Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Micransix Crappy film

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Hayleigh Joseph This is ultimately a movie about the very bad things that can happen when we don't address our unease, when we just try to brush it off, whether that's to fit in or to preserve our self-image.

TheBlueHairedLawyer Charles Manson's murders likely freaked the hell out of people back in '69! And chances are it gave hippies a bad rep. Hippies are annoying, but they're more or less just kids looking to have fun, rebel and make friends....So, how did Charles Manson, who leaded a hippie group at a secluded ranch, convince them to kill innocent people? As the movie explains in its brightly colored film stock and sitar soundtrack, Charles Manson was a psychopath. Many of the hippies following him were under 18, runaways, escapees from mental hospitals and "straight camps" (which were extremely frightening places at the time) or so high on drugs that they had virtually no idea of what they were doing. It's surprisingly disturbing and sad for a 1970's movie, and it's also very nostalgic if you like the style of the Sixties or if you're into that grainy film look that older films have. It's a reflection of the times, of the fear society had of rebellious teens, of the hippie counterculture and of a man who obviously needed psychiatric help but never got proper treatment.

D_Burke "Helter Skelter", based on the 1974 bestseller written by prosecuting attorney Vincent Bugliosi and Curt Gentry, originally aired on CBS in April 1976, just five years after Charles Manson and four of his followers were convicted of seven grisly murders and sentenced to life imprisonment. It was chilling when it first aired, and it's still frightening to watch even now. The miniseries has a total running time of just under three hours (when connecting the two part series without commercial interruption), but it could have gone for six hours and still have been interesting.Because the movie originally aired on TV, there is little profanity and a very brief depiction of the actual murders taking place. In fact, the Labianca murders aren't shown on screen at all. The major strength of this movie, even over big budget horror films that make it to the big screen, is that the filmmakers knew that the murders themselves were not the only thing that made the Manson family so scary. In fact, seeing the aftermath of the Tate-Labianca murders says it all.Just seeing the Manson family members, especially Charles Manson (Steve Railsback), is enough to send shivers down your spine, especially when one of the members looks directly into the camera, as if they are staring right through the TV at you. This movie takes advantage of close-ups, especially in Manson's case. Railsback not only looks a lot like the real Charles Manson, but his eyes have such a veracity that can scare the hell out of any viewer. Seeing him, I had to remind myself that the real Manson is still locked up.Even scarier was one of Manson's followers, Susan Atkins (Nancy Wolfe), who claimed to have murdered the Manson family's most famous victim, actress Sharon Tate, herself. Wolfe does an amazing job portraying Atkins, especially when she gives testimony before a grand jury on her side of the story. The way she details killing Tate without remorse forced one jury member to leave the room in anguish. Although that juror in the movie (and presumably in real life) was a woman, I do not doubt that I would have felt the same way in that room.There have been many movies about serial killers that have obviously been exploitative. What makes this film void of exploitation is the fact that it started with the discovery of the murders, then continued to build upon the who, what, when, how, and why, which Bugliosi himself had to figure out to make his case.Bugliosi had no particular involvement in this TV movie, but George DiCenzo does such a great job portraying him that you think it's actually Bugliosi himself. I especially liked how DiCenzo fills in most gaps of the case by narrating it himself. The very beginning shows him coming out of district court, looking directly into the camera, and saying, "Good Evening, you're about to see a dramatization based on actual facts. We may not like to accept the fact that those in the story of Helter Skelter exist in our lives. Yet, they do." A little like Rod Serling? Sure, but it is an effective beginning that is thankfully void of campiness.The TV movie fits as much as it can into three hours, and still actually left me wanting more details. It elaborated upon some surprising facts about the case about which I did not previously know. For instance, Helter Skelter WAS written in blood in the Labianca's house following the murder, but Helter was misspelled "Healter". Also, the murderers' bloody clothing was found not by the police, but by newsmen after reading Atkins' testimony.There were some details I wish the movie added, though. For instance, Bugliosi's whole investigation was dedicated to finding a motive for the Manson family's resorting to murder, yet none were explicitly stated. I also would have liked to have known what the court-appointed defense attorneys were thinking. It must have occurred to them that they were fighting a losing battle, but little information on their proceedings is given (other than their unnecessary objections in court). Lastly, why the Manson family exactly shaved their heads is never explained here. It probably is in the book, but in the movie it felt random.This TV movie could have elaborated upon the psychology of Manson's followers, such as why they believed him when he said he was both Jesus Christ and the Devil, or why they didn't run screaming when they saw his face alone. Although Manson did not kill anyone (or so he claims) and is not big in nature, I would still not want to be around him, let alone take killing orders from him. However, such psychological explanation would probably fill another three hour movie. What this one covers is just fine.It is scary that people like this have existed, and could exist again. It's even scarier that seemingly normal people could blindly follow and worship such a nihilistic psychopathic nomad. It's a sickening chapter of American history, but one covered very well by this movie.

