8:40 Great, still nothing to do with the story, or it being a movie.
He could've made a 2 hour reel entirely of meticulously recreated, realistic space imagery, and it would've been cool for what it would be - but that is not a film with a plot.
8:48 All impressive as far as the SETTING goes, but irrelevant if you want to evluate it as a MOVIE.
What if LOTR had 5 times more beautiful landscape shots, and replace all of its good writing and acting with crappy one?
8:52 Or did it? All we know is that it got the ball rolling. Maybe it was like "hmph, why do these monkey not evolve? We need them to evolve like, now! Fiiiine, let's give 'em a little push"...
All over-interpretation - interesting as fuck when discussing various way to look at the movie, worthless as hack when pinpointing what actually IS in the movie.
Also, a little bit of real-world context here - we already KNOW how apes behave, and how...
We also know how people get used to amazing modern day technology, sleep on planes and in submarines, and feel secure in their homes rather than having to watch out for enemies like the apes in the 2001 intro.
All the movie does here, is telling us that apparently, an enigmatic alien Monolith had a part in humankind's evolution of intelligence (rather than a God, or just nature) - that's the information bit, the results are already known to the viewer.
8:05 Maybe the people on the ship are in a better mood than the scary apes at the intro? It really can be as simple as that, and it's all about style and mood.
8:16 Um... it's his routine work, and he needs sleep after a day of work? What, does "travelling to and working in space can take days, man" now a profound plot point?
It's fairly obvious, and it shows a dude doing boring routine activities in space - of which there's a lot in this movie.
8:23 Ok, I could take a clip with a tiger hunting zebras, and then cut to a fat dude poking his nose in a cubicle - would that be a "nice touch" to "show the contrast"? Maybe, it certainly is in the movie.
But in no way is that some kind of profound statement to rub your chin at, it's actually what you'd expect from a cut from apes (even modern day apes, no difference) to the Enterprise bridge.
8:30 He already praised the "direction", you know? SFX, camerawork... lighting... whatever.
4:29 No, too abstract for YOU to interpret so recklessly.
"The protagonist is mankind"? What? How? Because it's about evolutionary steps / scientific discoveries that will benefit the whole of mankind eventually?
The same can be said about Star Wars - destroying the Empire is benefitting every sentient being oppressed by it, so it's about "sentient-kind"? No, the protagonist of Star Wars is Luke Skywalker (and possibly the other main characters in the sequels).
... exactly two astronauts assuming the role of the protagonist; the intro has the ape who "invents" the bone, possibly extending to his little tribe that fights over the waterpool with another tribe, and encounters the Monolith.
4:55 Agreed, he skips over that part, and it's a rather important (and easy to understand) plot point in the film.
He sucks at that passage.
Having that said, I'm trying to figure out what I find more annoying right now, his "ohhhohohoh, nohohoho", or your "nyoh, nyoh
6:20 That Waltz adds levity and light humor to the scene (especially if you view what happens inside the shuttles with humor), but that's still style, not substance.
This music doesn't in any way tell anything about a character's...
.... emotional state, unseen going-ons behind the scenes, or anything else a film score can "inform" the audience about in the only cases the music actually becomes part of the content, not just the atmosphere and style.
Drop the lecture on film history, because otherwise I'll give you a lecture about what "Space Opera" actually means. ;)
7:24 Music is mostly written specifically to accompany, or "define", a film.
In this case, an already written piece was taken as a background.
Chase can't possibly be as dense as not to understand the difference between this, and the score from Donald Duck shorts.
To be fair, CM's statement is also dumb: sure, you can just "listen to the music", but you can also listen to the same music being well used to a series of images.
Music itself doesn't magically add content, but that phrasing was hella dumb.
1:18 Yea, but there's no necessity to discuss those subjects in the first place, whether you'd look like a fool when "attempting to tackle" them or not.
1:30 Yea, if you use your "artistic and historical" arguments to rebuke negative reviews not addressing those aspects, you do use them as "conversation stoppers".
1:35 No, it's a legitimate premise - any film, or novel, or play, can tackle or refer to various academic fields, but you can STILL...
... make a review about it focusing on nothing but storywriting techniques.
Just like you can take a historical film and only talk about its historical accuracy, and it's not because "you'd look like a fool as soon as the subject of writing and moviemaking was brought up" (oh you fool, this is the best movie ever made for a reason, and you engage in nitpicking nerdisms! you didn't GET it), it's because it's a legitimate, self-limiting premise for a specific review.
Chase thinks he's sniffed out a giant hypocrisy, but he hasn't.
1:49 "Creepy" at BEST?? More like "deluded at best and obnoxious/dishonest at worst", the fact he even mentioned the word "evil" makes me wonder in what kind of acid universe Chase thinks he lives in.
Similarities with the Jupiter part aren't necessarily "substance", either - the Matrix films had Biblical vehicle registration plates, and then the city zoom-out from the Revolutions climax was similar to the ending from the 1st film.
This may be neither "style" nor "substance", but another dimension: the one of symbolism, clever gimmicks and (self-)references.
If you fill a movie up with those, you won't necessarily get more "substance", you might in fact get "symbolism over substance" ;)
to be honest for me (FOR ME ONLY ME,) 2001 sucked, when i first saw it i was a kid, but as a kid i never cared about story or characters or plot, i just liked to see incredible stuff on tv ans thougth it was awesome, but now days i am like ''what the fuck am i watching'' at some point CM exageretedm but on others he was rigth, the reason y 2001 was succefull was cus at those time it give something people has never seing before, it gave something new, in that factor the movie its awesome
@LatinoBadass but....as a definition for a movie itself, it sucks (IN MY OPINION, ONLY MINE)i mean the people that have undertood some how the plot itself or whats going on its cus they have seing it over and over and over again, now is a movie suposed to be like an algebra book where you need to study it like 10 times to understand it? but i also think that mathew has a lack of habiliy to explain that all his reviews are only his point of view and his opinion and nothing more
@twooffour i never said that it became worst with age, all i was talking about was that when i ws a kid i liked seratin stuff but that was 15 years ago so of course im not going to think on the same whay i used to when i was 10 years old
The problem I have here is that I find Confused Matthew self-indulgent and annoying, but I also find Chase self-indulgent and annoying, AND I find Space Odyssey self-indulgent and annoying, but beautiful to look at.
After 40 years no one is going to prove anything, or discover anything new here.
Confused Matthews review was just utter shit, from a hilarious guy (star wars reviews) to this, so wrong about 2001, how is it about nothing? Matthew obviously doesn't realise films are an art media, and 2001 is amazing thought provoking art
Actually, I just realized something. Confused Matthew said that the film has no plot. However, he said "we then get to a scene of a bunch of monkeys dicking around doing nothing, then a monolith suddenly appears from out of nowhere, and the monkeys start attacking each other with weapons"
Um, he just explained a plot. That sentence right there was a plot. He claims that the film doesn't yet have a plot, and he explains this by explaining what the plot actually is during this scene. Bad move.
@Ayatron34 no i do not find swearing offensive but as i said before when you try to justify why you disagree with mathew and use words like participatory to make yourself sound intelligent but then throw in a swear word when it suits you it is hard to take what you say serious and now more aggressive behavior torwards me with get of the we how sad
He doesn't say "the film is about nothing to me". He says it's about nothing full stop and based on objective standards. aka the only meaning that we "Kubrick fans" see is entirely of our on imagination. That is wrong.
He can say what he wants, and I can say he's a moron for saying it.
And if you only watched 15 minutes, than what are you even doing here? How can you know if it's about nothing?
@Ayatron34 and so far based on the what mathew says about films this one included and yes he can be controversial and offend people with his opinion which he has clearly you (oh well never mind) and reading the way you have replied to my comments patronizing me using long words to make your self sound clever then swearing i am going to have to agree with Mathew
@Ayatron34 i am here because i want to be and i did not say i did not understand it i said it was boring all 15 minutes of it i am afraid Mathew can say what he wants yes and so can you but you do not have to insult him and call him a moron which is wrong and if you want to be taken seriously and want people to listen to you with a open mind you are going about it the wrong way i am afraid
Maybe all works of art should have post it notes next to them, explaining everything about it. So that Confused Matthew doesn't feel like it's about nothing.
Matthew just wants to dumb it all down. Sounds like he wants a film about the unknowable to explain itself every step of the way. He wants conventional entertainment out of an abstract film. And because he doesn't get abstract concepts (surprising for someone supposedly educated in philosophy) He is unable to understand anything in 2001 and thus thinks there's nothing to understand.
