Director Jim Van Bebber finally got his low budget Manson picture released. Was it worth the wait? Sure, if you're interested in the case, that is. From what I can gather, the film is fairly accurate with its portrayal of events, actions, and even some dialogue. Van Bebber does take some liberty though, showing a few things that were only suspected in the real case. I guess that's to be expected. Anyway, the movie basically shows the story from the Manson Family's point of view, complete with faux interviews, tied together with a running subplot of a modern TV station putting together a documentary on Manson and his followers. Obviously, it is a very violent and disturbing movie, not shying away from the drug use, orgies, or murders. The shot of his three female followers with shaved heads, coming down the courtroom stairs, is a haunting one. The movie as a whole is not great, though I did find it intriguing, horrifically trippy, and ultimately tragic. It's a shame that some youths still look up to the guy, even wearing shirts with Manson's picture on it. The two DVD set includes two feature length documentaries and a short interview with Charlie Manson. Boy, is he out there.
76 Reviews
Mixed Feelings....,
Boggman10 June 2005
For those out there not overly familiar with the story of Charles Manson, The Manson Family, The Tate & La Bianca murders, or the crazy drug induced summer of 69 at the Spahn ranch; this will no doubt be an entertaining film to watch.
Plentifully filled with lots of sex, nudity, drugs and tons of blood; this film is an artistic representation of one of the most publicized murders and murderous "family" of the last 35 years.
Done in art house style- "The Manson Family" is full of vivid colors and sets, lots of red blood, and lots of imagination. This is one of the most artistically presented horror movies that I have seen come out of the United States in quite some time.
However, having said that, the film is also extremely disturbing for anyone with in depth knowledge of the Tate & La Bianca murders or anyone who has ever felt sympathy for these victims.
This reviewer loves to indulge in the most disturbing of horror. However, just the fact that these were REAL murders, I find it almost insulting that they were recreated in such a fashion. To watch these people die in such vivid detail - with so much blood and with so much "color"; was a little unsettling to say the least. I just couldn't help but feel sorry for anyone who might actually be connected to the victims if they were to ever have to suffer through this film.
When it's gritty, grimy, bloody, shocking and disturbing, fictional horror is at its best.
True life horror movies can be just as enthralling when left in the hands of a capable filmmaker who respects the victims, while at the same time presenting a honest portrait of murder and mayhem.
Although "The Manson Family" is only based on a true story, and does not claim to be a fictional, nor documentary movie- it manages to weasel it's way out of both categories above.
However, this is a true story that is so well documented, and still so prevalent in our media and our culture- that it holds a certain significance with many people (including myself, who's read "Helter Skelter" and "The Family" twice, in addition with seeing the countless other films made about it all).
To see these shocking and real life murders played out in "art house" style is really an injustice to the actual crimes, victims, and victims' families who are very much alive and well to this day.
"The Manson Family" is a good film, on the basis that you don't know too much about the actual Manson Family History. The more you know, the more respect you lose for Jim Van Bebber's vivid retelling of these murders, and of "The Manson Family" as a film.
I also thought that including Charles Manson's music in the film was downright appalling.
Nobody needs to hear that crap......
Plentifully filled with lots of sex, nudity, drugs and tons of blood; this film is an artistic representation of one of the most publicized murders and murderous "family" of the last 35 years.
Done in art house style- "The Manson Family" is full of vivid colors and sets, lots of red blood, and lots of imagination. This is one of the most artistically presented horror movies that I have seen come out of the United States in quite some time.
However, having said that, the film is also extremely disturbing for anyone with in depth knowledge of the Tate & La Bianca murders or anyone who has ever felt sympathy for these victims.
This reviewer loves to indulge in the most disturbing of horror. However, just the fact that these were REAL murders, I find it almost insulting that they were recreated in such a fashion. To watch these people die in such vivid detail - with so much blood and with so much "color"; was a little unsettling to say the least. I just couldn't help but feel sorry for anyone who might actually be connected to the victims if they were to ever have to suffer through this film.
When it's gritty, grimy, bloody, shocking and disturbing, fictional horror is at its best.
True life horror movies can be just as enthralling when left in the hands of a capable filmmaker who respects the victims, while at the same time presenting a honest portrait of murder and mayhem.
Although "The Manson Family" is only based on a true story, and does not claim to be a fictional, nor documentary movie- it manages to weasel it's way out of both categories above.
However, this is a true story that is so well documented, and still so prevalent in our media and our culture- that it holds a certain significance with many people (including myself, who's read "Helter Skelter" and "The Family" twice, in addition with seeing the countless other films made about it all).
To see these shocking and real life murders played out in "art house" style is really an injustice to the actual crimes, victims, and victims' families who are very much alive and well to this day.
"The Manson Family" is a good film, on the basis that you don't know too much about the actual Manson Family History. The more you know, the more respect you lose for Jim Van Bebber's vivid retelling of these murders, and of "The Manson Family" as a film.
I also thought that including Charles Manson's music in the film was downright appalling.
Nobody needs to hear that crap......
Don't Take Drugs....
rydemon28 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
After hearing a lot of hype for this film i knew i had to see it. After watching it i wish i didn't. I have been a fan of horror for some time but this isn't a scary movies, it's a shock value kind of horror. Shock value can work if used in context and i realize that the story is based on a true story and i am well aware of the so called "Legend" of Charlie and his bizarre family but this film was awful. I know a lot of genre freaks will say, "you don't get it," and so forth but honestly why do so many filmmakers have to immortalize people like Charlie. I understand the impact this man had on history but really was he anything special. He just manipulated a bunch of insecure people to do his work...anyway, i got side tracked....back to the movie itself...I give props to the documentary style of the film but i didn't see any depth to the film, it was like, (spoiler) watch us have an orgy, now watch us kill people...it didn't jump into the psyche like i wish it could have...mind you that is what i would have liked to see...they concentrated too much on the shock and gore...I think this film should filed under forgettable.
A Campy Film For Sure, But It's About Time Someone Showed What Silly Weirdos the Family Was.
LLAAA483730 July 2007
**1/2 out of ****
By golly, it's about time that a film about the Manson Family wasn't made to be more of an event then it really was. I mean sure, it is very tragic that those people died, I always will mourn for their families and them, being that they were innocent people who did not deserve to die, but the family isn't something that should be really feared. When you really break it down, the members of the cult were not smart people. They didn't ask questions as to what was the purpose was for murdering all those innocent people, they didn't see Charlie as someone who should not be taken seriously, and they didn't even know who they were murdering. They were very foolish people, and they should be anything but feared. I don't understand the rationale of someone who finds the incident of the cult to be so shocking. I mean sure, it's shocking that these people actually went out and committed these murders, but they were just a group of people who had obviously lost too many braincells. That is why I thought this was a good movie. Because it is honest, shows the incident from the evil side, and does it in a responsible and realistic manner.
The film structure consists of the members of the family being interviewed in jail about what they did. We briefly see Charlie as the ringleader and we see him as a foolish looking funny man who mostly doesn't know what he is talking about. The film builds up to a Roman Polanski's MACBETH style third act in which the family goes on their killing spree, but by the time they begin to do these things, the audience realizes that these people don't have any rationale except for hate, and they gradually became blinded by it and began thinking that they were doing something of purpose, which they were certainly not.
I don't recommend this to the casual movie goer. People who rent this thinking that it's just a horror film are wrong. This is not just a horror film. This is an extremely disturbing, gruesome, tasteless, and senselessly brutal film that just so happens to depict an honest representation of the family. People who will see this film will wonder if it merits any purpose. Indeed, it may not. That is not the point though. The point is that Mario Vanbebbler wanted to make the most realistic version of The Manson Family as possible, so even though the film may not be good, I am happy to say that he has succeeded in doing exactly what he wanted. That is something I greatly admire, and that's why I like this film.
Not Rated. Adults only. contains explicit violence and sexuality, and drug use.
