CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
2.9/10
4.6 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Embarazada con el hijo de Roman Polanski y esperando que este regrese de Europa, la actriz Sharon Tate, de 26 años, es acosada por visiones de su inminente muerte.Embarazada con el hijo de Roman Polanski y esperando que este regrese de Europa, la actriz Sharon Tate, de 26 años, es acosada por visiones de su inminente muerte.Embarazada con el hijo de Roman Polanski y esperando que este regrese de Europa, la actriz Sharon Tate, de 26 años, es acosada por visiones de su inminente muerte.
- Premios
- 4 premios ganados y 4 nominaciones en total
Susan Atkins
- Self
- (material de archivo)
Charles Manson
- Self
- (material de archivo)
Sharon Tate
- Self
- (material de archivo)
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
I don't have a dog in the fight about whether one should make a movie like this about a real person, so I was happy to give it a go. But it does feel exploitative, in part because it is so incredibly bad that you cant help but feel it was disrespectful. If you are going to make a movie about a real person who was brutally murdered at least have the decency to make a good movie, not this amateur hour rubbish. Watch the trailer. See how bad it seems? Well, believe me, the trailer has been skillfully edited to make it look 20x better than it really is.
Daniel Farrands' latest film tells the tragedy of Sharon Tate, one of 5 deaths in an infamous real-life mass murder committed by the members of Charles Manson's cult. The release comes close to the 50th anniversary of those events.
I entered hoping for a fact-based biopic of Sharon Tate and what happened that night, giving life to the people that were killed and showing us who those people were during their short lives and final days. What we actually get is a rather dull sensationalistic take on the facts, used purely to create a horror film off the back of the tragedy. Had I seen his previous film based on Amityville murderer Ronald DeFeo (which I watched after this and is better executed while feeling narrowly less exploitive), I would've know what to expect - a mostly fictional horror story based on real victims of a real tragedy.
While it uses the real life events as an influence on the characters and story, there's clearly a lot of artistic license used and the result is a sub-par horror film that leaves a bitter taste in the mouth due to its exploitation of the real tragedy that took place. There was an opportunity to pay respect to the people that lost their lives, but unfortunately we get a forgettable home-invasion horror film with a particularly odd plot point, which feels absurd for a film which wants to give the impression that it's a fact-based biopic.
I can appreciate why Sharon Tate's sister was so against the film.
There's nothing particularly interesting about this film and it doesn't do justice to the innocent victims, nor reveal much of anything that we didn't already know. It invents more than it enlightens. Without revealing spoilers, Farrands could have easily made this horror film as a fictional story, with fictional characters, and the result would probably have earned slightly better ratings. But at its core it's a by-the-numbers horror with attempted jumps, moments of suspense, and cat-and-mouse chases, but it definitely does not give the impression (to me at least) that it wants to pay homage to the victims, nor deglorify Manson.
The acting is okay, but it's hardly top class, and Duff seems to fade in and out of using an odd accent in her portrayal of Tate. Some of the script feels unnatural, the characters are underdeveloped and some of the acting and dialogue is wooden. The story moves along at a decent pace, but it doesn't really offer enough to hold interest or build suspense, possibly because we know what's coming.
Farrands seems to have found himself a new niche, making films about real life tragedies, the next of which will be the murder of OJ Simpson's wife. Unfortunately, the tragedy of Farrands' new-found inspiration for his films is that they're exploiting these horrific real-life events for entertainment and profit.
I give it 1/10 due to the combination of it being an unoriginal and dull horror film, as well as an insensitive exploitation of the tragedy. Had it been presented as a fictional story, with fictional characters, it may have earned closer to 3 or 4 out of ten, but it still wouldn't have been anything special.
I entered hoping for a fact-based biopic of Sharon Tate and what happened that night, giving life to the people that were killed and showing us who those people were during their short lives and final days. What we actually get is a rather dull sensationalistic take on the facts, used purely to create a horror film off the back of the tragedy. Had I seen his previous film based on Amityville murderer Ronald DeFeo (which I watched after this and is better executed while feeling narrowly less exploitive), I would've know what to expect - a mostly fictional horror story based on real victims of a real tragedy.
While it uses the real life events as an influence on the characters and story, there's clearly a lot of artistic license used and the result is a sub-par horror film that leaves a bitter taste in the mouth due to its exploitation of the real tragedy that took place. There was an opportunity to pay respect to the people that lost their lives, but unfortunately we get a forgettable home-invasion horror film with a particularly odd plot point, which feels absurd for a film which wants to give the impression that it's a fact-based biopic.
I can appreciate why Sharon Tate's sister was so against the film.
