alterego910
Joined Feb 2008
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews1
alterego910's rating
I attended the Premier of this film at the Twin Cities Independent Film festival. The film kept my attention at least and there were some things that stood out such as Ryan Kiser's lead role as 'Charlie'. He is obviously a step up from the other actors in this movie and deserves a shot at a higher budget film. I also felt the chemistry of the entire cast was good and made for a believable 'cult family'. The actors playing the parts of Leslie Van Houton, Squeaky Fromme, and Tex Watson were believable and stood out above the other supporting cast. However, the acting for the role of Sharon Tate was unfortunately a disaster. The Susan Atkins actor had the right idea, but I felt she may have just been trying too hard to be crazy/quirky. That being said, I understand that with a higher budget and more time, many scenes could be redone with some extra attention from the director.
During the Q&A with the Director and Cast, it came to light that this movie was filmed in 15 days, covering a 128 page script. Wow ... that in and of itself was amazing! There were some admitted sound and scene transition issues that hopefully will get cleaned up. On that note ... I felt there was a severe over use of music/sound effects. Most every scene had continuous sound effects which was unnecessary. It was distracting at times and took away from the effect of the overall dialog. I assume it was intended to establish a mood, but some of that mood could have been created by the dialog itself. Every scene was shot up close and could have used some wider angles to gain a better experience of the entire landscape (lack of budget most certainly played a role here).
Some people know the Manson story much better than others. The assumption should be that the viewer of the film doesn't know a lot of the details. The characters of the 'family' could have been introduced better. Some of the scenes could have been set up in order to introduce characters instead or relying on the knowledge of the 'Manson' story.
The director said during Q&A that they wanted to show the humanity of Charles Manson and why he may have turned out the way he did (ala Michael Myers - Halloween (2007)). The idea was there, but more time should have been focused on the abuse and abandonment that developed his character. They mentioned that Charlie's mom sold him for a case of beer, so why not add that scene in? Showing Charlie watching his Mom kiss a man (from a crack in a door) does not show a pattern of inappropriate parenting, much less abuse. Dig into that and you might persuade me that he was a victim of poor upbringing at least.
All in all, this was a decent attempt, but I think it could be even more engaging with some additional time and budget. I enjoyed it for what it was. Good job for all who endured the compact 15 days of filming!
This is only my opinion as a movie goer, and I realize it is much more difficult to create an independent film based on what you have to work with. It intrigues me to understand all that goes into creating an entire film with so little budget. I am a fan of the entire scene and wish all involved all the success they deserve for all the hard work they have put into such a film.
During the Q&A with the Director and Cast, it came to light that this movie was filmed in 15 days, covering a 128 page script. Wow ... that in and of itself was amazing! There were some admitted sound and scene transition issues that hopefully will get cleaned up. On that note ... I felt there was a severe over use of music/sound effects. Most every scene had continuous sound effects which was unnecessary. It was distracting at times and took away from the effect of the overall dialog. I assume it was intended to establish a mood, but some of that mood could have been created by the dialog itself. Every scene was shot up close and could have used some wider angles to gain a better experience of the entire landscape (lack of budget most certainly played a role here).
Some people know the Manson story much better than others. The assumption should be that the viewer of the film doesn't know a lot of the details. The characters of the 'family' could have been introduced better. Some of the scenes could have been set up in order to introduce characters instead or relying on the knowledge of the 'Manson' story.
The director said during Q&A that they wanted to show the humanity of Charles Manson and why he may have turned out the way he did (ala Michael Myers - Halloween (2007)). The idea was there, but more time should have been focused on the abuse and abandonment that developed his character. They mentioned that Charlie's mom sold him for a case of beer, so why not add that scene in? Showing Charlie watching his Mom kiss a man (from a crack in a door) does not show a pattern of inappropriate parenting, much less abuse. Dig into that and you might persuade me that he was a victim of poor upbringing at least.
All in all, this was a decent attempt, but I think it could be even more engaging with some additional time and budget. I enjoyed it for what it was. Good job for all who endured the compact 15 days of filming!
This is only my opinion as a movie goer, and I realize it is much more difficult to create an independent film based on what you have to work with. It intrigues me to understand all that goes into creating an entire film with so little budget. I am a fan of the entire scene and wish all involved all the success they deserve for all the hard work they have put into such a film.