Other than the *beep* writing/acting, everything looks and feels like it takes place in 2016 and not 1969.
Also, this is now officially the worst Manson portrayal in history.
The kitten poster Linda had in her room didn't exist in the 60s
shareI didn't think it was that bad, but my expectations were pretty low considering it was airing on Lifetime. lol
shareI didn't find it terrible either.
Although it felt rushed, it stuck pretty much to the facts with what it did show.
And as for Lifetime movies, it was better than most. Ha Ha
Yeah I didn't find it terrible but after watching so many of these Lifetime films, I didn't expect much at all. And having seen other films this one left out some things(they completely left out Linda's second pregnancy and child, how William Garretson was accused of the Tate murders at first, and completely left Mary Brunner out) and was rushed.
"I'd rather lose for what I am than win for what I ain't"
Kacey Musgraves "Pageant Material"
It was too rushed. This could have been a 3 night mini series event or at the very least a 4 hour movie. By the time it got to 9:30 pm nothing had really happened yet and I was thinking, wait, is there going to be a part 2?!
shareI thought it was going to be a miniseries at first when it was announced. Most TV movies are 75-86 minutes long stretched out with commercials. Had a feeling this would be rushed.
shareBy the time it got to 9:30 pm nothing had really happened yet
Although the sex scenes in the first part of the movie did prove one thing; soft porn, done Lifetime style, is pretty boring.
They also left out Clem, who went along with them on the second night.
shareOther than the *beep* writing/acting, everything looks and feels like it takes place in 2016 and not 1969.
The look-and-feel didn't bother me that much ... but agree with you on the writing/acting.
I think the moment it went over the edge for me was when they called Bernard Crowe "Lotsapopsa"; unless I and about 1000 authors on the Manson case are mistaken, his nickname was "Lotsapoppa." A minor detail, but I couldn't help wondering then if we were going to end up watching disciples of "Charles Mason" murder "Shannon Tate."
Also, this is now officially the worst Manson portrayal in history.
Hmmm ... On the portrayal of Manson himself, I might or might not agree; I'd really have to think it over. But as for the movie as a whole, The Manson Family (2003) still gets grand prize IMO.
THIS WAS NOT GOOD!
THE MANSON FAMILY AND THE NEW HOUSE OF MANSON ARE BOTH BETTER!
Even Helter Skelter with Jeremy Davies IS BETTER!
Yep. Just watch the '76 Helter Skelter. They do it up right, with some things changed but you can figure out who/what it's supposed to be.
share[deleted]