Chase explains 2001 to Confused Matthew because somebody really needs to - part 6 of 9

[kaewonf8]

Good show refuting some of the dumbest remarks ever made about any movie.

[twooffour]

4:17 Said to be an empty MacGuffin by Tarantino himself ;)

4:40 CM should've shown more appreciation for 2001 as a "surrealist" work that inspired the brain to work on creative readings, at least in lip service, instead of whining about how "pointless" it was for Kubrick to include long space shots.

2001 sure is a rich work of ART, but the review treated it as a MOVIE - and that's the main point here.

5:30 Missing the point - movies like the Usual Suspects, K-Pax or Shutter Island all...

[twooffour]

... gave the viewer a LOT TO WORK WITH - a point CM actually makes in his review (reprimanding Chase stare).

Most of the Western philosophy I know values clear expression of thought. (Baudrillard, on the other hand, is criticized for the lack of it - some people say he was more about mindfucking than philosophy).

8:30 Not if you said Howard teh Duck was a shitty movie ;)

Then he'd get a tasti turkey sammich.

8:57 I agree that that Howard the Duck reading was less... sensible....

[twooffour]

... than suggesting that the Monolith influenced HAL during the Intermission.

Still, that's not "evidence" for this actually happening, just something to build a theory on (which is not the case with the Duck bit).

[twooffour]

3:55 Ok, I don't know much about the 2001 interpretation camp, but generally speaking, there's a difference between:

-several camps, or schools of thought, having different views on a subject, and

-everyone coming up with their own conclusions.

3:58 Impact of a work =/= the actual work.

In the latter case, "making up" is closer to what's going on there. Nothing wrong with that, but it's the viewer's creativity, not the creator's (the creator's was in part to INSPIRE this creativity, though).

[twooffour]

0:50 Yea, one of the stupidest moments in CM's review - "turkey sandwich", WTF??

0:58 Chase is horrified, for once justifiedly so.

1:30 Okay, but is a fetus conscious? ;)

1:40 Qualifier - both narrator and viewer have to "participate", 95% of the job can't be handed over to the viewer.

If it is, it's not "truly great storytelling" anymore, it's a mindfuck. Nothing necessarily wrong with that ;)

2:15 Strawman - it doesn't take a "genius" to see the Emperor's clothes (hidden joke, har har -

[twooffour]

... it takes the genius to see them), all it takes is lacking the awe and conformity to be bullied into agreeing with the "sophisticated consensus" when you see no justification for that, and have a definite impression that there isn't one.

That's pretty much what his review is, telling it as it is without all the fanciful additional brainstorming - plus, of course, a lot of immature stupidity and annoying voice delivery.

2:20 "Overlooking" isn't what they're accused of there ;)

[twooffour]

0:17 Not really, nothing indicates that he's LIVED or was conscious inbetween these moments.

If there's anything that the Monolith can be said to be doing to him here, it's more like "ok, here's you aging... summing up the aging process and all, just to symbolize something... but let's get on with it".

0:22 Oh, we can ask, but that's the point: the film gives no information, so EVERYTHING in that psychedelic sequence can be "asked" about. The point is, there are no answers.

[elcap22]

what is that shelf of behind him? It looks like video tapes

[SequentiallyCompact]

"An argument that explains everything, explains nothing and can be dismissed out of hand."

Say again? A mathematical proof is such an argument, it explains everything and yet only an absolute imbecile would dismiss a proof out of hand and say it explains nothing. I'm still trying to put this into a context that makes sense or try to understand what Chase meant by this.

[Bassbait]

@SequentiallyCompact Ok, here's what it means - is there one proof in math that explains everything in mathematical existence? No. There are specific proofs for specific math areas. He's talking about blanket arguments - for example, using "GOD" as an argument to explain everything in the natural world doesn't actually explain anything about the natural world. Chase was saying that the way CM explains HTD could be used on any film and is therefore a worthless argument.

[ApocalypticAang]

LOL, Confused MAtt is hungry for turkey sandwiches!

It always amazes why people like Confused Matt feel the need to "review" a movie they didn't care enough to "watch" properly-- yes, some movies take a lot of thinking (BTW, it's something which we all do called "secondary creation/interpretation", Confused Matt, not "making things up")...

