Genres

Visitors Review

2012-05-25 07:40:07

suuuuuucks

ya ok so this movie is the worst ive ever seen? it will b one of those movies that SUCK the original then wen they remake it it will b sooo good.. ya good job

2012-05-24 12:40:44

Hard to watch some scenes...

The scene are the show ppl being murder was truly hard to watch but i quess you see how the world can be so evil and the fact that the hippie girls were smiling as if they were playing with butterflies while killing those other ppl so cold its realy terryfying. So if you want to watch a movie that's hard to see get a copy of "Helter skelter (director's cut)" but if you get offended and have a weak stomach? Don't bother.

2012-05-21 01:13:16

Could have been better

I thought it was too short. It did not end well nor did it really show what happened. It was awesome, but if you were doing a report it sucks. 1976 one all the way!

holsu 2012-05-20 20:43:13

Very interesting movie

First of all, I must say, that there probably ain't a subject thatcould be more interesting to me, than Charles Manson and the Tate-LaBianca murders. Maybe Nazis and concentration camps but then againmaybe not. Playing Manson must be the most ungrateful role for anyactor. You just can't succeed. And still, considering the dilemma, Ithink Jeremy Davies makes an incredible role here. He manage the rolevery well, he looks quite alike and his habitus is just as small andweird as I expect Mansons to be. Also the other roles in the movie areplayed very good though having partly the same problem in portrayingactual events and persons. Very much look-alike casting by the way. Themovie in itself is a good and entertaining collection of the happeningsin 1969. Comparing to the knowledge that I have about the true eventsI'd say that the film comes very close to what actually happened. Ofall the stunning scenes, I would like to lift up the one in whichSharon Tate asks the murderer to carve out the child and at least letthe unborn live. Though probably being fictitious and in a wayunnecessary I still think that the line in someway points out theunfairness that Sharon Tate had to become victim of. May her soul restin peace while her name and angel-like beauty will live forever in themovies that she gave us on her short career as movie star.

Maga 2012-05-12 00:27:46

"Helter Skelter" the comedy

Oh man! What was CBS thinking? Were there no top level executivesscreeningthis thing beforehand? Not since Bob Odenkirk have I seen a Charlie Mansonplayed for laughs. In 1976, there was made for TV movie called HelterSkelter and it starred Steve Railsback. It was one of the scariest andspookiest movies ever put on TV. When you saw Railsback on screen, youfeltuncomfortable. His eyes, his look, his voice. The movie had a long lastingeffect on anybody that saw it. Well, CBS felt they could do a re-tellingofthe story. However, it glossed over so many key issues from the book andthecase, that you just have to scratch your head. This movie chose to focusonCharlie and the family leading up to the trial. However, the family looksmore like extras from an Old Navy commercial. Charlie looks asintimidatingas Michael Jackson, wait scratch that, he looks as intimidating as JanetJackson. Since the actor does not have scary eyes, he tries to do thissamerehearsed stare in every scene. It was, dare I say, almost funny. Look, Icould trash this movie all night long, but I won't. The real tragedy isthatthey took a significant event from American History and rushed out a poorre-telling of it. Moreover, the edit is so bad, we do not get to see anyofthe trial. This was horribly flawed. Watch the original from 1976 or readBugliosi's book if you want to know what happened and why, oh yeah, and ifyou want to be scared.

rio64 2012-05-11 08:07:43

Excellent movie and history experience.

I happened to stumble upon this movie because of Clea DuVall, I watchedan episode of Buffy in which she plays an invisible girl and I wantedto check if she indeed was the girl who also starred in the Faculty.When I saw the title "Helter Skelter" in her list of movies she hadplayed in I immediately wanted to go see it, because I am a big serialkiller buff. I like almost every single Serial Killer movie, althoughone serial killer movie is way better than the other, their qualityoften varies dramatically. For example one Ted Bundy movie isn't theother, one I know of though is very close to the facts. Another movie,about the Green River killer, was really bad. And not bad in a goodway. This movie however remained so close to the actual story it waseerie. No romanticizing what so ever. Now I'm pretty big intohorror-movies but it even managed to turn my stumic several times. Iread various versions of the Manson-family story, and remembered itwell, everything in this movie was completely factual up to the lastthing they say up to the timings of the events, how they did it,everything. They even mentioned facts in the movie, played them out,that I did not know yet. For example Roman Polanski's reactions and thepress coverage on the story.I was happily surprised during the opening credits of the movie seeingthat it was based on the Vincent Bugliosi story about the Mansonfamily, a cop that actually worked on the case, and they worked it outperfectly. Reading about the Manson family is one thing, but actuallyseeing the events is a whole different story. The casting on thecharacters was also sublime. The guy who played Manson was great, andthe girl squeaky in this movie looked so similar that it was mindboggling. Also superb acting on Clea DuVall's part, as I know I willwatch this movie many more times and buy the DVD. Excellent work. Idon't have a single note of criticism on it.

internationaldave 2012-05-10 23:02:06

Not the best, but...

