BEETLE FILM DISCUSSION: PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3 (HEAVY SPOILERS)

Hey there, I recently reviewed the film Paranormal Activity 3. I haven't been able to get this film out of my mind for the past few days (a sign of a good film). This film raised so many bizzare questions, questions that weren't even addressed or hinted at in the previous two films. How come Katie and Kristi talk about their house burning down when we never see footage of this actually happening (maybe the cult they go to live with in the end of the film burned it down, maybe they were lying about it but why would they lie to their spouses, maybe they were brainwashed into thinking various things including the burn down of their house), why don't they ever mention their mom and stepdad dying and going to live with the grandmom (Surely they would have mentioned that IMPORTANT FACT in the previous films), why don't they ever mention being raised by a cult (This is easily explained away though, I imagine they were probably brainwashed either into not remembering these events or believing the cult was some big family, but if this were the case why is this "big family" never brought up in the previous films), Since Katie is clearly possessed by the end of the film did the demon unpossess her or did the cult drive him out of her because she wasn't fully ready yet? Do you understand why I say in my review that PA 3 only serves up more questions (questions we wouldn't have if the film had actually STUCK TO WHAT WAS SET UP IN THE PREVIOUS FILMS)?

Why is just about none of the footage from the trailers shown in this film (The trailers actually included footage of a house burning down, so it seemed like the footage from the trailers stuck closer to the mythology than the actual film did)? Well, there are two possibilities: Possibility #1 is that originally they had a whole different film prepped for release, this means that 2 different versions of the film had been created but in the end they decided to go with the version we saw in theaters (maybe test screenings of the original footage weren't as positive as they had hoped, maybe they wanted to do something different?). Possibility # 2 (and the possibility that is way more probable) is that they shot all that footage specifically for the trailers and never had any intent of actually inserting that footage into the film, if true, this pisses me off. It's a brilliant strategy to mislead audiences but that also means that they were purposefully misleading and lying to audiences, showing them a film they would never see. NOT. COOL. In the end, we'll just have to wait for the dvd release to see if they release an alternate cut along with the theatrical release.

In fact, the film fails to follow the mythology and events established in the first 2 films so badly I wondered if they brought a new screenwriter onto the film. I did some investigating online, and the screenwriters for PA3 were Christopher B. Landon (who helped to write the screenplay for PA 2 along with 4 others) and Oren Peli (He wrote the screenplay for the original and helped write the screenplay for the sequel). Now, I can understand why Landon could have inadvertently messed up. Maybe he didn't fully understand the events that had been alluded to in the other films, but that's why Oren Peli was there...to set him back on the right path but he apparently failed to do that. I am seriously disappointed, we could have had a really cool origin story but instead we got a fake one that doesn't make sense when viewed with the rest of the films in the franchise.

I assume the reason they decided to deviate from previously established events (if this was even a conscious decision and not an accident) was to make it a more interesting, unpredictable film. Well, it does succeed (PA 3 is really quite thrilling) but at what cost? PA 3 asks us to take what

we have been told was fact and truth in the previous films and throw that all away. I say: "But movie...you made all that out to be true". Movie responds: "I was lying". I fire back with: "But the characters seemed to believe what they were saying, they seemed to be speaking from what little memory they had of the events". Movie responds with: "They were mistaken, they were lying too". I respond: "So, let me get this straight...in the previous two films you were lying to us and you had the characters lie to us too"? Movie responds: "Yes". Angry, I respond a final time: "...fuck you". You see, I understand what the film was trying to do, but they went about it the wrong way. I would say maybe this is a reboot of the franchise, but THIS IS ONLY THE 3RD FILM!!!! It's too early for a reboot and frankly I don't want one!

