Chase explains 2001 to Confused Matthew because somebody really needs to - part 7 of 9

[twooffour]

7:40 And where are the moral questions in 2001?

9:30 Nice one!

Quotemined or not, however, it still seems to fit the ending rather nicely. I mean, who KNOWS what that sequence is "about"?

It certainly ain't evolution.

[twooffour]

4:04 Impact =/= movie.

4:20 Funny how Star Wars actually led back to the Flash Gordon camp ;)

It also wasn't really SF.

5:15 Ok, "understand" 2001 in terms of getting the paper thin barebones plot that comprises it? Or "understanding" some story-behind-the-story that makes this movie so profound, and complex?

Because you sure do need a guide to understand the latter, if it's there at all - the former,on the other hand, is pretty easy.

5:30 I agree - bad example. Just helps reinforce the...

[twooffour]

... false dichotomy between "weird-ass mindfuck" and "simple movie spoonfeeding the audience", especially as CM doesn't agree with it itself.

6:10 The 6th Sense is sure a bad example of this - what it does do (and 2001 doesn't) is making the viewer frantically review the movie before their eyes after the final twist, reevaluating what happened in all of those scenes in which Bruce seemed alive.

It doesn't really leave anything ambiguous, though.

[twooffour]

0:20 Correct, he's just bullshitting.

1:12 Master Feces? Good one!!

1:30 All impact of the movie =/= the movie.

There are probably many overlooked masterpieces out there that are NOT written about in universities, just as there are many classical composers that have only recently begun to gain more attention thanks to dedicated performers and researchers digging them out.

At 1:50, Chase spells out this fallacy as clearly as it gets.

No, it isn't.

[twooffour]

And while I'm not in any way implying any meaning in Howard the Duck, an aspect to consider here would be the "searching for the key under the lamp post" idiom:

No one would look for deeper meaning in Howard, because it's a silly, stupid comedy movie.

2001 basically invites people to ponder "there has to be something to this!!" with its imagery, the "seeming" lack of plot, "grand" themes like "evolution of mankind" and confusing psychedelic imagery - imagery accompanied, I should say, not...

[twooffour]

... not by psychedelic disco, but the dead serious, mindfucking and atmospheric Ligeti pieces.

Would that ending sequence attract the same attention if they played his "Aventures" instead of the Requiem? Or even "Articulation"?

And the "alien ships" looked like disco balls?

The epic, serious atmosphere INVITES for thought and interpretation.

[elzoog]

I would have stated it a bit differently. Given the fact that people teach university level classes and write master thesises on this movie, there are only two possibilities I can think of.

1) The movie really is intellectually deep.

2) This movie really is one where "nothing happens" and is about nothing and Confused Matthew has, after 40 years, finally figured that out.

Which one of the two is more likely? That's how I would have put it.

[elcap22]

@elzoog number one?

[Bassbait]

@elzoog I'll go with number 1, because number 2 is impossible. It's like me suddenly discovering that Pizza has no flavor and then trying to convince everyone that pizza is overrated and LITERALLY tastes like nothing.

[twooffour]

@elzoog

False dilemma - you should look at what's actually said, in this case, and in those "master thesises". Were those maybe about the topics the movie ADDRESSES, or tackles? Did they make it past peer review?

[cntthnkofusrnm]

@vertigo58ful calm down man it's just a movie lol

[Kahran042]

Matthew probably had to work to understand how to pronounce M. Night Shyalaman's last name. :)

[reviewreviewer1]

@vertigo58ful You can like it that is cool but for me the film just doesn`t make things clear enough.

[reviewreviewer1]

@vertigo58ful There is no deep philosphical meaning in showing evolution without context.

[reviewreviewer1]

@vertigo58ful W2hy is it great, the film then offers nothing from itself anmd we watch something while we could just stare into space. If the film is good for that reason this is a good argument yjjjuimko7ghgcde3344fff.

[DarkLordVegeta]

@vertigo58ful

If you think is great and enjoy it, I am happy for you.

Just please don't make the same mistake many 2001 fans make, and pretend that because you enjoy it you are superior.

Not saying you are, just a word of warning.

[DarkLordVegeta]

@vertigo58ful Meaning: we write the film for Kubrick.

I'm sorry, but A Clockwork Orange and Spartacus were MUCH better films than this vacuum.

