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 viewers 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 for comparison.
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.