Now, besides all my negative harping on the ending (I actually screamed "What" twice, once when the screen cut abruptly to black, a 2nd time when the credits started rolling) I must say that I really did enjoy the film....I'm even contemplating if I may actually love it. The whole film before the ending is superbly well done, well acted, and well filmed. It's definitely the best film in the franchise thus far...but it's got the worst ending I've seen for the franchise (hence why I had said best film and worst film). Stripping away it's affiliation with the Paranormal Activity Franchise and judging it as its own film...I would honestly give it 5 out of 5...it was better than sex and was one of the more original, innovative, and wildly ambitious horror films I've seen in recent years. Unfortunately, you HAVE to judge it as part of the Paranormal Activity Franchise because it's, you know, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3 and unfortunately that's where the film ultimately falls apart. Because the film fails to follow pre-set events (God, how many times have I used this phrase in this discussion?) it just doesn't work as a Paranormal Activity film and that's why it ends up failing as a film overall. Yes, my final score is still 2.5 stars and GOD do I wish I could give this film a better rating. I love that it's so ambitious and clever, I love how the characters are fleshed out, I love how it tries to be original (in it's own weird way) and I love how it ( FOR ONCE, THANK GOD) doesn't rely solely on jump scares to get the audience scared. I also have to give props to Henry Yoost and Ariel Schulman (the creative minds behind Catfish, one of the most realistic documentaries I have ever seen). They are some of the most ambitious, creative and clever filmmakers I have seen and I wish them the best of luck on their future endeavors (I'M ROOTING FOR YOU GUYS!)

So there you have it, my full thoughts on Paranormal Activity 3. I hope this helps to explain my rating on the film and maybe will either encourage you to see this cool controversial little flick or to give it a skip for the time being. It's up to you, but personally I'd wait till DVD (it's always viewed better when you're in a house alone with all the lights off...no bothersome audience members to distract you), where I'm still holding out hope for some cool dvd extras and maybe an alternate cut (a dim hope, since no other Paranormal Activity DVD comes with anything except the finished film).

BEETLE'S 2ND ANNUAL FRIGHT FEST: THE POUGHKEEPSIE TAPES

The Poughkeepsie Tapes is one of the scariest films I have ever seen, playing heavily on society's fear of murder, torture, serial killers, and the chance that some killers may escape scotch free.

The Poughkeepsie Tapes is a mockumentary (the film is NOT based on a real killer and the events depicted in the film did NOT occur, so sleep safely in this knowledge) about a brutal, sadistic serial killer that ravages the small town of Poughkeepsie for a good number of years. Eventually the FBI manage to uncover his home, but when they make a raid on it they discover that it's empty, the only thing left behind being stacks of tapes on which the killer recorded his murders.

The film is made up of fake documentary footage about the killer and some of the footage found on the infamous tapes, both taking up equal portions of the film. The Poughkeepsie Tapes plays like a documentary you would find on The Discovery Channel or Tru TV, and that makes it feel all the more real and terrifying. Helping with the suspension of belief are the tapes themselves. the footage viewed from the tapes are grainy, and at times hard to make out..in other words: it looks like actual footage from a VHS recorder.

The acting in the documentary portions is pretty bad, and the actual footage is made up of torture porn-esque sequences of victims screaming, crying, spitting up blood etc. All in all, while The Poughkeepsie Tapes is competently filmed and directed, I couldn't recommend it to anyone except those who are die-hard fans of the real life crime programs on Tru TV, those who are currently working in the forensics and investigative services, and those who are studying to become a forensics detective or such.

Probably the only part that came across as forced and fake was the ending where the film pulls the typical: He's still out there, he could be living in YOUR town, but steps it up a notch too far by adding in that HE COULD BE IN THIS VERY THEATER. Ya, suuuure movie, sure.

The Poughkeepsie Tapes is a really hard film to watch, and if by some miracle you do make it through to the end then I promise you it will stay lodged deep in your mind long after it's over. Yes, many sleepless nights await you, so watch this at your own risk.

2/5 Stars

ONE FOR ALL AND ALL FOR FUN: BEETLE JOINS THE THREE MUSKETEERS

I have been looking forward to this film for quite some time now, ever since I first heard about it's being made. The film is somewhat personal to me, and no, I won't explain why. Besides that though, the tale of three friends that band together to kick ass and save lives has always appealed to me (at least, the idea has, I have never actually read The Three Musketeers).

The Three Musketeers follows our three heroes; Athos (Matthew Macfadyen), Aramis (Luke Evans), and Porthos (Ray Stevenson); shortly after a failed mission that has just about ruined their reputation and their spirits. A young wanna-be Musketeer named D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman) sets out to join his heroes and in the process revitilizes their spirits. Little do the foursome know that a nefarious plot is being hatched by Athos' ex-lover Milady (Milla Jovovich) and the Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz) to throw France into a war with Britain, a plot that only the Three Musketeers plus D'Artagnan can thwart.