@Ayatron34 i watched 2001 and could not even get through the first 15 minutes i suppose that makes me not as deep or educated or intelligent as you are or your friend on the screen here, i good film should be easy to understand and yes it does explain itself in subtle ways it is called story telling can you be any more patronizing in your response to Mathew oh he dont get abstract concepts glad you explained that to everyone in a clear open minded way and did not get anyones back up
Abstract films aren't supposed to be easy to understand. If they were then they wouldn't be abstract. Matthew still maintains it's about nothing despite having the plot explained by many people including Arthur.C . Clarke in the novelisation. I'm patronising because Matthew has a philosophy degree and so should fucking well know better.
@Ayatron34 physical violence is the result of a exhausted mind so is swearing i am afraid and you use the word abstract for a film not being easy to understand sorry but i think you are using that as a excuse and is a cop out and now you are patronizing to me as well, sorry but the i did not find the film very good, the film itself might be trying to tell alot i cannot say i got bored in the first 15 minutes but if it is hard for people to understand then it is a bad film abstract or not
@Ayatron34 and you mention in the novelization that it is explained well you miss the point of a good movie people are watching the movie and want to understand what is going on in the movie not to have to read the novel before or after i suppose you wanted to mention that so you could remind me how you know more than me by mentioning names like arthur.c. yes i agree i am sure you know a million times more than me about the film and the history of it matthew adds a lot of humor into his reviews
Chase, I and many others don't seem to have problem understanding 2001 based soley on the film. 2001 is a participatory film. It isn't just lie back and have plot points hit you. Which is what Matthew wanted.
And if swearing is an example of an exhausted mind, then Matthew's tank must be real empty. His reviews are full of "FUCK YOU" ,and "WHO GIVES A SHIT?"
@Ayatron34 Mathew likes to swear but as i said before try not to take him to serious i think mathew and many people when they watch a film want to be entertained which he was clearly not also i want to sit back and watch a movie and be told a story or experience a story by the film so now you are calling the film a participatory film oh well i guess that justifies it just not being that very good and only a selected few like yourself can possibly hope to understand it
@Ayatron34 and i have not said i do not understand the film i watched 15 minutes which was all i could manage i am affraid because i found it very very boring no offence not because i did not understand it or maybe you are going to tell me that is why i found it boring because i did not understand it is that my fault then or the film makers i know what one i would pick
and about the swearing bit yes mathew swears but i have not sworn at you so why do you need to swear when you speak to me not a very good excuse or justified reason especially when you use words like participatory and abstract and go back to the word fuck
If confronted with definitive proof that the creators knew what they were trying to say, then you can't say it's about nothing and completely random like Matthew does.
At most you can say that the film fails to communicate it's story to you.
@Ayatron34 i am afraid Mathew can say anything he wants about the film it is his given right i and if he did not like the film or understand it then he does have a right to say the film was about nothing because for him the film was about nothing and at most i could say a lot more about the film for me it alienates the audience and is very slow and tries to be very clever, the 15 minutes that i watched i experienced the feelings of boredom but also the feeling of being patronized
so you should not take him to seriously i also think you are getting wound up because someone does not like a film that you do, you say you do not like what he says about the film and should be more clear because he has a degree in philosophy but i just do not think you like him saying anything negative about the film full stop
At first I thought you might have been on to something, and I was looking forward to watching this review, but each part of the review I watched seemed to get worse and worse, and I don't think you really have anything meaningful to say besides trying to berate Matthew. I'm definitely enjoying Matthew's responses to this review though.
CM said basically said in a respone to this "who cares about the historical impact of this film or it effects?" Well quite a lot of people as it happens.
why are you being so personal? There is no need to throw insults at Matthew to review his review or to defend the film against the confused matthew review. dude chill out and stop taking things so personally he's not attacking you so don't attack him. oh and btw your the definition of a jack ass. see above comment for explanation.
Thanks for making an informed review of his critique. I emailed confused matthew trying to explain to him the absence of any sort of sound critique especially in 2001 a space odyssey. He seems like a man obsessed with plot characters and other surface elements. It's like if you gave the man an abstract painting and he said it was bad because he was looking at nothing simply because he was too lazy to spend time thinking about it. Btw he didn't even acknowledge my email.
And in case anybody doesn't get my prior comments, Let me elaborate what an ACTUAL CRITICISM would look like (for Pulp Fiction, I hate that movie):
When Marvin gets shot in the face, there is a glaring inaccuracy. Marvin's blood splatters on the back window, which contradicts the fact that at the angle of him being shot, the window would be shattered by the bullet. The lack of even a bullet hole shows that the entire scene is implausible, and this scene is a PIVOTAL plot point.
Chase, on the other hand, is also failing to acknowledge the film, but I will not blame him, because his video is much more reactionary than CM's.
Chase is failing to mention the lack of logical fallacies, or that it doesn't matter whether or not something is explained, because it doesn't disrupt the plot.
What I mean is this:
PLOTS DO NOT HAVE TO INCLUDE REASONS. Surrealist movies tend to take out the "why" in a narrative to let you decide, but still leave in the "what".
My number one complaint with BOTH Chase and CM's review is this:
They fail to acknowledge the film. Ironically, that's what I see is missing.
CM's review is failing to acknowledge the bad parts of the film (which I believe don't exist):
He claims that it's all too long and nothing is happening. What he is forgetting is that this is a subjective thought, because he is criticizing KUBRICK, a stylistic choice, and not criticizing any, for example, logical fallacies in the film's plot.
Let me expand on this; Your critiquing a critique like what you're saying is set in stone fact, like you're Kubrick himself trying to explain his work. You're a self important pseudo intellectual who can't understand that everything you just said is opinion, not fact. Someone who gets pissy because someone disagrees with you, and god forbid, that you might be wrong, right? Clearly He's the idiot, not you, right? Reflexibly throws a fit? Sounds like someone else whose video I just watched.
@chuckb11 Simply because using language like "douche" shows that you think you are superior because you think you aren't condescending. In other words, it's like telling someone "you is bad at grammar".
@Bassbait How is calling someone a douche similar to using bad grammar while simultaneously telling someone else they have bad grammar? You're trying to lock me into some kind of imaginary paradox where you can't call someone something without actually being it yourself. Actually, the ironic thing here, is that by saying you're better than using the word "douche" you are the one condescending. You win at life.
Besides which, he IS a douche. So I don't see where the problem is.
@chuckb11 I'm not saying I don't use douche, and I'm not saying I'm any better. You are misunderstanding what I was saying, and I do feel that it might be my fault. Let me clarify.
"How is calling someone a douche similar".... WRONG. What you said was "condescending douche". That is of GREAT importance. Condescending and Douche both contain negative connotation. It's redundancy, and the way you use it is only to imply that you are somehow better because you aren't a "condescending douche".
@Bassbait Condescending douche isn't redundant, they are two totally different words with totally different definitions.Yes, they both have negative connotation but they are describing two different characteristics. This is straight forward, why are you trying to over-complicate the issue? Why are we arguing semantics? You're drawing your own conclusions on what I implied by using those two words. Is it better to be a condescending douche, or not be one?
@chuckb11 This whole thing is neither here nor there. You're stuck on two words I used and ignored the rest. More you're looking for something to infer that isn't there. On top of that you think I'm being redundant when I clearly am not, and even I was, so what? All i did was claim the guy is a condescending douche (which he is) and a poor critic because he can't distinguish his opinion from actual fact (which he can't).
@chuckb11 Again, "condescending douche" is redundant, but I guess I'll elaborate:
You could have left it at "condescending". Adding "douche" to the end just shows that you think that being condescending isn't bad enough of a word to describe him, ultimately showing that you are being condescending (note: I'm not using "douche" because that would be irrelevant to my point). He isn't a poor critic because he can't distinguish the two. He doesn't have to remind that everything he says is opinion.
@Bassbait You are absolutely clueless, seriously, go look up the word redundant. His voice drips with his smug superior attitude. I don't know how you could require anymore evidence than that. He spoke in this clip as though he were Kubrick himself trying to convey why he filmed this movie the way that he did. He's arguing with another person's opinion as though what he's saying are the facts, when in reality, he hasn't a goddamn clue why Kubrick did anything that he did. You're just a fanboy.
@chuckb11 Redundant = Unnecessarily excessive, or superfluous. Saying condescending is good enough, but douche is just adding a stronger meaning to an already strong enough meaning.
"Douche" is a slang term. It's like saying "f***ing idiot". You can just say "idiot" and it won't change anything. Except that Condescending is different from idiot, because condescending means thinking you are superior or others are inferior, which you DEFINITELY seem to be doing.
See? THAT IS BEING CONDESCENDING RIGHT THERE. I love CM's reviews, but I find truth in Chase's too, like for example, when Confused Matthew says "judging the film for it's objective merits". Sorry, but CM is saying his stuff as if it's fact too. In fact, he never really even says at ANY point that it's his opinion. It seems, ironically, that you are being a fanboy of CM.