[Bassbait]

@DarkLordVegeta Wow, so you wrote the part that said "This kind of thing has cropped up before, and it has ALWAYS been due to human error". You didn't write the film for Kubrick, you interpreted it for Kubrick. This silly game of "HA! You're going to write an abstract film? Well then I'm going to pretend like nothing happened!"

It's the classic straw man argument but made against a movie - arguing against a version of 2001 you made up in your head that isn't at all like 2001.

[abarrathemaster]

now what a minute, some guy trying into a star child by an alien or whatever is not evolution, evolution would be that a poplation over many genation change to surive, a magical rock from outer space making apes smarter is not evolution but intelligent design. so clak got evolution confuse with intelligent design

[TheNextVinceRusso]

And if people debate that something has deeper meaning, that does not in any way prove that it MUST have deeper meaning. THAT'S RETARDED.

[abarrathemaster]

@TheNextVinceRusso i think theres a deeper meaning in that commet you wrote more than what you had stated

[Bassbait]

@TheNextVinceRusso Conversely, if people propose that something DOESN'T have ANY MEANING AT ALL, then that does not mean that it truly doesn't. The fact is, in order to make a movie that means literally nothing (as CM said), it would have to CONTAIN LITERALLY NOTHING. It would not have been recorded. I made a movie called "_____", and I didn't actually make it. THAT would be an anti-film.

[TheNextVinceRusso]

"Since your hypothesis can be proven to be false, it therefore validates the very point you are trying to oppose."

LOGICAL FALLACY.

[ApocalypticAang]

LOL, Confused Matt's list of challenging/meaningful movies are: Lord of the Rings, Gattaca, Juraissic Park, Sixth Sense, etc.-- because they give you the "answers" at the end?

I stopped following Matt after he compared Lord of Rings to Space Odyssey, and I guess I haven't missed much (except for his unintentional parodies of movie critic wannabes)... I mean, Matt likes challenging/meaningful movie because he had to work to understand Sixth Sense?

[ApocalypticAang]

Intellectually Dishonest? QFT!

Assuming Confused Matt was NOT trying to parody a BAD movie critic, his review is one of the most intellectually dishonest I've ever seen-- as in he actually gives BAD reasons/arguments for criticizing Space Odyssey....

Suddenly, I have newfound respect for people who simply ranted about Space Odyssey WITHOUT making up so-called "objective" arguments.

[jonathan4055]

they're are scene but not a word about these it is a blind canvas you paint it if you want a movie about evolution "evolution"

[jonathan4055]

they're are scene but not a word about these it is a blind canvas you paint it

[SavageVandar]

Ok, I've seen the 1st seven part of Chase's arguement and I have also seen the seven responses by CM. As it stands now, CM=7, Chase=0. I'll wait for CM to put out #'s 8 & 9 before I continue as I really only want to have to watch each of these once and not have to go back & refresh my memory once CM finally does get those out. But as it stands so far, damn he's just bitch slappin' you all over the place.

[Archedgar]

Chase fanboys are pathetic people.

Chase is like William Shatner, except without the charm and his fanboys are like trekkies without the class and the slick behavior trekkies display.

[scryer808]

So Matthew has posted his reply to part 7. At what point is Matthew going to feel bad about himself for continuing this one sided beatdown?

[khfanboy666]

@scryer808 one sided for who? Matt or Chase cuz i'm infinately on CM's side

[scryer808]

@khfanboy666 Matthew has owned this guy left, right and center. Really its been over since about part 2. Funny how chase has disappeared for 8 months. Stop, stop he's already dead!

[Ayatron34]

@scryer808

Chase left Youtube before Matthew;s first part. So I don't know what point you're making there.

And he might be dead, but he's still right.

[scryer808]

@Ayatron34 Well I guess that makes at least 2 things of which you are unaware

[Ayatron34]

@scryer808

And I guess that makes you a fanboy of Confused Matthew who likes to troll Chase's videos.

[scryer808]

@Ayatron34 Your deduction skills are somewhat underwhelming but hey that probably won't stop you from replying again to make another blunder

[scryer808]

@Ayatron34 Yeah I guess you removed your comment cause you decided to go back and read through the posts again. Mayhaps you should read first before you rant

[Ayatron34]

@scryer808

I removed it because I said the exact same thing in a different comment that wasn't removed - "Before you say stupid shit like Chase is away because of Matthew, you might want to stop headfucking Matthew's ass long enough see that Chase left way before Matthew even announced his responses.

