User reviews

I saw Helter Skelter as a kid and was terrified yet intrigued. The actors that portrayed Charles Manson and the Manson family did a terrific job of portraying it right. I was horrified at how one man could manipulate people to do murders for him and horrific murders at that, but also was intrigued at how intelligent Charles Manson really was as a person, but a pyschopathic, cold hearted murder too. The 1976 TV series was by far the best portrayal I have seen of this heinous crime.And I was glad justice was served on Charles Manson and the Manson family. The book was also a very good read and the movie a good purchase to have.

This movie tells the story of the Tate-LaBianca murders in Los Angeles in August 1969 of 7 people by Charles Manson and his "family".Sharon Tate and 6 other people were horribly slaughtered in two nights of senseless killing by Manson and some of his devotees.Much of the movie deals with the prosecutor,Vincent Bugliosi,and his courtroom quest to convict the heartless butchers.Bugliosi also wrote the definitive book about the killings that you should also be sure to read.It will scare you like no work of fiction ever could.

Steve Railsback plays Manson,no,Railsback BECOMES Manson in this film.Railsback is perfect in every way in his portrayal of Manson.He has the voice and mannerisms down and it would be hard for a casual viewer to tell the difference between clips of Manson and Railsback,he is that good.Marylin Burns plays Linda Kasabian,one of the family members.But she will forever be best known for playing screaming Sally Hardesty in the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre".

Being a TV movie of course the gore is pretty tame but even without the graphic gore this movie still makes the horror and awfulness of these murders crystal clear.Railsback shows you the inside of Manson's mind and that is a twisted nasty grubby little thing.Despite attempts by some rock bands and others to make Manson seem cool he is nothing but a runty little sadistic loser who continues to show no remorse to this day.He will end his senseless little life locked up like the slobbering animal he is.

This movie is even better than other later movies made for theater release.It is pretty much faithful to Bugliosi's book and trial transcripts and gives you the best film account of the murders that set Los Angeles and the nation on edge and ended the 1960's with a big bloody

exclamation point.

I found this to be one of the more interesting made-for-TV films I'ever watched, thanks to the sensationalism of the true-life story and the mesmerizing performances of the lead villain (Steve Railsback) and his followers. Railsback's eyes alone are frighteningly haunting to this viewer, 30 years after first seeing it. By the way, my VHS tape has one f-word in the film, which would never be allowed on TV. What gives with that?

Actually, the most frightening people, as a whole, were the women who did Manson's killing for him. I was creeped out more by Nancy Wolfe's chilling performance of Susan Atkins than I did was by anyone else, including the famous "Charlie."

The film has turned out to be a pretty good piece of American history, the kind of crime history we'd like to forget.

This film is quite long but it is definitely worth sitting through! It is quite simply the best made-for TV movie ever made and held it's head high as the most popular made-for TV movie in history for several years and with good reason. It is a meticulously accurate portrayal of the crimes of Charles Manson and his "Family" and brags an absolutely chilling performance by Steve Railsback as Charlie. All of the actors and actresses in this film put on stellar performances in particular Marilyn Burns is heart wrenching as she breaks down on the witness stand with her portrayal of Linda Kasbian, the one "family" member involved in both nights of murder who did not actually murder anyone and who would later turn state's evidence and help secure their convictions. The scariest thing about this film is the reality of it. The fact that people like this actually exist in this world is very frightening as is the idea that one man could convince so many others to lie, cheat, steal and ultimately kill for him. There was a re-make to this film made in 2003 which leaves a lot to be desired but if your going to watch anything, watch the original. The re-make delves a bit more specifically into the murders themselves but this film is based on fact and court transcripts. Watch also for a special appearance by Eillen Dietz (Linda Blair's stunt double and the face of the demon Pazzuzu in "The Exorcist") as one of Manson's disciples.

I had to hunt through the local video stores before I found one with this film available. I remember seeing the two-part TV version, but this 119 minute video release still bothers me just the same.

Steve Railsback is as close to Charles Manson as one can get. He presents the same manic intensity in his eyes as the news photos of Manson at the time. Maybe a little TOO well...

This film is essentially two films in one. The first half details events leading up to the arrest and crimes of Manson and company, the second half details the trial (and the script is taken mostly from the actual court transcripts).

Anyone who insists that Manson was "crucified" or "framed" should examine his criminal record, and read what he has stated about Jews and blacks. Manson presented the image of a hippie messiah, but preached hatred and bigotry. This film shows him for what he was (and still is); a manipulative, violent, hate-filled man.

