Customer Reviews

Helter Skelter (Director's Cut)

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(14)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

Most of you know - as it is mentioned in several of the reviews - that there are two Helter Skelters: One Made in 1976, and the other made in 2004.

Is one better than the other? Is either even worth watching or buying?

As is true, much of the time, when it comes to a remake - some will say the original is the best, and the new one is terrible (should have been left well enough alone); at least one says the actor playing Charles Manson is absolutely horrible.

The truth is that they are both very different movies. Similarities: Both were made for TV. Differences: 1. The 1976 version is told more from the side of solving the case, putting the pieces together, the trial, and the attorneys (more a story about Vincent Bugliosi and his challenges in dealing with this ordeal). Manson seems to be almost stuck in there as if some sort of collage or montage. In some ways, the actor playing Manson doesn't have much to do but just be there - I never really got where I could understand how he was able to control or manipulate his so-called family into doing those demented things he got them to do. There are moments though he does shine. The killings are presented in more of a telling by Linda, a member of the family, in a surrealistic-style blended in a sort-of-montage into her crying face. This entire TV movie, in some ways, is like watching an old Dragnet TV episode: The following is a dramatization, and the names have been protected to change the innocent; so you are being told the story, with a narrative introducing different parts. To me, it seems very flat in many ways. The acting is very flat-but there are some good moments, and some very good performances. There are places where the Helter Skelter Philosophy is explained much more clearly and thoroughly than in the new one. 2. The 2004 version is told more as an actual experience, and from the side of Manson. This was done deliberately-as is explained in the commentary-to show more from the side of Manson and his Family than what the 1976 version did. The actor playing Manson is quite good and disturbing at times; I could feel the power and control he had more than in the older version; the commentary helped explain this as well. He comes across as being more intelligent and capable of leading and controlling than he does in the older one. No denying that he is loony in both of them-but in the new one he is loony and powerful and dangerous and completely out of touch, but in touch in a way as well (he is able to see into people. He is able to use that. This is explained in the commentary). There is a surrealistic approach in the way the killings are shown here as well - but here it is more like being an observer of these strange, bizarre acts, than an observer of one remembering and telling of these strange, bizarre acts. I found myself questioning, at times, the actor playing Manson's performance: Did Manson really talk like that? Talking in a breathy, eerie manner? Talk as if he is putting on a constant performance? This could be a shortcoming of the actor, or a shortcoming of Manson. I remember seeing, a long time ago, a documentary (and reading it as well) that Manson would practice facial expressions (it was as if there was nothing beneath the surface of expression, just an emptiness), and in the documentary you could see him, while he was on trial, walking down the hall, and his face going through the changes of different expressions without any reason for them to be there at all. So, it's possible that in those moments that the actor might seem bad - he isn't really bad at all. I haven't gotten all the way through the commentary, so I don't know whether or not that is mentioned.

I basically think that both TV movies compliment each other. The new one is like a prequel to the other. It sure wouldn't hurt to own both. There are some differences that may make you wonder what the real truth is. Since we all see through our own mind filters and perceptions, we might wonder how true the original book both of these are based on is.

Neither of the two is flawless. Both have their negatives and positives. If you can afford both, buy both. You want only one: Buy the 2004 version; at least you have an insightful commentary. I own both.

The 2004 made-for-TV version of "Helter Skelter" certainly received harsh treatment from both professional and amateur critics alike. This is not particularly surprising, considering the ghoulish subject manner and the intense sensibilities in relation to this legendary crime. Going into this film my expectations were low. While watching the DVD version, which included a variety of violent scenes not shown during its original TV broadcast, I was surprised to discover this was a quality production.

This new perspective of "Helter Skelter" is probably the best film ever made about this lurid tale, and Jeremy Davies' thoughtful performance as Charles Manson comes about as close to the truth as we are ever going to get. For the most part, the filmmakers had their facts straight. I rolled my eyes throughout several miscalculations, most notably the elimination of the murder of Spahn Ranch employee Shorty Shea. Granted, there's only a certain amount of information this film could pack into its busy two-plus hours running time, but Shorty was a known victim of this hippie-creepy cult - a human being murdered in the dead of night. If you're going to tell this story yet again (and the question as to whether it was necessary would require an entirely new post), don't eliminate victims simply to create a prime time package for mass consumption.

