbridge 9 months ago
I'm curious as to why you're defending Star Wars episode 1.
LynnJynh9315 10 months ago
Brevity is the soul of wit... Agree wtih your opinion of CM though :)
Cygnaeus1 10 months ago
Comment removed
Cygnaeus1 10 months ago
A starchild now...
phucyoutoob 11 months ago
NERD FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!!!!!!
Leatherbubba 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
rofl this dude is sucha fag hahah, stop doing the fkn quote signs with your fingers, its so fuckin gay and who the fk is confused matthew, who gives a shit, you both suck lmao
st0rmbrlnger 11 months ago
@st0rmbrlnger he's dead now
Ironzealot7531 11 months ago
@st0rmbrlnger chase died recently. show some motherfucking respect
054martinm 10 months ago
Matthew is right about not being allowed to like or hate certain things. Not in the sense that there is a law (obviously), but in the sense that it can hurt your respect when it comes to movie talk. I for one hate the Godfather, I find it very to slow paced, like its telling me to be sympathetic to gangsters doing bad things, and flat out boring. And I like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I have been criticized for both.
southparkfan2717 11 months ago
@southparkfan2717 See, I think CHase knows what he is talking about, but can't articulate it. You can hate The Godfather, but the reasons you hate it really influence your response. Matthew is trying to understand it narratively in the same way he'd understand Pulp FIction. BUt 2001 is a visual film, just like Closeup, Nanook of the North and other films. He isn't "wrong" for disliking the film, but his reasons, shows how little (suprisingly) he knows of the nature of film.
UltimateSerge 10 months ago
@UltimateSerge A visual experience is what I'd call it. As Matthew points out "no story", crap floating in space specially coordinated with music is not a story. To be a visual film it doesn't not have to be only visuals. Avatar gave me more aw and wonder from its visuals because I was able to stay awake because it had a story. Also the same goes for 2010, much better movie, Roy Scheider is a better actor then crap in space.
southparkfan2717 10 months ago
@southparkfan2717 See, my problem is that you are comparing two different kind of films. Avatar is made to communicate , and fascinate, while 2001 does not. It is a visual experience in the same way that Abbas Kiarostami's films are visual. Your view Matthew posts I believe is "wrong," even though I admit that sounds arrogant to claim opinion is wrong, because he believes Kubrick forgot to put a story in the film, rather than he purposefully eliminated as much story and detail as possible.
UltimateSerge 10 months ago
@UltimateSerge But that is not telling you anything. That is just watching stuff float in space. If I dropped a baseball off the top of a 100 story skyscraper and filmed it falling close up, and then put it in slow motion to last two hours, and maybe have a guitarist play a two hour guitar solo to it falling, coordinating it so it looks like the rhythm in motion with the ball spinning, I guess I got an Oscar winning work of art there.
southparkfan2717 10 months ago
@southparkfan2717 I can't promise you have a masterpiece, but if you filmed it, you would have a film. Maybe not one millions would go to, but at least A film. There was one example like what you cited which was released last year called You, THe Living
I am sorruounded by my bookshelf with countless books from Andre Bazin to other film scholars, my major is film so I read (am forced) a lot of scholarly stuff, but I won't bother giving you a definition of film. You can do that if you want.
UltimateSerge 10 months ago
@southparkfan2717 And I assure you, almost none of these film scholars define film as a narrative medium. The narrative is sure part of it, but it does not neccesarly have to be.
UltimateSerge 10 months ago
@UltimateSerge And I assure you a baseball dropping from a building would just be a baseball dropping from a building, music coordination and slow motion might make it seems cooler to some. But that doesn't make it a film, it still just makes it a baseball falling from a building.
southparkfan2717 10 months ago
@southparkfan2717 A baseball falling from a building is not film, tape it as it accelerates downward, and you have just got a film.
My problem with Matthew's review, response, and many people who agree with them is that they are wrong about the nature of film. 90% of people have watched narrative films to such a degree that they think film must have a cohesive narrative. While many silent works don't nor do many experimental films.
