Helter Skelter Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
720x392 | 1952.51 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x324 | 1104.48 MiB | divx | |
|
320x176 | 412.37 MiB | ipod | |
|
320x176 | 415.28 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Based on the true story of the Manson murders.
How did one man turn all-American teens into cold-blooded killers?
A new take on the Manson Family murders, with a keen focus on Charles Manson himself.
| Jeremy Davies | Charles Manson |
| Clea DuVall | Linda Kasabian |
| Allison Smith | Patricia 'Katie' Krenwinkle |
| Eric Dane | Charles "Tex" Watson |
| Mary Lynn Rajskub | Lynette 'Squeaky' Fromme |
| Michael Weston | Bobby Beausoleil |
| Hal Ozsan | Joey Dimarco |
| Rick Gomez | Milio |
| Robert Joy | Detective Morrisy |
| Graham Beckel | Jerry |
| Chris Ellis | Sgt. Whiteley |
| Isabella Hofmann | Rosemary LaBianca |
| Robert Costanzo | Leno LaBianca |
| Yvonne Delarosa | Catherine 'Gypsy' Share |
| Crystal Rivers | Diane |
| John Gray |
6.00 out of 10 (737 votes)
Visitor Reviews
A Must See
posted on 12 Aug 2009This is a must see movie. It really consist of focusing on Manson himself and who he was then of the original one. It is very detailed and I myself know a great deal about Charlie and the family and I must say every detail is absolutely correct with the exception of maybe 2 or 3 very small unneeded things you would need to know. But believe me the point is made very well. Grey did an excellent job directing and I just loved the negative visual effects he threw in there to give it a one of a kind horror/thriller look to the film. Also it's great to get the DVD if you can because you will want to check out the special features and Jermeny Davies preparation for this film and his exact on the money portrayal of Manson.
Effective Re-Telling of a True American Horror Tale
posted on 23 Jun 2009HELTER SKELTER (2+ outta 5 stars)The second made-for-TV version of the story of Charles Manson and the hypnotic hold he had over various young people that he came into contact with in 1970s California. So powerful was his charisma that he had otherwise normal and decent-seeming kids committing murder on his orders.
The acting is pretty good... and I think the quality of the production is a step up from the original TV movie... but the movie seems to wrap up too quickly... I wanted to see more of the trial... and perhaps less of the actual murder sequences. Jeremy Davies gives an impressive performance as Manson... especially the way he uses his whole body to convey Manson's fractured state of mind. Bruno Kirby as prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi (author of the book... and producer of this movie... what a coincidence!) is effective except for an awful hairstyling job. It looked as if they shaved the top of Kirby's head to make him appear to be balding... but it looked so fake I just couldn't keep from staring. Not a bad story of you are unfamiliar with the facts of the case... but I would like a movie that probes a little deeper.
Forgets about visuals.
posted on 08 May 2009Good narrative movie that gives important information for those who are interested in the Manson's clan modus operandi and the infamous Sharon Tate murder. The problem is that this movie focuses too much on the informative field but forgets about the visuals.There aren't interesting moments for a movie that has a Horrot label. The movie is very toned down for such a brutal concept and plot. The main problem with this movie that I understand it's very low budget is that it lacks of quality production values.If you watch this once, you will quickly forget about it because it does not have much to offer. The information is accurate and very well displayed but as a movie, it fails on every aspect.
Tastelessly Commercial and Pointless
posted on 02 Apr 2009Having long nurtured a fascination with the Manson Family murder spree, when I heard CBS was airing a new film version of 'Helter Skelter,' co-produced by Vincent Bugliosi and starring the gifted Jeremy Davies as Manson, I couldn't resist tuning in. Boy, was I disappointed.Davies is a superb actor, but, despite his previously demonstrated ability to play twisted, mentally unstable characters ('Solaris,' 'Saving Private Ryan', 'Ravenous'), his Manson is sort of silly and not particularly persuasive. The casting in general is fairly abysmal--especially Bruno Kirby as Bugliosi, who was at least 15 years younger than Kirby when he tried the case and at least 30 pounds lighter--though there are some small exceptions (Clea Duvall is persuasively haunting as Linda Kasabian, the key witness against the defense). In general, the whole project just seems cheap and crass: the clothes, makeup, and especially the hair on the Manson family look perversely fake and costume-ish, the story offers absolutely no new insights or perspectives on the case, and, worst of all, the direction perpetuates the fetishization of Manson that has contributed to his continued popularity among confused young people who see him as something more than a screwed-up con artist who went nuts because he couldn't get anybody to help him make a record.Why would Bugliosi sign on for this project, given that he has continued to lament Manson's continuing appeal and expressed remorse for his part in helping to enlarge Manson's myth? He couldn't possibly need the money--'Helter Skelter' is the best-selling true crime book of all time, and all of Bugliosi's subsequent literary efforts have also sold well. Initially I had thought that the film would shed light on how Manson became who he was--his history of incarceration and institutionalization, his horrific childhood, the influence of Scientology and the 'Church of the Process' on his new-agey philosophy, which he later wielded to woo his acolytes into worshiping him to the point that they lost their independent will and would be willing to murder on his order--but instead, we get a retread of facts that will be familiar to anyone who has paid the slightest attention to this case in the past.There was an opportunity here to add to the story, and to at least make a stab at unpacking the various forces which led up to Manson's bizarre, apocalyptic vision. Perhaps the most overlooked detail of Manson's history is that he is a product of the failures of society, particularly in relation to our child welfare and penal systems. The son of a 'bad girl' who abandoned him to the state, Manson suffered horrific physical and sexual abuse at the hands of older inmates before he reached his teens. By the time he showed up in the Haight in '67, he'd spent over half of his life in prison, and had even begged not to be released, acknowledging himself that he'd been 'institutionalized'--that he'd spent so much of his life in prison culture that he was neither willing nor able to make the transition back into society. Worst of all, Manson would have been the first person to tell anyone that he was far from rehabilitated when he was let loose on the world for the last time.There's no forgiving Charles Manson for his crimes, nor is there really any way of knowing if his hold over his followers was due to anything more than a shrewd con-man's instincts for exploiting vulnerable marks. But it could be argued that, had he been treated more humanely as a child, he might not have evolved into the man he became.But this film overlooks the possibility of adding something constructive to this sensational story and chooses instead to roll around in the same old dirt. It's awfully hypocritical of Bugliosi to facilitate this garbage, especially given that the product suggests that his only motives were to make a quick buck and maybe sell a few more books. It's also disrespectful to the families of the victims and the other, secondary victims of Manson--Charles Watson, Susan Atkins, Leslie Van Houten, and Patricia Krenwinkle--who were seduced into becoming murderers and, thanks to the continuing public fascination with Manson, will likely never see the outside of a prison, while far more sinister and dangerous killers are regularly paroled after serving half as much time as Manson's unlucky followers.
Charles Manson is wonderful
posted on 17 Mar 2009I really enjoyed the movie Helter Skelter. I am really interested with stuff like this. Helter Skelter would probably be one of my favorite movies. Charles Manson is a very interesting man to study. In fact, I really like him. As odd as that may sound it is the truth. I congratulate the cast of Helter Skelter. It is truly a great movie. If you don't thank that then you don't know a good movie when you see one. Further more, the book Helter Skelter is just as good as the movie. I recommend to everybody that they should see this movie if they already haven't. I think the newer version is better then the older version. Simply because the cast is better and it is more detailed but that it is just my opinion. I give this movie ten stars.