The Three Musketeers is a very fun film, but it's one I'd dare say most would probably dislike. Musketeers is one of those films that is best viewed with your brain in the off position, and it is this that most probably would dislike. Personally, I think some just don't know how to have a good time. The Three Musketeers plays like a Saturday morning cartoon; It's goofy, campy, silly and lots of fun.

What surprised me most about the film, is that despite it's mindlessness the main characters are actually pretty smart. The Three Musketeers always are ready with a plan up their sleeve, and are fast on their feet. Not only are they notoriously good fighters, they are also notoriously smart and cunning, and that's one of the things that really appeals to me about them. Sure, their characters may not be fully fleshed out (D'Artgnan is bold and brash, running head first into battle, always ready for a fight; Athos has just been betrayed by a lover and thus doen't really believe in anything anymore; Aramis is pretty religious and believes that everyone has got to believe in something; and Porthos is the sarcastic brute with a heart of gold) but the actors characterizations are strong enough and believable enough to keep most firmly interested in their going-ons and to keep audiences rooting for them. They have a strong bond of brotherhood, they kick ass, and they are pretty smart and that's why I love every one of them.

Milady is the femme fatal of the film. She slinks her way into people's lives that she can use to her own advantage. She only ever has her own best interest at heart (even though it is slightly implied that she does indeed love and care about one of the main characters) and is only ever truly on her own side. As played by Milla Jovovich, Milady oozes sexuality (especially in one scene where she does a fast striptease) and cunning, willfully turning the men in the film against each other for her own betterment and amusement. She is a real bitch, but one that I actually found myself enjoying.

Richelieu is played by Christoph Waltz, and he is another smart character in the film. He and Milday devise a plan to turn the young King Louis XIII (Freddie Fox), his queen (Juno Temple), and The Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom) against each other and thusly spark a war between Britain and France. In the ensuing chaos, he hopes to usurp the throne. Christoph Waltz does a really good performance, but it's honestly nothing we haven't seen before. I'm beginning to get worried that Waltz is starting to get typecast as the villain. This man is a super talented actor and he doesn't deserve to waste his acting abilities on typical villain roles. That said, he does bring his character to believable life and definitely has fun with his role, but is still just your average villain in the end.

Freddie Fox is pretty fun as the dimwitted, fashion obsessed young king (his failed attempts to keep up with the current fashion of the times comes across as a clever social commentary). He has a youthful enthusiasm about him and he attacks his role as king like a young, excited boy would. This makes for an interesting character that is super fun to watch, and also is easy to root for. His standout scenes are one where he is supposed to punish the Musketeers for some rash behavior but instead does something completely different (His youthful enthusiasm shines through here. It is clear he idolizes the Musketeers and looks upon them like a kid would upon real, living superheroes) and one where he asks D'Artagnan's for advice on how to woo a lady and then tries to impress the queen (he stutters through the scene with the queen like a lovesick puppy , but it is obvious that the two do share a love and they do indeed make quite the cute couple).

Orlando Bloom plays the villainous Duke of Buckingham who is a sworn enemy to The Three Muskateers, and a lover to Milady. Of course, he doesn't realize he is being used to ignite a war. He is an interesting character, but doesn't really leave a lasting impression. He's not very smart, doesn't appear to be able to think for himself, and tends to react with violence and threats of vengence...in other words he's the perfect pawn for Richilieu and Milady.

Gabriella Wilde is Constance, the love interest for D'Artagnan and one of the royal ladies. Besides helping the Musketeers at a crucial moment, she isn't given much to do in the film. A shame, becuase she does seem somewhat talented, and she is definitely very pretty.

Yet another character in the film is the captain of the guard, Rochefort, played by Mads Mikkelson. Rochefort is a true villainous knave who prefers to fight with guns instead of swords and doesn't like to fight fairly. Shortly after he insults D'Artagnan and his horse, D'Artagnan challenges him to a duel and is promptly shot in his shoulder. It is after this that D'Artagnan makes it his goal to seek revenge against Rochefort ( a goal that culminates in an ok duel between both characters). Rochfort acts under the commands of Richelieu, and thus acts as a secondary villain in the film.

