"Charles Manson Then & Now" [1992] Movie Review

 

 

"Charles Manson Then & Now" is a 1992 documentary about Charlie, The Manson Family, and the murders. It was made by Nick Bougas. Though it is not officially anywhere streaming, multiple people have uploaded the film to youtube over the years. 

 For what it was, I think that this was a pretty good film that talked about the events which led up to the Tate-LaBianca murders. It focused mostly on Charlie, and talked about many of the actual events which happened. There were a few details that I wasn't sure were correct, but considering that this came out in '92, this might have been before many of the court transcripts were available for the public to read. 

The film talked about Charlie's childhood a bit, and possibly more than any other film for its time. Even still, I'm not sure how completely accurate it was, as it made it seem like Charlie was always traveling with his mother. In books since this film was released, it appeared that Charlie barely spent any time with his mother at all, when in between the reform schools. Jeff Guinn's book, for example, talked about Charlie spending much of his childhood, before reform school, with his aunt and grandmother. Strangely, this film didn't actually discuss how Charlie got his name. Though he was initially "No-Name Maddox" when born, which the film states, it glossed over the fact that Charlie's last name came from his step father, in the brief marriage his mother had. 

On my own time, when doing research in the past about Manson, I came across an article where his mother stated that she didn't name him at first, because she was waiting for mother (Charlie's grandmother) to come up and see the baby. I'm not sure if the filmmaker would have known this fact though. 

The film rather quickly glosses over the accumulation of women and eventual men that joined Charlie in what became "The Manson Family", and various pieces of Family culture are never brought up. The film focuses more on the things that might have led Charlie and the gang to commit the murders. It brings up the shooting of Bernard Crowe, though he is unnamed, and the murder of Gary Hinman. I have to give credit to the film, because Hinman's murder is talked about being related to drugs, similar to the shooting of Bernard Crowe. 

There are more cultural contexts given in the film, which I appreciate. As someone born decades after the murders, there has always been a bit missing, when trying to understand why people believed some of the things they did back then. The film made it more believable to me, that people saw the current events of the late 60's, and felt that all hell was breaking loose.

The film thankfully isn't a rehash of Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter". They seemed to have done a good amount of research on their own time, beyond what was available to the typical person. They showed books and films that were inspired by the crimes, some I hadn't even heard of...or are sure exist anymore. 

It talks a bit about Squeaky Fromme's attempted assassination of President Ford, though, interestingly, it doesn't talk that much about The Family's time at Barker Ranch. The desert hideout was barely talked about, which surprised me. Of course, like many other Manson films, they don't talk about the trial much at all, with the exception of President Nixon's mistake of publically saying that Charlie was guilty. 

I always find this choice to be interesting. Through everything I've read and watched about The Manson Family, very few talk about the trials, which to me, are the most interesting part. I suppose it's because the 1970 trial was dragged out and it's own circus, but I think that there is some incredibly important information in the trial transcripts which set the facts straight about how the crimes really happened. 

Then again, before Bugliosi's death, I think that he might not have wanted for people to start digging into the trial transcripts, as they would have seen through much of his case. I always heard that he was especially litigious, when people started questioning "Helter Skelter".  

For some reason, the film finishes talking about Charlie, and then goes on to barely compare his crimes to that of Ed Gein and John Wayne Gacy.  I found this odd, and while the information about those cases are correct, they should have been their own separate films, or reduced to a few sentences. 

Overall, I think that this is a good film, believe it or not. It has some cheesy background music, but it's among the more accurate pieces of Manson media out there. If you're familiar with the Manson case, you might find this to be a vindicating watch, in some ways. It's not trying to push narrative, but actually discuss the facts. At least, what was possibly one of the best collection of the facts that one could find, in 1992.

I gave this 3/5 stars on letterboxd. 

"Day of The Dead" [1985] Movie Review

 

"Day of The Dead" is a 1985 Horror film, and what many people to consider the third to George Romero's "Dead" trilogy. 

The basic plot to the movie is that a group of scientists and a handful of Army men are living underground away from the zombie apocalypse. Tension is constant as both groups don't get along, and the army men, usually referred to as "The Men", start questioning what the scientists are even doing. 

I've watched this movie multiple times over the years, and I can say, that there are new things that I notice nearly every time I watch this. This is not one of those movies where you can watch it once, and completely get it. It makes sense that this film needs multiple watches, because Romero's original idea really huge. The original script can be found floating around the internet today, and many of its ideas were later used in the 2005 movie, "Land of The Dead". 

But for what was in this film, I really like it, and always have. I first watched this in 2015, on Amazon, then ended up buying it for myself. I think that I've seen this movie at least 10 times. The most recent time was quite a few years ago, so I re-watched this with fresh eyes in 2026. 

When I first watched the movie, I initially wanted the scientists and The Men to get along. I saw both sides having good points, and always thought that, with a mediator, the group could have survived. But as I've gotten older, and with this most recent re-watch, I realize that not having a mediator is sort of the point to the film. The breakdown of the group is because of this.

The Men fetch zombies which wander around the underground bunker, which is said to be about 14 miles long. In the first attempt at catching zombies, there is an accident, and Miguel drops a rod that held a zombie by the neck, who immediately goes after another guy named Rickels.  The situation is quickly put under control, but Private Steel wrings Miguel's neck in front of another zombie, nearly killing him. 

The film shows tension in all areas, from racial, to mental, to even sexual. The only female character is the main character, Sarah, one of the scientists. She clearly doesn't care for nearly any of the men, and even though she was dating Miguel, it seems that their relationship has deteriorated too. 

The other two scientist are Fisher and Dr. Logan, who everyone nicknames "Frankenstein". A title which is a lot more deserving than you'd think. 

