furirosa

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.

What a terrible waste of time. Just another weak attempt to try and cash in on the hype surrounding Mel Gibson's movie. Fortunately this piece of trash will easily be forgotten. The story is just made up, touching on a few events ripped from the Gospels, and loaded with contrived and anachronistic dialog (funny how they use the word "crusade" a full thousand years before it even happened, for example). By far the biggest insult to every real Christian is once again Jesus is portrayed as a bumbling, head-in-the-clouds airhead who has no idea what he's doing, and needs all these people around him to tell him what to do.

Really, this movie was an impossible task to begin with - retelling the Gospels from another's view does not work - the Bible has just one central character calling the shots. You might as well remake Star Wars from the point of view of R2D2. If you want a moving telling of the gospels, "Jesus of Nazareth" is still by far the best out there. While that too has fictional characters added in, it still proves to be the noblest and most sublime.

This is yet another attempt to show a more "human" Jesus, and ends up showing him as indecisive, hesitant, weak, and needing the help and guidance of a few mortals to get him through. That is hardly the Jesus most Christians believe in. On the positive side, it does show a more playful and humorous Jesus, instead of merely a stoic and sterile portrayal. But this is quickly drowned out in the story's failures. By far the biggest fault in this story is that it starts off from the very beginning with an *agenda* - that is the Jews are completely blameless and all the guilt falls on the Romans. It even warps scripture to portray this. In the Gospels you read how Jesus makes attacks on hypocricy and the false piety of the scribes and Pharisees; in this film they're nowhere to be seen. For the Sermon on the Mound Jesus is mocked and argued down. In many instances Jesus looks more like just some guy chosen to be the Christ, instead of a Messiah sent from God. The second problem with the story is that it's just too hard to tell the Gospel in 4 tv hours. And some of that is wasted on a cool looking Satan in an Armani suit leaving the Gospels altogether and taking Jesus on a time trip. In short, if you want a far more uplifting and accurate portrayal, see Zeferelli's "Jesus of Nazareth". It's still the creme de la creme of the story of Jesus, and after seeing it you'll know how weak Jesus (1999) really is.