178 reviews
I just hope younger people realise there is no truth in this account of sharon tate's murder. while it has been said she had visions or dreams beforehand that is the only semi truth in this movie. facts are distorted beyond belief. it goes into some rubbish about how our decisions control our fate and we can somehow change that. this seem pretty disrespectful to her family also. makes her out to be a bit crazy. it's an okay movie but twists history way out of all proportion so should not be taken seriously.
- incredingo-37769
- Apr 5, 2019
- Permalink
Life is tough out there for 90's stars. They had it all..awesome fashion, cool thin eyebrows, ecstacy and a ton of money. But what do you do when those lucrative tv show parts dry up? You get desperate And decide to exploit one of the most repulsive moments in American history. This is truly a horrific film, with hilary heavy breathing and trying to look gorgeously startled throughout, whilst cradling her prosthetic bump murmuring "I think those people are a threat to me and my baby". Sharon Tate was so much more than a murder victim, yet we always overlook her talent and contribution to fashion and films in favour of morbidly sifting through her (and her friends who always seem to be a footnote) murder. But this film goes much further by mashing up the worst horror cliches (I'm tired of seeing people in the mirror-gasp- turn around and no ones there) with deeply offensive notions that Sharon prophesied her own murder. Sharon tates family have been through so much, and the fact that they have to deal with trite schlock like this really makes me feel even worse for them. It means that theyre not allowed to heal, and it perpetuates the murder porn that permeates throughout our society and it's sick. Two stars as the music, whilst cliched, is decent.
- lizshotter-19401
- Apr 4, 2019
- Permalink
I was immediately struck how low both the IMDB and Metascores were, this movie is universally hated but it can't be that bad. Right?
Well it kind of is, bad and deeply inappropriate.
It tells the story, no sorry a "Remixed" version of the true story about the fate of actress Sharon Tate and how she fell victim to three members of Charlie Manson's "Family".
Movies about material like that just don't sit right with me. They're just inappropriate in my view, insensitive and just plain wrong. Remember they managed to make at least 2 movies out of 9/11!
Starring Hilary Duff it's an embarrassingly bad movie that honestly makes a mockery of the events that transpired on that fateful day. I don't agree with everyone saying Duff was terrible, she simply wasn't. The film itself however, awful on every level.
As the "Events" started taking place I found myself scratching my head in confusion and when the credits rolled I was angry for the victims in real life! This didn't paint a very flattering picture and made entertainment out of their demise.
Awful sick picture and everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.
The Good:
Nope
The Bad:
Deeply inappropriate
Generic home invasion movie
Moronic ending
Well it kind of is, bad and deeply inappropriate.
It tells the story, no sorry a "Remixed" version of the true story about the fate of actress Sharon Tate and how she fell victim to three members of Charlie Manson's "Family".
Movies about material like that just don't sit right with me. They're just inappropriate in my view, insensitive and just plain wrong. Remember they managed to make at least 2 movies out of 9/11!
Starring Hilary Duff it's an embarrassingly bad movie that honestly makes a mockery of the events that transpired on that fateful day. I don't agree with everyone saying Duff was terrible, she simply wasn't. The film itself however, awful on every level.
As the "Events" started taking place I found myself scratching my head in confusion and when the credits rolled I was angry for the victims in real life! This didn't paint a very flattering picture and made entertainment out of their demise.
Awful sick picture and everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.
The Good:
Nope
The Bad:
Deeply inappropriate
Generic home invasion movie
Moronic ending
- Platypuschow
- May 21, 2019
- Permalink
First off this was painful to watch as nothing happens in this movie. 90% of this film is just like meandering around a house doing nothing.
It can't commit to anything because it's a real life story so everything has to be explained away as oh it's just a dream.
It probably wasn't the best thing to write a film around as people are obviously going to be offended.
And Jesus Christ the end, I had to laugh. It was so stupid. It made the movie even more pointless.
