Don't listen to the negative reviews

As Good As It Gets

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Told almost exclusively from the perspective of prosecutor "Vincent Bugliosi" (George DiCenzo) this movie details the events that occurred on August 9, 1969 (and again on the next day) by Charles Manson and his followers along with their subsequent arrest, trial and conviction for the murders of seven people in Hollywood, California. Even today the entire story is both shocking and bizarre. Now rather than reveal any more of this movie and risk spoiling it for those who haven't seen it I will just say that although it is told in a documentary style it still manages to retain the horror of the events to a great degree. I especially liked the performance of Steve Railsback (as "Charles Manson") who performed in a very excellent manner. Likewise, Nancy Wolfe (as "Susan Atknins") was also very good. At any rate, there are apparently several versions of this movie available and since I have only seen the long version (about 194 minutes) I can only say that this particular version is very good and I rate it as above average.

I've seen all there is to see on Charles M Manson and the Helter Skelter horror and the best was the 1976 made for TV movie not gonna go into detail but the other movies the Manson character was not convincing or was forcing the character and you can tell.Steve Railsback is freshly wicked awesome as Charlie and the court scenes are intense,you get more info because most of it comes from court transcripts,only way you'll get more is if you read the book.which you should have done before watching the movie.Go ahead see the other stuff first check out the "new" stuff by all means go ahead,save the original for last you'll never look back.You will realize that there is only one garbage dump to eat from one actor to take you creepy crawling.and only ONE true movie... ~nyertrappedinnh out~

"Helter Skelter", based on the 1974 bestseller written by prosecuting attorney Vincent Bugliosi and Curt Gentry, originally aired on CBS in April 1976, just five years after Charles Manson and four of his followers were convicted of seven grisly murders and sentenced to life imprisonment. It was chilling when it first aired, and it's still frightening to watch even now. The miniseries has a total running time of just under three hours (when connecting the two part series without commercial interruption), but it could have gone for six hours and still have been interesting.Because the movie originally aired on TV, there is little profanity and a very brief depiction of the actual murders taking place. In fact, the Labianca murders aren't shown on screen at all. The major strength of this movie, even over big budget horror films that make it to the big screen, is that the filmmakers knew that the murders themselves were not the only thing that made the Manson family so scary. In fact, seeing the aftermath of the Tate-Labianca murders says it all.Just seeing the Manson family members, especially Charles Manson (Steve Railsback), is enough to send shivers down your spine, especially when one of the members looks directly into the camera, as if they are staring right through the TV at you. This movie takes advantage of close-ups, especially in Manson's case. Railsback not only looks a lot like the real Charles Manson, but his eyes have such a veracity that can scare the hell out of any viewer. Seeing him, I had to remind myself that the real Manson is still locked up.Even scarier was one of Manson's followers, Susan Atkins (Nancy Wolfe), who claimed to have murdered the Manson family's most famous victim, actress Sharon Tate, herself. Wolfe does an amazing job portraying Atkins, especially when she gives testimony before a grand jury on her side of the story. The way she details killing Tate without remorse forced one jury member to leave the room in anguish. Although that juror in the movie (and presumably in real life) was a woman, I do not doubt that I would have felt the same way in that room.There have been many movies about serial killers that have obviously been exploitative. What makes this film void of exploitation is the fact that it started with the discovery of the murders, then continued to build upon the who, what, when, how, and why, which Bugliosi himself had to figure out to make his case.Bugliosi had no particular involvement in this TV movie, but George DiCenzo does such a great job portraying him that you think it's actually Bugliosi himself. I especially liked how DiCenzo fills in most gaps of the case by narrating it himself. The very beginning shows him coming out of district court, looking directly into the camera, and saying, "Good Evening, you're about to see a dramatization based on actual facts. We may not like to accept the fact that those in the story of Helter Skelter exist in our lives. Yet, they do." A little like Rod Serling? Sure, but it is an effective beginning that is thankfully void of campiness.The TV movie fits as much as it can into three hours, and still actually left me wanting more details. It elaborated upon some surprising facts about the case about which I did not previously know. For instance, Helter Skelter WAS written in blood in the Labianca's house following the murder, but Helter was misspelled "Healter". Also, the murderers' bloody clothing was found not by the police, but by newsmen after reading Atkins' testimony.There were some details I wish the movie added, though. For instance, Bugliosi's whole investigation was dedicated to finding a motive for the Manson family's resorting to murder, yet none were explicitly stated. I also would have liked to have known what the court-appointed defense attorneys were thinking. It must have occurred to them that they were fighting a losing battle, but little information on their proceedings is given (other than their unnecessary objections in court). Lastly, why the Manson family exactly shaved their heads is never explained here. It probably is in the book, but in the movie it felt random.This TV movie could have elaborated upon the psychology of Manson's followers, such as why they believed him when he said he was both Jesus Christ and the Devil, or why they didn't run screaming when they saw his face alone. Although Manson did not kill anyone (or so he claims) and is not big in nature, I would still not want to be around him, let alone take killing orders from him. However, such psychological explanation would probably fill another three hour movie. What this one covers is just fine.It is scary that people like this have existed, and could exist again. It's even scarier that seemingly normal people could blindly follow and worship such a nihilistic psychopathic nomad. It's a sickening chapter of American history, but one covered very well by this movie.

After watching the recent version of the Manson murders "Helter Skelter" (2004) I looked up the 1976 TV movie to have a look at. This version is pretty much a straightforward adaptation of the bestselling book with author and prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi (here played by George DiCenzo) narrating events throughout.The film covers the investigation of the infamous Tate-LaBianca murders and the trial of Charles Manson, hippie-cult leader, and members of his 'Family' for the killings. Although aliases are used for some of the characters, things are pretty easy to follow and nearly phase of the investigation and trial are covered within a full three hours.The staging of it is accurate, with good reproductions of the murder scenes, grand jury indictments and the courtroom. The murders themselves are still dramatised but they are not shown in full with mere flashes of the tragedy mingled in with witness testimony. Despite this, the story is not nearly exploited enough for full dramatic impact.Although Steve Railsback does a credible job as Manson and is actually quite frightening in some moments (especially when he threatens the doomed Shorty Shea), the film does not allow enough scope for him to really develop the character. Also the film does not mention the Vietnam War, one of the reasons for the hippie-cult movement from where Manson picked his followers. The portrayal of Irving Kanarek, Manson's defense attorney (here named Everett Scoville), effectively reproduces the man's destructive attacks on the prosecution witnesses, yet more could have been derived from the buffoonery of his obstructionist tactics.Astonishingly, the portrayal of Vincent Bugliosi is alarmingly dull. Now George DiCenzo is a good fit for the part and he is clear and precise throughout, but he completely misses the sheer passion of the man for his work or the way he does not suffer fools gladly (these traits are evident in all his books and in TV interviews). As a result the film does not have a charismatic hero, and the strange relationship between him and Charles Manson (where Bugliosi comes to understand his quarry, as Manson forms a grudging respect for Bugliosi) is not fully exploited or even explored until virtually the end of the film.A very good effort, and no doubt chilling at the time, but it just wasn't dramatic enough for my liking.