Alicia I love this movie so much

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Borserie it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

RealLiveClaude I was curious to see the outcome of this vicious crime done in 1969 and its consequences.Dubbed at the time by a French-Canadian dubbing company (Sonolab), this was an excellent rendering of this egomaniac guru that was Charles Manson, accompanied by his "Family" who did this horrible massacre, especially that the murders (especially actress Sharon Tate, as widowed husband Roman Polanski suffered this loss... and went into dire consequences as we know today...) still give chills the way it happened.Though Steve Railsback had a very good role in "The Stunt Man" later, I still remember him with the role of Manson: its looks and the attitude stills marks me today. Was real convincing in my books.Most of the actors were not mainstream, but were excellent with a good script and good direction. Rare thing for a made-for-TV movie at the time. And I did not forget the late George Di Cenzo, who did a great job as the role of the prosecutor...I write this 40 years after I watched it, and knowing the real Charles Manson won't read this, he just left for his "Helter Skelter" world...

trishaade "Helter Skelter" is not billed as a horror movie, but it's been my experience that some stories and films about real people can be just as terrifying, if not more so, than a monster movie. This one is a case in point.The time was the 1960's, the era of free love, drugs, discontented youth, political unrest and protests. Kids felt like they could change the world, and many rebelled against everything their parents held dear. Thousands of young people migrated to Haight-Ashbury to join in on the fun. Gurus abounded and anyone who owned a guitar and could talk the talk had a leg up on those who didn't.Enter Charles Manson, a 32 year old who was a long term convict and had just been released from prison. He gravitated to Haight-Ashbury with his guitar and over a period of time, was able to recruit young people to join his commune which he later termed his "family". There was a catch though - you couldn't join if Charlie didn't want you. The reason? Charlie was looking for people he could easily manipulate. He'd learned to be quite the chameleon in prison, and was able to tell each one of his damaged followers exactly what they wanted and needed to hear resulting in their absolute devotion and his absolute control. A career criminal, as astounding as it sounds, was able to convince these people through manipulation, sex and drugs that he was indeed Jesus Christ and that they were his "chosen". This ultimately led to the murders of Sharon Tate and her unborn child, Abigail Folger, Jay Sebring, Wojciech Frykowsk, Steven Parent and Leo and Rosemary LaBianca, among others.The movie closely follows the book written by Vincent Bugliosi, the lead prosecutor during the resulting murder trial of Manson and three of the four other participants. What makes this movie so scary? It's not just the story of manipulation, mind control and murder that makes it so frightening, but coming to the understanding that these people had absolutely no remorse for what they did and would have gladly done it again if Charlie asked them to. Listening to Susan Atkins' grand jury testimony about killing Sharon Tate in graphic detail like it was no bigger of a deal than going grocery shopping is quite chilling. And finally, understanding that this is a true story, not fiction, and at any given time or place another Charlie might be lurking in the shadows.This movie would have failed miserably if it was poorly acted or hammy - it wasn't. All of the actors were quite convincing. Casting Steve Railsback as Manson was pure genius as far as I'm concerned. This is by far the best Manson movie out there. If you are into true crime, this movie should definitely be on your watch list. A perfect example of the truth being stranger than fiction.

dougdoepke Fascinating film about crimes that gripped the nation in 1969. Had the first victims not included Hollywood celebrities, I doubt the sensationalism would have been so pervasive. Nonetheless, the state's account is told in painstakingly detailed fashion, while it's a tribute to the filmmakers that not even the many lawyerly conflabs manage to pall. Of course, there were social-political agendas at stake at the time. Many folks saw the Manson murders as logical outcome of an undisciplined, hedonistic hippie movement. After all, what else could be expected of rootless sex-happy druggies. On the other hand, counterculture folks did their best to disassociate a lunatic Manson and his witless followers from movement principles. The movie essentially presents the case from prosecutor Bugliosi's point of view, but is wisely careful not to indict the counterculture as a whole. Railsback plays the bearded lunatic with wild-eyed abandon—how much is true to life and how much caricature is open to speculation. Most unnerving to me, however, is Nancy Wolfe as Susan Atkins. Her need to believe in a leader-type, any leader who pays her attention, suggests an undercurrent more alarming than Charlie himself. Then too, Wolfe plays Atkins with effective and understated malign. On the other hand, DiCenzo's prosecuting attorney is clearly the hero. Wisely, Bugliosi comes across as a consummate professional, without swagger or ego. Thus the contrast with Manson is striking, leaving no doubts about the trial's outcome. Note too, how police bureaucracy mishandles the Tate murder weapon, making prosecution more difficult, a good touch to include. Too bad, however, that Manson's charismatic side is not included. For example a scene that shows how he was able to emotionally seduce his followers. As things stand, we get the dramatic effects without the seductive cause.On the whole, the long version, 180-minutes, is slickly done, especially for a TV movie. Now that 50-years have passed, most Americans have no living memory of what a splash the freighted crimes made. In that sense, the movie—for better or worse-- amounts to an entertaining visual record.

maryaha I saw this movie in 1976 when I was 16 years old and it scared me to death. The first half came on Thursday night and I did okay with that. The next day I bought the book and watched the second half of the movie. The book states "the book you are about to read will scare the hell out of you". And it did. When I went to bed that night, I had nightmares so vivid that I could see the killer's car pull up in front of my house. This terror went on for several nights more and I decided that I was too dang scared to read the book so I threw it in a dumpster. It was 15 years before I would pick that book up again and actually be able to read it. Even then though, it frightened me something terrible. I rented the movie on VHS a few times and it scared me each time, but I loved the movie. I now have it on DVD and I watch it from time to time. The movie, with the clothes and hairstyles is indeed dated but it is still an excellent movie. On a scale from one to ten, it is a ten. I have since read the book numerous times, but I always heed the warning about it scaring the hell out of you. Anyone that has not seen this movie needs to see it. For me, it is not about the control that Charlie had over his family that is so evil. It is the fact that there are people in this world evil enough to do what they did to their helpless and innocent victims. These murders changed the U.S. forever and maybe that is why people are still so interested in this murder case, and that includes me too. I read everything I can find about the case, the victims, the killers and everyone else involved. I would like to be in contact with others that are still interested in this bizarre story. My contact information is maryaha@yahoo.com.