While the initiative was supposed to be a civilian project, it quickly becomes nearly tyrannical when Captain Rhodes takes charge, after the death of Major Cooper. At the beginning of the movie, Sarah, Miguel, Billy, and John arrive back from a helicopter reconnaissance trip. Sarah looks over at the graves, and notices that there was a new one. Two of the army men tell her that Major Cooper died that morning, though the movie never says why, or how. I thought it was funny that the name "Cooper" showed up again in this movie. For some reason, "Cooper" pops up in all three of the "Dead" movies.

A few scenes later, we're introduced to Dr. Logan, Frankenstein, where all of his experiments are shown. It's a bloody, gory, mess. Dr. Logan was trying to find the scientific reason why the zombies were reanimated, why they ate, and if they could be trained. Logan states that the zombies don't gain any nourishment from eating, it's just from "Deep dark primordial instinct". 

We see what is possibly one of the most notorious gore scenes in the film, where a zombie starts to break loose, and his guts fall to the floor. This obviously sticks with Sarah, as she has a nightmare of the same thing happening to Miguel later. 

When you watch the movie, you can see that Dr. Logan is a bit out there, but I think it takes a few rewatches to understand how insane he actually was. It's funny, Sarah and Fisher defend Logan at first, as they clearly just saw him as trying to work in the name of science. But when it becomes clear where some of the bodies that Dr. Logan uses comes from, they start to see him as crazy too. One of the bodies Sarah sees is Major Cooper. When she asks who was buried, Logan tells her that it was one of the specimens...a zombie that the army men caught. It's clear that when Sarah sees this, she starts to think that maybe the army guys were right, and things aren't as great as they seem. 

The most popular zombie in the film, if not the "Dead" series as a whole, would be Bub. A pet for Dr. Logan in a way, he taught Bub not to immediately attack him on sight. It was interesting. Logan could prove that zombies had some sort of thought process, and could be trained, but of course, the use case was very little. Bub obviously had some sort of memory that could be accessed from when he was alive, as he saluted to Captain Rhodes. Bub even thumbed through a book that Logan placed on the table. It's funny, I rewatched this after watching "Salem's Lot". The book Bub thumbs through is Stephen King's "Salem's Lot". It was unintentional that things ended up this way.

Later, Sarah returns to Logan's lab with Billy, after another accident had happened and a few more army guys were killed. It hadn't even been 24 hours, and Logan had already extracted the bodies to use for science. Depriving them of a proper burial. They find the bodies at a walk in freezer, when the remaining army men and Logan show up. Logan tries to "reason" with them, but they shoot him on sight. Justified? At this point, I would say so. When you think about what Dr. Logan was doing to those bodies, and having people risk their lives to get them...he was nearly a serial killer to me.  

 Eventually, things devolve to the point where it becomes Sarah, Billy, and John vs. The Men. Miguel gets bit on the arm by a zombie and Sarah chops his arm off and cauterizes it. I'm not sure if this is the first zombie film ever to introduce this idea, but I think it might be one of the more popular ones. I kind of wish they would have explored this idea more in the movie, because I'm curious if they would have had Miguel turn or not. 

The zombies overrun the bunker, and The Men are picked off one by one. Sarah and her crew escape to the helicopter, while Miguel sacrifices himself by letting the zombies in from the elevator. 

Bub gets loose and sees Dr. Logan's dead body, which sends him into a rage. I found it interesting that they showed a zombie depicting emotions such as anger, and even fondness. Bub finds a gun and eventually shoots Captain Rhodes, who is eaten alive, like all of the other men. 

 Overall, I enjoy this film. There are so many subtleties that are in it, that make you appreciate it more ever time. The film was unrated when it was released, so I imagine that many things couldn't be said out loud, unless they wanted to risk the film not being shown at all. 

According to the history, the film only had a limited a release in theaters, and didn't sell that well initially. It wasn't until the movie was released on VHS that it grew its beloved following and sold well. 

This seems to be confirmed by the reviews that I found for this movie in the newspaper archive. From the few reviews I could find, critics didn't care for this Romero movie much, which is shocking. But it seems that some people thought that the characters talked too much, and there weren't enough zombies eating people. I personally find this to be strange, considering how much gore is in the movie!

 

It's so odd to me that people called  this movie a "dud" and a "thud" at first. I guess a part of this comes from that Grindhouse  and Slasher mentality, where a lot of movies were just showing blood spurting everywhere. 

 Strangely, I couldn't find that many ads for the movie in the papers, but I suppose that fits in with its limited release. By 1986, the news seemed to have forgotten about it. 

 I suppose that this movie was always meant to be a "Cult hit", opposed to an instant success. You'd definitely have to be well acquainted with Romero's movies to appreciate a lot of the references and ties to the previous ones. There's references to "Dawn of The Dead", and Joe Pilato, who was in that movie, is cast as Captain Rhodes.

Of course, Tom Savini did the makeup, which was perfect in my eyes. I love how the zombies were grey, and not blue. I remember reading in the past that Savini based a lot of his zombie makeup off of the things that he saw in Vietnam, and I'm sure that rang true for this movie too. 

 

 

In my eyes, this is a perfect movie. The makeup, the plot, the music, everything. There are small things that you only notice after watching it over and over again. 

I gave this 5 stars on Letterboxd. 

But I suppose, that this can 1 slime too. 💚 

"The Family: Inside the Manson Cult" [2009] Movie Review

 

"The Family: Inside the Manson Cult" is a 2009 docu-drama that recalls the events that led up to the Tate-LaBianca murders, as told from the perspective of Linda Kasabian. Linda was at Cielo Drive on the night of the Tate murders, though she did not go inside the Polanski residence. Of course, Linda was also taken on the second night of the murders, though of course, we hear about the potential third murder that didn't happen. I watched this on tubi. It's an hour and a half long.