By golly, it's about time that a film about the Manson Family wasn't made to be more of an event then it really was. I mean sure, it is very tragic that those people died, I always will mourn for their families and them, being that they were innocent people who did not deserve to die, but the family isn't something that should be really feared. When you really break it down, the members of the cult were not smart people. They didn't ask questions as to what was the purpose was for murdering all those innocent people, they didn't see Charlie as someone who should not be taken seriously, and they didn't even know who they were murdering. They were very foolish people, and they should be anything but feared. I don't understand the rationale of someone who finds the incident of the cult to be so shocking. I mean sure, it's shocking that these people actually went out and committed these murders, but they were just a group of people who had obviously lost too many braincells. That is why I thought this was a good movie. Because it is honest, shows the incident from the evil side, and does it in a responsible and realistic manner.
The film structure consists of the members of the family being interviewed in jail about what they did. We briefly see Charlie as the ringleader and we see him as a foolish looking funny man who mostly doesn't know what he is talking about. The film builds up to a Roman Polanski's MACBETH style third act in which the family goes on their killing spree, but by the time they begin to do these things, the audience realizes that these people don't have any rationale except for hate, and they gradually became blinded by it and began thinking that they were doing something of purpose, which they were certainly not.
I don't recommend this to the casual movie goer. People who rent this thinking that it's just a horror film are wrong. This is not just a horror film. This is an extremely disturbing, gruesome, tasteless, and senselessly brutal film that just so happens to depict an honest representation of the family. People who will see this film will wonder if it merits any purpose. Indeed, it may not. That is not the point though. The point is that Mario Vanbebbler wanted to make the most realistic version of The Manson Family as possible, so even though the film may not be good, I am happy to say that he has succeeded in doing exactly what he wanted. That is something I greatly admire, and that's why I like this film.
Not Rated. Adults only. contains explicit violence and sexuality, and drug use.
Rape Fantasies
lotsofevil19 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, last night, August 18th, 2004, I had the distinct displeasure of meeting Mr. Van Bebble at a showing of the film The Manson Family at the Three Penny in Chicago as part of the Chicago Underground Film Festival. Here's what I have to say about it. First of all, the film is an obvious rip off of every Kenneth Anger, Roman Polanski, Oliver Stone and Terry Gilliam movie I've ever seen. Second of all, in a short Q & A session after the show Mr. Van Bebble immediately stated that he never made any contact with the actual Manson Family members or Charlie himself, calling them liars and saying he wanted nothing to do with them, that the film was based on his (Van Bebble's) take on the trial having seen it all from his living room on TV and in the news (and I'm assuming from the Autobiography and the book Helter Skelter which were directly mimicked through the narrative). So I had second dibs on questions, I asked if he was trying to present the outsider, Mtv, sex drugs and rock 'n roll version and not necessarily the true story. This question obviously pissed off the by now sloshed director who started shouting "f*** you, shut the f*** up, this is the truth! All those other movies are bullsh**!"
Well anyway, I didn't even think about how ridiculous this was until the next day when I read the tagline for the film, "You've heard the laws side of the story...now hear the story as it is told by the Manson Family." Excuse me, if this guy has never even spoken to the family and considers them to be liars that he doesn't want to have anything to do with, how in God's name can he tell the story for them!? This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard! The film was obviously catered to the sex drugs and rock 'n roll audience that it had no trouble in attracting to the small, dimly lit theatre, and was even more obviously spawned by the sex drugs and rock 'n roll mind of a man who couldn't even watch his own film without getting up every ten minutes to go get more beer or to shout some sort of Rocky Horroresque call line to the actors on screen. This film accomplishes little more than warping the public's image of actual events (which helped shape the state of America and much of the world today) into some sort of Slasher/Comic Book/Porno/Rape fantasy dreamed up by an obviously shallow individual.
The film was definitely very impressive to look at. The soundtrack was refreshing as it contained actual samples of Charlie's work with the Family off of his Lie album. The editing was nice and choppy to simulate the nauseating uncertainty of most modern music videos. All in all this film would have made a much better addition to the catalogues at Mtv than to the Underground Film Festival or for that matter the minds of any intellectual observers. I felt like I was at a midnight Rocky Horror viewing the way the audience was dressed and behaving (probably the best part of the experience). The cast was very good with the exception of Charlie who resembled some sort of stoned Dungeons and Dragons enthusiast more than the actual role he was portraying. The descriptions the film gave of him as full of energy, throwing ten things at you and being very physical about it all the while did not match at all the slow, lethargic, and chubby representation that was actually presented.
All in all the film basically explains itself as Sadie (or maybe it was Linda) declares at the end, "You can write a bunch of bullsh** books or make a bunch of bullsh** movies...etc. etc." Case in point. Even the disclaimer "Based on a True Story" is a dead giveaway, signalling that somewhere beneath this psychedelic garbage heap lay the foundation of an actual story with content that will make and has made a difference in the world. All you have to do is a little bit of alchemy to separate the truth from the the crap, or actually, maybe you could just avoid it all together and go read a book instead.
All I can say is this, when the film ended I got a free beer so I'm glad I went, but not so glad I spent fifteen dollars on my ticket to be told to shut the f*** up for asking the director a question. Peace.
Well anyway, I didn't even think about how ridiculous this was until the next day when I read the tagline for the film, "You've heard the laws side of the story...now hear the story as it is told by the Manson Family." Excuse me, if this guy has never even spoken to the family and considers them to be liars that he doesn't want to have anything to do with, how in God's name can he tell the story for them!? This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard! The film was obviously catered to the sex drugs and rock 'n roll audience that it had no trouble in attracting to the small, dimly lit theatre, and was even more obviously spawned by the sex drugs and rock 'n roll mind of a man who couldn't even watch his own film without getting up every ten minutes to go get more beer or to shout some sort of Rocky Horroresque call line to the actors on screen. This film accomplishes little more than warping the public's image of actual events (which helped shape the state of America and much of the world today) into some sort of Slasher/Comic Book/Porno/Rape fantasy dreamed up by an obviously shallow individual.
The film was definitely very impressive to look at. The soundtrack was refreshing as it contained actual samples of Charlie's work with the Family off of his Lie album. The editing was nice and choppy to simulate the nauseating uncertainty of most modern music videos. All in all this film would have made a much better addition to the catalogues at Mtv than to the Underground Film Festival or for that matter the minds of any intellectual observers. I felt like I was at a midnight Rocky Horror viewing the way the audience was dressed and behaving (probably the best part of the experience). The cast was very good with the exception of Charlie who resembled some sort of stoned Dungeons and Dragons enthusiast more than the actual role he was portraying. The descriptions the film gave of him as full of energy, throwing ten things at you and being very physical about it all the while did not match at all the slow, lethargic, and chubby representation that was actually presented.
All in all the film basically explains itself as Sadie (or maybe it was Linda) declares at the end, "You can write a bunch of bullsh** books or make a bunch of bullsh** movies...etc. etc." Case in point. Even the disclaimer "Based on a True Story" is a dead giveaway, signalling that somewhere beneath this psychedelic garbage heap lay the foundation of an actual story with content that will make and has made a difference in the world. All you have to do is a little bit of alchemy to separate the truth from the the crap, or actually, maybe you could just avoid it all together and go read a book instead.
All I can say is this, when the film ended I got a free beer so I'm glad I went, but not so glad I spent fifteen dollars on my ticket to be told to shut the f*** up for asking the director a question. Peace.
So far the worst film I've seen this year (I'm not going to see ALONE IN THE DARK)
shangrilab5 February 2005
I got encouraged to watch this film because I've heard good word of it: it was supposed to be this thrilling true crime milestone, disturbing, shocking... all that jazz. Well, I am disturbed because I spent money on it, and I am shocked that something so God-awful actually got released. That's about it.
This is a supposed "new look" at Charles Manson's family of insane loser junkies and their murders. But if this is a "new look" then it's probably "new" as in "fresh and totally inept": just watching it gave me a headache and I had to give up trying to make any sense of it or even understand just what the director intended it to be.
