Cancer-terminal tycoon Peter Murdoch’s secret Wexel Hall Pharmaceuticals lab has developed a blood orchid extract cure. To examine why it works optimally in snakes, they also bread a super-anaconda strain. But the original pair escapes, leaving a bloody trail of corpses. Murdoch runs, instructing his staff to clean up. They keep failing and being eaten like unsuspecting locals, some alive, even after enlisting ruthless big game hunter Hammett. The fast-growing pregnant monster sheds its skin, thus disabling the only tracking device.

Also Known As: Anaconda 3 - La amenaza, Anaconda 3 - I nea genia, Анаконда: Цена эксперимента, Anaconda - La nuova stirpe, Anakonda 3: Potomstwo, Anaconda 3 - Progéniture, Anaconda 3: l'héritier, Anaconda 3: La venganza, Anaconda: The Offspring, Ανακόντα 3: Η νέα γενιά, Anakonda 3, Anaconda 3: Zad o Valad, Anaconda 3. - Az ivadék, Anakonda 3: Potomstvo, Anaconda 3, Anaconda 3: la amenaza, Anaconda 3: Offspring, Anakonda III, Anaconda III, Анаконда III, Anakonda 3: Varoluş, Anaconda: Offspring

Leave a Reply

No Comments

  • elise-liv-amundsen
    elise liv amundsen

    Big names, stinky movie.What we have here is not only formula, it is seventies formula-meaning the director is another one of those Nazis who bends the story over backwards to kill as many dark haired women as he can. His blonde girl is never in any danger. We never feel she is in danger because of his heavy handed Nazi direction. We know this director-writer combo go and worship Hitler and Mengele on their sacred days. They don’t have to bang our heads over and over with it.A lot of stupid gore for the chuckling red necks and computer nerds. Nothing creative. You can tell they spent a lot of time on this garbage, and for what? Oh, a giant anaconda eats a bunch of people, and you’ll know exactly who from the first time the characters are introduced.The movie goes after the female audience with his brunette killing and his blonde heroine making the usual stereotypical strut at the end. News flash: it isn’t cool or neat. It is dorky, stupid, inane, and trite.Nothing artistic, nothing ventured, nothing explored, nothing creative, nothing memorable.STINK STANK STUNK!

  • jose-luis-almansa-pombo
    jose luis almansa pombo

    My Lord, I laughed so hard during this film, but I watched it all the way, because it was fun. Other things… Script, story, CGI, acting… forget it! Turn off your brain and enjoy this loser motherf****r! Here’s the story… Two big ass snakes escapes from scientific facility and they send a hunting squad (lead by David Hasselhoff) to track them and capture them. Very simple! Hoff is ridiculous as hell in this film. This is just another proof that his career just went straight down to crapper, and it didn’t hit bottom yet, apparently. John Rhys Davies? What a hell are you doing here?! But, what a hell, he did few low budget films, it’s fine by him, I think. I bet he has to pay some bills. Can’t blame him. And a smoking hot Crystal Allen… What to say, she was just hot in the film, nothing else. Don’t expect some superb performance from her. These 3 stars are for Hoff, Allen and Davis… No more comment. Watch it with your friends just to get some laugh while drunk. At least that is the only use from this film…

  • cecile-de-pruvost
    cecile de pruvost

    I’ve heard that this was the worst of anaconda movies, but I’ve found it surprisingly entertaining.Giant anaconda that was mutated for experiment is on the loose. The movie runs very much like the Python if you’ve seen it. Giant snake slithering around and people hunting and running away depending on which scene. The story is bit thin, but acting is good, and twist and turn in the story keeps your attention glued to the screen.Not a complete wreck by any means compared to some other monster creature based story. Recommended for a view.

  • oretta-caruso
    oretta caruso

    I don’t get it, why would anyone pay to see this? David Hasselhoff is by far washed up character and after “Baywatch” there is not much to expect from him. The thing that bugs me the most with all Anaconda sequels is that the snake is all together badly described. Why? Well anyone who watched at least one documentary episode about these animals, knows how these beasts behave, and aside of the third part where these animals are DNA tampered with, not one have a good excuse for that kind of behavior. Mainly the way they move, sound and look. And than…things go from bad to worse, dude gets pierced through his chest with the snakes tail and they try to do CPR on him. Shoot me for giving this movie a try, thank God for not paying for it.