I have a feeling that Matthew is going to have something to say about how you mention that the amount of people who agree with a premise has no bearing on the reality of that premise. You do that about 600 times in these videos.
I have a feeling that Matthew is going to have something to say about how you mention that the amount of people who agree with a premise has no bearing on the reality of that premise. You do that about 600 times in these videos.
whist its ok to use slow establishing shots and music to set a mood and make a point 2001 goes to far with it, its hard to sit through with out a strong charecter to attach you to it. this is basic story telling. you said that mankind is the main character but this is never made clear nor is perticularly re-enforced via dialogue. it is simply an assumtion you've made based on your experince and thats mathews point simply because this is what you got from it doesn't mean its what the films about
you also come back to the effect it has on the industry as a whole via its ground breaking sfx which is very true and it did but that doesn't make it a good movie that just means it had good sfx, avatar has amazing and ground breaking sfx but that doesn't make it a good move it just means its nice to look at. it has no bearing on the stroy being told other than to enhance it but theres no really story to enhance
Wrong, Chase. You are the one who is wrong. just because YOU see all this deep meaning, doesn't mean that Kubrick intended for you to see it. You are nothing but a pretentious douche.
This may have already been said, but in an earlier part you mentioned all the people who liked this movie. That is a logical fallacy called "Agrument from Authority" and here you point out confused matthew using logical fallacies? Excuse me kettle....is the pot black?
I didn't like the overused scenery. If I knew there was no dialogue when I watch it I would've fast forwarded it, after watching that I felt it was a waste of my time. It didn't set any tone for me because I KNOW SPACE IS DESOLATE! Not hard to figure out. It just bugs me that you complain about CM not liking that. Good point on the monolith, I thought CM should've mentioned it. But CM has a point about the music 2001 shouldn't rely on music over plot when the plot was established so late.
Chase is really spot on in this part. The Docking scene is brilliant, when I first saw it I couldn't take my eyes off of it. I actually had to watch it again immidiately;)
You've made some good points, but from what I understand, the musical score was a fortuitous occurence. Kubrick had music composed for the film, with the classical scores being - "placeholder" (I have no idea what to call it), but he later realized that the classical stuff was better. Well, so I heard.
First you said: "...2001 is universally considered a masterpiece by the film making community as well as some of the greatest artistic and scientific minds to walk the Earth in the last 3+ generations..."
Then you said: "What you're doing here is what is known as 'argument ad populum' and it is not an argument. The amount of people who agree on a particular premise has no bearing in and of itself on the reality of that premise."
He isn't making a review of the film, he's critiquing matthews review.
So to imply that that particular statement was an attempt at proving 2001's greatness as a film is simply misguided. Especially since you seem to forget the points in his video where he actually provides TEXTUAL EVIDENCE as to why the film is as great as people think it is!
@mrnacj I don't see how it's misguided. He essentially said famous people like 2001 because "it changed film making forever...[was] the most thought-provoking film ever conceived...[and] reinvented the science fiction genre."
And I'll be honest, I only got to about part 5 before I stopped watching. So if his evidence was after that then that's why I missed it. I figure if he can't make his point in 50 minutes or less, he doesn't have one.
the first quote is from part 1 6:00 and if you look at the whole sentence it doesn't seem to contradict the 2nd quote as he says that Matthew ! thinks 2001 is just generally considered to be a masterpiece and so on, because it was undeservedly labeled as officially good by a small minority. that's not an 'argument ad populum'. Or am I wrong??
Hey chase, have you read Rob Ager's analysis of Kubrick's films? Because I read them all the time, and can see a lot of good arguments unintentionally made that can be brought up against CM. I like CM (Confused Matthew) a lot, but I disagree with 2001 and Pulp Fiction reviews. Ironically, somebody said "How can you agree with someone about everything except for 2 reviews, and then suddenly disagree?". It's funny because that makes a good amount of sense. 2001 is a completely different review.
chase, most of the movie has no real story. there was no character development...at all. watch the movie without your delusions around it. the movie was all about looking pretty while listening to music. the only character in the movie was hal. get over yourself you don't know what your talking about.
excellent response. You should tackle his Star Trek (2009) review vs. his Star Trek Nemesis Review. I didn't see his 2001 review, but I enjoyed his reviews in general until I saw that he thought Nemesis was better than the new film.
I agree with a lot of your comments here, Chase. Ad hominem attacks on CM aside which I thought were unnecessary. Considering that CM gives "Independence Day" a 5 star review, I do think he has a different bias for what movies he considers good ie standard linear narrative, standard protoganist/ antagonist etc.
Oh Chase, For a second I forgot I was watching a counter to CM on 2001. I thought I was watching like a campaign ad considering ALL YOU DO IS ATTACK CM ON A PERSONAL LEVEL! So now I will do the same. YOUR A FUCKING IDIOT, congrats!
5:30 Ok so the movie is presenting the evolution of the apes in aspects of warfare and awareness etc. But i don't understand why you are buirching at mathew for it he reviews movies to a standard of entertainment and bang for buck. At this rate 2001 should be considered a documentary.
I love how you keep giving the camera that look every time you believe you've made some grand point about how wrong Matthew is. After three parts, you've done nothing but prove that you're a pompous ass who will use logical fallacies of your own to make your arguments seem more valid.
I won't subject myself to this bullshit any further. Someone put this in text form and remove any douche bag comments. I'll read it and consider it then. It's just intolerable coming out of this moron's mouth.
This review is getting a little pretentious. The air quotes and taking a review WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too seriously and being visibly hurt by what he said. Was Kubrick you Dad or something?
What is with the many personal attacks against Matthew present in all of the numerous arbitrary parts to this "response?" Just because you took Matthew's review way to seriously gives you no right to insult him or question his credibility. You try your very hardest to make these arduous responses sound as intelligent and articulate as possible by filling them with useless jargon and then you ruin your own credibility by taking pot shots at the man! That's very unprofessional/disrespectful.
"...is creepy at best and evil at worst, Matthew, COME ON."
Creepy? Evil? You are honestly claiming Matthew's review is creepy or, worse, EVIL?
And I particularly love how you follow that up with "COME ON." One would think, watching your review, that you were some sort of intellectual, that you had a true insight, and that your criticism of another critique was a true outlet for that insight.
But that isn't the case, is it? You have no insight, only sarcasm- to hide a lack of wit.
Also, if I wanted a review by a professional, I'd go to an actual review site (i.e. Rotten Tomatoes). When I watch Matthew's reviews, I get a straight-forward review by someone like myself, someone who looks for the same thing I do in movies. I shouldn't have to interpret every single line in a movie, something which seems easy for you to do.
Wow, dude. I'm about to make the rest of Matthew's response to this for him, cuz you need to get over one man's review. You say Matthew has said nothign in his review, then what do you call what you're saying? You try to act like a smartass, when you're not even arguing his actual words; youre reading into his comments and to what he's implying and then making comments to try to appear more intelligent than him. This entire response = facepalm.
The last part of this section of your response, is again, your interpretation. Maybe the fact that the Monoliths encouraged them to fight is a sign of regression, fighting often leads to escalation, and escalation can continue for decades. Civil war in Africa is a prime example. Why does it have to be that the Monoliths encouraged us to evolve in a positive example? I can make 2001 support my arguments just as much as yours. But again, your not listening to Matthew's review.
It doesn't contain critique or review? Was you even listening? He's put 2001 against what has become the established benchmarks for being a film. Story, characters, plot etc. Against that, 2001 does fail badly. Your responding as if Matthew is reviewing 2001 as art or a cinematic advancement. He's not. He's reviewing it as a FILM. Why does Kubric introduce music at a certain point? Any number of explanations can be given for that, because 2001 is deliberately vague.
Continuing from my earlier statements, you claim the protagonist to be mankind. That's your interpretation of the film. Some people claim the protagonist to be Hal, for being a dynamic character and a representation of Human emotion when faced with extreme situations, I could even claim the protagonist to be the guy at the end who transforms into the Star Child on principle of it being the only significant transitional event to occur to anyone in 2001. Just as much evidence to support me as you.
In reference to music being used in a film. Yes, it does add atmosphere, and I totally agree that it is the backbone of a film. I've seen movie cuts without music, and they are incredibly un-atmospheric, for lack of a better term. However, all this basically is, is atmospheric scenes, with no cohesive film elements (no characters, dialogue or anything) with music. So, in a sense, it is just one long music video.
2:14. That's exactly what Matthew is getting at. Any negative review of 2001, either evokes "this movie is great, stfu" from people who can't construct a cohesive argument, or people like yourself you just claim that others arent sophisticated enough to understand it. You claim Matthew is pretentious for looking down on "Kubricians", and yet you are pretentious enough to claim that you are of a higher level of intellect than those who have a different opinion than you.
