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.

I recall being a young teacher in 1976, visiting an artist friend and watching this film. We had read Vincent Bugliosi's book. The Tate/Lobianco murders were fresh in our minds. Manson gained celebrity as a latter day Hitler, enticing young lost souls into his lair and sending them off to do his bidding. Those names, Patricia Krenwinckle, Leslie Van Houton, and the others were a part of the popular culture. And Manson, who remains in prison to this day, with those piercing eyes and crazy antics, that swastika on his forehead, was the stuff of horror fiction. These were part of one of the biggest cases in history, probably the biggest until the O. J. Simpson trial. I wondered where they had found Steve Railsback. He was able to capture the Manson character so well. I'll never forget the stopping of the clock, which, I suppose is a bit of movie contrivance, but I remember shuddering as the network went to the next commercial. This really has worn well. I watched it a couple weeks ago, explaining to my twenty-something daughter what had taken place all these year's ago. It captured the attention of all of America then and while rather primitive in its production values, it still works quite well.

Simply said, the 1976 version of "Helter Skelter" is incontestably one of the best docudrama's ever made. Not only does it stick close enough to the book that it renders reading it merely a plus, but the locations, clothes, set design, language, and haunting soundtrack topped off with Steve Railsback portraying Manson is so 'real' that one wonders if newsreels were used to duplicate it all. Railsback particularly was so good that it borders on the surreal. His 'look', hair, tone of voice, body shape, height, even the eerie shine in his eyes - so close to Charlie that when you see Railsback in other roles you probably won't recognize him. But virtually everyone did a terrific job at recreating the characters, such as Nancy Wolfe as Susan Atkins and Marilyn Burns as Linda Kasabian. So even if this movie is 3 hours long it doesn't matter. It keeps your attention from start to finish. It portrays the impact of such a bizarre murder case better than any movie can possibly do. However, a note of interest is the film gives a better understanding of how Vincent Bugliosi handled such a difficult case. It also gives a much closer look at various conspirators, such as Susan Atkins and Leslie Van Houten. Just as surprising, much of the dialogue in grand jury, court, and interview scenes are taken directly from official transcripts. Altogether, "Helter Skelter" is the book come to life. It's a frightening but accurate film that captures the story as well as can be done. If you are a movie buff, then this belongs in your collection.

"Helter Skelter" is the three hour and four minute mini-series (made for TV movie) from 1976 about the Manson murders of seven years earlier. Clearly some things have changed in broadcasting since this period, and the lengthy running time is a point of disappointment. The film is an important record and representation of a point of great cynicism and uncertainty in America, and the Manson murders certainly took yet another notch off the country's innocence, given any remained.As was the case with the television at the time, broadcasting was generally for a family audience. Even in a production such as "Helter Skelter" those touches are clear, since the story is told between an even-tempered, fact spewing narrator and a narrative that follows the step-by-step dissection of the murder investigation. Sadly, the narrator becomes intrusive very quickly and the story gets it's point across twice as fast as it thinks it does.The basic premise of "Helter Skelter" is very interesting and Steve Railsback's over the top characterization of Charles Manson remains reasonably engaging for about seventy-five percent of the film, but the highly sanitized and dumbed-down touches make for difficult and tedious viewing.