What annoys me even more is the filmmakers knew they were flogging a dead horse because they had to put scenes In slow motion to extend the run time and I'm guessing that's why they included random real life news footage So they could pad it out.
It was lazy and boring and I wouldn't waste my time with it.
It can't commit to anything because it's a real life story so everything has to be explained away as oh it's just a dream.
It probably wasn't the best thing to write a film around as people are obviously going to be offended.
And Jesus Christ the end, I had to laugh. It was so stupid. It made the movie even more pointless.
What annoys me even more is the filmmakers knew they were flogging a dead horse because they had to put scenes In slow motion to extend the run time and I'm guessing that's why they included random real life news footage So they could pad it out.
It was lazy and boring and I wouldn't waste my time with it.
Horrible ten cent fictionalized version of the Sharon Tate murders in 1969 is the worst possible thing imagined. As if the real life murders weren't bad enough, this movie changes the outcome and turns it into a low rent slasher film. I expected Roman Polanski to fly in on Bat wings and vanquish the mighty Manson family. I realized, however, that I had been conned. As someone who has seen nearly all the major Manson films, that I was suckered into this hoping that it would interesting. Forgetting reality for a moment, how does the movie play as a thriller. Terrible. The camera work bips and bops around like Uncle Jim just got his new camcorder. The acting is awful but in fairness to them the dialogue is so bad that Meryl Streep would have had trouble with it. Really though, this is exploitation of the worst kind, taking a monumental event in history and turning it into a complete sham.If people really do turn over in their graves then Sharon Tate must be rolling now. Watch it if you must but expect full and complete garbage of the worst order!
- danocaster
- Apr 4, 2019
- Permalink
Who ever thought that this movie would be a good idea? My sympathies go out to Sharon Tate's family. I'm sure Farrands wouldn't appreciate it if someone in his family was brutally murdered and the event was dredged up and publicly thrown back in his face in the guise of an "entertaining" film....all for the purpose of making more money. This movie idea is highly inappropriate and cruel.
- Cheshire_Cat_Grin
- Jun 30, 2019
- Permalink
I don't have a dog in the fight about whether one should make a movie like this about a real person, so I was happy to give it a go. But it does feel exploitative, in part because it is so incredibly bad that you cant help but feel it was disrespectful. If you are going to make a movie about a real person who was brutally murdered at least have the decency to make a good movie, not this amateur hour rubbish. Watch the trailer. See how bad it seems? Well, believe me, the trailer has been skillfully edited to make it look 20x better than it really is.
Daniel Farrands' latest film tells the tragedy of Sharon Tate, one of 5 deaths in an infamous real-life mass murder committed by the members of Charles Manson's cult. The release comes close to the 50th anniversary of those events.
I entered hoping for a fact-based biopic of Sharon Tate and what happened that night, giving life to the people that were killed and showing us who those people were during their short lives and final days. What we actually get is a rather dull sensationalistic take on the facts, used purely to create a horror film off the back of the tragedy. Had I seen his previous film based on Amityville murderer Ronald DeFeo (which I watched after this and is better executed while feeling narrowly less exploitive), I would've know what to expect - a mostly fictional horror story based on real victims of a real tragedy.
While it uses the real life events as an influence on the characters and story, there's clearly a lot of artistic license used and the result is a sub-par horror film that leaves a bitter taste in the mouth due to its exploitation of the real tragedy that took place. There was an opportunity to pay respect to the people that lost their lives, but unfortunately we get a forgettable home-invasion horror film with a particularly odd plot point, which feels absurd for a film which wants to give the impression that it's a fact-based biopic.
I can appreciate why Sharon Tate's sister was so against the film.
There's nothing particularly interesting about this film and it doesn't do justice to the innocent victims, nor reveal much of anything that we didn't already know. It invents more than it enlightens. Without revealing spoilers, Farrands could have easily made this horror film as a fictional story, with fictional characters, and the result would probably have earned slightly better ratings. But at its core it's a by-the-numbers horror with attempted jumps, moments of suspense, and cat-and-mouse chases, but it definitely does not give the impression (to me at least) that it wants to pay homage to the victims, nor deglorify Manson.