You sound just like bitter person, instead of saying some much to attack why dont you take the time to explain why CM is wrong about his claims. You are making things up to dissent rightful claims. You are conveying that your thoughts are just simply those of an Idiot. You are trying too hard to explain something that simply is not there. This movie does not teach anything or show anything that makes us be amazed and thus entertained. You what is conveyed in the entire movie is randomness all.
Again, you've basically totally dismissed the review for 2001, because it disagrees with your own personal opinions. You basically said, Matthew disagrees with me, therefore he is wrong. Guess what, wrong!
@CoHScrapper That's more of a fun group activity. I catch myself doing that even with films I have bought 5 times on five formats. I rip on star wars all the time for the death stars lack of guard rails around its bottomless pits but its still love.
I first and foremost always saw the use of waltz music as implying that the machines are involved in something of a dance, a literal waltz, which contributes to the whole feeling of humanity's wonder stagnating at this point (demonstrated by the fellow sleeping during all this going on) by showing that our machines are now having more fun than we are. Whatever the case, the music's pretty darn crucial, and the idea that the scene would/should have nearly the same impact without it is absurd.
Regarding what he said about music, I don't think he's saying isn't an important part of film making. He's saying it doesn't add anything here (or more precisely doesn't think it does). I'm not saying he's right, just thought you may have misunderstood his piont.
BTW it really makes me laugh when he says things like "whatever kind of atmosphere this scene has" and yet questions people who tell him he doesn't understand the film.
Oh thank you thank you I get it now isolation is fun to watch for 2 hours it makes me wish they had cameras in jail so I could watch what the lone guy in solitaire dose all day I now love this movie thank you again.
You can't be a film critic if you only watch one type of films. Being a science fiction critic only makes you a geek. Show me a film critic that just reviews indy films. Not too many but lots of geek film critcs. And calling things "retarded" that you don't like/get? Wow I miss Ebert.
What if 2001 was an inside joke? What if the crew thought that lets make an
arty film about not much at all plot wise, lets throw an interesting computer in the middle and some shit in the end that can be intepreted as anything. I
don't know what to think about this movie. The end part was satisfying I think,
even if it didn't have an actual ending I think. But whatever point is raised, I
This wasn't the first time that space has been portrayed as having zero gravity in a film. Example: Conquest of Space, a movie filmed in 1954. Check it out. :)
Didn't agree with everything you had to say or how it was said during this series (I've seen all nine parts), but I gotta say that from 7:48 to 8:23 of this segment was probably one of the most pure, uncontested victories I have witnessed in a very long time. You illustrated quite clearly how far more than "nothing" was going on, and delivered it so dryly and concisely that there was only one impression it could have left: that being ownage.
8:40 Great, still nothing to do with the story, or it being a movie.
He could've made a 2 hour reel entirely of meticulously recreated, realistic space imagery, and it would've been cool for what it would be - but that is not a film with a plot.
8:48 All impressive as far as the SETTING goes, but irrelevant if you want to evluate it as a MOVIE.
What if LOTR had 5 times more beautiful landscape shots, and replace all of its good writing and acting with crappy one?
The landscape would still..
twooffour 2 weeks ago
... be cool, the movie not so much.
8:52 Or did it? All we know is that it got the ball rolling. Maybe it was like "hmph, why do these monkey not evolve? We need them to evolve like, now! Fiiiine, let's give 'em a little push"...
All over-interpretation - interesting as fuck when discussing various way to look at the movie, worthless as hack when pinpointing what actually IS in the movie.
Also, a little bit of real-world context here - we already KNOW how apes behave, and how...
twooffour 2 weeks ago
... they must've behaved back then.
We also know how people get used to amazing modern day technology, sleep on planes and in submarines, and feel secure in their homes rather than having to watch out for enemies like the apes in the 2001 intro.
All the movie does here, is telling us that apparently, an enigmatic alien Monolith had a part in humankind's evolution of intelligence (rather than a God, or just nature) - that's the information bit, the results are already known to the viewer.
twooffour 2 weeks ago
The argument that this transition shows "what the monolith truly did to our evolution", is therefore backwards.
twooffour 2 weeks ago
8:05 Maybe the people on the ship are in a better mood than the scary apes at the intro? It really can be as simple as that, and it's all about style and mood.
8:16 Um... it's his routine work, and he needs sleep after a day of work? What, does "travelling to and working in space can take days, man" now a profound plot point?
It's fairly obvious, and it shows a dude doing boring routine activities in space - of which there's a lot in this movie.
twooffour 2 weeks ago
8:23 Ok, I could take a clip with a tiger hunting zebras, and then cut to a fat dude poking his nose in a cubicle - would that be a "nice touch" to "show the contrast"? Maybe, it certainly is in the movie.
But in no way is that some kind of profound statement to rub your chin at, it's actually what you'd expect from a cut from apes (even modern day apes, no difference) to the Enterprise bridge.
8:30 He already praised the "direction", you know? SFX, camerawork... lighting... whatever.
twooffour 2 weeks ago
4:29 No, too abstract for YOU to interpret so recklessly.
"The protagonist is mankind"? What? How? Because it's about evolutionary steps / scientific discoveries that will benefit the whole of mankind eventually?
The same can be said about Star Wars - destroying the Empire is benefitting every sentient being oppressed by it, so it's about "sentient-kind"? No, the protagonist of Star Wars is Luke Skywalker (and possibly the other main characters in the sequels).
In 2001's case, there are...
twooffour 2 weeks ago
... exactly two astronauts assuming the role of the protagonist; the intro has the ape who "invents" the bone, possibly extending to his little tribe that fights over the waterpool with another tribe, and encounters the Monolith.
4:55 Agreed, he skips over that part, and it's a rather important (and easy to understand) plot point in the film.
He sucks at that passage.
Having that said, I'm trying to figure out what I find more annoying right now, his "ohhhohohoh, nohohoho", or your "nyoh, nyoh
twooffour 2 weeks ago
nyoh" earlier on.
5:30 WRONG. No one said anything about "granting consciousness", in fact the apes seem pretty conscious all the time.
All we see the Monolith do is increase their intelligence (by one bit).
5:37 Because of intelligence, not consciousness.
6:20 That Waltz adds levity and light humor to the scene (especially if you view what happens inside the shuttles with humor), but that's still style, not substance.
This music doesn't in any way tell anything about a character's...
twooffour 2 weeks ago
.... emotional state, unseen going-ons behind the scenes, or anything else a film score can "inform" the audience about in the only cases the music actually becomes part of the content, not just the atmosphere and style.
Drop the lecture on film history, because otherwise I'll give you a lecture about what "Space Opera" actually means. ;)
7:24 Music is mostly written specifically to accompany, or "define", a film.
In this case, an already written piece was taken as a background.
twooffour 2 weeks ago
Chase can't possibly be as dense as not to understand the difference between this, and the score from Donald Duck shorts.
To be fair, CM's statement is also dumb: sure, you can just "listen to the music", but you can also listen to the same music being well used to a series of images.
Music itself doesn't magically add content, but that phrasing was hella dumb.
7:55 Gimmick; style, not substance.
8:04 Rhythmless, yes - Ligeti's Requiem is pretty "rhythmless"... oh wait, Zarathustra.
twooffour 2 weeks ago
0:22 He can spot flaws in others' arguments!
1:18 Yea, but there's no necessity to discuss those subjects in the first place, whether you'd look like a fool when "attempting to tackle" them or not.
1:30 Yea, if you use your "artistic and historical" arguments to rebuke negative reviews not addressing those aspects, you do use them as "conversation stoppers".
1:35 No, it's a legitimate premise - any film, or novel, or play, can tackle or refer to various academic fields, but you can STILL...
twooffour 2 weeks ago
... make a review about it focusing on nothing but storywriting techniques.
Just like you can take a historical film and only talk about its historical accuracy, and it's not because "you'd look like a fool as soon as the subject of writing and moviemaking was brought up" (oh you fool, this is the best movie ever made for a reason, and you engage in nitpicking nerdisms! you didn't GET it), it's because it's a legitimate, self-limiting premise for a specific review.
twooffour 2 weeks ago
Chase thinks he's sniffed out a giant hypocrisy, but he hasn't.
1:49 "Creepy" at BEST?? More like "deluded at best and obnoxious/dishonest at worst", the fact he even mentioned the word "evil" makes me wonder in what kind of acid universe Chase thinks he lives in.
2:22 Let's see him prove himself.
4:00 Without engaging in the smug over-interpretation here, those long landscape shots obviously establish a slow-moving, silent atmosphere.
STYLE.
twooffour 2 weeks ago
Similarities with the Jupiter part aren't necessarily "substance", either - the Matrix films had Biblical vehicle registration plates, and then the city zoom-out from the Revolutions climax was similar to the ending from the 1st film.
This may be neither "style" nor "substance", but another dimension: the one of symbolism, clever gimmicks and (self-)references.