 While I went into this knowing that it was going to be garbage, I still had some hope that it would be at least entertaining, if not hopefully divulge some new details to the case. In retrospect, I don't know why I ever hoped that. 

As seen in many other Manson-sploitation films, there are people cast as members of The Manson Family, who look nothing like their real life counterparts. The only actor that looked somewhat correct, was the man who was cast as Charlie, and even still, it wasn't that great. The idea that they could just cast any ole body to be Tex Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, and the others is so lame to me. If you want people to hear about this true story and actually care about it, you'd think that it would be important to put effort into this. But no.

As stated before, the story is told from Linda's perspective, but there are many details that are left out of this film, in what seems to be ways to make Linda seem a lot better than what she really was. I'm not trying to sound like some of the co-defendants in this case, but I think that viewers should know that Linda was a drug dealer, had been caught with drugs before ever being in the Manson Family, and sold drugs even after. They left out the detail that Linda was pregnant when the murders went down, which may have been why she felt sick to hear that Sharon Tate was pregnant when murdered. The film also got George Spahn's age wrong, stating that he was 71 for some reason. In 1969, Spahn was 80 years old. It's strange to me that they got this simple detail wrong, considering that Vincent Bugliosi is in this film quite a lot too, and the film is basically a retelling of his book "Helter Skelter". 

Yes, unsurprisingly, this film is just another rehash of Bugliosi's meal ticket, and seems like a way for people to still applaud Linda Kasabian for being the "Star Witness" at the trial. Which is odd to me. By the time this film came out, it was 40 years later. A whole new generation of adults were around that didn't grow up with Charlie Manson, or had even heard of the murders. The film seems to take some sort of assumption that the viewer automatically knows a bit about the crimes.

At the same time too, there are a lot of things that the film under explains. Even the details that are left into this version of the story, aren't what are completely seen in the book "Helter Skelter".

I found that this film was very lazy, and not very good. It tried this odd thing where they wanted to make the event seem modern. The actors didn't wear clothes or have hairstyles that were seen in 1969. For the most part, the characters looked liked they could have been from 2009. The actor that played Bobby Beausoleil looked a bit like a Hippie, though he also looked nothing like Bobby. It's like you couldn't get either thing to go right. No-one looked like a hippie, neither did they look like the right person! It was just so bad!

The depictions of the group using Acid and being in their orgy was laughable. The movie shows them taking it on sugar cubes, where we assume drops of the drug were placed on it. Yet...there are multiple accounts between the trial transcripts and Bugliosi's book, that show they usually consumed it in tablets and pills. Leslie Van Houten and some of the others were recorded talking about this. 

It's clear that this film was just slapped together, probably as a 40th year commemoration thing. I think that Bugliosi and Kasabian were were called in for this and they might have thought it was one thing, when in reality, it was another. You could tell, even in old age, that Bugliosi still felt very proud of himself for prosecuting and getting the convictions of The Manson Family.  It was clear that even at the age of 75, he was pretty arrogant about it. 

While I'm not mad that the convicted were done so, I just don't know why Bugliosi had to act like he was some sort of Superhero. It rubs me the wrong way that he used  this tragedy as a way to gain fame. 

What was strange, was that in this film, Bugliosi says himself that Gary Hinman was targeted for money and that he was a drug dealer. This is strange, because in the past, he acted like this wasn't the case. Of course, this was the only time that drugs were talked about as a potential reason for the crimes. 

 For some reason Catherine Share was in this film, and this was the first time that I ever heard her say that Charlie beat her. This was also the only instance in this film where it was mentioned that Charlie beat on anyone. They never talked about how he beat on Dianne Lake, or would slap around Mary Brunner, or anything of that. There are certain facts which are presented in this film which drive the narrative a different way from how reality was. I guess it is unsurprising though, since this is one of those pieces of Bugliosi media that try to paint Charlie as the bad guy entirely, and not like this wasn't an entire gang of drug dealers and criminals.

Bugliosi said that the people in The Manson Family came from normal backgrounds, which isn't the truth either. Susan Atkins definitely didn't. But I guess that this was all part of the illusion that Charlie could convert people into killers. Something that was never true.

-- 

I found it odd when the film interviewed Debra Tate. She of course, expressed love for her sister, but I was confused as to why she said that Roman and Sharon had a great relationship. I guess that this was done for the sake of the film. There has been evidence that Sharon was going to leave Roman, who kept cheating on her even after she was pregnant. Roman constantly cheated on Sharon with other women. Debra recalled how happy Sharon was to tell her that she was pregnant. The sisters were happy. Sharon was happy to become a mother. While this is true...the movie doesn't tell the viewer that Roman initially didn't want the baby. Roman wanted an abortion.  

The film tried to make Linda seem as if she were innocent, and just along for the ride. It seems to make light of the fact that she admitted to stealing $5,000 because Tex Watson told her to. Linda said that she did it for acceptance into the group. Like as if it was just a little white lie told. When adjusted for inflation, that 5000 comes closer to being $45,000! Linda stole that much money, and the film acts like it was nothing!

The movie also makes it seem like it doesn't matter that much that Linda left her child behind when she left The Manson Family. The movie made it seem like Linda was a victim in fear for her life, and had to leave no matter what...even if that meant leaving her kid behind. The film makes it seem like she left so that Charlie didn't kill her...not because she was an accomplice to the crime. The movie leaves out the fact that Linda also fled to the East Coast, where she was originally from. I don't know why the film tried to make it seem like she was so naive and innocent. 4 decades later, most people wouldn't have be thinking of Linda Kasabian anyway. I don't know if they were trying to rewrite history or what.

Overall, I would not recommend this film to anyone. It's not worth your time, or the full watch. There's nothing in here that you can't read in "Helter Skelter". Better yet, you would be better off watching "Helter Skelter", from 1976. There's more things in that movie which are correct, than in this one. 

