Charlie Says

source: Charlie Says

When I first met Charlie, I just knew. Hopped on a bus and I never looked back. Charles Manson seems to be a hot topic this year. Not only there's the Tarantino movie "Once upon a time ... in Hollywood" in which the Manson Family plays a prominent role, but also this "Charlie Says" focuses on this cult leader from the 60s. It's rather a docu-drama in which the person Manson himself isn't really the central topic. Rather, it's the female members of the Manson family who receive the most attention. A mixed bag of vulnerable, somewhat naive young girls who probably don't realize that Manson's sermons are pure nonsense due to the abundance of soft drugs and the eating of not so kosher mushrooms. Delusions presented by a confused mind. A despotic person and a bundle of contradictions. The actresses Hannah "Game of Thrones" Murray, Sosie Bacon and Marianne Rendon, who played the characters Leslie van Houten, Patricia Krenwinkel and Susan Atkins respectively, acted generally convincingly. The way these young ladies accept their fate while sitting in adjacent cells waiting for their death penalty is not only frightening but also shows how brainwashed they are by the Machiavellian Manson. Their empathetic attitude towards the horrific facts shows how convinced they are that nothing criminal has been committed by them. In their eyes, it was a necessary thing to do. But mainly because "Charlie said it". Hence the title of this film. The biggest disappointment is Charles Manson himself, played by Matt Smith. The character lacked charisma. Apart from his sometimes eccentric reasonings and tantrums, I didn't get the idea of dealing with a psychopathic, manic person here. Rather he's a strange hippie with a fake beard who prefers to strum a guitar and who enjoys how the young girls gawk at him full of adoration. Furthermore, I am not a fan of flashbacks. And let that now be the basis of this film. So expect a huge amount of back and forth jumping in time. However, if you aren't familiar with this Manson phenomenon and what this insane cult leader is guilty of, "Charlie Says" is an excellent starting point to discover it. Perhaps the film scores high in originality by showing the whole from the point of view of the female cult members. But still, I recommend watching the films "Helter Skelter" from 1976 and "The Manson family" from 2003. More reviews here: movie-freak.be

Greetings again from the darkness. Author Joan Didion wrote "the 1960's ended abruptly on August 9, 1969", and as we approach the 50th anniversary of that tragic night ... actually two tragic nights (August 8 and 9) ... there is no shortage of recollections and reenactments through both print and visual media. For anyone who was alive at the time or has read the story since, the grisly murders and cult commune lorded over by Charles Manson remains nearly beyond belief. Unfortunately, it's all too real. Director Mary Harron and screenwriter Guinevere Turner previously collaborated on AMERICAN PSYCHO (2000) and THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE (2015), and here, "inspired by" books from Karlene Faith ("The Long Prison Journey of Leslie Van Houten: Life Beyond the Cult", 2001) and Ed Sanders ("The Family", 1972, also one of the film's producers), we get a glimpse of the Manson cult through the eyes of the women, especially Leslie Van Houten. And let's be honest, that's where the real mystery is. A domineering, arrogant, white supremacist is not nearly as interesting as the story of how these women became so enchanted by him that they were willing (even anxious) to murder innocent people on his behalf. Hannah Murray ("Game of Thrones") stars as Leslie Van Houten, nicknamed "LuLu" by Manson not long after they meet for the first time. We see Van Houten, Susan "Sadie" Atkins (Marianne Rendon) and Patricia "Katie" Krenwinkel (Sosie Bacon, daughter of Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick) in an isolated cell block of a California Women's Prison five years after the murders. They are going through therapy sessions with Karlene Faith (Merritt Weaver, "Godless") whose goal is to remind them of who they were before meeting Manson. During the prison therapy sessions, we get flashbacks to the Spahn Ranch where Manson ruled over his followers which also included Mary Brunner (Suki Waterhouse), Squeaky Fromme (Kayli Carter), Linda Kasabian (India Ennenga), and of course, Tex Watson (Chace Crawford), who initially comes off as quite aloof, but eventually buys in totally - in a most violent manner. It's these flashbacks that are meant to help us understand the brainwashing which stuck with these women through the crimes, through their trial, and through years of incarceration. We hear the "garbage dump" song. We hear about money and ego. We learn that 'the new rules are no rules'. We see Manson's dream of becoming a rock star shattered by music producer Terry Melcher (the son of Doris Day) after his introduction from Dennis Wilson (The Beach Boys drummer), who hung around the ranch sometimes. And we hear Manson's rantings about the correlations between The Beatles' White Album and the Bible, and about how a race war is coming (and it's named Helter Skelter). Matt Smith plays Charles Manson, and oddly enough, this comes on the heels of his playing artist Robert Mapplethorpe in MAPPLETHORPE (2018). Smith seems to have fun with the role, but it's these segments that feel underwritten. We want more of an explanation of how this could happen. On the other hand, the therapy sessions in the prison actually provide more insight to the lasting effects of the man and the cult that brainwashed them right into committing cold-blooded murder and a life behind bars. The thankless job of a prison therapist becomes clear as Ms. Faith realizes that if she breaks the Manson spell, these women will be forced to live with the unimaginable atrocities they committed. For a different perspective, track down the 1976 TV movie HELTER SKELTER that was based on prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's book. It starred Steve Railsback as a terrifying Charles Manson.