Funny, if it's been "over since part 2", then why are you here? Troll."

Seriously, stop spamming a dead man's videos with your shit.

[scryer808]

@Ayatron34 Well had you been paying attention instead of whining I was actually criticizing Matthew for persisting with this. Hence why I made the remark about part 2 but again if you cared to noticed my first remark was about part 7 thus making on topic and thus not trolling. Again read first before you start ranting

[twooffour]

3:10 It's already stupid on its own ;)

3:20 Evolution and "higher intelligence / alien influence" are all but spelled out as the movie's plot points, they're not really "the meaning", or any kind of explanation of what's going at the end.

3:34 That, on the other hand... well, goes for any SF movie with AI in it. What does 2001 do in this area, other than providing a very good, interesting AI character?

Where's the "dual relationship"?

Reincarnation... yes.

Humanity's place in the universe?

[twooffour]

Not so much, that's more like a generalized, ever-present "what's the meaning of life" kinda question that is easily read into any story with intelligent life aside from humans.

3:40 Um no, there's no "death" in this movie that leads into any kind of afterlife. The Monolith actively transforms David, he doesn't just "die".

So aside from all this obvious cliche stuff, are there any independently formed "common" explanations of, let's say, the ending?

Just curious, of course.

[T3rm1n470r]

Just a short little question here. How can a film be about Monoliths (post-singularity beings, or God(s), or whatever) causing humanity to emerge from monkeys and be more advanced... and also be about natural selection? It seems like it's about Monolith selection to me.

[ezri85]

The original Star Trek television series handled all the science fiction elements (and then some) before 2001 was released and introduced audiences to these concepts. Doctor Who was doing the same even earlier.

[Bassbait]

@BartJ385 Ya, but it doesn't make sense because they withheld obvious information. It's a scene that makes you stop and say, "ya, so? Aren't you just being redundant?" It makes sense as much as saying "A dollar is worth a hundred pennies". It's like, sure, it does, but it could also be worth 20 nickels, 10 dimes, 4 quarters, two 50 cent coins, etc. The fact that RLM put that point in there was relevant, because Yoda explained as if a dollar can ONLY be worth 100 pennies, if you catch my drift.

[Bassbait]

@BartJ385 I did focus entirely. I said that RLM didn't get it wrong. Here's my exact quote: "When you use interchangeable emotions, then it's BS."

Yoda's comment was BS because fear can lead to suffering just like fear can lead to hate, just like hate can lead to fear, just like hate can lead to suffering, just like suffering can lead to hate. You could put it in any order, and it would make equal sense, and thus, it's pointless to even say. CM even said that in HIS review of the prequels.

[DeadJerker]

Point of order: it is true that serious, ambitious science fiction was quite rare before _2001_, but not unheard of. _Things to Come_ comes to mind. In fact, you can download the whole thing from archive.org. I would love to hear what you have to say about *that* movie.

[Bassbait]

@BartJ385 Um, no. Not at all. In fact, that part was perfectly reasonable, what he said. When you use interchangeable emotions, then it's BS. Matthew's argument was interchangeable because he could say his arguments at any point in the film, or to ANY film, and it would be equally relevant and irrelevant. I choose not to elaborate, if you want a more complete synopsis of my opinion, I made a response video to CM, on my account, so check that if you want to know what I think.

[carnageehw]

If there ever was a perfect example of a douche who doesn't understand one's arguments it's Chase.

[Esperflame]

I have a big problem with your #5 reasoning. A false hypothesis does NOT prove another true. If that were true you could argue 2+2=5 and I could argue 2+2=3. Just because one is wrong doesn't mean the other is correct. Is it just me or does Chase come off as one of those religious idiots who would argue that dinosaur fossils are the devils handiwork and that the earth is only 6000 years old?

[Muniam]

With a spoon? Was that reference to the Matrix?

[buc555]

@Muniam No, he's refering to the term "spoon feed", which means to give ready made opinions or judgments and not allowing them to have any original thought.

[Bassbait]

Another thing about the HTD theory is that it ironically reflects a similar statement:

"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

There is no depth to Yoda's comment, as there is no depth to CM's "theory".

