CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Negative “2001: A Space Odyssey” review and rebuttal.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Negative “2001: A Space Odyssey” review and rebuttal.

post #1 of 65
4/17/10 at 6:25pm
Thread Starter 
So some youtube movie reviewer by the name of “Confused Matthew” gave a scathingly (and maddeningly wrongheaded) negative review of Kubrick’s 2001.

http://confusedmatthew.com/2001%3A-A-Space-Odyssey.php

And another youtube guy by the name of Chase Melendez responds in kind with an epic, ridiculously in-depth 9 part deconstruction and merciless evisceration of Matthew’s entire review.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WvrQ...x=0&playnext=1

Found this whole thing pretty interesting (and amusing), felt like sharing and seeing what folks around here thought. I wasn’t quite sure if I should throw this in the Movie Miscellany or the Films in Release forums, so I just defaulted to here in Miscellany. Apologies in advance if this is the more inappropriate of the two forums for this sort of thing. Anyways, discuss.

I'll say one thing though, this whole thing gave me a massive yen to rewatch 2001.
Reply
post #2 of 65
4/17/10 at 8:01pm
Half way through the "Critique" of 2001 and this is hilarious shit. His outrage at having to watch "Nothing" is pure comedy gold. I hate people like this.
EDIT: Wow. Using Jurassic Park as an example of better story telling than 2001. Awesome.
Reply
post #3 of 65
4/17/10 at 10:57pm
I just watched this whole thing, and oh boy what a clusterfuck of ignorance. Still very entertaining.

Just wanted to thank you for posting this, the "Howard The Duck" analogy really made me laugh out loud.
Reply
post #4 of 65
4/18/10 at 1:15am
If you think this is bad, you should see his series of videos calling Minority Report the worst movie ever made.
Reply
post #5 of 65
4/18/10 at 1:50am
Is this what RedLetterMedia has wrought us? Three minutes in and this Matthew guy has all but said that he's got an agenda to take this movie out. And then he complains that the movie has the audacity to open with a fucking establishing shot.

Really, the second he says "Nothing happens in 2001: A Space Odyssey," I was ready to turn it off. Yeah, nothing happens, except, well, the evolution of mankind. Yeah. I'm sure that's just me projecting a theme though. Since I'm a hardcore Kubrickian with his nose in the air and his big toe stuck in the eye of the filthy unwashed.
Reply
post #6 of 65
4/18/10 at 1:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post
Is this what RedLetterMedia has wrought us?
If nothing else, we now live in a world where movie reviews take more time to watch than movies.
Reply
post #7 of 65
4/18/10 at 1:59am
I remember somebody linking to this guy's reviews of the prequels after RedLetterMedia hit it big and man they're bad.

The guy's biggest problem (at least from what I saw) was that he's just so annoying it nullified any point he had. Example: he referred to Queen Amidala as Queen Ooba Dooba over and over and over like it was the height of hilarity.
Reply
post #8 of 65
4/18/10 at 2:17am
Actually the guys biggest problem is that he is a fucking retard. As Greg referred to, the dude is screaming "NOTHINGS HAPPENING OMG" right over a sequence in which you know, everything happens.
Reply
post #9 of 65
4/18/10 at 2:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackspades22 View Post
If you think this is bad, you should see his series of videos calling Minority Report the worst movie ever made.
Why would you need more than one?
Reply
post #10 of 65
4/18/10 at 2:38pm
I barely made it through the first part. Wanted to punch him in the face when he was bitching about the establishing shots being nothing but landscapes. I shut it off after he started complaining about the monkeys doing nothing but killing each other with weapons after exposure to the monolith, completely missing the fact that they were, you know, now killing each other with FUCKING WEAPONS. Talk about missing the point.
Reply
post #11 of 65
4/18/10 at 10:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post
Is this what RedLetterMedia has wrought us? Three minutes in and this Matthew guy has all but said that he's got an agenda to take this movie out. And then he complains that the movie has the audacity to open with a fucking establishing shot.

