Charlie Says (2018) User Reviews

"Charlie Says" shows promise but lacks depth

[paul-allaer · 6/10 · 12 May 2019]

"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.

Too feminist? You need a reality check.

[opheliahasrisen · 7/10 · 23 August 2019]

This movie shows a side of the story that hasn't been depicted before. That is enough to appreciate the premise.

Charles Manson was a very sexist and racist man. He used, manipulated, and brainwashed both young women AND men who he could tell were naive and vulnerable.

Anyone who has thoroughly researched the Manson family will know the women were treated worse than in this film. One disturbing example is they weren't allowed to eat until after the dogs. Feminism was really at it's zenith in the late 60s. Representing feminism in the film is realistic to the time period.

These women would have never murdered had they not crossed paths with Charles Manson. Of that, there is no doubt in my mind. Many people were living in communes at the time. The members of "The Family" ended up in the wrong one, not knowing what lay ahead, not knowing they were being groomed by a sadistic madman.

This movie isn't excellent, but it does not deserve a 5.6. Voting it down because you don't like feminism is a very very sad point of view.

6.5/10

Who's the Piggy?

[richardchatten · 7/10 · 22 September 2021]

Based on the novel 'The Family' by Ed Sanders, this is one of three films in which Charles Manson featured in 2018, and a film about the Moors Murders would complete a trilogy by director Mary Harron beginning with 'I Shot Andy Warhol' depicting women provoked into irrational violence by an unwarranted infatuation with a weird control freak (Brady and Manson both had in common with their idol Adolf Hitler that they possessed the egotism and disdain for convention of great creative geniuses but not the actual creativity).

There's a surprising amount of God talk by Manson and his coven, and for once the current fashion for swaying steadicam photography suits the lack of balance shown by this unholy trinity of impressionable young ladies.

Solid acting, but mostly stereotypical Hollywood Surface level drama/storytelling

[dancy-35334 · 6/10 · 1 March 2022]

If you didn't already know who this guy was, what his crimes were, and what his motives were then you probably won't much of a clue as to what happened from scene to scene in this movie. So much time is spent on showing shocking things without actually explaining what is going on.

Characters are surface level.

As a plus, I thought the acting was pretty solid, especially for Manson. With stronger writing, this film could have been a lot better.

Good idea comes up short

[fryguy-88668 · 6/10 · 8 March 2020]

Kudos to the creative side for taking a look at this from the side of the female members of the Manson Family. As others have said it was just a little slow and didn't seem to get the most out of a pretty good cast. I don't think the film seeks to absolve the females of their guilt. I think they just tried to take an honest look at how vulnerable people can get indoctrinated. I would also disagree with those who call this a feminist movie, the movie does not seem to have any agenda just looks at these tragic murders from a different perspective. There is some nudity and sexuality which I think is necessary to accurately reflect the nature of the Manson Family Cult. As others have said, the movie is split between the flow of events in 68-69 and jail interviews after the trials. The jail scenes IMO are the best. The scenes at the ranches are a bit dark and tedious at times. There is one odd historical inaccuracy listed below. WARNING ONE SPOILER: In the film, Manson accidentally meets Sharon Tate then immediately sends the family out to kill her. This accidental meeting did take place but was several months before the murders.

save your $7

[moonstone010 · 28 July 2019]

"Charlie Says" is ultimately a white wash of the horror committed by the Manson Family--it features the roles of the females in two of our nation's most gruesome and horrifying slaughter of completely innocent people to date which no one will forget--least of all the victims' families.

The true facts of the atrocities committed by the Manson Family (including the three women featured in this movie) and historical events are either omitted or not nearly accurate in the movie--the facts and events have been tweaked, whitewashed, slanted to tilt the viewers' feelings towards sympathy for the three Manson women rather than towards legitimately earned feelings of horror, shock, and disgust for the heinous murders they committed.