I suppose I should say something about the plot but fact is, it was so stupid and incoherent that I barely remember if there even WAS a plot at all. There was something about a "Manson tape" delivered to a radio DJ (or a TV producer?), then an hour of pointless random footage of "the family" in '69, then the Polanski murders (looking like a bad school play) and finally some idiotic part about a bunch of skinheads getting drunk and beating the hell out of one another in an alley (I kid you not), and then it ended (thank God) (Don't ask me to make any sense of that, I'm just recalling what I saw!) The performances were terrible, too. And how difficult is it to make a convincing "Manson"? Get a short skinny scrawny bloke, put a dirty wig and a shaggy beard on him. There's your Manson. But this "Manson" doesn't even look right. He just looks like, uh, a bloke in a cheap wig and a glued on Santa beard painted black.
Or maybe that's what this film is actually about: Manson's family didn't make any sense, so this film doesn't make any sense, either. It's symbolic! (Yeah, right) I'm still so angry at spending money on this I stopped my normal lurking on this site and registered just to vote 1 for this film and post this warning that will hopefully prevent others from spending their money on this garbage. Stay away from it, it's not even worth renting.
PS. The recent US TV production "Helter Skelter" got bad reviews here but I saw it last month (I saw the 1976 original too) and let me tell you, compared to "Manson Family", that new Helter Skelter is BRILLIANT and FLAWLESS. And I was disappointed in it! That's how bad "Manson Family" is: it makes a flawed and mostly disappointing TV movie look perfect.
This is a supposed "new look" at Charles Manson's family of insane loser junkies and their murders. But if this is a "new look" then it's probably "new" as in "fresh and totally inept": just watching it gave me a headache and I had to give up trying to make any sense of it or even understand just what the director intended it to be.
I suppose I should say something about the plot but fact is, it was so stupid and incoherent that I barely remember if there even WAS a plot at all. There was something about a "Manson tape" delivered to a radio DJ (or a TV producer?), then an hour of pointless random footage of "the family" in '69, then the Polanski murders (looking like a bad school play) and finally some idiotic part about a bunch of skinheads getting drunk and beating the hell out of one another in an alley (I kid you not), and then it ended (thank God) (Don't ask me to make any sense of that, I'm just recalling what I saw!) The performances were terrible, too. And how difficult is it to make a convincing "Manson"? Get a short skinny scrawny bloke, put a dirty wig and a shaggy beard on him. There's your Manson. But this "Manson" doesn't even look right. He just looks like, uh, a bloke in a cheap wig and a glued on Santa beard painted black.
Or maybe that's what this film is actually about: Manson's family didn't make any sense, so this film doesn't make any sense, either. It's symbolic! (Yeah, right) I'm still so angry at spending money on this I stopped my normal lurking on this site and registered just to vote 1 for this film and post this warning that will hopefully prevent others from spending their money on this garbage. Stay away from it, it's not even worth renting.
PS. The recent US TV production "Helter Skelter" got bad reviews here but I saw it last month (I saw the 1976 original too) and let me tell you, compared to "Manson Family", that new Helter Skelter is BRILLIANT and FLAWLESS. And I was disappointed in it! That's how bad "Manson Family" is: it makes a flawed and mostly disappointing TV movie look perfect.
The Manson Family
random_avenger20 October 2010
Of all the highly publicized American murder cases of the 20th century, the massacres committed by cult leader Charles Manson's followers in 1969 are probably the most infamous. Despite never personally killing anyone, Manson is still often seen as some kind of embodiment of evil and thus an object of constant curiosity. Several films have been made about "The Family" over the decades, one of them being Jim Van Bebber's semi-mocumentary finally released in 2003 after having been in production for nearly 15 years.
The frame story of the warped cinematic trip takes place in 1996 when a TV reporter named Jack Wilson (Carl Day) is preparing to interview the incarcerated Family members for his program. Some kind of strange modern followers of Manson have sent him a videotape and are not going to leave their interference at that. The bulk of the film consists of faux-interviews with the Family members and psychedelic flashbacks of scenes from the time preceding the murders. The interviewees Leslie, Bobby, Sadie, Patty and Tex seem to regret their actions, while Manson himself is only seen in the flashbacks as portrayed by Marcelo Games.
Instead of a clear, tightly-written plot the jumpy movie favours a fragmented sensory mindf**k kind of approach to its subject. The film's exploitation roots become highly evident during the long home video-like flashbacks illustrating the interviewees' memories full of hazy drug use and gratuitous nudity and sex. The lighting is mostly very richly coloured in red or blue, creating a fittingly otherworldly feel to the scenes of cult bonding under the influence of the charismatic Manson who is seen entirely through the eyes of his followers: he doesn't speak much and remains a distant character throughout. The intentionally grainy, worn-out and damaged look of the film (not only the flashbacks) strengthens the alienating atmosphere as well.
At times the film effectively captures the distressing, insane state of mind that the Family members can be imagined to have been in. The Devil worshipping orgy is a highlight among the bizarre scenes, but the colourfully lit final massacres testing the audiences' tolerance to excessive gore are a must see for any fan of hard horror too. The prolonged knife violence and maniacally laughing killers are pretty much what people (or at least me) are looking for in sleazy trash movies like this one anyway, so in that sense Van Bebber and Co. have achieved their goal with flying colours. Perhaps some of the acting is not the most realistic ever, but I cannot consider that a major flaw in a film that is so heavily focused on the effects of brainwashing and not being in touch with one's regular self.
In a way The Manson Family is a relative of Oliver Stone's controversial media satire Natural Born Killers (1994), but ultimately comes across as sleazier and more nihilistic since the satirical aspect is less pronounced. I am not sure if the filmmakers have taken a lot of artistic license with the presentation of how the actual events took place; in the end it doesn't even matter since the movie never strives to be an accurate portrait of Manson as a person. As an examination of disturbing group psychosis it works enjoyably and is recommended to those into exploitative true crime stories.
The frame story of the warped cinematic trip takes place in 1996 when a TV reporter named Jack Wilson (Carl Day) is preparing to interview the incarcerated Family members for his program. Some kind of strange modern followers of Manson have sent him a videotape and are not going to leave their interference at that. The bulk of the film consists of faux-interviews with the Family members and psychedelic flashbacks of scenes from the time preceding the murders. The interviewees Leslie, Bobby, Sadie, Patty and Tex seem to regret their actions, while Manson himself is only seen in the flashbacks as portrayed by Marcelo Games.
Instead of a clear, tightly-written plot the jumpy movie favours a fragmented sensory mindf**k kind of approach to its subject. The film's exploitation roots become highly evident during the long home video-like flashbacks illustrating the interviewees' memories full of hazy drug use and gratuitous nudity and sex. The lighting is mostly very richly coloured in red or blue, creating a fittingly otherworldly feel to the scenes of cult bonding under the influence of the charismatic Manson who is seen entirely through the eyes of his followers: he doesn't speak much and remains a distant character throughout. The intentionally grainy, worn-out and damaged look of the film (not only the flashbacks) strengthens the alienating atmosphere as well.
At times the film effectively captures the distressing, insane state of mind that the Family members can be imagined to have been in. The Devil worshipping orgy is a highlight among the bizarre scenes, but the colourfully lit final massacres testing the audiences' tolerance to excessive gore are a must see for any fan of hard horror too. The prolonged knife violence and maniacally laughing killers are pretty much what people (or at least me) are looking for in sleazy trash movies like this one anyway, so in that sense Van Bebber and Co. have achieved their goal with flying colours. Perhaps some of the acting is not the most realistic ever, but I cannot consider that a major flaw in a film that is so heavily focused on the effects of brainwashing and not being in touch with one's regular self.
In a way The Manson Family is a relative of Oliver Stone's controversial media satire Natural Born Killers (1994), but ultimately comes across as sleazier and more nihilistic since the satirical aspect is less pronounced. I am not sure if the filmmakers have taken a lot of artistic license with the presentation of how the actual events took place; in the end it doesn't even matter since the movie never strives to be an accurate portrait of Manson as a person. As an examination of disturbing group psychosis it works enjoyably and is recommended to those into exploitative true crime stories.