Weak
posted on 01 Feb 2009A fascinating tale of misguided wanton youths seeking love who were turned into a group of completely deluded, thieving, murderous young adults through drugs and brainwashing. The real life story behind this movie is one of crazy intrigue and true horror. I tuned in to watch this movie version because i am a big fan of both the original mini series and of an actress in the newer movie, Clea Duvall, who plays Linda Kasabian .. one of the members of Charlie's group who went without the long punishments of the others (Susan, Tex, Charlie etc.) by turning states evidence in exchange for her immunity. This movie is basically very weak. It HAS taken the opportunity to introduce other players that the original movie does not such as Charlie Mansons strange relationship with Beach Boy Brian Wilson and even introduces "Squeaky" in the first few minutes. (Lynnette "Squeaky" Fromme eventually gains some notoriety on her own by attempting murder, of her own volition, on president Gerald Ford. However if you are not already familiar with this connection you wont even understand the importance of this introduction in this movie.) I liked that they included her in this movie, her presence if even for a moment, but they don't work it in well. And so the whole movie goes. This movie, unlike the original, i also give credit for attempting to tell the story from another angle. From that of a family member rather than through the eyes of the state. What makes this movie weak is the absolute void of horror and fear that these stories or the mention of Charles Manson brings to mind. Also, the casting and exploration of other important "family members" such as Susan Atkins (aka Sadie) who played a truly creepy and enjoyable role both in the real life media surrounding these events and in the first movie is very disappointing. Although i think the director deserves credit for trying to approach this movie from another direction and feel it was probably approached this way to give a larger perspective .. it feels TOO vague, TOO fictionalized and is TOTALLY void of the horrific fear this story should instill in anyone watching. Overall ... a MAJOR disappoint for this viewer.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it
posted on 08 Jan 2009I was looking forward to the remake of the original film like thousands of other people. I found that even though the cast did a great job in recreating the individual personalities, the story lacked depth. I could not get a handle of what we were trying to zero in on in the remake that should different from the first film. The remake did not show how mesmerizing Charlie was to everyone. Steve Railsback did a haunting performance in 1976 that put chills up and down your spine. He "was" Charles Manson. I was however glad that this film did not focus on the brutality of the murders (out of respect for the victim's families). I felt like the film did not spend enough quality time on the family and the trial. Obviously if you want to make a good story better, you need more time than just three hours. The film seemed to skim over too many important events. Manson had complete power and domination over the family which moved as one large mind. This film fell short of making a statement and short of a good film. I felt cheated.
Interesting but not all it could have been
posted on 17 Dec 2008There have been numerous plays and films written about the notorious Manson murders of the 1960s and 1970s and this one is a fascinating but still not quite definitive look at Manson and his 'Family'. I did find it more enjoyable than the last film I saw on this subject, 'The Manson Family'. This one shows much more restraint and is better written, with a greater emphasis on the psychology of Manson and his followers.The film shows the Hinman murder and the Tate-LaBianca killings, and the leadup to the trial where Manson and five of his minions were eventually convicted of mass murder. In the interim there is some flashback detailing some of Manson's psychology and the bizarre philosophy behind the murders.There was enough good dialogue to make it watchable and the complex events the film portrays are covered very well. However, the film does not do all it could in this respect. First off, I am against actual re-enactments of the murders. It feels sensationalised, grotesque and unnecessary to do this, especially as since these murders actually happened and are not fictional.Secondly, I am unhappy with Jeremy Davies' portrayal of Manson as a one-note lunatic. Despite some good writing, his portrayal does not make Manson's domination of his followers seem remotely plausible and it would have been nice to see more of Manson's background, especially how he developed and gained power over his 'family'.Thirdly, the film cuts out before the actual trial takes place. Cutting out the trial is a knock to prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, who stood up to Manson (who made numerous attempts to intimidate him) and worked his backside off to nail him. To see the lawyer in action, and more of his relationship with Manson, would have been very interesting.That said, there are some great performances here. Clea Duvall makes a fetching Linda Kasabian and her journey is movingly rendered. Marguerite Moreau makes a seductively sexy Susan Atkins and, although she is playing a cold-blooded killer, is very enjoyable to watch. Bruno Kirby is slightly miscast as Vincent Bugliosi. He is ten years too old and a tad top heavy, but he does capture the tenacity and compassion of the man and when he turns up he feels like a fresh breath of sanity in the midst of all the blood and madness.A good picture but there are still some areas of the Manson cult, asides from the murders themselves, that could still be explored on screen.