The movie shows Charlie Manson as the leader of these misfit women of the Manson Family supposedly by using mind control but this was not clearly shown as the women did have freedom and were free to leave. So, the power of mind control theme in the movie falls apart here. One is left to think that these women of the Manson Family went from a herd mentality of sociopaths to psychopathic murderers willingly--just following the herd.

The movie is not great, by a long shot.

A fine, feminist film well worth a watch

[oscarvonseth · 7/10 · 10 November 2018]

This fine film gives voice to the Manson family women, whom history has reduced to dwelling in the shadow of the infamous cult leader.

It's intriguing work, well-directed and conveying an atmospheric feel of the "summer of love". Also, it's a magnetic portrait of Manson the man; Matt Smith does an excellent job, he's conveying a perfect balance of manipulative charm and danger.

The one slightly negative remark I have, is that Smits's performance sometimes overshadows the women at the center of the narrative.

But this is constantly exciting and well worth a watch. See it!

Lousy writing...

[Top_Dawg_Critic · 7/10 · 26 August 2019]

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.

Don't waste your time

[kelly-dawson · 4/10 · 25 April 2020]

I just cannot see these women as victims and this movie is a pathetic attempt to do so. I found it quite sickening and ridiculous.

Actually Pretty Good

[rws_20 · 7/10 · 21 March 2021]

This one really slipped under the radar. I didn't have high hopes for it going in, but I actually thought it was a pretty good watch in the end. It takes a different approach looking at "The Manson Family" from the perspective of the girls on the ranch and how they were all slowly but surely brainwashed by Charlie's drivel.

I liked the fact that this film gave a more "behind the scenes" look at what everyday life was like on the ranch, and the way it all slowly came full circle leading up to the horrific atrocities that were committed those fateful nights in 1969.

Obviously it isn't all factually accurate, but it's still a very gripping adaption of the book that it's based on. It's well-shot and directed, the actors give great performances, and the script paints an interesting picture of the Manson indoctrination process. Definitely worth the watch for me.

Pseudohistory of the Manson Family.

[xer4sa · 3/10 · 13 March 2019]

The movie is about Charlie Manson and his manipulation tactics on the members of his cult.

Now let's start off with the good:

• The cinematography in the film is remarkable.
• Costumes is on point with the time period.
• A few of the things said by Charlie in the film is accurate.
• Matt Smiths portrayal of Charlie was remarkable.

Now for the bad:

• Most of the acting in the film felt very amateurish.
• The male members of the Manson Family are reduced to side characters.
• Not enough focus on the atrocities which they committed and too much focus was on the emotions and mental state of the female members of the family.
• The alteration of historical events so the viewer will sympathize with the female members of the Manson Family.

If you are looking for a accurate portrayal then this film isn't worth watching.

Surprisingly Interesting

[jmihalchik-67031 · 8/10 · 8 August 2019]

I consider myself to be an amateur "expert" on the Manson Family/Murders. This film has some historical inaccuracies (Linda Kasabian drove the murderers on both nights). But despite a few technical errors, it is a sensitive fiction of how the women came to grips with what they had done. But before you feel sorry for the Manson Girls know these facts: Susan Atkins had an extensive rap sheet long before knowing Manson. Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten were street-wise acid heads prior to falling under Manson's "spell". So don't be fooled into thinking that this trio were sweet, innocent virgins. Manson ordered the killings to appear as copy-cat murders to free Bobby (who appears early in the movie and would later kill musician Garry Hinman, along with Susan Atkins) It was refreshing to see a portrayal of Charlie that was not evil incarnate. Manson was nuts, but not a 24/7 paranoid psychopath. This portrayal is probably closer to the truth. I enjoyed it immensely. But we will never know the complete truth about the two nights of mayhem in August, 1969.

Good but confusing portrayal

[garymathe-76173 · 6/10 · 13 June 2019]

The little-known cast does an admirable job playing tough roles, and Matt Smith is nearly great. Focusing on the women makes this script feel fresh, however their portrayal is not the most believable. Were they extremely dumb or just simply vile? I don't feel like we get an answer, despite the final scenes. Apparently, the parole board felt the same.