Ms. Masterson's 8th Grade Class Presents: "The Manson Family"
hifidigitalboy28 January 2005
First off, I have to say that this movie was horrible. Amateurish is the best word to describe it as a whole. The acting was absolutely horrible. The direction was absolutely horrible. Everything about this movie was absolutely horrible.
I can tell you exactly where I first realized this: Three minutes into the movie. Jim Van Bebber has no skills as a director and should not be in the movie business. Most of the time the camera stayed on the tripod and did not move an inch. No panning, tilting, zooming, etc. Even an episode of MacGyver has better cinematography. I would have fired the director of cinematography on the first day of shooting.
Oh, and can we talk about the great special effects in the movie? When it comes to the murder scenes it looked like they were killing mannequins. It was that obvious.
Basically, the movie looked like it was shot for an 8th grade class project. It was not interesting, did not make me feel like I was having an acid trip nor did it disgust me. It made me laugh. The director is not a genius. It's a shameful piece of crap that needs to be either thrown away or lampooned on Mystery Science Theatre 3000.
The only redeeming thing about the movie is that I did not pay for it. Otherwise, I would have demanded my money back.
I can tell you exactly where I first realized this: Three minutes into the movie. Jim Van Bebber has no skills as a director and should not be in the movie business. Most of the time the camera stayed on the tripod and did not move an inch. No panning, tilting, zooming, etc. Even an episode of MacGyver has better cinematography. I would have fired the director of cinematography on the first day of shooting.
Oh, and can we talk about the great special effects in the movie? When it comes to the murder scenes it looked like they were killing mannequins. It was that obvious.
Basically, the movie looked like it was shot for an 8th grade class project. It was not interesting, did not make me feel like I was having an acid trip nor did it disgust me. It made me laugh. The director is not a genius. It's a shameful piece of crap that needs to be either thrown away or lampooned on Mystery Science Theatre 3000.
The only redeeming thing about the movie is that I did not pay for it. Otherwise, I would have demanded my money back.
I'll be helpful if I can....
bsimko3 May 2005
I'm giving the film a 10/10 because of how I feel about it, but ignore that part of this review. What I'd like to do is help you, the potential viewer of The Manson Family, figure out whether you'd love this movie or hate it. It is a polarizing film, as is obvious from the reviews - no genuinely bad films get such an extreme reaction, positive or negative. The worst movies on earth are the ones where you just feel like your time was wasted. At worst, this film will make you feel like your time was violated - remember that the people who give it one star were motivated to find this web page and leave their comments. Go look up any god-awful Fred Olen Ray movie and see what people say: they give 2 or 3 star reviews. I suggest that the only one-star reviews on this entire site are motivated by being offended, not by the movie being "bad" in any objective sense.
Okay, that said, I think this is a well-made film, which I am prepared to support with evidence. The people who said that this is poorly shot ("the camera doesn't move") are clearly out of their minds. Not only does the camera move (and why would it matter if it didn't?), but the filmic technique is a dead-on mimic of the film techniques of the period it is depicting (late 1960s). This is a low budget, 16mm film, so it doesn't have any kind of Hollywood gloss - it is semi-documentary in it's approach. However, I found it to be stylish and evocative of Vietnam documentary footage, Woodstock (the film), and classic drive-in exploitation movies of the period. Again, this is something you'll probably either love or hate, but it is a calculated decision to look "unprofessional" by modern Hollywood standards.
As far as the content of the film, I think it is mistakenly regarded by some as a "message" film, and by others as an "exploitation" film. I think it is neither, or maybe more accurately, both - this is a "depiction" film, intent on depicting the Manson Family as realistically as possible. Why do that? Because Manson and his "Family" is one of the most sociologically interesting phenomena of the 20th century, in many ways comparable to Hitler and the Nazis. Jim VanBebber made a conscious (even a little heavy-handed, lending a little credence to the idea that this is a "message" film) decision to focus on the "family," the actual killers (Manson himself was convicted of inciting the crimes, not participating). Having read a lot of Manson literature including the Vincent Bugliosi book Helter Skelter, I think that this is the most accurate way I've seen the story told, particularly with the "Rashomon"-esque narration of the participants, where they whitewash their own involvement in the crimes, something that frustrated District Attourney Bugliosi to no end.
Now, how will you be able to tell whether this movie is for you, with all the "VanBebber is a genius" or "this is the worst movie ever made" crap out there? Here's the checklist:
1: Do you like low-budget 16mm horror films? It looks low-budget like Evil Dead or Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original), a look which I find to be raw and immediate, but that's an opinion. The much-debated quality of the acting is exactly in keeping with this style. If, for example, you thought the acting in the Texas Chainsaw was rough and real, you'll probably like this, too.
2: Can you cope with graphic sex, drug use, and violence? The sex is near-X-rated and the violence, though they use 70's-style Karo syrup blood, is intense, grotesque, and on-screen. And really happened to real people, which freaks me out.
3: Do you find the twisted social mores of the Manson family to be interesting? This is not a film about a charismatic leader - it's a film about lost sheep. This type of senseless killing is only committed by people who have lost their empathy, an effect that is all too easy to achieve - it takes a lot less than what Manson did to subvert a person's ethics (see the psychological research of Milgram, Zimbardo, et al).
I thought the film did an excellent job of making an intellectual point at a (mostly) visceral level. The point is that human ethics are incredibly flexible and that hedonism is ultimately selfish, even when the love is "free." My final statement: A person with a (very?) strong stomach who is willing to engage his or her intellect in something that doesn't seem quite worth it on the surface will probably enjoy this movie, and be surprised at how deep the well runs. A crazy gore fan will probably like this movie. Fans of underground and experimental film (esp. Richard Kern fans) will love this movie. Mainstream Hollywood fans will not; non-genre fans will not.
Okay, that said, I think this is a well-made film, which I am prepared to support with evidence. The people who said that this is poorly shot ("the camera doesn't move") are clearly out of their minds. Not only does the camera move (and why would it matter if it didn't?), but the filmic technique is a dead-on mimic of the film techniques of the period it is depicting (late 1960s). This is a low budget, 16mm film, so it doesn't have any kind of Hollywood gloss - it is semi-documentary in it's approach. However, I found it to be stylish and evocative of Vietnam documentary footage, Woodstock (the film), and classic drive-in exploitation movies of the period. Again, this is something you'll probably either love or hate, but it is a calculated decision to look "unprofessional" by modern Hollywood standards.
As far as the content of the film, I think it is mistakenly regarded by some as a "message" film, and by others as an "exploitation" film. I think it is neither, or maybe more accurately, both - this is a "depiction" film, intent on depicting the Manson Family as realistically as possible. Why do that? Because Manson and his "Family" is one of the most sociologically interesting phenomena of the 20th century, in many ways comparable to Hitler and the Nazis. Jim VanBebber made a conscious (even a little heavy-handed, lending a little credence to the idea that this is a "message" film) decision to focus on the "family," the actual killers (Manson himself was convicted of inciting the crimes, not participating). Having read a lot of Manson literature including the Vincent Bugliosi book Helter Skelter, I think that this is the most accurate way I've seen the story told, particularly with the "Rashomon"-esque narration of the participants, where they whitewash their own involvement in the crimes, something that frustrated District Attourney Bugliosi to no end.
Now, how will you be able to tell whether this movie is for you, with all the "VanBebber is a genius" or "this is the worst movie ever made" crap out there? Here's the checklist:
1: Do you like low-budget 16mm horror films? It looks low-budget like Evil Dead or Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original), a look which I find to be raw and immediate, but that's an opinion. The much-debated quality of the acting is exactly in keeping with this style. If, for example, you thought the acting in the Texas Chainsaw was rough and real, you'll probably like this, too.