  • anze-turk
    anze turk

    I liked the first film & saw the second one on TV a little while ago so I thought I would take a look at the third one (they made a fourth one also). I watched it for free on ‘Crackle’ and it was interrupted by commercials-often the same commercial running several times in a row which I was irritated by. The film actually stopped running due to the cookies than ran the commercials malfunctioning so I had to struggle around with the computer and find a way to get back to the film. It took me some minutes to figure out how to get it to run again. It was a film you would probably watch more if you are stuck home not feeling well. The CGI for the large snakes was not really believable which more or less skunked the film. The acting was average to poor-action hero stuff-just bearable. I wonder why they bothered to make it-nobody except hard core fans of the first film are going to be into this movie. They might not even be happy about it. They say its a good day if nobodies shooting at you. I agree, but it would be nicer if they spent a bit more time thinking about the films that they produce. This one probably shouldn’t have been released as it was basically a substandard film. If I had stock in the company or companies that produced it I would’t be pleased-they could be sued for non performance (not trying).

  • duarte-garcia-baptista
    duarte garcia baptista

    This is one of the few movies that I couldn’t finish but I rated/reviewed it on IMDB. I tried but after 40 minutes I felt that the movie was too sick and disgusting for my taste and I left it. In fact I am reviewing it for warning everyone that wants to watch it.The plot is about a mercenary (played by David Hasselloff) that helps some scientists capturing a huge snake for curing illnesses. However it seemed like a pretext for putting some shoddily filmed scenes along with some disturbing scenes of the CGI anaconda. In particular there were some scenes of the anaconda ingurgitating alive some humans and some animals that were too gross to watch. And this was the moment I left, I just felt that it was enough.So not only the movie is horrible, but also NOT for the average viewer. You just have to not mind the disgusting scenes. This is the only way you can enjoy it.

  • daniel-du-cohen
    daniel du cohen

    A television film that has neither a good narrative structure nor sound technical skills, but it is funny to watch it (dubbed in Thai on Mono 29). David Hasselhoff used to play in better TV Series in the 1980s and 1990s: Knight Rider (1982-1986, 7.5/10) and even Baywatch (1989-2001, 6.5/10) were better 😉 2.5/10

  • oscar-de-castillo
    oscar de castillo

    I watched this movie just because I’ve noticed that John Rhys-Davies acts in it. Terrible decision… because his role was quite insignificant. The movie is so lame (I’m sad ’cause some filming locations are gorgeous), David Hasselhoff doesn’t even know how to run, what about acting!? The bright side of the acting part was the girl’s sexy undershirt that it was been put on by she all the time. What was funny!? I think that the snake’s scream (when it was been shot by Hasselhoff with the sniper) was taken from Dota (a Warcraft map). Sometimes you just need to watch a bad movie. Only after those moments you could really appreciate good movies.

  • dipl-ing-linda-sussebier
    dipl ing linda sussebier

    Anaconda 3, sequel to Anaconda (1997) and Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid (2004). Hmm, maybe sequel is too strong of a word.Anaconda 3 may have “Anaconda” in the title, but nothing like the previous installments. It doesn’t have the pull or attraction the other films had. There is far too much blood and gore, and the CGI isn’t the best, but I’ve seen worse. In some scenes (Such as the opening scene) the snake looks pretty good, but as it moves on, it begins to look like a shiny piece of plastic that moves. Why couldn’t it look like the opening for the entire film?The plot is about a military man who is hired to capture two giant Anacondas that escaped from a lab. This is the typical plot that sci-fi channel uses for their films, though I don’t believe they produced it. Sony did.These are some ways the plot could have been perfected to make it a good Anaconda film, or at least half way decent.*Set the story in a remote area, not a local park.*Have people go in search for the snake that just was there in the wild, no genetic experiments.*Loose the blood and Gore.*Spend more time on CGI than casting.*Don’t rush the film.*Before you make a sequel, watch the previous films before you write the script.And much more. The film would have been better with a different title, like Python 4 or Boa 3,(because Boa vs. Python is in a way Python 3 and Boa 2.) It’s okay, but don’t expect the greatest film. I really don’t want to call it a member of the series, but Anaconda IV is coming in December. Hopefully the producers see some of these reviews and change a few things before the release such as the blood and gore.*****There is no point to rush a bad movie. Take your time too make higher standards.***** 3/10 I give it just for the snake scenes that looked okay.

