Customer Reviews

Manson Family Movies

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Don't even waste your money renting this piece of crap. I am fascinated by the Tate-LaBianca murders, so I bought this film, intrigued that it was filmed at several of the actual locations associated with the case. What a disappointment this was! This stinker stars a Mexican guy who bears a closer resemblance to Cheech Marin than Charlie Manson, and an ensemble cast of cross-dressing actors who would embarrass a high-school drama club.

Every scene in the film is cheesier than a bag of Doritos corn chips, the silliest parts being the corn-syrup "blood" and the laughable "murder" scenes. I've seen twelve-year-olds in haunted houses who were scarier than these folks. A total waste of time and money. I sure hope no one made any money off this joke of a film.

This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire 40 years of life. The acting (if you call it that) is low rent, the entire filming is a giant charade. The guy playing Manson is pathetic and doesn't even resemble him. Some of the actors playing female family members are actually men wearing wigs.

This is so bad I can't even put it in words. If you are a Manson buff, look elsewhere, nothing could be worse.....PERIOD!

In the summer of '69 members of Charlie Manson's "family" stole an NBC-TV truck loaded with film equipment. Later on the truck was dumped and the majority of its contents given away, but Charlie kept one of the cameras. The Family also allegedly owned three Super-8 cameras which they used to produce amateur porn films. Based on this information and an interview with a one-time member of The Family which (rather vaguely) supports this, Ed Sanders speculates in his book The Family, that Charlie and his followers may have filmed their crimes and/or been involved in the production of "snuff films". This was the first recorded use of the term snuff.

With Manson Family Movies John Aes-Nihil has taken this material combined with the rumour that The Family also filmed re-enactments of their murders and produced a chillingly accurate portrayal of what these films may have been like.

The film opens with Charlie's introduction to, then seduction of Sadie-Mae then cuts to some authentic street scenes on Haight-Ashbury complete with half naked stoned hippies, blacks being arrested, crazed homeless folk with Charlie in the middle of it all rapping with / recruiting some of his girls. For the next forty or so minutes we are witnesses to The Family going about their everyday activities and the events leading up to the Tate / LaBianca murders: drug-fuelled orgies, naked fire dancing, mock crucifixions of Charlie, creepy crawl missions, group listenings of The White Album, an unsettling gangbang with ol' George Spahn and the drug-deal-gone-bad scenario.

The second half of the film covers the murders. It seems kind of pointless to go into details here as I'm sure the majority of you reading this are well aware of the grisly facts. Suffice to say Sharon's murder and subsequent "abortion" are particularly meaty.

Family Movies was shot on scratchy 8mm film stock and is silent aside from the soundtrack which is a combination of Charlie's music, Aes-Nihil's band Beyond Joy and Evil which is of a similar folksy tone to Charlie's, and avant-garde electronics, backward voice loops & squealing sax during the more atmospheric parts. The film was shot a mere few years after the murders and uses all of the exact locations where the events happened. Aes-Nihil's dedication and meticulous attention to detail here is beyond obsessive, right down to the precise spot where they dumped their bloody clothes after the Tate murders.

The gritty home movie quality coupled with the flawless soundtrack adds so much realism to the film that it almost looks and feels like the real thing. Part of this feeling of authenticity is also due to the fact that the cast is made up of a rag-tag bunch of Aes-Nihil's hippie friends and people literally pulled off the street, some of whom were acquaintances of The Family - one of the actresses playing Squeaky pulled out of the film after shooting a few scenes because her apartment burned down and she suspected it was retaliation from Family members for starring in the film.

Seeing as the film is shot from the point-of-view of The Family recreating their crimes there is a sense of comedy here too - some members play two or three characters which infrequently leads to them being in drag, oftentimes the cast struggle to keep a straight face, particularly during the murder scenes, there are recurring in-jokes like Sharon Tate's black maid constantly reading Nietzsche, an amusing nod to Valley of the Dolls and a hilarious moment during Tate's prolonged murder scene when a discordant punk song suddenly erupts on the soundtrack entitled Die Bitch (courtesy of the Sloppy Titty Freaks). Also, in the commentary track the director notes the "actor" playing George Spahn was a seventy-year-old ex-art critic who was tripping on LSD for the first time.

All in all I can honestly say Manson Family Movies is the most authentic-looking and therefore enjoyable film I've seen concerning the "legacy" of Charles Manson and his Family. It's obvious this was a highly personal project for John Aes-Nihil and all his care and attention to even the smallest of details definitely pays off

I liked the basic premise the film was based on, the amateurish home movie rumor of the Manson family. I didn't even mind the fact that it is silent. The movie is awful because like other reviewers below said, the guy in this movie doesn't even resemble Manson, except he's got a beard. There is no acting, or even attempt at acting. When several of the characters that are supposed to be women are actually men in obvious drag, and they act ridiculous, the movie lost all hope for me. It fails in every category. Tongue in cheek or not. This movie is wasted money. It's sad when the best part of a DVD are the extras, and indeed with Manson Family Movies, you should skip watching the movie and go directly to the extras. Avoid wasting precious 88 minutes of your life.