...and people who don't care enough to do the thinking should just leave off the "reviewing".

[jonathan4055]

your wrong you can't say you juge a art or a movie by the ripples in the water that is forms wrong cubric is nothing conpered to the bible or so other junk therefore you can not juge it with its effects or you will not juge the movie but your or inpresion of it

[Leatherbubba]

This is absolutly hilarious. Rarely does one come across a nerd of this magnitude.

[nobetternickname]

can't quite remember from matthew's review (been a while since i watched it) but wasn't he using 'howard the duck' for the purposes of holding a mirror to the more obscure and non-sensical theologies which had been attributed to 2001 by fringe fan bases? in a way, isn't this bloke just continuing matthew's argument by the end? i don't know but it seemed funny to me at the time. durp. :)

[shanecle]

@chasemelendez

THANK YOU!!

I've watched a lot of confused matthew's reviews and have at times been really annoyed with his comments on many films. Comments which have included so many expletives and make him sound like some kind of teenage hooligan, as opposed to a film reviewer.

You just handed him his ass. Well done sir!!

[SpaceInvader42359]

This all makes me sad. I love 2001 so much, and I wish everyone could get the happiness and meaning out of it that I did.

[StWesley]

Matthew owns you so bad in part 6.

[ReviewForReel]

I'm not trying, to start a fight or anything, I am really wondering this. Chase, when Confused Matthew every claimed that he had a handle on the truth in the 2001 review, or anything he had every produced. I

[PirateOfTheInternet]

This guy's argument completely falls apart when he starts citing things which aren't even abstract.

[rutgerhauer666]

Hilarious, brilliant, evisceration of a bad review. Bravo.

[Gahgetthatawayfromme]

Did you really just pronounce Dalí "dolly"?

[b2succeed12]

Every time I see you in a video I want to punch you in the face and take that tie of yours (seriously only a loser hipster douche bag would wear a tie with a flannel t-shirt) and shove it down your throat to shut you up.

[JohnnyBoy65451]

"Now that we're finnally done with your whinning, narrow, loud mouth, non-sencicle, repetitive, arogant, self-indulgent hissy fit"

Thats a lot coming from you

Seriously though, 2001 sucks, it has no story or characters and therefore all of its other elements, as masterful as they may be, are irrelevent. No disrespect to Kurbrick the director.

[obiwanobiwan13]

And CM TOTALLY crushes your feeble point, sir...

You just wasted an hour of our time building up how IMPORTANT it was that we PARTICIPATE and INTERPRET films!

And NOW you say that we CANNOT interpret films as CM did because...well, because...well, you don't like "Howard the Duck," whioch is understandable, but as your whole argument is "Oh, come on, man, it's Howard the duck we all KNOW it sucks!" then what, LOGICALLY, is wrong with CM saying the same of 2001? Because it's YOUR viewpoint?

[obiwanobiwan13]

My GOD, man!

Honestly, you are THE MOST self-righteous and utterly-empty headed man I have ever...well, I can't say I've "met" you, and thankfully I don't have to--the very thought of meeting someone dripping with so much bombasity is so unpleasant yourt response almost appears only moronic rather than completely inane and devoid of the meaning you so desperately want to attribute to the film and to YOURSELF!

And that's it...you DEARLY want to be called a deep mind--yet you are so shallow!

[ErnilEnNaur]

Oh my God...Chase is like a turkey sandwich and Matthew's like a bulldozer driving over it again and again and again.

[LeonSKennedy828]

Matthew has totally obliterated this part.

[THEDOG13579]

The reason Matthew said he could give 2001 reasons why Howard the Duck is the most profound movie ever is exactly because anyone can give reasons for anything. Just like any fan of the movie 2001 can give reasons why its so deep. I'm not saying that 2001 isn't deep, but you were just talking about common sense and critical thinking... It's pretty obvious.

[TGGeko]

Oh, the irony! It burns! 