I gave this 1 star on letterboxd. I wanted to give it a half star, but the site wouldn't let me for some reason. 

"Salem's Lot" [1979] Movie Review

 

"Salem's Lot" is a 1979 made for TV Horror movie that is based off of a Stephen King book of the same name. The version that I watched was the 3 hour cut which I rented on Amazon. I originally watched the movie with my father many, many, years ago, but it had been so long, that it was like watching it again new. In a way, it was like I was going in blind, only knowing the basic elements of it being a vampire movie. 

Despite knowing that it was about vampires, the way the film starts out is pretty confusing. Much of it left me in the dark, and I wondered if maybe the average viewer in 1979 would have known more thanks to advertisements on television. 

The main character is an author named Ben, who comes to Salem's Lot for what initially seemed like unknown reasons. It's eventually revealed that he grew up in the town and moved at the age of 11. Ben, a writer, was inspired to write thanks to a teacher of his. Seeing as this was based off a work by King, the setting is in, of course, Maine.

Not long after coming to The Lot, Ben comes across a woman reading one of his books in a patch of grass. I don't know if this is how things just were back then, but he just walks up to her and starts flirting with her. The conversation was awkward, but the woman identifies herself as Susan Norton, a teacher, and she admits to stealing the book of his from her school library to read for herself. 

The movie shows this subplot of a real estate agent, played by Fred Willard, who was having an affair with his assistant. I was surprised to see Willard in this movie, as he was in many of the TV shows that I'd watch growing up, such as "Roseanne", and "Sister Sister".  

 The love affair subplot was mostly useless, in the grand scheme of the movie, though it did provide what was the most interesting scene in the entire movie. 

Willard's character goes to his partner's house, while they are under the assumption that her husband is away. The husband acted like he was going to the nearby town of Portland, Maine,  but switches with his coworkers, who do the job. While I realize that they were the ones to pick up the mysterious package that unleashes the monster, it seems that this would have happened anyway, love affair or not. 

The film drags on, and by the first 30 minutes, I was already getting bored. Willard's character being confronted was the most interesting scene, and I loved when the gun pointed at him only clicked, revealing it was blank. After this scenario though, the movie only barely remains interesting, and continues to drag on. 

There were some tropes in the movie which did make me laugh, though I know that this was not their intention. For example, when Ben was in front of his typewriter, wearing his glasses, and crumpling the paper, I already knew what they were going for. I nearly became hysterical when he looked out the window at the creepy house with his cup of coffee. Something that is seen in nearly every movie where the main character is a writer. 

Ben's idea was to write his next book about the creepy abandoned house that had a history of terrible things happening to it. The movie differs from the actual book by King, where the source material apparently talks more about the degradation of the town, where the movie does not. The film sort of just forces us to believe that what is going on is scary, and spooky, and that terrible things are happening...but you don't really see anything weird and paranormal until after the hour mark. 

Initially, this film was split into two "episodes", where the first half was presented, and the second half later. I couldn't help but wonder why someone would rewatch the first half of the movie, considering how boring it was, and barely anything goes on. 

While I realize that much of it was to establish the plot points and characters, if you were to rewatch this film, and already know this information, there is little incentive to watch from the beginning again. Save for the romantic affair scene. 

Various people start to go missing, turn up dead, and the local antique dealer, Straker, is eventually pointed as the culprit. He manages to kidnap a local boy, and is seen taking the body into his basement. I wondered how scary this might have been for people to see at the time, considering that John Wayne Gacy had been caught barely a year before, in 1978. 

While it's implied that Straker was turning people into vampires, the movie never reveals why. All we know is that he does. Was it some sort of entertainment for him? Plan for world domination? We don't know. According to Wikipedia, the plot was that Straker was the servant for the vampire, preparing for his master's arrival. This seems backwards to me, because when you watch the movie, Straker is made out to be the villain, and the vampire, Kurt Barlow, appears as some sort of dopey pet. 

The boy that Straker kidnapped is somehow turned into a vampire, by unknown means, and is seen coming to the window of his brother's room one night. The effects were good for TV, but the scene in general was very silly to me. The brother eventually ends up in the hospital with an unknown illness, which doctors try to pinpoint as some sort of anemia, but we know the real reason. The vampire brother comes to the window of his brother's room to visit him again, and turns him into a vampire too.

Eventually, Ben teams up with his old teacher, Burke, and they start to discuss the possibility of the town being taken over by vampires. Many people don't want to believe in the possibility, but of course, more people start to turn. 

Barlow, the main vampire, makes an appearance in the kitchen to the home of Mark Petrie and his parents, killing the child's parents. Because of this, Mark ends up teaming up with Ben also, especially after Burke ends up having a heart attack. 

Mark and Ben eventually go into the creepy house and shoot Straker, though Susan, who also entered, disappeared. Mark and Ben are seen in Guatemala 2 years later, and for whatever reason, Susan is there. Ben sticks a wooden stake through her heart and she dies. The End.  

If it wasn't obvious, I didn't really care for this film. I'm the type of person that likes a good story, and this movie did not have one. Despite having the source material right there...they completely ignored it. My main gripe with this movie is just how long, drawn out, and boring it was. While I can admit that yes, the set design and makeup were good, that doesn't excuse how lame much of this movie was. 

I feel like the window vampire scenes were more of a way to distract the viewer from the terrible dialogue and plot, like jingling keys. If the viewers were impressed by the effects, they wouldn't notice how absurd many of the lines were. For example, there was a scene where Straker was being questioned by one of the cops, and before the officer left Straker says, "Ciao.", informing the cop that it was Italian for "Goodbye". 

The cop says: "I didn't know you were Italian."

Straker then replies: "I'm not. The word is.". 