If you fill a movie up with those, you won't necessarily get more "substance", you might in fact get "symbolism over substance" ;)
twooffour 2 weeks ago
to be honest for me (FOR ME ONLY ME,) 2001 sucked, when i first saw it i was a kid, but as a kid i never cared about story or characters or plot, i just liked to see incredible stuff on tv ans thougth it was awesome, but now days i am like ''what the fuck am i watching'' at some point CM exageretedm but on others he was rigth, the reason y 2001 was succefull was cus at those time it give something people has never seing before, it gave something new, in that factor the movie its awesome
LatinoBadass 1 month ago
@LatinoBadass but....as a definition for a movie itself, it sucks (IN MY OPINION, ONLY MINE)i mean the people that have undertood some how the plot itself or whats going on its cus they have seing it over and over and over again, now is a movie suposed to be like an algebra book where you need to study it like 10 times to understand it? but i also think that mathew has a lack of habiliy to explain that all his reviews are only his point of view and his opinion and nothing more
LatinoBadass 1 month ago
@LatinoBadass
"i just liked to see incredible stuff on tv ans thougth it was awesome"
That stuff doesn't become worse with age, but it does with growing snobbery.
twooffour 2 weeks ago
@twooffour i never said that it became worst with age, all i was talking about was that when i ws a kid i liked seratin stuff but that was 15 years ago so of course im not going to think on the same whay i used to when i was 10 years old
LatinoBadass 2 weeks ago
Do you really think Chaze, that Confused Matthews
didn't get THAT meaning of the scene with that bunch of monkeys?
This is awesome dude. How humble of yours!
alesv77 10 months ago
It is not because you
jonathan4055 10 months ago
Worst,review,ever.
Leatherbubba 11 months ago
2001 sux balls... it is the WORST MOVIE of all time
johnnyrockerfella 11 months ago
@johnnyrockerfella ya know how they say the internet is full of morons, you're one of them
jordanb7624 8 months ago
I never even seen the movie.....so IS IT GOOD OR NOT??? Because Im confused on what to expect...
ytfjordan 11 months ago
The problem I have here is that I find Confused Matthew self-indulgent and annoying, but I also find Chase self-indulgent and annoying, AND I find Space Odyssey self-indulgent and annoying, but beautiful to look at.
After 40 years no one is going to prove anything, or discover anything new here.
georginiou 11 months ago
@georginiou Finally someone who understands. I agree.
TheNapoleonnerd 4 months ago
Ooh, the nerdfight continues.
GeneralSmanTheBest 1 year ago
What's F'ed up is that when the monolith first appears, the (monkeys)? got it, but it Confused Mathew did not.
SCORE
Monkeys 1 / Confused Mathew 0
rllang01 1 year ago
Yes Mathew was wrong but you over analyzed it.
DarPower1 1 year ago
Confused Matthews review was just utter shit, from a hilarious guy (star wars reviews) to this, so wrong about 2001, how is it about nothing? Matthew obviously doesn't realise films are an art media, and 2001 is amazing thought provoking art
starcraft108 1 year ago
30 minutes so far and Chase has presented almost 0 solid arguments.
Chase says: "So far you have said literally nothing in terms of actual criticism of 2001 or Kubrick"
Chase, so far you have said literally nothing in terms of actual criticism of Confused Matthew or his review.
Archedgar 1 year ago
I've seen wet noodles with more rigidity than your arguments.
mjmanning123 1 year ago
Actually, I just realized something. Confused Matthew said that the film has no plot. However, he said "we then get to a scene of a bunch of monkeys dicking around doing nothing, then a monolith suddenly appears from out of nowhere, and the monkeys start attacking each other with weapons"
Um, he just explained a plot. That sentence right there was a plot. He claims that the film doesn't yet have a plot, and he explains this by explaining what the plot actually is during this scene. Bad move.
Bassbait 1 year ago
This is the internet. If you find casual swearing so offensive, than get off the web.
Ayatron34 1 year ago
@Ayatron34 no i do not find swearing offensive but as i said before when you try to justify why you disagree with mathew and use words like participatory to make yourself sound intelligent but then throw in a swear word when it suits you it is hard to take what you say serious and now more aggressive behavior torwards me with get of the we how sad
redbaron932 1 year ago
He doesn't say "the film is about nothing to me". He says it's about nothing full stop and based on objective standards. aka the only meaning that we "Kubrick fans" see is entirely of our on imagination. That is wrong.
He can say what he wants, and I can say he's a moron for saying it.
And if you only watched 15 minutes, than what are you even doing here? How can you know if it's about nothing?
Ayatron34 1 year ago
@Ayatron34 and so far based on the what mathew says about films this one included and yes he can be controversial and offend people with his opinion which he has clearly you (oh well never mind) and reading the way you have replied to my comments patronizing me using long words to make your self sound clever then swearing i am going to have to agree with Mathew
redbaron932 1 year ago
@Ayatron34 i am here because i want to be and i did not say i did not understand it i said it was boring all 15 minutes of it i am afraid Mathew can say what he wants yes and so can you but you do not have to insult him and call him a moron which is wrong and if you want to be taken seriously and want people to listen to you with a open mind you are going about it the wrong way i am afraid
redbaron932 1 year ago
hmm another word comes to mind watching this pompous this guy thinks he is so clever
redbaron932 1 year ago
Maybe all works of art should have post it notes next to them, explaining everything about it. So that Confused Matthew doesn't feel like it's about nothing.
Ayatron34 1 year ago
Matthew just wants to dumb it all down. Sounds like he wants a film about the unknowable to explain itself every step of the way. He wants conventional entertainment out of an abstract film. And because he doesn't get abstract concepts (surprising for someone supposedly educated in philosophy) He is unable to understand anything in 2001 and thus thinks there's nothing to understand.
Ayatron34 1 year ago
@Ayatron34 i watched 2001 and could not even get through the first 15 minutes i suppose that makes me not as deep or educated or intelligent as you are or your friend on the screen here, i good film should be easy to understand and yes it does explain itself in subtle ways it is called story telling can you be any more patronizing in your response to Mathew oh he dont get abstract concepts glad you explained that to everyone in a clear open minded way and did not get anyones back up
redbaron932 1 year ago
@redbaron932
Abstract films aren't supposed to be easy to understand. If they were then they wouldn't be abstract. Matthew still maintains it's about nothing despite having the plot explained by many people including Arthur.C . Clarke in the novelisation. I'm patronising because Matthew has a philosophy degree and so should fucking well know better.
Ayatron34 1 year ago
@Ayatron34 physical violence is the result of a exhausted mind so is swearing i am afraid and you use the word abstract for a film not being easy to understand sorry but i think you are using that as a excuse and is a cop out and now you are patronizing to me as well, sorry but the i did not find the film very good, the film itself might be trying to tell alot i cannot say i got bored in the first 15 minutes but if it is hard for people to understand then it is a bad film abstract or not
redbaron932 1 year ago
@Ayatron34 and you mention in the novelization that it is explained well you miss the point of a good movie people are watching the movie and want to understand what is going on in the movie not to have to read the novel before or after i suppose you wanted to mention that so you could remind me how you know more than me by mentioning names like arthur.c. yes i agree i am sure you know a million times more than me about the film and the history of it matthew adds a lot of humor into his reviews
redbaron932 1 year ago
@redbaron932
Chase, I and many others don't seem to have problem understanding 2001 based soley on the film. 2001 is a participatory film. It isn't just lie back and have plot points hit you. Which is what Matthew wanted.
And if swearing is an example of an exhausted mind, then Matthew's tank must be real empty. His reviews are full of "FUCK YOU" ,and "WHO GIVES A SHIT?"
Ayatron34 1 year ago
@Ayatron34 Mathew likes to swear but as i said before try not to take him to serious i think mathew and many people when they watch a film want to be entertained which he was clearly not also i want to sit back and watch a movie and be told a story or experience a story by the film so now you are calling the film a participatory film oh well i guess that justifies it just not being that very good and only a selected few like yourself can possibly hope to understand it
redbaron932 1 year ago
@redbaron932
I couldn't hope to understand it either if I only watched 15 minutes worth.
Ayatron34 1 year ago
@Ayatron34 and i have not said i do not understand the film i watched 15 minutes which was all i could manage i am affraid because i found it very very boring no offence not because i did not understand it or maybe you are going to tell me that is why i found it boring because i did not understand it is that my fault then or the film makers i know what one i would pick
redbaron932 1 year ago
and about the swearing bit yes mathew swears but i have not sworn at you so why do you need to swear when you speak to me not a very good excuse or justified reason especially when you use words like participatory and abstract and go back to the word fuck
redbaron932 1 year ago
@redbaron932
And I swore to you when? I swore casually, once. Casual swearing isn't an insult last I checked. .
