Helter Skelter

A strong start - the pulsating song "Helter Skelter" (by a band who is not The Beatles) over a montage of 1960s images, and then a swift deposit into the home of music teacher Gary Hinman where we are witness to his brutal senseless killing by Family members Bobby Beausoleil and Susan "Sadie" Atkins. Charlie himself shows up in no time wielding the sword that takes off a piece of Gary's ear. To a true crime buff this is gold, getting to see a re-enactment of that which had not been seen before. Then the movie becomes "The Linda Kasabian Story". We meet Linda as she's introduced, young daughter in arms, to the Family and their home, a disheveled old movie ranch, by Family member Gypsy. From that point onward it's as if we see the story through her eyes only; Clea Duvall, impressive as Linda, is in nearly every frame henceforth. By pointedly attempting to defy comparison to the original, this latest adaptation of the book "Helter Skelter" by prosecuting attorney turned author Vincent Bugliosi, invites just that. Comparison. It tries way too hard to be the anti-1974 version by showing us many of the episodes we didn't get to see in the first (Bobby being pulled over by the police for driving a stolen car, Sharon Tate's possible encounter with a trespassing Manson days before the murder) and omits most of what it assumes we've seen before. There is none of the great detective work of Bugliosi. Bruno Kirby (miscast as Bugliosi) doesn't even show up until nearly two hours into the three hour film. At that point the movie just rushes to get it all over with. As Manson, Jeremy Davies, is adequate. He's studied Charlie's mannerisms, that's for sure, but the lack of actual physical resemblance made for a portrayal hard to swallow. The buzz was we'd learn more about Manson this go 'round; we didn't. Speaking of resemblances, other than Clea Duvall's (and her wig is wretched) to the person she plays, there isn't any to be found here. Many of the family girls were redheads. Most notably Squeaky Fromme, who later went on to attempt to assassinate President Ford. She was copper-haired and freckled. Yet here she's played by Mary Lynn Rajskub (of "24") who's blonde and fair complected. And Kitty Lutesinger had a beautiful mane of auburn hair yet the make-up department chose to give the actress who plays her (Cheselka Leigh) a despicable ratty blonde wig (in this day of chemical treatments and hair extensions why the cheap and obvious wigs?). This probably would have been much better had it been longer, perhaps spread out over two nights. A great disservice was done to the story by having it cruise along at top speed and then bottom out in the final act.

Being as hyped as this movie was, not only was it flawed, it was just plain boring.

Although the choice to use Linda Kasabian was a smart one, and interesting to say the least, everything else was yawn-inducing.

The performance of Jeremy Davies as Charles Manson was surprising - he pulled it off perfectly - the performances of those at Cielo Drive were cringe-worthy. Even after spending time with Sharon Tate's sister, Whitney Dylan still couldn't find the spark to play her.

For reasons unknown, CBS took the step of changing the address of Cielo Drive from 10050 to 10000 - do they know that the now infamous house has been gone for 10 years? They also took the opportunity to change some already dramatic scenes from 1969 to pathetic and downright moronic scenes for this film. Yes, Charles Manson did see Sharon Tate at Cielo Drive in real life, but not like it was shown in the film. And, for anyone who has knowledge on this case, Abigail Folger and Wojciech Frykowski were not that cozy or loving when they were killed - FAR from it.

Not only did CBS leave many with the wrong idea about those in Cielo Drive, they thought they could get away with overlooking small details of the case. I, for one, noticed them all.

All in all, Clea and Jeremy probably saved this film from being even more boring than it was. They were the only interesting things about this film and should be rewarded by CBS if this dreadful piece gets high ratings.

Although I liked this remake of the '76 version, the original still surpassed it by miles. Jeremy Davies gave a very good performance as Manson, yet didn't send chills down my spine like Steve Railsback did in the original. Although I understand that the focus of this remake was more on Manson and the family and less on the investigation and trial, I felt some key details were, maybe purposely, left out. One that really bothered me was the fact that on both nights, the killers wore dark clothing and brought changes of clothing with them, though in this version they wore whatever they happened to have on at the ranch. Tossing the bloody clothing and weapons over an embankment, they had discarded what eventually became some of the first physical pieces of evidence found linking them directly to the crimes, other than actual prints found at the crime scene. For a film that supposedly paid such close attention to detail, this was a big one to omit. All in all, worth seeing. Do see the original, though, and I think you'll agree that Steve Railsback gave an almost effortless performance as Manson, seeming to be looking at you right through your TV screen.