How incredibly lame. I seriously wondered how they could have taken something by Stephen King, and turned it into absolute dogshit. 

Much of the film is very camp. It's not the worst thing I've ever seen, but I did not enjoy much of it either. "Salem's Lot" is like a greasy microwavable hamburger. You are never fully satisfied, but you try to finish the meal anyway. And when you do, you wonder, "Why did I do that?".

Obviously, I'm one of the few that don't really care for this much. Looking through the newspaper archives, the press lauded the film when it was released in 1979. There were only a few people that publically stated how they found that the film's plot didn't make much sense.

 Overall, I didn't care for this movie very much. Because of it's length, and the problems I have with it, I can't imagine myself watching it again, on purpose.

 I gave this movie 1 star on letterboxd. 

 

"Manson's Missing Victims" [2008] Movie Review

 

"Manson's Missing Victims" is a documentary type film that is like some sort of knock off episode of "Forensic Files". It talks about the Manson Family, and the possibility that there were more people killed than what Charlie and the gang were convicted of. While in many ways, I do think that there is the possibility that more people may have been killed at the hands of Manson Family members, the way this film goes about it is all wrong. 

The film latches onto the fact that people like Sandra Good and others stated that The Family killed as many as 33-35 people. This is something that is found in Vincent Bugliosi's book "Helter Skelter". The film doesn't look at missing persons cases, unidentified bodies, or mysterious deaths from the time period. Instead, it focuses mostly on Paul Dostie, and his admittedly cute dog Buster, and how they go about digging for dirt samples. 

While Buster was a trained dog that could sniff out human remains, or the aromas that may test positive for human remains, this is never truly connected to the Manson family whatsoever. Much of the film is speculation, and leaves the viewer to just think, "WHAT IF THE MANSON FAMILY DID KILL MORE PEOPLE OMG". The film does the typical Manson-sploitation thing, where they put more onus on Charlie and the murders, and not people like Tex Watson, who did the actual killing at Tate-LaBianca.

The film talks a little bit about some of the victims that were murdered, such as Gary Hinman and Shorty Shea, though once again, you're never given any names to potential people that would be buried in the Manson haunts. What was admittedly interesting though, was how this film stated that Hinman was killed in a drug deal gone bad, which is something that has been constantly debated, depending on what source you read (such as Helter Skelter). 

They are seen at places such as what used to be Spahn Ranch, though the dirt samples taken in the film are never talked about. We never saw what the results were. The film showed that, prior to filming, they had gone to the site of Barker Ranch to do some digs, but there were ultimately no results. 

If you've read Dianne Lake's book, "Member of The Family", you might remember that these digs resulted in nothing. Lake wrote at the beginning of her book how she was contacted by Dostie, after laying low about her past for decades. In a way, her book was a "spoiler", that nothing ever happened, but it was interesting to see what the film even talked about. I suppose that they really had nothing to go off of, and had to pad out the video in some way.

People like Debra Tate, Stephen Kay (his name misspelled), Vincent Bugliosi, and even Tom O'Neill were interviewed, but they don't give any real information. It was interesting to see O'Neill in the film, as this was 11 years before his book "Chaos" came out. I suppose that he was the one that supplied the bit of information about Fillipo Tenerelli...though the film didn't talk about his death at all. 

To me, the video would have been better if they talked about mysterious deaths that might have had something to do with the Manson Family, such as Reet Jurvetson (Who at the time may have still been unidentified), Marina Habe, and others. Granted, this is before many of the small threads we can read about on the internet were around today, so some of these names may not have been in thought at the time of actual digs.

Overall, a useless film, that doesn't bring anything new. It was more amusing watching what was yet another Manson film, that had nothing to do about Manson at all. To me, movies like these very obviously use Charlie's name for the sake of popularity, and nothing else. There is no substance. 

I gave this 1 star on letterboxd. 

 

"Cry of The Banshee" [1970] Movie Review

 

"Cry of The Banshee" is a 1970 Folk Horror movie that stars Vincent Price. It is very much in tune with "Witchfinder General", and I unintentionally ended up watching this after the former mentioned movie. This seemed to be very fitting, as they're quite similar, and deal with the ideas of witchcraft, satanism, and torturing people unjustly. 

The movie claimed to be based off of Edgar Allan Poe's work, but this is very loose. The movie only quotes the lines to Poe's poem "The Bells" before the movie actually starts. 

 This was clearly a way to draw in viewers who were familiar with Price's previous works based off of Poe's writings. This was a similar tactic done when the movie "Witchfinder General" was advertised. 

To me, the movie seems to draw a lot of inspiration from "The Masque of The Red Death", and Price's character was like a slightly watered down version of Prince Prospero. I am unsure if it was unintentional, but it seemed like the movie was sort of making an homage to Price's previous works in the Poe realm. One of the characters is named "Rodrick", which was the name of character Price played in the movie "The Fall of The House of Usher". 

That said, the plot to the movie is that Price and his crew come across a Satanic Witch Sabbath, and try to put an end to it. His family is cursed by the main witch, who we can probably assume is The Banshee.  The idea is a bit similar to that of "House of Usher", where the family name is cursed, and the family members go crazy, or die in strange ways. The Whitman family are supposed to be anti-witchcraft and anti-Satanism, with Price's character accusing people of being witches, and having them tortured. At the same time, when bad things start happening to his family, he denies the existence of witches. 

The shrill cry of the banshee can be heard outside, and the Whitman crew are scared, because as folklore goes, such a cry means death. They try to play it off as a dog attacking other animals, but obviously, there were people who knew that it was more than just a dog. 

Hilary Dwyer also stars in the movie, this time as Maureen, the daughter to Price's character. She is having relations with Rodrick, the man conjured by the main witch to curse the Whitman family. 

