"Charles Manson Then & Now" [1992] Movie Review

 

 

"Charles Manson Then & Now" is a 1992 documentary about Charlie, The Manson Family, and the murders. It was made by Nick Bougas. Though it is not officially anywhere streaming, multiple people have uploaded the film to youtube over the years. 

 For what it was, I think that this was a pretty good film that talked about the events which led up to the Tate-LaBianca murders. It focused mostly on Charlie, and talked about many of the actual events which happened. There were a few details that I wasn't sure were correct, but considering that this came out in '92, this might have been before many of the court transcripts were available for the public to read. 

The film talked about Charlie's childhood a bit, and possibly more than any other film for its time. Even still, I'm not sure how completely accurate it was, as it made it seem like Charlie was always traveling with his mother. In books since this film was released, it appeared that Charlie barely spent any time with his mother at all, when in between the reform schools. Jeff Guinn's book, for example, talked about Charlie spending much of his childhood, before reform school, with his aunt and grandmother. Strangely, this film didn't actually discuss how Charlie got his name. Though he was initially "No-Name Maddox" when born, which the film states, it glossed over the fact that Charlie's last name came from his step father, in the brief marriage his mother had. 

On my own time, when doing research in the past about Manson, I came across an article where his mother stated that she didn't name him at first, because she was waiting for mother (Charlie's grandmother) to come up and see the baby. I'm not sure if the filmmaker would have known this fact though. 

The film rather quickly glosses over the accumulation of women and eventual men that joined Charlie in what became "The Manson Family", and various pieces of Family culture are never brought up. The film focuses more on the things that might have led Charlie and the gang to commit the murders. It brings up the shooting of Bernard Crowe, though he is unnamed, and the murder of Gary Hinman. I have to give credit to the film, because Hinman's murder is talked about being related to drugs, similar to the shooting of Bernard Crowe. 

There are more cultural contexts given in the film, which I appreciate. As someone born decades after the murders, there has always been a bit missing, when trying to understand why people believed some of the things they did back then. The film made it more believable to me, that people saw the current events of the late 60's, and felt that all hell was breaking loose.

The film thankfully isn't a rehash of Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter". They seemed to have done a good amount of research on their own time, beyond what was available to the typical person. They showed books and films that were inspired by the crimes, some I hadn't even heard of...or are sure exist anymore. 

It talks a bit about Squeaky Fromme's attempted assassination of President Ford, though, interestingly, it doesn't talk that much about The Family's time at Barker Ranch. The desert hideout was barely talked about, which surprised me. Of course, like many other Manson films, they don't talk about the trial much at all, with the exception of President Nixon's mistake of publically saying that Charlie was guilty. 

I always find this choice to be interesting. Through everything I've read and watched about The Manson Family, very few talk about the trials, which to me, are the most interesting part. I suppose it's because the 1970 trial was dragged out and it's own circus, but I think that there is some incredibly important information in the trial transcripts which set the facts straight about how the crimes really happened. 

Then again, before Bugliosi's death, I think that he might not have wanted for people to start digging into the trial transcripts, as they would have seen through much of his case. I always heard that he was especially litigious, when people started questioning "Helter Skelter".  

For some reason, the film finishes talking about Charlie, and then goes on to barely compare his crimes to that of Ed Gein and John Wayne Gacy.  I found this odd, and while the information about those cases are correct, they should have been their own separate films, or reduced to a few sentences. 

Overall, I think that this is a good film, believe it or not. It has some cheesy background music, but it's among the more accurate pieces of Manson media out there. If you're familiar with the Manson case, you might find this to be a vindicating watch, in some ways. It's not trying to push narrative, but actually discuss the facts. At least, what was possibly one of the best collection of the facts that one could find, in 1992.

I gave this 3/5 stars on letterboxd. 

PARDONED FROM ABOVE 1992 Review

 PARDONED FROM ABOVE 1992 

 

“Pardoned From Above” is a Christian film that came out in 1992, as a way to paint Tex Watson in a good light. Within the first 5 minutes of the film, you hear this hokey, campy, almost kindergarten type of music, that is supposed to make the viewer feel like there’s nothing to worry about. In these first five minutes, they try to paint Tex Watson as a good guy, who just so happens to be in a maximum security prison (California Men’s Colony). They immediately act like it was all Charles Manson’s fault, a convict, who duped Tex Watson into doing his bidding. They make it seem like Tex just came to California to have a good time, and he became a follower of Manson, without any question. Interestingly, this film states that Manson’s mother was a prostitute, surely as a way to make Manson seem even worse of a criminal than he really was, not that what his mother did really much to do with him. Besides, various pieces of literature have shown that Manson’s mother was never a prostitute. 