Remember that this is the man who once said: "Maybe I should have killed four or five hundred people...then I would have felt better. Then I would have felt I really offered society something."

God bless you, Vincent Bugliosi. You did us all a favor!

A quarter century after it was made, and over thirty years since the actual crimes took place, Helter Skelter is still a very chilling movie to watch. As stated in the on-screen introduction, the crimes would not have been believable if they were not true, and having them be the focus of a film inherently makes for a frightening tale. Told mainly from the perspective of the prosecutor, it covers events from the discovery of the victims through Manson heading off to prison. Railsback is absolutely faultless in his portrayal of Manson; the scene where he recreates Manson's speech to the courtroom is very chilling and will stay with you after the movie ends. The storyline spends perhaps a little too much time in the courtroom and maybe should have built up the events leading to the murders more, but it is still well written. Railsback is the obvious star of the film, but everyone else also does a lot better job than you'd expect for a TV-movie from 1976. Watch Helter Skelter anytime you can find it; it's a movie that teaches the lesson that truth is stranger than fiction and reality is more frightening than any Hollywood horror film.

'Helter Skelter' is a three-hour CBS TV movie chronicling, in almost documentary-like detail, the investigation, arrest, and trial of Charles Manson and the Manson Family for the Tate/LaBianca murders of 1969. Nothing is shown of the killings themselves, just the aftermath, and being told from the point-of-view of the investigators, nothing is seen of Manson and his followers in the period leading up to the murders. The whole thing, therefore, is a pretty standard legal procedural thriller, often highlighting the unbelievable incompetence of the LAPD and associated authorities.

The movie has dated, not only in its look, but in its style of storytelling. When the CSI team can wrap up three cases in a 40 minute running time, 'Helter Skelter' seems, at times, overly long and leisurely in its pacing – not so much a fault of the movie as a sorry comment on contemporary expectations. This extended running time does, however, present an opportunity to go into minute detail about the case, and patience is often rewarded.

The film is lifted above the norm by exceptional performances from Steve Railsback as Charles Manson and Nancy Wolfe as Susan Atkins. So fascinating and genuinely chilling are the two characters that these actors create that the movie seems to fall flat when they are not around. I, for one, was far more interested in them than the investigation and wanted to know more about their background, the origins of their unquestionable insanity, their motives, their relationships, and how the Family came in to existence in the first place. Though these issues are hinted at, none are developed as much as the brilliant characterizations demand.

Worth watching for some incredibly cold and chilling performances, but offers little in the way of real explanation for their actions.

This is without a doubt one of the best made for TV movies of all time Because it shows how the authorities were able to solve one of the most horrifying crimes in US history And indeed the cast none of whom could be considered "stars" all did an outstanding job in their roles.And in particular Steve Railsback as Charles Manson created a role that will be remembered forever.Also good was veteran character actor George DeCenzo as Asst DA Vincent Bugliosi who's put in charge of prosecuting the Manson Family. Also excellent were Nancy Wolfe as Susan Denise Atkins Marilyn Burns as Linda Kasabian who's testimony was largely responsible for the conviction of The Manson family.And indeed the entire cast was excellent and included many faces that were familiar to movie fans including Paul Mantee as Sgt Oneal(who gained some fame as the star of Robinson Crusoe on Mars his only leading role)And in the role of Judge Older was actor Skip Homeir.And indeed the end of the first part shows a sneering Mansons face which even now is quite scary.Irecomend this movie which is far better then the 2004 TV Movie of the same name.

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.

The Manson murders had nothing to do with "flower power" and the 60's peace movement, as this movie (and book) eloquently exposed. Instead, the Manson Family was led by a man who successfully posed as a Beatnik hippie, but in reality promoted Neo-Nazi values (Jews and blacks were subhuman and were meant to be ruled by the white man, according to Charlie's theorem).

Bugliosi does an excellent job of laying out the legal details of the events, and showing the complications of our legal system and the difficult task of bringing justice.

It is unfortunate that today's youth see the legacy of Charles Manson as simply an anti-establishment hippie rebel, instead of the psychotic, bigoted, desparate man that he really was (and remains.)

Steve Railsback is terrific as Charlie, and Marilyn Burns bears an uncanny resemblance to Linda Kasabian in a movie that 'pushed the envelope' for TV productions into a slightly grittier direction. No film could truly do justice to this larger than life story...perhaps David Lynch might have some luck giving it the soap opera treatment. Nonetheless, Helter Skelter is an admirable attempt, even though it concentrates on the Bugliosi angle at the expense of Spahn Ranch, The Family, and even Charlie himself.