And yes, I do believe Matthew, his fans, and y
UltimateSerge 10 months ago
@southparkfan2717 And yes, I do believe Matthew, his fans, and you here (no disrespect) are wrong. Not wrong because you may not like 2001, but because your definition of film is extremely narrow.
UltimateSerge 10 months ago 3
This is the most epic video response! It's about time somebody taught him a lesson and critiqued him!
ytfjordan 11 months ago
If yo did'nt make your point without the blatant insults to a persons intelligence , the smug look of delusional intellectual superiority over what is by definition a subjective medium and did'nt contradict yourself numberous times throughout this counter attack it would have given more credence to the few relative points you made.. my advise would be consider humility.... indepthly
earthboundvictim 1 year ago
You're a poor man's version of confused matthew buddy. Oh and you're ugly.
StWesley 1 year ago
I watched every relevant video on the film - Matthew's review, Chase's rebuttal, and Matthew's counter-rebuttal, as well as Matthew's review of 2010.
I love 2001, for pretty much identical reasons to Chase's. I also think it's likely that his interpretation of Kubrick's and Clark's story is very close to what they intended. But, Matthew made some completely valid criticisms, and Chase never addresses them. Instead, he strawmans his case from beginning to end. This is not an honest response.
drugsnbeer 1 year ago
@drugsnbeer I just love how you "forgot" to provide any examples of these strawmen and valid criticisms. Could it be that you are lazy or more likely that you are just a butthurt Matthew fanboy?
Blomsternisse 1 year ago
@Blomsternisse
......aaaaaand I love how YOU just "forgot" to read that I said I love 2001 and I love it for pretty much the exact same reasons that Chase does.
"Butthurt Matthew fanboy". lol. Sure, genius.
drugsnbeer 1 year ago
@drugsnbeer Your love for 2001 has nothing to do with it.
Oh and I'm still waiting for you to provide me with examples of valid criticisms from Matthew of 2001 and examples of Chase strawmanning Matthew.
Unless you can provide those you can fuck of.
Blomsternisse 1 year ago
@Blomsternisse
Seeing as how you are the one who engaged me in conversation, I'm not sure you being the one to tell anyone to fuck off makes much sense.
Do you want to have a civilized discussion, or do you just want to play internet tough guy? It's it's the former, fine. If it's the latter, I have paint I could be watching dry.
drugsnbeer 1 year ago
@drugsnbeer Seeing as you won't provide any examples I suggest you watch that paint of your dry. I'm done with you.
Blomsternisse 1 year ago
@Blomsternisse
You're done? Oh, I guess I'll have to figure out a way to not cry myself to sleep. Ta.
drugsnbeer 1 year ago
@Blomsternisse The only real criticism Matthew has for the film is "it's about nothing", but in over 80 mins, does Chase ever really address this? He mentions it, but he never really addresses it.
buc555 1 year ago
@buc555 Chase addresses it on several occassions. Watch for example his analysis of the Dawn of Man sequence.
More generally though you could say that the long silent passages of travel from Earth describes Man's millennia of development of all manner of technologies. We see visually evidence of the creation of written language, mathematics, commerce, electricity, mechanics, hydraulics, aeronautics, computers, even the mastery of artificial gravity. This film is far from being about nothing.
Blomsternisse 1 year ago
@Blomsternisse Matthew's problem is that everything has to be interpreted, if it isn't then it's not really anything. Chase offers many interpretations, Matthew has admitt that he isn't going to write the movie for them, I don't really agree with that kind of attitude but whatever.
But Chase never addresses the issue of why there are long sequences that need these interpretations, and why they are so long.
buc555 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buc555 "But Chase never addresses the issue of why there are long sequences that need these interpretations, and why they are so long."
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Are you asking why the film just doesn't spell it out for the audience in words. Could you perhaps elaborate?
Blomsternisse 1 year ago
@Blomsternisse Matthew's problem is that everything has to be interpreted, Chase gives his interpretation but not why an interpretation is needed. A narrator might have been good in some parts.
buc555 11 months ago
@buc555 A narrator would only be a good idea if you wanted to be robbed of the pleasure of discovering and interpreting the movie for yourself. Why anyone would want that I don't know.