The film claims that it’s not about death or the trials, but the exact opposite. Strangely, it seems to start Tex’s story from when he picked up Dennis Wilson hitchhiking, and how he met Manson. At the 5 minute and 23 second mark, Tex stated that when he met Manson, he was “willing to do anything” for the “new kind of love” that he found, “including lay down” his own life, and that of other people. 

The host of the film brought up how Manson stuck a knife to Tex and asked him “Will you die for me?”, much like what is written in Tex’s book of the same name. The film put so much emphasis on Tex following Manson’s teaching, and stated that he was a gullible 23 year old at the time. Then interestingly, stated that he was a lot different “now”, what was 22 years later. This film came out in 1992, so that would have made Tex about 45-47 years old, depending on when it was actually recorded.

Tex admits to doing Meth in this film, and stated that Charlie told him to kill everyone at what was Terry Melcher’s old house. When asked to explain for the film who Terry Melcher was, he stated that Terry was Doris Day’s son, and to quote verbatim, Tex said:

“We had previously met him, and had been to that house before. “. I found this very interesting, because Tex said “we”. In various pieces of Manson literature, it has been painted that Manson and potentially Tex at the most had been to Cielo Drive. From the way Tex says it in this film, it almost sounds like the women, Patricia, Susan, and Linda, might have been to Cielo in the past also. 

What’s also interesting, is that Tex admits to sniffing Meth with Susan again before ending up at Cielo drive. 

It’s strange though, as he described kicking Voytek Frykowski, he didn’t cry or anything. He actually seemed to smile. He claimed that it was hard to talk about it, but he easily recollected that part of the story, like a piece of casual conversation. 

The film interviewed Rosemary LaBianca’s daughter, Susan LaBerge. She stated that she was actually invited to spend the night with her mom, and step dad, the night they were murdered. She recollected how her and her brother had found her parents dead. Her description is also nearly perfectly depicted in the 1976 movie “Helter Skelter”. When asked how she dealt with her parents’ murder, she claimed that she “dropped out of society”, and turned to drugs, but not as bad as her brother, Frank. This was interesting to me, because I hadn’t ever heard this before. I also found it interesting that in 1992, someone would still use the phrase “drop out of society”. 

The host stated that the hardest thing Tex ever had to deal with in his life, was his anger. The film goes back to the interview portion with him, where Tex himself stated that he thought of himself as an angry person, when he committed the crimes. 

Of course, the film asks how Susan LaBerge could ever forgive Tex Watson for killing her parents. She stated that she dedicated her life to Christ, though it didn’t seem to answer his question about how she could forgive the man who murdered her parents!

The film brought up how “Will You Die For Me” was released in 1978, and how it ended up in the hands of the woman that became Tex’s baby momma. You see a shot of her praying at the table with her children. When asked how she met Tex, she stated that she met him through reading his book, and she gave her life to Christ after. At the time, she lived in New Jersey, and apparently wanted to meet him afterwards. She claimed that she didn’t immediately jump on a plane, but basically still said that. She had wanted to go to California, and “check it out”, but also meet him. During this scene, you can hear a baby in the background, who I presume was one of Watson’s children, one of the last ones before conjugal visits were banned. 

Apparently, Tex was the only Christian that Krisitin knew, other than her father. The only Christian in her life. I found this strange, because it doesn’t really make her case for religion strong. It seems more like she used religion as a facade to meet a serial killer, that for one reason or another, she found attractive. 

The film asks the question of how Tex Watson had children, despite being incarcerated for 22 years at that point. They actually show 3 of the children. Tex stated that the prison (at the time) had family trailers, where they would get 48 hours together and “play house”. The film shot back to his wife, where she stated they had children. So this is actually before they had their last one, their fourth. She also stated that she deals with the kids all by herself daily. Obviously. Interestingly, she stated that the support of a husband at home was something that she would constantly think about. How interesting, that after having children with a serial killer, incarcerated for life, she had to raise the babies at home, virtually, as a single mother.