In addition, the meeting of Charles Manson and Sharon Tate is disputed to this day. While Manson most definitely visited the Tate property prior to the murders, the filmmakers' choice to have them meet eye-to-eye was tacky. That being said, there was an honest attempt by the filmmakers to portray the conditions that led this family of psychotic youths to commit such horrible murders in 1969.

"Helter Skelter" was not gritty enough for my taste, as the Spahn Ranch commune was far more picturesque than the horse fly-covered, greasy-haired reality. Manson and his clan are portrayed as humans rather than demons, and I suppose if we are going to understand this subject matter, this difficult truth should be emphasized.

Casting Clea DuVall as the controversial Linda Kasabian was an excellent move. Not only is DuVall one of the finest actresses of her generation (and her performance rivals Davies'), but Kasabian was just about the only member of Manson's Family to show remorse following the murders. If you are going to find a single glimmer of hope in this tawdry epic, Kasabian is about as close as you are going to get to sunshine.

"Helter Skelter" essentially follows her journey as a member of Manson's Family, from introduction to drug-induced indoctrination, eventually leading to the nights of murder. Historically, Kasabian left the Manson clan soon after the crimes, was arrested and became one of the few members to give testimony during the grueling trials.

The original "Helter Skelter" (1976) has always been a bit overrated, with Steve Railsback giving an over-the-top, circus-like performance as Manson. The film emphasized the investigation and devoted a couple of hours to the trial itself. This new version is a companion film, if you will, detailing the year leading up to the arrests and trial, abruptly ending about the time Kasabian decides she will testify, thus insuring the killers will be convicted.

The Tate and LaBianca murders are portrayed more-or-less realistically. There's really nothing shown TV viewers do not witness on the "CSI" and "Criminal Minds" programs. But these atrocities actually took place, and perhaps that haunting fact makes for uncomfortable viewing. I certainly wanted to turn my eyes away, and was disturbed by the amount of blood shown. This is absolutely R-rated subject matter, but prime time crime produces high ratings. So who am I to question modern-day TV sensibilities?

When reading about the Manson crimes - books which are equal parts fascinating and repulsive - one almost always asks "Why?" This new film version of "Helter Skelter," factually close to the truth, with better performances and production values than this subject deserves, attempts to answer nagging questions. It succeeds far better than one would expect.

still this product shows us the brutality of Manson first hand. In 1976, the tv-film gave us a chilling insight into intelligent madness - yup who can deny that the brain of Manson in not unlike Hitler; mad, but with vision and control of the environment.....

In this version we get to know the victims... they`re no longer just names and figures... The last scene in which Sharon whispers "Cut the baby" to Susan Atkins never happened, but she d i d try to negotiate with her killers; "take me with you, let me have my baby and then kill me" and "can you remove the baby from the womb" when she realised there was no hope...

This is a trashy account of the story and it SUCCEEDS in showing us that the kilings were not some sort of great ritualistic thing as been presented over the years.... But this was a total senseless massacre and THAT`s why this film succeeds; it speaks volumes why not the killers should ever be released.

Way better than the 1976 tv version, in fact, superior in every way--with the exception of Railsback's take
on Manson. Pretty damn gruesome, by the way. The actress who portrays Linda Kasabian is very good here.

Writer/director John Gray does fine work. Am glad they showed what they showed of the courtroom scenes--because not only were they dull and went on too long in the '76 flick, but we already know what the verdict was and what happened.

Well, what can I say; after all these years, Charles Manson remains a looming presence in the collective American Psyche. And he doesn't even have a Public Relations Firm working for him. Pretty impressive, Charlie. So, as for the movie. I like it, mainly for the strange portrayal of Charles Manson who is, let's face it, strange to say the least. I like the Jeremy Davies' interpretation of America's most notorious Svengali and orchestrator of at least two very gruesome and very public mass murders. As for historical accuracy; who knows what Manson really said to these impressionable young people who carried out his wicked, murderous instructions? I liked the portrayal of Manson and other real life figures such as Dennis Wilson and Terry Melcher. Sharon Tate was so beautiful in real life that it would be difficult to find someone who could equal her physicality; but the actress who plays her does an adequate job, especially when she gets a glimpse of Manson when he comes to the door searching for Terry Melcher. Hey, let's face it; you may think he is evil and even repulsive; but the man, Manson, continues to fascinate still, after all these years. Anyway, maybe it wasn't necessary to remake this movie. The first made for television film was actually quite good though it did take a different approach to the material. Also, why bother to remake this material into a film after all these years? I like it, mainly for the eccentric Charles Manson portrayal; but I'm repeating myself. Well, that's that. Watch this film for Charlie and his gang and a lurid, albeit bloody and brutal, trip down memory lane.