Ugh

[kitschking · 2/10 · 22 February 2020]

I'm not a fan of this directer or screen writer. Thanks for reminding me why. dark , slow, uninteresting story that meanders along. I think they were trying to get you to feel sorry for the girls but it did not come through. don't waist your time

An engaging story

[Gordon-11 · 9 October 2019]

This film tells the story of three women who are jailed for murdering strangers.

Instead of drilling the details of the murder, the plot concentrates on the brain washing done by Charles Manson and its devastating effects on the women. The result is an engaging story of how the women get to the brainwashed state, which most people will struggle to understand.

Matt Smith was incredible.

[tahewitt-47136 · 7/10 · 14 February 2022]

Definitely worth a watch, the acting was brilliant especially by Matt Smith who played Charles Manson, he played it so well, I feel like he did a lot of research into the type of person Charles Manson was, right down to the way he walked and the type of stuff he would say, he was the standout in this film and the reason for my 7 rating, but saying that the other actors and actresses played their parts very well too, was a believable performance by everyone and was a really good watch, some very disturbing parts but I'm sure you wouldn't watch this film expecting anything other than disturbed.

Lulu / Leslie Tightrope Successfully Walked by Hannah Murray

[ken_speckle · 7/10 · 27 September 2021]

I only want to talk about the acting.

Many fine acting performances took us into the very different mind-set of a very particular subculture in a very different time, with Matt Smith (Charlie) and Sosie Bacon (Katie) deserving of special mention.

However, it is Hannah Murray as Lulu / Leslie whose performance was a revelation. Charles Manson said ego would make you fool yourself, and that it had to be killed. Actors are often walking egos, so when Murray buried any self-conceit deep enough to provide her warts-and-all performance we saw vulnerabilities and flaws beyond those offered her by the somewhat sympathetic scripting. Murray's interactions with and reactions to the other lead actors in every case also helped with their believability.

Murray succeeded in letting us wholly disapprove of the action of her Lulu while at the same time causing us to relate to her Leslie, and even somewhat understand and sympathise with her. That is impressive, and I am away now to find another Hannah Murray film!

Timey Wimey Creepy Crawly!

[coex23 · 6/10 · 24 May 2019]

This Manson thing won't go away! I just watched Charlie Says last night after reading about it in an article alerting us to Quentin Tarantino's new Manson film coming out this summer. I was surprised that Matt Smith was listed as playing Charlie, so that got my curiosity going!

First, 50 years after the murders, it's truly amazing to me that this subject still gets traction and that Manson is still touted as the ultimate boogieman. We now understand psychology in ways that supersede what was understood 50 years ago, thus stripping away all that "mystery" that used to be there. Or, at least, if you care to strip that all away, the information is clearly available: Otherwise, Hollywood continues cashing in on other people's suffering by monster making, etc.

Anyway, the film was definitely one of the more seemingly accurate portrayals of life on the Ranch that I've seen. Most other versions tend to be exploitative, whereas this tried to portray the kids as human. Still, I was under the impression that this was going in the direction of being Leslie's story, but random bits of Charlie's story kept disrupting that. At the end of the day, I wanted to know what happened to Leslie and her parents that pushed her away and into the life that led her to the Ranch. Manson was a prison-trained pimp and con-man that knew very well how to manipulate teen runaways... and then throw in the 60s culture wars and heavy drug use, and there's no mystery about him! We really didn't need any of the stuff with Dennis and Terry and Charlie's attempts to be a rock star. (I never bought that that was the main motive for the murders.)

I really liked the approach of Karlene trying to help the girls in prison, a few years after conviction, and then flashing back to the Ranch and murders. Trying to portray them as confused, young and human is a new approach. This is possibly the least exploitative version of this story so far, and that's to be lauded.