Blomsternisse 11 months ago
@Blomsternisse I guess Matthew would've like it.
buc555 11 months ago
@buc555 According to Matthew the movie is about nothing so there wouldn't be a whole lot to narrate.
Blomsternisse 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buc555 Sorry if this is a double post. Almost certain I responded but it doesn't show up. Anyways....
"But Chase never addresses the issue of why there are long sequences that need these interpretations, and why they are so long."
Not sure I understand what you mean by this. Are you asking why these sequences aren't just spelled out in words through, say a narrator? Could you perhaps elaborate?
Blomsternisse 1 year ago
@buc555 He still brings up two relevant points in relation to those sequences: 1) The experience; and 2) Place in time. Cutting the long scenes short would potentially compromise the experience of the film, and while that experience may be boring to us, it may not have necessarily been the same for audiences 50 years ago. In any case, Chase illustrates that it is not particularly fair for someone to critique the film on that level without possessing that appreciation of place in time.
anorourke 11 months ago
@buc555 2001 might be humanity's evolution and development into becoming aliens, extra terrestrials and so on when any other account assume something else. It had the original tongue-in-cheek working title "How the Solar System was won". It's like a silent film, a visual interpretation that follows Kubrick's comment that "the audience should listen more with their eyes", it's imagery before audio-based narrative. You're not going to get a talkie with spoken exposition and images digested to you.
AzaleaZoeliz 1 year ago
Wrong Mr. glasses man, wrong!
charlesvan13 1 year ago
@chase
"This is part 1 of my epic 9 part response / rebuttal "
You know chase, there are few things in this world more pathetic than having to call your own work "epic".
The only other thing that sad would be some hipster dragging his sister around at Tommy Wiseau films as his beard.
viewitnow 1 year ago
@chase
"This is part 1 of my epic 9 part response / rebuttal "
You know chase, there are few things in this world more pathetic than having to call your own work "epic".
The only other thing that sad would be some hipster dragging his sister around at Tommy Wiseau films as his beard.
viewitnow 1 year ago
I agree with you, but I wish you had done this without the anger and condescending sarcasm. Matthew's supporters will just write you off as some sort of elitist film snob.
evan1975 1 year ago
you should have defended fucking back to the future 2 not this!
DarPower1 1 year ago
@DarPower1
You do realize that 2001 is possibly the most artistic and influential film ever made, while Back to the Future Part 2 is an entertaining popcorn movie, right? Consider this: Before 2001: A Space Odyssey, sci-fi movies were no more respected than porn films. It was this movie that turned the genre into what it is today. In other words, if 2001 were a bad movie, there wouldn't be a Back to the Future Part 2 TO defend!
chinchychilla 1 year ago
@chinchychilla how does the film inspiring better works make it better with in it's self
255ad 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@255ad
Let me repeat: You do realize that 2001 is possibly the most artistic and influential film ever made, while Back to the Future Part 2 is an entertaining popcorn movie, right?
chinchychilla 1 year ago
I like 2001 just fine, but the fact remains that landscapes, people/objects in space, and "slice of life" scenes do not constitute storytelling. Dave's flight through the stargate is a fine setpiece, but, like the rest of the film, is too long.
2001 is more of a special effects showcase than a story of guided evolution and, consequently, does not hold its own against other "actionless" science fiction films like Gattaca.
BiffMP5 1 year ago
Is it just me, or does this guy look a lot like HellionExciter of old?
Kinda sounds like him too...
BigBrotherMateyka 1 year ago
I think both people here are really obnoxious. Matthew is trying to be objective by comparing 2001 to a certain standard or precedent of movie storytelling, and he acts as if it is universally accepted that those standards or precedents are always what makes a great movie. The people who think this movie is great don't think it has an engaging plot or relatable characters. 2001 never set out to have these things, it set out to be a unique visceral experience that would evoke emotion and thoughts
concernedfurbykiller 1 year ago
Whatever you might think about Chase, you can't deny he has some valid points. Especially about Matthew recommending everybody not to see it. This is just plain irresponsible and discredits him as a movie reviewer.
hanl9889 1 year ago
@hanl9889 So every movie reviewer that ever said don't watch a particular movie is just plain irresponsible and discredits themselves as a movie reviewer? So pretty much ALL movie reviewers are just plain irresponsible people right? Or is it only irresponsible if someone says don't watch 2001?