[worldd777]

Chase u better dont watch CM-s response to u...he totally destroyed u

[arachnophile01]

cont. as to the later parts:

1. Mathew never claimed to posess "the Truth"

2."The objective truth, from my point of view..." Objective from your point of view. *facepalm*

3. "Is that you lack..." Stop pretending you know a guy from one film review

4."a room full of great directors" Which Mathew never denied applied to Kubrick

5. "I can give 1001 reasons anything." The difference is unicorns are objective. Profoundness is not.

[salvo711]

I'm never going to be able to look at a turkey sandwich the same way ever again.

It's looking right back at you!!

[pacificimporters]

these are pretty good, but check out my objective 14 part review of the star wars original trilogy if you want to know how bad THOSE movies were! I applaud confused matthew for tackling 2001, most people only go for the new movies and pretend that anything made before CG is just perfect.

[anime1973]

@HouserGraves i agree. and 2001 was the most fucking boring movie on earth and what ever meaning it had was lost on most people and was likely contrived and self-important.

[anorourke]

The look on your face after the 'turkey sandwich' comment was priceless

[adamzanzie]

Some of these angry comments by Confused Matthew's fans (or the comments by people who dislike CM but also dislike your complex rebuttal of his "review") are silly. The people here whining that "it's just a movie" obviously have no respect for the arts. Thanks for sticking up for this masterpiece, Chase. This made me proud to be a Kubrickian.

Off-topic, but do you like "Barry Lyndon"? In some ways that's my favorite Kubrick film. The criticisms of it as "boring" are laughable.

[slmrcs]

2001 was boring

[zackthecameraman]

Also, please, and I'm going to say this in a way that you'll probably take it: Dumb down your "notes." There is no way that you think in such a jargon-filled way, so stop writing like it so that normal people don;t have to Google every other fucking word to find out what the hell it means.

[zackthecameraman]

Substitinive is not a word

[TGGeko]

You know something this segment has in common w/ 2001? It just goes on and on and on.

[aarondirebear]

You just compared a bunch of pretentious crap to the bible. FUCK YOUR COUCH.

[Nightman221k]

Chase, you made great points in your last video and I agreed a LOT with you. I think that your points about the things that CM didn't try to get were good. Why did you undermined it by calling CM an egotist or an idiot? He gave his opinion on a movie, you don't know anything about him other than his opinions. Why act like you think he planned to accomplish something with it? It doesn't help your point by doing this, it just makes you look bad for getting so upset.

[255ad]

CM didn't say 2001 wasn't a peace of art or as that it had no value as that but judged as a film it was bad at least he thinks so.

[ADMERALSMITH]

Oh yeah just pretend that your thinking of those off the top of your head even though your reading them off your computer. Nice going troll.

[TPH7NS]

listen i love stanley kurbrick, his films are incredible, but 2001, it sooo fuckin boring and dull, its my least favorite of his films, btw your a great troll, keep up the good work

[DonAlcopop]

ambiguos meaning in a movie creates debate, debate makes noise, this is picked up by papers and reviewers and increases the popularity of a movie by default, thus increasing audiences, you gont think this is done at least in part deliberately?

[trevordungin]

Collative Learning had an excellent analysis of the use of symbolism in the film, but just because the movie uses symbolism doesn't mean it had to be this long or boring. I side with Confused Matthew. 2001: ASO isn't a film. It's a great 'experience' kind of like a theme park ride or a Datura trip, but it's not a film.

[MrTARDISreviews]

You've been trying to respond to Matthew's arguments whenever he tried to use wit...with wit of your own? That shit will not fly, Chase.

[Bassbait]

It seems that you haven't seen CollativeLearning's analysis of 2001. I don't think there are any alien elements. It's not an alien planet. It's a dream sequence. I think you should read the analysis. It's not 100% truth, but it has some compelling evidence as to what is actually happening. So you should read through it, because "alien" is not an accurate guess as to what happens at the end.

[violinmerchant]

Dude, turkey sandwiches totally evolve...in my colon

[kekuha]

"Blah blah blah, I pretend to know a lot of words and talk in a condescending tone so that I can feel smarter than you"

Are you even TRYING to debate or are you just trying to preach at people?

[Blomsternisse]

@kekuha It's funny how all you butthurt Matthew fanboys got nothing but strawmen and ad hominems as response to Chase. It only shows what a bunch of fucking idiots you are.

