VALUTAZIONE IMDb
6,4/10
3770
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaA new take on the Manson Family murders, with a keen focus on Charles Manson himself.A new take on the Manson Family murders, with a keen focus on Charles Manson himself.A new take on the Manson Family murders, with a keen focus on Charles Manson himself.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Candidato a 1 Primetime Emmy
- 6 candidature totali
Yvonne Delarosa
- Catherine 'Gypsy' Share
- (as Yvonne De La Rosa)
Recensioni in evidenza
Helter Skelter 2004 really brought back all those events of August 1969. The new updated version made no attempt to out-do the 1976 television movie. Instead, it really showed more of the evil-persona of Charlie Manson and how he manipulated the members of his "family" to do his evil bidding.
Jeremy Davis was excellent as Manson. He had big shoes to fill over Steve Railsback's performance in 1976. Alison Smith's, Catherine Wadkins', and Margerite Moreau's performances really made my hair stand on end. The visuals of this film were well shown, right down to the reversed "negative" images when the killings were done. Who needs to see the actual blood and gore as there is to much of that detached violence portrayal.
You had to live in the era to really understand the impact of these disgusting crimes. The 1976 telefilm version was only seven years after the fact and it was frightening to watch back then. This new version was also frightening as it showed how an evil individual could have so much influence over certain people.
May Charlie Manson never get out of prison. If so, he could do this all again.
Jeremy Davis was excellent as Manson. He had big shoes to fill over Steve Railsback's performance in 1976. Alison Smith's, Catherine Wadkins', and Margerite Moreau's performances really made my hair stand on end. The visuals of this film were well shown, right down to the reversed "negative" images when the killings were done. Who needs to see the actual blood and gore as there is to much of that detached violence portrayal.
You had to live in the era to really understand the impact of these disgusting crimes. The 1976 telefilm version was only seven years after the fact and it was frightening to watch back then. This new version was also frightening as it showed how an evil individual could have so much influence over certain people.
May Charlie Manson never get out of prison. If so, he could do this all again.
Being as hyped as this movie was, not only was it flawed, it was just plain boring.
Although the choice to use Linda Kasabian was a smart one, and interesting to say the least, everything else was yawn-inducing.
The performance of Jeremy Davies as Charles Manson was surprising - he pulled it off perfectly - the performances of those at Cielo Drive were cringe-worthy. Even after spending time with Sharon Tate's sister, Whitney Dylan still couldn't find the spark to play her.
For reasons unknown, CBS took the step of changing the address of Cielo Drive from 10050 to 10000 - do they know that the now infamous house has been gone for 10 years? They also took the opportunity to change some already dramatic scenes from 1969 to pathetic and downright moronic scenes for this film. Yes, Charles Manson did see Sharon Tate at Cielo Drive in real life, but not like it was shown in the film. And, for anyone who has knowledge on this case, Abigail Folger and Wojciech Frykowski were not that cozy or loving when they were killed - FAR from it.
Not only did CBS leave many with the wrong idea about those in Cielo Drive, they thought they could get away with overlooking small details of the case. I, for one, noticed them all.
All in all, Clea and Jeremy probably saved this film from being even more boring than it was. They were the only interesting things about this film and should be rewarded by CBS if this dreadful piece gets high ratings.
Although the choice to use Linda Kasabian was a smart one, and interesting to say the least, everything else was yawn-inducing.
The performance of Jeremy Davies as Charles Manson was surprising - he pulled it off perfectly - the performances of those at Cielo Drive were cringe-worthy. Even after spending time with Sharon Tate's sister, Whitney Dylan still couldn't find the spark to play her.
For reasons unknown, CBS took the step of changing the address of Cielo Drive from 10050 to 10000 - do they know that the now infamous house has been gone for 10 years? They also took the opportunity to change some already dramatic scenes from 1969 to pathetic and downright moronic scenes for this film. Yes, Charles Manson did see Sharon Tate at Cielo Drive in real life, but not like it was shown in the film. And, for anyone who has knowledge on this case, Abigail Folger and Wojciech Frykowski were not that cozy or loving when they were killed - FAR from it.
Not only did CBS leave many with the wrong idea about those in Cielo Drive, they thought they could get away with overlooking small details of the case. I, for one, noticed them all.
All in all, Clea and Jeremy probably saved this film from being even more boring than it was. They were the only interesting things about this film and should be rewarded by CBS if this dreadful piece gets high ratings.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A pregnant Linda Kasabian (Clea DuVall) arrives at George Spahn's old western movie set ranch with her daughter Tanya. The group is led by the charismatic Charles Manson (Jeremy Davies). Manson is obsessed making his song with producer Terry Melcher and Beachboys' Dennis Wilson. Linda steals $5000 from her husband's friend for Manson. The Manson family continues their crime spree. Manson goes looking for Terry Melcher but is received coolly by the new leasee Roman Polanski's wife Sharon Tate's friend. Melcher is giving Manson the cold shoulder. Manson tells the family of an impending race war Helter Skelter. Linda is the driver as Manson directs members of the family to massacre Sharon Tate and her friends.
Jeremy Davies has always been great playing crazy. It's odd to say but he may be playing Manson as too crazy. Some of the early outbursts feel a little over the top. I buy his crazy rants when he's in prison. No matter what, he is able to command the screen. Clea DuVall is suppose to be the lead. She gets a bit overshadowed. The one thing I do like a lot is that it lays out the reason why Manson kills Sharon Tate. The story flows well which is a difficult task for such a messy real story.
Jeremy Davies has always been great playing crazy. It's odd to say but he may be playing Manson as too crazy. Some of the early outbursts feel a little over the top. I buy his crazy rants when he's in prison. No matter what, he is able to command the screen. Clea DuVall is suppose to be the lead. She gets a bit overshadowed. The one thing I do like a lot is that it lays out the reason why Manson kills Sharon Tate. The story flows well which is a difficult task for such a messy real story.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizIn 2001, Jeremy Davies was in preparations for a different independent film about Charles Manson. He made a tape for the filmmakers of himself playing Manson and the tape became a popular bootleg in the industry. CBS cast Davies and allowed him to rewrite his lines due to his performance in the tape.
- BlooperAs Linda is going through Rosemary Labianca's wallet, VISA and Master Cards can be seen. In 1969 Visa was called Bank AmeriCard and Master Card was called Master Charge.
- Citazioni
Charles Manson: How can I be a hippie when I hate hippies?
- Versioni alternativeA Director's Cut was released on DVD including uncensored scenes, with frames exposing nudes and violence. Explicit material was not shown on the TV presentation as it was highly inappropriate for minors. A considerable number of scenes were re-framed to be showed on television. Although, this version runs only 1 minute longer.
- ConnessioniReferences La valle delle bambole (1967)
- Colonne sonoreWhatever Will Be, Will Be
Written by Jay Livingston and Ray Evans
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- 迴轉遊戲
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti