IMDb-BEWERTUNG
6,4/10
3759
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuA new take on the Manson Family murders, with a keen focus on Charles Manson himself.A new take on the Manson Family murders, with a keen focus on Charles Manson himself.A new take on the Manson Family murders, with a keen focus on Charles Manson himself.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
- Für 1 Primetime Emmy nominiert
- 6 Nominierungen insgesamt
Yvonne Delarosa
- Catherine 'Gypsy' Share
- (as Yvonne De La Rosa)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
Of 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.
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.
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.
Being as hyped as this movie was, not only was it flawed, it was just plain boring.
Although the choice to use Linda Kasabian was a smart one, and interesting to say the least, everything else was yawn-inducing.
The performance of Jeremy Davies as Charles Manson was surprising - he pulled it off perfectly - the performances of those at Cielo Drive were cringe-worthy. Even after spending time with Sharon Tate's sister, Whitney Dylan still couldn't find the spark to play her.
For reasons unknown, CBS took the step of changing the address of Cielo Drive from 10050 to 10000 - do they know that the now infamous house has been gone for 10 years? They also took the opportunity to change some already dramatic scenes from 1969 to pathetic and downright moronic scenes for this film. Yes, Charles Manson did see Sharon Tate at Cielo Drive in real life, but not like it was shown in the film. And, for anyone who has knowledge on this case, Abigail Folger and Wojciech Frykowski were not that cozy or loving when they were killed - FAR from it.
Not only did CBS leave many with the wrong idea about those in Cielo Drive, they thought they could get away with overlooking small details of the case. I, for one, noticed them all.
All in all, Clea and Jeremy probably saved this film from being even more boring than it was. They were the only interesting things about this film and should be rewarded by CBS if this dreadful piece gets high ratings.
Although the choice to use Linda Kasabian was a smart one, and interesting to say the least, everything else was yawn-inducing.
The performance of Jeremy Davies as Charles Manson was surprising - he pulled it off perfectly - the performances of those at Cielo Drive were cringe-worthy. Even after spending time with Sharon Tate's sister, Whitney Dylan still couldn't find the spark to play her.
For reasons unknown, CBS took the step of changing the address of Cielo Drive from 10050 to 10000 - do they know that the now infamous house has been gone for 10 years? They also took the opportunity to change some already dramatic scenes from 1969 to pathetic and downright moronic scenes for this film. Yes, Charles Manson did see Sharon Tate at Cielo Drive in real life, but not like it was shown in the film. And, for anyone who has knowledge on this case, Abigail Folger and Wojciech Frykowski were not that cozy or loving when they were killed - FAR from it.
Not only did CBS leave many with the wrong idea about those in Cielo Drive, they thought they could get away with overlooking small details of the case. I, for one, noticed them all.
All in all, Clea and Jeremy probably saved this film from being even more boring than it was. They were the only interesting things about this film and should be rewarded by CBS if this dreadful piece gets high ratings.
I sure enjoyed this campy, terrible new version of Bugliosi's flawed, fascinating version of the Manson murders. I suppose the production's tragic flaw is that Warner Bros. was determined to exploit Jeremy Davies' uncanny Charles Manson impersonation, but unwilling to devote much time to it. It's difficult to say who could respect this version of the horrifying events which brought an end to hippiedom. Squeezed unhappily into a little over two hours, those familiar with the case will sneer at the ruthless editing and condensation of the facts and events surrounding the murders. Incredibly, the film comes to an abrupt halt before the trial, hastily summed up in text just before the final credits, even begins! Those only passingly familiar, or unfamiliar, with Manson will simply be left out in the cold by the completely incoherent, fragmented narrative. Luckily, it's loaded with camp value, and there are occasional glimmers of how great this version could have been if they had only pumped up the silliness a few more notches. On the DVD, for instance, there is an outtake of a scene where Susan Atkins breaks into a torrid go-go dance in prison, and you wish she would burst into song, too, so that the whole production would go where it obviously wants to go. Another laughable aspect is the consistent undermining of the various actresses' performances by their ludicrous wigs. Unfortunately, this production doesn't live up to the inherent promise of the source material, either as true crime, or as bad-taste comedy, so I can't give it four stars. Nevertheless, it's wrong-headed enough to be fun, even if all I could think while watching it was how much better it could have been if John Waters had directed it.
If you are really interested enough in the whole Manson affair to
devote 7 hours to it, it would probably be best to see this together
with the 1976 original, because the two fascinatingly complement
each other like yin and yang, or two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.
Moreover, in spite of the chronology of their release, it would
probably be better to see the 2004 version first, then the 1976
version. The 1976 version begins with the murders already having
occured, whereas the 2004 version focuses mainly on the events
leading up to the murders, and hardly at all on the legal aspects. It
could be summed up: 1976 version, mostly detective and legal
work, 2004 version, mostly a psychological study.
The 2004 version succeeds quite well in showing how Manson
had the power that he did. Nothing that Manson says makes
much sense; he exhibits what shrinks call tangentiality, i.e., the
inability to focus on a point. While this leads most people to avoid
Manson in the outside world, in the cloistered environment of
Manson's commune, it forces the listener to listen all the more
closely. In Jeremy Davies' riveting performance, Manson seems
almost oracular; the very obscurity of what he was saying can
make him seem, to the young naifs with whom he surrounded
himself, profound. It is easy to see how they found him hypnotic.
Davies makes Manson seem scarier than ever.
devote 7 hours to it, it would probably be best to see this together
with the 1976 original, because the two fascinatingly complement
each other like yin and yang, or two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.
Moreover, in spite of the chronology of their release, it would
probably be better to see the 2004 version first, then the 1976
version. The 1976 version begins with the murders already having
occured, whereas the 2004 version focuses mainly on the events
leading up to the murders, and hardly at all on the legal aspects. It
could be summed up: 1976 version, mostly detective and legal
work, 2004 version, mostly a psychological study.
The 2004 version succeeds quite well in showing how Manson
had the power that he did. Nothing that Manson says makes
much sense; he exhibits what shrinks call tangentiality, i.e., the
inability to focus on a point. While this leads most people to avoid
Manson in the outside world, in the cloistered environment of
Manson's commune, it forces the listener to listen all the more
closely. In Jeremy Davies' riveting performance, Manson seems
almost oracular; the very obscurity of what he was saying can
make him seem, to the young naifs with whom he surrounded
himself, profound. It is easy to see how they found him hypnotic.
Davies makes Manson seem scarier than ever.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesIn 2001, Jeremy Davies was in preparations for a different independent film about Charles Manson. He made a tape for the filmmakers of himself playing Manson and the tape became a popular bootleg in the industry. CBS cast Davies and allowed him to rewrite his lines due to his performance in the tape.
- PatzerAs Linda is going through Rosemary Labianca's wallet, VISA and Master Cards can be seen. In 1969 Visa was called Bank AmeriCard and Master Card was called Master Charge.
- Zitate
Charles Manson: How can I be a hippie when I hate hippies?
- Alternative VersionenA Director's Cut was released on DVD including uncensored scenes, with frames exposing nudes and violence. Explicit material was not shown on the TV presentation as it was highly inappropriate for minors. A considerable number of scenes were re-framed to be showed on television. Although, this version runs only 1 minute longer.
- VerbindungenReferences Das Tal der Puppen (1967)
- SoundtracksWhatever Will Be, Will Be
Written by Jay Livingston and Ray Evans
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Offizieller Standort
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- 迴轉遊戲
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen
Oberste Lücke
By what name was Helter Skelter (2004) officially released in Canada in English?
Antwort