I picked Helter Skelter up as an afterthought at the movie store the other day, thinking it might be interesting. Boy was I wrong. I usually love movies from the seventies, something about them is so simple yet complex, especially in exploitation films like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday the Thirteenth and all those Italian B movies. I thought Helter Skelter might be somewhat related, but no. It seemed like it was written by a really mild tabloid reporter, sensational yet dry. And even the dialogue was a bit off... it just sounded like they could have used a thesaurus or two. Now a film of the Manson murders, a story that seemed as if it was too crazy to be true, as if it belonged in a movie... how did they make it into a such a boring three hours?! Well, first of all, it's all from the perspective of the cops and the lawyers... which is great for factuality, but couldn't you afford to have a few moments of Charlie and the gang all alone... being evil or whatever. And the acting is so stiff and... silly really. It's just a bunch of old white hacks doing their best to look serious. The only interesting stuff comes from all the psychotics, who can be fairly... out of this world. Still, we never get a sense of the influence Charles Manson had over those people because the actors are too busy acting a stereotype of 'crazy killers.' Don't get me wrong, when we are talking about the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the performances of Gunnar Hansen et al, the crazy killer stereotype (or should I say archetype) really works. But this film sets itself up as a dramatization of real events, so I would have liked to have seen some humanity from the gang. Maybe that's a writing problem, or maybe they were just monsters, the latter is certainly the only clear 'vibe' this film succeeds in sending.

My favourite part of this movie was when one of Charlie's former henchmen was being interviewed by Bugliosi. The young man candidly and reasonably answered every question put to him, and gave some startling insights into Manson's psyche, explaining Charlie's obsession with the Beatles and how it all related to the imminent race war. At the end of the interview, when the prosecutor asks him how such a reasonable and clear-headed young man could fall in with such a crowd, he turns and says, just as calmly and candidly, "Because Charlie is Jesus Christ."

Despite some truly over-the-top performances of Manson and his hollow-eyed harem of evil, this is a fascinating look at one of the more sensational crimes of the last century. Anyone interested in the case or in true crime in general should see this picture at least once.

I saw this movie in 1976 when I was 16 years old and it scared me to death. The first half came on Thursday night and I did okay with that. The next day I bought the book and watched the second half of the movie. The book states "the book you are about to read will scare the hell out of you". And it did. When I went to bed that night, I had nightmares so vivid that I could see the killer's car pull up in front of my house. This terror went on for several nights more and I decided that I was too dang scared to read the book so I threw it in a dumpster. It was 15 years before I would pick that book up again and actually be able to read it. Even then though, it frightened me something terrible. I rented the movie on VHS a few times and it scared me each time, but I loved the movie. I now have it on DVD and I watch it from time to time. The movie, with the clothes and hairstyles is indeed dated but it is still an excellent movie. On a scale from one to ten, it is a ten. I have since read the book numerous times, but I always heed the warning about it scaring the hell out of you. Anyone that has not seen this movie needs to see it. For me, it is not about the control that Charlie had over his family that is so evil. It is the fact that there are people in this world evil enough to do what they did to their helpless and innocent victims. These murders changed the U.S. forever and maybe that is why people are still so interested in this murder case, and that includes me too. I read everything I can find about the case, the victims, the killers and everyone else involved. I would like to be in contact with others that are still interested in this bizarre story. My contact information is maryaha@yahoo.com.

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

Helter Skelter (1976) was a cheesy made-for-t.v. movie that was based upon a book written by Vincent Bugliosi who wrote about the Manson Family murders. The movie is pretty a one sided account about how Charles Manson had a hypnotic control over his "family" (which was nothing more than a rag tag collection of youths, many from well to do families). This movie is nothing more than a Steve Railsback ham fest. He does his best such as mugging for the camera and a lot of serious over acting. The rest of the cast handles their roles with the same zest. George Di Cenzo portrays Vincent Bugliosi with a great deal of restraint with the patience of Job.

If you enjoy docu-dramas or real cheesy and hammy made-for-t.v. fare such as this ( a lot of them were made during the seventies) then you'll definitely enjoy this movie, Others need not apply.

Recommended for a few laughs.

It's not bad enough that Hollywood is so addlepated as to think that they can improve upon the quirky genius of Willy Wonka with special effects, or the cinematic perfection of 1967's In Cold Blood, now they are remaking what is still an effective frightener of a movie as Helter Skelter? I weep for Hollywood sometimes...but I digress...

