I have studied this case for over 25 years, and I thought that this movie was really very good. I totally agree that there was some serious camp/inaccuracies, etc..., but from everything that I have read throughout the years, for the most part, the murders at Cielo/Waverly Drive/Hinman's residence were the most accurate I have seen in a reenactment. There were some small, yet noticeable inaccuracies that I felt were important: no zebra rug in Cielo living room; the killers' attire; colored Christmas lights (vs. the white ones in the movie). The bigger discrepancy would be that Tex (alone) allegedly killed Sharon, not all of them as that scene depicted. And of course, we have no idea what the dialogue/conversation was between the victims in the movements before the invasion. I don't believe that gender identity was available in '69, so Roman would not have known that the baby was a boy, during his last phone conversation with Sharon. I felt like (the actress who portrayed) Susan Atkins was overall very good, except for her "over-the-top" behavior during the killings; especially when Tex instructed her to "write something". And by all accounts that I have ever studied, Sharon did NOT ask Sadie to take the baby after the attack (she would have hopefully fell unconscious quickly during/after the 16 knife stabs). She apparently "bargained" with her killers before she was killed; even asking them to take her with them for 2 weeks, then kill her after she had her baby. Gary Hinman's ear was not completely cut off, and of course, poor Rosemary LaBianca suffered much more savagery than the police discovered the next morning. (As well as Abigail and Voychek(sp?)). Just my thoughts. I think Vincent Bugliosi's death prompted me to watch this.

For anyone who doesn't know, Helter Skelter was a psychopathic idea that criminal Charles Manson had after listening to a Beatles song by the same title (which is really too bad because The Beatles had nothing to do with these horrible murders but were likely blamed once or twice). Charles Manson was the leader of a hippie group in 1969 and he influenced various murders and is now spending his life in jail.This remake of the 1976 movie Helter Skelter is very good if you want some more information on the Charles Manson case and his story. However, if you're watching it for the nostalgia of the Sixties, you won't find it. The soundtrack for the most part sounds obviously 21st century and the actors, especially the hippie girls, talk, act and dress like people in the 21st century do. Most of the actors and actresses look like they should be sitting there texting on their pathetic cellular devices, crouched on an electric recliner wrapped up in Snuggies and eating Pizza Pockets right out of the box. I'm not trying to get too technical or anything, but watch the Hair musical (1979), I Drink Your Blood (1970), Running With Scissors (2006) or the original Helter Skelter (1976) if you want to see what the Sixties and Seventies counterculture was really like.

The is a quite good remake of the 1976 movie, but Jeremy Davies is not as believable in the main role as Steve Railsback was, and he fails in showing the viewer Manson's magnetic personality which made him able to manipulate people around him into conducting these horrible crimes.To quote one of prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's lines in the film: "How do these kids end up stabbing people with knives and forks 169 times?" The film does not succeed in explaining this, and as such it is a failure.Apart from that, it offers a different angle to what happened than the 1976 film, and shows more of the likely motivation Manson might have had for ordering the murders; the lack of progress in his musical career, and his connection to Beach Boy Dennis Wilson.

I am about to watch it again, for the third time. Just finished Paul Watkin's "My Life With Charles Manson" book for the third or fourth time. I have a few books on the "subject". My brother and I "met" Charlie just about the time of the murder(s). We were poking around his abandonded heap of stolen V.W. bodies at Spahn when he ran at us, gun in hand, spewing obscenities I had never heard before. ("love" was not among them). He was mad at us 'cause we were going to steal parts from the cars he stole! I think it was after the murders but before the raid on Spahns. I lived over the hills in Thousand Oaks. At any rate, the movie is lame. What irritated me the most was Charlie's dialog was in a whisper. He just whispered. Weird. Oh, sure, when he was yelling he was just upset over something major, like somebody asking him a question he couldn't answer. I'd be "mad" too! If you are a Manson collector (not a fan) you need this movie. Summary: Charlie knew not a thing about love. He grew up (until his release in '67) in prison and love was not there. He learned from the best how to con people, assume roles and intimidate. There was/is nothing good about the "scruffy little guru". Until he tells why (the real motive) these senseless killings occurred and apologizes, he is nothing. "Jesus"? Hmmm. "The Devil"? He isn't even good at that.Some "expert" claim he is very intelligent. How? Couldn't hold a job, a terribly stupid thief, no ear for music, yet, continued on trying to be a rock star. His only fans/followers are probably a bunch of Goth-Dressing spoiled kids that probably still live in their parent's basement anyway. [email protected]