It is with mixed emotions that I give this outstanding documentary such a high rating, because it doesn't exactly know where the line between glorification of a murderous madman and objective re-telling of a truly horrible tale is (and often crosses it), but the movie is so effective at telling the tale of Charles Manson and his followers that it deserves to be seen. Before I go on, it should also be noted that the movie takes a great many creative liberties with its source material, which is perfectly fine with me. What I don't like is when movies are marketed as based on true events or inspired by true events or something and then take some story and do whatever they want with it. This movie is so honest that it starts with nearly a solid minute of full-screen titles explaining that the story has been fictionalized, that certain characters and events have been dramatized for effect.

That being said, it clearly is not a history lesson of what Manson did, which I almost think that it should have been because of the horrific nature of his crimes (if I can be excused a gag-inducing legal-thriller cliché). The one problem that I have with the movie is that, since so much was dramatized, it was made almost as a fictional thriller rather than a documentary about the Manson family. I saw a documentary about the standoff in Waco that went into great detail about the ATF's involvement (and endless screwups) that resulted in the deaths of so many people, and I think something similar would have been the best way to approach this movie.

The murder scenes in this movie are extremely difficult to watch because you know they really happened. If nothing else, great attention was paid to making sure that the murders were as close to real life as possible. Many of the victims were even in the same position and locations in and around their houses as they really were when they were found. And this is what made me dislike the level of glorification in the movie. Charles Manson is so deeply insane and the murders committed by his followers, no matter how brainwashed they were, were so heinous and so disgusting that it made me wish they had thrown him in prison and barred all reporters from talking to him or anyone who knew anything about him.

His punishment should have been disappearance.

On the other hand, I guess I have to admit that I am fascinated by stories like his, which is why I watch documentaries about the standoff at Waco and movies about Ed Gein or John Wayne Gacy. But I like to think that I look at them almost like extended news clips (despite being fictionalized to whatever extent, in this case), and that I can watch something like this and maintain a level of disgust at what really happened. I see a line, for example, between being impressed with a fictional murderer like Hannibal Lecter and a non-fictional murderer (whether he killed anyone with his own hands or not) like Charles Manson. It made me think twice about what I should really think of the fact that I own 22 Marilyn Manson CDs (see my summary line).

Another thing that I found interesting was that all of this took place in Topanga Canyon, near where I live. In fact, after I finish writing this review I am going on the same bike ride that I do two or three times a week. I go west on Venice Blvd. to Sepulveda, then head north over the Sepulveda pass to Ventura Blvd. I go left on Ventura, through Woodland Hills to Topanga Canyon road, then I follow that all the way to the coast, which takes me directly through the middle of the town where the Manson family lived. I've been through there probably a hundred times and I never knew that was where this all happened. Scary.

Jeremy Davies gives a spectacular performance in the movie, and I like that most of it focuses on him and his followers and how he communicated with them to get them to believe that he was their personal savior when in reality he was the exact opposite, and relatively little time is spent showing the murders (which is good because if it was the other way around the movie would have been literally unwatchable). This case is a textbook study for psychologists about the impressionable young minds of the lost young.

Another element that the movie is not very concerned with is the actual trial itself, although I see no problem with this because it is not a courtroom drama, it is a TV thriller about a murderous cult leader. The movie is already over two hours long, we don't need another hour showing the convictions of a lot of people that we already know were convicted. The movie is more concerned with what events led up to their arrest and prosecution, and in that sense it does very well. Dramatized for effect, but the heart of the meaning of it all is still there.

Doubtless this will be compared with the 1970s TV movie for most of the feedback on it. Having seen both, the main thoughts that come to mind are that in this version there is more emphasis and clarity on the motives and goals of Manson, as well as what life in the "Family" entailed. A lot of the story is shown through the eyes of Linda Kasabian.

But what really stands out is that unlike in this remake, in the 70's movie the writers had an extremely irritating penchant for 2 characters to have a conversation in a scene, and then one character suddenly starts talking to the camera like a narrator. Thankfully that is gone, and instead of 2 deadpan detectives talking about the crimes that happened, in this version they show what happened.

As anyone who has seen newsreels of the real Manson will attest, the acting of Jeremy Davies as Manson is excellent, even eerily hair raising in some scenes. It would be clear to anyone giving this a fair viewing that Davies has watched a lot of footage of Manson's talking style and mannerisms, and has done his homework quite well.

One drawback in this version is the sudden use of film negatives for 1 or 2 second shots, to try and make the violence look more dramatic, but these efforts usually just marred the scene.

Overall, well worth watching if you haven't seen it, or would like a fresh take on the Tate-LaBianca murders. Certainly better than most of the shallow junk on the tube these days.