Warblade118 1 year ago
@hanl9889 critics tell people to or not to see films all the time (Siskel and Ebert made it a part of there show) it kinda comes with the territory
255ad 1 year ago
chase. I think you have to relax.
karmapolice247 1 year ago
There is a book behind the film. Written by Arthur C. Clarke. After I read the book, I understood the film. In some sense at least. I like the book. I like the film. Debate over (for me).
codive 1 year ago
Fucking hell.. The levels of smug off this guy are through the roof...
sbtech01 1 year ago
Wow, this whole response to Confused Matthew is the most drawn out pretentious piece of drivel since....well, 2001 A Space Odyssey.
Tmartin1438 1 year ago
The part where mention CM's tendency to throw out blanket statements to "shield his criticisms FROM criticisms" was dead on. I just watched his review for the first time, and MAN, I'm not even a huge Kubrick fan, but listening to some guy continuously try to fend off critics as though he hears them inside his head already (which reveals an insecurity of monumental proportions) was so annoying I almost couldn't finish it--number one complaint about CM, whining over critiquing.
Gorshkin111 1 year ago
2001 is just like Triumph of the Wills, nothing but Nazi propaganda.
GuRiRu 1 year ago
@GuRiRu
Sorry, by invoking the Nazis you have proved that you are utterly bankrupt in the arguments department, and you have therefore destroyed your own case. You lose.
EyeoftheU 1 year ago
@EyeoftheU
I see you don't like it when someone points out the racism that is 2001 a space odessy
GuRiRu 1 year ago
@GuRiRu
You haven't pointed out any examples of this "racism", you claim to see. You are either delusional or just doing some really low effort trolling. I really hope it is the last.
EyeoftheU 1 year ago
@EyeoftheU
Let me see, let us take the monkeys. Now in the book they were just these kind of protohumans and the monolith was clear. The monkeys learn skills that help them get more food and kill predators. In the film the monkeys represent white people and the Black monolith represents the evil influence of black people. Instead of helping the monkeys learn skills, it instead makes the monkeys kill other monkeys.
GuRiRu 1 year ago
Comment removed
EyeoftheU 1 year ago
@GuRiRu
Why waste both mine and your time on all that waffle, a simple "Hey, the monolith is an allegory for black people!" would have sufficed?
EyeoftheU 1 year ago
@EyeoftheU The thing about it is, it wasn't a waste of time. It completely proves CM's point about the film being about nothing. There is so little told to you that it's your responsibility to figure out what it all means and GuRiRu did exactly that in the allegory for black people being evil. It was totally necessary to see the entire thing in order so show that no one can refute that this may be the actual meaning of the film. It seems just as valid as Chase's interpretation.
ctgore 1 year ago
@ctgore
My point is that he could have save himself the embarrassment and made himself look like less of of an utter lunatic by not putting up that ridiculous wall of text.
He really just manages to come across as an insane conspiracy theorist who thinks that everything remotely black is somehow an allegory for black people. I mean, he sounds like motherfucking Charles Manson
EyeoftheU 1 year ago
@EyeoftheU
Then on the space ship going to the moon there are no black people at all. It is like the film is saying that blacks are too stupid or savage to escape a menial existence on earth. Again they monolith is black not clear and colorless and again the evil influence of the black monolith causes ill effect for the white people around it. The film is telling use that whites simply being around a black person will harm them.
GuRiRu 1 year ago
@EyeoftheU
Then we get to Hal, who is obviously black. Now Has has a red eye, to show us that since he is black he is evil. He only has one eye, this is to say that no matter how smart Hal has been made by his white makers, he still was less than the white astronauts. They also call into question if Hal is even a person or not, implying that blacks hare subhuman. Hal is a servant, the film is telling us that the only proper place for black people is as servants.
