On H List of Movie Reviews
(For optimum viewing, adjust the zoom level of your browser to 125%.)
Helter Skelter (1976)
Rate:
9
Viewed:
8/14, 1/18, 12/21
8/14:
Helter Skelter, despite the long running length, is a fine court docudrama.
It must have been difficult to film given the labyrinthine narrative. There are good performances, most especially
from George DiCenzo as Vincent Bugliosi and Nancy Wolfe as the crazed, remorseless sexpot. The interview between Vincent
Bugliosi and Paul Watkins has to be the best scene of the film. It's quite captivating and lucid to listen to.
Apparently, Steve Railsback was cast for the role of the useless twit because of the effect with his eyes. He does
give the money's worth in the last hour and plays the character too well. Sadly, it'll sum up his acting career.
All in all, Helter Skelter is a nice summary of what happened, and I was rooting for Vincent Bugliosi throughout.
1/18:
Finally to have come around reading the famous true crime book, I decided to see Helter Skelter once more to see how
it compares.
Well, the film does get a lot of the details correct but for some reason chooses to change the names of some people. Why?
It's already out in the open as a matter of public record. Well, nobody will do it better than Steve Railsback as the
famous mass murderer. He looks the part, right down to his mesmerizing wide-open eyes. But the best performance of the
film goes to Jason Ronard as Paul Watkins. The way he broke down Manson's motive through the Book of Revelation is amazing.
Unfortunately, hardly much of the crime scene at 10050 Cielo Drive is shown, and there's absolutely nothing at the other
address: 3301 Waverly Drive. What a disappointment. At least, the narrative is from Vincent Bugliosi's perspective just
exactly like the book. The facts are laid out, but the story is far more complicated than as described in the film.
All in all, Helter Skelter has to be read if you want to get to the bottom of the mystery.
12/21:
Vincent Bugliosi's Helter Skelter is the best true crime book ever written, but it's too bad that the movie sometimes
either omits a lot of details or differs from the actual version.
It's a fascinating case, no doubt, and it'll never happen again. The reason why is that if somebody wrote a fiction novel of
what went down, nobody would believe it. You may hear a lot about Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and Scientology, but Charles Manson
came way, way before them and borrowed a lot from the cult via The Process. The result is two nights of Helter
Skelter that greatly disturbed everybody afterwards.
Today, two of the five convicted murderers are dead, and the remaining have begged for a parole which will probably not
be granted Back then, the three female defendants were singing, giggling, and having the fun of their lives; now, more than
forty years later, they've been reduced to old hags with the public laughing back at them. Hence, these idiots got what they
deserved. (7/12/23 Author Note: Oops. Leslie Van Houten was finally paroled. That's why California is a joke.)
Although the film version captures most of what happened as described in the book, there's still
too much missing with some names changed. Even the Toscanini of Tedium, Irving Kanarek, isn't mentioned. He'll go on to
pull the same shit during the Onion Field case. To overcome the problem, the movie should've been six to nine hours long
because there are still tons of material to cover.
Yet the performances are outstanding. To begin with George DiCenzo, it's whom I imagined Vincent Bugliosi to be. No one will
top the portrayal of Charles Manson by Steve Railsback. Nancy Wolfe as Susan Atkins is chillingly effective. One of the best
acting jobs is by Jason Ronard as Paul Watkins who explained the ulterior motive behind the murders.
All in all, as good as the movie is for Helter Skelter, the book is still unbeatable.