Manson Family Movies (John Aes-Nihil, 1984)

I'm honestly not sure what to say about Manson Family Movies, which is a wonderful idea with woeful execution. Aes-Nihil, riffing on the rumor that the Manson Family had stolen TV equipment from NBC and filmed pieces of their lives, imagined what sorts of things they might have filmed, and spent five years shooting the result. He utilizes a gender-bending cast, purposefully archaic equipment, amateur actors, and, as far as I could tell, a special effects budget that came in under ten bucks. The end result is, bluntly, horrible, but it has an eerie compulsion about it, a combination of being "so bad it's good" and being the kind of thing that you see when your parents pull out the projector and you watch home movies (if you're as old as I am, that is, before there were such things as VCRs).

If you know anything about the Manson family, you know what's here. Aes-Nihil did take a bit of creative license with a few scenes, but surprisingly less than I would have thought, assuming the information scattered across various books is accurate. And, yeah, it plays like a bunch of kids from the early seventies play-acting the Manson family, but that kind of adds to its creepy charm. (After all, they are a bunch of kids play-acting the Manson family, just ten years later.)

I just wish they'd spent more on special effects. How much does a joke knife with a retractable blade cost, anyway? **

The killings attributed to the Manson Family are, in their essence, no different than crimes that happened on a daily basis in the 1960's. Though gruesome, multiple homicides and even serial murder were not new concepts at the time. Why, then, did these particular crimes capture America's attention to such a degree? Much like it's films, Hollywood's most famous murders were tailored perfectly for public consumption. The most well known victim, Sharon Tate, was a beautiful young starlet. Playing opposite her as the villain was Charles Manson, a larger-than-life character that seemed to embody the worst aspects of the permissive sixties culture. Conservative America was distrustful of the youth movement, and Charles Manson's very existence confirmed all of their fears. Many have attempted to bring the killings to the screen with varying degrees of success. John Aes-Nihil's MANSON FAMILY MOVIES brings a fresh perspective to this familiar topic.

MANSON FAMILY MOVIES is structured to resemble just that: home movies shot by members of the Manson Family. Working without dialogue, Aes-Nihil attempts to bring a narrative structure to a collage of images that are both graphic and disorienting at times. The viewers are taken through key events in the Manson Family's history. Additionally, the omniscient camera also shows the victims prior to the murders. Aes-Nihil uses a blend of concrete facts (to which he brings a high level of detail) and urban legends surrounding the crime, which are shown in gloriously exploitive sequences.

The lack of dialogue is going to be the main stumbling block for most viewers. In lieu of dialogue, Aes-Nihil will occasionally use crudely drawn title cards to convey character's speech. The film is not silent, however, the soundtrack is compiled from the recordings of Manson and his Family members, lending a macabre authenticity to the proceedings. The lack of dialogue creates a problem for viewers unfamiliar with some of the subtle details of the case. This is clearly a film for devotees of the crime, as an intimate knowledge of it is all but required to follow the film closely.

Though it shows the Family and their crimes in great detail, MANSON FAMILY MOVIES does not glorify them. By using the "home video" format, Aes-Nihil is presenting the Family's activities as part of the collective memories of a nation. Just as your trip to the beach when you were nine is a part of your memory and an event that shaped your life, the Manson Family murders are part of the memory of America. It's an event that seems less than real now, like a movie you've seen in the past. Aes-Nihil's film shows the murders as an event that transcends a mere crime story and instead a crucial event in shaping society after the sixties.

If you approach this low low budget "shocker" as an armchair "criminologist" thinking it will give you a detailed police procedural of the infamous Tate-LoBianca slayings, then you probably expect yet another rote re-telling of attorney Vincent Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter". Well, it's not. Someone's tongue was firmly implanted in cheek while making this film, and its entertainment value depends largely on how developed your sense of "camp" is (the glowing endorsement from bad taste meister/ironist John Waters on the jacket should be clue #1!). The film was PURPOSELY shot "amateurishly" on grainy super-8 to simulate what the infamous Manson "family" home movies might have looked like. Supposedly, some footage does exist, although it would have likely been of "daily life" activity at the Spahn Ranch (only a moron would believe that they would have had time to film the actual murders while perpertrating them!). This is one film that benefits 100% from the director's commentary track, and I highly recommend watching with it "on". The commentary actually makes this the "JFK" of Manson films, because you learn some interesting "counter-myths" as to what may have motivated the murders. To tell you the truth, the director's take-that several members of the Tate household were using and selling "MDA" and dealt the drugs through members of the Manson family, pointing to a classic "drug deal gone sour" scenario, actually seems more pragmatic than the "zombie hippie killers held in thrall of a messianic cult leader" explanation. At any rate, I think the director makes it quite clear that this was designed as a work of entertainment, not of enlightenment-and taken in that spirit, it works. Obviously not for all tastes, but definitely worth a spin for the jaded viewer.