Really, the second he says "Nothing happens in 2001: A Space Odyssey," I was ready to turn it off. Yeah, nothing happens, except, well, the evolution of mankind. Yeah. I'm sure that's just me projecting a theme though. Since I'm a hardcore Kubrickian with his nose in the air and his big toe stuck in the eye of the filthy unwashed.
The beauty part to me about all this is his big shiny disclaimer at the beginning stating that he "gets" how visionary a filmmaker Kubrick was. I don't think he got it so much as others told him so he had to mention it, like those "I am a Muslim" PSAs they used to air before 24.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Coombs View Post
I remember somebody linking to this guy's reviews of the prequels after RedLetterMedia hit it big and man they're bad.

The guy's biggest problem (at least from what I saw) was that he's just so annoying it nullified any point he had. Example: he referred to Queen Amidala as Queen Ooba Dooba over and over and over like it was the height of hilarity.
The absolute worst was his constantly repeating in regards to the Jedi "defenders of truth and justice MY ASS!" Wasn't really funny the first time, and definitely didn't get funny after about 800 repetitions.
Reply
post #12 of 65
4/18/10 at 10:40pm
While this guy is a boob, I must admit I feel 2001: ASO is overrated.

I give it a mere 9/10.
Reply
post #13 of 65
4/18/10 at 11:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Dahlia View Post
While this guy is a boob, I must admit I feel 2001: ASO is overrated.

I give it a mere 9/10.
I agree, the film's got issues: a 9.5 out of 10 at the most.
Reply
post #14 of 65
4/19/10 at 12:33am
It's nice to see some criticism of this guy for once. All I ever hear about him is how brilliant he is for his scathing reviews of "Star Trek: Generations", "Star Trek: Nemesis", and "Star Wars: Episode I". He did make some good points about "The Phantom Menace", but I'm infuriated by his nitpicking douchebag attitude towards "Star Trek: First Contact", a movie I love dearly. I didn't think anybody could be more shamelessly unfair, petty, and negatively biased towards that movie than Devin, but there he is.
Reply
post #15 of 65
4/19/10 at 12:40am
I'm seven minutes into the first part, and laughing out loud that he feels the need to invent a straw man called "the Kubrickians."
Reply
post #16 of 65
4/19/10 at 1:08am
I can't believe I sat through all 3 parts. I don't think he even watched the whole thing.
Reply
post #17 of 65
4/19/10 at 1:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naisu Baddi View Post
It's nice to see some criticism of this guy for once. All I ever hear about him is how brilliant he is for his scathing reviews of "Star Trek: Generations", "Star Trek: Nemesis", and "Star Wars: Episode I". He did make some good points about "The Phantom Menace", but I'm infuriated by his nitpicking douchebag attitude towards "Star Trek: First Contact", a movie I love dearly. I didn't think anybody could be more shamelessly unfair, petty, and negatively biased towards that movie than Devin, but there he is.
Wait, are you talking about this Confused Matthew guy, or RedLetterMedia?
Reply
post #18 of 65
4/19/10 at 2:26am
Goddamn! That annoying voice saying "LANDSCAPE!" every time the shot changed? I can't help but wonder just how he managed to make it to adulthood without his parents drowning him in a fucking bathtub.
Reply
post #19 of 65
4/19/10 at 2:48am
Modemac's High Weirdness Project is a site that I revisit daily for the news feed.

From the 2006 introduction to Modemac's 1996 essay on 2001:

But time and time again, I keep running into people who say that they don't understand 2001. Some of the things I've heard from people include:

* The ending is confusing.
* The spaceships move too slow, and it's boring.
* The whole movie could easily be condensed into a 60-minute episode of The Outer Limits.
* What does the story of the malfunctioning computer have to do with the Monolith, anyways?
* Why were those monkeys in the movie?
* What was the "cosmic light show" all about?
* How come the characters don't talk very much?
* Did Stanley Kubrick use drugs?

