I'll tell you why so serious

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

The best in depth depiction of Charlie. Jeremy Davies did an excellent job although..... I don't have time to go into how much I know the facts and certain people of the "real" Charlie and the criticism of NOT REALLY being related to him, so therefor....I think he portrayed him just coming off a much too arrogant and cocky, I think he tried to put to much emphasis n being sly and slick, so forth. Overall though, as of yet. I see NO ONE toping his performance. This one unlike the 76 version, concentrates more on the "family" itself as of the 76 is almost an narration page by page account of the perception of the D.A. Vincent Bugliosi which in my opinion is a complete blueprint for Americas public enemy number one scapegoat. You can feel the pressure boiling as it gets to the climax of the film. As a horror fan my whole life I would say not to gory or lack of. Personally I believe this film was very underrated and ignored for unknown reasons. The cast was at the time very unknown and they really come off as they need to be. I think all of the profound characters put a lot into their roles then now they should not have (lol). All and all, I probably watch this at least 4 times a year all the way threw.

First of all, I must say, that there probably ain't a subject that could be more interesting to me, than Charles Manson and the Tate-La Bianca murders. Maybe Nazis and concentration camps but then again maybe not. Playing Manson must be the most ungrateful role for any actor. You just can't succeed. And still, considering the dilemma, I think Jeremy Davies makes an incredible role here. He manage the role very well, he looks quite alike and his habitus is just as small and weird as I expect Mansons to be. Also the other roles in the movie are played very good though having partly the same problem in portraying actual events and persons. Very much look-alike casting by the way. The movie in itself is a good and entertaining collection of the happenings in 1969. Comparing to the knowledge that I have about the true events I'd say that the film comes very close to what actually happened. Of all the stunning scenes, I would like to lift up the one in which Sharon Tate asks the murderer to carve out the child and at least let the unborn live. Though probably being fictitious and in a way unnecessary I still think that the line in someway points out the unfairness that Sharon Tate had to become victim of. May her soul rest in peace while her name and angel-like beauty will live forever in the movies that she gave us on her short career as movie star.

Helter Skelter is a remake of a 1976 TV movie. It is based on the true story of the Tate/Labianca murders committed by "The Manson Family". I will make my opinion clear; this is a tacky, tacky movie. It does not deserve the title of trashy or cult. It is pure tacky through and through, from the insane wigs to the over the top theatrical actor who plays Manson. Jeremy Davis was a convincing Manson, but went a little too far in some places. He got the accent and the body movements down well, unlike the actor in 'The Manson Family' (who came of more like Jesus to me). I felt this was the only redeeming quality of the movie, that and the 17 minute special feature of Jeremy's rehearsal footage, walking around trying to emulate Manson The look of this movie is all over the place, one moment it looks very gritty, the next a famous face appears and trippy camera effects are used and used badly. The news segments of the movie are horribly filmed, the effect used is over the top in an attempt to make the footage look real/old, the shots are unconvincing for news footage and resemble a shot you would see on MTV's head bangers ball, with the weird angles minus the zoom function. Whenever there is a killing scene in the movie the majority of it is shot in negative, to dramatize the event, but it comes off totally conceited, and seems as though they were too lazy to come up with their own experimental ideas.The film is an hour too long, it runs for 2 hours and 10 minutes and is rather drawn out and pieced together badly. The murder scenes are a little more brutal than that of the Manson family in regards to sound effects and the dramatization of the scenes. Some people think this film is so bad its good, but it's so bad its bad. Do yourself a favor and rent/buy 'The Manson Family'. Meanwhile I am going to sit here and curse the fact that I paid $20 for this DVD.

Good narrative movie that gives important information for those who are interested in the Manson's clan modus operandi and the infamous Sharon Tate murder. The problem is that this movie focuses too much on the informative field but forgets about the visuals.There aren't interesting moments for a movie that has a Horrot label. The movie is very toned down for such a brutal concept and plot. The main problem with this movie that I understand it's very low budget is that it lacks of quality production values.If you watch this once, you will quickly forget about it because it does not have much to offer. The information is accurate and very well displayed but as a movie, it fails on every aspect.