Mischief Maker wrote:

The thing with Confused Matthew wasn't that he said it was boring. Confused Matthew said 2001 had no plot. That it was "about nothing." When people stepped forward and started explaining the plot and themes, he crossed his arms, dug in his heels, and stubbornly stood by his argument that the movie's story lacked these basic structural elements. That's not a matter of opinion, that's being pigheaded. If people called him stupid after that he was asking for it.

Maybe he was trying to copy Redlettermedia's "The Phantom Menace has no characters" schtick, but if so it's my opinion his delivery ruined the joke.

And if Confused Matthew is going to start lifting ideas from Redlettermedia, he really should go watch the "Baby's Day Out" review and realize that it's not making fun of the movie, but of internet movie critics who get red-faced angry while reviewing children's flicks.

Confused Matthew wrote:

2001 did have no plot or story. Not only has this been reasonably inferred by simply describing whats happening in the movie and by the deliberately vague statements made by the writer/directors, but it has also been confirmed directly by people who actually worked on the film. Harlan Ellison attests to this in his book "Harlan Ellison's Watching".

When people stepped forward and started explaining the plot and themes, it was based on the interpretation that they themselves fashioned out of the images; not from anything in the film directly. As SFDebris said, if people see meaning in 2001, that's fine. But if people are going to conclude that the movie is great based on meanings that they make up, it should be perfectly acceptable for me to conclude that the film is nonexistent based on facts.

2001 had no story. Whether or not it had a story for you is another matter.

Mischief Maker wrote:

Harlan Ellison also said 2010 had a thinner plot than 2001. There's such a thing as hyperbole.

Look, in your Golden Compass review, when you said that it's perfectly reasonable to correct a child's refusal to take off her handbag indoors by manhandling her and threatening to kill her beloved pet, that was a statement of your opinion (and a disturbing window into your childhood). Like sfdebris said, you have a right to your opinion and it's poor taste to call you dumb for saying it. If you'd said that 2001's plot were boring, or its themes were lame, those would also be statements of opinion.

Saying that 2001 has no plot and no themes, that's a statement of fact. An incorrect statement of fact. Nobody has to respect your right to be wrong. When the ape-man throws his bone club, the first of mankind's tools, into the air and it cuts to a spacestation... that's symbolism about as subtle as a 2 by 4 to the face. It's forgivable to miss something like that because you were bored and your mind was wandering. But when people pointed out the obvious to you and you crossed your arms and said, "nope nope! That scene is about absolutely nothing, just a bunch of monkey footage," then you're either a moron who can't see the obvious (hence the stupid comments) or you're a prick who refuses to admit when he's wrong.

I'm on your side here, I'm going with option B. You'd been taking on easy targets like the Star Wars prequels and the Matrix sequels, your head grew three sizes, and you thought you were ready to take down one of the greatest directors of all time. Yes, the fact that Kubrick made the movie doesn't mean it can't be criticized, but at the same time, the fact that you were taking on Kubrick meant the burden of proof was on _your_ shoulders. Turned out that Stanley Kubrick wasn't as accessible as Roland Emmerich and you fumbled the ball in part 1 of the review. That's forgivable. Your big mistake was refusing to own up to missing something for fear of losing your authority.

As an internet comedian, you really should take the advice of Patton Oswalt: you can spot an inexperienced comedian because they're always talking about the stupid things other people do; you can spot a veteran comic because they talk about the stupid things THEY do.