Helter Skelter

I am appalled to read that there are imdb.com members who actually think that Charles Manson and his "Family" were prosecuted because he was a hippie or a flower-child. He was neither. He is neither to this day. Have any of these idiots seen the TV interviews with Manson (by Diane Sawyer, I think) a while back? It would creep you out, as it shows how completely mad he is, to this very day. And his anger is creepy, too, and I thought he was going to physically harm the female interviewer at one point. When told of some of the things that the now older and wiser "family members" said of him (that he asked them to kill for him, that he instructed them in detail, and that they no longer have any regard for him), he just laughed and derided them as getting to be "old broads". This is a flower child?

I've done enough reading of various books and articles about Manson. He was the product of our institutions -- the one point on which he is correct. From childhood on, he never lived a normal life, always an institutionalized life. Then he took on this Messiah persona to impress the only people who were impressed by him -- young teenaged girls or other young women from homes where they felt unwanted. He literally rented them out as sexual favors to his biker pals, whom he was trying to impress and keep on his side. This was a flower child? Hardly! He has, and still has, a twisted but skillful mind.

As for the stupid premise that Buguliosi "framed him", have these people who write such nonsense read his book? Buguliosi documented, and this was affirmed in such books as "The Family", that Manson actually liked his prosecutor and respected him, and said so, even though there is good evidence that he wanted him dead. Like I say, Manson is a twisted person.

This TV movie is good drama, and totally accurate. Unlike others, I would like to see it redone for the big screen. I think the entire story of Manson's life and of his "family" and what they did to others at the Spahn Ranch before the murders of Sharon Tate and the others, needs to be told. Maybe bring people up to date with interviews with this monster on TV. No, not Oliver Stone! But to tell it somewhat in the way "In Cold Blood" was transferred from book to movie.

I expect to get nasty, threatening replies from Charlie's idiot disciples. That's right, you are all whacked-out idiots for thinking that he is anything but a monster.

I saw Helter Skelter as a kid and was terrified yet intrigued. The actors that portrayed Charles Manson and the Manson family did a terrific job of portraying it right. I was horrified at how one man could manipulate people to do murders for him and horrific murders at that, but also was intrigued at how intelligent Charles Manson really was as a person, but a pyschopathic, cold hearted murder too. The 1976 TV series was by far the best portrayal I have seen of this heinous crime.And I was glad justice was served on Charles Manson and the Manson family. The book was also a very good read and the movie a good purchase to have.

I had to hunt through the local video stores before I found one with this film available. I remember seeing the two-part TV version, but this 119 minute video release still bothers me just the same.

Steve Railsback is as close to Charles Manson as one can get. He presents the same manic intensity in his eyes as the news photos of Manson at the time. Maybe a little TOO well...

This film is essentially two films in one. The first half details events leading up to the arrest and crimes of Manson and company, the second half details the trial (and the script is taken mostly from the actual court transcripts).

Anyone who insists that Manson was "crucified" or "framed" should examine his criminal record, and read what he has stated about Jews and blacks. Manson presented the image of a hippie messiah, but preached hatred and bigotry. This film shows him for what he was (and still is); a manipulative, violent, hate-filled man.

Remember that this is the man who once said: "Maybe I should have killed four or five hundred people...then I would have felt better. Then I would have felt I really offered society something."

God bless you, Vincent Bugliosi. You did us all a favor!

Despite a hokey opening prologue by a narrator who talks directly to viewers, this three hour made-for-TV docu-drama provides a generally good overview of the real-life Tate/LaBianca murders that occurred in the summer of 1969, and the subsequent trial of Charles Manson and his "family". Based on the book "Helter Skelter" by Manson Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, the film has a dragnet or prosecution tone to it, as it describes events from Bugliosi's point of view. That is okay, except that the script minimizes the crucial role of Tex Watson, one of the actual killers. After the murders, Watson fled to Texas, and was initially beyond Bugliosi's prosecution reach. Later, Watson was extradited back to California.

The film's first half is confusing because it presents so many Manson family names; this part of the film is somewhat hard to follow. The film's second half concentrates on the courtroom trial and is therefore more straightforward. The film's pace tends to be slow. There are several long speeches. And some scenes are either unnecessary or overly long. One scene in the second half goes on for some ten minutes. Overall, the film has a made-for-TV look and feel. Production design, costumes, and makeup are credible. As Manson, Steve Railsback's performance is ... intense.

What makes this film worth watching is that it is a true story ... and a powerful one. Manson had no qualms about killing innocent people. And he sought to sublease that evil to weaker personalities, like Susan Atkins, Linda Kasabian, Leslie Van Houten, and other members of his hippie clan. And that power over others in turn fed his megalomania.

Manson was a cultural scavenger, a junk man without conscience. He and his "family" subsisted on food from dumpsters behind supermarkets. And at one point in the film, he even says he wouldn't mind prison chow; "it's better than (eating) garbage". What a statement. It says a lot about him and about his followers.

I found this to be one of the more interesting made-for-TV films I'ever watched, thanks to the sensationalism of the true-life story and the mesmerizing performances of the lead villain (Steve Railsback) and his followers. Railsback's eyes alone are frighteningly haunting to this viewer, 30 years after first seeing it. By the way, my VHS tape has one f-word in the film, which would never be allowed on TV. What gives with that?

Actually, the most frightening people, as a whole, were the women who did Manson's killing for him. I was creeped out more by Nancy Wolfe's chilling performance of Susan Atkins than I did was by anyone else, including the famous "Charlie."

The film has turned out to be a pretty good piece of American history, the kind of crime history we'd like to forget.