While there are good moments in this remake, and I like the way it used the perspectives of Linda Kasabian and Charles Manson (probably not coincidentally, the best performances in this production), every time it overlapped with the 1976 Helter Skelter, it increased my respect for the original.

The use of solarized negatives for dramatic effect, and the miscasting of Bruno Kirby as Bugliosi was irritating... but my main beef with this production is that it's so full of wasted opportunities that it feels like a teaser for a much longer, more complete telling of the story (something I'd very much like to see). So much that wasn't known in 1976 but could have been used to great effect in 2004, was utterly ignored. Thomas Noguchi appears briefly, but no mention is made of him consulting a psychiatrist who profiled Manson with remarkable insight. Polanski appears, but we never see his attempts to become a detective and solve the murders himself. The misspelling of 'Helter Skelter' is highlighted, but there's no mention of the Helter Skelter door at Spahn Ranch or getting the murderers to spell 'Helter Skelter' to see who would misspell it. Other murders, murder attempts and disappearances attributed to Manson and the 'Family' - Manson's shooting of 'Lotsapoppa', the poisoning of a witness with LSD, the fate of defence lawyer Hughes, and the many Bugliosi lists in the Afterword of the most recent edition of Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders - aren't named, much less shown, and only briefly referred to in a footnote before the end credits. And ending the mini-series in mid-trial only gave the impression that they'd simply run out of time and money (rather like Bakshi's Lord of the Rings). Worth seeing in addition to the 1976 version, but a very inadequate substitute.

If you saw the original, this DVD shows you the other side. It completes it all.

The actors cast in several of the roles are without a doubt my biggest complaint of the new Helter Skelter movie. Although a few of the actors were a good choice for the parts they played, can anyone explain to me the choice of Jeremy Davies as Manson? Anyone who has seen the original 1976 version has to agree that the ultimate performance ever given in this role was that by Steve Railsback in 1976. Also, I really don't think Bruno Kirby captured Bugliosi the way DiCenzo did in the original.

Another less-than-stellar casting choices were the actor who played Leno LaBianca (LaBianca was from CA, not the stereotypical Brooklyn Italian), but there were also actors who I felt were accurately cast and performed well such as the actresses chosen to play Sharon Tate, Susan Atkins,Linda Kasabian and the actors who played Dennis Wilson, Frychowski, and Polanski.

Although the locations were somewhat accurate, I knew immediately that the Cielo Drive address had been completely reversed; but the actual house itself was actually accurate in comparison to the to the original on Cielo.

Again, overall a good flick (and maybe it was my age when I saw the original)but just not as intense or frightening as the original with Railsback's performance. At that time, I actually thought he was the real Charles Manson.

Enjoy it and make up your own mind!

I thought the movie was good and the acting was great but it left some things out that shouldn't have been left out. It was a good movie though. worth buying.

This film is decent. It's not as good as the original "Helter Skelter" from 1976, but it's different. It's a closer look at Charlie and the Family, more comprehensive in covering the various events that happened, a refreshing departure from the original, which was based closely on the book. Exceptional performances were Jeremy Davies as Manson, so good that he's unrecognizable as the geeky doofus in Saving Private Ryan. Allison Smith playing Patricia Krenwinkel was particularly good because her presence was very eerie, will make your skin crawl. And Marguerite Moreau who played Susan Atkins was notable because of that characters' non-chalant, ho-hum attitude about such grisly murders. Another good point is more attention paid to the events that were key to what made it all happen - the breakdown between Charlie, Dennis Wilson, and Terry Melcher. Except it was too brief. All accounts of the story are clear that Manson's rage and descent into a murderous maelstrom began when the Beach Boys used one of his songs without permission and was ingloriously turned away by Melcher (producer for Capitol Records). Another disappointment was Linda Kasabian being the centerpiece of this film. The real Tex Watson, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten are alive and would have gladly provided their stories. Yet another was production sets and the soundtrack; it gave a peculiar contemporary feel whereas the 1976 version was unmistakably life as it was in 1969. Still another was its odd ending; it was too sudden, as if it needed something else to close more smoothly. All in all this 2004 version is worthy for the casual viewer, but for crime buffs it's worth owning.