TV movies have not really come very far in this generation when compared to the movies of the 70's or very early 80's. Sure, they can get away with some language that they couldn't before, and maybe a little more skin. But there lacks the explorative nature of storytelling the miniseries of that bygone era once gave us. Case in point, the 1976 TV movie, Helter Skelter. The chronological point of view takes the viewer through the important milestones of prosecutor Bugliosi (very accurately portrayed by Geo. DiCenzo) and his search for answers in what seems to be a motiveless crime. But as most people should know by now, there is no such thing as murder without motivation--every killer has his/her reasons. It just depends on whether or not the evidence shows that motive. And that evidence can be something as overt as a letter, or something as minute as an object placed upon a victim or even how the victim is left...The motive is always there; and in recent years, maybe the last 20 or so, profiling experts have proved this. But in the late 1960's, profiling was unknown, and the search for a motive was dependent upon good old fashioned legwork and long hours staring at notes. The book Bugliosi wrote of course goes into far more detail about how formidable a task this was for such a notorious and violent crime as the one depicted. But for the 3-plus hours of this film, we get a lot of information indeed, and it only serves the viewer to get as complete an education as possible about Manson, his vagabond followers, and the collective insanity that ensued. Actually, I suppose with our rash of reality shows, we are seeing more of that 'collective insanity' when people are thrown together without many means of escape...again, I digress...Overall, the acting was formidable, effective, and quite fearless for its time period--I can't recall another TV movie where the actors swallowed their roles with as much gusto without going way over the top, to the point of caricaturizing. Truly, this is a small but bizarre chapter in criminology, and everyone involved in this movie had their work cut out for them. They did not disappoint, and they don't disappoint us. Neither did the film-makers by dumming up the story to be more acceptible to the masses, which is the hallmark of its era, and sadly is ALL too common in the television fare as of late. This is a horrible and weird story that deserves to be told in toto. Kudos to the film-makers and actors who did not insult the viewers' intelligence levels, and told as much of the truth as they could cram in to the alloted time.

One more interesting note: Much has been said about Manson's subsequent interviews and parole hearings displaying his "madness". I'm going to throw a thought out here--did it ever occur to anyone that this is the image he WANTS us to have? If you've done your homework, you know the famous tale of how he has repeatedly asked not to be released. Maybe, just maybe, do you suppose that his disconnected ramblings, fits of anger, bizarre diatribes about ninjas and wildlife--perhaps even the motive for such overly gruesome and notorious crimes--are his way of guaranteeing that he will indeed never get out of prison again? That this is all an act so that the prison and the public will think he's a looney and keep him locked up? He has been tested with an above-average intelligence with the footnote, 'master manipulator who can seemingly talk anyone into anything', after all. And not so impossible...Now THERE'S something to think about!!

I first saw this TV movie in the mid 90's and i was just shocked to hear that this was a true story, tough i had heard of Roman Polinski and seen some of his films,I did'nt know that his wife had been killed with such brutality and viciousness. The scene with Susan "Sadie" Atkins where she's bragging about the murders to her jailhouse friend, I just could not get it out of my head, she was so f***** up, this was just so freaky. This got my interest in the Manson family and the Tate-Labianca murders started and I've seen the film 3-4 times since then. But there were just so many things unanswered so i bought the book which goes a lot deeper into this very complex case and is a lot better than the film, which is usually the case when films are made after a book. The movie does a pretty good job getting in the enormous amount of material but a lot of things got left out. The murders are not played out, the film starts the morning after which i think is very effective. But the victims are totally ignored and their families and we don't go very deep into the "family" I would have like'd to see more dept in the characters of Manson and the girls and we hardly see Tex Watson, some scenes are are almost silly and not all the acting is good but i think Steve Railsback who plays Manson is very convincing, you really buy that he is manson and Nancy Wolfe who is Susan Atkins is just great, a total sicko. What irritates me a lot in this film is the look of it is sooooo dated, very bad late 70's style with ratty hair and terrible clothes but in reality this happened in the late 60's, i would have like'd to see them get the look right ( that went dead wrong in the new re-make also). I would also have like'd to see more people and spectators in the courtroom scenes, this was the trial of the century with a crowded courtroom but in the film we see Bugliosi's wife and a few other people, there are many little things like that i dislike about the film cause they could have done this a lot better. But most of the courtroom drama is pretty well played out. This movie is far from being perfect but i think it does a very good job considering that it's a TV movie from 1976 and they did a good job keeping to the facts of the book. But this great but sad story has yet too be produced for the big screen and i think with the right director and the right approach it could be a great movie but it's also easy to f,,, it up. In the meantime we have this production from'76 and the new 2004 version directed by John Gray,"Manson" a documentary which gets very close to the truth and we have the ultra violent and gory Jim Van Bebbers "The Manson Family".