In case you haven't noticed, most of the cast is made up of unknowns, and I like this about the film. It's always good to have a few fresh faces in the bunch. While most haven't been in much (except for the obvious big names), they still manage to pull off their roles brilliantly (especially the Three Musketeers and D'Artagnan).

Despite my general goodwill towards this film, there were a few things that bothered me. The first thing is that there is a good chunk of the film (maybe 20 minutes or so) where we focus solely on Milady and Richelieu and the Musketeers disappear. I understand this was done to develop the plot of the film, but it does detract a bit from the film overall. The good news is I was just beginning to notice that they had gone missing right when the Musketeers returned, so right when I started craving more of them, they returned.

The 2nd thing that annoyed me about the film is that there are too many villains in it (a whopping 4 in total). The film can never quite make up its mind who the main villain is, and so instead chooses the least likely candidate to focus on during the climax and lets one of the bigger baddies get off scotch free (it even allows him to play fake hero at the end). While this did scratch at me, it kind of made sense that The Musketeers would allow this person to take credit for the heroics so that they could remain in the shadows.

The 3rd thing that annoyed me about the film is that it focuses mainly on the story of D'Artagnan. While the character is a complete bad-ass and super easy to like, and while he definitely has what it takes to be a Musketeer it still doesn't make complete sense why he would be such a huge role in the film. The main advantage of this decision is that it allows the audience to view the Musketeers through his eyes, and that makes them seem larger than life and infinitely cool, so I guess that's a plus. At least this did not diminish the roles of the Three Muskateers, they still appear in the majority of the film and are the main characters along with D'Artagnan....it's almost like the four share lead billing, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's definitley noticeable.

The last thing that annoyed me about the film is the last segment that is tagged onto the end of the film. It doesn't really make sense, and seems to set up a sequel. I have feeling that a sequel will not be made because most seem to really dislike this film, so the epilogue of sorts comes across as pointless. Just leave when the screen fades to black.

I imagine the main reason anyone would go to The Three Musketeers would be for the action, and this film delivers that in droves. There are numerous action scenes within the film, and all are pretty thrilling (my personal favorite would have to be the fight between The Three Muskateers and D'Artagnan against Rochefort and the royal guard). All the action scenes are competently filmed and directed, successfully being thrilling, exciting, and cool all at the same time. Perhaps one of the best parts of the film is the climax, which takes place on an airship (Don't tell me that's not awesome. There are a good three or four action scenes that take place on this neat craft, and these scenes make up the climax). I went in wanting action, and I got alot of it, so I'm sure you action junkies will be quite pleased with this film.

I saw The Three Musketeers in 3D and it plays fairly well with this added demension. Mind you, it wasn't really necessary to add a 3rd dimension to the film, but what the film does with the new tech can be impressive at times. I'd say see this one in 2D instead though, that way you can save a few bucks.

So, was The Three Musketeers what I had been hoping for? The answer is a resounding yes. I never expected the film to be of a superb quality, I knew from the trailers that it was going to be silly fun and if anyone thought otherwise then they must have misinterpreted the trailers. While it is sure to divide audiences, I tend to fall on the positive side for this one. It may not be a superb film, but it accomplishes what it set out to do: show audiences a fun, mindless time at the movies. The Three Musketeers is like a better version of the previous G. I. Joe film, playing like a saturday morning cartoon version of the classic tale. It's definitely not a film for everyone, but I loved it nontheless. In the end, The Three Musketeers is fantastic fun.

3.5/5 Stars

BEETLE'S 2ND ANNUAL FRIGHTFEST: PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3

WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SOME SPOILERS, SO READ AHEAD AT YOUR OWN CAUTION

I have some serious mixed feelings about Paranormal Activity 3. I love it, yet I don't love it...you dig? Ok, maybe I'd better explain.

Paranormal Activity 3 takes place several decades before the events of the first and 2nd films, occurring around 1988. The two sisters from the first two films, Katie and Kristi, are living a good life. Katie (Chloe Csengery) has just celebrated her most recent birthday, and her mom Julie (Lauren Bittner) has just gotten together with amateur videographer Dennis (who acts as a cool stepfather to the sisters, played by Christopher Nicholas Smith). All seems to be fine until young Kristi (Jessica Tyler Brown)makes a new imaginary friend named Toby who is (OBVIOUSLY) not what he appears to be. As more and more strange events occur at their house, an intrigued Dennis sets up several cameras in an attempt to catch footage of whatever is going on.