 Eventually, he turns into a werewolf, though I suppose he is also supposed to be the Banshee? This isn't directly explained, and according to folklore, a Banshee is supposed to be a woman. I don't know why they made him into a werewolf, but I suppose it fit the actor's natural facial features. 

 The main witch that cursed the Whitman family is seen at various points in the film, still trying to curse them. There are a couple of scenes where she is seen using a voodoo doll, and sticking pins in them to harm her target. It was interesting, as this movie seemed to lean more into the British Paganism and "Old Religion" as they called it, though it seemed to still take a few cues from what was then modern day witchcraft. This movie was released a year after the Satanic Bible, and Anton LaVey wrote about the use of voodoo dolls in his book. Another interesting thing to note, was how the main witch had her coven worshiping around a circle with Black Candles. Black Candles were the only color of candle used, in the final scene where the main witch was killed. LaVey's writings talked about using Black Candles during rituals. 

I don't know if the movie took a lot from the Church of Satan, but considering the time period, I have reason to believe so. One of the main contentions beyond the candles, is the fact that it was a group of witches worshiping Satan. Many writings from the early Church of Satan days would refer to female followers as "witches". And let's not forget, there is the book "The Satanic Witch", though that came out after this movie. 

-- 

Anyway, I found the movie to be interesting, and scratched more of that "witch itch" than "Witchfinder General" did. I liked how the movie focused a bit more on the paranormal, some type of curse, and gave a little bit of reason why Price's character would accuse people of being witches...because there actually were some in this movie. 

 According to some of the lore, Price apparently didn't care for the movie much. The movie also apparently inspired the name of the band "Siouxsie and The Banshees", though I don't know how true that is. What is also a bit crazy, is that Siouxsie was born on the same day as Vincent, though 46 years apart. 

 

-- 

There was one thing I noticed about the movie, that didn't seem to be pointed out anywhere. The soldiers in this movie and "Witchfinder General" have the same costumes! I guess they saved them from the previous movie for this one. 

" Cry of The Banshee"

 

 "Witchfinder General"

-- 

 When I looked through the newspaper archives, I couldn't find any reviews for the movie, though there were advertisements for it, of course. The movie was often paired with "Angel Unchained", a Hippie Biker type movie. 

 

A couple of ads did pair the movie with "Scream and Scream Again", another Price movie.

 

Anyway, I actually really liked this movie, and would watch it again.  It has some silliness and camp, and the ending is Gothic in a way. I think that fans of "The Masque of The Red Death" would enjoy this movie, as it seems to take quite a bit from it. 

 

I gave this 3/5 stars on letterboxd. 

1 Slime 

 

"Witchfinder General/Conqueror Worm" [1968] Movie Review

 

"Witchfinder General", or "The Conqueror Worm" as it was titled in America, is a 1968 folk Horror film that stars Vincent Price. I watched this on Tubi, and the movie's genre was just plain "Horror", though in many ways, this seems like a misnomer. The film isn't scary, though it's more in the same note as movies such as "The Wicker Man", and "The Blood on Satan's Claw". Movies that touch on the ideas of witchcraft in the British sense of things. In this movie, Price plays Matthew Hopkins, "The Witchfinder General" who was a real person in real life, that tortured many under the suspicion of witchcraft. 

The movie  was renamed to "The Conqueror Worm" in the US, because advertisers were trying to make people think that it was another Edgar Allan Poe inspired movie. Many ads showed this, but in reality, the film had nothing to do with Poe at all. The Poe story of the same name is not the same as what is depicted in the movie. 

 

The film was directed by Michael Reeves, who, according to the lore, did not get along with Price, nearly at all. From what you can read about the movie on iMDB, it seems that Reeves was rather arrogant and wanted things his way, defying many of the points that Price would make during filming. I guess Price got the last laugh though, as Reeves ended up dying less than a year after the film was released. In February of 1969, Reeves died from an accidental alcohol and barbiturate overdose. This seems to be the only film that he completely directed with Price, as the second one was "The Oblong Box", though he ended up having to be replaced.

Even though Price stars in the film, I feel like you don't see him as much as you'd like, considering that he has the most important role. His minions, mainly Stearne, torture people trying to get them to confess to witchcraft, but you don't see much about witches in this movie, really. The film focuses more on the characters of Sarah Lowes, John Marshall, and honestly, Stearne. Much of the movie felt like one giant chase, between Stearne going after Sarah to assault her, Stearne going after Marshall, and Marshall going after Stearne. When I describe it this way, it sounds like something from Scooby Doo. 

The ending to the film was laughable, and not scary at all. Marshall goes to chop up Hopkins, but one of the other soldiers shoots him. Marshall then yells, "You took him from me! You took him from me!", but it is so silly, you can't help but laugh. 

Personally, I didn't care for this film that much, and couldn't see myself watching it again. Price was great. Hilary Dwyer was great, but much of the film was not what I hoped for. It was interesting to see Price and Dwyer in what appeared to be their first film together, as they would work again for "The Oblong Box", and "Cry of The Banshee". 

 

 

 When I looked through the newspaper archives, I couldn't find many reviews about the film, mostly just ads for it.  One article stated that Hilary Dwyer and Ian Ogilvy, the actor that played Marshall, "Deserved better". And I would have to agree. The film didn't take advantage of the talent that was in it. Price played "the bad guy", but he wasn't really as evil as seen in his other films. 

 

Many corners of the internet today will state that the film was considered to have a considerable amount of torture in it, which I suppose is true, for a British film from this decade. To me, this movie is not as gruesome as some of other "Grindhouse" types from this era, films such as "I Drink Your Blood" come to mind. 

In 1968, the movie was often billed with films such as "She-Devils On Wheels", "Psych-Out", "The Savage Seven", and "Planet of The Apes". I don't know why, maybe it was because this was the Hippie era, but a lot of biker/hippie films were played along this one. 