This is a masterpiece, though it may take a decade or so for most people to realize it. The actors in both lead and even the most minor supporting roles are tremendous. The script is well researched and believable. This film is about Leslie Van Houten, Patricia Krenwinkle and Susan Atkins, not Charles Manson. Is that really so hard to understand?

"Charlie Says" (2018 release; 101 min.) brings the story of the Charles Manson murders, but this time for the perspective of the three "Manson women" involved in the killings. As the movie opens, one of the women is taking a shower, the blood coming off of her hair and body. We then go the "3 Years Later", and we see the three women in jail at the California Institution for Women, on a separated wing with just the three of them: Lulu, Sadie and Katie. A graduate student at UC Santa Cruz is given the opportunity to teach these three some classes. When then go back in time, to when Leslie (later named Lulu by Manson) arrives at the remote ranch where Mason and his entourage live... At this point we are 10 min. into the movie, but to tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out. Couple of comments: this is the latest from Canadian director Mary Herron, who previously brought us the worthwhile "I Shot Andy Warhol" and, even better, "American Psycho". Here she revisits the events that are often referred to as "having ended the 60s" (the murders took place in August, 1969). The film is based on several books, including the one written by the graduate student on specifically Leslie/Lulu, but there are certainly additional source materials on the Manson women. Indeed the eternal question seems to be: are these women victims themselves? are they just part of the gang that committed these vicious killings? The movie attempts to address that, and while at times it shows promise, in the end the movie lacks depth and what we are stuck with is something that certainly isn't a bad movie, but given the underlying facts, it feels more like a missed opportunity. Leslie/Lulu is played with conviction by up-and-coming British actress Hannah Murray. Manson is played by Matt Smith as if he's Jim Morrison (check out Smith instead in that other recent indie movie "Mapplethorpe"). Beware: there is a fair amount of nudity in the film, so if that is a concern for you, better stay away and check out another film. "Charlie Says" premiered at last Fall's Venice film festival to ho-hum reaction, and is now getting a limited US theater release. It opened at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati this weekend for just a one week run. The early Sunday evening screening where I saw this at was attended so-so (7 or 8 people). Maybe this will find a larger audience as it is launched on other platforms. If you have any interest in the Manson murders, and in particular the women that were involved in it, I suggest you check this out, be it in the theater (unlikely), on VOD, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.

Great cinematography, decent directing, but a lousy convoluted screenplay with plot, technical and editing issues. The 110 min run-time felt much longer with the slow and dragged out pacing. Aside from Matt Smith, the rest of the casting was primarily terrible, especially the main girls who where unconvincing and seemed like amateur actors. Decent premise for a story, but sadly it was poorly executed. A 7/10 from me.