And so on, et cetera, ad infinitum. I am amazed that the story of 2001 is misunderstood by so many; to me, the story is easy to understand. There is one requirement that the film places on its audience. Far too few movies ask the viewer to do this: THINK! Read between the lines. Simple deduction can make the entire film as clear as "an azure sky of deepest summer." There is a lot of symbolism woven into the fabric of the film, but even without the elaborate "meaning" behind every shot and every scene, a little thought still makes the plot crystal-clear.
Reply
post #20 of 65
4/19/10 at 3:28am
Welcome aboard, Jaquio!
Reply
post #21 of 65
4/19/10 at 8:12pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexus-7 View Post
Welcome aboard, Jaquio!
Well it's been quite a few months now since I first joined, but thanks all the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post
Is this what RedLetterMedia has wrought us?
To be fair here, I don’t think that this guy was spawned by RedLetterMedia. I’m pretty sure (though not 100%, as I’m hardly someone who’s finger is square on the pulse of what’s going on with every last wannabe youtube personality out there) that he’s been around since well before RLM. So if we’re gonna blame anything for his existence, we probably ought to start by blaming the general idiocy of modern internet culture as well as the genepool before we start laying blame at Mr. Plinkett’s doorstep. Not that I'm not totally expecting and bracing myself for the inevitable slew of (in all likelihood shitty) RLM imitators that I'm sure will follow soon enough, I'm just trying to be accurate here.

I’m noticing a lot of comments on Confused Matthew’s “review”, but nobody has said hardly a word on the rebuttal I posted alongside it. I know it’s pretty damned long, but it is absolutely worth checking out. This guy Chase completely tears Matthew a whole slew of new assholes one by one with methodical precision, and it is utterly mesmerizing to witness. It’s a wonderful demonstration in how to neatly and meticulously break down, deconstruct, and subsequently eviscerate idiotic non-criticisms from simpletons like this.

Also, I distinctly recall a lot of people complaining about Plinkett’s put-on voice being really annoying early on back when his Phantom Menace review first hit, before people began to then warm up to it and start digging it. Just want to say that I find Confused Matthew’s normal voice here to be INFINITELY more nails-on-a-chalkboard irritating and obnoxious than Plinkett’s put-on voice ever, ever was.
Reply
post #22 of 65
4/19/10 at 8:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaquio View Post

I’m noticing a lot of comments on Confused Matthew’s “review”, but nobody has said hardly a word on the rebuttal I posted alongside it.
Anyone who has seen 2001: A Space Odyssey doesn't need to see the rebuttal, really. The initials reviews retardedness essentially speaks for itself.
Reply
post #23 of 65
4/19/10 at 8:48pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OCallaghan View Post
Anyone who has seen 2001: A Space Odyssey doesn't need to see the rebuttal, really. The initials reviews retardedness essentially speaks for itself.
Oh granted, that's totally true. I certainly wasn't recommending to watch it because I thought anyone needed to in order to grasp why this guy's a tool. I just found the rebuttal entertaining as hell to watch in and of itself nonetheless.
Reply
post #24 of 65
4/19/10 at 9:04pm
I actually only got a few minutes into the stupid review - I couldn't get past that ignorant and obnoxious "LANDSCAPE" over and over again - but the rebuttal was really good. The part where he tears apart Matthew's use of the word objective had me laughing. It maybe could have been a bit shorter, but I think he did a good job of taking apart the review and showing why 2001 is such a great movie at the same time.
Reply
post #25 of 65
4/19/10 at 11:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Benenson View Post
Wait, are you talking about this Confused Matthew guy, or RedLetterMedia?
Whoops, I thought the two were one in the same. Yeah, RLM is a douche. Don't know about this other guy.
Reply
post #26 of 65
4/19/10 at 11:29pm
RLM is great. FIRST CONTACT totally deserved it. This guy is a douche (well, more of a moron really).
Reply
post #27 of 65
4/19/10 at 11:34pm
Yeah, I can understand not being a fan of RLM's Plinkett character (I love it in the small doses we get prior to the prequel videos where it goes overboard), but his reviews are good stuff.

