Helter Skelter (Director's Cut)

Rating:
Summary: Same as everything else
Review: I have cn this movie and it sucked! Jeremy Davies trying to be a killer? Horrible! And in the scene where he kills Sharon Tate u can easily see the blood was Raspberry jam!!!!DONT BUY IT

Rating:
Summary: Read The Book Instead
Review: I have many things to say about this dvd; none which are worth mentioning.

Let me just say that the black and white photos in the book are creepier and more realistic than this production.

Rating:
Summary: One of a kind
Review: I love this movie. It gets into the mind of charles and his family. The way they think, and do without a second thought, It's Beautiful, Manson Is very smart, and to put him away like that, When he didn't kill anyone, it so sad.. My love goes out to you Charles. If you love manson to See this movie.

Rating:
Summary: Great Movie
Review: I watched this movie when It aired on tv. I am in love with the whole helter skelter/manson case. when i bought the older version of the dvd it was rather boring and didnt really go into the details of the family, and what there personalitys were like.This one the charetors are more developed and mentioned the whole creepy crawly deal. in the first one they didnt talk about manson's ties in with the beach boys and terry melcher. the only thing that was wrong about it really was that abigail folger was laying in the wrong position. i watch this movie atleast once a week maybe more. its gripping for people who love murders and the manson family.

Rating:
Summary: Third movie based on the murders by Charles Manson.
Review: In 1976, the original two-part television film, "Helter Skelter" was broadcast on television. Actor Steve Railback portrayed the murderer Charles Manson so effectively. This film dramatized the horrific and gruesome murders that a deranged Charles Manson and his young "followers" committed, including the death of actress Sharon Tate (Beverly Hillbillies tv series)who was pregnant at the time and the daughter of the CEO of Folger's Coffee, in August 9, 1967.
The second part of this 1976 film contained courtroom scenes that were taken directly from the real court transcripts. it was here where most viewers remember the cold eye-fixing stare that Steve Railsback gave in the courtroom scene that Charles Manson actually would do in the courtroom. Steve Railsback "acting" as Serial Murderer Chales Manson is the best performance above any other actor.
There was also a 1970 film, "The Helter Skelter Murders" that was banned from the State of California at the time. This black & white film contained graphic nudity and the inappropriate behavior of Manson (played by Brain Klinknett) and his "followers". Most haunting is the highly detailed and gruesome re-enactment of the murders, some filmed at the actual locations.
Now we have this new network television version "Helter Skelter". This version will focus on how Manson (played by Jeremy davies) treated his young "followers". Some actually believed Manson was "Jesus". It also depicts how Manson wanted a recording contract to sing his song and how he meet record producer Terry Melcher (son of Doris Day). Melcher visited the ranch (once an old movie set) where Manson had illegally living at. The contract was never to be. Manson was only a low-life hippie inexperienced at this business. Manson went looking for Terry Melcher, but Terry Melcher had moved eleswhere by then. We can not say that Charles Manson's insane anger at Terry Melcher and Brian Wilson triggered Manson into murdering others. Charles Manson's behavior is his own fault. His young followers became like him, thought like him. Manson enjoyed murdering others and seeing pain and liked to get other young people to kill with him.
Charles Manson was captured twice and after a historic California court case was put away in prison for life. He is still alive, now aged, and is denied parole every time. Charles Manson and his convicted "groupies" will never know freedom again.
Terry Melcher became an executive producer and assisted in his mother's television series and other projects.
This television film came out so untimely, as at the time of broadcast, Terry Melcher was ill with cancer. He passed away November 19, 2004.
You can read more about Doris Day and included Terry Melcher's story of Charles Manson in the book, "Doris Day:Her Own Story".
This DVD version contains scenes not shown on broadcast television.

Rating:
Summary: Which one: Helter Skelter, or Helter Skelter?
Review: 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.


Rating:
Summary: Fight the Good Fight by Opposing Unnecessary Remakes
Review: People, let us keep in mind that in addition to not being very good in its own right, that this TV movie's greatest sin is that they are ripping off one of the greatest made-for-TVs ever and had absolutely nothing new to add to the story.
In fact, simply by casting milksop Jeremy Davies as Manson shows that no one involved with this remake had any idea what Vincent Bugliosi was communicating about Charlie in Helter Skelter (ranking with TC's In Cold Blood as our paramount true crime stories).
Just one of many sins committed in this rip-off. Let us hope someone with some idea of Manson Family values will make a documentary/update of this story. It is obvious from the reviews and rating of the remake that someone needs to do it.

Rating:
Summary: Helter Skelter is all higgldy-piggldy
Review: Saw the film when it hit the airwaves and thought it was a bloated, overgrown mess full of emoting and flatulent performances. The script was derivative, the acting unoriginal, and it simply dragged on into a big 'ole mess.

Rent the original, skip the mini-series.

Rating:
Summary: What was the casting director thinking of??????
Review: 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!

Rating:
Summary: Hard to watch some scenes...
Review: The scene are the show ppl being murder was truly hard to watch but i quess you see how the world can be so evil and the fact that the hippie girls were smiling as if they were playing with butterflies while killing those other ppl so cold its realy terryfying. So if you want to watch a movie that's hard to see get a copy of "Helter skelter (director's cut)" but if you get offended and have a weak stomach? Don't bother.