Paranormal Activity 3 is the best film in the franchise thus far...but at the same time it is also the worst (It;s also the most clever and the most ambitious as well). In Paranormal Activity 3, the characters of Julie and Dennis are fully fleshed out and actually manage to come across as real human beings in this film. By the end of the film, I found that I had grown to care about them and their fate. It is believable that Dennis would grow excited over the events he is catching on film, and it is fun to watch his reactions change from excitement to horror and worry as the events he captures on film grow more and more violent until he is thrust into the middle of them, it being up to him to save his new family. Julie is also great as the non-believer (a great role switch, since in the Paranormal Activity films it is usually the male who is the nonbeliever, and the female who is trying to convince him of the truth. Here, it's the other way around) who does care about her family but doesn't have time for Dennis' silly antics. Both Smith and Bittner do a superb job of acting out their roles, bringing a believability to them. Both of the adults are pretty smart (especially Dennis, except for at the end where he has to act dumb for the sake of the plot and whatnot), which wasn't really seen in the previous two films.

Another great role is that of Randy (Dustin Ingram), Dennis' younger videographer helper. He's not in the film for long, but he does serve an important role in that he lends Dennis books on demonology, and is the first person to warn Dennis of the very real danger that Toby is. When inevitably Randy has his own first hand encounter with a pissed off Toby, he gets while the getting's good....a surprisingly wise idea.

PA 3, as I had said before, takes place in 1988, but it's not nostalgic in any way. This is the way throwbacks to the 80s should be handled. Character's clothing resembles the fashion in the 80's, decorations resembles that from that era, etc. By focusing on the story and throwing in small 80's references the film succeeded in making me feel like it was actually taking place in that era. I'd call that a success.

Another thing that was interesting about this film was that the trailers were FULL of scenes that were nowhere to be seen in the finished product. This set me up to expect the film to go one route when it actually did a 180 and went in the complete opposite direction. This was neat becuase I never really knew where we (the film and I) would end up, but at the same time it kind of felt like the trailers were lying to me.

Paranormal Activity 3 builds itself up to quite the climax. It takes longer than it did in the other films for shit to get real, but when it does...oh boy, hold onto your hats (one scene rivals the kitchen explosion in PA 2). I can't explain why, but for some reason Toby seems more angry than he does in the previous films, and his actions are much more violent this time around (not to mention he's also an asshole and a cockblock, you'll see what I mean). The film is never very scary, but it's filled with a thick tension that finally explodes during the last act.

The climax of Paranormal Activity 3 actually takes the road less traveled, and has humans be the main antagonists for most of this part. Somehow, this was scarier (I'm definitely more scared of cultists than Toby) and came across as a fresh, smart, fun choice for the film to make. I commend it for choosing to stand away from the previous films and become it's own. At the same time though, this hurts the film as well...in a big way (I have literally never seen a film crash so hard and so fast). The climax doesn't wrap up the way you think it would, and several huge events occur that neither sister even bring up in PA one or two (pretty sure they would have mentioned the death of their parents and going to live with their grandmother and other huge stuff I'm not at liberty to divulge here). I walked out of the theater furious with the way the last minutes play out, it was almost like a big FUCK YOU to fans of the franchise. I honestly feel that this film would have been better if it changed the character's names and chose NOT to affiliate itself with the Paranormal Activity name, I think I would have liked the ending more that way.

Paranormal Activity 3 is a competently made horror film that is filled with tension and some good jump scares (unlike the other films, it doesn't JUST rely on jump scares though, this time around there is some genuinely freaky stuff we see going on). Most of the characters are well written and believable ( the young sisters do an ok job, the best one being Jessica Tyler Brown as Kristi. Still, their not breakout performances by any means), it moves along at a good clip and takes it's time building itself up, if only the ending fit in with what the franchise had set up thus far. All in all, while most will walk in expecting answers, Paranormal Activity 3 only serves up even more mind-numbing questions (some of which don't even make sense or only make the franchise that much more needlessly confusing and complex). It is at the same time exactly what the franchise needed, and exactly what it didn't need. See this film at your own risk.

