To me, "The Other Side of Madness" is an incredible film. Filmed just a little while after the portrayed events took place in reality, the film has an unique documentary value: Entire sequences are shot on location at Spahn Ranch, where the real life "Manson Family" used to live. We even see George Spahn (the owner) himself in a brief shot. Just a little while after the film was made, the ranch burned down in a wildfire, meaning that this is probably the only filmic recreation done in that real location - which is shown in great detail.Shot and edited beautifully and artistically, the film works on multiple levels: Even if it were an entirely fictional story, it would still be a well-done, eery - almost David Lynchian - stylized portrayal of group dynamics and how a crime is committed. It is not an exploitative, gory film - unlike one might assume given its title and topic. The crime itself is shown in a very "matter of fact" way without resorting to unnatural filmic distortions (like sound-effects/strange lighting) which makes it appear very realistic and uneasy to watch, but the camera does not linger on the violence. Instead, the film draws you into its strange, but incredibly captivating, dark, almost 'dreamlike' atmosphere by creating a very tense mood throughout in its well composed black and white photography.Director Frank Howard uses little dialogue. Instead, he mostly relies on music, visuals and monologues in the background to transport the mood. This approach works very well. Sequences like the killers driving up into the hills (as a slightly distorted monologue plays in the background) have an almost surreal, David Lynchian atmosphere. The use of music / sound design is quite inventive; the song "Mechanical Man" by Charles Manson - which is first heard when we see Manson lying in his prison cell, or much rather the shadow of his hand against a wall - becomes a kind of "leitmotif" as life on Spahn ranch is recollected during a flashback.Generally, the narrative structure of the film gives it an almost abstract quality that challenges the viewer in a good way: Instead of the events being recollected one by one, we start with the accused in their jail cells after a prologue. Then, through testimonies at the trial, slowly the story/events starts to "emerge", and the audience has to piece them together as we see 'patches' of what happened. It is a rather risky approach, but pulled off very effectively, as it works well. In narrative terms, there is a fine line between being "abstract/challenging" and being "disjointed" - and this film pulls it off to be the former, keeping a stylistic and narrative unity. Scenes are connected through editing (matchcuts, interesting transitions) and sound effects, making it "flow". What could have been a cheap, quick, shocking film based on murders committed a short time before the film was released, was instead done as a challenging narrative that is, in my opinion, a fine piece of art as all filmmaking elements (acting/music/sound/cinematography/editing) flow together so well.The cinematography is incredible. Shot mostly in black and white (with one sequence in color, in which we are shown the film star's 'world') it has beautifully composed shots. Before watching the film, I expected it to have a low budget "underground" style of the period, but I was wrong: Every shot appears well composed; in fact, I believe every shot would by itself, without context, already be a beautiful well-composed still image. That sounds like an exaggeration, but it's true: The way that light and shadow are used in combination with very original camera angles reminds me of artistic still photography in many instances. The editing is highly sophisticated, which is already obvious in the beginning: The panning camera match-cuts to pans over different surfaces, until we end with the protagonists. And similarly inventive edits continue throughout the film. Lighting and cinematography are top notch.The acting is also very well done and appears realistic. Frank Howard avoids having the actors over-acting, instead, their held-back style gives their performances a tense, quasi documentary character. There is a big hippie concert towards the beginning that - in my opinion - summarizes the film's style well: The concert itself appears to be either a real event or an incredibly well staged recreation. But the cinematography does not make it look like an 'improvised' documentary, because every shot seems pre-planned and thoroughly composed like in a stylized narrative film. An intriguing mix.All in all, I believe this to be a very underrated film that deserves to be re-discovered by new audiences.

