Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Kodie Bird True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Blake Rivera If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

hakelsey2 I have studied this case for over 25 years, and I thought that this movie was really very good. I totally agree that there was some serious camp/inaccuracies, etc..., but from everything that I have read throughout the years, for the most part, the murders at Cielo/Waverly Drive/Hinman's residence were the most accurate I have seen in a reenactment. There were some small, yet noticeable inaccuracies that I felt were important: no zebra rug in Cielo living room; the killers' attire; colored Christmas lights (vs. the white ones in the movie). The bigger discrepancy would be that Tex (alone) allegedly killed Sharon, not all of them as that scene depicted. And of course, we have no idea what the dialogue/conversation was between the victims in the movements before the invasion. I don't believe that gender identity was available in '69, so Roman would not have known that the baby was a boy, during his last phone conversation with Sharon. I felt like (the actress who portrayed) Susan Atkins was overall very good, except for her "over-the-top" behavior during the killings; especially when Tex instructed her to "write something". And by all accounts that I have ever studied, Sharon did NOT ask Sadie to take the baby after the attack (she would have hopefully fell unconscious quickly during/after the 16 knife stabs). She apparently "bargained" with her killers before she was killed; even asking them to take her with them for 2 weeks, then kill her after she had her baby. Gary Hinman's ear was not completely cut off, and of course, poor Rosemary LaBianca suffered much more savagery than the police discovered the next morning. (As well as Abigail and Voychek(sp?)). Just my thoughts. I think Vincent Bugliosi's death prompted me to watch this.

Fenris-5 The is a quite good remake of the 1976 movie, but Jeremy Davies is not as believable in the main role as Steve Railsback was, and he fails in showing the viewer Manson's magnetic personality which made him able to manipulate people around him into conducting these horrible crimes.To quote one of prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's lines in the film: "How do these kids end up stabbing people with knives and forks 169 times?" The film does not succeed in explaining this, and as such it is a failure.Apart from that, it offers a different angle to what happened than the 1976 film, and shows more of the likely motivation Manson might have had for ordering the murders; the lack of progress in his musical career, and his connection to Beach Boy Dennis Wilson.

holsu First of all, I must say, that there probably ain't a subject that could be more interesting to me, than Charles Manson and the Tate-La Bianca murders. Maybe Nazis and concentration camps but then again maybe not. Playing Manson must be the most ungrateful role for any actor. You just can't succeed. And still, considering the dilemma, I think Jeremy Davies makes an incredible role here. He manage the role very well, he looks quite alike and his habitus is just as small and weird as I expect Mansons to be. Also the other roles in the movie are played very good though having partly the same problem in portraying actual events and persons. Very much look-alike casting by the way. The movie in itself is a good and entertaining collection of the happenings in 1969. Comparing to the knowledge that I have about the true events I'd say that the film comes very close to what actually happened. Of all the stunning scenes, I would like to lift up the one in which Sharon Tate asks the murderer to carve out the child and at least let the unborn live. Though probably being fictitious and in a way unnecessary I still think that the line in someway points out the unfairness that Sharon Tate had to become victim of. May her soul rest in peace while her name and angel-like beauty will live forever in the movies that she gave us on her short career as movie star.

disturbedtool68 The only real problem I had with the film was that they didn't get into the whole Beatles / Revolution / Apocalypse angle enough. I would have liked to see more of Charlie talking about his ideas and philosophies. You never get a clear picture as to why these kids were so attached to the hippie guru.I think that in order to get a more complete picture of the murders etc, you need to view this along with the original TV movie.As far as this film not telling us anything new? Well, it's been over 30 years since the murders. There ISN'T anything new to tell.If some of the dialogue is taken from the Manson documentary, that is great. These are the words of the people who were there so that only seems appropriate.