House of Manson

The sound recording of this film is abysmal - that is the sound mix at any rate. Ryan Kiser as Charlie Manson is pretty good - he certainly looks like him, even if he is no Al Pacino as far as acting goes! It is so difficult to hear what characters are saying at times it spoils the viewing of the movie. The film tries to tell Manson's side of the story - the chaotic upbringing and his spells incarcerated but that side of things is skimmed over and merely mentioned rather than depicted. I guess permissions for music of the times was difficult to get as it seems totally missing from this movie. For the obviously low budget this had it does an okay job but really needed more work on the sound.

Having just read the book Helter Skelter The True Story (THE MANSON MURDERS) by Vincent Bugliosi,(The prosecutor) I looked forward to this film, but I may have enjoyed it more if I had no knowledge of the history of Charles Manson and his family. This film is shallow with bad acting. I felt I knew more than the film producers. It's really tacky, very roughly scripted, and by the end credits which I always read, finding them informative, this has to be the shortest credits of a film, ever!! Even the acting out of the victims was shot as if being filmed by a mobile phone camera! This film has no redeeming features at all.

There is much written about these people and the heinous crimes, it's a disservice to viewers not to tell it well, with good script, production and some good actors.

The recent release of Restless Souls might make a better subject, as I have yet to see a really decent film about Manson, perhaps if a film was made from the view of the victims...?

I couldn't agree more with William Dickey and RMS1949. I found this on Streampix this morning and thought I'd watch it before I had to begin my workday.

Mary Brunner turned into a blonde, Linda Kasabian turned into a brunette, the only requirement for Susan Atkins appeared to be the ability to make bug-eyes and a weird-looking smile (which seems to be the ONLY idea of indicating "crazy" that "filmmakers" can think of) and you'll find better acting skills in a kindergarten operetta - so I think Mr. Dickey hit their casting process on the head. (Too bad something else didn't get hit on the head before this waste of time was filmed.)

As for the storyline: Jay Sebring and Sharon Tate hear the shots that killed Steven Parent, when police tests showed that not even William Garretson could hear them in the caretaker's cottage? The screenwriters were even incorrect about how pregnant Sharon Tate was; they had Rosemary LaBianca say to her husband as she reads the newspaper, "That poor girl She was seven months pregnant." (Tate was 8.5 months pregnant.) In case the reader thinks I'm nitpicking, I'm not. These were the two least-bad parts of the movie. The rest of the movie goes into a blur of bad.

RMS1949's evaluation summary was perfect: "Total garbage." I will add that this garbage is so rotten that even the Manson girls would pass it up when they went dumpster-diving for ingredients for dinner.

The producer and any investors would've done better to have given the money to Michael Cohen to pay off one or two of Donald Trump's many companions - and then checked themselves into whatever kind of rehab helps clear film professionals' dulled evaluation skills.

I sat through a Strawberry Shortcake movie, a Care Bears movie and "Drop Dead Fred" with my child while she was growing up because I love her, but "House of Manson" makes those three look like Oscar-winning classics.

The story for this film was solid, if straightforward, depicting the Manson family murders and a few post-murder interrogations, with a sympathetic nod to Manson's early life. The dialog was serviceable at best.

The biggest problem with the film is the casting. While Ryan Kiser bears a passing resemblance to Manson, he lacks the sinister gravitas needed for the role. He comes close at times but overall he's just too innocuous in both looks and demeanor.

The Manson gang is even more poorly cast. Their acting is fine when it comes to the line readings, but they're generally too old for their roles and are unconvincing as hippies. The victims are also badly cast and all the characters are poorly developed. Manson's lawyer is the only convincing character in the lot.

The locations are meager. The "upscale" dwelling of Tate has the same sickly yellow walls as every other house in the movie.

All that said, if you want to see a basic depiction of the crimes, this one is fairly accurate.

It starts bad and gets even worse. Soundtrack=bad. Acting=badder. Script=pitiful. Not even creepy, more like a soap opera, you want a movie about CM to be at least quite creepy! Did not penetrate CM's personality and life at all well, almost made it out like 'he' was the tragedy in the whole thing... Poor little charlie, he only wanted to be loved (and be a rock star). Missed loads of important aspects to the story, failed to build any tension. The squishsquish stabby noises were laughable. Had no interest in any of the characters. You are better off watching the 1976 TV movie helter skelter if you want a good manson film.