I am about to watch it again, for the third time. Just finished PaulWatkin's "My Life With Charles Manson" book for the third or fourthtime. I have a few books on the "subject". My brother and I "met"Charlie just about the time of the murder(s). We were poking around hisabandonded heap of stolen V.W. bodies at Spahn when he ran at us, gunin hand, spewing obscenities I had never heard before. ("love" was notamong them). He was mad at us 'cause we were going to steal parts fromthe cars he stole! I think it was after the murders but before the raidon Spahns. I lived over the hills in Thousand Oaks. At any rate, themovie is lame. What irritated me the most was Charlie's dialog was in awhisper. He just whispered. Weird. Oh, sure, when he was yelling he wasjust upset over something major, like somebody asking him a question hecouldn't answer. I'd be "mad" too! If you are a Manson collector (not afan) you need this movie. Summary: Charlie knew not a thing about love.He grew up (until his release in '67) in prison and love was not there.He learned from the best how to con people, assume roles andintimidate. There was/is nothing good about the "scruffy little guru".Until he tells why (the real motive) these senseless killings occurredand apologizes, he is nothing. "Jesus"? Hmmm. "The Devil"? He isn'teven good at that.Some "expert" claim he is very intelligent. How?Couldn't hold a job, a terribly stupid thief, no ear for music, yet,continued on trying to be a rock star. His only fans/followers areprobably a bunch of Goth-Dressing spoiled kids that probably still livein their parent's basement anyway. internationaldave@gmail.com

2012-05-10 09:38:25

Good acting, factual accurate

I haven't seen the 1976 movie, but I think: while useful to compare the two versions, the rating of each should be independent, rating this movie one star just because some people perceive the 1976 version better is unfair. Personally, I found the 2004 story credible told and quite accurate. In particular, Jeremy Davies acting (which didn't impressed me in Lost TV series) was perfectly suited here. Marguerite Moreau managed as well an extraordinary performance, her portrayal of Susan Atkins was extremely convincing. Finally, Mr. Gray's decision to start the film with major events of the time (assasination of Martin Luther King, moon landing, etc) albeit not necessarily original, did great in placing the viewer in a "compatible" mood to better understand why Manson followers would believe him when saying an apocalyptic "Helter Skelter" is near.

2012-05-10 08:11:23

Helter,with a touch of Skelter

This review is from: Helter Skelter (Director's Cut) (DVD) I found myself liking this better than first TV movie of "Helter Skelter",this was unrated making it more telling than the first one & even like it better than the movie "The Manson Family".Worth a few more times to watching.

2012-05-09 22:20:31

Good But Missing some things

I thought the movie was good and the acting was great but it left some things out that shouldn't have been left out. It was a good movie though. worth buying.

Nick 2012-05-03 01:48:41

There are some LUNATICS out there!!

The movie takes you into the mind of a pshycho and his deranged and manipulated cult family. Much like all the other serial killer documentaries, this is very informative and really recreates the expeirieence. Jeremy Davies does a wonderful job in playing Charlie manson and is VERY CONVINCING.

2012-05-02 16:44:08

5 stars for Davies. 3 stars for the movie.

This review is from: Helter Skelter (Director's Cut) (DVD) What more can I say than that jeremy davies is a true character acting genius and in my opinion saved Helter Skelter from being an absolute bomb. I caught myself on almost every scene that jeremy wasn't in anticapting his presence with the exception of the Tate scene. That was intense and you truley felt their pain and helplessness. Especially at the end of the slaughter when Tex Watson was finishing off Abigail folger and she says to him "you finish it. I'm already dead". It pulled my heart straight into my throat. This is a movie certainly worth checking out for the above reasons. It just fell a little flat for my taste. And I purposley didn't mention any of the other actors for the reason that they were very forgetable through most of the film.