Yoda's comment is flawed because each emotion he says is interchangeable.

CM's theory is flawed because it is immediately drawing conclusions without any possible reason why those conclusions would make sense within the film, and also somewhat interchangeable.

[cljohnston108]

I gave up on Matthew's "review" after about his third utterance of "...and more landscape", and pegged him as one not worthy of any further attention.

I've totally enjoyed your rebuttal, Chase, but that moron's truly not worth the effort.

You're gonna give yourself an ulcer!

[zackthecameraman]

Evolution by natural selection IS observable, that's how scientists proved it.

[zackthecameraman]

Just because people argue about 2001 more doesn't mean that it has a deeper meaning, it just means that people are more willing to waste their time on ambiguous films than on a movie that is widely known as "officially bad".

[TGGeko]

half those themes you mention don't exist in the movie.. Reincarnation?

[aarondirebear]

No, it isn't ambiguous you fucking idiot. Furthermore, it is not ambiguity that makes a movie brilliant. Fuck you and fuck your couch.

[aarondirebear]

Star Wars isn't scifi, it is space opera. Furthermore, it has aliens and laser gun fights.

[aarondirebear]

"You're adding whatever you need in order to make your ridiculous meaning fit"...Um, that's what YOU are doing with 2001

[Baltimos]

Just at the points of.. 4-5-6, whatever, Chase, why is the movie being debated about and all that stuff?

I might have missed it, by to me it seems like your main argument as to why 2001 is a good movie is because it's influenced so many people, is being debated and so on and so forth. But you kinda seem to miss pointing out and demonstrating why that is?

[BleakVision]

If you didn't act like a real asshole all the time, your rebuttal would have been a lot more enjoyable. And you do not establish yourself as a distinguished intellectual by adding a sarcastic tone to each of your statements.

Classic film snob.

[17R3W]

"you're not attempting to make up a deeper meaning based on things in the movie, you are adding whatever you need to make your ridiculous meaning fit"

THAT WAS HIS FUCKING POINT!!!

[movieman6456]

so chris is saying arthur c. clarke is telling two different things to people?

[TheKnightOf0]

you used the word HYPOTHESIS incorrectly in your statement.

[DonAlcopop]

by the way, its taken you 3 times as long to say less about the movie than c.m. ever did. just an observation

[MrTARDISreviews]

All 6 of those reasons you gave had more holes then then a sieve. Too bad youtube only allows 500 characters a comment, because i could devote 500,000 to explaining every little thing wrong with those 6 reasons.

[sk84alife]

I liked 2001 a lot. I didnt know why.... I didnt understand it...

You helped me understand it!

I actually first heared of 2001, when matthew reviewed it...

I am an artist and have to say that this film was to high for me to understand at first.

But I knew that this film had meaning and I knew that this film wasnt just bad because I didnt understand it!

Thank you very much...

Is it bad that I did not get any of the things in the movie when I first saw it?

[bozellandbuckley]

Dune was published in 1965, three years before 2001: A Space Odyssey was released. Granted, I think that Dune Messiah (published in 1969) was better than the first novel. But somehow I doubt that Frank Herbert's second Dune novel was any more like 2001: A Space Odyssey than the first novel.

[Bassbait]

I actually wrote stories with the same idea as The Usual Suspects and 2001. I wrote a story where the ending implies a dream sequence, which leads you to not knowing anything. Not the name of the main characters, not the profession of the main character, whether or not the surrounding characters exist or ever existed, and whether the events of the film are at all related to the character or ever happened. My second story implies insanity in the narrator, which throws into question what happened.

[slyfan64]

Bringing out caddyshack solidifies Matthew's argument that you can simply say anything about anything!

[carlosmontros534535]

I love how this pretentious blowhard types 'u' and 'ur' in his comments.

[zhen1234]

And by the way, in your description, you call this an epic review. No this is not a epic review, it is not impressively great nor a long voyage, it is an hour and a half of you making a lot of good points on a MOVIE, but also you self contradict yourself multiple times, you do this a lot in part 6. Do something else with your life other than jacking off to pictures of directors and researching movies

[zhen1234]

What do you do for a living that you have time to complain this much?

[MuEpsilonGamma]

Superiority complex FROM HELL. Every time you speak, all I hear is "I'm better than you, I'm better than you, I'm better than you, I'm better than you, I'm better than you..."