[zhen1234]

You claim throughout your entire review that CM is whining. In your own words, irony, because that is exactly what you are doing. You are whining about the fact that CM does not like the movie. You whine due to the fact that he doesnt understand. Another contradictory, about a minute and a half in you said CM's "Turkey Sandwich" remark was said solely for comedic reasons. I completely agree but you follow that with,"i guess hes hungry". Thats solely for comedic reasons since you wrote evrything

[zhen1234]

"no one evaluates evidence based on beliefs", You are evaluating evidence based on your belief that this movie is great. "They value reasons on those beliefs based on evidence" What evidence, your fuckin opinion??? Like you said the interpretation of 2001, or any movie or anything, is purely subjective, thats why its an interpretation, so why are you getting sand in ur pussy because one out of 6 billion people on earth dislikes the movie. What are you trying to do, get him to like the movie?

[zhen1234]

you look like the kid that got picked on and called a fag in school....

[MuEpsilonGamma]

Oh.  My. God. Lighten the fuck up and go back to Starbucks. I can't believe I'm sitting through this obnoxiously pretentious hissy fit. You're no better than Confused Matthew. The difference is, Matthew isn't coming across as a total self-righteous douchebag. How's the weather up there on your high horse?

[Esperflame]

@MuEpsilonGamma I agree, Chase really comes off as a pompous ass who seems to think he's right and everyone else is just wrong. Chase's argument seems full of dead end arguments with no room for debate. I've never seen such a self-righteous pompous ass whine all over a movie review that is someones personal thoughts on a movie. Matthew never claimed he had a handle on the truth, but you sure seem to think you do.

[h1k3r99]

@Esperflame

Agreed. Chases review is a mirror of the idiots on the IMDB forums. He's p.o. that CM doesn't like the film so he:

1- Attacks CM personally (ad hominem

2- claims we must like it because others do (argumentum ad populum

+ I fully expected him to pipe up with "But mom, all the cool kids are doing it!

3- Misquotes CM AKA lies. - intellectual dishonesty.

For once, I'd just love to have a 2001 fan make an effort to actually defend the film, by ONLY addressing what is IN the film.

[twooffour]

@MuEpsilonGamma

"Matthew isn't coming across as a total self-righteous douchebag"

He kinda does.

[lagnut1982]

This is my favorite of the nine parts so far, because there's a change of scenery!

[americandragon72]

A thing I've noticed threw out this counter argument, you chastise Matthew for being egotistical or mocking Kubrick fans, then do something like you did at 2:29.

Kinda hypocritical.

[NkR03]

You say Matthew's arguments can be applied to everything. You have said absolutely NOTHING and have done the same thing you claim Matthew does.

And now you're insulting someone else's intelligence, while you have made yourself look like an arrogant asshole. Good job.

I can't wait 'til Matthew tears you a new vagina.

[TheDarkFrontier]

From about 75% into this, you just hit the root definition of deliberately obnoxious. Boiled down, you said that any movie cannot be profound because, and I quote "the evidence is insufficient", whereas 2001 is exempted from this case, and i quote "which is not the case with 2001". So does that equate to 2001 is the most profound movie ever made, no other movie is? Because that's the view im getting, which to be honest is frighteningly condescending.

[mashdoctor]

You're a complete moron. But I don't need to tell you that.

[Bryannx01]

The movie was boooooooooooring!!!!!

[cuntscab555]

y'know, matthew is an idiot, but all those interpretative things you list make me feel nothing. "evaluate reasons for beliefs based on evidence" - all that crap... it's not for everyone. if i had gone another direction as an unsocial teenager, retreated into my mind rather than partying with beautiful people, i might have developed rationalisations for platonic ideals that hardened and filtered what i feel, rather than falling in love and getting to know the real world. but i didn't. 2001 blows

[cuntscab555]

don't think quantum physics gets defined by people talking about it, tbh

[Kaiserman151]

You're just havin fun with CM now aren't you?

[elcap22]

don't forget Blade Runner and sta trek: the motion picture

[elcap22]

hey chasemelendez, it's obvious you're reading from the monitor screen so you scripted all this out? how long did that take?

this is like 90 minutes

why did you make such a damn long video review of confused matthew's review, are you trying to be like redlettermedia?

