Cleveronix
A different way of telling a story
Taha Avalos
The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.
Sarita Rafferty
There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.
scarletminded
It's an average movie done in the trendy styles that What We Do Is Secret did, only a bit better. First the actors did try to act, unlike the Germs film. I liked the prospective of the woman who did escape from the Family in the end, that way you saw the acts as an outsider, which I feel is more gory than showing it firsthand and this is better for those of us who want facts about the Manson Family Murders yet don't want to see every violent second, though there are photos of the victims at the end of it.It should probably be more balanced, like show the victims families and their reactions to the case. Sharon Tate's sister is there, so we get her opinions of it. It is especially moving when she talks about Roman Polanski surviving the terrible things that Nazis were doing in Poland, yet broke down mentally when his wife and unborn child were murdered. And maybe Linda Kasabian should have served some time for her passive accessory activity during the murders (she herself, like Manson, didn't directly kill anyone), but her escape and hiding led to the capture of the Family, so without that, they might have kept on killing. I wouldn't recommend it as your first and only exposure to this story, but if you know about the Manson Family already, the prospective of Linda Kasabian's view of her time there might give you new insight. I only encountered it on late night TV, after I found out a Foetus song, DI-19026 was about Spahn Ranch, apparently it was Spahn Ranch's phone number, as least that is what it says on the record. Anyway, weird meshing of events.
Brad
When I saw that the History Channel was putting together yet another documentary on the Manson Murders, my skepticism was pretty high. Recent attempts to discuss or re-enact the murders and/or trials have added little to the discussion, and in some cases, were downright awful or amateurish at best (see Jim VanBebber's "The Manson Family"). After watching this latest attempt, I was mildly impressed.The acting is decent, although some of the actors chosen were all wrong for the parts (Terry Melcher as a skinny guy with short brown hair...I mean...REALLY). The re-enactments of the murders were pretty well done, although for some unknown reason, the filmmakers got the clothing wrong AGAIN. It is common knowledge that the killers all wore dark clothing (a mistake also made in the latest TV-movie version of "Helter Skelter" five years ago...WHY???) and the houses used to sub for the Tate and LaBianca residences look all wrong. Surely they could have found houses that looked somewhat like the actual sites? Still, it could have been worse! What made this most intriguing was the participation of star witness Linda Kasabian. She has given few public interviews over the past forty years, so it was interesting to see her here. While some may still disagree with her exoneration due to being the star state's witness, the fact remains that she did not kill anyone either night. Was she an accomplice? Yes...but nowhere as culpable as her colleagues in madness. Vincent Bugliosi and Debra Tate also make appearances in the film, although they add little new to the mix. I really think Bugliosi could do Manson material in his sleep at this point! The program also does a good job of showing Manson's shift from "peace and love" leader to the raving maniac he has since become (partly due to his joy in mocking the mass media by being the madman they want him to be). The scenes of the Spahn Ranch are well done, and for the most part, this is a decent documentary. While few Manson programs will reach the heights of the original TV movie from 1976 (even with its over-the-top moments), this little program does a good job of hitting the primary points of the case.Classic or definitive? No. A decent introduction to those who do not know the case? Yes.
notpotus
This was a good, not great, documentary. The part that was very well done was the realistic reenactment of watching the girls and Tex going into the house and doing the senseless deed. In previous movies and documentaries the reenactments were not at all realistic. In this one, you can actually believe that this is the way the crimes were committed. And the events are not depicted in a gruesome manner, while at the same time there was no question the murders were horrible. The part that was not well done was some of the scenes at the murder site suggest that you could just drive right by the house and you were right there. That was not the case. The house was behind a gated driveway and down the driveway. The LoBianco house was much more accurately depicted. I also think they made an error on the location of the Spahn Movie Ranch. I believe the graphic read that it was in Benedict Canyon. That is not correct. Spahn Movie Ranch was out in the Chatsworth area in the Simi Valley, although they were correct in saying it was about 25 miles from Los Angeles. Minor errors like this cause the documentary to lose credibility. Overall, I thought the documentary was well done. The acting in the reenactments was very believable. Getting the real Linda Kasabian to speak about the crimes was a real fine catch because, to the best of my knowledge, she's been silent on the crimes since she provided the testimony that put away Manson, Tex Watson and the girls. Was her version of things a bit slanted? Probably. But no one has ever said she actually participated in the killings-- not even the people she caused to spend the rest of their lives in prison, and not any member of the Manson family, and all of these people had reason to attack Kasabian's credibility. That doesn't make Kasabian a saint and she should have spent considerable time in prison (she didn't report the crimes, she simply ran away after the Lo Bianco murders)but without her testimony it is very likely Manson and all the others would have walked away without being convicted. This was a good documentary that, with a few improvements, could have been a great documentary. A documentary that includes Bugliosi, Tate's sister and Linda Kasabian is off to a great start and those interviews alone make this an important documentary.
moonspinner55
Linda Kasabian recounts her 1969 relationships with Charles Manson and his youthful followers as if she were one of those women on TV chatting about how taking an aspirin saved her life. This ridiculous two-hour special from the History Channel shows virtually no interest in the victims who lost their lives at the hands of these people, only in Kasabian's sluggish 'bystander' retelling of events (enacted by performers who seem to have been over-directed without benefit of a script). This is one of those bad ideas which can't even be compensated for by the testimony of case prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi or Debra Tate, sister to slain actress Sharon Tate. The intimate details offered by the special are suspect, the reenacted crimes (broken up by commercial interruptions) are sketchily drawn, and the statistics at the finale (which shows the ACTORS posing for mug-shots!) are half-hearted at best, swiftly wiped from the screen like yesterday's headlines. Shameful, pointless swill. It's difficult to discern whether Kasabian is apologizing for her involvement...or if the show is apologizing for her.