[lagnut1982]

The point that was made is not that people who like Howard the Duck should not be trodden on, but that 2001 is exempt from criticism.

And wow, did you just claim that - as ONE example, rather than an obnoxious, panderingly sarcastic list - The Day the Earth Stood Still was a campy film about silver saucers and rayguns? Were we just waiting around for the Sea Change? For Kubrick the Untouchable Master of Us All to allow us to start thinking? Now who's not paying attention to cinematic history?

[gofindyourownawesome]

you totally missed his point. His point was that you can find any meaning in anything. Like you find in 2001.

[sansfi]

By the way.. im still on the 7nth part, and i already want to punch you in the face... the reason i want to do that? Because thats how you come across in your friking response. See? You also use fallacies.

[TheDarkFrontier]

I like from around 8:00 - ish, that statement about "quote mining" syncs up almost perfectly with this film. You could take any element out of this film, away from context if Kubrick intended, which given the content he didn't, interpret it to what YOU want it to mean, which is basically what, as a 2001 fan, is what YOU DO. Not all 2001 fans agree on its meaning, it is interpreted however the hell you like providing there is enough evidence. Dear god your response is getting repetative.

[sansfi]

Please, stop using the whole Taboo thing... You obviously didnt understand that right. It isnt a Taboo, its more like a mass-likeness or mass-dislikeness... (Hey, everybody likes it! I would be weird if i didnt like it too!!!) Its not that people cant have a bad opinion about something or someone will feel personaly attacked .

[NkR03]

You are officially the smuggest douchebag I've seen on the internet (and there alot of those).

[NkR03]

The first minute of this part is completely contradictory, as you are doing THE EXACT SAME THING !

BTW, how did we get to talking about Howard the Duck in the first place? Who fucking cares? Why have you dedicated two parts to even mentioning Howard the fucking Duck, and going along with it?

[TheDarkFrontier]

And why does 2001 recieve this much depth and analysis. Oh I don't know, it couldn't possibly be due to the fact Kubrick has a fearsome reputation as being one of the greatest directors of all time, the fact he was an awesome visionary, no no no no no, of course not.

If someone has this big a fan base, more people are going to review it, delve into it, tear it apart, interpret and reinvent it in their own way. It's advances in effects and cinematography also helped to spur this along.

[TheDarkFrontier]

Now you probably think thats an unfair way to compare; because its not like Howard the Duck was the root for anything. But you can find metaphor in virtually anything, whether its intended to or not, if you INTERPRET it that way. 2001 is dependent on this interpretation. 2001 can be, what dyou know, INTEPRETED in any way you wish. What the hell was you even trying to prove here? Any movie can be subjectively interpreted.

[TheDarkFrontier]

You're invalidating your own comments in this part of the argument. Just because something is debated more than others is irrelevent. Let's take, The Beatles. Without The Beatles its questionable whether rock / popular music would've evolved the way it did. But hey, I can boil it down and say, and this is fact by the way, that rock and popular music wouldn't have evolved without slave songs, because that gave birth to blues, which gave birth to rock n roll. See what I mean?

[SilvrSavior]

How is wormhole travel a theme? Did the apes at the beginning of the movie travel through the obelisk? No. Did humanity develop wormhole technology for everyday use, or develop it for travel to Jupiter? No. It only appeared once in the movie. Yeah really important theme to include in your list.

[MrZingnigga]

so in your uniquely obnoxious way you implied that htd is not even mentionable amidst great directors. yet shame on cm for agreeing with you. good thing points 1 and 6 were used to bookend this ridiculous field trip to poor thinking.

[Kaiserman151]

HOW DARE YOU SIR!

[TheAntiCritic]

I never knew Caddyshack was so profound. To quote the only other influential Sci-fi movie I can think of (Scary Movie 3): "That's some deep shit right there."

Carry on, good sir. You've made my day with your epic review of a review.

[DarkLordVegeta]

Just because a motion picture revolutionized the film industry does not change the fact that, if its impact is ignored, IT SUCKS. 2001 is a great bonanza of effects, cinematography, and soundtrack. It has NO plot and ONE character(Hal). It is not a film, it is a motion picture.

Take NGE. It changed anime forever and allowed for the creation of RahXephon(one of the greatest anime EVER created). It still does not change the fact that its story is juvenile and its main characters unlikeable.