The Next Generation movies deserve the treatment he gives them, but it's also obviously coming from a guy who has a love for the television series and is a huge nerd. A lot of it is nitpicky fan stuff, but it's no less true and even he admits to enjoying First Contact despite its massive faults.

Confused Matthew, however, is just a really annoying guy who (from what I've looked up) sometimes just tries to push buttons like with this 2001 review but lacks any skill at backing up any sort of argument. He's neither funny or well-informed. Thus: douche.
Reply
post #28 of 65
4/19/10 at 11:38pm
A 3-part review and all he really says is "nothing happens, landscapes, crap floating in space, do not see he last third of this film, it's disposable". Did the guy even watch his "review" before uploading it?

And that Chase fella, yeah it seems ridiculous spending 90 minutes on a review of a review but at least he has something interesting to say along the way about 2001 and is far more informative about it than Confused Retard.
Reply
post #29 of 65
4/19/10 at 11:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Coombs View Post
The Next Generation movies deserve the treatment he gives them, but it's also obviously coming from a guy who has a love for the television series and is a huge nerd. A lot of it is nitpicky fan stuff, but it's no less true and even he admits to enjoying First Contact despite its massive faults.
Exactly. It may be hard to tell sometimes but it's coming from a place of love for the properties and is also somewhat tongue in cheek.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Coombs View Post
Confused Matthew, however, is just a really annoying guy who (from what I've looked up) sometimes just tries to push buttons like with this 2001 review but lacks any skill at backing up any sort of argument. He's neither funny or well-informed. Thus: douche.
Annnnnnd exactly also. Not only is RLM a true geek/fan, he also really knows his shit when it comes to films, filmmaking, and film criticism. Unlike this Matthew character.
Reply
post #30 of 65
4/19/10 at 11:42pm
He attempts to add so many qualifiers to his argument to make him not sound like he's fucking retarded but he ends up sounding like he's fucking retarded.
Reply
post #31 of 65
4/19/10 at 11:42pm
I wonder if Confused Retard even sees the irony in his review. He claims 2001 has little to say while he makes a 30 fucking minute review where he has little to say.
Reply
post #32 of 65
4/19/10 at 11:55pm
At times he sounds like Toby from AMERICAN SPLENDOR, though Toby's a million times cooler than this guy. I also get the feeling this is his first movie that was made before 1975.
Reply
post #33 of 65
4/20/10 at 12:02am
Per his site it's the first movie from before 1985 he's reviewed.
Reply
post #34 of 65
4/20/10 at 12:13am
Wasn't there a thread about idiots who pass themselves as critics just because "it's my opinion"?

I know I went through that phase. Then I went to film classes, watched more movies and read more on film. It's almost embarrassing in a way looking back at my old movie blog I made during high school, but I didn't come off retarded like Matthew does here.

EDIT: Although my Voyager reviews here are like his, but that was Voyager and this is 200-fucking-1.
Reply
post #35 of 65
4/20/10 at 12:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post
EDIT: Although my Voyager reviews here are like his, but that was Voyager and this is 200-fucking-1.
Unfortunate break in that word there. Makes it look like a 200 on 1 gang bang.
Reply
post #36 of 65
4/20/10 at 12:22am
I'm innocent, I swear.
Reply
post #37 of 65
4/20/10 at 12:23am
At least his online handle is appropriate.
Reply
post #38 of 65
4/20/10 at 12:23am
Unfortunate, or arousing?
Reply
post #39 of 65
4/20/10 at 12:27am
I'd never participate in such a vile act. Unless she's into that sorta thing.
Reply
post #40 of 65
4/20/10 at 1:22am
Some fascinating questions being asked at Confused Matthew's site...
Quote:
You mentioned you liked the Sonic games, but have you watched any of the cartoon shows?
Quote:
DUDE! I was going to ask that!
Reply
post #41 of 65
4/20/10 at 1:38am
I was all for listening to a criticism of 2001. It's a film I admire way more than I love though I've never been able to make it through the "ultimate trip" sequence without dozing off. But I do have a grasp on what the film is about.