  • zoe-muir
    zoe muir

    When I stumbled across this on Sy Fy and saw that the Hoff was in it I thought, proceed with caution it’s either going to be good or terrible. It was terrible for the most part although did have the potential to be so much better.The film mainly consisted of the super giant snake attacking people in a variety of ways. It was far too focused on the various gruesome ways a stereo-snake could kill someone and not really on much else.Overall it was just needlessly gory.That being said I got to the end and did manage a chuckle at points so it passed the B movie test. It’s watchable if nothing else is on but I wouldn’t go out of your way.

  • acilay-ayten-sensoy
    acilay ayten sensoy

    When you see the title, Anaconda 3, you know what to expect, or what not to expect. Do NOT expect witty lines, intelligent plot, Oscar-winning acting, breathtaking CGIs or scientifically accurate factual details. Instead you can look forward to experiencing extremely awkward acting, dull and one-dimensional characters, very cheesy lines, supremely crappy CGIs, or in other words, a film that has not one single reason speaking for its existence. The only reason I’m giving this pile of dung one point is the unintentional (?) comedic value. You cannot watch this movie without busting out laughing every three minutes. So, do not go and watch this movie in order to see horror, gore, thrill or action, because all you get is a very hungover looking David Hasselhoff repeating cheesy lines and waving a embarrassingly crappy gun with a “hot” (meaning super annoying) blonde “doctor” chick on his arm as they sprint around an East-European forest after two CGI snakes that look like they were designed by a three year old.

  • piret-kirs
    piret kirs

    I knew from the beginning this will be a poor film, but didn’t expect so many failures. To such an extent that this is more amusing than the movie itself. Yes, the CGI is from 60-s, the acting is poor, except for Crystal Allen and Patrick Regis in few moments. But it is so funny to see anacondas move in a straight line – which is impossible for snakes! Or when David Hasselhoff dialled on the phone with all fingers simultaneously! I was sure he is misleading his companions and was surprised the phone call was not fake… In a summary – if you enjoy to find silly mistakes in films – you’re on a right place! But don’t expect anything else from that movie.

  • marianne-kallio-ollila
    marianne kallio ollila

    Harmless fun. A couple of giant, generically altered snakes break out and terrorize people. The snakes are not-great CGI, but they commit a lot of mayhem, probably more graphically than you’d expect. David Hasslehoff (yup, you read that right) leads the group that is chasing them. Best part of the flick, by far, is Crystal Allen, who plays a PhD and a snake expert, and she’s my favorite type of snake expert PhD, the type that is a smoking hot blonde and spends almost the entire movie in a tight, form-fitting tank top. Crystal also works hard to sell her character, and she’s fun to watch.Debuted on Sci-Fi channel in advance of the DVD release, you could do a lot worse.

  • geoffrey-harris-thomson
    geoffrey harris thomson

    OK, this is such a load of horse poo i give it a minus 1. So bad and cheap and again bad it is actually not even funny. Filmed in east Europe but failing east Europe standards – that says a lot. The entire film budget probably would not last for producing half a bay watch episode. Note the elegant transition because this brings us right to …And then there’s the thing where this movie has THE HOFF in it, which counts automatically for 3 points. Making a total of 2 points.I take it all warnings to watch this crap are in vain because YOU MUST HAVE THE HOFF! And right you are.Trust in THE HOFF, THE HOFF is good.

  • ben-stange
    ben stange

    While researching an offspring of anaconda with transgenic for saving lives discovering cure for cancer and Alzheimer in the facility of Wexel Hall Pharmaceutics, the CEO Murdoch (John Rhys-Davies) refuses to invest in a larger tank and more security and staff as advised by the head of the project, Dr. Amanda Hayes (Crystal Allen). When he focuses a light in the tank, the anaconda attacks and breaks out the confined facility. Murdoch hires a team leaded by the mercenary Hammett (David Hasselhoff) to destroy the animal.What a crap this lame “Anaconda III” is! This collection of clichés is awful, not funny, noisy and ridiculous, with terrible screenplay, acting and CGI. I believe the anaconda likes dyed blonde since the beast attacks everybody but the twenty-nine year old scientist along the story. Do not waste your time like I did is my final advice. My vote is one.Title (Brazil): “Anaconda 3”

