AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

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.

Hitchcoc I recall being a young teacher in 1976, visiting an artist friend and watching this film. We had read Vincent Bugliosi's book. The Tate/Lobianco murders were fresh in our minds. Manson gained celebrity as a latter day Hitler, enticing young lost souls into his lair and sending them off to do his bidding. Those names, Patricia Krenwinckle, Leslie Van Houton, and the others were a part of the popular culture. And Manson, who remains in prison to this day, with those piercing eyes and crazy antics, that swastika on his forehead, was the stuff of horror fiction. These were part of one of the biggest cases in history, probably the biggest until the O. J. Simpson trial. I wondered where they had found Steve Railsback. He was able to capture the Manson character so well. I'll never forget the stopping of the clock, which, I suppose is a bit of movie contrivance, but I remember shuddering as the network went to the next commercial. This really has worn well. I watched it a couple weeks ago, explaining to my twenty-something daughter what had taken place all these year's ago. It captured the attention of all of America then and while rather primitive in its production values, it still works quite well.

Alain English After watching the recent version of the Manson murders "Helter Skelter" (2004) I looked up the 1976 TV movie to have a look at. This version is pretty much a straightforward adaptation of the bestselling book with author and prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi (here played by George DiCenzo) narrating events throughout.The film covers the investigation of the infamous Tate-LaBianca murders and the trial of Charles Manson, hippie-cult leader, and members of his 'Family' for the killings. Although aliases are used for some of the characters, things are pretty easy to follow and nearly phase of the investigation and trial are covered within a full three hours.The staging of it is accurate, with good reproductions of the murder scenes, grand jury indictments and the courtroom. The murders themselves are still dramatised but they are not shown in full with mere flashes of the tragedy mingled in with witness testimony. Despite this, the story is not nearly exploited enough for full dramatic impact.Although Steve Railsback does a credible job as Manson and is actually quite frightening in some moments (especially when he threatens the doomed Shorty Shea), the film does not allow enough scope for him to really develop the character. Also the film does not mention the Vietnam War, one of the reasons for the hippie-cult movement from where Manson picked his followers. The portrayal of Irving Kanarek, Manson's defense attorney (here named Everett Scoville), effectively reproduces the man's destructive attacks on the prosecution witnesses, yet more could have been derived from the buffoonery of his obstructionist tactics.Astonishingly, the portrayal of Vincent Bugliosi is alarmingly dull. Now George DiCenzo is a good fit for the part and he is clear and precise throughout, but he completely misses the sheer passion of the man for his work or the way he does not suffer fools gladly (these traits are evident in all his books and in TV interviews). As a result the film does not have a charismatic hero, and the strange relationship between him and Charles Manson (where Bugliosi comes to understand his quarry, as Manson forms a grudging respect for Bugliosi) is not fully exploited or even explored until virtually the end of the film.A very good effort, and no doubt chilling at the time, but it just wasn't dramatic enough for my liking.

Rathko 'Helter Skelter' is a three-hour CBS TV movie chronicling, in almost documentary-like detail, the investigation, arrest, and trial of Charles Manson and the Manson Family for the Tate/LaBianca murders of 1969. Nothing is shown of the killings themselves, just the aftermath, and being told from the point-of-view of the investigators, nothing is seen of Manson and his followers in the period leading up to the murders. The whole thing, therefore, is a pretty standard legal procedural thriller, often highlighting the unbelievable incompetence of the LAPD and associated authorities.The movie has dated, not only in its look, but in its style of storytelling. When the CSI team can wrap up three cases in a 40 minute running time, 'Helter Skelter' seems, at times, overly long and leisurely in its pacing – not so much a fault of the movie as a sorry comment on contemporary expectations. This extended running time does, however, present an opportunity to go into minute detail about the case, and patience is often rewarded.The film is lifted above the norm by exceptional performances from Steve Railsback as Charles Manson and Nancy Wolfe as Susan Atkins. So fascinating and genuinely chilling are the two characters that these actors create that the movie seems to fall flat when they are not around. I, for one, was far more interested in them than the investigation and wanted to know more about their background, the origins of their unquestionable insanity, their motives, their relationships, and how the Family came in to existence in the first place. Though these issues are hinted at, none are developed as much as the brilliant characterizations demand.Worth watching for some incredibly cold and chilling performances, but offers little in the way of real explanation for their actions.