A great experience
posted on 29 Nov 2008It was a great experience, a perfect director, I felt like if I was really in the office of Mr. Polanski when he received this terrible phone call. The actor is magnifique. This scene is a masterpiece and, for me, was a space-time travel and a success. The entire film is very interesting, I always think about The Beatles song when I hear or read this title. The actress is fantastic and make us forget that she is an actress. This is the best compliment to do to somebody in that industry, right? Otherwise, I appreciate that the DVD is well distributed in the Blockbuster network. Don't miss it if you want quality time about history and a good movie. Fred Vidal™
Bad wigs and casting
posted on 09 Nov 2008It's odd that Bruno Kirby was cast as Vincent Bugliosi, especially since Bugliosi was one of the producers. I guarantee you he had no say in the move to cast Kirby as himself because Kirby comes off as a fat, insecure wannabe toughguy and Bugliosi was a confident, somewhat egotistical prosecutor who knew he had Manson in the bag (and wasn't anywhere near as fat as Kirby). Kirby Puckett would have been just as convincing as Bruno Kirby. This was the worst piece of casting since Joe Mantanga as Dean Martin.The movie itself wasn't so bad, although one wonders why it was remade in the first place. The first version of this film did the job fine and had a better cast Bugliosi. Everyone else in this version was okay. The direction was average and the whole "negative screen" when the murders are happening was annoying. Either show it or don't show it, but having the screen resort to negative was just plain annoying, like a trick done in the 70s before special effects became more evolved.The other thing I hated about this was the terrible wigs. You'd think with the budget they apparently had, they could have gotten wigs that looked a little more real.
Squeaky Chloe, Manson Girl
posted on 10 Sep 2008This is not a bad movie, considering it was made for TV and much of the story is already known. Charles Manson was a sociopath who spent most of his live in prison, and who hitched along on the hippie movement of the sixties. His long hair, guitar and "philosophy" were props he used to act out his messed up psyche.Having said that, while not a bad movie, it is just not particularly gripping, because most of their victims are innocent bystanders. Who are you going to root for? I think the acting was pretty good to reasonable. If you are interested in true crime, see it if is on TV, but don't pay money for it.
Not bad, but some crucial details missing...
posted on 20 Jul 2008Although I liked this remake of the '76 version, the original still surpassed it by miles. Jeremy Davies gave a very good performance as Manson, yet didn't send chills down my spine like Steve Railsback did in the original. Although I understand that the focus of this remake was more on Manson and the family and less on the investigation and trial, I felt some key details were, maybe purposely, left out. One that really bothered me was the fact that on both nights, the killers wore dark clothing and brought changes of clothing with them, though in this version they wore whatever they happened to have on at the ranch. Tossing the bloody clothing and weapons over an embankment, they had discarded what eventually became some of the first physical pieces of evidence found linking them directly to the crimes, other than actual prints found at the crime scene. For a film that supposedly paid such close attention to detail, this was a big one to omit. All in all, worth seeing. Do see the original, though, and I think you'll agree that Steve Railsback gave an almost effortless performance as Manson, seeming to be looking at you right through your TV screen.