Ayatron34 1 year ago
@Ayatron34 you swore in your very first reply to me it is not a insult but it does make me question your character
redbaron932 1 year ago 2
@redbaron932
If confronted with definitive proof that the creators knew what they were trying to say, then you can't say it's about nothing and completely random like Matthew does.
At most you can say that the film fails to communicate it's story to you.
Ayatron34 1 year ago
@Ayatron34 i am afraid Mathew can say anything he wants about the film it is his given right i and if he did not like the film or understand it then he does have a right to say the film was about nothing because for him the film was about nothing and at most i could say a lot more about the film for me it alienates the audience and is very slow and tries to be very clever, the 15 minutes that i watched i experienced the feelings of boredom but also the feeling of being patronized
redbaron932 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so you should not take him to seriously i also think you are getting wound up because someone does not like a film that you do, you say you do not like what he says about the film and should be more clear because he has a degree in philosophy but i just do not think you like him saying anything negative about the film full stop
redbaron932 1 year ago
At first I thought you might have been on to something, and I was looking forward to watching this review, but each part of the review I watched seemed to get worse and worse, and I don't think you really have anything meaningful to say besides trying to berate Matthew. I'm definitely enjoying Matthew's responses to this review though.
Garlog64 1 year ago
CM said basically said in a respone to this "who cares about the historical impact of this film or it effects?" Well quite a lot of people as it happens.
TheBucsareawesome1 1 year ago
why are you being so personal? There is no need to throw insults at Matthew to review his review or to defend the film against the confused matthew review. dude chill out and stop taking things so personally he's not attacking you so don't attack him. oh and btw your the definition of a jack ass. see above comment for explanation.
angelofmalice0 1 year ago
Thanks for making an informed review of his critique. I emailed confused matthew trying to explain to him the absence of any sort of sound critique especially in 2001 a space odyssey. He seems like a man obsessed with plot characters and other surface elements. It's like if you gave the man an abstract painting and he said it was bad because he was looking at nothing simply because he was too lazy to spend time thinking about it. Btw he didn't even acknowledge my email.
mrnacj 1 year ago
This guy reminds me of the "pretentious illiterate" character that Zach Galifianakis impersonates.
mestavros 1 year ago
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
bukkake999 1 year ago
And in case anybody doesn't get my prior comments, Let me elaborate what an ACTUAL CRITICISM would look like (for Pulp Fiction, I hate that movie):
When Marvin gets shot in the face, there is a glaring inaccuracy. Marvin's blood splatters on the back window, which contradicts the fact that at the angle of him being shot, the window would be shattered by the bullet. The lack of even a bullet hole shows that the entire scene is implausible, and this scene is a PIVOTAL plot point.
Bassbait 1 year ago
Chase, on the other hand, is also failing to acknowledge the film, but I will not blame him, because his video is much more reactionary than CM's.
Chase is failing to mention the lack of logical fallacies, or that it doesn't matter whether or not something is explained, because it doesn't disrupt the plot.
What I mean is this:
PLOTS DO NOT HAVE TO INCLUDE REASONS. Surrealist movies tend to take out the "why" in a narrative to let you decide, but still leave in the "what".
Bassbait 1 year ago
My number one complaint with BOTH Chase and CM's review is this:
They fail to acknowledge the film. Ironically, that's what I see is missing.
CM's review is failing to acknowledge the bad parts of the film (which I believe don't exist):
He claims that it's all too long and nothing is happening. What he is forgetting is that this is a subjective thought, because he is criticizing KUBRICK, a stylistic choice, and not criticizing any, for example, logical fallacies in the film's plot.
Bassbait 1 year ago
If you're incapable of expressing an opinion without being a condescending douche then maybe you just shouldn't.
chuckb11 1 year ago
Let me expand on this; Your critiquing a critique like what you're saying is set in stone fact, like you're Kubrick himself trying to explain his work. You're a self important pseudo intellectual who can't understand that everything you just said is opinion, not fact. Someone who gets pissy because someone disagrees with you, and god forbid, that you might be wrong, right? Clearly He's the idiot, not you, right? Reflexibly throws a fit? Sounds like someone else whose video I just watched.
chuckb11 1 year ago
@chuckb11 Ditto to you?
Because seriously, you're acting like a "condescending douche", simply by calling someone a "condescending douche"
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait How is it condescending? I think you may need to consult a dictionary.
chuckb11 1 year ago
@chuckb11 Simply because using language like "douche" shows that you think you are superior because you think you aren't condescending. In other words, it's like telling someone "you is bad at grammar".
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait How is calling someone a douche similar to using bad grammar while simultaneously telling someone else they have bad grammar? You're trying to lock me into some kind of imaginary paradox where you can't call someone something without actually being it yourself. Actually, the ironic thing here, is that by saying you're better than using the word "douche" you are the one condescending. You win at life.
Besides which, he IS a douche. So I don't see where the problem is.
chuckb11 1 year ago
@chuckb11 I'm not saying I don't use douche, and I'm not saying I'm any better. You are misunderstanding what I was saying, and I do feel that it might be my fault. Let me clarify.
"How is calling someone a douche similar".... WRONG. What you said was "condescending douche". That is of GREAT importance. Condescending and Douche both contain negative connotation. It's redundancy, and the way you use it is only to imply that you are somehow better because you aren't a "condescending douche".
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait Condescending douche isn't redundant, they are two totally different words with totally different definitions.Yes, they both have negative connotation but they are describing two different characteristics. This is straight forward, why are you trying to over-complicate the issue? Why are we arguing semantics? You're drawing your own conclusions on what I implied by using those two words. Is it better to be a condescending douche, or not be one?
chuckb11 1 year ago
@chuckb11 This whole thing is neither here nor there. You're stuck on two words I used and ignored the rest. More you're looking for something to infer that isn't there. On top of that you think I'm being redundant when I clearly am not, and even I was, so what? All i did was claim the guy is a condescending douche (which he is) and a poor critic because he can't distinguish his opinion from actual fact (which he can't).
What I am or am not is irrelevant to what I said.
chuckb11 1 year ago
@chuckb11 Again, "condescending douche" is redundant, but I guess I'll elaborate:
You could have left it at "condescending". Adding "douche" to the end just shows that you think that being condescending isn't bad enough of a word to describe him, ultimately showing that you are being condescending (note: I'm not using "douche" because that would be irrelevant to my point). He isn't a poor critic because he can't distinguish the two. He doesn't have to remind that everything he says is opinion.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait You are absolutely clueless, seriously, go look up the word redundant. His voice drips with his smug superior attitude. I don't know how you could require anymore evidence than that. He spoke in this clip as though he were Kubrick himself trying to convey why he filmed this movie the way that he did. He's arguing with another person's opinion as though what he's saying are the facts, when in reality, he hasn't a goddamn clue why Kubrick did anything that he did. You're just a fanboy.
chuckb11 1 year ago
@chuckb11 Again. It's not redundant. CONDESCENDING AND DOUCHE ARE CONVEYING TWO DIFFERENT IDEAS.
It would be redundant if I said "He's condescending and he talks down to you too" THAT IS REDUNDANT.
1. No longer needed or useful; superfluous.
2. (of words or data) Able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function
2. Is the definition you are thinking of. This does not fit. As I said they convey two different ideas and is therefore, not redundant.
chuckb11 1 year ago
@chuckb11 Redundant = Unnecessarily excessive, or superfluous. Saying condescending is good enough, but douche is just adding a stronger meaning to an already strong enough meaning.
"Douche" is a slang term. It's like saying "f***ing idiot". You can just say "idiot" and it won't change anything. Except that Condescending is different from idiot, because condescending means thinking you are superior or others are inferior, which you DEFINITELY seem to be doing.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@chuckb11 A FANBOY OF WHAT?!?
See? THAT IS BEING CONDESCENDING RIGHT THERE. I love CM's reviews, but I find truth in Chase's too, like for example, when Confused Matthew says "judging the film for it's objective merits". Sorry, but CM is saying his stuff as if it's fact too. In fact, he never really even says at ANY point that it's his opinion. It seems, ironically, that you are being a fanboy of CM.
Bassbait 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have a feeling that Matthew is going to have something to say about how you mention that the amount of people who agree with a premise has no bearing on the reality of that premise. You do that about 600 times in these videos.
dverd11 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have a feeling that Matthew is going to have something to say about how you mention that the amount of people who agree with a premise has no bearing on the reality of that premise. You do that about 600 times in these videos.
dverd11 1 year ago
Comment removed
dverd11 1 year ago
whist its ok to use slow establishing shots and music to set a mood and make a point 2001 goes to far with it, its hard to sit through with out a strong charecter to attach you to it. this is basic story telling. you said that mankind is the main character but this is never made clear nor is perticularly re-enforced via dialogue. it is simply an assumtion you've made based on your experince and thats mathews point simply because this is what you got from it doesn't mean its what the films about
zanzura99 1 year ago
you also come back to the effect it has on the industry as a whole via its ground breaking sfx which is very true and it did but that doesn't make it a good movie that just means it had good sfx, avatar has amazing and ground breaking sfx but that doesn't make it a good move it just means its nice to look at. it has no bearing on the stroy being told other than to enhance it but theres no really story to enhance
zanzura99 1 year ago
i liked the imagery of 2001. i love the idea of the monolith.
it was a boring film.
