House of Manson

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.

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.

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.

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.

Beginning with the October 1969 raid of the Charles Manson ranch in California, and the capture of the infamous cult leader. Manson, written and directed by Brandon Sagle is actually the first film I have seen that gives me backstory into who Charles Manson was and why he did what he did. (I know there are other projects out there, but I just haven't seen them yet)

Titled House of Manson in other countries, but retitled Manson for its UK release. The film is beautifully filmed and has a wonderfully cinematic 1970s feel to it, the sort of feel that I got from Rob Zombies The Devils Rejects and the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre (yes I know that one was actually filmed in the 70s, but you see my point hopefully. The look and feel to the film works wonderfully seeing as this is a period piece taking us back to the beginning so we can learn about the Manson parents, the Manson childhood and of course we the audience just know the dark times to come and Manson shows it all.

Ryan Kiser (Truth or Dare) is the perfect choice to play Charles Manson and he comes off as scary as they can get without going over the top with it.even causing the audience to feel somewhat sorry for him in a few places, but never letting us forget just how insane and dangerous Charles Manson was and is. There is always the feeling when people think about Charles Manson was just a crazed lunatic, but in reality and shown here in Manson is the truth that people found him very charismatic and were hugely supportive of him and won over by his words and personality. That was a powerful tool but sadly added to the fact he is a crazy as they get. Makes for a very dangerous recipe.

Devanny Pinn (The Black Dahlia Haunting) is perfect in the role of Susan Atkins, one of the cult of Manson who is also captured during the 1969 raid following the Sharon Tate killings. Without even mentioning how good Devanny is in the role, I could go on about just how damn creepy her glare is in Manson.. Devanny and Ryan's are the best performances in the film, which isn't meant to take anything away from the other cast, its just that Ryan and Devanny are so damn good There are scenes in Manson that will chill you without a single word, but a single glance and head movement is all that is needed.

So is Manson a horror film? Is it a biopic? Is it a drama? Well yes to all really but horror fans, please be assured that when the violence kicks in. It sure as hell kicks in. When we finally get to the Tate killings, it doesn't hold back, and when thinking this is an actual real life event it just shocks you to the bone. (or at least it did me) The film could be described as a slow burner, but I felt like it was more a pressure cooker, raising its temperature until the lid flies off and hits us in the face.

The moment we see Charles Manson first knock on the door of the Polanski residence, my heart sunk as I have read many books detailing the events Hollywood biographies that mention the fact that people knew of Charles Manson, he was the charismatic hippie kid that hung around the neighborhood. Knowing what was coming next and how far would the film go in showing it, made me 100% nervous. I was right, when the lid flies off this pressure cooker it certainly does fly off and whilst the film 100% doesn't glorify the violence and insanity of that night, it doesn't hold back either and caused me to look away on a few occasions. Brutal, but realistic with it. Which I would hope is what the filmmakers were going for. What I also loved about the film and its not a spoiler, I promise. Is that over the end credits. We are given text updates on what happened to a lot of the main 'names' in this tragedy. Not just a single line but quite a few lines which told me things I didn't know.

All in all Manson (or House of Manson if you are outside the UK) is a tough watch and I still cant work ouit if Id class it as more biopic/drama than horror. It certainly has a lot of horror in it and will make you cringe beyond belief if you have one ounce of humanity in you. Highly recommended to everyone other than anyone who knows anyone involved in the real life events.