Chilling, Disturbing Remake
posted on 14 Jul 2008Of all the murder trials in American history, only the Charles Manson case continues to hold fascination thirty-five years after it took place. The original "Helter Skelter" film aired on CBS in 1976, and focused mainly on the trial of Manson and his zombie teen girls. It was an excellent TV movie, but we never really got a sense of what life with Manson and his young followers was like. This film takes a different approach by focusing on Manson himself, the young people whose lives were ruined by him, and by depicting the actual murders themselves, which were quite intense for a television film. Jeremy Davies ("Spanking the Monkey," "Saving Private Ryan") was deeply scary as Manson. Clea Duvall did a fabulous job as Linda Kasabian, the "family" member who witnessed the murders but did not participate. After the murders, we get the sense that Kasabian is really torn up inside and knows that what was happening was very wrong, while other family members laughed and cheered as they watched news reports of the savage killings on television. Another excellent performance was by Whitney Dylan as Sharon Tate, the pregnant actress who was violently butchered by Manson's murderous teen followers. The scene in which she is on the floor dying and asks the killers to please try and save her baby was chilling and almost tear-inducing. We also get an excellent feel of the turbulent atmosphere of the time, 1969, and how the Manson murders brought "the decade of love" to a thundering halt. What makes this so sad and scary is that this actually happened. The fact that all-American teens from respectable families fell prey to a maniacal con man and are now spending their lives in prison is a frightening reminder of how young people can so easily be led astray by false prophets who promise the world and eventually can lead you into darkness and tragedy, whether it is 1969 or 2004. This film makes you want to hug and talk to your kids about the evil, dangerous alure of cults and false religions. All of the kids in the Manson family were runaways, and Charlie told them exactly what they wanted to hear and soon had them clinging to his every deceptive word. Manson continues to have a following among young people, thirty-five years after these awful crimes, and that's what is really disturbing. Watch the original 1976 film for an exhaustive dramatization of the trial itself, and see this remake for details of the events leading up to the trial. Way above average for television.
Remakes!!! Let's pass a law forbidding them!
posted on 31 May 2008I understand the entertainment industry is entirely profit driven, and CBS, having had enormous success with the original, saw the potential of another cash cow with a remake of Helter Skelter, but please...
I can't begin to describe how much i disliked this remake. Having seen the original when it first aired, and 3 or 4 times afterward, and having read the book 3 times, i believe i have a pretty good handle on the story, and how i think it should be portrayed. And this was just awful.
Average acting, poor pacing, muddled screenwriting... One would think the story should be able to tell itself, but this should have been kept locked away along with Charlie.
See the original... it may be dated, but still chilling in its own right.
Another Lame TV Movie
posted on 23 May 2008I actually looked forward to this film, but after viewing it, I realized I wasted my time. The original TV movie was much better. In that one, the characters were totally believable. In this one it was pathetic. It's obvious that TV execs are spinning their wheels trying to come up with a decent film. CBS lost out on this one. It was boring. The case was too complicated to fit in a two hour time slot. So much was left out. The commercials were better. Re-makes are the worst. Films such as this one give reason why most people opt for cable or satellite nowadays. I'm sure the ratings on this one will be low and may it never be seen again. Anyone who reads this will be better served watching the original. Or better yet, read the book.
Unfortunately disappointed
posted on 29 Feb 2008Like many other people across the world, I too have become fascinated with the story of Charles Manson, and the horrible murders he and his "family" were responsible for. So, when I saw that they were airing a remake of "Helter Skelter", I actually got excited! Not that I'm a supporter..far from it, just very interested. I was very curious to see how a regular network channel was going to portray these demented people. I must say, I was very disappointed in both the portrayal and the overall direction that the movie took. This is the problem with not airing a movie like this on cable. Despite the "viewer discretion advised" warning, the whole story seemed downplayed to me, except of course Manson's insanity and the obsession these people had with him. At times, I'll even admit I was bored, and this story is anything BUT boring. It's unfortunate that so many points in the story were left out, and I was even more frustrated that some characters were added for "dramatic" effect. The whole story seemed to focus on how Linda Kasabian wasn't REALLY a part of anything, like it was trying to convince everyone of her innocence. I honestly like the original better...with the focus on the trial and a true look into the deep rooted insanity and commitment these people had towards making the world a "perfect" place for them. I was so unfortunately disappointed.