2: Can you cope with graphic sex, drug use, and violence? The sex is near-X-rated and the violence, though they use 70's-style Karo syrup blood, is intense, grotesque, and on-screen. And really happened to real people, which freaks me out.
3: Do you find the twisted social mores of the Manson family to be interesting? This is not a film about a charismatic leader - it's a film about lost sheep. This type of senseless killing is only committed by people who have lost their empathy, an effect that is all too easy to achieve - it takes a lot less than what Manson did to subvert a person's ethics (see the psychological research of Milgram, Zimbardo, et al).
I thought the film did an excellent job of making an intellectual point at a (mostly) visceral level. The point is that human ethics are incredibly flexible and that hedonism is ultimately selfish, even when the love is "free." My final statement: A person with a (very?) strong stomach who is willing to engage his or her intellect in something that doesn't seem quite worth it on the surface will probably enjoy this movie, and be surprised at how deep the well runs. A crazy gore fan will probably like this movie. Fans of underground and experimental film (esp. Richard Kern fans) will love this movie. Mainstream Hollywood fans will not; non-genre fans will not.
The worst "film" ever excreted?
MontezumaPython14 January 2005
I heard legends about this "film" (quotes used so as not to insult films) for a while, so when I finally got the DVD with it, I impatiently started watching it. By the end, I *had* to fast forward through just a few of the most moronic, ineptly made, nonsensical scenes of this pointless childish mess to make it end quicker.
This may be the worst film I've even "touched" - and I used to be associated with Troma for a while. "Manson Family" makes the bottom of Troma's entries look like daring and groundbreaking art-house filmwork. I could go on and talk about the syphilitic skeleton of a "plot" it has, the revoltingly bad "acting", the painful, inept "directing", the sets and props with their "dollar ninety nine" look (I especially "loved" the plastic toy guns used in the Tate murder scene!) or the nauseating look and feel of this whole bag of garbage (I think it was supposed to represent a drug-induced hallucination; I have absolutely no idea how a drug-induced hallucination looks or feels, nor do I want to find out - but I guess drug junkies with burned out "brains" will love this "film" (they seem to be the ones who made it) I've seen many films from various "Worst 50" lists, traditionally opened by Eddie Wood's ones - and Eddie Wood would be appalled by the sheer ineptitude and talentless of van Webber (or whatever his name is; I certainly don't want to remember it) I've never seen "Superbabies" or its sequel, but I strongly wish that "Manson" joined them on IMDb's rating. Fortunately, this obscure garbage probably won't be seen by enough viewers to warrant it sufficiently many "1" votes - and so much the better!
This may be the worst film I've even "touched" - and I used to be associated with Troma for a while. "Manson Family" makes the bottom of Troma's entries look like daring and groundbreaking art-house filmwork. I could go on and talk about the syphilitic skeleton of a "plot" it has, the revoltingly bad "acting", the painful, inept "directing", the sets and props with their "dollar ninety nine" look (I especially "loved" the plastic toy guns used in the Tate murder scene!) or the nauseating look and feel of this whole bag of garbage (I think it was supposed to represent a drug-induced hallucination; I have absolutely no idea how a drug-induced hallucination looks or feels, nor do I want to find out - but I guess drug junkies with burned out "brains" will love this "film" (they seem to be the ones who made it) I've seen many films from various "Worst 50" lists, traditionally opened by Eddie Wood's ones - and Eddie Wood would be appalled by the sheer ineptitude and talentless of van Webber (or whatever his name is; I certainly don't want to remember it) I've never seen "Superbabies" or its sequel, but I strongly wish that "Manson" joined them on IMDb's rating. Fortunately, this obscure garbage probably won't be seen by enough viewers to warrant it sufficiently many "1" votes - and so much the better!
Gritty and disturbing horror film.
HumanoidOfFlesh8 March 2005
Jim Van Bebber's "The Manson Family" is an extremely violent and bloody horror film that reconstructs the early activities of the Family and their descent into the Tate-LaBianca killings.Van Bebber mixes this with a contemporary sub plot involving tabloid journalist Jack Wilson's quest to film a documentary on the subject.The film is loaded with plenty of sex and full-frontal nudity.The final third of "The Manson Family" is a grueling nightmare with some of the most sadistic and savage murders ever captured on screen.The acting is generally amateurish,although Marc Pitman is truly impressive as Tex.The photography perfectly captures the hazy sex-and-drug fuelled lifestyle that Charlie and his largely female disciples indulged in on their Californian ranch.The killings themselves are extremely graphic and gory as hell,so I was satisfied.The scene of blood drinking orgy is truly frightening as is the slow progression of Charlie from a peaceful Jesus Christ figure to Satan himself."The Manson Family" is easily one of the most controversial and disturbing horror films ever made.Give it a look.
An Exploit-Film Director's Take On The MANSON FAMILY
EVOL66611 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Jim VanBebber brings a refreshing 70's exploit-film quality to even his most recent endeavors. His films are often hit-or-miss (even within a single film...) but I do like his "style".
THE MANSON FAMILY is basically VanBebber's retelling of the Manson Family and their activities, leading up to the Tate-LaBianca murders. Nothing that you haven't already seen/heard about, except for some good ol' sleazy sex scenes and some exceptionally gruesome murder re-enactments...
VanBebber doesn't really bring much new to the table in his retelling - except for his style, which was enough to keep me interested. Not a "great" film by any means, but apparently relatively "accurate" based on what I know of the Family and their crimes. VanBebber throws in a weird side-story about a bunch of Charlie-obsessed teens that doesn't necessarily need to be there - but most of his films have a kind of disjointed quality that I guess I've become used to. If you want to see a more "graphic" and exploitive Manson Family film, rife with tits, ass, and gore - this is the one for you...7.5/10
THE MANSON FAMILY is basically VanBebber's retelling of the Manson Family and their activities, leading up to the Tate-LaBianca murders. Nothing that you haven't already seen/heard about, except for some good ol' sleazy sex scenes and some exceptionally gruesome murder re-enactments...
VanBebber doesn't really bring much new to the table in his retelling - except for his style, which was enough to keep me interested. Not a "great" film by any means, but apparently relatively "accurate" based on what I know of the Family and their crimes. VanBebber throws in a weird side-story about a bunch of Charlie-obsessed teens that doesn't necessarily need to be there - but most of his films have a kind of disjointed quality that I guess I've become used to. If you want to see a more "graphic" and exploitive Manson Family film, rife with tits, ass, and gore - this is the one for you...7.5/10
What the heck was all the buzz about?
planet_mamoo20 January 2005
The only thing of interest about this movie is its subject matter. Taking a look at the Manson "family" from the point of view of the family members themselves is a great idea. However, trying to make sense of the uncomprehensible is something that can really only be accomplished in a masterwork -- and this ain't it.
Presumably because there was so much information to squeeze into a screenplay, this film was done in a faux documentary style, with reenactments thrown in. Trouble is, the writing and directing make it impossible to establish those things that make a movie watchable, like character, story, theme and so on.
Worse, there's an incredibly weak sub-plot thrown in that follows a little band of latter-day Mansonites as they go after a reporter who's working on a story on the anniversary of the killings. It's dumb and pointless, and a complete waste of time.
All in all, this movie is one big wasted opportunity. The one ray of sunshine is the acting of Marc Pitman, who plays Tex, who in real life did most of the actual killing. Whereas the female characters come off as giggly airheads in the 60s flashbacks, Pitman manages to convey real feeling.
In short, don't bother with this movie.
Presumably because there was so much information to squeeze into a screenplay, this film was done in a faux documentary style, with reenactments thrown in. Trouble is, the writing and directing make it impossible to establish those things that make a movie watchable, like character, story, theme and so on.
Worse, there's an incredibly weak sub-plot thrown in that follows a little band of latter-day Mansonites as they go after a reporter who's working on a story on the anniversary of the killings. It's dumb and pointless, and a complete waste of time.