Tex was then asked if he thought that he’d ever get out. He smirked and stated, “Well, um…I don’t know.”. Likely knowing, that the answer was “No.”. He stated that he “kept the faith”, even when things looked hopeless. 

The film then stated that in 1975, Tex found out that Jesus Christ could remove all of his guilt, anger, and sin. Watson would go on to claim that he had spent 6 years in prison trying to find peace. He claimed that his religious background from childhood, and all of these other religious people who kept contacting him were the reasons he went back to Christ. He told a story about how he went to Church in prison one time, and accepted Jesus Christ, then went back to his cell, and looked in the mirror, saying that he was a completely different person “Just glowing with Christ.”. This is very similar to what Susan Atkins said in her book ,”Child of Satan, Child of God”. I find it very odd, that these two convicted murderers tell similar stories, about how looking in the mirror after accepting Christ, seemed to be a part of their change. To me, this tells me that neither convict expected their target audience to be as well versed in Manson lore or literature as anticipated. Surely, they didn’t expect non-Christians to read their books, nor hold them accountable. Granted, there were Christians who held them accountable, Doris Tate one of them. 

The film brings up how hard the it must have been to tell the Watson children that their father was a murderer. What I found disgusting, was how the host made it seem like Tex killed one person. In reality, he killed multiple people. On two separate nights. Tex Watson is a serial killer. Technically, a spree killer. He didn’t kill one random person. You don’t see anyone related to the murders at Cielo Drive in this film. They don’t mention any of those victims by name. When Tex recalled kicking Voytek Frykowski in the head early in the film, he didn’t even mention his name! Doesn’t that show, he had no remorse? He couldn’t even mention the irony of murdering a pregnant woman, while going on to make 3 children (at the time of the film) of his own. 

After this scene, the film goes back to Watson’s wife, and how they told their oldest son about Tex’s crimes. Or so they say. What I first found disturbing, was that they mention their son by name. Considering the gravity of the crimes that Tex committed, wouldn’t it be better to keep their children’s names private? Second, Watson’s wife stated that their son kept asking his father why the guards wouldn’t let him come home. On camera, Watson’s wife stated that Tex told his son:

“Well you know honey, Daddy really hurts that he can’t come home, and be with you.” His son then asked why. Tex then said, “Well honey, 20 years ago, before Daddy even knew Mommy, Daddy took drugs, and they made his mind crazy. And he got in trouble.”. His son then asked him “Did you kill somebody Dad?”. To which Tex said, “Yes I did honey.”. Watson’s wife then said that their oldest son took a sigh of relief, and seemed to do fine after that. 

I find that to be disturbing. Especially considering how I’m a parent myself. More than anything, I question why Watson and his wife would bring children into this world, despite Tex’s infamy. I question, how truthful and rich of a life those children had, considering how their parents were lying to them from the start. 

The film then goes on to state that Christ helps Kristin with her own anger. When asked if she hated Charles Manson, she stated no, but also promoted the false idea that his mother was a prostitute. It then switches to Tex again, who stated that he thought people should actually pray for Charles Manson. Susan LaBerge is seen again, where she stated that she wouldn’t want to harm the Manson family, if she was in a room with them. 

Watson is then seen looking straight into the camera, saying that he was glad that Susan LaBerge forgave him, and you see a picture of the two together. This supposedly helped him believe in Jesus’ love even stronger. 

The film then goes to a montage of pictures, where you see Tex’s wife and children, and then what seemed to be a wedding photo of the two. His children are seen eating dinner at the table, with their mother, who of course, is alone, while her husband is in prison. Susan LaBerge and her family are seen, like it was some sort of cute family story. Sadly, one of Susan’s daughters was murdered decades later. What’s interesting, is how Susan’s brother, Frank, was never seen or heard from in this film. I think that really goes to show how many people “truly” forgave Tex Watson.

The film ends with the host stating that if God could forgive Tex Watson, then God could forgive you. He states the “Sinner’s Prayer”, as is also seen at the end of Susan Atkins’ book “Child of Satan, Child of God”. 