The acting is okay, but it's hardly top class, and Duff seems to fade in and out of using an odd accent in her portrayal of Tate. Some of the script feels unnatural, the characters are underdeveloped and some of the acting and dialogue is wooden. The story moves along at a decent pace, but it doesn't really offer enough to hold interest or build suspense, possibly because we know what's coming.
Farrands seems to have found himself a new niche, making films about real life tragedies, the next of which will be the murder of OJ Simpson's wife. Unfortunately, the tragedy of Farrands' new-found inspiration for his films is that they're exploiting these horrific real-life events for entertainment and profit.
I give it 1/10 due to the combination of it being an unoriginal and dull horror film, as well as an insensitive exploitation of the tragedy. Had it been presented as a fictional story, with fictional characters, it may have earned closer to 3 or 4 out of ten, but it still wouldn't have been anything special.
I entered hoping for a fact-based biopic of Sharon Tate and what happened that night, giving life to the people that were killed and showing us who those people were during their short lives and final days. What we actually get is a rather dull sensationalistic take on the facts, used purely to create a horror film off the back of the tragedy. Had I seen his previous film based on Amityville murderer Ronald DeFeo (which I watched after this and is better executed while feeling narrowly less exploitive), I would've know what to expect - a mostly fictional horror story based on real victims of a real tragedy.
While it uses the real life events as an influence on the characters and story, there's clearly a lot of artistic license used and the result is a sub-par horror film that leaves a bitter taste in the mouth due to its exploitation of the real tragedy that took place. There was an opportunity to pay respect to the people that lost their lives, but unfortunately we get a forgettable home-invasion horror film with a particularly odd plot point, which feels absurd for a film which wants to give the impression that it's a fact-based biopic.
I can appreciate why Sharon Tate's sister was so against the film.
There's nothing particularly interesting about this film and it doesn't do justice to the innocent victims, nor reveal much of anything that we didn't already know. It invents more than it enlightens. Without revealing spoilers, Farrands could have easily made this horror film as a fictional story, with fictional characters, and the result would probably have earned slightly better ratings. But at its core it's a by-the-numbers horror with attempted jumps, moments of suspense, and cat-and-mouse chases, but it definitely does not give the impression (to me at least) that it wants to pay homage to the victims, nor deglorify Manson.
The acting is okay, but it's hardly top class, and Duff seems to fade in and out of using an odd accent in her portrayal of Tate. Some of the script feels unnatural, the characters are underdeveloped and some of the acting and dialogue is wooden. The story moves along at a decent pace, but it doesn't really offer enough to hold interest or build suspense, possibly because we know what's coming.
Farrands seems to have found himself a new niche, making films about real life tragedies, the next of which will be the murder of OJ Simpson's wife. Unfortunately, the tragedy of Farrands' new-found inspiration for his films is that they're exploiting these horrific real-life events for entertainment and profit.
I give it 1/10 due to the combination of it being an unoriginal and dull horror film, as well as an insensitive exploitation of the tragedy. Had it been presented as a fictional story, with fictional characters, it may have earned closer to 3 or 4 out of ten, but it still wouldn't have been anything special.
Then this movie is made about the Manson murders that is so far removed from the official story that one feels like they did some of that 1969 LSD!
if i could have i would have rated this a negative 8!
ABYSMAL is being kind!
- charvelstrat81
- Apr 4, 2019
- Permalink
This movie isn't all that good to begin with but the amount of disrespect in this film is unbelievable. We see characters based on real innocent people get murdered multiple times because it's "fun". The way the director handled the situation is awful telling Sharon Tate's real sister it's "his" story and it's not her choice. He seems like a really person. I rather not see a pregnant woman and her friends get murdered time and time again just because it's a horror film.
