ciscobudge Reviews

Darwin (2011)

Visit this place, don't watch this...

[3/10 · 12 November 2013]

I visited Darwin and I will tell you that the town is an amazing place with some great people. Just driving down the long Darwin Road, past the old mining town, past "Project Darwin," past the "Population 50 sign, " through the town and out the back roads will be an experience in itself. That's if you don't even talk to anyone.

I made the mistake of taking photographs of peoples PRIVATE homes, which I did not ask permission to do. Being stupid, I didn't realize that people would frown upon this.

So, I was tailed by a black sedan through the town and down the backroads. We noticed the car and turned around. We headed for Darwin Road and saw the car again. We stopped on the side of the road and let it pass... it passed and stopped, turned around, and came back. We hauled ass and the car turned around again.

I digress.

This documentary captures NONE of that. What it captures are people who are entertaining and interesting for about 10 minutes. The documentary focuses on this group of 6 or 8 people (four of them are from the same household) and even though they seemed like people I'd love to meet, I lost interest in them quick.

The documentary had no direction, no narrative, no real story. Basically the documentary was point and shoot and use what we get kind of thing.

I was really bummed. I was looking forward to this and WANTED to love it so much.

The Woods Have Eyes (2007)

Not good, not bad, just a shot on DV cheap slasher.

[6/10 · 13 January 2011]

I won't get too far into this movie because others have. I will say that it seems that most people hate this movie because it is a cheap movie, cheap actors, cheap special effects (although some were pulled off well), and a cheap, overused plot. The movie was not bad considering it was a shot on DV movie made for a fraction of a movie like Saw (III - VII) and it did not suck as bad as those films. I am sure people went in expecting a Hollywood 11 million dollar movie. The movie's plot is simple: six kids get lost in Central Florida woods where they are hunted by a wood family after the half-wit brother kills their friend, and they witness it. Of course they are stranded far away from law enforcement and any way to get a hold of the authorities. Even though it's a tired plot, I think the movie was put together and carried out well. One thing that caught my attention was that two cast member's names were almost definitely inspired by Manson Family members Cappy Gilles (Cappy) and Clem Grogan (Clem). I found that interesting. All in all, the movie does still deliver a nice atmosphere, especially if you are from Central Florida as I am. Central Florida woods deliver a look and feel that no other place can deliver. If you are expecting a masterpiece, this will suck. If you are expecting a cheap shot on DV movie, you may like it.

Manson, My Name Is Evil (2009)

God awful, horribly inaccurate and just another attempt to make money using the "Manson" name.

[1/10 · 13 January 2011]

While this movie is not very accurate, it does have some accuracies with Bobby BeauSoleil, and small things like Manson telling Bobby that he isn't a pimp. Manson made it a point to not oblige when people came to the ranch in hopes of getting laid. It's also accurate in respects that Manson was said to have never used the words Helter Skelter.

The movie also goes by the "free Bobby" copycat motive, which I agree is the reason. It is also accurate how the Bugliosi character led on the "Linda Kasabian" character to get answers he wanted. The movie also seems anti-Linda as well, which is great.

Inaccuracies in the movie:

* Minute 5:01: There was no jury member who was being programmed by Leslie Van Houten, which makes that running theme of the movie fiction.

* Minute 13:30: Bobby BeauSoleil did not trade Leslie Van Houten to Charlie, she never left Bobby until Bobby was arrested and needed a place to stay.

* Minute 16:19: Charles Manson never crucified himself, Leslie certainly did not meet him on a cross.

* Minute 18:07: Charlie did not have sex with Leslie the first night. In Fact he refused to really touch her because he knew she was Bobby's girl and he respected Bobby too much. This is what people say drove Leslie to be obsessed with proving herself to Charlie.

* Minute 20:11: Charlie did not necessarily give out names. Most names came naturally (i.e. Blue, Tex, Gypsy) and others were given by George Spahn (i.e. Squeaky, Capistrano) and others were aliases (i.e. Katie, Clem Tufts).

* Minute 23:05: Charlie did not have to give Leslie back to Bobby, she never left him.

* Minute 25:30: Leslie never told Bobby that Charlie was Jesus.

* Minute 26:19: Bobby never threatened to start his own Family, he always ran with a lot of girls— always had a "Family".

* Minute 27:11: The whole "shit is coming down" paranoia did not start until after the Crow and Hinman incidents. The Family was also not armed until after those incidents.

* Minute 28:58: Where are all of the guys? Where's Clem? Where's Bruce? Where's T.J.? Where's Danny? Manson never had a song called "Follow Me To Hell."

* Minute 33:37: Charlie did not dare Bobby to "off a pig". Gary Hinman was murdered by Bobby because he burned him on drugs.

* Minute 36:14: Patricia Krenwinkle was not "sad" after the murders, she was proud. Charles Watson claims that she was the one ordering him to kill Sharon Tate. Patricia did not convince Leslie to go the second night. She went because Susan Atkins had feet problems and could not.

* Minute 37:33: This scene implies that Charlie tied up the LaBiancas, he did not. Charles Watson said he did. Where is Charles Watson? Why isn't he in this movie at all? He was the one who murdered all 7 people.

* Minute 44:45: Who is this "ranch hand" who is testifying against them? Who is Laura? Tracy? Carry? Cindy? Sarah? Jennifer? Karen?

* Minute 48:44: Why is there a cat in the cell with Krenwinkel?

* Minute 49:40: I take it "Laura" is supposed to be Linda Kasabian?

* Minute 55:20: This never happened; a 15 year old being raped while Charlie hung on a cross.

* Minute 56:20: Leslie did not attempt to attack "Linda" with a pencil.

* Minute 1:07:11: The movie makes it seem like Leslie murdered Rosemary LaBianca, which is not true. Apparently all of the wounds from Leslie's knife were post-mortem. She did not inflict 41 stab wounds.

* Minute 1:08:35: Testimony never happened.

* Minute 1:14:58: The earthquake the girls claimed Manson foretold? Why wasn't Leslie Van Houten's attorney killed?

All in all there were some accuracies in this movie. The movie made Manson what he is, someone who may not have been as much involved in the murders as he was made to be. The movie did put him at the LaBianca murders.

However, the movie is just a cheap attempt to make money off of Manson's name. If you are looking for an accurate movie this is not it. It's nothing but fiction with a bit of truth mixed in. The acting is what you'd expect to a direct to video horror movie. Charles Manson was played by someone over-sized, with blue eyes and of course over acted. Casting for Leslie Van Houten, Susan Atkins and Patricia Krenwinkel was more accurate.

The movie was missing very key participants, especially Charles Watson. Watson was the admitted assassin of all of the Tate/LaBianca victims. The movie did not even have a Charles Watson character. It's unfortunate that Watson took the lives of eight people and seems to never have to answer for it.