GuRiRu 1 year ago
@EyeoftheU
When Hal seems to make a mistake, the white immediately consider killing him off. The film is telling us that if blacks can not make good servants, if they every make a mistake, then the only correct response is to kill them before they go crazy, as Hal apparently does. The film tells us that it is either whites, who are human, or blacks who are subhuman, and it is life or death, one must kill the other. In the film we see the white man conquering the black servant.
GuRiRu 1 year ago
@EyeoftheU
Then David Bowman enters the black monolith floating in space. This causes great harm to the white man. The film is telling us not to get too close to blacks or their culture or face the consequences. Then we see the white man living peacefully in a very nice room but at the point of death the monolith comes, telling us that seeing a black person or accepting them into your home is a bad omen of death.
GuRiRu 1 year ago
@EyeoftheU
Then, as the white man and the monolith struggle, even as it seems that the black man might win since the white man is so weak from age, somehow the white mans is able to kill even the monolith and re-emerge from the conflict in some sort of higher state of existence, possible due to the fact that he was able to kill the black monolith. Now he returns to earth to complete the task and murder all the remaining blacks on the planet earth.
GuRiRu 1 year ago
My God it's just an overated movie with some pretty effects and philisophical deepness. To say it's one of the best films of all time seems overated.
I think the problem with Chase's response is that he's using some of the things that 2001 has been known for instead of what it has in it.
captainjjb84 1 year ago
Chase mate, I have one thing to say to you. 2001 ROCKS!!
tm1776 1 year ago
dude ur so annoying
hotrod2c 1 year ago
I think Chase really doesn't like Matthew and wants him to pay for ruining his favorite movie.
scottieman2 1 year ago
I've watched Confused Matthew since the beginning, way back to his first reviews...
I've agreed sometimes, and I've disagreed other times.
But NEVER did I feel Confused Matthew was ever 1. arrogant 2. self-righteous 3. pompous 4. dick-headed 5. small-minded 6. rude 7. idiotic 8. banal 8. insipid or 10. ALL OF THE ABOVE!
Take it frome someone who IS an asshole, folks--this guy makes even ME feel sick!
The only bright spot--CM DESTROYS this fool in his response!
Chase--get a life!
obiwanobiwan13 1 year ago
@obiwanobiwan13 "1. arrogant 2. self-righteous 3. pompous 4. dick-headed 5. small-minded 6. rude 7. idiotic 8. banal 8. insipid or 10. ALL OF THE ABOVE!"
He is indeed all those things.
EvilRadiatedMonkey 1 year ago
@EvilRadiatedMonkey Chase or CM?
Because I have to say, I sometimes agree with CM--like in this case, I think most of his criticisms of 2001 are valid, Chase later compares 2001 to Shakespeare...Shakespeare, though, DOES give 1. a definite plot and 2. definite characters with definite (for the most part) motivations, leaving you to ask 3. what it all means, but he DOES actually give a concrete story FIRST--and sometimes I disagree--I like First Contact--but never been rude like Chase here is.
obiwanobiwan13 1 year ago
@BartJ385 In a just world, those comments would bring an end to this shrill, irritating comments section through the sheer force of their own truth. You really don't need 80 minutes to point down what's wrong with CM's review. It's not that complicated.
bbqplatypus318 1 year ago
"Too long of a walk for a short drink of water."
You praise this film for having 'themes' but in that sense it is no different than any other film. Other than a few loose themes 2001 is vacuous. It's like John Stuart Mill pressing "On Liberty" with the footnote 'you think about it' without any other content written inside it. Sure, it'd probably provoke some thought but has no instrinsic value. It would be no more a masterpiece than the apple that hit newton on the head.