All in all, this movie is one big wasted opportunity. The one ray of sunshine is the acting of Marc Pitman, who plays Tex, who in real life did most of the actual killing. Whereas the female characters come off as giggly airheads in the 60s flashbacks, Pitman manages to convey real feeling.
In short, don't bother with this movie.
this movie is HORRIBLE and AMAZING ***spoilers***
justsayin_216 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
***spoilers***
I have to write this review to get this experience out of my system, because this was not an easy movie to watch. This movie is disgusting, disturbing, harrowing, at times ludicrous, sad, and almost consistently riveting. It is also the richest in detail and most accurate retelling of it's subject matter that I've ever seen.
I very recently became interested in the Manson Family legend after watching the Helter Skelter TV remake (also a good movie for different reasons, also unfairly slammed by critics) and the original. A combination of things make it interesting; the sociological perspective, a turbulent era I'm too young to remember (born two months before the murders - Sharon Tate's son would have been almost exactly my age), the slimy underbelly of late 60's Southern California hippiedom, the mythos of LA and Hollywood. It all comes together in this fateful, horrific tale.
Ironically, Manson is to me the least interesting aspect of the family's history. What's more interesting are the kids who so willingly descended into madness. And that's who this movie is about.
What is most outstanding about this film is Van Bebbers faithfulness to the subject. His research was beyond meticulous. It was amazing to hear dialogue that sometimes exactly matched the different things I've been reading in books and online. I loved the re-enacted interviews from the 1972 Documentary "Manson". As with some of the narrative Van Bebber obviously took some liberties but this also works to the films advantage because many of the perpetrators to this day have slightly differing takes on exactly what happened (i.e. Did or did not Patricia Krenwinkle chase Abigail Folger out the door onto the front lawn and deliver many blows? This film suggests not).
Van Bebber sets out to portray from an insider perspective what was going on with these people, and more than any other retelling I've seen or read this film conveys the sheer lunacy involved; there were numerous "hippie" communes in this era where people took drugs, had group sex, and talked philosophy, but we see this one veer off in a grisly direction. We feel the sheltered, cult-like paranoia that slowly took over Spahn Ranch. A good example; the game where they sit around a campfire at night, drop acid, stare at an empty chair that symbolized "the pig establishment". They would judge this invisible man and project his fear back onto him. SHUDDER!
The murders and gore: I'm a big fan of good horror movies, but not gore. I had to look away several times during this movie, notably during the dog sacrifice, even though I knew it was only a movie, that was too much for me. The orgy complete with dog's blood and hallucinatory effects was over the top, but I understand Van Bebber had to take us there to show us exactly how twisted this reality was. Van Bebber drills into the audience a sense of what it must have been like to actually be present in the rooms when these poor victims were being slaughtered, to a harrowing degree. Most notably, Rosemary stumbling around the room and falling to the floor covered in her own blood as Patty coos gently, sweetly "Die, pig, die" while thrusting the knife into Rosemary's back. This was one of the creepiest most disturbing moments on film I have ever seen, it will take a while to shake it from my head. It literally made me want to petition the California Parole Board to NEVER let Patricia Krenwinkle (or any of them) out of jail. Other than that, the murders are scary but the special effects often looked fake/unnatural. IN MY OPINION THIS IS A GOOD THING. Like I said, not a fan of gore. We are thankfully spared a detailed Sharon Tate murder beyond her heartbreaking pleas to "take me with you!" (That might have been a fate worse than death if you think about it.) but the actress' screams which fade into the image of Abigail Folger's "death walk" are so incredibly sad and truthful. These people endured true horror at the hands of their killers, conveyed by this movie in a way that written accounts cannot.
The acting: Wow. There are reminders of amateurism along the way. But kudos to the cast, most notably Leslie Orr as Patti and Maureen Allisse as Sadie. Truly effective and creepy performances. Marc Pitman is intense and effective as Tex, but his physical differences from the real Tex Watson were distracting. I also think Jim Van Bebber is a better actor than he thinks he is. But another nit-pick: The aging make-up effects in the modern day media "interviews" were also distracting.
I would have liked to have seen more of Linda Kasabian's post trial take on things. I'm still not sure how I feel about the modern day Mansonite punk subplot.
Overall, a no holds barred depiction with an impressive attention to detail. Yes, it's low budget, 16mm, it's obvious they aren't filming in California, and there are other flaws, but those are forgivable. This was a herculean effort on the part of the filmmakers. It's obvious why this film has been so polarizing. Despite the gruesome, horrifying, and very sad subject matter, I for one and happy to be in the camp that believes this film is a triumph for the filmmakers. I also think this movie should be viewed by the parole board every time one of these sick fucks comes up for review.
I have to write this review to get this experience out of my system, because this was not an easy movie to watch. This movie is disgusting, disturbing, harrowing, at times ludicrous, sad, and almost consistently riveting. It is also the richest in detail and most accurate retelling of it's subject matter that I've ever seen.
I very recently became interested in the Manson Family legend after watching the Helter Skelter TV remake (also a good movie for different reasons, also unfairly slammed by critics) and the original. A combination of things make it interesting; the sociological perspective, a turbulent era I'm too young to remember (born two months before the murders - Sharon Tate's son would have been almost exactly my age), the slimy underbelly of late 60's Southern California hippiedom, the mythos of LA and Hollywood. It all comes together in this fateful, horrific tale.
Ironically, Manson is to me the least interesting aspect of the family's history. What's more interesting are the kids who so willingly descended into madness. And that's who this movie is about.
What is most outstanding about this film is Van Bebbers faithfulness to the subject. His research was beyond meticulous. It was amazing to hear dialogue that sometimes exactly matched the different things I've been reading in books and online. I loved the re-enacted interviews from the 1972 Documentary "Manson". As with some of the narrative Van Bebber obviously took some liberties but this also works to the films advantage because many of the perpetrators to this day have slightly differing takes on exactly what happened (i.e. Did or did not Patricia Krenwinkle chase Abigail Folger out the door onto the front lawn and deliver many blows? This film suggests not).
Van Bebber sets out to portray from an insider perspective what was going on with these people, and more than any other retelling I've seen or read this film conveys the sheer lunacy involved; there were numerous "hippie" communes in this era where people took drugs, had group sex, and talked philosophy, but we see this one veer off in a grisly direction. We feel the sheltered, cult-like paranoia that slowly took over Spahn Ranch. A good example; the game where they sit around a campfire at night, drop acid, stare at an empty chair that symbolized "the pig establishment". They would judge this invisible man and project his fear back onto him. SHUDDER!
The murders and gore: I'm a big fan of good horror movies, but not gore. I had to look away several times during this movie, notably during the dog sacrifice, even though I knew it was only a movie, that was too much for me. The orgy complete with dog's blood and hallucinatory effects was over the top, but I understand Van Bebber had to take us there to show us exactly how twisted this reality was. Van Bebber drills into the audience a sense of what it must have been like to actually be present in the rooms when these poor victims were being slaughtered, to a harrowing degree. Most notably, Rosemary stumbling around the room and falling to the floor covered in her own blood as Patty coos gently, sweetly "Die, pig, die" while thrusting the knife into Rosemary's back. This was one of the creepiest most disturbing moments on film I have ever seen, it will take a while to shake it from my head. It literally made me want to petition the California Parole Board to NEVER let Patricia Krenwinkle (or any of them) out of jail. Other than that, the murders are scary but the special effects often looked fake/unnatural. IN MY OPINION THIS IS A GOOD THING. Like I said, not a fan of gore. We are thankfully spared a detailed Sharon Tate murder beyond her heartbreaking pleas to "take me with you!" (That might have been a fate worse than death if you think about it.) but the actress' screams which fade into the image of Abigail Folger's "death walk" are so incredibly sad and truthful. These people endured true horror at the hands of their killers, conveyed by this movie in a way that written accounts cannot.