2012-05-01 14:14:47

Helter Bloody Skelter

"Helter Skelter" is a 2004 American movie about the Manson Family and the gruesome Tate-LaBiance murders. I'm somewhat ambivalent towards it. On the one hand, the acting is supreme. On the other hand, however, it reminds me of a disjointed documentary rather than a "real" movie. I'm not sure if somebody who doesn't know anything about the Manson cult will become any wiser after seeing it. I filled in the gaps in my knowledge by reading Wikipedia entries!Jeremy Davies, who stars Charles Manson, is convincing as cult leader and crazy clown. If this is how the real Manson acted like, I don't know, but it's very convincing in its own right. So is the character Susan Atkins, who looks and speaks exactly as I imagine a brain-washed and mad cultist to look and speak like. A stereotype? Perhaps, but still convincing in its own right. Of course, the real star of the show is Linda Kasabian (starred by Clea DuVall), another strong performance. As for the negatives, "Helter Skelter" never *really* explains Charles Manson's apocalyptic scenario (the Helter Skelter of the movie title). We get it presented in small pieces at a time, and some references are left unclear, for instance the notion of the "bottomless pit". While Manson's philosophy was, of course, barking mad, it did seem to have a certain inner logic and consistency. "Helter Skelter" takes a kind of outsider perspective on Manson's motives, portraying him and the Family as completely incomprehensible. You almost get the impression that Manson ordered the killings to get even with the Beach Boys!The latter half of the film is so disjointed that it almost gets boring to watch, despite the interesting (if that's the word for it) subject matter. It feels almost as a entirely different movie. In the end, I'll give "Helter Skelter" three stars.

2012-05-01 06:45:22

Weird

Brilliantly put together movie. I remember the old Helter Skelter(Okay, so I'm old) and it was more of a documentary style movie than this one. It was well done and showed well how disturbed this evil man is. I think it showed well the day and time in our past when young men and women were searching for something to believe in and how a group of people can give their minds and their souls to one very disturbed man.

2012-04-25 02:27:05

Piece of crap

This film blew chunks. I'd give a detailed review, but I think I fell asleep, or I had an out of body experience. Either way I had more fun watching my cat eat a spider.Watch Law and Order SVU if you want good drama.

peeweefan 2012-04-24 17:27:02

Remakes!!! Let's pass a law forbidding them!

I understand the entertainment industry is entirely profit driven, andCBS, having had enormous success with the original, saw the potential ofanother cash cow with a remake of Helter Skelter, but please... I can't begin to describe how much i disliked this remake. Having seenthe original when it first aired, and 3 or 4 times afterward, and havingread the book 3 times, i believe i have a pretty good handle on the story,and how i think it should be portrayed. And this was justawful. Average acting, poor pacing, muddled screenwriting... One would thinkthe story should be able to tell itself, but this should have been keptlocked away along with Charlie. See the original... it may be dated, but still chilling in its ownright.

2012-04-23 23:04:20

Surprisingly good version of this crime

The 2004 made-for-TV version of "Helter Skelter" certainly received harsh treatment from both professional and amateur critics alike. This is not particularly surprising, considering the ghoulish subject manner and the intense sensibilities in relation to this legendary crime. Going into this film my expectations were low. While watching the DVD version, which included a variety of violent scenes not shown during its original TV broadcast, I was surprised to discover this was a quality production.This new perspective of "Helter Skelter" is probably the best film ever made about this lurid tale, and Jeremy Davies' thoughtful performance as Charles Manson comes about as close to the truth as we are ever going to get. For the most part, the filmmakers had their facts straight. I rolled my eyes throughout several miscalculations, most notably the elimination of the murder of Spahn Ranch employee Shorty Shea. Granted, there's only a certain amount of information this film could pack into its busy two-plus hours running time, but Shorty was a known victim of this hippie-creepy cult - a human being murdered in the dead of night. If you're going to tell this story yet again (and the question as to whether it was necessary would require an entirely new post), don't eliminate victims simply to create a prime time package for mass consumption.In addition, the meeting of Charles Manson and Sharon Tate is disputed to this day. While Manson most definitely visited the Tate property prior to the murders, the filmmakers' choice to have them meet eye-to-eye was tacky. That being said, there was an honest attempt by the filmmakers to portray the conditions that led this family of psychotic youths to commit such horrible murders in 1969."Helter Skelter" was not gritty enough for my taste, as the Spahn Ranch commune was far more picturesque than the horse fly-covered, greasy-haired reality. Manson and his clan are portrayed as humans rather than demons, and I suppose if we are going to understand this subject matter, this difficult truth should be emphasized.Casting Clea DuVall as the controversial Linda Kasabian was an excellent move. Not only is DuVall one of the finest actresses of her generation (and her performance rivals Davies'), but Kasabian was just about the only member of Manson's Family to show remorse following the murders. If you are going to find a single glimmer of hope in this tawdry epic, Kasabian is about as close as you are going to get to sunshine."Helter Skelter" essentially follows her journey as a member of Manson's Family, from introduction to drug-induced indoctrination, eventually leading to the nights of murder. Historically, Kasabian left the Manson clan soon after the crimes, was arrested and became one of the few members to give testimony during the grueling trials.The original "Helter Skelter" (1976) has always been a bit overrated, with Steve Railsback giving an over-the-top, circus-like performance as Manson. The film emphasized the investigation and devoted a couple of hours to the trial itself. This new version is a companion film, if you will, detailing the year leading up to the arrests and trial, abruptly ending about the time Kasabian decides she will testify, thus insuring the killers will be convicted.The Tate and LaBianca murders are portrayed more-or-less realistically. There's really nothing shown TV viewers do not witness on the "CSI" and "Criminal Minds" programs. But these atrocities actually took place, and perhaps that haunting fact makes for uncomfortable viewing. I certainly wanted to turn my eyes away, and was disturbed by the amount of blood shown. This is absolutely R-rated subject matter, but prime time crime produces high ratings. So who am I to question modern-day TV sensibilities?When reading about the Manson crimes - books which are equal parts fascinating and repulsive - one almost always asks "Why?" This new film version of "Helter Skelter," factually close to the truth, with better performances and production values than this subject deserves, attempts to answer nagging questions. It succeeds far better than one would expect.