This movie (aka The Other Side of Madness) is not to be confused with the television movie based on the Vincent Bugliosi book. This is a cheaply shot, crudely made documentary-like movie that was filmed while the Manson trial was taking place in Los Angeles. There are some weaknesses, but this is a fascinating movie for anyone who has an interest in the Manson story. First, the negatives:First - for anyone who does not know the story of Charles Manson and his "Family", you may have no idea what is going on. You never hear the words "Manson" or "Tate". You do hear the words "Charlie" and you actually hear the voice of Charles Manson himself singing one of his own songs, "Mechanical Man". After hearing this, it is no wonder that Manson's recording career never took off.Second - there is one long scene of a rock concert in the desert. It has absolutely nothing to do with the plot, except it puts the actors playing Tex Watson and Patricia Krenwinkle at the concert. The rock concert features some full frontal nudity, but mostly from skinny men and overweight women.Third - there is little to no dialogue in the movie. The majority of the words you hear spoken are either off camera or look like they were dubbed in later. The whole movie is in black and white, except for one scene in color, where the actress who is playing Sharon Tate is being filmed in a "My Fair Lady"-type movie.Fourth - the movie has no conclusion. While the movie shows the Tate murders, the movie ends with the killers entering the LaBianca home.These are the negatives, including a cheesy "Keep your kids off drugs" warning that comes at the end of the movie (similar to "Reefer Madness"), but there is one huge positive. I have watched four movies about Manson (both "Helter Skelters" - original and remake, this movie, and Jim van Beber's sickening "The Manson Family"). This movie has probably the most frightening filming of the Tate murders of the four. The only drawback is the actress who plays Sharon Tate (Debbie Duff) can't act. She is beautiful, but looks confused instead of terrified. But the eerie black and white filming of the murders is very powerful.Worth a look for anyone who is interested in this frightening case.

As someone who has studied this case from beginning to end, this movie is completely flawed. It sticks only to the facts when it serves the purpose of being completely sensational. The beginning is a mix of jumbled scenes that seem to have no correlation to each other with the exception that it has the actor playing Charles Manson reiterating Manson's 'isms' to ad nauseum. "Cease to exist". "Death to the piggies". This type of garbage used along with Manson's own music makes this movie too disturbing for words. The depiction of the actress Sharon Tate, one of the most famous of the seven Tate-LaBianca victims, is depicted here as a screen goddess. The Waltz number in this movie is laughable, suggesting that due to her 'star-status' Sharon Tate deserved what she got living so high on the hog, as it were. That the victims lived high and that is what this movie does to the detriment of the memory of the victims: Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring, Abigail Folger, Voytek Frykowski, Steven Parent, Leno LaBianca and Rosemary LaBianca. It makes the viewer who is not acquainted with the facts think that this is the truth of what happened, when it only sketches the truth with one outrage after another. The movie shows in graphic detail what was done at Miss Tate's home, taking almost a full half hour of the movie to do so. Almost the time it really took to commit five homocides then leave the scene of the crime. Mercifully it stops short of going into the murders of Leno and his wife, Rosemary. All one sees is a street sign that tells you it is the street where the LaBianca's lived and the murderers walking up the lawn to a house that bears again, only a vague representation of the house on Waverly Drive. It is told in black and white for the most part which gives it a scary feeling when you watch it. The only time it adds colour is when we see the 'revered' Sharon Tate playing the part of an Ingrid Bergmanesque 'Anastasia' arriving at a grand ball where a handsome 'Prince Charming' leads her in the dance. This scene is used again when we are forced to see it intercut between the dead actress and the live 'Anastasia' dancing at the ball. Where this movie botches its facts it tries to cover with shock value nonsense. It has a scene where victim Steven Parent is stopped in his car before arriving at the gate, and there is an agonizing few moments in which we see the actor playing Tex Watson taunting the young man before he shoots him to death. Again, no facts and big on propaganda. So do I suggest you see this movie? No. If you can get the video or see the superior 1976 version with Steven Railsback as Manson and George DiCenzo as Prosecutor Vincent T. Bugliosi, I highly suggest you do. If only to get the real facts of the case, and to get the memory of this one out of your brain. Disturbing. Disgusting. Forgettable.

Not to be confused with the much superior TV movie Helter Skelter made in 1976, The Helter Skelter Murders is an unusual film to say the least. With some footage shot at Spahn Ranch (where the Manson Family lived before their arrest) and Charles Manson himself singing his song "Mechanical Man" on the soundtrack, the movie has a bit of an authentic, albeit bizarre, feel to it. The first half of the film is a weird, disjointed mix of scenes, ranging from rock concert to urban riot, set against the backdrop of the court trial; this part of the movie is not particularly entertaining and is hard to follow at times. Later scenes, such as the one with an actress portraying Sharon Tate on a movie set, are better. The scene recreating the murders in August 1969 is brutal and difficult to watch but from a directorial standpoint is well done; the sequence of events also matches the factual accounts given about the crime, which makes it an even more powerful and disturbing.Helter Skelter Murders is far from a classic; it is a strangely directed film that could have been made better. As it deals with a tragic event and an evil group of people, it is also not easy to watch at times. But anyone who has seen the later TV movie Helter Skelter should watch this movie, as you will see the differences in style and technique and also a different telling of the same event from 1969.