The acting: Wow. There are reminders of amateurism along the way. But kudos to the cast, most notably Leslie Orr as Patti and Maureen Allisse as Sadie. Truly effective and creepy performances. Marc Pitman is intense and effective as Tex, but his physical differences from the real Tex Watson were distracting. I also think Jim Van Bebber is a better actor than he thinks he is. But another nit-pick: The aging make-up effects in the modern day media "interviews" were also distracting.
I would have liked to have seen more of Linda Kasabian's post trial take on things. I'm still not sure how I feel about the modern day Mansonite punk subplot.
Overall, a no holds barred depiction with an impressive attention to detail. Yes, it's low budget, 16mm, it's obvious they aren't filming in California, and there are other flaws, but those are forgivable. This was a herculean effort on the part of the filmmakers. It's obvious why this film has been so polarizing. Despite the gruesome, horrifying, and very sad subject matter, I for one and happy to be in the camp that believes this film is a triumph for the filmmakers. I also think this movie should be viewed by the parole board every time one of these sick fucks comes up for review.
Pray that the REAL family kills you before watching this!!!!!
wadester22-126 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This has got to be the most god-awful piece of cinematic crap I have ever watched. It makes Mel Brooks movies Oscar-worthy by comparison. Jim VanBebber needs to be publicly slapped for trying to pass this off as ANY form of entertainment.
While some may say that this movie is true to the low budget genre of such classics as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "Night of the Living Dead", the production value is not in question. It is VanBebber's ability to cast and present a plausible story line. The casting is deplorable. For the role of Charlie he must have picked the first actor he saw with a beard and long hair. Never mind that this actor's hair came halfway down his back, (Manson's never went much past his shoulders) this actor spoke in a dreadful monotone without so much as a fraction of the personality that Steve Railsback or even Jeremy Davies lent to their portrayals of Manson. The actor chosen to play "Tex" Watson had curly blond hair instead of straight dark hair, a fact that anyone who has shown even the most remote interest in the Manson case knows. He looks like a Minnesota farmer on "Little House on the Prairie" The actress playing Susan Atkins has a butt wider than Oprah's, While those familiar with the Family members know that "Clem" was considered somewhat retarded, the actor portraying him did so in such a campy, Chaplinesque way it was like watching an old Vaudevile act. Instead of Sharon Tate looking like a beautiful pregnant woman, the actress looked like bloated, alcoholic trailer trash. VanBebber speeds up the filming in some places for artistic effect yet this technique hasn't proved remotely useful since "The Munsters". The end credits list every known family member yet we are never introduced to the majority of them and those we are introduced to we aren't sure who they are sometimes.
Facts are destroyed in this movie as well. "Lotsapoppa" did not die in real life, Steven Parent was shot four times, not twice, Abagail Folger did not have her throat slit, Where were Mary Brunner and Bruce Davis during the Himnan Murder? Patricia Krenwinkel never sported a "Dorothy Hamill" hair style.
The most baffling aspect of this movie is what the modern day "freaks" had to do with this movie? Why was the girl wearing a rubber mask with a dildo attached? What was their problem with the journalist? What was the meaning or purpose of the final confrontation? Why were they included, period? The viewer never knows!
Holy mackerel, I could go on and on but space prevents it. Don't try to eat popcorn during this garbage because your hand will be too busy scratching your head while you repeatedly say "What the f---?"
While some may say that this movie is true to the low budget genre of such classics as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "Night of the Living Dead", the production value is not in question. It is VanBebber's ability to cast and present a plausible story line. The casting is deplorable. For the role of Charlie he must have picked the first actor he saw with a beard and long hair. Never mind that this actor's hair came halfway down his back, (Manson's never went much past his shoulders) this actor spoke in a dreadful monotone without so much as a fraction of the personality that Steve Railsback or even Jeremy Davies lent to their portrayals of Manson. The actor chosen to play "Tex" Watson had curly blond hair instead of straight dark hair, a fact that anyone who has shown even the most remote interest in the Manson case knows. He looks like a Minnesota farmer on "Little House on the Prairie" The actress playing Susan Atkins has a butt wider than Oprah's, While those familiar with the Family members know that "Clem" was considered somewhat retarded, the actor portraying him did so in such a campy, Chaplinesque way it was like watching an old Vaudevile act. Instead of Sharon Tate looking like a beautiful pregnant woman, the actress looked like bloated, alcoholic trailer trash. VanBebber speeds up the filming in some places for artistic effect yet this technique hasn't proved remotely useful since "The Munsters". The end credits list every known family member yet we are never introduced to the majority of them and those we are introduced to we aren't sure who they are sometimes.
Facts are destroyed in this movie as well. "Lotsapoppa" did not die in real life, Steven Parent was shot four times, not twice, Abagail Folger did not have her throat slit, Where were Mary Brunner and Bruce Davis during the Himnan Murder? Patricia Krenwinkel never sported a "Dorothy Hamill" hair style.
The most baffling aspect of this movie is what the modern day "freaks" had to do with this movie? Why was the girl wearing a rubber mask with a dildo attached? What was their problem with the journalist? What was the meaning or purpose of the final confrontation? Why were they included, period? The viewer never knows!
Holy mackerel, I could go on and on but space prevents it. Don't try to eat popcorn during this garbage because your hand will be too busy scratching your head while you repeatedly say "What the f---?"
So bad that it has to be parody. Sadly, it's not.
christofunk6616 June 2005
This pile of "merde" has got to be a joke. At first I was revolted by the sheer artifice and cliché, particularly the drug montage scenes which were about as realistic as the drug ravings in reefer madness. Then I thought that maybe the whole thing was some bizarre parody that only the filmmakers understand. Wide angle lenses, naked white people and bad lighting just screams cult movie to me, or porn, which has better production value and far more integrity than "The Manson Family".
I somehow saw a trailer for this at the New Beverly Cinema in Hollywood which normally plays my favorite classic films, plus the popcorn is only 2 bucks a bag. So I thought it would be a good bet when I saw it at the video store next to the release of "Manson" with Jeremy Davies, which by the look of the cover looked to be another Hollywood exploiter. The box for "The Manson Family " made the film seem like an honest documentary, plus I was bamboozled by some intoxicating film review quotes that must have been totally false.
Movies like this make me sad not only for the absurd waste of money and human energy, but for the lies... Oh God, the lies... the deception. I feel used and cheated.
I somehow saw a trailer for this at the New Beverly Cinema in Hollywood which normally plays my favorite classic films, plus the popcorn is only 2 bucks a bag. So I thought it would be a good bet when I saw it at the video store next to the release of "Manson" with Jeremy Davies, which by the look of the cover looked to be another Hollywood exploiter. The box for "The Manson Family " made the film seem like an honest documentary, plus I was bamboozled by some intoxicating film review quotes that must have been totally false.
Movies like this make me sad not only for the absurd waste of money and human energy, but for the lies... Oh God, the lies... the deception. I feel used and cheated.
New take..OK, run with it
murking16 April 2005
One can certainly forgive the filmmaker for not consulting with the family for accurate info. Dead end there. As Robin Williams said, if you can remember the sixties, you weren't really there. What remains is a great pop-culture plethora of reconstructions to choose from. What we sicko film fans have been waiting for for years is a truly hardcore no-holds barred version of the Manson saga. The two made-for TV versions are okay, Steve Railsback is great in The Stunt Man as well, and Ed Gein, very underrated actor.
Anyway, mad overdue for an NC17 splatterfest, and as long as it's low budget, you can expect some artistic license and the freedom to inject more social commentary on the subsequent generations who've adopted such an apocalyptic mind-set. JVB does get a bit carried away, integrating modern-day punks, junkies, tabloid journalists,Jim Jones recordings and poseurs into the mix. JVB goes out of his way to mirror the history of nihilistic punk attitude, straight on through the 80s with the Richard Kern film clips (You killed me first, starring the inimitable Lung Leg) So the film is a bit inconsistent. Far from perfect. It also combines remakes of the Manson documentary footage shot in the early 70s, while the girls are all armed and determined to free Charlie and crew. It's all over the place, very NBK. Also a very big dose of processed noise and simulated dirty film effects.