[christinasaterlee]

Apparently Matthew doesn't evolve...

[confusedmatthew]

I would further add that almost none of the examples you cited lacked "a consensus on its meaning", least of all cosmology, the theory of gravity, the concept of free will quantum physics and 'all' branches of philosophy. We could not even begin to discuss these topics if we did not have a general consensus of their meanings.

[Ayatron34]

@confusedmatthew

You miss his point. Of COURSE there is a general consensus on what 2001 is about. People who understand the film will bring up the same general themes. There just isn't a detailed consensus of what it's about because it's ambiguity by its very nature causes variations in people's interpretation. Which generates the discussion and debate over it. The same is true for the the things you listed in your comment and what Chasemelendez listed in his video.

[confusedmatthew]

@Ayatron34 He didn't say "general consensus on what its about". He said "General consensus on its meaning". There is no such divided consensus in most - if not all - of the examples he gave, but there certainly is when it comes to this film.

[Ayatron34]

@confusedmatthew

The problem with your 2001 review is pretty simple. It claims to be more than it is. You claimed a degree of objectivity which you didn't have then and don't have now and from that position you recommended that people not watch it. Based on what? Based on a summation of what you thought when you watched it. You failed to make the distinction between an outright bad movie and a movie that just wasn't for you and didn't suit your tastes. It's intellectual dishonesty.

[confusedmatthew]

@Ayatron34 I don't recall claiming objectivity in the review other than the objective standards I hold it to. And I certainly do not recall recommending that people do not watch the film. I did recommend that people do not watch "Jupiter and beyond the infinite", but not based on any summation of what I thought when I watched it. Only because I wanted to spare them such a waste of time. Looking back on that decision, it may have been unfair on my part.

[Ayatron34]

@confusedmatthew

But your standards aren't objective matthew. They're subjective by their very nature. You don't have the definitive criteria on what makes a film. Calling your criteria objective implies that you do, and annoys people.

[confusedmatthew]

@Ayatron34 Judging a film by the criterion of story, characters, narrative, dialogue, theme and so forth are not subjective standards. They are the standards by which any film is judged. To say they are subjective would mean that there are no objective standards by which we can judge a thing. If that were true, then there would be no point in asking whether the film is good or bad. Thee is no good or bad, there is only subjective interpretation.

[Ayatron34]

@confusedmatthew

Right, the criterion of story, characters narrative, dialogue, theme and so forth are objective, but only as definitions. As soon as you start putting your pre conceived expectations of each into it then they suddenly arent definitions anymore and are instead, your expectations. Which aren't objective. You expect a certain degree of dialogue and so a film that doesnt deliver in the standards of dialogue you hold, means it failed in that criteria to you. "To you". Subjective.

[confusedmatthew]

@Ayatron34 Moreover, I never claimed that 2001 was a bad movie. My only claim is that it is not a movie at all. Good or bad.

[u2atomicbomb]

@confusedmatthew Every single one of the disciplines he lists have debate on their subject matter yet a consensus on its own irrefutable truth. Cosmology for example, whilst there is a consensus now consider the copernican view or ptolemaic or any of the theories it has attracted. They all how a loose understading of gravitational centres but differ in how they read them. Much like this movie, the ambiguity exists for the viewer to make up.

[confusedmatthew]

@u2atomicbomb He didn't say "irrefutable truth", he said "general consensus on its meaning". We can debate this and that over the truth or falsity of a certain branch of philosophy or cosmology, but there is no debate as to what these things mean.

[u2atomicbomb]

@confusedmatthew I think we are getting lost in semantic when the point that is really being made is that 2001 is a film that is wholly participatory and demands you create the film yourself. There are areas of consensus on its meaning, but ultimately the ambiguous symbolism, the absence of diegetic narration and its challenge to conventional cinema mean that despite some areas of agreement, overwhelmingly the film is in the hands of each memebero fthe audience to create for themselves.

[confusedmatthew]

@u2atomicbomb There is a difference between audience participation and audience dependency on infusing the film with meaning. Giving a film meaning is the responsibility of the writer, not the audience. Moreover, the examples Chase gave - including those having to do with works of art - were off the mark because nothing he cited was a film. I don't know what the Mona Lisa's smile indicates, but I also don't know how to judge a painting.

