Diagonaldi Very well executed

HeadlinesExotic Boring

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Michael Ledo The movie has a good use of juxtaposition as it contrasts the difference in people and families growing up in the Age of Nixon. Perry is a young Christian chemist who suffers from sexual repression because his buxom blond girlfriend loves Jesus more than him. (Her words, not mine.) The Christian tract they hand out is about a girl named Leslie who takes LSD and gets pregnant by Satan. Leslie happens to be the other story that runs parallel to Perry's tale. Leslie ends up with Charlie, who has a God complex. The scenes swap back and forth in a surreal John Waters' style. During the trial Perry and Leslie make extensive eye contact. Perry, who has begun to doubt the values drilled into his head by society has second thoughts about Leslie, seeing her more as a victim than criminal.The background may have been historical, but this film is in no way close to being accurate. The end credits claimed the title of this movie was "Leslie, My Name is Evil." You might look for further reviews under that title. This also appears to be a Canadian production so when the box claims, "gratuitous nudity" that means one scene (Perry's dream). The killing is also lame. You see the knife swing and blood splatter, but no penetration. It is not a horror film. It is not a documentary. It is not that good drama. It is a cult classic wannabe. It loosely pokes fun at society and Christianity, but never makes a definite statement, after all, they are being compared to the Manson family. The character of Charlie in this movie was poorly written.Point of history. Leslie was not involved in the original Tate murders, but only later in the Labianca murders. The woman who plays Leslie in the movie looks very much like her. Leslie was disruptive during the trial and giggled a lot, particularity at times when she should not have giggled. Leslie held Rosemary while she was being stabbed and as the movie portrays stabbed her in the lower torso after she was dead. There was a question of her guilt as she stabbed someone who was already dead, but her said court actions landed her in prison. John Waters has been attempting to get her released. I suspect he had some uncredited work to do with this film.

KineticSeoul The beginning few minutes seemed promising, but it started to go downhill from there. The thing is, this director had no idea where to take this movie so it just fall short in almost every level. It's primary focus isn't Leslie or Manson, and the protagonist seemed to be one of the juror Perry. The directing and editing isn't really good and I lost interest really quickly. There just isn't anything interesting or entertaining about this flick. I recommend just watching a documentary over this crap. Yeah, this movie was suppose to be satirical, but I didn't find anything humorous about it.3/10

ciscobudge While this movie is not very accurate, it does have some accuracies with Bobby BeauSoleil, and small things like Manson telling Bobby that he isn't a pimp. Manson made it a point to not oblige when people came to the ranch in hopes of getting laid. It's also accurate in respects that Manson was said to have never used the words Helter Skelter.The movie also goes by the "free Bobby" copycat motive, which I agree is the reason. It is also accurate how the Bugliosi character led on the "Linda Kasabian" character to get answers he wanted. The movie also seems anti-Linda as well, which is great.Inaccuracies in the movie:* Minute 5:01: There was no jury member who was being programmed by Leslie Van Houten, which makes that running theme of the movie fiction.* Minute 13:30: Bobby BeauSoleil did not trade Leslie Van Houten to Charlie, she never left Bobby until Bobby was arrested and needed a place to stay.* Minute 16:19: Charles Manson never crucified himself, Leslie certainly did not meet him on a cross.* Minute 18:07: Charlie did not have sex with Leslie the first night. In Fact he refused to really touch her because he knew she was Bobby's girl and he respected Bobby too much. This is what people say drove Leslie to be obsessed with proving herself to Charlie.* Minute 20:11: Charlie did not necessarily give out names. Most names came naturally (i.e. Blue, Tex, Gypsy) and others were given by George Spahn (i.e. Squeaky, Capistrano) and others were aliases (i.e. Katie, Clem Tufts).* Minute 23:05: Charlie did not have to give Leslie back to Bobby, she never left him.* Minute 25:30: Leslie never told Bobby that Charlie was Jesus.* Minute 26:19: Bobby never threatened to start his own Family, he always ran with a lot of girls— always had a "Family".* Minute 27:11: The whole "shit is coming down" paranoia did not start until after the Crow and Hinman incidents. The Family was also not armed until after those incidents.* Minute 28:58: Where are all of the guys? Where's Clem? Where's Bruce? Where's T.J.? Where's Danny? Manson never had a song called "Follow Me To Hell."* Minute 33:37: Charlie did not dare Bobby to "off a pig". Gary Hinman was murdered by Bobby because he burned him on drugs.* Minute 36:14: Patricia Krenwinkle was not "sad" after the murders, she was proud. Charles Watson claims that she was the one ordering him to kill Sharon Tate. Patricia did not convince Leslie to go the second night. She went because Susan Atkins had feet problems and could not.* Minute 37:33: This scene implies that Charlie tied up the LaBiancas, he did not. Charles Watson said he did. Where is Charles Watson? Why isn't he in this movie at all? He was the one who murdered all 7 people.* Minute 44:45: Who is this "ranch hand" who is testifying against them? Who is Laura? Tracy? Carry? Cindy? Sarah? Jennifer? Karen?* Minute 48:44: Why is there a cat in the cell with Krenwinkel?* Minute 49:40: I take it "Laura" is supposed to be Linda Kasabian?* Minute 55:20: This never happened; a 15 year old being raped while Charlie hung on a cross.* Minute 56:20: Leslie did not attempt to attack "Linda" with a pencil.* Minute 1:07:11: The movie makes it seem like Leslie murdered Rosemary LaBianca, which is not true. Apparently all of the wounds from Leslie's knife were post-mortem. She did not inflict 41 stab wounds.* Minute 1:08:35: Testimony never happened.* Minute 1:14:58: The earthquake the girls claimed Manson foretold? Why wasn't Leslie Van Houten's attorney killed?All in all there were some accuracies in this movie. The movie made Manson what he is, someone who may not have been as much involved in the murders as he was made to be. The movie did put him at the LaBianca murders.However, the movie is just a cheap attempt to make money off of Manson's name. If you are looking for an accurate movie this is not it. It's nothing but fiction with a bit of truth mixed in. The acting is what you'd expect to a direct to video horror movie. Charles Manson was played by someone over-sized, with blue eyes and of course over acted. Casting for Leslie Van Houten, Susan Atkins and Patricia Krenwinkel was more accurate.The movie was missing very key participants, especially Charles Watson. Watson was the admitted assassin of all of the Tate/LaBianca victims. The movie did not even have a Charles Watson character. It's unfortunate that Watson took the lives of eight people and seems to never have to answer for it.

timherremans This movie started out okay. Until it cuts to a scene with the girls sitting out by a fire and talking about how they are from divorced families and looking for a purpose in life. It was so corny and stupid, I had to laugh. The rest of the movie has that feel. I think the guy who played Manson could have pulled it off well, had he gotten a good script to work with. I was waiting to see how they would portray him and knew it would be amusing. Just like how the media portrayed him. It was pretty pathetic how he was presented, like some demonic possessed god-man. In the first scene, he is up on a cross, like that is his normal thing to do. The script for this movie is awful, what were they thinking. It's almost directed like a play, not like a movie. A lot of this is also do to the terrible acting by the girls, some of it is okay, but when they speak, it can get very bad. I liked the real vintage clips that were inserted. A lot of the music was good, I heard The Black Angels, 13th Floor Elevators, good stuff. They portrayed the racist, pro-war conservatives pretty well. I think the movie had some pretty well done scenes. Just failed in executing the characters better, leaving you with a flawed feeling while watching it.