  • susan-padilla
    susan padilla

    We went into this movie with incredibly low expectations seeing as we were looking for a bad movie that we could just laugh it. This movie far underachieved even my lowest expectations. The acting was worse then in a porno, there was no beginning or ending, it just went and at the first close up sight of the anaconda rather then feeling a slight chill every single person in the room burst out laughing. Throughout the entire movie I did not know a single characters name, because they didn’t bother with character development of any sort. And the highlight of the movie was of course David Hasselhoff, who’s mustache would mysteriously appear and reappear from scene to scene. All in all this movie was a masterpiece of terrible, perfect if your looking to mercilessly mock something with a group of close friends.

  • ricardo-gomez
    ricardo gomez

    For the most part I was Horrified! At the movie that is, the cgi was the worst of all 3 movies and the story was just plum stupid. Upon the original release of Anacondas back in 97, the cgi was great. Most of the time you couldn’t tell that the snakes where fake. However in this picture every time you see one of the over-sized snakes, all you see is a glowing snake-like figure thats really shiny whom looks nothing like the snakes in the original film. Frankly I would be ashamed to be J.lo, Ice Cube, or Jon Voight! Don’t get me wrong I loved the original, thats why I get so mad when someone does a sloppy remake! I really wish that someone could tell me why we are farther in times yet our cgi worsens with every year. Im a big cgi I nut, if stuff looks fake, I don’t really care to watch it. Also the snakes in the first two films where proportionate, the weren’t so big that you would never believe them to exist. This film is like a remade “Python”. The snakes are probably a few hundred feet long! How stupid? If s0ny produced this film, then I have nothing more to say, they should loose their L’s to shoot films.

  • thomas-shaw
    thomas shaw

    Fourth rate movies all have the usual suspects. Implausible actor reactions, bad continuity, draggy editing, vacuous scripts and in the case of Anaconda 3, laughable CGI effects. Poor acting is often also a feature of such films but actors can be victims of lousy direction, editing and scripts that make them look like patchwork mannequins. There’s plenty of that in Anaconda 3, but only Hasselhoff is genuinely ridiculous. His well publicized personal demons appear to have removed any likability he once evidenced. He now just makes you wince. The female lead had an impossible role so her sins must be forgiven till she has a chance to show herself in something better. As an example of her plight Rhys-Davies, a man who we know can act, became a screaming buffoon instead of the more subtle, well rounded character he expresses in other roles. Let’s leave it at no one in this production was done any favor by the raw material they had to work with. Which brings us to the monster. The snake blended as smoothly to the real world as a tarantula on a wedding cake. A man in a rubber suit would have been more believable and a good deal more enjoyable. As in so many movies the monster attacked everyone with vigor except one certain cast member who was allowed to escape-twice-unharmed despite being trapped and at its mercy. Not that there isn’t humor. For example all the characters fire machine guns at the snake except Hasselhoff, who inexplicably carries a bolt action rifle that would have seemed ancient in 1936. People continue to follow the snake with apparent confidence in its destruction despite dwindling numbers and no effect by their weapons. Hasselhoff, given a cell phone, drums his fingers on it like playing a Beethoven sonata, but the call goes through. There are plenty of laughs and they are the only reason to visit Anaconda 3.