 

This 1968 article is simply just a summary of the movie.

 

Overall, I thought this was an okay movie. I wish that there would have been more about actual witches and how horrible the false accusations were. Unless you already had some sort of education about the witch trials, some of the torture done in this movie would have seemed absolutely off the wall. 

--

The movie has had some influence on music. The first, and most obvious, is the band "Witchfinder General" who took their name from the movie.

 Price's infamous line "I'm Matthew Hopkins, Witchfinder" used in the song "Hopkins (Witchfinder General) by Cathedral, from their 1995 album "The Carnival Bizarre". The song uses samples of the movie throughout it. 

 

 

 I gave this movie 2 stars on letterboxd. 

"Daughters of Satan" [1972] Movie Review

 

"Daughters of Satan" is a 1972 "Horror" movie, that isn't scary or Satanic at all. Calling it a "Horror" movie is a stretch, as much of it is just boring. 

The plot barely makes any sense, and drags on for much longer than it needs to. The movie runs for an hour an a half, and after the first 30 minutes, I kept checking the timer to see how close I was to the end. 

The idea to the movie is that Tom Selleck's character buys a painting of some witches being burned, of which, one looks just like his wife. Various witchy things happen but have no real substance or bearing on the plot. A lot of the movie is just "so weird" type things. The wife being able to recall a random date when some witches were burned, a dog that shows up and hates Tom Selleck, and things like that. 

Much of the audio to the movie was terrible quality, so it was hard to make out what they were saying at times. 

There were a couple scenes in the movie where a "Satanic Ritual" was sort of being performed, but it just involved a nude woman being whipped in front of muscular men. At one point, Tom Selleck's wife is forced to spit on an idol of Jesus being crucified, but the actress just sputtered on it, like she sneezed. 

The movie isn't even laughably bad...it's just bad. Boring, and doesn't even rip off Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan. I was fully expecting the movie to take a lot from that...but they didn't. 

There were some semi-funny parts to the movie, though I don't believe they were intended to be humorous. For example, when the dog kept barking at Tom Selleck, the housekeeper didn't understand why, insinuating that his character must have been a bad dude. Selleck made a remark about going to another country in the past and eating a dog, which tasted "really good". The movie definitely did not age well in many parts. A lot of it is pretty racially insensitive. I couldn't help but notice how the white characters were rich, while the brown characters were service workers or uneducated. 

I was hoping that this movie would have scratched an itch for early Satanic Movies that came out after the founding of the Church of Satan, but this did not happen. It barely established any link between witches and Satan, and instead was more of a love story about rich white people in the Philippines. 

I tried to find any sort of reviews for the movie in the newspaper archives, but there weren't any, from where I looked. Mostly just ads for the movie. In 1972, the movie was often paired with "Superbeast".

 In 1973, "Daughters of Satan" was sometimes featured with the Vincent Price movie "Theatre of Blood". 

 

Overall, I can't recommend this film to anyone. The most interesting part to it is the name. There could have been a lot of potential with it, but the actual story does nothing, and goes nowhere. It seems that the writers had a very surface level of witchcraft, magick, and the paranormal, when writing this. If you can even call the script a piece of writing at all. 

I gave this half a star on letterboxd. I don't even think this deserves a slime, because it wasn't even funny. 

"The Tingler" [1959] Movie Review

 

"The Tingler" is a 1959 Sci-Fi/Horror film that stars Vincent Price. It it's not really scary, but the movie had great shots, and was fun. The idea is that Vincent Price plays a scientist, who is trying to figure out the science behind "fear". He and his assistant perform experiments to isolate this in creatures, eventually discovering a creature they call "The Tingler", which is found in the spine. 

Much of the plot doesn't make sense, and is just a bunch of jargon made to sound scientific, but Price did a great job in making it sound real.  There were many times when I was watching, that I didn't understand why they were doing certain things in the film, and in the decades since it was released, some parts seem a bit insane. 

For example, Price's character acts like he is going to shoot his wife. When he does, it turns out to be a blank, and it was all done in the name of the science, so that he could take x-rays, and see any proof of The Tingler. 

A bit later in the film, his assistant comes to the house with a dog in the car, though it turns out that they don't need it, because Price already found proof of their scientific creature. The proceed to go in the house...leaving the dog in the car. Whatever happens to this dog? I don't know. 

One of the most insane parts of the film, was how the Deaf wife of a theater owner was drugged, then scared to death, in the hopes of making her scream. She ends up passing away from fright, and Price extracts her Tingler from her corpse. Like, isn't that mutilation of a dead body? It's kind of ironic...her husband could have been tried for murder, because technically he scared her, but when her corpse was taken to Price's character, he had no problem doing a science experiment on her! It's just silly things like that which point out how the movie doesn't make sense when you think about it hard enough. 

What's interesting though, is that in the scene where the Deaf lady dies, her bathroom starts pouring blood from the tub and the sink. Reading the lore about this scene, it actually turned out that this was filmed in color, but the room and actress were painted grey, while the water was red! Very interesting, and clever, as the rest of film is actually in black and white!

The film runs a bit too long for me, as the second half of the film shows The Tingler on the loose, and potentially ready to wreak havoc on society. The creature is silly looking, much like an oversized earwig or centipede, but I give credit to the props department. They made it kind of cute when it squirmed. I found it funny how The Tingler made its way onto the screen in the theater, and people were freaking out. The scene was more hilarious than scary. There's a level of camp here, that you can't help but enjoy. 

Eventually, Price's character places the Tingler back into its rightful owner's corpse, who raises from the dead and attacks her husband. 

