As a true crime fan, I was very disappointed by the many, many inaccuracies in this film. I'm aware it's only 'loosely based' on the Manson murders but I don't think there's any reason to omit the truth & embellish the lies.Obviously the second storyline featuring Perry, the juror, is fiction but this aside, the real back story is shocking enough without twisting round the facts. Little things annoyed me, for instance, the complete absence of Tex who was obviously a key player in events at the time, the numerous missing explanations from Charlie about his apocalyptic prophecy & as if him saying 'it's all coming down' every 5 minutes is supposed to offer some clue to the uninitiated. Someone who does not know the story would be even more confused at this point as suddenly there's a complete & utter lack of comprehensive story progression from Bobby being jailed, to the murders taking place & then into the trial. The chain of events that led to it literally 'all coming down' is absent altogether & in actuality it was almost a year before the trial even began.On a positive note, the acting of both Gregory Smith & Kristen Hager was well thought out but sadly not enough to save this flop. Most of the characters were unconvincing & the whole thing just seemed cheesy & contrived. Not recommended if you want the facts.For the best portrayal of Charles Manson I have ever seen watch Jeremy Davies's performance in Helter Skelter (2004).

While this movie is not very accurate, it does have some accuracies with Bobby BeauSoleil, and small things like Manson telling Bobby that he isn't a pimp. Manson made it a point to not oblige when people came to the ranch in hopes of getting laid. It's also accurate in respects that Manson was said to have never used the words Helter Skelter.The movie also goes by the "free Bobby" copycat motive, which I agree is the reason. It is also accurate how the Bugliosi character led on the "Linda Kasabian" character to get answers he wanted. The movie also seems anti-Linda as well, which is great.Inaccuracies in the movie:* Minute 5:01: There was no jury member who was being programmed by Leslie Van Houten, which makes that running theme of the movie fiction.* Minute 13:30: Bobby BeauSoleil did not trade Leslie Van Houten to Charlie, she never left Bobby until Bobby was arrested and needed a place to stay.* Minute 16:19: Charles Manson never crucified himself, Leslie certainly did not meet him on a cross.* Minute 18:07: Charlie did not have sex with Leslie the first night. In Fact he refused to really touch her because he knew she was Bobby's girl and he respected Bobby too much. This is what people say drove Leslie to be obsessed with proving herself to Charlie.* Minute 20:11: Charlie did not necessarily give out names. Most names came naturally (i.e. Blue, Tex, Gypsy) and others were given by George Spahn (i.e. Squeaky, Capistrano) and others were aliases (i.e. Katie, Clem Tufts).* Minute 23:05: Charlie did not have to give Leslie back to Bobby, she never left him.* Minute 25:30: Leslie never told Bobby that Charlie was Jesus.* Minute 26:19: Bobby never threatened to start his own Family, he always ran with a lot of girls— always had a "Family".* Minute 27:11: The whole "shit is coming down" paranoia did not start until after the Crow and Hinman incidents. The Family was also not armed until after those incidents.* Minute 28:58: Where are all of the guys? Where's Clem? Where's Bruce? Where's T.J.? Where's Danny? Manson never had a song called "Follow Me To Hell."* Minute 33:37: Charlie did not dare Bobby to "off a pig". Gary Hinman was murdered by Bobby because he burned him on drugs.* Minute 36:14: Patricia Krenwinkle was not "sad" after the murders, she was proud. Charles Watson claims that she was the one ordering him to kill Sharon Tate. Patricia did not convince Leslie to go the second night. She went because Susan Atkins had feet problems and could not.* Minute 37:33: This scene implies that Charlie tied up the LaBiancas, he did not. Charles Watson said he did. Where is Charles Watson? Why isn't he in this movie at all? He was the one who murdered all 7 people.* Minute 44:45: Who is this "ranch hand" who is testifying against them? Who is Laura? Tracy? Carry? Cindy? Sarah? Jennifer? Karen?* Minute 48:44: Why is there a cat in the cell with Krenwinkel?* Minute 49:40: I take it "Laura" is supposed to be Linda Kasabian?* Minute 55:20: This never happened; a 15 year old being raped while Charlie hung on a cross.* Minute 56:20: Leslie did not attempt to attack "Linda" with a pencil.* Minute 1:07:11: The movie makes it seem like Leslie murdered Rosemary LaBianca, which is not true. Apparently all of the wounds from Leslie's knife were post-mortem. She did not inflict 41 stab wounds.* Minute 1:08:35: Testimony never happened.* Minute 1:14:58: The earthquake the girls claimed Manson foretold? Why wasn't Leslie Van Houten's attorney killed?All in all there were some accuracies in this movie. The movie made Manson what he is, someone who may not have been as much involved in the murders as he was made to be. The movie did put him at the LaBianca murders.However, the movie is just a cheap attempt to make money off of Manson's name. If you are looking for an accurate movie this is not it. It's nothing but fiction with a bit of truth mixed in. The acting is what you'd expect to a direct to video horror movie. Charles Manson was played by someone over-sized, with blue eyes and of course over acted. Casting for Leslie Van Houten, Susan Atkins and Patricia Krenwinkel was more accurate.The movie was missing very key participants, especially Charles Watson. Watson was the admitted assassin of all of the Tate/LaBianca victims. The movie did not even have a Charles Watson character. It's unfortunate that Watson took the lives of eight people and seems to never have to answer for it.

Opinionated Christian drivel, layered with self-righteous prejudice. I can't help but wonder why some people choose historic events as a basis for a film, and spew out irreverent fantasies.Here is a film where you will learn nothing, understand even less… and walk away with a feeling of bemused distaste. Seriously folks, I *severely* doubt that the Manson family was brought down through divine intervention, and that the jury in the trial was coerced by demonic powers.In short, this was a farcical journey not worth the dollar I paid to RedBox.

The original title and the dedication at the end of the film calls this Leslie My Name is Evil. Billed as a Horror/expose on Manson the film is actually about a juror who falls in love with one of the girls on trial with Manson...and its a comedy of the blackest sort...actually a pointed satire.Its a very artificial very deliberate film that I admire more than I like. Yea its obvious at times, but its occasionally still intriguing, the final bit where we drift from Manson and his trial to juror at his job making napalm which we then see dropped on people is nicely telling.More an interesting misfire than any sort of hit- I still have to give the film points because I'm curious about how it will play knowing what it is that I'll probably try it again.Its a sort of WTF sort of film.-- Actually I've seen the film a second time since I wrote that and I find it better the second time, when the expectations for the film weren't colored by an out of place title