Overall, the film is complete bullshit. It’s clearly a ploy to help Watson gain parole, trying to appeal to some sort of Christian audience too naive to understand what really happened here. The real question, is where does this fall inbetween his parole hearings? Looking at Cielo drive, they only have a transcript from 1978, then a large gap before the new millenium. So I had to look through the newspaper archives to see when Watson’s last hearing was before 1992, and when the next one afterwards would have been.

His first hearing was in October of 1978, to which he was denied for one year. 
His second hearing was in October of 1979, of which he was denied for one year.
His third hearing was in October of 1980, and he was denied for one year.
His fourth hearing was in October of 1981, and he was denied for 1 year. 

His next one was to be in 1982, but it didn’t happen until 1983, and there was a lot of pushback from the public, especially Sharon Tate’s mother. 

His fifth hearing was in January of 1983, and he was denied for 3 years, under a new law at the time. Before this law, he and others were allowed to apply for parole every year. 

Despite the three year denial, there are articles from 1984 claiming that he was denied parole for a sixth time, in May of that year. 

Watson had a seventh parole hearing in May of 1985, where he was denied again, for what articles said 3 years. 

His eighth hearing was in May of 1986, of which he was denied, of course. One article stated that he had been denied for 3 years, though as previously stated, there are articles about parole hearings from that 3 year period, so I don’t completely understand what happened. 

His ninth hearing was in 1987, though articles state that it was his 10th. I am unsure if there was an additional one in-between the May 1986 one, and April 1987 one. He was to be denied for 3 years, until 1990. 

His next, I guess what we’d call the “11th” hearing was in fact in 1990, in May of that year. Articles from this time appropriately numbered this as his 10th hearing, which it was. According to articles from this time, he was denied for 3 years, not to have another hearing until 1993. 

So, that makes sense, in context with this film, where Tex was in his parole hearings. He had-had  10 hearings, all denied, and in the year before his next hearing, this film came out. Just like how “Child of Satan, Child of God”, came out in 1977, the year before Susan’s first official parole hearing,  “Pardoned From Above” came out before Tex’s official 11th parole hearing. 

After this film, “Pardoned From Above”, Tex Watson was moved from the Men’s Colony Prison, to the Mule Creek Prison in Ione, California, after concerns about him using his ministry to control other prisoners, on top of him truly just being there too long. Articles stated that the parole board wanted to see if he could “make it” at another prison. I didn’t see any articles about him going to the parole board in 1993, and in a 1994 article, it stated that he wasn’t slated for another parole hearing until spring of 1996. So, whether he had that 1993 hearing, I don’t know, but in 1995 he had another hearing, and was denied for five years, until 2000.

His next hearing after that was in 2001, where he was, of course denied, then told not to reapply for another 4 years. Of course from here, we can go back to Cielo Drive, and see that his next date was in 2006, where he was denied, and has been denied every other time after that too. 

Looking through the articles, there were multiple concerning statements made, which could be a different video entirely. What was most interesting, was how the parole board in the 80’s stated that Watson still had pent up anger, when observed by psychiatrists. In one article, he stated that he didn’t see his victims as humans, and that was the possible reason why he was able to kill so many people. Another article showed how Watson would make money selling his sermons, which he and his wife ran together. In the 1990 articles about his parole bid, it was stated that he wanted to go back to Texas if granted parole, and be the “Texas Jim Bakker”. An evangelical preacher. To me, looking through these articles, it became clear that Tex was using his religion as a crutch to make money in prison, and as a crash pad to hopefully get out. 

This film was a disgusting slap in the face to victims, and family of the victims; and to a point, it was a slap in the face towards those that actually believe any sort of religion too. From the host, to Tex, to his wife, it was clear that it was all a ruse to promote some sort of “holier than thou” mentality. It was almost like, “If we believe this serial killer can change, then you should too, or else you’re not a real Christian”. But I think that it’s completely ignorant to believe that the common person should want a convicted serial killer as their next door neighbor. I think that Doris Tate, Sharon Tate’s mother, said it best in a 1983 article where she was quoted: 

“The public says if he’s a true Christian, he’d know he’d have to stay in jail to atone for his sins…he should work within prison walls.”. 

And in 2026, I still believe that to be true. What better place to teach others about the lord, than in a place where the incarcerated go? Perhaps he could convert other serial killers such as himself.

According to wikipedia, Tex and Kristin divorced in 2003, after 24 years of marriage. 

