Fascinating film about crimes that gripped the nation in 1969. Had the first victims not included Hollywood celebrities, I doubt the sensationalism would have been so pervasive. Nonetheless, the state's account is told in painstakingly detailed fashion, while it's a tribute to the filmmakers that not even the many lawyerly conflabs manage to pall. Of course, there were social-political agendas at stake at the time. Many folks saw the Manson murders as logical outcome of an undisciplined, hedonistic hippie movement. After all, what else could be expected of rootless sex-happy druggies. On the other hand, counterculture folks did their best to disassociate a lunatic Manson and his witless followers from movement principles. The movie essentially presents the case from prosecutor Bugliosi's point of view, but is wisely careful not to indict the counterculture as a whole. Railsback plays the bearded lunatic with wild-eyed abandon—how much is true to life and how much caricature is open to speculation. Most unnerving to me, however, is Nancy Wolfe as Susan Atkins. Her need to believe in a leader-type, any leader who pays her attention, suggests an undercurrent more alarming than Charlie himself. Then too, Wolfe plays Atkins with effective and understated malign. On the other hand, DiCenzo's prosecuting attorney is clearly the hero. Wisely, Bugliosi comes across as a consummate professional, without swagger or ego. Thus the contrast with Manson is striking, leaving no doubts about the trial's outcome. Note too, how police bureaucracy mishandles the Tate murder weapon, making prosecution more difficult, a good touch to include. Too bad, however, that Manson's charismatic side is not included. For example a scene that shows how he was able to emotionally seduce his followers. As things stand, we get the dramatic effects without the seductive cause.On the whole, the long version, 180-minutes, is slickly done, especially for a TV movie. Now that 50-years have passed, most Americans have no living memory of what a splash the freighted crimes made. In that sense, the movie—for better or worse-- amounts to an entertaining visual record.

Charles Manson's murders likely freaked the hell out of people back in '69! And chances are it gave hippies a bad rep. Hippies are annoying, but they're more or less just kids looking to have fun, rebel and make friends....So, how did Charles Manson, who leaded a hippie group at a secluded ranch, convince them to kill innocent people? As the movie explains in its brightly colored film stock and sitar soundtrack, Charles Manson was a psychopath. Many of the hippies following him were under 18, runaways, escapees from mental hospitals and "straight camps" (which were extremely frightening places at the time) or so high on drugs that they had virtually no idea of what they were doing. It's surprisingly disturbing and sad for a 1970's movie, and it's also very nostalgic if you like the style of the Sixties or if you're into that grainy film look that older films have. It's a reflection of the times, of the fear society had of rebellious teens, of the hippie counterculture and of a man who obviously needed psychiatric help but never got proper treatment.

Personally I Think That The Story Of Charles Manson Has Always Been Something I Can Only Describe As F#ucked Up, This Guy Controlled People To Kill People He Never Met. The Movie Is A Courtroom Drama, Whereas From What I've Seen Of The Remake Its A Point A To B Film. I Have To Say Something About Steve Railsback's Performance, He Played Manson A Little Too Well, I Could See He Was Trying His Best To Make Him Seem Realistic And He Did It Very Well.The Plot Is That Manson Is On Trial But With No Actual Murders Next To His Name And With That He Could Walk Away A Free Man.Overall I Liked This Movie, There Are More Reasons As To Why I Like This Film Then Railsback's Performance As Manson And I Actually Recommend This To Anyone Whose Interested In This

on that hot August night. This (and the book, by Vincent T. Bugliosi) are a must see and read for anyone curious about what actually happened that night at the Tate residence, and later at the LaBianca residence.There are now a few re-makes, and I can't stress enough that one must watch this and read the book. The re-makes have different slants to them, and this film made in 1976 gives you the gritty yet innocent feel; the shock of "how could this happen?"...which we are immune to today.George DiCenzo as Bugliosi is very good, a young D.A. finally getting this twisted case. Steve Railsback (excellent actor) is chilling and deranged as Manson. It has been written that Manson keyed into the psyche of disenfranchised young people, who then followed his lead. Some of those members of the "family"/cult, namely Leslie Van Houten, Susan Atkins, Tex Watson and Patricia Krenwinkel are still in jail for life. They come up for parole now and again, having slipped by the California death penalty.Definitely worth watching, and surprising this was a TV mini-series, so very well-done. It captures the eeriness and tragedy all at once, and you will want to visit Cielo Drive, where the crime took place. There are still tours through the Los Angeles and Bel-Air area, although the Tate residence has been demolished. 9/10.