  • michael-powers
    michael powers

    When a film features David Hasselhoff and his crack team of snake-fighting mercenaries facing off against a 60-foot-long genetically altered anaconda before the opening credits even roll, any fan of B-movie cheese can arguably presume they’re in for a good time. Hasselhoff’s self-deprecating humor and strange otherworldly charm make him an endearing punchline, and also translates well into the world of Sci Fi Channel stardom. Sadly, after that opening scene, The Hoff all but disappears for the next 45 minutes of the film, and what starts with campy reptile-killin’ fun quickly spirals into boring laboratory diatribes about the dangers of gene manipulation and the real-world uses of unlikely immortality drugs.Although the ads would lead one to believe otherwise, ANACONDA III actually centers on Amanda (Crystal Allen), a scientist who works for Universal Bio-Tech and the nefarious—and appropriately named—Murdoch (John Rhys-Davies, obviously still fuming over not being included in the new Indiana Jones film). It seems that he’s been playing God with the reptilian world and has somehow managed to create an anaconda that’s not only larger and angrier than any snake on Earth, but sports a three-foot machete growing out of its tail. This Ginsu butt comes into play numerous times during the film, and while the results are always spectacularly gory, a serpent’s bladed posterior is inescapably difficult to take seriously.Since all B-movie snakes carry the cure for (insert disease here), another round of unethical testing is underway, and it isn’t long before our slithering behemoth breaks out of its cage, knocks off everyone but Amanda and her boss and heads out into the lush green wilderness of Romania. It’s only then that Hasselhoff’s Hammett and a group of ALIENS space-Marine rejects (resembling the United Colors of Benetton) are hired to eradicate the monster, which has taken up residence in a nearby farmhouse. With that, we’ve now got the prerequisite team of Special Ops, the cheap sets and the giant CG monster…everything required for a yet another weak entry in the recent string of bland Sci Fi Channel originals.Director Don E. FauntLeroy, who served as DP on the JEEPERS CREEPERS movies and nearly 50 other films, has managed to shoot a good-looking feature, but fills it with every painful cliché imaginable. First-time screenwriters Nicholas Davidoff and David Olson sprinkle in occasionally fun dialogue, but their script is ultimately burdened down with bland characters and extremely corny, uninspired plot twists. Hasselhoff’s Hammett, a fun antihero who deserves more screen time (and one-liners), is delegated to a glorified supporting role beneath far less interesting characters. Rhys-Davies, whose cameo appearances work quite well, will hopefully receive a beefier role in ANACONDA IV (the direct sequel shot back to back with this movie, scheduled to debut this December); otherwise, he served virtually no purpose at all. It’s only Allen as the spunky Amanda who breathes any life into her role; a surprise, given her lack of substantial film experience prior to headlining this one. Unfortunately, given the material, even she has trouble rising above the movie’s stupendous mediocrity. When all is said and done, ANACONDA III should have been a much better film, but it also could have been much worse. The cast is sorely mismanaged, the plot is all over the board and the digital FX—particularly a handful of atrocious greenscreen driving shots—are by-and-large laughable, but the cast and crew obviously worked hard with what little they had. With any luck, this sequel’s surviving characters will find more to do in the next entry, and we’ll end up with a film that’s not just meatier, but more entertaining. A direct-to-cable second follow-up to a creature feature headlined by J. Lo and Ice Cube doesn’t need to be a masterpiece, but it should be passable as an evening’s fleeting distraction. ANACONDA III is just barely that, but it’s still regrettable that something as inherently amusing as David Hasselhoff fighting a giant snake couldn’t have ended up just the slightest bit more fun.

  • clara-ene
    clara ene

    Seriously, anyone that thinks this hunk of garbage is even a decent movie has the lowest standards on the planet! The first Anaconda was the only good one. It had everything, decent cast, great acting(Mostly Jon Voight, perfect setting, awesome animatronics, and the snake actually looked like a real Green Anaconda! Plus it has suspense which The Hunt For Blood Orchid and this butt leakage sorely lacks.If you’re going to call a movie “Anaconda” and it’s supposed to be about a giant ANACONDA eating people, doesn’t it make sense to have the snake look like an ANACONDA?! Even with CGI, they still can’t make a decent snake! The ones in the second film looked almost like really big elapids(cobras, mambas, etc), and the ones in this movie look like damn vipers! I swear I saw one scene in which the snake actually had fangs! And not only that, but this film is a rip-off of the Python movies, which are rip-offs of the first Anaconda! The snake is genetically modified instead of being a natural animal, the snake is oddly intelligent, it stares down its prey like it recognizes them, and it impales people with its tail more often than it constricts them. ALL of these are staples of the Python movies.The only decent actor in this entire film was Hasselhoff, and that statement itself should tell you how bad it is.Characters suck, effects suck, CGI sucks, snakes suck, weapons suck, cast sucks, acting sucks, and the plot sucks. Add all this up and you get another Sci-fi channel original suckfest that’s not original at all. Really, how sad is it when a movie has to rip-off movies that are already rip-offs? Well, it gets a lot sadder when the rip-off of the rip-offs is the next installment of the series that started the whole damn thing! Anaconda III: more proof that Sci-Fi channel makes the worst horror flicks.