[LeonSKennedy828]

@DarkLordVegeta So damn true.

[boltonkevin]

The "fact" that people do debate 2001 and one not Howard the duck does not show that 2001 has deeper meaning, it shows only that more people debate 2001. Correlation is not causation, not that it matters anyway as CM is only using Howard the Duck as a reference to how too much interpretation can be given to a film and so that interpretation makes people believe that it's a masterpiece.

[CoHScrapper]

[Cont.] And if you kept the trailer quote "I see dead people" in mind as you saw the opening scene, you were pretty much told 'Yeah, Bruce died. He's a ghost now."

How is/was that so complex?.. How did you have to "work" to figure that out?...

[CoHScrapper]

Holyshit! How did anyone NOT see that Bruce Willis was a ghost? Didn't take much thought to figure it out. I mean, for fuck sakes the trailer hints at it.

*Trailer with Cole: "I see dead people"

Dr. Malcolm Crowe (Bruce) gets shot at the beginning. Rather than his wife dial 911, she's freakin out (for good reason) because her hubby is... dying from a gun shot wound! ...

[dante4live]

I just love this huge list of comments from people who didn't like the movie for whatever reasons and then go out of their ways to nitpick tiny details or errors in chase's videos only in order to feel that by doing that, their opinion is the valid one. It's like they're covering their ears from all the straight-forward good points chase is making, and then opening their ears to smaller mistakes that contribute nothing to wether or not he's right.

[dante4live]

basically, cinema is like any form of art. There's 2001, which can be compared to some piece of contemporary art, and there's, say, transformers, which can be compared to a poster of conan the barbarian. there's a reason why some people won't like the first but will like the last. some are into emotions, other into shiny stuff, and that's fine, but when a kid, or an adult that doesn't have artistic sensibility can't feel a piece of art and says it's bad based on that, that is not fine.

[Gammu]

Kubrick explained the basic *PLOT* of 2001 in it's entirety 40 years ago, so it's just factually wrong for CM to say it has no plot and Kubrick didn't know what he was doing.

Clarke also said: "If anyone understands it on the first viewing, we've failed in our intention."

To which Kubrick said, in a Playboy interview: "I don't agree with that statement of Arthur's, and I believe he made it facetiously."

[KonFoozed]

Although I agree with most of your points, you do appear to come across as a bit pretentious. Also Jurassic Park was a wonderful film good sir and your scoffing at it was unnecessary for your argument. Still though, all good on this end.

[Isolder74]

@KonFoozed He never said Jurassic Park was a bad movie, just that the moral is not ambiguous. The movie says it outright.

[VerwirrterTurnschuh]

"The debate about the meaning of '2001' proves that '2001' does have deeper meaning." - You really mean that? Wow. That's a positive proof that all your reasoning is a turkey sandwich.

[chasemelendez]

@VerwirrterTurnschuh Again with the misquoting in order to make ur self look better. i said "that people DON"T debate Howard the Duck & yet they DO debate 2001 is..." - CM's point is that HTD can b argued 2 have deeper meaning invalidating 2001s deeper meaning but this begs the questions; Than why don't people think it does? This flaw in his logic becomes positive proof for the opposite point. But let's grant ur point for sake of argument - that hardly invalidates ALL my other points does it?

[zanzura99]

@chasemelendez people debate 2001 because there nothing else you can do with it for the most part it is simply a bunch of images i understand that thats what the film maker intended but that doesn't make it good it just means he got you to sit through a film where nothing happens in search of a meaning that doesn't exist

[reviewreviewer1]

@chasemelendez Uh wait, wait, because people like 2001 and dislike Howard The Duck, therefor 1 is bettrer then the other?/?? huh, what???? No te best statemet weven which ensures fre devbates is: a biliobn people can be wrong, slavery holocasusrt are the proo of that!!

[THEDOG13579]

@chasemelendez It is true that more people debate or believe that 2001 has deeper meaning than HTD, but guess what... Thats ad populum!

[PittsBurghFuzz]

@VerwirrterTurnschuh one of the best comments I've ever read. kudos to you.

