User reviews

Very interesting but the pile of idiocies and assumptions coming out the mouth of author Jeff Guinn are unbearable, they're at best fantasies at worst projections and having listened to the actual interviews with Manson even just on YouTube without prejudices what I can see that the person he's talking about isn't Charles Manson, so his interventions bring nothing useful to the show.

The series would be really interesting otherwise, nothing new, but at least more neutral than the usual documentary on the same story, even if it can get a bit repetitive sometimes. This is a case that's been talked about for years so that's not surprising and not a fault.

Pretty much anyone who was at least in their teens (or older) at the time of the Tate-LaBianca murders knows the basic facts, and knows the name Charles Manson. The murders were horrific, and the fact that some of the victims were well-known celebrities, made it front-page news across the US, and beyond. And before the crime was solved, some of the bizarre aspects of the murders had people speculating about all sorts of crazy motives. E.G. because Roman Polanski had directed the movie "Rosemary's Baby", which involves devil worship, some people made the "leap" that it must have been devil worshipers who murdered his wife and friends.

Why is this documentary different?

Firstly, it goes all the way back to Manson's early (somewhat miserable) childhood, and takes an in-depth look at his life from that point, all the way up to the point where he originally began to gather up followers, and undertake his more well-known communal lifestyle.

Secondly, it contains a considerable number of new interviews, of people who had contact with Manson and/or members of his so-called "family". And more importantly, it contains (current) interviews with a number of the women who were members of the "family" at the time of the murders. These are women who were not involved in the murders, and only became aware of them after the fact, but at the time, they were still Manson devotees, and still under his Svengali-like influence. Of course, they are all in their 50's or 60's now, and can talk about Manson with a detached perspective (and with a bit of shock at how much influence he had over them at the time, and how naïve they were, due to their age and previous dysfunctional family lives).

Lastly, it provides an in-depth look at the subsequent (absolutely crazy) trial, even including a current interview with someone who sat on the jury. It also covers the crazy things that were happening outside the courthouse, while the trial was underway.

The six-hour (six episode) documentary spends its first half just documenting the details of Manson, and the "family", before the murders occurred. It provides a more in-depth understanding of how Manson preyed upon young, disenchanted girls, and was able to sell them on his communal life style, as a means of providing them with the "family" that they had never really had before. It goes on to show how once they were under his influence, he was able to get them to do just about anything, and convince them that it was the right thing to do, be it participate in orgies, or murder innocent victims, in his attempts to foster a race-war. And it closes out by covering the arrest of the murderers, their (many months long) trial, and the aftermath.

Bottom line, the documentary manages to cover a lot of territory in its six hours, and does so with a large number of more recent "first person" accounts, instead of simply stitching together content from old headlines, or years-old books. If you are at all curious about this "dark" event in our history, and how it came about, then I think that you will find that this documentary will "hold your attention". Just be forewarned that it does contain some graphic content, and as such, it might also continue to play on your mind, long after the documentary is over.

The first problem with this flawed but somewhat entertaining, semi-addictive serialized streaming binge-documentary HELTER SKELTER is there should have been four parts instead of six, making each segment last too long...

Especially the part that should/could have been the most intriguing centering on Manson as a kid, cutting back and forth to the same historian's interview and dragging much too long while repeating the same thing over and over: that Charles Manson grew up without a father and was basically, born to lose...

We don't, however, learn how or why he was born to kill, or in this case, born to make others kill... Which IS aptly centered on: the fact that Tex Watson, who hardly anyone has heard of, is the real killer, and had he really been hypnotized by Manson, he'd be innocent along with the other kooky Manson Family members and should have NEVER done jail time, which we all know is hogwash...

Let's face it... Charles Manson was able to collect a group of followers who were living on the streets when he meet them, and who were either addicted to drugs or simply wanted to take drugs and never stop taking drugs...

He gave these young people a place to stay, whether inside a bus in San Fran or at someone else's ranch in Los Angeles, or the floor of a famous drummer's drug pad... basically, they always found a place to rough-it and party themselves blind... so why not follow a guy who goes out of his way to provide a 24/7 drug binge?

And notice that things started to go badly for The Family after they basically ran out of other people's money, which is also the problem of socialism, which is what ALL hippies believed in, either dumpster-divers like The Manson Family or those artistic millionaires that lined the canyon, and who the Socialist/Environmentalist Family made butcher's cattle out of... which was done out of JEALOUSY more than anything else...