1) As a movie, Charlie Says fails miserably. It builds no emotional involvement, to the point that you couldn't care less for the murders or for the repentance Van Houten showed. When the movie ended, my reaction was: so what? The elaborate character arc that the director thinks she built is a flat line instead. 2) When a movie aims high and falls so flat, it's guilty of an additional sin: pretentiousness. 3) Everything is uninspired: Charlie is not charming, acting is average at best, cinematography is bad, the script goes through the motions. 4) Wow, there's a brief gender-related dialogue, because yes. I don't think this movie is feminist in a bad sense as some reviews say, but when you add a totally unrelated social/ideological theme in a movie, that smells of politics badly. How to shoot yourself in the foot. 5) The worst thing is the depiction of Van Houten's role. The movie shows an unwilling witness to the murders. The story says she held LaBianca while she was stabbed, and she called for help from Tex. I'm no expert of the case and I don't know what sources the movie cites, but seems like it goes too far in trying to display Van Houten in a good light.

This film start with three people(Tex, Leslie and Katie) hitchhiking, and three years later three girls(Leslie, Sadie and Katie) lock in a jail scene! As turnout, this film is about Leslie, Sadie and Katie telling a teacher "Karlene", how they murder innocent people taught by Charles Manson! Entire film full of overuse nudity scene! Nude at the gathering, * while picking garbage, * while parading and * when Charles Manson singing! The murder scene in the film not even show to the audience! Really freaking bored! Barely intense scene is, Tex slice a woman's face! At the end, Leslie telling Karlene, actually they no need to kill the people taught by Charles Manson! Karlene walk out the jail! Still have some sentences telling us what happen to Leslie, Sadie and Katie after the visit of Karlene! At the very end, Leslie dreaming she actually have intention to leave Charles Manson with a guy in the film! That's it! Just a one time watch film! Not recommended!

I get what the director and others where trying to do. But the people that followed Charlie Manson weren't remorseful. Him and his followers where twisted and deeply deranged. In other current interviews followers of his still believe in him and think he was a great person. I get yes he probably manipulated weak minded and low self esteem people. But what they did was just plain disgusting and the they all should rot.

Charlie Says is kind of a true story, but when they turn into film, it becomes bad film. The story itself is not that strong and lacks of too many facts. Moreover, it seems to me that this film is poorly done and low budget film that is ever made. When I saw this film on a website, I really had high hope because I saw in the movie description saying that "The tragic tale of an all-American girl who was transformed into a cold-blooded killer in the summer of 1969.". So, I thought it would be very interesting. I thought they would show how that one who became cold-blooded murderer in some very interesting way. But when I actually saw it, really disappointed. The presentation style is so boring and sometimes you might get lost between the past and present because they didn't say what is past and what is present clearly in the film. It is some kind of a biography film of three girls who are in the prison for murders. The story is indeed a true story but as I've said in above that the director's presentation style is so dull, the film is really boring. In the half of the film, I really wanted to stop watching, but I kept watching to see how it's going to end. What I don't like of this film is they didn't show how they captured those three girls, what happened to Tex who is truly responsible for those murders and also what happened to Charlie? Those questions don't have answers. The director should've clearly explained those facts. As for the film title, Charlie Says is kind of a stupid name. Of all great names, why would they want to use names like they are speaking? I sort of hate that kind of names. So, if they chose a better name than this, it'd be better. What makes this film so bad? There are three main things. One is bad acting. I don't want to comment on Matt Smith because his performance is still okay. I didn't really recognise him until he talked. His familiar voice reminded me he was Matt Smith. This is the second film I watched his films except for Doctor Who. I really loved him as 11th Doctor in Doctor Who. His performance is still doing fine in this film. It's so natural. But the rest of actors and actresses are not. Their performance is terrible, especially those three girls and the one who teaches those girls. Their terrible actings are really unbearable. The second one is what I've said in above, the presentation style. Because it's terrible, the film became very boring. If they could do it less boring, it'd be way better. The last fact is also what I've said in above, the story is one-sided and there's no extra facts to some questions like those ones I wrote in above. So, if the director could do a better job, I'm quite sure that this film will turn out to be a great film. All in all, although this film is a true story, because of it's bad in casts and crews, this film is one of the worst films I've ever watched.