NOTE IMDb
2,9/10
4,6 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre languePregnant with director Roman Polanski's child and awaiting his return from Europe, 26-year-old Hollywood actress Sharon Tate becomes plagued by visions of her imminent death.Pregnant with director Roman Polanski's child and awaiting his return from Europe, 26-year-old Hollywood actress Sharon Tate becomes plagued by visions of her imminent death.Pregnant with director Roman Polanski's child and awaiting his return from Europe, 26-year-old Hollywood actress Sharon Tate becomes plagued by visions of her imminent death.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 4 victoires et 4 nominations au total
Susan Atkins
- Self
- (images d'archives)
Charles Manson
- Self
- (images d'archives)
Sharon Tate
- Self
- (images d'archives)
Avis à la une
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.
Life is tough out there for 90's stars. They had it all..awesome fashion, cool thin eyebrows, ecstacy and a ton of money. But what do you do when those lucrative tv show parts dry up? You get desperate And decide to exploit one of the most repulsive moments in American history. This is truly a horrific film, with hilary heavy breathing and trying to look gorgeously startled throughout, whilst cradling her prosthetic bump murmuring "I think those people are a threat to me and my baby". Sharon Tate was so much more than a murder victim, yet we always overlook her talent and contribution to fashion and films in favour of morbidly sifting through her (and her friends who always seem to be a footnote) murder. But this film goes much further by mashing up the worst horror cliches (I'm tired of seeing people in the mirror-gasp- turn around and no ones there) with deeply offensive notions that Sharon prophesied her own murder. Sharon tates family have been through so much, and the fact that they have to deal with trite schlock like this really makes me feel even worse for them. It means that theyre not allowed to heal, and it perpetuates the murder porn that permeates throughout our society and it's sick. Two stars as the music, whilst cliched, is decent.
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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesActress 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."
- GaffesWilliam 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.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Chris Stuckmann Movie Reviews: The Haunting of Sharon Tate (2019)
- Bandes originalesFirst 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
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is The Haunting of Sharon Tate?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- El asesinato de Sharon Tate
- Lieux de tournage
- 3050 Runyon Canyon Rd, Los Angeles, Californie, États-Unis(the El Cielo house)
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Montant brut mondial
- 19 717 $US
- Durée
- 1h 34min(94 min)
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant