In a distant future, a cult forms around the Manson Family, when Charles Manson is mistaken for the messiah. Meanwhile, in 1969, Manson convinces his followers to murder Sharon Tate.In a distant future, a cult forms around the Manson Family, when Charles Manson is mistaken for the messiah. Meanwhile, in 1969, Manson convinces his followers to murder Sharon Tate.In a distant future, a cult forms around the Manson Family, when Charles Manson is mistaken for the messiah. Meanwhile, in 1969, Manson convinces his followers to murder Sharon Tate.
Nick 13
- TV Reporter #1
- (voice)
Billie Joe Armstrong
- Charlie
- (voice)
Travis Barker
- Cop #2
- (voice)
Tré Cool
- Prosecutor Bug
- (voice)
- (as Tre Cool)
- …
Warren Fitzgerald
- The Judge
- (voice)
Matt Freeman
- Heino
- (voice)
Davey Havok
- Hay
- (voice)
Theo Kogan
- Hadie
- (voice)
Benji Madden
- Interrogator #1
- (voice)
Janis Tanaka
- Mrs. Ha Bianca
- (voice)
Jane Wiedlin
- Squeaky
- (voice)
Sean Yseult
- Heslie
- (voice)
Asia Argento
- Habagail Folger
- (voice)
Mike Dirnt
- TV Anchorman
- (voice)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
In the distant future, life as we know it has been completely wiped out. Man is hungry for answers... and one day when a book -- "Helter Skelter" -- is found, some answers are given. Just maybe not the right answers.
I am unclear how the people in the future connect to the primary story, a claymation retelling of the Charles Manson story. The suggestion is that reading the book would make them think Manson was a god, but the book would actually do quite the opposite. So I'm confused.
And also, we have some of the biggest names in modern "punk" music: Billie Joe Armstrong, Tim Armstrong (no relation), Davey Havok. We have Kelly Osbourne and Sean Yseult. We have the erection-inducing Asia Argento. For those of us who like these people, this film would seem to be one of the greatest things to happen. It's not.
The story is told in a bland manner, the claymation is poorly done. The songs are lame and carry on for too long. You would expect the music to be the selling point, but it's not. And for some reason all the names have been changed to things with the letter H: "Charles Hanson", "Susan Hatkins", "Hex Watson"... it's pointless and stupid.
The best scene involves a group of The Family in a dumpster exchanging quips with Sharon Tate and her gay hairdresser. Another memorable scene is the claymation sex scene, which starts out shocking and funny but gets drawn out. People who liked "Team America" might like this, but I didn't think it was that outstanding.
How to make this film better: get better music, cut out the future story and just tell the Manson epic in a unique way (which is already done thanks to clay). Films shouldn't make you say to yourself, "I can do this so much better", but that's how I felt about this junk.
My interest in Charles Manson was dealt a blow from this mediocre adaptation. If you're like me, you'll know it's awful but watch it anyway. But I hope you're not like me.
I am unclear how the people in the future connect to the primary story, a claymation retelling of the Charles Manson story. The suggestion is that reading the book would make them think Manson was a god, but the book would actually do quite the opposite. So I'm confused.
And also, we have some of the biggest names in modern "punk" music: Billie Joe Armstrong, Tim Armstrong (no relation), Davey Havok. We have Kelly Osbourne and Sean Yseult. We have the erection-inducing Asia Argento. For those of us who like these people, this film would seem to be one of the greatest things to happen. It's not.
The story is told in a bland manner, the claymation is poorly done. The songs are lame and carry on for too long. You would expect the music to be the selling point, but it's not. And for some reason all the names have been changed to things with the letter H: "Charles Hanson", "Susan Hatkins", "Hex Watson"... it's pointless and stupid.
The best scene involves a group of The Family in a dumpster exchanging quips with Sharon Tate and her gay hairdresser. Another memorable scene is the claymation sex scene, which starts out shocking and funny but gets drawn out. People who liked "Team America" might like this, but I didn't think it was that outstanding.
How to make this film better: get better music, cut out the future story and just tell the Manson epic in a unique way (which is already done thanks to clay). Films shouldn't make you say to yourself, "I can do this so much better", but that's how I felt about this junk.
My interest in Charles Manson was dealt a blow from this mediocre adaptation. If you're like me, you'll know it's awful but watch it anyway. But I hope you're not like me.
The only reason I bought this film was because of the cast (mainly Davey Havok!) and I must admit that when I watched it for the first time I was shocked by the sexual content and apparent disrespect for the Manson murders.
Director John Roecker claims he doesn't mean to offend, although I'd find it hard not to be if I was anything to do with the subjects. Victim Sharon Tate's name has been changed to Sharon Hate, and Charlie Manson becomes Charlie Hanson, but all this is a weak attempt at detaching them from the real victims.
All this said, though, I admit that the movie is enjoyable if not thought about too deeply! There are a few comical moments, though they are mainly crude. Not for the faint hearted...
Director John Roecker claims he doesn't mean to offend, although I'd find it hard not to be if I was anything to do with the subjects. Victim Sharon Tate's name has been changed to Sharon Hate, and Charlie Manson becomes Charlie Hanson, but all this is a weak attempt at detaching them from the real victims.
All this said, though, I admit that the movie is enjoyable if not thought about too deeply! There are a few comical moments, though they are mainly crude. Not for the faint hearted...
