GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Maidexpl Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Kascha K I'd thought that this was actually going to be a director's cut of the original movie - but then I saw that it was a new take and was very interested to see how they did.The guy who played Manson I think was a bit over the top and trying too hard to be eccentric. All the women in the movie pretty much were gorgeous, which was not the case with the original women. Clea Duvall was good, as were the ones playing Atkins and Krenwenkel. Kudos also to the woman playing Rosemary LaBianca, although the parts for the victims were of course not long enough or complicated enough for the actors/actresses to expand.Facts-wise it was very interesting because they pulled a great deal, especially with the dialogue, directly from quotes attributed to the real people in Bugliosi's book. But then just when I was about to commend them for being that meticulous, they pull out absurdity such as Sharon asking Atkins to cut out the baby, and other real embellishments. I think the real story is horrifying enough. There was no need to try and make things more "bankable" or to try to ratchet up the sadness by making stuff up.I wasn't looking directly at the screen when Bugliosi made his first appearance. You could NOT have told me he was not being played by Joe Pesci until I looked up to see. He sounds exactly like Pesci - it was hilarious in spite of the subject matter.The graphic scenes were well done. They kept on graying out the screen not unlike movies such as Sin City when things got especially graphic - at least partly for effect.Overall not a bad movie. It got most of it right, but left out a lot and embellished a lot. It was far more like a "TV movie" than the original was and overall I'd say if you saw the original you can absolutely skip this one. In fact I'll be watching the original again as soon as this is over - it's still on as I write this.

Peter Hunya Helter Skelter: its a confusion, confusion based on fantasy, paranoia, hate and lies of a prosecutor. This is what the phrase means. Helter Skelter as a movie: 1976 it was a good movie according to the 70'ies but it was a movie and not reality, it was more a sci-fi movie again based on the same lies, paranoia, jealousy etc of the prosecutor. Helter Skelter as a movie: 2004 it was absolutely fake and boring on the first place. Secondly it was very a poor directed movie with bad characters and extremely bad actors who most probably didn't take a little bit extra time to look at the facts and read the trial transcripts. They believed all that they heard in the TV from Geraldo Rivera etc interviewers. That lead them to a totally misunderstanding. The leading role Jeremy was the only one who tried at least to give a little extra to the movie but he was fighting alone against all those lies and the whole crew without any other help his efforts were in vain and ultimately failed. The story line is very boring with all those practical and comfortable lies that they presented again as facts of the reality. So what did they do really? Luckily this movie failed everywhere in every stage and it will fail in the future totally to the lies and garbage of the worst movies of history when the justice finally will be served and the US supreme court will have a look into the case again! And they will read the transcripts instead of the Helter Skelter book or movie. Which is both well deserved the title: The book of lies and the movie of lies. Sad to see that these people are so locked up into their fantasy world so they can't see the forest from the tree or from their Ferrari?

fire-58 If you have nothing better to do,i guess you could watch this movie.I thought this movie was going to be way better then it was. The old one was better then this one. Im not one of those people that likes the book better than the movie or one that likes the old and refuses to give new things chances.But this movie was just missing something. I've read and see a lot of things about Manson. It creeps me out. The older movie creep-ed me out too.This new one just doesn't effect me that way. It was missing the creepy part. I think it is the person who played Manson. Im not sure who he is, and im not saying he did a really bad job.Im saying that he was missing the evil? The movie takes a long time to unfold. But these movies are always hit or miss.Watch it. Its not really good or really bad.

Alain English There have been numerous plays and films written about the notorious Manson murders of the 1960s and 1970s and this one is a fascinating but still not quite definitive look at Manson and his 'Family'. I did find it more enjoyable than the last film I saw on this subject, 'The Manson Family'. This one shows much more restraint and is better written, with a greater emphasis on the psychology of Manson and his followers.The film shows the Hinman murder and the Tate-LaBianca killings, and the leadup to the trial where Manson and five of his minions were eventually convicted of mass murder. In the interim there is some flashback detailing some of Manson's psychology and the bizarre philosophy behind the murders.There was enough good dialogue to make it watchable and the complex events the film portrays are covered very well. However, the film does not do all it could in this respect. First off, I am against actual re-enactments of the murders. It feels sensationalised, grotesque and unnecessary to do this, especially as since these murders actually happened and are not fictional.Secondly, I am unhappy with Jeremy Davies' portrayal of Manson as a one-note lunatic. Despite some good writing, his portrayal does not make Manson's domination of his followers seem remotely plausible and it would have been nice to see more of Manson's background, especially how he developed and gained power over his 'family'.Thirdly, the film cuts out before the actual trial takes place. Cutting out the trial is a knock to prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, who stood up to Manson (who made numerous attempts to intimidate him) and worked his backside off to nail him. To see the lawyer in action, and more of his relationship with Manson, would have been very interesting.That said, there are some great performances here. Clea Duvall makes a fetching Linda Kasabian and her journey is movingly rendered. Marguerite Moreau makes a seductively sexy Susan Atkins and, although she is playing a cold-blooded killer, is very enjoyable to watch. Bruno Kirby is slightly miscast as Vincent Bugliosi. He is ten years too old and a tad top heavy, but he does capture the tenacity and compassion of the man and when he turns up he feels like a fresh breath of sanity in the midst of all the blood and madness.A good picture but there are still some areas of the Manson cult, asides from the murders themselves, that could still be explored on screen.