r0x0rwolfo 1 year ago
oh here is another word that springs to mind listening to this guy pretentious
redbaron932 1 year ago
this person tries to project himself as intelligent and wise and ends up coming across as a patronizing conceited smug guy who is about to dissipear up his own back side oh and to top it all of he bores the shit out of me
redbaron932 1 year ago
and remember he is entitled to his opinion and to say that his comments are irresponsible which is ludicrous it is only a movie
redbaron932 1 year ago
and remember he is entitled to his opinion and to say that his comments are irresponsible it is only a movie
redbaron932 1 year ago
now you are patronizing Mathew with how he is confused because he did not like a film that you did (3.33)
redbaron932 1 year ago
its 3 minutes in and i am already bored part of giving your opinion to people is to keep there attention span no matter how clever you might think your sounding which reminds me of the film you are defending which is also boring and not as clever as it thinks it is just like you
redbaron932 1 year ago
@redbaron932
Ironically, a lot probably won't have the attention span to read your novel of criticism.
darkmindedsith 1 year ago
@darkmindedsith i am sorry you feel that way about my long drawn out comments but i like to think they are more interesting and not as long as mr chases video here
redbaron932 1 year ago
its 3 minutes in and i am already bored part of giving your opinion to people is to keep there attention span no matter how clever you might think your sounding
redbaron932 1 year ago
Chase drew this out FAR longer than was necessary, but to his credit all of what he says is correct. Additionally, he presented a lot more points (about the historical implications of this film) than CM did which also took up a lot of the time. And while his manner is pretentious at moments, so is CM in my view. CM calls his point of view objective which means all others are secondary. That's just as (if not more) annoying as Chase's verbose response. At least Chase reviewed the film properly.
mattsreviews1 1 year ago 13
@mattsreviews1 Reviewing a movie based on its influence is not a review. One looks at a movie with no other input but the reviewer. If you don't like it, you give the reasons why. CM doesn't have to like this movie just because I, and so many others, do. I love how this film makes you feel your on a journey with the astronouts. It's historical implications are fascinating, but has nothing to do with why I like this film.
NATED0Go33 1 year ago
Holy shit, I have never seen a comment section so troll infested in my life!
Blomsternisse 1 year ago
6:17
it's thought provoking because you have nothing to do during the movie but be bored and think. It's like saying a brick wall is thought provoking, because the way you entertain yourself during the movie is to think.
KneeOJustice 1 year ago
I adore 2001 - It's right up there in my Top 10 films of all time. It's a genius work of art, mindblowingly ahead of its' time, created a massive impact upon my cinematic education and is clearly one of the most important films of all time. Stanley Kubrick is my favourite film maker.
Almost everything that Chase says is correct.
However, that doesn't stop me from wanting to repeatadly kick him in his pretentious cunt of a face.
pancakeday2006 1 year ago 6
@pancakeday2006 Relly you too? High five! XD
kingsman565 1 year ago
Watching 2001 gave me a severe case of Narcolepsy
Camelsarse 1 year ago
Geez! This guy can´t just get to the point?! What a boring response!!
jlgilesrivera 1 year ago
So at 6:45 you say that someone like Matthew cannot win a debate? Well I don't think he's trying to debate this with anyone. On the other hand I would like to know if you decided to debate all this with him in a direct conversation and record it.
pzzn 1 year ago
@pzzn A real debate between Chase & Mathew would be awesome! It wouldn't even have to be live. They could just create or find a forum for the 2 of them to discuss things, & it'd still be great. They'd have time to fully think out their points that way too.
It'd take a whoooooole lot less time than making a 9 part video too. :-P
goldenheartOh 1 year ago
what a hipster doofus
b2succeed12 1 year ago
No, you are not allowed to like Phantom Menace, but who wants to, anyway?
YouFoolWarrenIsDead 1 year ago
@YouFoolWarrenIsDead I tryed so dam hard to like the Phantom Menace, but I failed. :(
kingsman565 1 year ago
The constant air quotes are really annoying and juvenile.
zugabdu 1 year ago
I am so, SO sorry of giving you some "views" to your "2001" vids, I´ve seen them all and, DUDE, what a waste, you have missed the entire point of Matthew´s review by a year light. What a waste of time and effort.
wookiebodoque 1 year ago
Oh my... it really is logical fallacy after logical fallacy... while complaining about logical fallacies that Matthew wasn't really making.