Poor reviews, bad ratings = a BOMB!
posted on 19 Dec 2007Well, it seems America's interest in the Tate/Labianca case and Chrales Manson is finally losing mass interest. This new telepic, which aired on May "sweeps" week, and heavily promoted and hyped, yielded a poor 4.4 national rating which equaled less than 10 million viewers, a scary 6% of the total audience available, winding up #39 for the week... Two million below the average ratings for CBS' Sunday movies. But this was a "sweeps" film. It had been estimated that more than 30 million would tune in! How WRONG they were!.CBS billed it as a "TV movie event." SORRY CHARLIE! (actually, I am not sorry at all) Besides the bad press and the bad ratings, this was a horrible re-make of the 1976 original. Events were altered, skipped, time-frames were way off, and the trial was totally ignored. I counted at least 50 mistakes and fabrications. A miss-fire to say the least. Shame on executive producer, Vincent Bugliosi, for allowing his book to be made into a rushed production, resulting in nothing but garbage---all in the name of the almighty dollar! And the joke's on him as there are not many profits to share this time. And, thankfully, this hardly watched "movie event" will insure that we won't have to be subjected to countless new Manson related TV specials, etc.If this would have been treated properly and filmed as a theatrical movie by a well named director like Oliver Stone, maybey it would have been a success. But I doubt Hollywood will consider doing any more Manson films for a very long time! All I can say is, "Helter SHMELTER! WHat a terrible movie and I am glad the audience tuned it OUT!
Jeremy Davies was amazing
posted on 09 Dec 2007Jeremy Davies did an amazing job playing Charlie Manson in this remake of the early 70's version by the same title. He was much more believable than Steve Railsback in the same role. I was quite surprised by both the brutality of the remake (considering it played on national TV) and by the fact they felt it necessary to remake this particular movie after only 30 years. I went into this kind of dreading it, since I really did like the original alot. This was well worth the watch, if for no other reason than to see Davies play Charles Manson. Truly a great performance, one that SHOULD net him much critical acclaim. I wish it had been made for the big screen. The only major issue I had with this was I felt they should have dealt a bit more with the trial towards the end, and the fact finding mission that Bugliosi went on was quite rushed. The original was still better, but check it out when it hits DVD.
Superb acting...
posted on 30 Oct 2007Not having an extensive knowledge on the Manson Family murders, I can't comment on the accuracy of the story. However, I can comment on the acting in this film, and only one word describes it: superb. Jeremy Davies was amazing as Charles Manson, and seemed such a close match to Manson himself in interviews I've seen of him. And Marguerite Moreau was just spectacular as Sadie as well. She is clearly an underrated actress who needs some larger and better roles in the future.Great movie, especially considering that it was made for TV. Perfect at concealing necessary violence while still being very effective. And even though it aired for 3 hours, I found myself interested throughout.
Excellent, especially for 3hr tv film
posted on 14 Aug 2009I was hoping this version of the Bugliosi/Gentry story of the Manson murders would not dissapoint and it didnt, it approached the very detailed book from more of the position of the Manson family and machinations. It also put a human face on those victimized and murdered by these sad seduced teenagers. Jeremey Davies gave an eerie performance as Charles Manson, he was an excellent choice but then he is always good in everything he does, Clea Duvall was great as Linda Kasabian, the girl who served as the star witness and one of the Manson Family members with a conscious.The Story opens with the one murder not often discussed the murder of music teacher Gary Hinman in july 1969 in Topanga Canyon California not too far from the other murder sites. The 3hr movie ends with the trial beginning. This was just an excellent TV movie and I think it was good to remake this again since the original is not shown often and there is this bizarre following of Manson still to this day. Well maybe those misguided souls will learn someting even from this, I recommend reading the book too, one of the first pages has an rather ominious warning "The Book you are about to read will scare the hell out of you" It will its creepy and very good reading, this movie took some of the creepiness and translated it well to screen.