Flyerplesys Perfectly adorable

Pluskylang Great Film overall

Konterr Brilliant and touching

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Uriah43 Told almost exclusively from the perspective of prosecutor "Vincent Bugliosi" (George DiCenzo) this movie details the events that occurred on August 9, 1969 (and again on the next day) by Charles Manson and his followers along with their subsequent arrest, trial and conviction for the murders of seven people in Hollywood, California. Even today the entire story is both shocking and bizarre. Now rather than reveal any more of this movie and risk spoiling it for those who haven't seen it I will just say that although it is told in a documentary style it still manages to retain the horror of the events to a great degree. I especially liked the performance of Steve Railsback (as "Charles Manson") who performed in a very excellent manner. Likewise, Nancy Wolfe (as "Susan Atknins") was also very good. At any rate, there are apparently several versions of this movie available and since I have only seen the long version (about 194 minutes) I can only say that this particular version is very good and I rate it as above average.

ShelbyTMItchell Really it is a shame that Steve Railsback got typecast due to this role. As he was really good in it. And that he really should had gone onto bigger things. Had he not been typecast by Hollywood.But nonetheless he does a great job. As he plays the maniac Manson. Who used young kids to do his killing as he was the mastermind of it all. And that these young kids fell into such a huge trap over his antics and manipulation.The DA played by the late George DiCenzo who wrote the book, of the same name. Does everything he could and will, to bring Manson and his so- called "followers" to justice. At any and all costs. He does have a soul and care about the victims and families.Mansion was and still is a sick puppy. As he was sentenced to death originally but then, got it commuted to life and he has been up for parole and denied each and every time. As he will never, ever get out no matter what on a post note.

Boba_Fett1138 It's funny how this is being a TV movie, with also a typical made for TV look and feel to it but yet the movie manages to work out so extremely well that you really forgive the movie for its cheap look and typical TV movie performances.What makes this movie especially great is the way it is getting told. It's basically a movie that is like a documentary, that got acted out by people. It has such a great narrative, in which in focuses on about every aspect surrounding the Tate/LaBianca murders, by the Manson family. The movie really goes into detail with everything and show things as they really happened, often with also the real spoken dialog. It's not a movie that is picking sides by for instance letting the Manson family members come across as murderous psychopaths and the jurisdictional system as something well organized and flawless and letting justice prevail. It also shows everything that went terribly wrong during the investigations and it doesn't necessarily condemn the Manson girls for following Charles Manson.In a way you could say that this movie is being like an 3 hour long "Law & Order" episode. Half of it is set in the courtroom, while the other focuses on mostly the investigation of the murders. It still really feels like one movie though, which is I think also really thanks to the fact that it gets narrated by it's main character, even long before he himself actually appears in the movie.It stars mostly TV actors and people without too much experience but yet everyone seems to have been cast really well. Most of the actors really look like the persons they are portraying. Steve Railsback is really perfect as Charles Manson and George DiCenzo also does a great job with his role and really starts carrying the movie toward its end.In my opinion this movie is great way to learn about Charles Manson and the Manson family, as well as the murders they committed and how they got prosecuted for it. It's a very detailed movie that really feels like a documentary, that isn't holding back with anything.9/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

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.