You fascinate me Chase. I'd like to subscribe do your newsletter.
hossrex 1 year ago
Although you totally fail at explaining why 2001 is a great FILM (you know, with a good plot, climax, resolution, etc,) I really must thank you. I never would've heard about Confused Matthew w/o your "rebuttal" vid. I clicked on your vid because I wanted to know why the bore-fest called 2001 was so good. The "Confused Matthew" part of the title made me think you would explain it to even us simple folk. I hadn't heard about either of you before this.
goldenheartOh 1 year ago
@goldenheartOh
I take it that you think a "FILM" is all about good plot, climax and resolution huh?
If so, then you really only think about and appreciate about 10% of what really makes a "FILM."
mrnacj 1 year ago
@mrnacj Really? Only 10% of a film is the plot, climax, resolution, etc? I'll bite. What's the other 90%? Enlighten me please. If the story is boring and drawn out, of what use is the other 90%?
goldenheartOh 1 year ago
@goldenheartOh It is to show the evolution of man, from his life as an ape to the contrastingly different life in space. And 10 % plot? That's just hyperbole.
EvilRadiatedMonkey 1 year ago
AAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! Seriously dude? NINE part rebuttal?
I clicked your link out of curiosity. I didn't even know who either of you were. At first, I didn't care much, but decided to watch Confused Matthew's review 1st to get some context. Then, I watched 2 of your videos, got bored & watched CM's response to you.
CM is immensely entertaining. We agree completely about 2001. I was waiting for you to explain how we're wrong, but all I saw was CM totally & completely owning you!!!
FAIL! lol
goldenheartOh 1 year ago
@goldenheartOh
AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
You are such a troll! "Confused Matthew" and "immensely entertaining" shouldn't ever be in the same sentence.
Matthews just some whiny lil biatch where half of what he says is either "FUCK YOU" or "THIS IS STUPID".
Ayatron34 1 year ago 4
If you cared about this enough to ramble on for 9 parts... I think you have too much time on your hands. Take a chill pill! Looks like a sunny day... maybe you should go outside...or something. =/
owlexx 1 year ago
@owlexx
Some people actually do care about the art of cinema. And I applaud chase for taking it upon himself to expose CM for the amateur critic he really is. Its one thing to say a movie is bad. Its another thing to tell people they shouldn't ever watch it. Kubrick would roll over on his grave if he ever watch a CM review. In fact, anyone who has ever loved and studied film would probably take offense.
mrnacj 1 year ago 3
Why is everyone saying CM 'owned' Chase? I watched CM's response and he talks about how he 'objectively demonstrated' 2001 being about 'nothing' by comparing HIS OWN description of a Back to the Future scene with HIS OWN description of a 2001 scene. For one thing, the fact that CM described SOMETHING within the 2001 scene... and uses that as his basis for the film being about NOTHING... speaks chapters about his grasp on objectivity. I know he's not done yet, but so far it's not looking too good
anorourke 1 year ago
@anorourke Because most of the commentators are CM fanboys.
Kahran042 4 months ago
Lol, Chase, you remind me of that guy from the big bang theory that over annalises everything. I think he's name is sheldon. yup. You're just like him.
derekprince1991 1 year ago
You are subjectively and objectively a tool. Well done. I feel better about myself.
flydye45 1 year ago
This really deserved 9 parts?
OldBobMcCoy 1 year ago
This is still better than watching crap floating in space for two hours.
charlesvan13 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Confused Mathew totally owned this pretentious hipster.
Thisisadummy1 1 year ago 7
i can remember you saying that the taboo matthew says does not exist, you can like or hate whatever movie you like
so why are you doing this response? Matthew doesn't like 2001, your hating on him for that, therefore proving his point and making your point seem like bullshit
mountainbmx 1 year ago 5
I bet if RedLetterMedia made a review criticising 2001: A Space Odyssey you wouldn't complain. Hell, you'd probably say you never really liked 2001.
nuclearbugman 1 year ago 3
@nuclearbugman But Red Letter loves 2001, as all artists with taste do.
vidiviniviciable 1 year ago
@vidiviniviciable Dude, you don't know that, and I hate 2001 as anyone with a brain should.
nuclearbugman 1 year ago