- Andrew_M1911
- Dec 26, 2019
- Permalink
- JohnnyRatesALot
- Sep 5, 2019
- Permalink
- emilymurphy-53265
- May 10, 2019
- Permalink
Those who aren't offended by the vicious 1969 murder of Hollywood actress Sharon Tate and her friends serving as source material for a cheap, speculative horror flick will probably be bored to tears by writer/director Daniel Farrands' hamfisted effort. The decision to "re-imagine" the killings in the way that this film does is astoundingly misguided.
- JoeytheBrit
- Jun 27, 2020
- Permalink
It is an absolute waste of time, it is predictable until it annoys one. It's bad acting and an even worse story. I can by no means recommend others to waste their time on this piece of amateur movie. That this at all can reach final production and publishing can simply wonder me.
Sharon tate was eight and a half months pregnant when strangers entered her home after midnight, shot stabbed and brutalised the people she loved in front of her. After begging for her life she was stabbed 16 times. Sharon died calling out for her mother while her unborn son died inside of her. Those are the facts. Here's another one: this film is a waste of time and brain cells. Sharon tate and her family have already suffered enough. As if her highly publicised death wasn't horrible enough now you've got trash bag directors like Daniel Ferrands making trash bag films that add nothing to her legacy. Sharon once again is just a murder victim not a human being. Rest In Peace Sharon Tate.
- Lovesick66
- Oct 4, 2022
- Permalink
This movie starts ok for the first 15 mionutes of so and is easy to follow and lets you think that it will be a good movie to watch but its like driving an electric car from New York to California, it just won't make it and doesn't just fall a little short of the distance but it's a long way off and one which i could not bear to watch again. The idea is poor too, i don't know what they wanted to accomplish with this movie but i am sure they didn't achieve it, the whole execution is so poor, its like making a cup of coffee and using salt instead of sugar and vinegar instead of milk, it's just a wholly bad idea, tastes crap and something you would not put yourself through again, Stay away from this movie, stay sane, stay healthy. I'm sure if Manson had the ability somehow, he would kill the people who made this movie also.
- leopard-59572
- Jan 3, 2020
- Permalink
This was literally the worst movie I've watched in a very long time. In my opinion it was in very bad taste, I am very surprised that this movie got the go ahead for production. A movie like this is suppose to tell the story of the deceased so that their story can live on. What they did to this movie was completely disrespectful. They twisted the story up so much I learned nothing about Sharon Tate and her horrific story. Really feel that if Hollywood is going to make a film based off someone's life they should keep to their story so that the viewers are able to see the story as it was indeed or how the story unfolded. The fact they took a story like Sharon Tate and tried giving it a happy ending is just out in left field.
- asliceofsamcro-23085
- Sep 29, 2019
- Permalink
On the surface 'The Haunting of Sharon Tate' could seem like a very insensitive movie to make. As I was watching it I kept wondering how writer/director Daniel Farrands pitched this to studios and the cast to get them on board. Then the end of the movie rolled around and I realised how he'd done it (I won't spoil anything). The way the film ended was probably the best thing this film had going for it because at least it gave it somewhat of a purpose. The problem is the rest of the film is so poorly put together a lot of people may not make it to the end.
The first thing that strikes you about this film is how incredibly out of place Hilary Duff is. Both as a casting choice and in terms of her acting ability - terrible. To be fair the whole cast is pretty ordinary, but her in the lead role is the most distractingly bad of the bunch. The film also has a very strange style of direction. Some scenes are filmed in a very bizarre way that doesn't seem to add anything to the film (although thinking about it now perhaps this could play into the ending of the film which I again won't go into details on). There are some action sequences though which are unforgivably bad, like the scene where a car backs up and hits a fence. You'll understand what I mean when/if you see it.
