What movie should i see original or '04?

If you want to see the murders watch this version, want the trial watch the original. I personally like the original better, actor Steve Railsback is the best actor to bring Charles Manson to the screen. He's also the only actor to look really scary in the beard and long hair.

You could see both. In a way this one is like a prequel to the original.

The first version is a police procedural mired in a "70s establishment versus those bad hippies" viewpoint. It's like the story is told from your grandparents point of view. I thought Steve Railsback was over the top and the clock stopping sequence was goofy.

The second version illuminates more of what was going on in the Manson family, at the Spahn ranch, and in the crimes. I found the 2nd one to be more interesting.

I haven't seen all of the '04 version, but I have read the book and saw the '76 version. Personally, I do not think "remakes" every capture the same emotion as an original, especially in this case. The murders were less than 10 years old and still fresh in most people's minds. A remake 35 years later just won't capture that same feeling, sorry.

Watch both and compare.

[deleted]

Watch the original. It was made only six years after the murders and still has a lot of the feel of the era. The ending is a bit of a letdown now that years have passed but I can say that it was very effective at the time. I should know because I saw it when it was first broadcast.

Steve Railsback's performance is so good in this that when I see the real Manson on TV I think " hes not doing it as good as the other guy ( Railsback)!"

I remember when I first saw this movie in the video store on the shelf and thinking it looked like a crappy low budget direct to video movie with an actor playing Manson that didn't really look alot like him, I thought I'd first come to imdb to read some reviews and read through the message board to see what people thought and most people didn't seem to think it was very good and that the first Helter Skelter was so much better so I didn't bother seeing this version. Over the last 6 months I've taken a big interest in Charles Manson and I've read Helter Skelter, I've watched various interviews with Manson and I've watched a wide variety of interviews with all the Manson family. I just watched a documentary on Foxtel a couple of days ago with Gypsy talking about Manson and the hold he had over the family. On my day out yesterday I hired some movies and came across the new version of Helter Skelter and thought I'd give it a watch and see if it was any good. I was very impressed with the film, all the scenes play out precisely how they're described in the book and the dialogue is pretty much word for word. Jeremy Davies did an absolutely superb job portraying Manson, he had his voice and mannerisms absolutley down pat and the rest of the actors all did a very good job, Clea Duvall as usual was excellent, the woman who played Susan Atkins was spot on in the way she acted and she looked just like her, I thought she did a better job than the actress in the first Helter Skelter and I would like to have seen more of her in this movie. The actor that played Bugliosi was the only weak link, I've seen many of Bugliosi's interviews and speaches and he looks, sounds and acts almost nothing like him but even still, I liked his performance, especially when he sees Mansons hand shaking as he's holding the glass and leans over and asks him if he's scared, that was terrifically acted. The murder scenes are not gratuitously done at all unlike what most people are saying, you never once see a knife going into someone graphically at all, the film uses a certain effect, I don't know what it's called but it looks like x-ray vision when they show someone being stabbed. The murder of Sharon Tate in the movie is quite disturbing, especially when she begs for her baby to be cut out of her while she lay there dying, that was hard to watch.

I think the movie did the best job possible covering the events that it did. We got to see Linda Kasabian move into the ranch and see how the family lived which was very interesting and Jeremy Davies was just briliant showing how manipulative Manson was and really made Manson believable in how he was able to brainwash this merry band of misfits.

I really have no idea why so many people didn't think much of this version of Helter Skelter, it was totally accurate in accordance with what happened and had so much more detail of the earlier events than the first Helter Skelter did. I've seen the original Helter Skelter numerous times and it is a very well made movie and Steve Railsback is absolutely fantastic as Manson but the movie is soley about the trial and really lags at alot of points in the movie. If people are more interested in just the trial then you'd like the first Helter Skelter more but for people wanting much more of an insight as to what happened and how the family operated and behaved then I highly reccomend this new version of Helter Skelter. Infact just watch both movies as they're both really good, there's no need to compare them and say this one's better than that one, they're both good and both definetley worth watching.

I say see them both. Watch this one first and then the 1976 version. There were some things I didn't know about the family and case before I watched this version since it wasn't mentioned in the remake. I.E. the whole Dennis Wilson thing, the fact that Linda left her daughter there when she ran away, etc, But the same thing can be said about the 1976. IN order to get the most out of the case you need to watch both.

"Take my hand, I'll lead you to salvation"

Love Les Miserables!!!