Bottom-line: Bad old fashion Class Envy is what killed Sharon Tate more than some silly story about a hard-rock Beatles song about a British amusement park ride representing a race war... please... that was a theory so that a prosecutor can become a millionaire writing a book...

And yet, despite the flaws, overall it's a nice addition to the whole Manson Killings, really the Watson killings... but since Tex is basically a boring shell of a human, everything relies on the crazy Charlie because he was hypnotic enough to be followed by hippie freaks, and, as the last part points out, he's hypnotic enough to keep our interest after sixty years...

It's a nice shift that we got to know about the other victims on night two, the LaBiancas, and some of the interviews, although redundant, shed light on aspects we haven't heard about but, overall, the truth about how you can only live of someone else's hard earned cash can only last so long...

But always remember, these people that the hippies murdered were all RICH and thus, considered PIGS: because that's what even the peaceful hippies thought about the capitalist pigs they despised... still do, in fact...

Maybe THAT IS WHY the Manson story is still relevant.

There is absolutely nothing new in the six part series that hasn't been rehashed ad nauseam. (I chose to give it 10 stars because the trove of TV footage, interviews, and previously unseen photos was enough to make it an intense viewing.)

Considering the glut of new information that came out in print during the 50th anniversary of the murders, I was disappointed that the series didn't probe some of the much more convincing theories.

We are left with the tired "Helter Skelter"-- a motive that has been laughed out of most investigative circles, and proven Bugliosi's "facts be damned" obsession with convicting Manson.

"Helter Skelter" will go into the history books as the accepted version of what happened in August of 1969. But for the small percentage of the population that refuse to take the media's word for it, it is not that simple. The more logical theories of drug burns and a very seedy Hollywood underbelly cannot compete with a real life boogeyman.

So Tex Watson, the man who did most of the damage, inflicted most of the stab wounds, and had a direct hand in seven murders will die in obscurity. And the victims will be remembered as wide eyed innocents, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary (Sebring and Frykowski were well known drug dealers. The Tate residence was Geound Zero for wild drug parties and pornographic films involving everyone from Mama Cass to Yuel Brenner). No one will know Jack Nickolson was among friends who removed damaging film reels in the living room loft while the bodies were still warm.

In the end, it's probably safer that we believe documentary series like "Helter Skelter". When we start peeling back the layers, the truth is far more terrifying than a 5' 2" failure and his group of degenerate hippies.

Great documentary that really tells the full story in one series, for a 35 y/o dude. Only problem is that Episode 1 doesn't chrnologically fit & then several scenes after (incl episode 1 scenes) are replayed several times to a "T" in 1-2 min stretches & almost makes you think you selected an episode you already watched.

Six hours. Six episodes. Or, rather, take away the openings and closings of each of the six episodes and it's probably 6 x 54 mins. Call it 5 1/2 hours. The definitive Manson murders and trial film. I have not one bad thing to say about the film. I watched each episode weekly. So, maybe watching it in 2 1/2 hour blocks or so would be a different viewing experience. Each episode offers a lot to digest. I guess there's some controversy about whether the murders were committed by the Manson cult to instigate a coming race war. Whatever. Why is that important? Prosecutor and subsequent author Vincent Bugliosi correctly put the theory in front of the jury to make sure Manson was convicted, even though he obviously was absent at the time of the 7 Tate - La Bianca atrocities. (post edit) Omg. It just came into focus reading the other 2 reviews. The reason the Helter Skelter theory is dismissed is because some think the deep state pedophilia porn and drug users/dealers did it. Wow. Guessing to them, Manson, Watson, and the girls are patsies. smh.

Post post edit. It's been 9 days since I posted my review. A few things have stayed in my mind about this documentary. 1. The Dennis Wilson house takeover by the Manson clan. Wilson allowed them to move in en masse because, I guess, he liked naked girls walking about. The fact he had to sell the house and move to get rid of them from his life is interesting. But, obviously, he brought it upon himself. 2. The story by one of the Manson girls in a present day interview segment about how she wanted to have sex with Charley and he was a little rough. That was exceedingly bizarre and creepy that she felt the need to share that with us. 3. The stories first hand of how the girls were picked up by Charley one by one. All went with him gladly and stayed in his group willingly. 4. Charley learning Dale Carnegie techniques in prison seems a bit far fetched.