[u2atomicbomb]

@confusedmatthew Meaning is/should be wholly down to the viewer. The writer presents his images,dialogue etc but never should he gear you to a prescribed meaning. The problem critics of this film suffer is the fact they judge it with the same rigid conventions they are used to. This film challenges convention. Mutability is the effect this film has on cinematography. To judge it by the same old convention implies you don't want radical change in film but the same old techniques over again

[confusedmatthew]

@u2atomicbomb As I said in my review, I am not affording this movie any special treatment. I will judge the film with the same basic standards that I would judge any film. Obviously several things must be kept in mind - genera etc. but the basic standards will apply. By that criterion, 2001 doesn't even qualify as a film. The only way you can find value is to judge it as something else. My pont is that - as a film - 2001 is atrocious.

[Ayatron34]

@confusedmatthew

"My pont is that - As (what I think makes a) film - 2001 is atrocious."

Corrected for you.

[confusedmatthew]

@Ayatron34 It isn't just what I think makes a film, it is the elements that go to the core of something constituting a film as such. A blank canvas is not a painting regardless of what anyone "thinks" makes a painting. A film with no story, characters, dialogue or narrative does not constitute a film whether you or I think it does or not. This is my one - and only one - claim to objectivity. Judged by the objective merits of a film, 2001 is not a film.

[u2atomicbomb]

@confusedmatthew also his examples were to demonstrate 2001 in the same league as all these other discplines/ideas whose effect on culture was so profound that whilst there is some agreement on their meanings there is inevitably critical debate.

But fair enough if you want other films in there then fine the (near pioneering) use of analepsis in Citizen Kane is an area of cinema that undeniably challenges convention yet has some detractors who doubt its effectiveness.

[confusedmatthew]

@u2atomicbomb Citizen Kane is a good example. Imagine that we never learn what "Rosebud" meant. That instead of the reveal that it was his sled from childhood it leaves the matter ambiguous. Would this have made the film better? Would it have made it worse? Neither in my opinion. Leaving the sled in may have punctuated it better - given it a better ending - but the film would have been unaffected because the film still has an "about" that is not audience dependent.

[confusedmatthew]

@u2atomicbomb . Judging a film is different. A good film requires more than interpretative imagery. It requires a look at the characters, screenplay, dialogue and motive. 2001 had none of these, and by that criterion doesn't even constitute a "film". Take away the audience dependent interpretation of the imagery, and 2001 is nothing more than "crap floating in space".

[u2atomicbomb]

@confusedmatthew That is because you are judging 2001 on the prescribed rigid conventions you are accustomed. Creativity should never be hindered by rigid adherence to a static list of items a film must conform to , to pass as a film.

[confusedmatthew]

@u2atomicbomb Certainly creativity should not be bound, but nor should it be so loose as to completely disregard those elements so important to a specific work. An artist releasing a blank canvas as a work of art may indeed be challenging the standards of art, but it is more than that. He is also calling a horse an airplane and trying to get the community of airplane enthusiasts to follow suit..

[h1k3r99]

@u2atomicbomb

Rigid conventions? He states that this is just "C--- floating in space", because that IS all that this film is, for the first hour (aprox). Pro-Tip. If you don't want someone to say a movie is just c--- floating in space don't spend 60 min. of screen time showing c--- floating in space.

[u2atomicbomb]

@h1k3r99 It's a good thing Kubrick didn't make a film with crap floating around in space then. He made a film which challenges the audience beyond what they are used to. It is laced in symbolism, ambiguity, imagery, metaphor and so forth. It doesn't babysit the viewer, it demands you do some work for a change, engage in debate over its meaning. You see no more than crap in space, I see one of the greatest attempts to capture human evolution on film, without patronising its audience.

[u2atomicbomb]

@confusedmatthew I am currently studying English at degree level. One of the modules I have done is on the evolution of the English novel. Today, we have many forms the episodic, multiple narrators, non-linear etc. But back in the 18th Century this would have been inconceivable. The epistolary form was the template. Sure you could tell slightly different stories but ultimately the Richardsonian letter form was the template for all novels.