bubbazanetti 2012-04-23 12:38:05

Made Steve Railsback Look Like Olivier

After watching the "remake" of Helter Skelter last night, I can't waitto pop in the far superior 1976 television version tonight. Bruno Kirbywas not believable as Bugliosi, nor was Jeremy Davies as Manson,whereas their respective 1976 counterparts, George DiCenzo and SteveRailsback, nailed these difficult parts dead-on, virtually definingtheir real-life counterparts in the process.This newer version actually shows the murders, whereas the original didnot - whether this is an improvement or not is a matter of preference.The new version also spends some time developing the characters of themurder victims, another aspect lacking in the original. The new cast tries hard, but no dice. The superlative performances inthe original make this remake pale in comparison. By the way, the chickwho played Susan Atkins in the original turned in one of the mostchilling television performances ever - whatever happened to her andwhy have I never seen her in anything else? But I digress...This new version struck me as though it had been slapped togetherrather quickly. Attempting to cram a complex piece of history into 3hours (with commercials) does not work. I kept thinking I was watchingPart I, and all of a sudden a bogus "American Graffiti" type writtenconclusion appears on the screen. The new version barely touched thetrial, whereas the trial scenes accounted for a good chunk of thechills in the original.Helter Skelter did not need to be remade unless someone was going to doit right. Where have you gone, Steve Railsback?

2012-04-17 00:37:20

What was the casting director thinking of??????

The actors cast in several of the roles are without a doubt my biggest complaint of the new Helter Skelter movie. Although a few of the actors were a good choice for the parts they played, can anyone explain to me the choice of Jeremy Davies as Manson? Anyone who has seen the original 1976 version has to agree that the ultimate performance ever given in this role was that by Steve Railsback in 1976. Also, I really don't think Bruno Kirby captured Bugliosi the way DiCenzo did in the original. Another less-than-stellar casting choices were the actor who played Leno LaBianca (LaBianca was from CA, not the stereotypical Brooklyn Italian), but there were also actors who I felt were accurately cast and performed well such as the actresses chosen to play Sharon Tate, Susan Atkins,Linda Kasabian and the actors who played Dennis Wilson, Frychowski, and Polanski. Although the locations were somewhat accurate, I knew immediately that the Cielo Drive address had been completely reversed; but the actual house itself was actually accurate in comparison to the to the original on Cielo. Again, overall a good flick (and maybe it was my age when I saw the original)but just not as intense or frightening as the original with Railsback's performance. At that time, I actually thought he was the real Charles Manson. Enjoy it and make up your own mind!

peteykins666 2012-04-16 18:01:00

Almost bad enough to be a classic

I sure enjoyed this campy, terrible new version of Bugliosi's flawed,fascinating version of the Manson murders. I suppose the production'stragic flaw is that Warner Bros. was determined to exploit JeremyDavies' uncanny Charles Manson impersonation, but unwilling to devotemuch time to it. It's difficult to say who could respect this versionof the horrifying events which brought an end to hippiedom. Squeezedunhappily into a little over two hours, those familiar with the casewill sneer at the ruthless editing and condensation of the facts andevents surrounding the murders. Incredibly, the film comes to an abrupthalt before the trial, hastily summed up in text just before the finalcredits, even begins! Those only passingly familiar, or unfamiliar,with Manson will simply be left out in the cold by the completelyincoherent, fragmented narrative. Luckily, it's loaded with camp value,and there are occasional glimmers of how great this version could havebeen if they had only pumped up the silliness a few more notches. Onthe DVD, for instance, there is an outtake of a scene where SusanAtkins breaks into a torrid go-go dance in prison, and you wish shewould burst into song, too, so that the whole production would go whereit obviously wants to go. Another laughable aspect is the consistentundermining of the various actresses' performances by their ludicrouswigs. Unfortunately, this production doesn't live up to the inherentpromise of the source material, either as true crime, or as bad-tastecomedy, so I can't give it four stars. Nevertheless, it's wrong-headedenough to be fun, even if all I could think while watching it was howmuch better it could have been if John Waters had directed it.