Fascinating Facts, Stories, Mysteries, & Histories 🧀🔎 Feed Your Curiosity For business inquiries only: chonkycheeseyt at gmail.com ^ Yes, the email is spelled with an "S" instead of a "Z." The Z was taken. :(
Hi there! Exciting things are happening behind the scenes! I’m working on bringing you content more often, and this video is the first step. You might notice some slight differences in editing, but rest assured, the content you enjoy will keep coming, and will only get better from here. Thanks for sticking with me-I’m so excited for what’s next!
I find, with David Cameron, that his movies started on top and went down hill. If we disregard Piranha II, over which he had little control, his best movie, in my opinion, was Terminater, then Aliens, then Abyss, then T2, continuing on to the worst ones, which are the Avatar movies. So a gentle, steady drop in quality over the years. I don't consider 1941 great, but compared to Ready Player One, West Side Story, Always or The Lost World, it's pretty good. Mimic is better than Blade II, Boxcar Bertha is great and much better than After Hours or The Color of Money. But I guess we are talking taste here. I agree on Kubrick and Tarantine, even if I like Deathproof.
You may. 😅 Thanks very much for the suggestion! It’s a lifelong habit; I’m working on it and promise to do my best to get better. Thank you for the kind words as well!
Alien 3 is a great movie. Clearly better than the girl with the dragon tatoo or the killer, in my opinion. It's kind of sad Fincher doesn't write scripts.
But if Judas wouldnt have betrayed Jesus, Jesus wouldnt have been crucified. And with Jesus not getting crucified he couldnt have died for our sins - and if he didnt die for our sins the holy bound wouldnt have been renewed.
Wow, thank you all so much for watching and the incredible support! 🎥 I’ve seen a lot of great discussions in the comments, and I realized I probably should have made it clearer that “worst movie” doesn’t *necessarily* mean “BAD movie”-just that (in my extremely subjective opinion) it’s not as strong as their other work. 😊 Let me know what YOU think! Agree? Disagree? I love hearing your thoughts! Given the reception y'all have given this video, I'll definitely be creating a series - and as always, thanks for watching!
I went back and forth between it and The Lost World, actually! If nothing else, you’ve really gotta give 1941 credit for being an authentic and earnest effort on Spielberg’s part. You can’t really say the same about TLW… Thanks for watching!
Death Proof was beyond awful. 1941 is my favourite Spielberg movie, as well as being one of my all-time favourite movies. Yes, I’m being perfectly serious.
That’s incredibly kind of you! I take inspiration from some really wonderful other Creators, and although I’ve got a lot of learning to do, comments like this mean the world to me. Thank you so much!
Fair enough! 😄 Also, I probably should have made this clearer, but “worst movie” doesn’t *necessarily* mean “BAD movie,” just that (IMO) it’s not as good as their other efforts. Thanks for watching!
& here are some dishonorable mentions for future episodes: Sam Peckinpah - The Osterman Weekend (1983) Sam Raimi - Crimewave (1985) Wes Craven - The Hills Have Eyes Part II (1985) Peter Jackson - Meet the Feebles (1989) George Miller - Babe: Pig in the City (1997) Walter Hill - Supernova (2000) John Carpenter - Ghosts of Mars (2001) Kevin Smith - pretty much everything after Clerks II (2006) David Cronenberg - Cosmopolis (2012) Alex Proyas - Gods of Egypt (2016)
Fantastic recommendations - thanks so much! Your Craven pick reminds me of the time I saw The Hill Have Eyes Part II at a midnight screening. When the flashback from *the point of view of the dog* began, I legitimately thought for a second that I’d fallen asleep and was dreaming. 😂 Thanks for watching and commenting!
@@chonkycheeze -- well, I guess if I had to choose Tarantino's worst movie, it would be Death Proof but only because it's half baked and not fully realized, but Death Proof certainly isn't in the category of badness of the other films you mention. I also never understood the hatred for 1941. I always thought it was a pretty funny movie.
I don't know why people and even Tarantino himself hate Death Proof so much. I love it, and i take it as it was proposed: a B Film, with an experimental screenplay and direction, with authentic moments of horror and action. I consider The Hateful Eight a much worse film which even wasn't supposed to be bad, but it is. It's the only film that made me question Tarantino's skills for writing.