[u2atomicbomb]

@u2atomicbomb cont. It was only through ceaseless re-invention and frequent challenge did the novel genre evolve to the form we all know and love today. That is the effect 2001 pushes for in cinematography. No rigid conformity but relentless challenge and experimentation.

[confusedmatthew]

@u2atomicbomb I absolutely agree with you with regard to the cinematography. In fact I said so at the beginning of my review. As a directorial expo, it was phenomenal. My only issue is with every other element of the film.

[confusedmatthew]

@u2atomicbomb Certainly many advances have been made in many generas by challenging the norms of the time. Led Zeppelin and The Beatles revolutionized music in much the same way as the post 18th century novelists did. But again there is a difference between breaking the mold and passing a blank canvas off as a painting. For example, I firmly believe that Rap is not music, not because I like or hate it, but because it does not have even the basic elements to even call it music.

[u2atomicbomb]

@confusedmatthew Whilst I know you protest you like a degree of ambiguity in films for the viewer to work out but you find 2001 goes too far. Did it ever occur to you that you cannot treat this film like standard cinema. That Kubrick had redefined the cinema so to be wholly participatory and at no point didactic?

[u2atomicbomb]

@confusedmatthew Incidentally, as you are doing responses2responses, it would be dishonest of you not to include chase's review. The points raised here make the finest arguments against your stance and deserve reflection

[confusedmatthew]

@u2atomicbomb I would be more than happy to address Chase' response, but so far he has not replied to my invitation to do so. I have no problem defending any point I've made on the film against anyone elses response, but I don't want to do it without consent. Somehow it would feel too much like i was talking behind their back.

[confusedmatthew]

To say that turkey sandwiches don't evolve is an insult to sandwich makers everywhere. And the sandwich maker is - of course - a metaphor for God: The ULTIMATE sandwich maker. But many people likely would have missed that point because making shit up is participatory, and they obviously aren't participating. lol.

[u2atomicbomb]

@confusedmatthew humourous, yet once again dodging any real substance or merit.

[TheBucsareawesome1]

4:10 How about the film Sprited Away? (which CM hates BTW)

[Herbarius]

"anyone can give you a thousand and one reasons why anything..." et cetera

Obviously, that's why Confused Matthew said it. Isn't it? I really don't get that last minute or so of this part of your review, as you're basically making the same argument as Confused Matthew does, agreeing with it, but saying it with anger, as if you're disagreeing. You only seem to disagree in whether this applies to the movie 2001 or not, but you don't say that.

Am I missing something?

[chasemelendez]

@Herbarius Well the point i was attempting to make can b boiled down to the last quote i use - "an argument that explains everything explains nothing". His point that HTD (any movie) can b argued to b profound isn't a point bcuz anything can b argued to b profound; the deciding factor is the evidence used to make the argument which leads into the other points i make; people don't argue about HTD being profound bcuz the evidence is insufficient which is not the case with 2001

[confusedmatthew]

@chasemelendez an argument that explains everything explains nothing .. except for the arguments in this response that are explaining the movie to me. They really do explain everything. But all other arguments that explain everything explain nothing.

[confusedmatthew]

@chasemelendez Actually, in both cases the evidence is interprative; which means that the evidence that supports the conclusion: "Howard The Duck was profound" is just as strong or weak as is the conclusion "2001 is profound" and both conclusions are based on interpretive evidence. "Blade Runner is profound" is demonstrative as the movie has an "about" that is not dependent on the audiences interpenetration of the film. Not so with 2001.

[AbyssalSpectar1]

@chasemelendez Hey, hey - Big Lebowski had a meaning. It's one guy's quest to live his life and get his rug back.

[confusedmatthew]

@Herbarius I figured he was making my point for me just to be ironic.

[DigitalPh333r]

One thing though, when making that giant list starting at 4:10 you really went overboard. I just started to skip the video =/.

[DigitalPh333r]

Turkey Sandwiches do indeed evolve. They evolve in my body and evolve into waste.

Good video though.

[chasemelendez]

@DigitalPh333r Touché!