There's nothing particularly interesting about this film and it doesn't do justice to the innocent victims, nor reveal much of anything that we didn't already know. It invents more than it enlightens. Without revealing spoilers, Farrands could have easily made this horror film as a fictional story, with fictional characters, and the result would probably have earned slightly better ratings. But at its core it's a by-the-numbers horror with attempted jumps, moments of suspense, and cat-and-mouse chases, but it definitely does not give the impression (to me at least) that it wants to pay homage to the victims, nor deglorify Manson.
The acting is okay, but it's hardly top class, and Duff seems to fade in and out of using an odd accent in her portrayal of Tate. Some of the script feels unnatural, the characters are underdeveloped and some of the acting and dialogue is wooden. The story moves along at a decent pace, but it doesn't really offer enough to hold interest or build suspense, possibly because we know what's coming.
Farrands seems to have found himself a new niche, making films about real life tragedies, the next of which will be the murder of OJ Simpson's wife. Unfortunately, the tragedy of Farrands' new-found inspiration for his films is that they're exploiting these horrific real-life events for entertainment and profit.
I give it 1/10 due to the combination of it being an unoriginal and dull horror film, as well as an insensitive exploitation of the tragedy. Had it been presented as a fictional story, with fictional characters, it may have earned closer to 3 or 4 out of ten, but it still wouldn't have been anything special.
First off this was painful to watch as nothing happens in this movie. 90% of this film is just like meandering around a house doing nothing.
It can't commit to anything because it's a real life story so everything has to be explained away as oh it's just a dream.
It probably wasn't the best thing to write a film around as people are obviously going to be offended.
And Jesus Christ the end, I had to laugh. It was so stupid. It made the movie even more pointless.
What annoys me even more is the filmmakers knew they were flogging a dead horse because they had to put scenes In slow motion to extend the run time and I'm guessing that's why they included random real life news footage So they could pad it out.
It was lazy and boring and I wouldn't waste my time with it.
It can't commit to anything because it's a real life story so everything has to be explained away as oh it's just a dream.
It probably wasn't the best thing to write a film around as people are obviously going to be offended.
And Jesus Christ the end, I had to laugh. It was so stupid. It made the movie even more pointless.
What annoys me even more is the filmmakers knew they were flogging a dead horse because they had to put scenes In slow motion to extend the run time and I'm guessing that's why they included random real life news footage So they could pad it out.
It was lazy and boring and I wouldn't waste my time with it.
Those who aren't offended by the vicious 1969 murder of Hollywood actress Sharon Tate and her friends serving as source material for a cheap, speculative horror flick will probably be bored to tears by writer/director Daniel Farrands' hamfisted effort. The decision to "re-imagine" the killings in the way that this film does is astoundingly misguided.
I just hope younger people realise there is no truth in this account of sharon tate's murder. while it has been said she had visions or dreams beforehand that is the only semi truth in this movie. facts are distorted beyond belief. it goes into some rubbish about how our decisions control our fate and we can somehow change that. this seem pretty disrespectful to her family also. makes her out to be a bit crazy. it's an okay movie but twists history way out of all proportion so should not be taken seriously.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaActress Sharon Tate's sister Debra Tate, has stated she does not support the Hilary Duff movie about her sister's life, Debra said, "It's been exploitative since day one. It's been the case since the media went crazy and has perpetuated mistruths making things even more salacious. It's now morphed into something that is more fictionalized than truth at this point. To celebrate the killers and the darkest portion of society as being sexy or acceptable in any way, shape or form is just perpetuating the worst of our society. I am vehemently opposed to anything that does that. I've been dealing with this for 50 years now. We need to stop this, and I intend to help the family behind the NoNotoriety anyway I can to help make this a national movement."
- ErroresWilliam Garretson was the caretaker, not Stephen Parent. Parent was Garretson's friend, who just happened to be visiting on the night of August 9, 1969 (wrong place, wrong time.) Parent was shot in his car and Garretson was questioned as a suspect.
- ConexionesFeatured in Chris Stuckmann Movie Reviews: The Haunting of Sharon Tate (2019)
- Bandas sonorasFirst Class Robbery
Performed by Leon Riskin
Written by Leon Riskin
Published by Pigshark Music Publishing (BMI)
Courtesy of Partners In Rhyme, Inc. and musicloops.com
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is The Haunting of Sharon Tate?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- Países de origen
- Sitio oficial
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- The Haunting of Sharon Tate
- Locaciones de filmación
- 3050 Runyon Canyon Rd, Los Ángeles, California, Estados Unidos(the El Cielo house)
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 19,717
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 34 minutos
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
By what name was El asesinato de Sharon Tate (2019) officially released in India in English?
Responda