House of Manson (2014) Reviews

• Total garbage.

  RMS19492016-01-14

  I don't care what the budget was, this was pure garbage. Acting was poor. Script was poor and the infamous shaky hand-held camera was out in full glory. Can't show an good action sequence, not to worry, just shake the camera all over the place to cover it up. I'm fed up with that moronic approach to filming. Want to know about Manson, watch the excellent film Helter Skelter or even a documentary. Steve Railsback gives a remarkable performance. There has been a lot of good films made on shoestring budget. This however is not one of them. Just to take a notorious event is not enough. Try learning some basic skills first.

• House of Manson ... pretty good considering the time and budget!

  alterego9102014-10-21

  I attended the Premier of this film at the Twin Cities Independent Film festival. The film kept my attention at least and there were some things that stood out such as Ryan Kiser's lead role as 'Charlie'. He is obviously a step up from the other actors in this movie and deserves a shot at a higher budget film. I also felt the chemistry of the entire cast was good and made for a believable 'cult family'. The actors playing the parts of Leslie Van Houton, Squeaky Fromme, and Tex Watson were believable and stood out above the other supporting cast. However, the acting for the role of Sharon Tate was unfortunately a disaster. The Susan Atkins actor had the right idea, but I felt she may have just been trying too hard to be crazy/quirky. That being said, I understand that with a higher budget and more time, many scenes could be redone with some extra attention from the director. During the Q&A with the Director and Cast, it came to light that this movie was filmed in 15 days, covering a 128 page script. Wow ... that in and of itself was amazing! There were some admitted sound and scene transition issues that hopefully will get cleaned up. On that note ... I felt there was a severe over use of music/sound effects. Most every scene had continuous sound effects which was unnecessary. It was distracting at times and took away from the effect of the overall dialog. I assume it was intended to establish a mood, but some of that mood could have been created by the dialog itself. Every scene was shot up close and could have used some wider angles to gain a better experience of the entire landscape (lack of budget most certainly played a role here). Some people know the Manson story much better than others. The assumption should be that the viewer of the film doesn't know a lot of the details. The characters of the 'family' could have been introduced better. Some of the scenes could have been set up in order to introduce characters instead or relying on the knowledge of the 'Manson' story. The director said during Q&A that they wanted to show the humanity of Charles Manson and why he may have turned out the way he did (ala Michael Myers - Halloween (2007)). The idea was there, but more time should have been focused on the abuse and abandonment that developed his character. They mentioned that Charlie's mom sold him for a case of beer, so why not add that scene in? Showing Charlie watching his Mom kiss a man (from a crack in a door) does not show a pattern of inappropriate parenting, much less abuse. Dig into that and you might persuade me that he was a victim of poor upbringing at least. All in all, this was a decent attempt, but I think it could be even more engaging with some additional time and budget. I enjoyed it for what it was. Good job for all who endured the compact 15 days of filming! This is only my opinion as a movie goer, and I realize it is much more difficult to create an independent film based on what you have to work with. It intrigues me to understand all that goes into creating an entire film with so little budget. I am a fan of the entire scene and wish all involved all the success they deserve for all the hard work they have put into such a film.

• Terrible, Terrible, did I mention it was Terrible!

  williamdickey2016-01-24

  What most strikes me about this film is the awful non 60s soundtrack, the horrible soap opera like acting, and the misinterpretation of a culture and a generation. The main character Manson, sort of looks like the real Manson, I guess. It's like the casting director was walking down the street and saw someone who looked like him and said, "Hey you want to be in my Movie?" … Everything about this film is bad, costumes, acting, writing, directing, cinematography, and did I mention acting. It also doesn't respect the dead, remember this is based, I guess, on a true story. The director treats the material like it has been long since been made of legend, it hasn't. How someone could take an interesting event in American history and suck all the interest out is beyond me. You will learn nothing if you watch this, in fact you may forget important things.

• House of Manson takes the story Charles Manson Without being over the top

  brak0142014-10-19

  "House of Manson" is a film that chronicles the life of Charles Manson and focuses in on the events leading up to and including the Sharon Tate murders of 1969. Unlike other Charles Manson biopics that focus in on the sex or the over the top nature of the Tate murder, this one focuses in Charles Manson's influence and connection with his followers, the Manson family as they call themselves. Charles Manson is portrayed by Minnesota born actor, Ryan Kiser, who seemed to approach the character in a very serious tone and does a fantastic job conveying the crazy yet brilliant way Charles Manson was able to draw followers into his cult. Devanny Pinn co-stars as one of Manson's followers Susan Atkins and gives a chilling performance as her screen presence is freaky. Pinn truly becomes Atkins on screen as the facial reactions make you think this women is completely off her rocker and has no moral compass at all. An overall amazing performance by Pinn. "House of Manson" does suffer from some technical flaws as the sound isn't completely smoothed and could use some more attention by a sound mixer. The filmmakers even admitted in a Q&A following the world premiere that some of the sound transitions were going to need to be looked at. The film also has a saturated look that doesn't look completely intentional. The image doesn't pop off the screen as some movies do that have a more crisp and sharp look to it. Overall, "House of Manson" is a great portrayal of the events surrounding the infamous Charles Manson. It doesn't get too crude or violent as previous films about the same subject matter, it takes the source material as it is and conveys the story in a very tasteful matter. With a great cast and direction by Brandon Slagle, "House of Manson" is definitely worth checking out when it later finds distribution.

• A different view of a well-known criminal figure

  bigbinder2014-10-22

  To start off this is my first review on IMDb. I'm a film fan but am not someone who is particularly chatty. I decided to register an account after attending the Twin Cities Festival after speaking to the director and producer of this movie since appreciating their original take on subject matter that is part of our cultural lexicon and therefor constantly remade into both TV and film material, sometimes good and sometimes bad. Something they made clear in the Q&A following the film's premiere October 18 was that they felt that the Manson story had been told many times but that none of the previous versions really showed the Charlie Manson character for who he was, which was a master manipulator but still a "living, breathing human being" to quote them. Local boy Ryan Kiser portrays Charlie with a subtlety and earnestness that makes the character all the more frightening. His Charlie is someone who you could have an innocent conversation with that could haunt you later. If you want to show how someone can manipulate scores of young adults you don't portray them as a lunatic like previous Charlie stories, you portray them as someone comforting who you want to be around, and the script, direction, and performances did a great job doing this. The story is told on two timelines. One of them starts with Charlie's arrest at Barker ranch after the Manson family crimes with Charlie being interviewed by an attorney to stand trial and the other being a pick and choose of the events of Charlie's life that climaxes with the killings. This type of approach sometimes works and can sometimes be confusing but to me it worked. It's clear cut which timeline is which and I didn't find any problem with this. There isn't a lot of emphasis on the supporting cast since this is a Charlie story but I enjoyed their performances especially that of Tex Watson who is portrayed as an eager to please sociopath. The look he gave Sharon Tate before stabbing her was almost a little too good. Patricia and Susan were good too. You really felt that these were kids who didn't understand how horrible their crimes are and would die for Charlie, as a very tense scene plays out. The other reviews pointed out that this was an early cut of the film and that there were some sound problems that were gonna be fixed and that some scenes may be cut out before the movie comes out on DVD. The director said that this screening is going to determine what scenes those are so I am curious which ones they choose. I hope the DVD release is announced soon. This film is Charlie's story and I'm glad someone finally told it without making it about other things for once.