Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

D_Burke Could anyone make the story of Charles Manson, his followers, and their crimes funny by way of parody? Maybe, but not the people at Hellcat Pictures, the movie studio that released the first class junk that is "Live Freaky! Die Freaky!".A film that is mostly stop-motion animated and features voice talent from some notable modern punk rock icons (Billie Joe Armstrong of Green Day, Tim Armstrong of Rancid) packs a lot of promise. Unfortunately, the filmmakers do every conceivable thing wrong in this movie's delivery and execution.The end result is a shoddy film that is highly vulgar but mean-spirited and consequently unfunny. Additionally, the film's pacing is mind-numbingly slow when it tries desperately to be funny, the animation is terrible, and the material that is supposed to pass as acceptable in the realm of storytelling is so appallingly bad.In one of the worst framing devices ever put on film, we're taken to the year 3069 (I'm guessing the filmmakers put "69" at the end of that year as a joke they were sure would get a laugh), when Earth is depleted of its natural resources and therefore deserted. A lone man wandering in the desert spontaneously comes across a copy of the book "Healter Skelter" (sic). Desperate for a messiah in this post-apocalyptic world, he begins reading it.Every fan of true crime stories probably knows that "Helter Skelter" was a groundbreaking true crime novel (after it was a Beatles song) written by prosecuting attorney Vincent Bugliosi. The book strongly condemns the Manson family and their crimes, and understandably so considering Bugliosi was responsible for putting Manson and his savage minions behind bars.However, as you find throughout this movie, the desert wanderer either misinterprets the book, or the parts where the Manson family's crimes are condemned are torn out of this ragged, aged copy. Another possibility is that a Manson devotee wrote this copy of the book, which would explain why "Helter" is misspelled "Healter" as you see on the cover. No explanation is ever given.Regardless, the Manson family story, as read by this nomad, is shown through stop-motion animation, which should be the film's saving grace. Instead, the animation is so bad that if you look closely, hands can be seen moving the figures in some shots. A six-year-old playing with his action figures can produce better animation than this movie.Even worse, rather than the remainder of the movie parodying the Manson family murders, it actually seems to condone and fully support their actions. Interrogating cops have the heads of pigs, and Sharon Tate and her doomed friends are depicted as shallow, wasteful, and stupid celebutantes.To even suggest that Manson's victims had it coming is so disrespectful that it doesn't merit words. Sadly, that is precisely what this film intends us to believe.Even worse, a later courtroom scene has a character that is supposed to be Bugliosi revealing to a reporter how he will write a book about the trial while donating no proceeds to the victims' families. For writer and director John Roecker to have the audacity to suggest Bugliosi's bestselling novel was made solely for profit makes me wonder just how much of the profits from this movie were intended to be donated to any good cause, let alone victims of savage murders.Everything about this movie doesn't work. You can tell when the movie is trying to be funny, and it's painful to just listen to every attempt at humor. Every joke in this movie is poorly timed, and is often mean and shallow.There are also repellent scenes where the stop-motion figures have sex, and they're not funny either. The notorious puppet sex scenes in "Team America: World Police" (2004) were funny because they were so over the top and outrageous, similar to the Michael Bay-like action movies the filmmakers were parodying. In "Live Freaky! Die Freaky!", the sex scenes are about as clever as a real porn film, with money shots and all.I don't think I have ever hated a movie as much as I hate "Live Freaky! Die Freaky!". The potential in its promise, and its failing on all cylinders, just adds to the disappointment. The filmmakers may be skilled at making great punk rock music, but when it comes to making movies, they are true rebels without a clue.

carljessieson This was a horrible film. Thank goodness it was short or I would feel long-lasting regret over spending significant time on it. It's about Charles Manson and his "family," and how they come to murder the pregnant actress and her friends.The only reason that I laughed during it is actually a bad reason to laugh at a film, so it doesn't really deserve points. There were plenty of times when the director tried to get me to laugh, but every time I sat silently. I only laughed because it's a poorly done stop motion. Some of the scenes were absolutely ridiculous! I can't believe they even put them in the final project. They are so funny because they are so awful! Haha. I laughed at the movie, not its jokes, because honestly, the jokes were twisted. There are a few different types of twisted humor: there's twisted humor that's funny, and there's twisted humor that goes too far and is just disturbing. This movie has the latter. It has so much of it that I was getting tired by the end of the film. It was never funny, and as the movie kept going it became less disturbing, so it was just there, taking up time. I was bored, and frankly, annoyed that these characters were still on my screen. It is a short movie, but it felt long because it's just so damn not funny. It tries too hard, and it fails.I am going to give the movie a 10% because it actually had one good thing about it. When the scenes weren't absurdly sloppy, they were actually visually fascinating. The director used good colors, unique angles, and really kinda just trips the viewer out. During a couple of the scenes, I couldn't look away because the director's techniques were so interesting. I appreciate his work for those scenes, but the rest of the movie is so bad that I almost forgot his good points.It's dialogue is original, yes, but it's not funny. It tries too hard and just ends up disgusting and pathetic. If I had any affiliation to this film, I would change my name and pretend like I had no idea what it was. It's really that awful. It's a portrait of the horror of the human mind, that's for sure. It has one good point that is overshadowed by its many failures. I would never buy this movie. I would never even watch it again. Waste of time.

Crushed_Velvet The only reason I bought this film was because of the cast (mainly Davey Havok!) and I must admit that when I watched it for the first time I was shocked by the sexual content and apparent disrespect for the Manson murders.Director John Roecker claims he doesn't mean to offend, although I'd find it hard not to be if I was anything to do with the subjects. Victim Sharon Tate's name has been changed to Sharon Hate, and Charlie Manson becomes Charlie Hanson, but all this is a weak attempt at detaching them from the real victims.All this said, though, I admit that the movie is enjoyable if not thought about too deeply! There are a few comical moments, though they are mainly crude. Not for the faint hearted...

gavin6942 In the distant future, life as we know it has been completely wiped out. Man is hungry for answers... and one day when a book -- "Helter Skelter" -- is found, some answers are given. Just maybe not the right answers.I am unclear how the people in the future connect to the primary story, a claymation retelling of the Charles Manson story. The suggestion is that reading the book would make them think Manson was a god, but the book would actually do quite the opposite. So I'm confused.And also, we have some of the biggest names in modern "punk" music: Billie Joe Armstrong, Tim Armstrong (no relation), Davey Havok. We have Kelly Osbourne and Sean Yseult. We have the erection-inducing Asia Argento. For those of us who like these people, this film would seem to be one of the greatest things to happen. It's not.The story is told in a bland manner, the claymation is poorly done. The songs are lame and carry on for too long. You would expect the music to be the selling point, but it's not. And for some reason all the names have been changed to things with the letter H: "Charles Hanson", "Susan Hatkins", "Hex Watson"... it's pointless and stupid.The best scene involves a group of The Family in a dumpster exchanging quips with Sharon Tate and her gay hairdresser. Another memorable scene is the claymation sex scene, which starts out shocking and funny but gets drawn out. People who liked "Team America" might like this, but I didn't think it was that outstanding.How to make this film better: get better music, cut out the future story and just tell the Manson epic in a unique way (which is already done thanks to clay). Films shouldn't make you say to yourself, "I can do this so much better", but that's how I felt about this junk.My interest in Charles Manson was dealt a blow from this mediocre adaptation. If you're like me, you'll know it's awful but watch it anyway. But I hope you're not like me.