House of Manson

I attended the Premier of this film at the Twin Cities Independent Film festival. The film kept my attention at least and there were some things that stood out such as Ryan Kiser's lead role as 'Charlie'. He is obviously a step up from the other actors in this movie and deserves a shot at a higher budget film. I also felt the chemistry of the entire cast was good and made for a believable 'cult family'. The actors playing the parts of Leslie Van Houton, Squeaky Fromme, and Tex Watson were believable and stood out above the other supporting cast. However, the acting for the role of Sharon Tate was unfortunately a disaster. The Susan Atkins actor had the right idea, but I felt she may have just been trying too hard to be crazy/quirky. That being said, I understand that with a higher budget and more time, many scenes could be redone with some extra attention from the director.

During the Q&A with the Director and Cast, it came to light that this movie was filmed in 15 days, covering a 128 page script. Wow ... that in and of itself was amazing! There were some admitted sound and scene transition issues that hopefully will get cleaned up. On that note ... I felt there was a severe over use of music/sound effects. Most every scene had continuous sound effects which was unnecessary. It was distracting at times and took away from the effect of the overall dialog. I assume it was intended to establish a mood, but some of that mood could have been created by the dialog itself. Every scene was shot up close and could have used some wider angles to gain a better experience of the entire landscape (lack of budget most certainly played a role here).

Some people know the Manson story much better than others. The assumption should be that the viewer of the film doesn't know a lot of the details. The characters of the 'family' could have been introduced better. Some of the scenes could have been set up in order to introduce characters instead or relying on the knowledge of the 'Manson' story.

The director said during Q&A that they wanted to show the humanity of Charles Manson and why he may have turned out the way he did (ala Michael Myers - Halloween (2007)). The idea was there, but more time should have been focused on the abuse and abandonment that developed his character. They mentioned that Charlie's mom sold him for a case of beer, so why not add that scene in? Showing Charlie watching his Mom kiss a man (from a crack in a door) does not show a pattern of inappropriate parenting, much less abuse. Dig into that and you might persuade me that he was a victim of poor upbringing at least.

All in all, this was a decent attempt, but I think it could be even more engaging with some additional time and budget. I enjoyed it for what it was. Good job for all who endured the compact 15 days of filming!

This is only my opinion as a movie goer, and I realize it is much more difficult to create an independent film based on what you have to work with. It intrigues me to understand all that goes into creating an entire film with so little budget. I am a fan of the entire scene and wish all involved all the success they deserve for all the hard work they have put into such a film.

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.

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.

The story for this film was solid, if straightforward, depicting the Manson family murders and a few post-murder interrogations, with a sympathetic nod to Manson's early life. The dialog was serviceable at best.

The biggest problem with the film is the casting. While Ryan Kiser bears a passing resemblance to Manson, he lacks the sinister gravitas needed for the role. He comes close at times but overall he's just too innocuous in both looks and demeanor.

The Manson gang is even more poorly cast. Their acting is fine when it comes to the line readings, but they're generally too old for their roles and are unconvincing as hippies. The victims are also badly cast and all the characters are poorly developed. Manson's lawyer is the only convincing character in the lot.

The locations are meager. The "upscale" dwelling of Tate has the same sickly yellow walls as every other house in the movie.

All that said, if you want to see a basic depiction of the crimes, this one is fairly accurate.

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.