2010 was a stronger and much more interesting film.
americanfreak23 1 year ago
Wrong, Chase. You are the one who is wrong. just because YOU see all this deep meaning, doesn't mean that Kubrick intended for you to see it. You are nothing but a pretentious douche.
aarondirebear 1 year ago
You're reading way too much into this. it does NOT make you more intelligent and it does not make you deep. it makes you a pretentious cunt.
aarondirebear 1 year ago
Only a very lonely loser of a man would see those themes in pictures of landscape. Give it up. It is not ABSTRACT. it is BULlSHIT. It is a scam.
aarondirebear 1 year ago
I couldn't even finish watching this response...Chase, how did you manage to contradict yourself at the start of the very video????
Argument ad populum??? ITS WHAT YOU USED IN YOUR PREVIOUS VIDEO BY STATING THAT 2001 INSPIRED SO MANY PEOPLE!!!!!
DJbertjor 1 year ago
ob·nox·ious (b-nkshs, b-)
adj.
1. Very annoying or objectionable; offensive or odious
ShaunCarlin 1 year ago
This has to be the most elaborate fanboy rant ever made.
villeppi 1 year ago
This may have already been said, but in an earlier part you mentioned all the people who liked this movie. That is a logical fallacy called "Agrument from Authority" and here you point out confused matthew using logical fallacies? Excuse me kettle....is the pot black?
dsmil2 1 year ago
Fact: A film is not a films legacy. A great legacy does not mean a great film.
TGGeko 1 year ago
I didn't like the overused scenery. If I knew there was no dialogue when I watch it I would've fast forwarded it, after watching that I felt it was a waste of my time. It didn't set any tone for me because I KNOW SPACE IS DESOLATE! Not hard to figure out. It just bugs me that you complain about CM not liking that. Good point on the monolith, I thought CM should've mentioned it. But CM has a point about the music 2001 shouldn't rely on music over plot when the plot was established so late.
Nightman221k 1 year ago
Chase is really spot on in this part. The Docking scene is brilliant, when I first saw it I couldn't take my eyes off of it. I actually had to watch it again immidiately;)
BleakVision 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God, these boring Kubrickians should be put to death...
Foebane72 1 year ago
you are one of the stupidest crictics ive ever seen. Mattew knows what he's talking about and you dont ok so SHUT THE FUCK UP.
grandtheftauto5555 1 year ago
You've made some good points, but from what I understand, the musical score was a fortuitous occurence. Kubrick had music composed for the film, with the classical scores being - "placeholder" (I have no idea what to call it), but he later realized that the classical stuff was better. Well, so I heard.
MrColuber 1 year ago
LOL You bitch that CM took too long to get to actually reviewing the film, yet spent all of the last 20 odd minutes just attacking CM
TheCuriosity1 1 year ago
First you said: "...2001 is universally considered a masterpiece by the film making community as well as some of the greatest artistic and scientific minds to walk the Earth in the last 3+ generations..."
Then you said: "What you're doing here is what is known as 'argument ad populum' and it is not an argument. The amount of people who agree on a particular premise has no bearing in and of itself on the reality of that premise."
How did you miss that contradiction?
xagzaxien 1 year ago 39
@xagzaxien Of course chase didn't miss it, but it doesn't matter because he is "Practically Perfect in Every Way".
aarondirebear 1 year ago
@xagzaxien I can tell you how, he's an idiot.
chuckb11 1 year ago
@xagzaxien I suppose technically he was making an argument from authority rather than an argument from popularity.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@xagzaxien
He isn't making a review of the film, he's critiquing matthews review.
So to imply that that particular statement was an attempt at proving 2001's greatness as a film is simply misguided. Especially since you seem to forget the points in his video where he actually provides TEXTUAL EVIDENCE as to why the film is as great as people think it is!
How did you miss that?
mrnacj 1 year ago
@mrnacj I don't see how it's misguided. He essentially said famous people like 2001 because "it changed film making forever...[was] the most thought-provoking film ever conceived...[and] reinvented the science fiction genre."
And I'll be honest, I only got to about part 5 before I stopped watching. So if his evidence was after that then that's why I missed it. I figure if he can't make his point in 50 minutes or less, he doesn't have one.
xagzaxien 1 year ago
@xagzaxien
the first quote is from part 1 6:00 and if you look at the whole sentence it doesn't seem to contradict the 2nd quote as he says that Matthew ! thinks 2001 is just generally considered to be a masterpiece and so on, because it was undeservedly labeled as officially good by a small minority. that's not an 'argument ad populum'. Or am I wrong??
rocco133 1 year ago
Hey chase, have you read Rob Ager's analysis of Kubrick's films? Because I read them all the time, and can see a lot of good arguments unintentionally made that can be brought up against CM. I like CM (Confused Matthew) a lot, but I disagree with 2001 and Pulp Fiction reviews. Ironically, somebody said "How can you agree with someone about everything except for 2 reviews, and then suddenly disagree?". It's funny because that makes a good amount of sense. 2001 is a completely different review.
Bassbait 1 year ago
chase, most of the movie has no real story. there was no character development...at all. watch the movie without your delusions around it. the movie was all about looking pretty while listening to music. the only character in the movie was hal. get over yourself you don't know what your talking about.
Ckunz0306 1 year ago
eh, Matthew looks at screenplay and plot.
So you say that 2001 is space opera, ok. But the Star Wars Saga was Space Opera, why don't you comment on the music in the Star Wars Prequels?
Yes, music makes emotions to the audience. But if what on screen makes no sense or has no importance what is the music doing?!
danxtur 1 year ago
excellent response. You should tackle his Star Trek (2009) review vs. his Star Trek Nemesis Review. I didn't see his 2001 review, but I enjoyed his reviews in general until I saw that he thought Nemesis was better than the new film.
Padrebrian 1 year ago
I agree with a lot of your comments here, Chase. Ad hominem attacks on CM aside which I thought were unnecessary. Considering that CM gives "Independence Day" a 5 star review, I do think he has a different bias for what movies he considers good ie standard linear narrative, standard protoganist/ antagonist etc.
ApostlePaulofTarsus 1 year ago
U MAD? :3
mahdinner 1 year ago
Oh Chase, For a second I forgot I was watching a counter to CM on 2001. I thought I was watching like a campaign ad considering ALL YOU DO IS ATTACK CM ON A PERSONAL LEVEL! So now I will do the same. YOUR A FUCKING IDIOT, congrats!
Jmsadv 1 year ago
oh, dude, guess we're in the big leagues now
violinmerchant 1 year ago
5:30 Ok so the movie is presenting the evolution of the apes in aspects of warfare and awareness etc. But i don't understand why you are buirching at mathew for it he reviews movies to a standard of entertainment and bang for buck. At this rate 2001 should be considered a documentary.
Confused Mathew 4Evar!
Paveliptic 1 year ago 5
@Paveliptic Can't tell if serious.
BunionMann 7 months ago
I love how you keep giving the camera that look every time you believe you've made some grand point about how wrong Matthew is. After three parts, you've done nothing but prove that you're a pompous ass who will use logical fallacies of your own to make your arguments seem more valid.
I won't subject myself to this bullshit any further. Someone put this in text form and remove any douche bag comments. I'll read it and consider it then. It's just intolerable coming out of this moron's mouth.
Xbogey 1 year ago 52
@Xbogey HAHA So true
dcproductions1985 1 year ago
@Xbogey I noticed that too but couldn't understand why he was doing it and couldn't find the words to describe it, thanks for that
ShaunCarlin 1 year ago
@Xbogey 2001 haters. lol.
Qaosbringer 1 year ago
lol I never even hinted at an opinion about 2001 in that comment.
Xbogey 1 year ago
This review is getting a little pretentious. The air quotes and taking a review WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too seriously and being visibly hurt by what he said. Was Kubrick you Dad or something?
TheOKTerrificable 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
zhen1234 1 year ago
What is with the many personal attacks against Matthew present in all of the numerous arbitrary parts to this "response?" Just because you took Matthew's review way to seriously gives you no right to insult him or question his credibility. You try your very hardest to make these arduous responses sound as intelligent and articulate as possible by filling them with useless jargon and then you ruin your own credibility by taking pot shots at the man! That's very unprofessional/disrespectful.
dmanandcmac 1 year ago 3
"...is creepy at best and evil at worst, Matthew, COME ON."