Still, the Manson stuff is always getting in the way! Bugliosi and the press sure created a mythological creature that seems to be standing the test of time! (Odd, since the reality is that Charlie was a little person with no education and nothing really going for him but his pimp instinct in a psychedelic world. He's not imposing, not threatening, and clearly not the mythological beast we think of!) Some of the scenes early on with Dennis and Terry felt out of place and unnecessary. The motive, in my mind, is purely speculative at this point: I doubt the murders were a grudge against Melcher. Yes, it was his old house, but that just might have been randomly in the back of their heads as they picked out a target. It felt like a distraction from the focus of Leslie and how someone could end up manipulated easily by a pimp.

All around, the film is well made, with solid acting, and the casting mostly looked really authentic. And, possibly a first in Hollywood: the hair and clothes were good!! (Modern films about the 60s and 70s tend to have bad wigs and really fake beards.) So my only real complaint is focus: in a story so well known to the popular culture, Manson isn't interesting anymore. Or shouldn't be. The Family and how they ended up there is the only last frontier anymore. This film comes pretty darn close to getting it!

Having seen the trailer for Tarantino's film, I can already say that I'll probably just ignore that film altogether. Charlie Says, despite flaws, might be the one last film worth seeing on this subject.

A fascinating feminist exploration.

[SamJamie · 6/10 · 16 September 2020]

Charlie Says is a 2018 American biographical drama film directed by Mary Harron and starring Matt Smith as infamous killer Charles Manson.

Three young women (Leslie Van Houten, Patricia Krenwinkel and Susan Atkins) were sentenced to death for the infamous Manson murders. Their sentences became life imprisonment when the death penalty was lifted in California. One young graduate student was sent in to teach them. Through her, we witness their transformations as they face the reality of their horrific crimes.

Charlie Says may not reach deep enough into the horrors that birthed the Manson Family but director Mary Haron has found a surprisingly relevant way to revisit the grisly events. Through the eyes of the Manson women. Working with material that could have easily been sensationalized or exploited, Harron, for the most part, manages to infuse dignity into a work whose story and certainly toxic characters don't deserve any. While Charlie Says plays it rather safe, it's nevertheless an intermittently absorbing and unexpected angle from which to try to comprehend this incomprehensibly tragic chapter in American history. For all the screen-time Matt Smith's Charles Manson gets, this film truly belongs to the female leads - all three giving terrific performances which I found shined in comparison to Smith's portrayal of Manson.

Bad movie, and something fishy beneath

[mgd_m · 3/10 · 23 November 2019]

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.

Brainwashing

[reddiemurf81 · 6/10 · 12 February 2021]

From the interviews and documentaries I've seen about Manson,, I'd say Smith nailed it here. He had me believing that he was Manson (hopefully he didn't go TOO method). Murray (loved her in GoT) plays the brainwashed groupie perfectly. Wever (loved her in TWD) does a great job as the counselor trying to bring the women back to reality. Overall, this is worth a watch. I'd give it a 6.3 rating.

Charlie Says.... Not Much Of Moral Value

[krocheav · 3/10 · 8 April 2020]

Charlie Says... is not such a wise title to give a movie that might have been an intriguing expose on some unforgivable murders. It's also further hampered by the moviemakers spending too much time voyeuristically gloating over the unhealthy sexual indulgences of a bunch of feral hippies (with no mention of the STD's transmitted between this moronic bunch). This graphic porno approach would have had far more dramatic impact if handled less exploitatively.

The second half of this movie almost seemed to be made by a different team, less sensationalistic, and a little more worthy in its approach - though, still appearing somewhat emotionally manipulative. I agree that it's important to pursue redemptive rehabilitation on gaoled sociopaths. But don't believe that too many results warrant a release for perpetrators of hideously repugnant crimes against humanity (we've seen too many examples where this has gone badly wrong).

This revisitation of the abominable crimes of Charles Manson and his sick crew, tells us little about the lives of these people before becoming members of his free love hippy farm. It wasn't Manson's evil dominating power alone that turned them into killers. - they were free to leave at any time they chose but, they didn't, their own personalities, along with the drugs and perverse sex, also had a controlling hold.