There were a couple of genuinely creepy moments though. All the scenes involving the Manson girls were quite unsettling and the way the final sequence played out was quite disturbing. It does help the filmmakers that this was based on actual events though to be fair, which adds a degree of horror to what you are watching. For the most part though 'The Haunting of Sharon Tate' is a poorly constructed and ill-advised venture that would best be avoided.
The first thing that strikes you about this film is how incredibly out of place Hilary Duff is. Both as a casting choice and in terms of her acting ability - terrible. To be fair the whole cast is pretty ordinary, but her in the lead role is the most distractingly bad of the bunch. The film also has a very strange style of direction. Some scenes are filmed in a very bizarre way that doesn't seem to add anything to the film (although thinking about it now perhaps this could play into the ending of the film which I again won't go into details on). There are some action sequences though which are unforgivably bad, like the scene where a car backs up and hits a fence. You'll understand what I mean when/if you see it.
There were a couple of genuinely creepy moments though. All the scenes involving the Manson girls were quite unsettling and the way the final sequence played out was quite disturbing. It does help the filmmakers that this was based on actual events though to be fair, which adds a degree of horror to what you are watching. For the most part though 'The Haunting of Sharon Tate' is a poorly constructed and ill-advised venture that would best be avoided.
- jtindahouse
- Apr 8, 2019
- Permalink
Horrible script meets horrible casting with predictably horrible results. Avoid.
- ReluctantPuppet
- Apr 11, 2019
- Permalink
OMG - Less than high school level acting, tedious, superfluous dialogue, boring script, horrific cinematography!!! Had to stop watching it was such a waste of my time. An obvious self indulgent effort by .... what WAS her name??? ..... Hillary Duff?!!! OMG AWFUL!!!!
Loved it, what a great alternate take on the tragedy. I don't think I've ever felt so satisfied with a "Fantasy" scenario being acted out. As with many I of course wish this had been the way things went instead of the other way around. I loved the supernatural element to this film and the philosophical arguments about fate and destiny. I honestly think it goes way above many people's head, and with that and the pan campaign, which the reasons for it are a total arrogant and entitled joke the low score by the mob pearl clutching sheep is actually quite humorous to me.
If you understand that you'll just ignore the score considering 95% of them have zero to do with the film itself. Brutal, deep thoughts, and a wonderful alternate "Wish" view, even though the story remains the same, it is nice to see what could have been, even approaching a tear up at the ending.
If you understand that you'll just ignore the score considering 95% of them have zero to do with the film itself. Brutal, deep thoughts, and a wonderful alternate "Wish" view, even though the story remains the same, it is nice to see what could have been, even approaching a tear up at the ending.
- AppaloniaR
- May 24, 2019
- Permalink
- Serenity3000
- Apr 20, 2019
- Permalink
This movie was really disrepectful to the remains of Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski. Dull acting and a pointless script. I know money is good, but wow Hilary Duff should really think twice before getting involved in this project.
- danielstorm1993
- Apr 19, 2019
- Permalink
Nope. This review is finished. Not sure where to go from here in all honesty. There are bad horrors that exist in the planes of our reality. And then there are tasteless abominations that exploit a tragic event to conjure some cheap jump scares and woeful performances. Farrands' feature may just be the pinnacle of the latter category. The Manson Family murders of Tate and four other individuals have been thoroughly documented in film and TV, highlighting the tragic sensitivity of such a subject matter.
This horror based on the events of '69, merged fictional strands of premonitions and foreboding foreshadowing to offer a proposed existential reality that had Tate question her "fateful path with destiny". So not only were the gruesome murder re-enacted, with inconsequential jump scares, visualised blood and howling screams embedded for good measure, but Farrands' screenplay boasts the audacity to sensationalise the event and propose the concept that Tate succumbed to her premonitions as it was "her destiny". Nope! Nope nope nope! Someone hold my carton of zero sugar apple juice, need to get this off my chest!