It's easy to see why some of the animators flaked out on director John Roecker. Once you see what a pile of crap you're devoting your time to, how can your work seem worth it? Don't be surprised when you see this DVD on the discount racks at Hot Topic. Once you see the cast list, it is apparent that this film was tailor made for the mall-punks who clamor to buy clothing with pre-inserted safety pins that don't open. But indeed the vocal performances are the only reason to sit through this annoying little movie. The cast list is impressive--impressive enough to lure in the curious before they demand their money back.
The program notes for the Chicago Underground Film Festival inform the audience that every line in the film is calculated to offend. It actually should have read "mis-calculated to offend." Every joke misses the mark and most end up being really lame. I almost felt embarrassed for everyone involved. It's really hard to be offended by something that's obviously trying WAY too hard to offend. I get the feeling that Roecker was the kid in your classroom who uncontrollably blurted out random bits of unfunny, snickering to himself while everyone else wish he'd just shut up.
There's no doubt that people will be lining up to see this. I'd also wager that most who do will walk away disappointed. Does this film push boundaries? Yes. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't suck.
The program notes for the Chicago Underground Film Festival inform the audience that every line in the film is calculated to offend. It actually should have read "mis-calculated to offend." Every joke misses the mark and most end up being really lame. I almost felt embarrassed for everyone involved. It's really hard to be offended by something that's obviously trying WAY too hard to offend. I get the feeling that Roecker was the kid in your classroom who uncontrollably blurted out random bits of unfunny, snickering to himself while everyone else wish he'd just shut up.
There's no doubt that people will be lining up to see this. I'd also wager that most who do will walk away disappointed. Does this film push boundaries? Yes. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't suck.
This was a horrible film. Thank goodness it was short or I would feel long-lasting regret over spending significant time on it. It's about Charles Manson and his "family," and how they come to murder the pregnant actress and her friends.
The only reason that I laughed during it is actually a bad reason to laugh at a film, so it doesn't really deserve points. There were plenty of times when the director tried to get me to laugh, but every time I sat silently. I only laughed because it's a poorly done stop motion. Some of the scenes were absolutely ridiculous! I can't believe they even put them in the final project. They are so funny because they are so awful! Haha. I laughed at the movie, not its jokes, because honestly, the jokes were twisted. There are a few different types of twisted humor: there's twisted humor that's funny, and there's twisted humor that goes too far and is just disturbing. This movie has the latter. It has so much of it that I was getting tired by the end of the film. It was never funny, and as the movie kept going it became less disturbing, so it was just there, taking up time. I was bored, and frankly, annoyed that these characters were still on my screen. It is a short movie, but it felt long because it's just so damn not funny. It tries too hard, and it fails.
I am going to give the movie a 10% because it actually had one good thing about it. When the scenes weren't absurdly sloppy, they were actually visually fascinating. The director used good colors, unique angles, and really kinda just trips the viewer out. During a couple of the scenes, I couldn't look away because the director's techniques were so interesting. I appreciate his work for those scenes, but the rest of the movie is so bad that I almost forgot his good points.
It's dialogue is original, yes, but it's not funny. It tries too hard and just ends up disgusting and pathetic. If I had any affiliation to this film, I would change my name and pretend like I had no idea what it was. It's really that awful. It's a portrait of the horror of the human mind, that's for sure. It has one good point that is overshadowed by its many failures. I would never buy this movie. I would never even watch it again. Waste of time.
The only reason that I laughed during it is actually a bad reason to laugh at a film, so it doesn't really deserve points. There were plenty of times when the director tried to get me to laugh, but every time I sat silently. I only laughed because it's a poorly done stop motion. Some of the scenes were absolutely ridiculous! I can't believe they even put them in the final project. They are so funny because they are so awful! Haha. I laughed at the movie, not its jokes, because honestly, the jokes were twisted. There are a few different types of twisted humor: there's twisted humor that's funny, and there's twisted humor that goes too far and is just disturbing. This movie has the latter. It has so much of it that I was getting tired by the end of the film. It was never funny, and as the movie kept going it became less disturbing, so it was just there, taking up time. I was bored, and frankly, annoyed that these characters were still on my screen. It is a short movie, but it felt long because it's just so damn not funny. It tries too hard, and it fails.
I am going to give the movie a 10% because it actually had one good thing about it. When the scenes weren't absurdly sloppy, they were actually visually fascinating. The director used good colors, unique angles, and really kinda just trips the viewer out. During a couple of the scenes, I couldn't look away because the director's techniques were so interesting. I appreciate his work for those scenes, but the rest of the movie is so bad that I almost forgot his good points.
It's dialogue is original, yes, but it's not funny. It tries too hard and just ends up disgusting and pathetic. If I had any affiliation to this film, I would change my name and pretend like I had no idea what it was. It's really that awful. It's a portrait of the horror of the human mind, that's for sure. It has one good point that is overshadowed by its many failures. I would never buy this movie. I would never even watch it again. Waste of time.
A pornographic puppet show that makes Team America look like the Neighborhood of Make-Believe. Equal parts oddly comforting and supremely disturbing, it has a true punk energy: cheap, weird, offensive, and hates hippies and yuppies with equal vigor. But do I hate it, or do I love it? I think the answer is 'yes'.
Did you know
- TriviaIn an interview, Director John Roecker claimed he chose Billie Joe Armstrong to play Charlie because "no one thought he could". According to the director, he was told by friends that Billie Joe couldn't perform as the infamous Charles Manson because he was "too nice of a guy".
- ConnectionsReferences Patty Hearst (1988)
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- Страшно живи, страшно умри
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $11,290
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $11,290
- Jan 29, 2006
- Gross worldwide
- $11,290
- Runtime1 hour 15 minutes
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was Live Freaky Die Freaky (2006) officially released in India in English?
Answer