House of Manson

"House of Manson" is a film that chronicles the life of Charles Manson and focuses in on the events leading up to and including the Sharon Tate murders of 1969. Unlike other Charles Manson biopics that focus in on the sex or the over the top nature of the Tate murder, this one focuses in Charles Manson's influence and connection with his followers, the Manson family as they call themselves.

Charles Manson is portrayed by Minnesota born actor, Ryan Kiser, who seemed to approach the character in a very serious tone and does a fantastic job conveying the crazy yet brilliant way Charles Manson was able to draw followers into his cult.

Devanny Pinn co-stars as one of Manson's followers Susan Atkins and gives a chilling performance as her screen presence is freaky. Pinn truly becomes Atkins on screen as the facial reactions make you think this women is completely off her rocker and has no moral compass at all. An overall amazing performance by Pinn.

"House of Manson" does suffer from some technical flaws as the sound isn't completely smoothed and could use some more attention by a sound mixer. The filmmakers even admitted in a Q&A following the world premiere that some of the sound transitions were going to need to be looked at. The film also has a saturated look that doesn't look completely intentional. The image doesn't pop off the screen as some movies do that have a more crisp and sharp look to it.

Overall, "House of Manson" is a great portrayal of the events surrounding the infamous Charles Manson. It doesn't get too crude or violent as previous films about the same subject matter, it takes the source material as it is and conveys the story in a very tasteful matter. With a great cast and direction by Brandon Slagle, "House of Manson" is definitely worth checking out when it later finds distribution.

What most strikes me about this film is the awful non 60s soundtrack, the horrible soap opera like acting, and the misinterpretation of a culture and a generation. The main character Manson, sort of looks like the real Manson, I guess. It's like the casting director was walking down the street and saw someone who looked like him and said, "Hey you want to be in my Movie?" … Everything about this film is bad, costumes, acting, writing, directing, cinematography, and did I mention acting. It also doesn't respect the dead, remember this is based, I guess, on a true story. The director treats the material like it has been long since been made of legend, it hasn't. How someone could take an interesting event in American history and suck all the interest out is beyond me. You will learn nothing if you watch this, in fact you may forget important things.

The sound recording of this film is abysmal - that is the sound mix at any rate. Ryan Kiser as Charlie Manson is pretty good - he certainly looks like him, even if he is no Al Pacino as far as acting goes! It is so difficult to hear what characters are saying at times it spoils the viewing of the movie. The film tries to tell Manson's side of the story - the chaotic upbringing and his spells incarcerated but that side of things is skimmed over and merely mentioned rather than depicted. I guess permissions for music of the times was difficult to get as it seems totally missing from this movie. For the obviously low budget this had it does an okay job but really needed more work on the sound.

I couldn't agree more with William Dickey and RMS1949. I found this on Streampix this morning and thought I'd watch it before I had to begin my workday.

Mary Brunner turned into a blonde, Linda Kasabian turned into a brunette, the only requirement for Susan Atkins appeared to be the ability to make bug-eyes and a weird-looking smile (which seems to be the ONLY idea of indicating "crazy" that "filmmakers" can think of) and you'll find better acting skills in a kindergarten operetta - so I think Mr. Dickey hit their casting process on the head. (Too bad something else didn't get hit on the head before this waste of time was filmed.)

As for the storyline: Jay Sebring and Sharon Tate hear the shots that killed Steven Parent, when police tests showed that not even William Garretson could hear them in the caretaker's cottage? The screenwriters were even incorrect about how pregnant Sharon Tate was; they had Rosemary LaBianca say to her husband as she reads the newspaper, "That poor girl She was seven months pregnant." (Tate was 8.5 months pregnant.) In case the reader thinks I'm nitpicking, I'm not. These were the two least-bad parts of the movie. The rest of the movie goes into a blur of bad.

RMS1949's evaluation summary was perfect: "Total garbage." I will add that this garbage is so rotten that even the Manson girls would pass it up when they went dumpster-diving for ingredients for dinner.

The producer and any investors would've done better to have given the money to Michael Cohen to pay off one or two of Donald Trump's many companions - and then checked themselves into whatever kind of rehab helps clear film professionals' dulled evaluation skills.

I sat through a Strawberry Shortcake movie, a Care Bears movie and "Drop Dead Fred" with my child while she was growing up because I love her, but "House of Manson" makes those three look like Oscar-winning classics.

It starts bad and gets even worse. Soundtrack=bad. Acting=badder. Script=pitiful. Not even creepy, more like a soap opera, you want a movie about CM to be at least quite creepy! Did not penetrate CM's personality and life at all well, almost made it out like 'he' was the tragedy in the whole thing... Poor little charlie, he only wanted to be loved (and be a rock star). Missed loads of important aspects to the story, failed to build any tension. The squishsquish stabby noises were laughable. Had no interest in any of the characters. You are better off watching the 1976 TV movie helter skelter if you want a good manson film.