2.5/5

I was going to give this film 4 stars, but becuase of that ending I wound up giving it the current rating instead, think about that.

WHERE WE'RE GOING WE DON'T NEED ROADS: BACK TO THE FUTURE NEWS

I'm sure you all remember back when I got all crazed over the prospect of actual self-tying Nike's, well get for that all over again.

I come here today with 2 pieces of super cool back to the future technology news, this time revolving around Hoverboards and Deloreans.

First up: Deloreans. It would appear that electric BTTF-esque Deloreans are all set to be released sometime 2013. The estimated price is 90,000-100,000 simoleans, top speed will be around 125 MPH (there should be no problem hitting 88 MPH), will have 260 horsepower, and perhaps coolest of all will actually come with GULL-WING DOORS. Judging from the numerous pics I've seen, I must say that these babies look EXACTLY like Doc Brown's famed flying Delorean in the BTTF films (except these don't fly and can't travel through time, of course). I'll save myself the trouble and start saving up my money now.

LINK: http://www.slashfilm.com/back-future-real-life-electric-deloreans-coming-2013/

Next up: Hoverbaords. While Hoverboards have not been crearted yet, it looks like we may be closer than we were before due to a new process called Quantam Locking, which locks an object in space and time. How exactly this is done I have no idea, but the possibilities are quite literally endless if this catches on and is commercialized (maybe we really will have flying cars one day?).

Link: http://www.slashfilm.com/future-real-life-working-hoverboard-amazing-science-quantum-locking/

So that about does it for Road news today....till next time remember: In the future, roads will be a thing of the past.

BEETLE'S 2ND ANNUAL FRIGHT FEST: MOVIE NEWS

Hey there Beetle-heads, it's time for a Fright Fest edition of Beetle's Bug Juice. Today, I go over some depressing news regarding the Piranha 3D sequel.

The Piranha 3D sequel (titled Piranha 3DD) was originally set for a November 23rd 2011 release date. The plot was to follow the carnivorous fish as they somehow made their way into a brand new highly hyped water park where they would begin to gobble up incoming guests. Christopher Lloyd and Ving Rhames supposedly were to reprise their roles from the first film. Sounds like it could be fun, right? With a different creative team behind it, Piranha 3DD was to break away from its predecessor and actually was to be filmed in 3D and not post-converted. Of course, the film shoot has already wrapped and it seemed to be all set to be released.However, I have just gotten word that Piranha 3DD has been pushed back to sometime in 2012...a death sentence.

I don't know when it will be released, but till then I anxiously await the day when I can finally see this film in theaters. Till then I'm Beetlejuice and you've just been bugged

BEETLE IS CONFOUNDED, CONFUSED, AND ULTIMATELY ENLIGHTENED BY TERRENCE MALICK'S THE TREE OF LIFE

I'm going to get this out of the way right off the bat. Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life is definitely not a film for everyone. It never makes a whole lot of sense to the mind, but it makes sense to the soul. The first 30 minutes and last 20 are a symphony of seemingly unrelated images, the part in-between follows the life of one American family in the 50's , focusing mainly on a mother (Jessica Chastain), a father (Brad Pitt), and one of their sons (when young played by Hunter McCacken, when an adult played by Sean Penn although he barely appears in this film) who goes through a worldly crisis as he tries to make sense of this world, who he is, and how he fits into it all. It's a moving story, but it can be downright tough to sit through and is hair-rippingly impossible to make much sense of. It really feels like you are going through the womb when you watch this film, it's unique, different, startling and unsetlling but is brilliant nontheless.

All the actors do a great job here, no surprise there. I can't help but wonder how Brad Pitt and Sean Penn got wrapped up in this film though, they don't seem the types to appear in a film such as this but their prescense strengthens the film overall.

If you're not religious there is a good chance that you will not enjoy this film, there is a constant undertone of religious themes in this film, and at times it can be somewhat off-putting even to a christian such as myself. The film also has long periods of music, silence, and bits of voice over narration synced to beautiful but almost detached images that don't really seem connected.

The Tree of Life is a very different film, but it is a masterpiece nontheless, and if you can find a way to sit through the first 30 minutes without fidgeting then I salute you. I wouldn't reccommend it to everyone, but it still is worth a hesitant viewing if you're curious about it like I was.

4/5 stars