Creepy? Evil? You are honestly claiming Matthew's review is creepy or, worse, EVIL?
And I particularly love how you follow that up with "COME ON." One would think, watching your review, that you were some sort of intellectual, that you had a true insight, and that your criticism of another critique was a true outlet for that insight.
But that isn't the case, is it? You have no insight, only sarcasm- to hide a lack of wit.
obiwanobiwan13 1 year ago
Stare, Chase, Stare! Stare right into the camera! Stare him down!
STARE INTO HIS BLACK EVIL SOUL FOR THE LIGHT YOU EMANATE WILL SHRIVEL HIM FROM THE INSIDE!
STAAAARE!!!
lagnut1982 1 year ago 4
dude, you are just as boring as 2001. you're pulling shit out of your ass...if you actually watch matthew's review, you will see he has REASON.
colonel326 1 year ago
guess what, I HATED Back to the Future Part II. Did that shatter YOUR worldview?
gofindyourownawesome 1 year ago
@gofindyourownawesome Way to miss the point completely
jonjonmcjonjon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
=))You don't even deserve insults=))
TaoJohn 1 year ago
Also, if I wanted a review by a professional, I'd go to an actual review site (i.e. Rotten Tomatoes). When I watch Matthew's reviews, I get a straight-forward review by someone like myself, someone who looks for the same thing I do in movies. I shouldn't have to interpret every single line in a movie, something which seems easy for you to do.
NkR03 1 year ago
Wow, dude. I'm about to make the rest of Matthew's response to this for him, cuz you need to get over one man's review. You say Matthew has said nothign in his review, then what do you call what you're saying? You try to act like a smartass, when you're not even arguing his actual words; youre reading into his comments and to what he's implying and then making comments to try to appear more intelligent than him. This entire response = facepalm.
NkR03 1 year ago 3
The last part of this section of your response, is again, your interpretation. Maybe the fact that the Monoliths encouraged them to fight is a sign of regression, fighting often leads to escalation, and escalation can continue for decades. Civil war in Africa is a prime example. Why does it have to be that the Monoliths encouraged us to evolve in a positive example? I can make 2001 support my arguments just as much as yours. But again, your not listening to Matthew's review.
TheDarkFrontier 1 year ago
It doesn't contain critique or review? Was you even listening? He's put 2001 against what has become the established benchmarks for being a film. Story, characters, plot etc. Against that, 2001 does fail badly. Your responding as if Matthew is reviewing 2001 as art or a cinematic advancement. He's not. He's reviewing it as a FILM. Why does Kubric introduce music at a certain point? Any number of explanations can be given for that, because 2001 is deliberately vague.
TheDarkFrontier 1 year ago
Continuing from my earlier statements, you claim the protagonist to be mankind. That's your interpretation of the film. Some people claim the protagonist to be Hal, for being a dynamic character and a representation of Human emotion when faced with extreme situations, I could even claim the protagonist to be the guy at the end who transforms into the Star Child on principle of it being the only significant transitional event to occur to anyone in 2001. Just as much evidence to support me as you.
TheDarkFrontier 1 year ago
In reference to music being used in a film. Yes, it does add atmosphere, and I totally agree that it is the backbone of a film. I've seen movie cuts without music, and they are incredibly un-atmospheric, for lack of a better term. However, all this basically is, is atmospheric scenes, with no cohesive film elements (no characters, dialogue or anything) with music. So, in a sense, it is just one long music video.
TheDarkFrontier 1 year ago
2:14. That's exactly what Matthew is getting at. Any negative review of 2001, either evokes "this movie is great, stfu" from people who can't construct a cohesive argument, or people like yourself you just claim that others arent sophisticated enough to understand it. You claim Matthew is pretentious for looking down on "Kubricians", and yet you are pretentious enough to claim that you are of a higher level of intellect than those who have a different opinion than you.
TheDarkFrontier 1 year ago
You sound just like bitter person, instead of saying some much to attack why dont you take the time to explain why CM is wrong about his claims. You are making things up to dissent rightful claims. You are conveying that your thoughts are just simply those of an Idiot. You are trying too hard to explain something that simply is not there. This movie does not teach anything or show anything that makes us be amazed and thus entertained. You what is conveyed in the entire movie is randomness all.
duranard 1 year ago
Dude, I'm subscribing to you! Thank you! I wanted to do this, but I could never do it in such a articulate way like you did!
TheKafkaLover 1 year ago
you do have some decent points but I do have to agree with CM your points make sents to me though
BTKing12 1 year ago
Comment removed
elcap22 1 year ago
@elcap22
Again, you've basically totally dismissed the review for 2001, because it disagrees with your own personal opinions. You basically said, Matthew disagrees with me, therefore he is wrong. Guess what, wrong!
TheDarkFrontier 1 year ago
Hell, I've never met anyone who couldn't go 10 minutes *WITHOUT* making fun of the film they're watching. How's that for world-shattering?
CoHScrapper 1 year ago
@CoHScrapper That's more of a fun group activity. I catch myself doing that even with films I have bought 5 times on five formats. I rip on star wars all the time for the death stars lack of guard rails around its bottomless pits but its still love.
screamwriter1 1 year ago
I first and foremost always saw the use of waltz music as implying that the machines are involved in something of a dance, a literal waltz, which contributes to the whole feeling of humanity's wonder stagnating at this point (demonstrated by the fellow sleeping during all this going on) by showing that our machines are now having more fun than we are. Whatever the case, the music's pretty darn crucial, and the idea that the scene would/should have nearly the same impact without it is absurd.
singingduckgopher 1 year ago
I like your tie man , but is it really necessary while your chilling out at home?
Bonkatsu12 1 year ago
Regarding what he said about music, I don't think he's saying isn't an important part of film making. He's saying it doesn't add anything here (or more precisely doesn't think it does). I'm not saying he's right, just thought you may have misunderstood his piont.
BTW it really makes me laugh when he says things like "whatever kind of atmosphere this scene has" and yet questions people who tell him he doesn't understand the film.
buc555 1 year ago 2
2:18 was a great summing up of what CM does in all his reviews.
buc555 1 year ago
CM is not only the only person I know of who dislikes BTTF part 2, he is also the only person I know of who disliked Spirited Away.
TheBucsareawesome1 1 year ago
In the prologue we're actually looking at the monolith itself and hearing it's 'volce'
Fawltykog 1 year ago
you are my idol <3
PoisPakkoRuotsi 1 year ago
Oh thank you thank you I get it now isolation is fun to watch for 2 hours it makes me wish they had cameras in jail so I could watch what the lone guy in solitaire dose all day I now love this movie thank you again.
ijustwannalookatporn 1 year ago
Again excellent points raised.
Does CM seriously think Kubrick went to such extensive efforts in this film, to bore the audience?
u2atomicbomb 1 year ago
You can't be a film critic if you only watch one type of films. Being a science fiction critic only makes you a geek. Show me a film critic that just reviews indy films. Not too many but lots of geek film critcs. And calling things "retarded" that you don't like/get? Wow I miss Ebert.
screamwriter1 1 year ago
2001 sucks....Thats why so many people love it I guess.
screamwriter1 1 year ago
@screamwriter1
What if 2001 was an inside joke? What if the crew thought that lets make an
arty film about not much at all plot wise, lets throw an interesting computer in the middle and some shit in the end that can be intepreted as anything. I
don't know what to think about this movie. The end part was satisfying I think,
even if it didn't have an actual ending I think. But whatever point is raised, I
can agree with it to some extent.
Apjooz 1 year ago
@agoloshapov Glad you are enjoying and hope you enjoy the rest.
chasemelendez 1 year ago 2
This wasn't the first time that space has been portrayed as having zero gravity in a film. Example: Conquest of Space, a movie filmed in 1954. Check it out. :)
Grimbot2 1 year ago 4
@Grimbot2 Excellent catch man! A factual error on my part but 2001 is still in the culture where zero G really took hold.
chasemelendez 1 year ago
@chasemelendez
Indeed it is. :)
Grimbot2 1 year ago
@chasemelendez
2001 was the first to use planes of gravity like the rotating set on the jupiter mission ship (when he's jogging)
woodsy1234567890 1 year ago
Didn't agree with everything you had to say or how it was said during this series (I've seen all nine parts), but I gotta say that from 7:48 to 8:23 of this segment was probably one of the most pure, uncontested victories I have witnessed in a very long time. You illustrated quite clearly how far more than "nothing" was going on, and delivered it so dryly and concisely that there was only one impression it could have left: that being ownage.
Aralithe 1 year ago 2
@Aralithe Well thank you for that and especially thanks for watching all 9 parts.
chasemelendez 1 year ago