Overall, this is obviously not a true telling of Tex’s crimes, and can’t be taken seriously. He deflects blame onto Charlie, and only takes some accountability for taking drugs. But not once, does Tex shed a tear, or even flat out say that he lives in remorse for his actions. If you’re in the Manson rabbit hole like I am, I think this is worth the watch, because it’s appalling how sociopathic Watson is. 



My video: https://youtu.be/LD-dQWvkF44

Dream Deceivers: The Story Behind James Vance vs. Judas Priest [1992] Review

 Dream Deceivers: The Story Behind James Vance vs. Judas Priest [1992]

 

“Dream Deceivers” is a documentary by David Van Taylor, which came out in 1992. It talks about the tragic story of James Vance and Raymond Belknap, two young people that shot themselves on the evening of December 23rd, 1985. Raymond died, while James somehow survived, though he was permanently disfigured. 
The subject of the documentary is very heavy, and for many people, it may be hard to watch. James was interviewed through the film, before his death. 
On the evening of the “shootings” as their family called it, Raymond, 18, and James, 20, had made a suicide pact. The two went to a church playground and while under the influence of various substances, they committed, and attempted suicide. Raymond shot himself first, then James, scared, took the gun second. 
Not much is really talked about how James was found, or the reconstructive surgeries that he went through. From what you see in the footage, you can see that the doctors did the best they could. In many ways, it is shocking that James survived. 
From the opening scenes, we see home life with James and his mother. At first, it appears that he has a loving mother, who seems sweet and nice. She cooks for him, and brings him plates of food. She seemed to understand what he was saying, helping the viewer better hear him, as his disfigurement left him seemingly unable to completely close his mouth. From early in the film, we see that James’ mother, Phyllis, was religious. 
— 
To preface, decades ago, I had heard of the case against Judas Priest, and the idea of backmasking in music. This was way before we had the access to news articles and freely seeing documentaries like this one, so I never got to know the full story. I didn’t know that it went like this, and in reality, that it was so brutal. 
To quickly sum up, after the shootings, and Raymond’s suicide, their families filed a civil suit against the band Judas Priest. Their claim was that the band’s music had subliminal messages in it, the main one being “Do it”, which was purported to be the reason why the two tried to take their lives. 
I always knew that the case was dismissed, though I didn’t know many of the inner workings of it. When I was in high school, I had to write a paper making a persuasive argument, and this case was among the ones I used as an example. The idea was that backmasking is a flawed concept, because many times a person is told what they’ll hear when something is played backwards. Once you tell someone what they’re supposed to hear, that’s what they hear; if you play the same thing but not tell them what the potential message is, many times people don’t hear anything of significance. 
You see a scene in the film that seems to touch on this, as Rob Halford, the singer to the band, is seen saying in the courtroom something about “wanting a peppermint” or asking for one, then playing a song backwards. Of course, when you hear Halford play this, it sounds exactly like what he said. 
The majority of the court details aren’t really talked about in the film, though that might have been due to time restraints. The documentary is about an hour. I do wish they could have talked about this section more, but I understand why they didn’t, and likely couldn’t do so. At the end of the film, the families were reportedly trying to appeal the case’s dismissal, though of course in the decades since we know this didn’t work. 
— 
Even though Raymond’s mother was interviewed and seen in the film, you see a lot more about James Vance’s mother Phyllis, and the life that James had. I will say though, it hurt in a way, when Raymond’s mother stated that it took her a long time before she really understood that he was never coming home. 
The focus on James’ family really showed a dysfunctional and abusive household. The dynamic was incredibly toxic, where his mother seemed to focus so much on religion, and was putting down her son’s interests, she called Judas Priest “garbage music”, with a big smile on her face. By this time, James Vance had been saying that Judas Priest was one of the reasons why he attempted suicide. They even show a note that James wrote, as proof. I know how this is going to sound, but I question if his mother forced him to write that, and say those things after he survived his suicide attempt. 
I question if many of the things that happened with this case, is because James was a tortured soul, and just wanted some kind of relief. 
It’s very clear that James was suffering. His father/step father (this is rather unclear, one scene shows his mother saying that he had a different father than the man who raised him) is seen on camera smiling at the fact that he punched James with his fists in the past, when James was caught having smoked marijuana. It was revealed that he also beat on James’ mother, early in their relationship; shockingly, she minimizes this saying it was only “the first year or 2”. The man was also an alcoholic, and once again, Phyllis is seen saying “Who doesn’t have a drinking problem?”. 
There are multiple instances where the mask drops off for Phyllis, and the viewer begins to understand why James wanted to end his life. 
The defense lawyer did a great job in my opinion, from the shots that they showed in the film. She brought up psychiatric evaluations, and these were probably the biggest contentions against the prosecution’s argument that Judas Priest induced these shootings and suicide. It was revealed in the times before James shot himself, that he was severely depressed, and wished to end his life. 
What was surprising, was how James’ mother did not like how this was brought out in court, and was seen saying that the defense lawyer would have to “answer to God” for that one. That really showed the mentality Phyllis had. She couldn’t take accountability at all. 
There were examples that both of the guys were suffering, to put it simply. As a viewer, it was clear that the examples of dropping out of school, not keeping a job, doing drugs, shooting animals, and things of the like, were indications of something much more going on in their lives; not the music they listened to.
Through the film, there are clips of metalheads unrelated to the case interviewed. Everyone knew that the court case was bullshit, and they didn’t have a leg to stand on. I think it was very important that the director showed how music, even Heavy Metal, can connect with people, and bring them together. Despite James and Raymond’s families trying to blame the music on their actions, the two guys were initially fans before they hurt themselves. 
In many ways, it was clear to me that James had little relief in life, and what he did find, was through music. 
It was sad to me, that his mother refused to take his interests seriously, and just cast them aside as evil and bad. When Phyllis was asked what type of music she listened to, of course she smiled and talked about religious music, and Western music. I found this interesting, because it was like a way to “prove” that Heavy Metal was bad, and her music was “good”. There were no specific artists mentioned that she listened to. 
I bring this up, because there was so much emphasis placed on how Metal bands were the cause of these suicides. Ironically, if you listen to Hank Williams Sr., a famous Country artist, a lot of his music was depressing. Hank talked about killing himself quite a lot, as seen in songs like “Long Gone Lonesome Blues”. To quote some of the lyrics to  that song:
“I'm gonna find me a river, one that's cold as ice
And when I find me that river, Lord I'm gonna pay the price, oh Lord
I'm goin' down in it three times, but Lord I'm only comin' up twice”