Then the guy started his review proper. I didn't finish.
Reply
post #42 of 65
4/20/10 at 1:58am
It doesn't help that the guy addresses the audience in the same tone you use on a three-year-old.

EDIT: Also, I think I actually hate the word "landscape" now. As in I'm probably going to avoid using it. Even if I agreed with what he was saying, I don't think I could take this. He has one of the most annoying deliveries I've ever heard.
Reply
post #43 of 65
4/20/10 at 2:04am
Which is hilariously ironic, for obvious reasons
Reply
post #44 of 65
4/20/10 at 2:18am
By this guy's reasoning, the Cliff Notes version of every story ever written is superior, since they contain the least possible information needed to understand them. I love his opening lines, too. Basically: "Other than those who like this film, every person I've ever talked to has fast-forwarded through it".
Reply
post #45 of 65
4/20/10 at 2:22am
Honestly I could barely make it past when he called it an anti-film. I watched the entirety of the rebuttal because it was the only way I could sit through more of the original review.
Reply
post #46 of 65
4/20/10 at 2:49am
I've seen anti-films. The arts center where I work had screenings of Hurlements en faveur de sade and L'anticoncept. This is no anti-film.
Reply
post #47 of 65
4/20/10 at 2:53am
Ok, his claim that Kubrick invented "style-over-substance" indicates that he has never seen any of the experimental films made since, say, the invention of the medium. He also clearly doesn't understand that some times style IS substance.

Oh, man, this guy actively doesn't understand how storytelling (visual or otherwise) works, does he?
Reply
post #48 of 65
4/20/10 at 2:54am
Oh I've seen films that would make his head explode in rage and boredom. Great films. There are plenty that are even less overtly exciting and that superficially seem to have even less going on than 2001.
Reply
post #49 of 65
4/20/10 at 6:44am
I've come across this guy before - the worst kind of arrogant, witless fucker. I got as far as him basically shouting "BORE-RING" over the stunning opening shots before I lost the will to live. That said I felt like smacking the epic rebuttal guy as well for being such a smug, tiresome windbag.

Seems to get any attention on the internet these days everything has to be either 140 characters or a bloated 90 minute video.
Reply
post #50 of 65
4/20/10 at 10:48am
That negative video review made me want to punch the universe for allowing this to exist. He gets incredulous over one minute and forty five seconds of some of the most beautiful photography in film, he can't sit still for less than two minutes without some overt plot progression? No wonder the rest of the movie sent him into a rage-stroke.

I do not mind reading a long, thoughtful review of a movie (not that this was one of those things) but video reviews really need to have an x-factor to make them worth watching. Redlettermedia (amongst being an insightful examination of storytelling in the modern blockbuster) is cleverly edited, has variety in it's imagery, and very funny. You need things to hold your interest while you watch someone talk for over an hour. Snark is not a substitute for intelligence and wit.

I've started on the rebuttal and I like his intentions, but I think you can comfortably discredit Confused Matthew's bullshit in a single video and then call it a day. If I wanted to spend over 90 minutes on why 2001: A Space Odyssey is so brilliant, and remind myself how full of shit Confused Matthew is, I'll just watch 90 minutes of 2001: A Space Odyssey... If I can get through the opening shots without hearing "LANDSCAPE" in the back of my head.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Negative “2001: A Space Odyssey” review and rebuttal.