MARIO GAUCI Although I was still a generation or two away, I have always thought that the Sixties must have been a great time to be alive – the "Nouvelle Vague" and the full blossoming of art-house cinema, Bob Dylan, The Beatles, psychedelia, the birth of the all-star rock festivals, etc. – and, where I to have a time machine at my disposal, I would probably decide to be a 25-year old stranded in 1967 for the rest of my life (either that or during the Roman Empire)! However, when I eventually realize how painfully naïve and misguided that whole "Flower Power" generation was (the fantastic notion that somebody could change the world through music or achieve world peace through free love) soon makes me reconsider and come back crashing to reality – the same way that the Tate-LaBianca killings brought America back to its senses from its hippie dream-state in the Summer of 1969. Given that the death of imprisoned ex-Charles Manson acolyte Susan Atkins and the surprise arrest of Roman Polanski in a Switzerland airport occurred within days of each other, I thought it was high time that I watched this much-lauded dramatization of The Manson Family court hearings. Since the horrific events were a mere seven years old at the time this 3-hour TV-movie was made (becoming one of the most viewed of all time), it is not surprising that the murders themselves are not inordinately dwelt upon and, being based on the prosecuting District Attorney's best-selling-book, its focus lies on the accumulation of the evidence and the lengthy trial itself. Although eventually a shorter cut of the film was prepared (probably for theatrical distribution in Europe), I cannot say that I found the considerable running time a burden so fascinating were the events unfolding on the screen. Sparked by a formidable performance by George DiCenzo (as the dogged D.A. Vincent Bugliosi) and an electrifying one by Steve Railsback (as the loathsomely hypnotic Charles Manson), the film also gives the opportunity for two supporting female performers to shine: Nancy Wolfe (as the boastful Susan Atkins) and Marilyn Burns (as the Prosecution's key witness, former Manson follower Linda Kasabian). Tom Gries' direction is admirably matter-of-fact and only lapses into flashiness during the re-enactment of the murders themselves (with Kasabian providing voice-over narration from the witness stand) – scenes which, I thought, were further marred by the overly loud playing of The Beatles' all-important songs on the soundtrack…only, what we actually hear are cover versions by an obscure band called Silverspoon! The sequence in which another collaborative male witness explains to Bugliosi how much Manson's mantra was 'influenced' by the music of The Beatles – especially "The White Album" (1968) and "Revolution 9" in particular – is a fascinating one but even a small fragment of said song underscoring it – or elsewhere in the movie – would not have been amiss (but, perhaps, the covering band did not quite know how to tackle that "mind-blowing" epic)! On a personal note, the same witness reveals that, in Manson's mind, the song was referring to the Holy Bible (Revelations Chapter 9) and, for what it is worth, a quote from that book, Revelations 9:15, is also heard (by sheer coincidence, I might add!) in my own first "unpublished" screenplay (which I co-wrote with my twin brother)!! Besides, it seemed awkward to me that no reference whatsoever was made to the reason behind the fact that the fourth Manson Family member personally involved in the Tate-LaBianca murders (Charlie "Tex" Watson) was tried separately than the other four. Apart from the utterly chilling portrayal of the dominance Manson held over his drug-crazed followers and their animalistic lifestyles, I must say that HELTER SKELTER (which, of course, refers to another song off of "The White Album" – arguably The Beatles' heaviest and one of my own personal favorites) also served to reveal a few new tidbits and dispel some myths that I had heard on the now-40-year old events: Charles Manson was not actually present on the premises of Sharon Tate's rented house the night she and her four guests were brutally murdered; Susan Atkins did not cut out Tate's unborn baby boy; Manson's only actual participation in the LaBianca killings was to tie up the two victims; the words "Helter Skelter" – apparently misspelled as "Healter Skelter" – were written in blood on the LaBianca's refrigerator and not Tate's; Charles Manson, who was 34 at the time of the killings, actually admitted to 35 murders; Manson had, by then, already spent half his life locked up in jail and other similar institutions; Manson and his gang were originally only arrested by the L.A.P.D. for setting an 'earth machine' on fire, etc. Seeing how VALLEY OF THE DOLLS (1967) is the only remaining film (from the six significant ones that Sharon Tate appeared in) left for me to watch, it might have been a good idea to give it a first look right now as well but, having just been made aware how one of the most beautiful actresses ever had her life callously ended at 25 years of age thanks to the megalomaniacal delusions of Charles Manson et al, I believe it would be better to leave that campy pleasure for another time.

Scarecrow-88 Stunning, matter-of-fact television film runs around three hours but holds it's grip the entire time. Steve Railsback is absolutely mesmerizing(..and terrifying)as Charles Manson, the cult leader claiming to be Jesus Christ and commanding his followers(four of them mainly)to murder rich "pigs" in California. Most notable was pregnant actress Sharon Tate, famous director Roman Polanski's woman, along with others in the house that horrible night. Along with those were the La Biancas, also unfortunate chosen victims of the Manson followers. Along with Railsback chilling portrayal was Nancy Wolfe as Susan Atkins who will bring eerie goosebumps as she describes in luridly evil(yet coldly and unapologetically)detail how she murdered Sharon Tate as she begged for herself and the unborn baby she was carrying. Not to mention how she describes the "gurgling sound" that a victim makes choking in their own blood. We also hear about how a fork was used to carve "war" in Mr. La Bianca's torso. Another interesting(..and good)casting choice is Marilyn Burns in the important role of Linda Kasabian..the young follower who would be the ultimate voice that put away five cold blooded killers. George DiCenzo portrays DA Vincent Bugliosi, the man whose life would certainly be effected by the immense strain of putting together an extremely difficult case against Manson..who was the lynch-pin in causing a rest in the fear so many were feeling.The film covers in pain-staking detail the events before, during, & after the case(even the mass media aspects revolving around the case).