Curiosity tends to keep one watching this entry but overall there's not a great deal to learn from the sad experience and, it could have been told with less sensationalized over-indulgence or the added implied PC gender inferences to tick another modern Hollywood box.

A Harrowing Take on Brainwashing

[fewald139 · 8/10 · 22 September 2021]

Charlie Says is yet another take on the Manson cult/murders, but it offers a fresh perspective using a unique method of storytelling. Whereas most media about the Manson family focuses on the murders, Charlie Says is told from the perspective of the.women involved in the crimes, particularly Leslie "Lulu" Van Houten (played by Hannah Murray), and its main concern is the build-up to the crime and the aftermath. Director Mary Harron shines a spotlight on life in the cult, Manson's charming but increasingly crazed antics, the ease of brainwashing lost and traumatized youths, and the difficulties in getting these women to see their crimes for the horrific acts they truly were.

The biggest draws of the film for me were some of its actors. Matt Smith plays Charles Manson to perfection, highlighting his charisma, eccentricities, and slow spiral into increasing violence; wisely, the cracks in his charismatic armor start small and widen over time, once his followers are already sucked into his version of the world. He is at once irresistibly charming, intriguing, and yet off-putting and fearsome, showing moments of love, care, and other moments of domestic abuse and overt control. Merritt Wever plays Karlene Faith, a graduate student sent to the Manson women in prison in order to give them an education, and she serves as a mirror for the audience as she struggles to understand the women's continued insistence that they believe Charlie's visions will come to pass despite all evidence and odds. Merritt's disbelief and overwhelming frustration is played wonderfully, as is her struggle with seeing these women as both murderers and lost souls who were taken advantage of by one of America's most infamous cult leaders. Finally, Sosie Bacon plays Patricia "Katie" Krenwinkel, one of the Manson women, and goes through such believable phases of intense emotion, both in and outside of the cult.

Some reviewers have stated this movie seeks to empathize with the killers, and I found that to be untrue. These women are guilty; there is no doubt about that, and the movie does not argue otherwise. In fact, the climax of the film sees the women having to face the fact that they did horrific crimes because they were told to, not because they had to. Karlene even says earlier in the film that by making them understand that, she will essentially doom them to bear that weight the rest of their lives. She is conflicted over this, but the movie never dares suggest that isn't what they deserve. Still, people are not so easily defined, and the movie makes the case that women who are victims in one sense (of brainwashing and a cult) can also be perpetrators in another (burglary and murder), and the two identities can absolutely be connected. It is worth questioning how that connection is made and what we can do as a society to keep the traumatized from becoming abusers themselves.

As for negatives, one or two line readings from the lead actress, Hannah Murray, were stale and could have been delivered better. While I mentioned this movie does not glorify the crimes, it does have two scenes of violence relating to a few of the murders for those who wish to skip true-to-life violence. Like most depictions of the Manson family, a little "too" much attention is given to Sharon Tate versus all the other victims, though that isn't much of a negative because she is in the movie for a total of two minutes or less. She was beautiful and famous, yes, but let's not forget the others who senselessly lost their lives to this cult.

Overall, Charlie Says is a welcome addition to the media about the Manson family, if only because it has new questions to unwrap and perspectives to offer. I almost skipped it because of its mind-boggling lower score, but I'm glad I didn't. It became my favorite Mansion family-related movie to date. I highly suggest you give it a watch if you are interested in the Manson family, true crime, or cult behavior.

Interesting

[textembrock · 7/10 · 18 May 2020]

I think that definitely were brainwashed, but it was good to hear there was someone who helped them comes to terms with the horror they ACTUALLY DID!!! Interesting take on the story....from the girls sides.

Combining drugs with a nitwit preaching crazy stuff isn't healthy.

[peterp-450-298716 · 5/10 · 17 September 2019]

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