User Reviews

First off, if you're looking for realism, see Helter Skelter (1976) instead. This movie is not, nor does it attempt to be an accurate retelling of events.

The movie focuses on the Manson girl Leslie, and the young juror Perry. Perry is about to get married to a Christian girl, but is having doubts about Vietnam, his faith and the values his father has taught him. Causing him to question if Leslie should receive the death penalty, and if he himself would have behaved differently, had he been in Leslie's position.

The movie unfortunately is so badly made, that while it tries to be social commentary it ends up as being a parody. With a parody of a cult, a parody of a murder, a parody of an all American family, a parody of a Christian girlfriend, and a parody of a trial. The only 'real' people in the movie seemed to be Leslie and Perry. But given the subject matter, the meaningless slaughter of innocent people, the joke is either not there or it isn't funny.

I would call this movie a guilty pleasure. Kristen Hager and Gregory Smith both deliver a good performance, but they cannot carry the movie all by them self.

Leslie (Kristen Hager) is one of Manson family on trial and Perry (Gregory Smith) is interviewed to be one of the jury. He has to postpone his wedding as the jury gets sequestered. In flashbacks, the two characters journey through two different sides of America after the JFK assassination.

This is trying to be a surreal telling of the trial. It has some good potential but the director has no skills to pull off the surrealism. There is no style to it other than a faltering attempt at being off-kilter. It's clunky and poorly executed. This is like Oliver Stone without the filmmaking skills.

There's no indication anywhere that this film is a dark comedy, probably because no one would rent it. I don't personally feel like the subject matter should be made into a comedy, but some people might like that sort of thing. If I had known that this was a comedy, I would not have rented it. The acting is pretty atrocious, too.

Leslie, My Name Is Evil told me the story of something I didn't know, or even care about. When making a film about the life of Charles Manson and his deranged followers, you'd except them to at least show some of the murders they committed, or detail how they came to devotedly pursue his weird teachings. WRONG. We only see the briefest of excerpts of the hedonistic life they led... and what is revealed is so crummily acted, written and directed most people with a smartphone camera and a few spare hours could do better. Check out the scene with the couple sitting in their car, while a 'sunset' in the background... a more obvious use of bluescreen you'll never see. Atrocious.

Nope, instead of highlighting on the more 'sensationalist' aspects of the Manson case, it chooses to focus on one of the jury members at the trial... a good Christian boy who's about to be married. He has a patriotic gasbag of a father, and a loving fiancée wanting to wait until after they're hitched before jumping into the bed. That's the problem... due to his lack of 'physical activity' he starts to fantasize over one of the accused, an attractive little she-devil called Leslie. His weird dreams about her and the way they stare at each other across the courtroom all have one thing in common: they are very, very boring. So are his escapades at home. And the little chats with his bride-to-be.

In fact, they seem to have taken everything of interest about this fascinating case, surgically removed it and left us with nothing but offal. Which stinks. As does this sad excuse for a movie. Coincidence? Probably not. 2/10

The beginning few minutes seemed promising, but it started to go downhill from there. The thing is, this director had no idea where to take this movie so it just fall short in almost every level. It's primary focus isn't Leslie or Manson, and the protagonist seemed to be one of the juror Perry. The directing and editing isn't really good and I lost interest really quickly. There just isn't anything interesting or entertaining about this flick. I recommend just watching a documentary over this crap. Yeah, this movie was suppose to be satirical, but I didn't find anything humorous about it.

3/10

This movie started out okay. Until it cuts to a scene with the girls sitting out by a fire and talking about how they are from divorced families and looking for a purpose in life. It was so corny and stupid, I had to laugh. The rest of the movie has that feel. I think the guy who played Manson could have pulled it off well, had he gotten a good script to work with. I was waiting to see how they would portray him and knew it would be amusing. Just like how the media portrayed him. It was pretty pathetic how he was presented, like some demonic possessed god-man. In the first scene, he is up on a cross, like that is his normal thing to do. The script for this movie is awful, what were they thinking. It's almost directed like a play, not like a movie. A lot of this is also do to the terrible acting by the girls, some of it is okay, but when they speak, it can get very bad. I liked the real vintage clips that were inserted. A lot of the music was good, I heard The Black Angels, 13th Floor Elevators, good stuff. They portrayed the racist, pro-war conservatives pretty well. I think the movie had some pretty well done scenes. Just failed in executing the characters better, leaving you with a flawed feeling while watching it.