I would recommend too watch all these if you are interested in this case..........have fun

Casting was brilliant with kudos to all! Direction and research, perfect. All the actors were brilliant. The highest compliment you can give and actor goes to Steve Railsback. In that production "He is Charles Manson

Helter Skelter is more that just a thumbnail sketch of the book by the prosecuting attorney Bugliosi. It gives the layman an in depth account of the Tate-LaBianca murders for those who do not have time to read the book. Steve Railsback and Co. give a particularly accurate portrayal of Manson and the Family. For one who has read a great deal amount of literature on these murders and the life history of Manson and his followers, believe me when I recommend this movie. For originally being aired on TV, this movie packs quite the punch!

"Helter Skelter" is the three hour and four minute mini-series (made for TV movie) from 1976 about the Manson murders of seven years earlier. Clearly some things have changed in broadcasting since this period, and the lengthy running time is a point of disappointment. The film is an important record and representation of a point of great cynicism and uncertainty in America, and the Manson murders certainly took yet another notch off the country's innocence, given any remained.

As was the case with the television at the time, broadcasting was generally for a family audience. Even in a production such as "Helter Skelter" those touches are clear, since the story is told between an even-tempered, fact spewing narrator and a narrative that follows the step-by-step dissection of the murder investigation. Sadly, the narrator becomes intrusive very quickly and the story gets it's point across twice as fast as it thinks it does.

The basic premise of "Helter Skelter" is very interesting and Steve Railsback's over the top characterization of Charles Manson remains reasonably engaging for about seventy-five percent of the film, but the highly sanitized and dumbed-down touches make for difficult and tedious viewing.

I am appalled to read that there are imdb.com members who actually think that Charles Manson and his "Family" were prosecuted because he was a hippie or a flower-child. He was neither. He is neither to this day. Have any of these idiots seen the TV interviews with Manson (by Diane Sawyer, I think) a while back? It would creep you out, as it shows how completely mad he is, to this very day. And his anger is creepy, too, and I thought he was going to physically harm the female interviewer at one point. When told of some of the things that the now older and wiser "family members" said of him (that he asked them to kill for him, that he instructed them in detail, and that they no longer have any regard for him), he just laughed and derided them as getting to be "old broads". This is a flower child?

I've done enough reading of various books and articles about Manson. He was the product of our institutions -- the one point on which he is correct. From childhood on, he never lived a normal life, always an institutionalized life. Then he took on this Messiah persona to impress the only people who were impressed by him -- young teenaged girls or other young women from homes where they felt unwanted. He literally rented them out as sexual favors to his biker pals, whom he was trying to impress and keep on his side. This was a flower child? Hardly! He has, and still has, a twisted but skillful mind.

As for the stupid premise that Buguliosi "framed him", have these people who write such nonsense read his book? Buguliosi documented, and this was affirmed in such books as "The Family", that Manson actually liked his prosecutor and respected him, and said so, even though there is good evidence that he wanted him dead. Like I say, Manson is a twisted person.

This TV movie is good drama, and totally accurate. Unlike others, I would like to see it redone for the big screen. I think the entire story of Manson's life and of his "family" and what they did to others at the Spahn Ranch before the murders of Sharon Tate and the others, needs to be told. Maybe bring people up to date with interviews with this monster on TV. No, not Oliver Stone! But to tell it somewhat in the way "In Cold Blood" was transferred from book to movie.

I expect to get nasty, threatening replies from Charlie's idiot disciples. That's right, you are all whacked-out idiots for thinking that he is anything but a monster.

There have been numerous versions of the Manson saga made but this is the best by far IMO. All the principle actors & even the supporting cast give excellent portrayals, further, the script hits all the important point points from Bugliosi's book of the same name.

The director hit a real phenomenal late 60's vibe than transcends all aspects of the production to the smallest details although I am sure there are a few gaffs in terms of specifics but I cannot quibble.

I am no Manson fan & yes, I've read 'The Family' if you are more interested in the internals of the Manson family that is the source book to go to, this film details more from Bugliosi's book which of course was his view as a prosecutor, Ed Sanders of 'The Family' book details the other side of this coin nicely.

Special praise to Steve Railsack, he nails his Manson portrayal & no one else ever came close. This film comes highly recommended!