One of the most interesting parts in the film, is the use of LSD. In the film, it was a prescription that Price's character used for an experiment. Apparently, LSD was still legal in the US at the time. I found it interesting that the drug was shown, as some sort of potentially scary thing. It made me wonder how people ten years later must have thought of this film, considering the hippie era. I especially wondered if the film was used as a way to scorn LSD, after the Tate-LaBianca murders ten years later (certain films like "I Drink Your Blood" would speak ill of the drug after the murders). 

I looked through the newspaper archives, and there weren't really any reviews on the film. Mostly ads for it, and some articles talking about the vibrating chair gimmick that was used in the theaters. When the film was initially released, there were chairs in some theaters, that would vibrate when certain scenes in the movie were shown. From how it sounds, it seems like it was a fun experience. This gimmick was called "Percepto". Similar in namesake to the "Emergo" that was around for the "House on Haunted Hill" showings. 

 

 Overall, I think the film is a fun watch, in a silly spooky way. It doesn't make sense, but I think if you had a group of friends watching bad movies together, this would be one on the roster.

I have this 2 stars on letterboxd.

1 Slime. 

"Bloodbath At The House of Death" [1984] Movie Review

 

"Bloodbath at the House of Death" is a "Horror" "Comedy" film that was released in 1984. It features and advertises Vincent Price, but he is barely in the movie. 

 The film runs for 1 hour and 31 minutes, which is way too long for how much it drags on. The movie starts off interesting at first, a bit silly, and has some gags you'd expect of British humor, but it starts to get old quickly, within the first 30 minutes. In fact, one of the best jokes in the movie is within the first half hour, where the group at the pub create a song in the same note as "The Twelve Days of Christmas", when trying to remember how many victims were killed at the murder house back in 1975.  

The plot of the film, or idea to it, is that in 1975, on or around August 12th, 18 people were killed at a house. In present day, presumably 1984, a group of scientists go to the house to try and explain or understand what could have happened. 

Very little is explained, and the movie relies too much on gags that are generally unfunny, to carry the film, instead of having a decent enough plot to carry the film. You would think that the plot of the film would drive the movie, but instead, it seems that the plot is based around the gags instead. 

Of course, over 40 years later, not every joke stands the test of time, but I don't think they were very funny to begin with. 

 The movie references multiple other horror films from the era, such as "Carrie", "Star Wars", "Poltergeist", and "Alien", but the gags usually left me saying, "huh.". Other films known to be referenced include, "The Exorcist", "E.T.", and "The Amityville Horror".

I don't think that every film referenced has been noted, and I think some of the more underground/lesser known ones have been overlooked. 

For example, it seems that in the bloody bathroom scene, this might be a reference to another Vincent Price film, "The Tingler". In that movie, one of the characters is scared to death in her bathroom, after the tub and sink run red with blood.

There doesn't seem to be any official note anywhere, but it seems that the movie might reference "The Devil's Rain". Of course, this is because of the Satanic Cult and cultists wearing their robes. Though I couldn't completely tell if the movie referenced this, or was just referencing/spoofing Anton LaVey.

Despite advertising Vincent Price as being in this film, he's barely in it at all. His last scene in the film is of him being burned by one his cultists. I thought this was a stupid move, as he was the main reason anyone would watch this film. 

Looking through the newspaper archives, it appears that many people didn't care for this film when it came out either. It was called "unfunny" multiple times, in multiple papers. Only one said that it was in good taste. The movie isn't terrible", but I don't think anyone would seriously watch this for a laugh. I think anyone who comes across this film would be like me, wanting to see the parts with Vincent Price. 

 

Personally, I didn't care for this film, and couldn't see myself watching it again. I gave this half a star on letterboxd. 

"Theatre of Blood" [1973] Movie Review

 

"Theatre of Blood" is a 1973 Comedy Horror film starring Vincent Price. The plot of the movie is that Price plays an actor who seeks revenge on all the critics who gave him bad reviews on his performances, preventing him from winning an award that went to another, younger, actor. 

 

Each critic is killed in a way similar to how someone in each Shakespearean play they reviewed, died. Despite being a British film, there are some rather gory and scary looking deaths, which I surprised me. Usually, British films didn't show violence and blood as much as this one, but I think it fits for the plot of the film. The one death that was crazy to me, was when the female critic was electrocuted in the salon chair. It was the most nuts of all of the deaths. 

 

"Theatre of Blood" came out the year before "Madhouse" did, which was released in 1974. I remember seeing reviews that "Madhouse" was just a cheaper, less great version of the former, but I disagree. While both films have similar ideas to them, they're not the same plot line. In "Theatre of Blood", Vincent Price is actually the bad guy...in "Madhouse", he's not! 

 

I found the plot idea of Price's character killing the critics because they gave him a bad review, especially hilarious, in today's world. In many ways, this idea would still hold up today, because with social media, people are reviewing things all the time. It's also silly, to think about killing people because they disliked your movie or play. 

 

I really liked how this film let Price shine, when it came to the Shakespearean parts. He really gave it his all when it came to the lines in the film. This is one of those movies where it had that theatric, story driven feel to it, common in British films. I really enjoyed this because it was perfect for Price's acting style. According to lore, Vincent Price really loved working on this film!

 

I looked up the movie in the newspaper archives, and couldn't find any reviews on it, though I do know that the movie was successful.  The movie was advertised with other films such as "Soylent Green", "The Mephisto Waltz", and "Daughters of Satan".

 

Overall, I liked this film, and would watch it again. It's silly, cheesy, and pretty fun to watch too. It's not scary, but it has that sort of Poe-esque gothic feel to it. Strangely, in comparison to "Madhouse", I like "Madhouse" more. Other reviews seem to feel the opposite way. For me, while "Theatre of Blood" is fun to watch, I still enjoy the creepiness in "Madhouse" a bit more. I think that the latter is more fitting of the "horror" title than this one. 

 

Even still, I give this a 3/5.