[reviewreviewer1]

@chasemelendez Argumentum at populum is wrong, a milion people can be wrong and a film`s reception, is not the film!!!!!!! The fact none would have brought mathew`s point up doesn`t mean he can`t d that, that is a part of free arguing and of opinianated reviewing!!!

[GoVikes0]

Matthew also does not like the whole case thing in Pulp Fiction even though he loves the film

[chasemelendez]

Wow that's a bummer. The briefcase makes the movie for me.

[zackthecameraman]

@chasemelendez How does the briefcase make the movie for you?

[Bassbait]

@chasemelendez I actually think that the briefcase was a gimmick, kind of ripping off the monolith. I also can't stand the film because of John Travolta, and Marvin's death scene being full of glaring plot holes (which I feel that nobody addresses, recognizes, or tries to debate. I actually brought it up to CM, and he said "that stuff doesn't matter".) Pulp Fiction is my least favorite movie, but I gave it multiple fair chances prior to deciding that it is trying way too hard.

[GoVikes0]

@chasemelendez Really, I disagree, I mean while it is a point of contention, the movie still goes on without it. Yeah, there is something in there, yeah I kinda wanted to know what was there, but did it make a difference? No, Pulp Fiction's dialogue, characters, or anything else would be the same. The whole "What's in the case" is an insignificant plot element

What the case DOES however is important but anything else could have been used and nothing would have changed

[thundersnake1]

confusedmatthew is really confused about movies. He is also really annoying.

[MrMelick]

This Confused Matthew must be a troll, I mean come on, Howard The Duck a movie with duck tits, being more profound than 2001 A Space Odyssey,

Your rant was far more interesting than Howard The Duck

[chasemelendez]

Let's just say the "troll theory" has evidence to support it.

[DigitalPh333r]

@MrMelick I'm pretty sure he was joking about that..

[MrMelick]

@DigitalPh333r

I really hope his whole "review" was a big joke.

A unfunny one.

[TheBucsareawesome1]

@MrMelick HTD has tits!?!

[composerdoh]

wow- cof M is a GENIUS! He figured out that all that stuff is just "made up"....

wait.

I'm gonna go thank him.

[reeve1991]

cont'd: Bananas, Sleeper, Its a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, Monty Pythons The Meaning of Life, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, My Cousin Vinny

A small handful of justifiable movies. Why he really thought he should be reviewing 2001 defies my understanding since he largely can't seem to get beyond thriller sci-fi and actionsploitation.

And the double misspelling of "Trilogy" is his mistake, which I've faithfully reproduced for fear of doing him a disservice.

[reeve1991]

Out of curiosity, I checked out CM's page to see his list of favorite movies of ALL time. It's... revealing.

Moulin Rouge, Pulp Fiction, Jurassic Park, Romeo and Juliet, Fargo, Unforgiven, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Spider-Man 2, Serenity, Star Wars Trillogy, Lord of the Rings Trillogy, Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean, Back to the Future, Apollo 13, Zodiac, Batman Begins, Die Hard, Independence Day, 300, The Producers, Love and Death, Play it Again Sam

[chasemelendez]

@reeve1991 That is a "revealing" list indeed & while i like & even love some of those films only 2 or maybe 3 would make my list of favs of all time (can u guess which?), but taste is taste & art is subjective. 1 man's 'Citizen Kane' is another man's 'Independence Day' and that's just fine. It's when the 'Independence Day' guy takes a piss on the 'Citizen Kane' guy (& film history in general) for ignorant non-reasons that i begin to take issue.

[reeve1991]

Indeed, I'm not criticizing his list simply for his choices, but rather that it gives insight into where he's coming from.

Moreso, my point is, since he clearly is drawn to the modern blockbuster-type of movie, with tons of action/thriller elements, a simple, quantifiable narrative, and easy morality distinctions... what the Hell made him think he was the best person to review 2001, which is just about the polar opposite of everything he apparently likes in a film?

[PoisPakkoRuotsi]

@reeve1991 WOW he likes Pulp Fiction?! I'm suprised! I would think that he would think that nothing happens in that either :D

[moeezS]

4:05 I think I got a boner when I had seen and heard of the stuff you mentioned in the NAME DROP segment XD

[chasemelendez]

@moeezS LOL! No worries man, I had a boner writing.