  • liwia-wosko
    liwia wosko

    Hasselhoff fans please don’t be angry because my comments here are in no way aimed a The Hoff or his talents. I tuned in to “Anaconda 3” because I am a fan of Sci-Fi Channel and a fan of Hasselhoff (who is a competent actor) but was stunned by how bad this movie is. Despite The Hoff’s charisma and the fact that he can and does manage to do a good acting job playing villain roles, this movie is just lousy.Very fake snake, cheap CGI, no character development. But the main sin of the movie maker here is that “Anaconda 3” is just not entertaining. It drags in places and often is just not scary.Yes its a “B” movie and in a TV “B” movie I can live with only a smidgen of character development, but here we actually have none. Not any. Zero.Huge snake climbs around roofs but doesn’t even knock off a shingle. In contrast, the sci-fi movie “D-War” (2007) has a similar monster but when it crawls on a roof, the building cracks and debris falls off.In “Anaconda III” the animal weighing thousands of pounds rushes around the forest at lightning fast speed but doesn’t even snap a twig or stir up any dust (reference “D-War” again), although it leaves a trail in the grass that men can walk through. I know snakes are supposed to be sneaky, but… this giant is not believable enough, even by Sci-Fi Channel standards, and I enjoy most of their product.The extremely fake visuals overwhelm the very capable performances by the cast, and unfortunately cancel out The Hoff’s charisma and ability.

  • efremova-ninel-albertovna
    efremova ninel albertovna

    This gets my vote as the worst of the Anaconda movies. As a sequel and on its own terms, Anaconda III is wretched. The scenery/sets are quite nice and Crystal Allen is decent, but that’s it. The photography is flat and rushed and the film looks as though it has been edited on a bacon slicer. The continuity is inconsistent as well complete with poor gore effects, the writing is vacuous and eye-rollingly cheesy in alternative to funny and the story is hopelessly predictable. The direction is sloppy, the music is generic and forgettable, the film is unevenly paced and unsatisfyingly resolved and the characters I didn’t feel anything for. The acting is just dire, David Hasselhoff and Crystal Allen are the only ones who try and while the enthusiasm is admirable Hasselhoff is embarrassing in his acting and delivery, Allen however is far more believable and manages to be the film’s sole redeeming quality. The other actors look bored and uninterested, and any scenes that tries to be suspenseful, atmospheric or frightening fails, instead it is laughable. Overall, dreadful sequel and film. 1/10 Bethany Cox

  • daryl-ross
    daryl ross

    The first Anaconda was passable, the second was pretty poor but nothing could have prepared me for this! Though the ultra low IMDB rating should have really come to mention it.I guess was doomed from the start, it has a tiny budget by comparison, it’s the third film in an already cheesy scyfy level franchise and the biggest star they could get to carry the movie was the “Hoff”.So yeah, it all looks so very terrible. I could do better sfx than this (And have), the snakes look pitiful and the cast look positively bored throughout.Though Hasselhoff is better than usual he still can’t carry a film and the incredible John Rhys-Davies has a heartbreakingly small role here.To make matters even worse the plot is generic, the pace is snooze worthy and the whole thing is just seven shades of embarassing.One more movie to go at time of writing, it can’t get worse than this……..right?The Good:The “Hoff” is better than usualJohn Rhys-DaviesThe Bad:Poor cgiActually manages to be incredibly boringThe advertised “Stars” are barely in the filmThings I Learnt From This Movie:Always know the animal before the huntCool girls don’t look at explosions either

  • mihai-tabacu
    mihai tabacu

    Although I have never been a “fan” of the Anaconda series of movies, when I heard this would air on Sci-Fi Channel I decided to watch it since I’ve seen the previous two installments. Big mistake… This movie comes fully equipped with bad acting from all the supporting cast (except for Mr. Davies and the Austrailian guy), horrible snake and gore effects, gaping plot holes, absolutely retarded story (Giant snakes are the key to immortality?!), and [email protected] directing. *SPOILER ALERT* Also, the sudden change of Hasselhoff’s character at the end of the movie from good guy to bad guy was unnecessary in the highest degree. It’s almost as if the writers of this abomination decided to add a *startling plot twist* after the completion of the movie and revised the script, as his turn makes no sense at all. *END SPOILERS* I seriously advise against renting or buying this movie, but if you have a totally overwhelming urge to watch this, don’t say I didn’t warn you…