I wonder if Phyllis ever listened to that song. Or Hank’s similar ones like “I’m So Lonesome I Could Cry”. Once you start looking at other artists, especially out of the Metal genre, the idea of Metal being the culprit to suicide falls apart. 
This seems to be brought up where one of the family members are brought on the stand, I believe a sister to Raymond, as James stated that he was an only child. The sister had attempted suicide in the past, and she admitted that she wasn’t a fan of Heavy Metal. It made me question what was going on at home for multiple siblings to the same family to attempt suicide.
—
At the end of the film, James Vance passed away, and we see a part of his funeral. What is really disturbing, is that Phyllis, his own mother, did not cry. In fact, it looked like she was smirking. Right beside her was her husband, James’ father. The man who admitted to beating James with his fists, was the one crying and wiping his eyes. 
At the time of his death, James’ death wasn’t considered a suicide, though in the years since it seems like people believe it was. James slipped into a coma after overdosing on drugs, what was likely methadone. James apparently had been admitted to the hospital on November 15th, 1988 for depression. He had slipped into a coma the day he was supposed to be released. 
In an article from the LA Times, doctors told James’ mother that he was 99.9% brain dead. [ https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-12-01-mn-828-story.html ]
According to Find a Grave, James passed away on November 29th, 1988 in Reno, Nevada. He was buried at Mountain View Cemetery in Reno. He was 23 years old. At the time of his death, he had a 1 year old daughter. 
[ https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/198431155/james-matthew-vance ]
James’ father passed away in 2005 and he was buried in the same cemetery as him; his mother, Phyllis, died in 2015, and was cremated.
—
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. It’s not perfect, it’s rather low quality in production and the audio could be better, but I think it’s an important  piece of history. I think that it is great, in the sense that it shows the not so perfect sides to this story. The director could have easily just left out the footage that shows how Phyllis was not a good person, but they left it in. They showed all of the things that made the court case flawed. For that, I think it’s a great film.
I give this a 5/5, though I have to warn, this is a very heavy film to watch. 

My video: https://youtu.be/V0EuSLEB-zU