Helter Skelter

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.

If you are really interested enough in the whole Manson affair to

devote 7 hours to it, it would probably be best to see this together

with the 1976 original, because the two fascinatingly complement

each other like yin and yang, or two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.

Moreover, in spite of the chronology of their release, it would

probably be better to see the 2004 version first, then the 1976

version. The 1976 version begins with the murders already having

occured, whereas the 2004 version focuses mainly on the events

leading up to the murders, and hardly at all on the legal aspects. It

could be summed up: 1976 version, mostly detective and legal

work, 2004 version, mostly a psychological study.

The 2004 version succeeds quite well in showing how Manson

had the power that he did. Nothing that Manson says makes

much sense; he exhibits what shrinks call tangentiality, i.e., the

inability to focus on a point. While this leads most people to avoid

Manson in the outside world, in the cloistered environment of

Manson's commune, it forces the listener to listen all the more

closely. In Jeremy Davies' riveting performance, Manson seems

almost oracular; the very obscurity of what he was saying can

make him seem, to the young naifs with whom he surrounded

himself, profound. It is easy to see how they found him hypnotic.

Davies makes Manson seem scarier than ever.

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.

I sure enjoyed this campy, terrible new version of Bugliosi's flawed, fascinating version of the Manson murders. I suppose the production's tragic flaw is that Warner Bros. was determined to exploit Jeremy Davies' uncanny Charles Manson impersonation, but unwilling to devote much time to it. It's difficult to say who could respect this version of the horrifying events which brought an end to hippiedom. Squeezed unhappily into a little over two hours, those familiar with the case will sneer at the ruthless editing and condensation of the facts and events surrounding the murders. Incredibly, the film comes to an abrupt halt before the trial, hastily summed up in text just before the final credits, even begins! Those only passingly familiar, or unfamiliar, with Manson will simply be left out in the cold by the completely incoherent, fragmented narrative. Luckily, it's loaded with camp value, and there are occasional glimmers of how great this version could have been if they had only pumped up the silliness a few more notches. On the DVD, for instance, there is an outtake of a scene where Susan Atkins breaks into a torrid go-go dance in prison, and you wish she would burst into song, too, so that the whole production would go where it obviously wants to go. Another laughable aspect is the consistent undermining of the various actresses' performances by their ludicrous wigs. Unfortunately, this production doesn't live up to the inherent promise of the source material, either as true crime, or as bad-taste comedy, so I can't give it four stars. Nevertheless, it's wrong-headed enough to be fun, even if all I could think while watching it was how much better it could have been if John Waters had directed it.