@@jimmypadilla3441 Basically i think it promises a lot, but things don't happen; or that it could be a lot better than it was. 8 cowboys locked in a cabin, written by Tarantino. I expected a lot of relationship dynamics; or maybe an 8-people-duel; a lot of twists, or whatever. The film is 3 hours, and 1 of it is people driving a wagon, introducing a few characters. Then you arrive at the cabin and you introduce a lot of new characters (1 hour late). There's a conflict about the civil war and racism, and people take sides. Wow, things could turn really nasty. And they do, if "nasty" means just a simple duel against an old man that seems disabled. But then NOTHING more happens; that problem and people taking sides didn't have ANY importance. Things stay as it didn't even happen. Then one gets poisoned (he had a lot of introduction but didn't do nothing), so now things do turn nasty, but with 2 less characters, and there's a twist and a lot of surprise, all too fast, and with a NEW character (2 hours late) that dies almost instantly. And when the film is most interesting and you want to see what happens now, we go back to a long-ass sequence of something that we already know, which is that the gang killing the cabin people. Then we go back to what should be the most interesting part of the film, but it's just random "i'll kill you!", "no, i'll kill you!". Then everyone dies and the film is over. The film feels like a lot of introduction for nothing happening. The story is minimal, comparing it to how much it lasts, which makes all the Tarantino dialog seem forced; like over-Tarantined; like "i need to say things in a complicated interesting way". Look at other Tarantino films; when things happen, they take the story somewere; they change things (even in Death Proof). But here... it's basically just 1 twist and that's it. Although i appreciate the detectivesque mistery that roams in the background. That's probably the most coherent part of the film, but it's just a little part of it, during maybe 1 hour of it. And that's not even considering that the bad guys plan was over-complicated and they could achieve it really easily, really fast. But then the film would be over before it even started.
What?! 🤯 I was a HUGE slasher film fan growing up, and I can’t believe I never knew until now that the Weinsteins co-wrote that story and script! Thanks so much for sharing!
It's targeting low hanging fruit when a director's early films are being singled out. Since they are just learning their craft and developing their own style I view these as the first stumbling steps of a toddler and they're going to be clumsy, and, in the case of Kubrick, viewed with hostility in comparison to his later films. Both Boxcar Bertha and Fear and Desire are not bad. I would have picked Eyes Wide Shut as Kubrick's worst and Scorsese 's remake of Cape Fear as his worst---or most disappointing. I totally agree with the inclusion of 1941, but A. I. was worse, or the ungodly awfulness of Crystal Skull. As far as the other directors I haven't seen enough of their work to make any informed opinion on.
*For Nixon:* *The Good:* Abolished the "Gold Standard", and started the EPA, *The Bad:* Started the "War on Drugs". *For Carter:* *The Good:* Negotiated with Israel and Egypt to sign a peace treaty, and worked tirelessly to rescue the hostages in Iran. *For Reagan:* *The Bad:* Deliberately delayed the said hostages' return to the U.S. until he was officially sworn-in. He cut taxes for the wealthy, ignored the AIDS Epidemic (and demonized people who had the disease), got involved in the Iran Contra Scandal, and escalated the "War on Drugs" even further. *For Clinton:* *The Bad:* Repealed the "Glass-Steagall Act", thus deregulating Wall Street (which led to the Great Recession), and signed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" into law. *For Bush Jr.:* *The Bad:* Also cut taxes for the wealthy, signed the "Patriot Act" (which violated the 4th Amendment), Approved torture (which violated the 8th Amendment), and lied us into wars that had nothing to do with 9/11. *For Obama:* *The Good:* Repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", and became the first sitting president to endorse Same Sex Marriage. *The Bad:* Bailed out Wall Street, and escalated the "War on Terror". *For Biden:* *The Bad:* Supported Israeli President Netanyahu's deliberate targeting of innocent Palestinians even after the International Criminal Court declared it as a "war crime".
I have a soft spot for _Death Proof_ . Though it is his "least polished" film, I did like how the female characters fought back against Kurt Russell's character. Compared to the other "subpar" horror films I've watched in my time, this one was at least decent imo.
You’re right! I couldn’t find the “isolated” budget just for Death Proof, and I should have made that clearer. Thanks so much for watching and commenting!
Hahaha, I’m genuinely glad you enjoyed it! I wish I could as well. 😅 I’ve watched 3 different cuts and it just never clicked. But to each their own - I’ll never begrudge anyone for enjoying something that just didn’t work for my particular brain. Careful on that hill, though - I hear Stuntman Mike likes to cruise it. 😉
Haha, yeah, Four Rooms is best not mentioned. 😅 Since his contribution wasn’t feature length, it didn’t “qualify” for this list. But if it were included, it would *definitely* be his weakest, IMO. Thanks so much for all of your thoughtful comments, by the way! I really appreciate them!
A lot of the time, a bad movie from a great director can be more interesting than a great movie, because it's with a filmmaker's worst films that we often get to identify their motifs and obsessions, either because they've gone too far in indulging in them to a film's detriment, or because they're a director-for-hire and have gone too far in the other direction by smothering and diluting their style.