Why put "An American Myth" in the title, then do absolutely nothing to debunk it? Instead we get the same old codswallop that is Bugie's insufferably implausible Helter Skelter theory repeated ad nauseum/ad infinitum. You know, the one he hawked to stroke his tumescent ego (way bigger than Charlie's) and sell millions of books. Sure this latest documentary has style for miles, but there is a shocking paucity of substance and substantiation. Awfully good to hear from the somewhat enlightened members of "the Family" like Gypsy Share and the immensely talented Bobby Beausoleil (listen to the music he recorded on instruments made from scratch in the hoosegow, Charlie wishes he had that kind of innate talent). Also, it was cool to see interview footage of the lone surviving Golden Penetrator, Gregg Jakobson, too. Aside from those three, just forget about it. A murderer's row of sleepy-looking talking heads telling you nothing new. Perpetuating a L.I.E. Here's a book you should read if you are thirsty for a new angle, seismic revelations, a complete paradigmatic shift in your perception of this eternally titillating mystery (yes, it still is a mystery, even if we already know how it happened and who did what to whom, the nagging why still lingers). Read Tom O'Neill's incredible and damn brave book, CHAOS. It's a true game changer. Much like Jonestown, it was all a C.I.A. MK-ULTRA mind control experiment gone awry. Find out how a semi-illiterate, hapless conman like Manson learned how to control an entire phalanx of malodorous, feckless hippies and turn them into merciless, reckless killers via LSD and ego negation. I was shocked that O'Neill did not appear on this show. He solved the riddle. Debunked the myth. And before you brand me with the label Conspiracy Theorist rather than Whistleblower, know that many actual family members of the victims, such as Sharon's sister, Debra are fellow proponents of Tom's book, too. It just makes more sense than the absurd White Album theory. Plus it isn't a grave disservice to the victims who are honored rather than blamed. The violence is abstracted rather than glorified in gory detail. The truth of CHAOS comes down fast, but it's miles above Helter Skelter.

I really loved the retrospective on his origins, especially the original footage from that time. many interviews with people who knew his mum and him when he was little. i cannot find much fault in this project. to me it was not in any way an attempt to justify his actions.. i loved it because it attempted to show the path he walked and painted a psychological picture that way.

& no, i would not "put the 'manson-story' to bed" .. reviewer jmihalchik-67031 mentioned some things that i find interesting & unsettling - & curbed my interest in his 5th paragraph. now we need another documentary going into that...

But obviously a sugar coated version of what really happened there and following with mansons trials and ridiculous "white privilege" type of sentencing LOL. stupid sick people are gonna do stupid sick things.. that is just how american society is and will never change. all that being said, interesting how 2020 america is basically fulfilling the manson prophecy.. hmm

and damn.. that rose ann mourehouse is smokin! id've joined a cult just to get in dem pants he he

Another Manson media venture which reinforces the same old Helter Skelter story which has been told and retold before with the same cast; e.g., Jeff Guinn, Dianne Lake, Stephen Kay, etc. Though Catherine 'Gypsy' Share and Stephanie Schram bring new voices to the cast, what would be refreshing would be an interview with Charles Tex Watson.

Expectations of a different angle to Charles Manson and the family story are initially suggestive with the alternative title of this Helter Skelter series, which bears 'American Myth' in its name. Some may hope that revelations may arise in this six-parter which may hint that the Helter Skelter plot in the Manson trial could be a myth ... alas no.

It's the same-ol'-same-ol' story.

Nevertheless, if a viewer wants an account of this 'myth' in a less one-sided manner, then Rob Zombie's "Charles Manson: The Final Words" is a much better, less time-consuming, more balanced view on Manson. One which we suggest you watch rather than this disappointment.

It was a mish mash. Why repeat clips? Charles Manson's history has been recounted in other documentaries and I suspect many others skipped that episode. Boring!

The strength was the footage at the time of the murders. I know so much work was put into it but it needs more editing and less jumping around.

I love historical documentaries - especially looking back at my own generation. This would have been a great documentary - in three episodes. The first episode is repeated in entirety throughout the series. Other segments are repeated throughout the series. A few times, I actually stopped the DVD to see if somehow I skipped back to the beginning. How to make Manson more boring than he already was? There you go.

Had it not been for the Roman Polanski/celebrity slant for the mainstream media to exploit, Charles Manson and family would have been a much shorter version of 'just another '60s hippie cult' story.

Repeating detective statements and medical examiner findings just sensationalizes what happened all over again. As for Charles Manson, his parroting of the media to the media was just an attempt to keep his idea of himself alive.

Interviews weren't fresh and were subject to the editing of hindsight. Bury the bones and move on.