Never mind the commencement of the film with an ostentatious quote from Allen Poe that seeks to outline the "dream within a dream" concept, and forget about the interweaving of archival footage of Tate herself (which has now tainted her filmography). The sheer insensitive approach and exploitative nature of the whole ordeal forces you to question the entire purpose of this horror. Yet fundamentally shroud its atrociousness with a lack of purpose. Why? Why did these grisly murders need to be replicated, fictionalised to a degree and seemingly hopeful? Is it rhetorical? A opportunistic window if Tate and her peers were actually able to overcome their murderers? The characters are naturally subconsciously distant from the viewers given everybody's knowledge of their tragic fates, therefore relinquishing all sense of fear. Granting Tate visions of her imminent death is an absolutely pointless gimmick that, again, relinquishes the impact of the inevitable murder. It just...it just...urgh. It doesn't matter. It seriously doesn't matter! Every scene leaves a horrible taste in one's mouth. As if licking the super salty sweat off of Lizzie McGuire's forehead. And speaking of dreadful characters, Hilary Duff portrays the titular victim. Duff is up the duff and (forgive me) her performance is guff. Not only does she not resemble Tate, but has the acting capabilities of a prosthetic baby bump. Who knows what that means!
Supporting cast members were weak. The script was beyond salvageable. Farrands' direction non-sensical. And, last but not least, that "surprise" ending forced me to face-palm my forehead so hard, it is now bruised. How. Frickin'. Stupid. So thanks Farrands. Thanks for exploiting a brutal murder and sensationalising it into a tasteless, insensitive and immoral disposable horror. Thanks for nearly inducing me into an early sleep. And thanks for bruising my face. Burn this film. Immediately.
This horror based on the events of '69, merged fictional strands of premonitions and foreboding foreshadowing to offer a proposed existential reality that had Tate question her "fateful path with destiny". So not only were the gruesome murder re-enacted, with inconsequential jump scares, visualised blood and howling screams embedded for good measure, but Farrands' screenplay boasts the audacity to sensationalise the event and propose the concept that Tate succumbed to her premonitions as it was "her destiny". Nope! Nope nope nope! Someone hold my carton of zero sugar apple juice, need to get this off my chest!
Never mind the commencement of the film with an ostentatious quote from Allen Poe that seeks to outline the "dream within a dream" concept, and forget about the interweaving of archival footage of Tate herself (which has now tainted her filmography). The sheer insensitive approach and exploitative nature of the whole ordeal forces you to question the entire purpose of this horror. Yet fundamentally shroud its atrociousness with a lack of purpose. Why? Why did these grisly murders need to be replicated, fictionalised to a degree and seemingly hopeful? Is it rhetorical? A opportunistic window if Tate and her peers were actually able to overcome their murderers? The characters are naturally subconsciously distant from the viewers given everybody's knowledge of their tragic fates, therefore relinquishing all sense of fear. Granting Tate visions of her imminent death is an absolutely pointless gimmick that, again, relinquishes the impact of the inevitable murder. It just...it just...urgh. It doesn't matter. It seriously doesn't matter! Every scene leaves a horrible taste in one's mouth. As if licking the super salty sweat off of Lizzie McGuire's forehead. And speaking of dreadful characters, Hilary Duff portrays the titular victim. Duff is up the duff and (forgive me) her performance is guff. Not only does she not resemble Tate, but has the acting capabilities of a prosthetic baby bump. Who knows what that means!
Supporting cast members were weak. The script was beyond salvageable. Farrands' direction non-sensical. And, last but not least, that "surprise" ending forced me to face-palm my forehead so hard, it is now bruised. How. Frickin'. Stupid. So thanks Farrands. Thanks for exploiting a brutal murder and sensationalising it into a tasteless, insensitive and immoral disposable horror. Thanks for nearly inducing me into an early sleep. And thanks for bruising my face. Burn this film. Immediately.
- TheMovieDiorama
- Jun 5, 2020
- Permalink