But the performances are good, the frenzy and mania are there. Very queasy and rough recreations of the Hinman/Tate/LaBianca murders. Strong stuff. Managed to cram a lot of character development into 95 minutes, despite also having fictional characters running rampant as well.
Anyway, mad overdue for an NC17 splatterfest, and as long as it's low budget, you can expect some artistic license and the freedom to inject more social commentary on the subsequent generations who've adopted such an apocalyptic mind-set. JVB does get a bit carried away, integrating modern-day punks, junkies, tabloid journalists,Jim Jones recordings and poseurs into the mix. JVB goes out of his way to mirror the history of nihilistic punk attitude, straight on through the 80s with the Richard Kern film clips (You killed me first, starring the inimitable Lung Leg) So the film is a bit inconsistent. Far from perfect. It also combines remakes of the Manson documentary footage shot in the early 70s, while the girls are all armed and determined to free Charlie and crew. It's all over the place, very NBK. Also a very big dose of processed noise and simulated dirty film effects.
But the performances are good, the frenzy and mania are there. Very queasy and rough recreations of the Hinman/Tate/LaBianca murders. Strong stuff. Managed to cram a lot of character development into 95 minutes, despite also having fictional characters running rampant as well.
Good Cure for Insomnia
Chuthlu13 April 2005
I couldn't disagree more with the past reviewer of this pile of poo...!The is possibly the worst film of 2003.The film runs for only 95 mins but feels like an eternity.The acting is appalling and makes me wonder if there not all the cast are from some amateur dramatics group!It seems the only reason Marcelo Games is cast as Charlie is that he vaguely resembles Charles Manson,his acting (or lack there of) is worst of the bunch. Production values of this exploitation piece are practically non existent,it seems to have been shot in someones back garden.The murder scenes are badly executed and lack any originality.The gore effects are unconvincing.After watching this I was left with a bad taste in my mouth.
much emphasis on the meaning/meaningless of words
christopher-underwood12 January 2007
Many years in the making this is, if ultimately rather sad and depressing with a confused ending, an involving documentary style depiction of what life may well have been like within the notorious 'family'. At the beginning there is a fair mix of youngsters held together largely by sex and quasi religion. Largely it's the girls that talk of Jesus whilst disrobing and the men of, f***ing. Fuelled by dope and acid they go their merry way for a while but then interestingly Charlie reckons a mix of blood and death will keep the group alive. And so it does but always of course spiralling hell bent towards the inevitable, 'helter skelter'. The best and worst of the hippie movement is depicted here in what was essentially it's death throws. Bebber makes considerable play on the racist slant to the 'family' belief structure and their fear of a black takeover, none of which have I been aware of before. Very interesting with lots of gore and bare flesh with much emphasis on the meaning/meaningless of words, gullibility and the mighty power of the promise of sex and violence.
Intriguing
Zocco979 July 2005
I like the movie a lot, probably not for the crappy set design and poor acting, or even the low budget premise. I just liked the fact that an independent film maker with a vision got to see his dream after 15 years get rewarded. I have to admit, the movie is pretty gritty and I got the parallel between the new Manson zeolites and the original family and found it more intriguing than the usual docu-drama the media portrays. Well done...oh and people that hated this movie, it's too bad because I was entertained throughout and in a way it took out the mystique of the Manson family rather than glorifying it. Yes it was low-budget but if you watch the documentary on the film's creation it's quite brilliant and fascinating.
A great story - wasted.
The_Void27 June 2005
Charles Manson, one of the most notorious criminals in crime history has, as you would expect, a compelling story behind his crimes. This film, The Manson Family, attempts to show the story behind Charlie and his 'family', but never truly succeeds. The film takes a docu-drama stance at events and while you would expect this to be the best way to look at a true story, I was left feeling cold at the conclusion. The truth is, that while the crimes are compelling and make you want to take note; the story behind them simply isn't, and it makes for a less than interesting film. The story plods out like any other story of sex and drugs from the seventies, and while we, of course, know that there's something deeply evil about the father of this family; it isn't portrayed in a way that makes us want to find out what it is; and this isn't good at all since most people already know most of the details of what Charles Manson did. The story pans out with mock-live footage of the exploits of the family, mixed in with fake interviews of the perpetrators as they are today.
This film is well renowned for impressing at the festival is premiered at, but I really don't see why. All the film offers is disappointment, and the story of the 'Manson family' is severely wasted by the way that the filmmakers have seen fit to play it out. There has been a surge of documentary films being released lately, and their high-critical acclaim is what I blame for this film. The action is always made better by the fact that the events in this film really happened, but at the same time much of the movie isn't interesting at all; and while the film picks up towards the end, I think that if you're going to make a film based on true events, you should really focus on the most interesting aspects of the story in order to make the film itself interesting - this film doesn't. Sure, some people will enjoy and be impressed by, the pornography elements of the film, along with the drug culture atmosphere; but I certainly wasn't. I wanted a film about the crimes that The Manson Family committed, not what they were doing while Charlie was brainwashing them. On the whole; I am not amused.
This film is well renowned for impressing at the festival is premiered at, but I really don't see why. All the film offers is disappointment, and the story of the 'Manson family' is severely wasted by the way that the filmmakers have seen fit to play it out. There has been a surge of documentary films being released lately, and their high-critical acclaim is what I blame for this film. The action is always made better by the fact that the events in this film really happened, but at the same time much of the movie isn't interesting at all; and while the film picks up towards the end, I think that if you're going to make a film based on true events, you should really focus on the most interesting aspects of the story in order to make the film itself interesting - this film doesn't. Sure, some people will enjoy and be impressed by, the pornography elements of the film, along with the drug culture atmosphere; but I certainly wasn't. I wanted a film about the crimes that The Manson Family committed, not what they were doing while Charlie was brainwashing them. On the whole; I am not amused.
The Bloody Hippy Fringe
evileyereviews10 November 2010
This unflinching flick, nearly 15 years in the making, can hardly be called entertaining by most standards. Instead, Jim Van Bebber has created a flick that reanimates the essence of the stupidity and horror that the disciples of Charley have effected upon the world. The Family's reign of terror is all the more horrifying by account of its random and senseless motivations. The story itself will alienate all but the most ardent of movie fans, those that can see through the ostensibly bad in order to extract the true grit of Van Bebber's intent, which was to tell the story through the eyes of the Family. The acting was at times amateurish, but set upon its chaotic backdrop does not detract from the import of this film. The directing and camera work are MTV on psychedelics intense. For those prudish types stay away, for the leverage of nudity and animalistic gore have tipped the scales and reveal this flick to be on the doorsteps of rated X-ville. A difficult film to recommend, for those interested in the grim fringe of cinema, this might find a receptive audience.
Genruk of Evil Eye Reviews
Genruk of Evil Eye Reviews
A true descent into madness.
RatedVforVinny16 February 2019
A really demented but compelling take, on the life and times of Charles Manson. Incredible story for all the best (and worst reasons) and a difficult picture to get exactly right. At times this film takes you into a world were madness and mayhem, truly rules the roost. One long acid trip and no doubt a fairly accurate portrayal of events that actually happened (on the Spahn Ranch). To be honest you could never make up a fiction story anywhere near as bizarre as this and whatever your views on Charles Manson, he was a complete one-off!
You don't Want to know
stamatikokotas29 January 2011
Drugs, Too Many Drugs, Going Absolutely Insane, Disturbing. Not recomemded for any setting after you have watched this movie you feel like the guy in "A clock work orange" like your sick from watching a movie. It's not A stupid movie it's just disturbing. I actually wish someone would have told me not to watch this movie. But I watched the whole thing. Do not watch this movie if you do not like disturbing images.I guess it's educational it influence's an anti drug use message.The Acting is Good convincing i sometimes think if the actors actually experimented with the drugs referenced in the movie. because there high seem's genuine. The acting is entertaining. the story is educational. But I can't recommend it If you want to watch it it's on you.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