[patricioac123]

(continued from part 8 which is continued from part 9 post) ...It seems to me like the guy can't watch something new that challenges his previous experiences, and he just made no effort at all to maybe watch other Animes or do some research on Japanese folklore before taking a shit on the Akira Kurosawa of animation. I think he should stick to reviewing what he knows: disappointing sequels or prequels where the necessary context and points of comparison are provided by the franchises themselves.

[chasemelendez]

@patricioac123 Thanks for watching. As for "Spirited Away" i appreciate the request but at this time i have no plans to review any of CM's past reviews (although that could of course change) and the list of things i've already got planned is long but as far as anime goes i would love to tackle Princess Mononoke, Lain & of course.. Akira!

[snoopyisback]

Someone on the forum asked CM about the lack of plot in Fantasia. His reply:

"No one involved in Fantasia was pretending that there was any kind of "deeper meaning" than what the movie actually was."

and also sent him a link to a site explaining the meaning of the film.

His reply:

"This reminds me of the recent South Park episode where the boys wrote a novel souly to be juvenile, but everyone thought it was brilliant only because they read their own meaning into it."

[Herbarius]

As an interesting side note about Sixth Sense: I once saw a cut of the film on (German) television, which had completely cut any mention of cold meaning ghosts are around, for no apparent reason other than maybe saving time. That really puzzled me, especially as the special effect of the condensing breath of his wife in the "revelation" scene at the end made no sense now...

[TheBucsareawesome1]

You are so right , this guy doesn't have a clue.

I love this part:"If you had to make it up yourself it means the writters didn't know" WTF? it's called ambiguity you moron!

[buc555]

You what I had to "work to understand" in the sixth sense, why doesn't Cole, when he says "I see dead people", not then say "oh and BTW you're one of them"?

[chasemelendez]

@buc555 Ha! Totally! that movie had some holes for sure that people just overlook cuz it uses misdirection pretty well. Also, am i the only one who wasn't shocked when Willis turned out to be dead? I mean they do show him die at the beginning of the movie.

[LMTR14]

usual fuckspects?! you gotta be shitting me

don't defend the one movie Ebert was for once in his life dead right about, man...

[chasemelendez]

@LMTR14 Your comments as a whole frighten & confuse me but.. Usual Fuckspects? i've never heard that b4.. that's pretty awesome actually (ha). Thanks 4 watching.

[LMTR14]

75% of what happens in US is a LIE since it never happened in the first place, even Ebert who is usually just running with the pack (Avatar 4 stars? District 9 4 stars? you gotta be kidding me man...) realised that's shitty filmmaking

and for the "frightening" thing, I'll sum it up for you:

CM bad

2001 good

OK?

[chasemelendez]

@LMTR14 Whoa there, i wasn't attacking you. The "Frighten & Confuse" line was a reference to a hysterical old SNL sketch called "Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer" - sorry sometimes tone is not carried at all in these comment threads. People's taste vary great & there is nothing wrong with that - art is subjective which is the only real point i was trying to make along with emphasizing 2001's importance 2 the art form itself & that surrealism can lead to greater understanding; not less - that's all.

[LMTR14]

CM only gets what he deserves...

[topraman519]

Classes are taught on 2001? I find that pretty hard to believe. Love the movie, but I think "teaching" the movie is a bit overkill.

[chasemelendez]

@topraman519 "teaching" a movie in film school or in film studies or in film history is hardly overkill & is quite common. Many classic and landmark films are required study ranging from "The Battleship Potemkin" to "Barton Fink"- 2001 IS on that list for obvious reasons. Just as certain books & authors are required study & have classes dedicated to them. Come on now, that's like saying "i love 'To Kill a Mockingbird' but teaching it is overkill." or "i love the '5th symphony' but.." etc.

[datalal624]

The "And Caddyshack is...[cut to clip]" bit just had me cracking up! I was still thinking "WTF does Howard the Duck have to do with anything, AT ALL???" when Confused Matthew made that asinine point, so thankfully you were paying attention and could respond to it.

Another comment: You are one patient and attentive man! And this 9-part epic review/smackdown is a heckuva lot more entertaining than what you're responding to. Kudos! :)

[chasemelendez]

Yeah i also liked using Caddyshack cuz it's ridiculous while also being a classic film and his interpretation could be construed to make more sense with it since they blow up a golf course at the end (metaphor for mistreating the Earth perhaps??? - ha)

Thanks for the kind words and for watching my entire series. These things needed to be said.