The Haunting of Sharon Tate

Horrible ten cent fictionalized version of the Sharon Tate murders in 1969 is the worst possible thing imagined. As if the real life murders weren't bad enough, this movie changes the outcome and turns it into a low rent slasher film. I expected Roman Polanski to fly in on Bat wings and vanquish the mighty Manson family. I realized, however, that I had been conned. As someone who has seen nearly all the major Manson films, that I was suckered into this hoping that it would interesting. Forgetting reality for a moment, how does the movie play as a thriller. Terrible. The camera work bips and bops around like Uncle Jim just got his new camcorder. The acting is awful but in fairness to them the dialogue is so bad that Meryl Streep would have had trouble with it. Really though, this is exploitation of the worst kind, taking a monumental event in history and turning it into a complete sham.If people really do turn over in their graves then Sharon Tate must be rolling now. Watch it if you must but expect full and complete garbage of the worst order!

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.

Who ever thought that this movie would be a good idea? My sympathies go out to Sharon Tate's family. I'm sure Farrands wouldn't appreciate it if someone in his family was brutally murdered and the event was dredged up and publicly thrown back in his face in the guise of an "entertaining" film....all for the purpose of making more money. This movie idea is highly inappropriate and cruel.

I was immediately struck how low both the IMDB and Metascores were, this movie is universally hated but it can't be that bad. Right?

Well it kind of is, bad and deeply inappropriate.

It tells the story, no sorry a "Remixed" version of the true story about the fate of actress Sharon Tate and how she fell victim to three members of Charlie Manson's "Family".

Movies about material like that just don't sit right with me. They're just inappropriate in my view, insensitive and just plain wrong. Remember they managed to make at least 2 movies out of 9/11!

Starring Hilary Duff it's an embarrassingly bad movie that honestly makes a mockery of the events that transpired on that fateful day. I don't agree with everyone saying Duff was terrible, she simply wasn't. The film itself however, awful on every level.

As the "Events" started taking place I found myself scratching my head in confusion and when the credits rolled I was angry for the victims in real life! This didn't paint a very flattering picture and made entertainment out of their demise.

Awful sick picture and everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.

The Good:

Nope

The Bad:

Deeply inappropriate

Generic home invasion movie

Moronic ending

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.