Only us, Canadians, çan take a well documented fact of american history, make a movie with it, and completly screw it up big time. This thing is so bad on every aspect, that it is not even funny. This is so embarrassing. Good thing i just watched it on t.v. i would have feel really dumb paying too rent it or something. I just lost an hour and a half of my life that's all.

Maybe it's my fault for not reading the synopsis before renting, but the title and cover image lead me to believe this was going be a movie primarily about Charles Manson maybe in the vein of "Summer of Sam". What I was hoping to see was maybe a historical account of the events that took place surrounding the "Manson Family", instead it was yet one more movie seemingly priding itself on a sarcastic stab at morals & ideals of a "Christian Nation" when confronted with the horrors of war. The main character is a young boy who was brought up in a Christian home and pretends, & maybe tricks himself into thinking he is a Christian because its what his father expects of him and also what he must be to be with his girlfriend. The film is much more artistic, musical and lighthearted than you would expect for this story. I do not enjoy movies that portray such evil people in a less than negative light and so overall I did not enjoy this movie.

LESLIE, MY NAME IS EVIL largely focuses on the trial of Leslie Van Houten, a member of the infamous Manson Family, and a young male juror, Perry, who is seduced by her eyes and smile and feels sympathy for her plight. There are two worlds explored here: that of the typical middle-class conservative family of the 1960s and the underworld of Charles Manson and his cult followers. We watch Leslie being seduced into a cult of violence in one back-story while the other has Perry struggling with his desire to stay out of the Vietnam War against the wishes of his very overbearing and patriotic father. Perry then meets Dorothy, an attractive "All-American" Christian girl, who wants to marry him one day but also believes that Perry should serve his country in war first. The last half of the movie shows Perry, now a juror (better than going to Vietnam!), struggling about whether Leslie should be sentenced to death. Naturally, Perry's family expect him to sentence her to death before the trial has even begun. It's a hyper-artistic movie, for example the defendants sometimes show up to court dressed very provocatively, rather than in jumpsuits, nearly everyone behaves inappropriately and there is an enormous PATTON-style U.S. flag on the back wall during the trial. There are also many montages throughout the film that re-create the look & feel of the 1960s.

This film may offend some viewers for different reasons. First of all, the film obviously questions how conservative Americans can demonize those on trial for murder while simultaneously supporting an unpopular war, even after the My Lai massacre. This exploration of acceptable versus unacceptable violence is the whole point of the film. Secondly, it paints some of Manson's followers in a sympathetic light. I didn't get the impression that that was the director's intention, but it will probably receive some criticism if it ever gets wide distribution.

Leslie, My Name is Evil is an extremely stylish film with lots of montages, satire and quirky dark humour. There are very strong physical resemblances between all of the actors and the real people they portray, so the production team obviously searched hard for their cast; the quality of acting was overall quite good. The style and theme reminded me slightly of NATURAL BORN KILLERS, but obviously the subject matter is radically different. Unfortunately, this film won't get any of the marketing hype that an Oliver Stone movie would receive and these types of Canadian films always struggle at the box office. I really enjoyed this movie and plan to watch it a second time someday.

This 2009 Canadian Movie attracted much professional criticism over its deceptive titles: (1) Leslie: My Name Is Evil; (2) Manson: My Name Is Evil; (3) Manson Girl. A title was finalised after its release, but its not clear what that is, as the movie is listed on other websites as one or the other. According to IMDb the movie is categorised as a Comedy Crime.

The movie is a kind of 'Abstract Art', that showcases the movie's music composer, Paul Kehayas, who literally adds volume to feature the great soundtracks and powerful lyrics of the movie - a bit like rock music is associated with devil worship. The music in this movie desensitises the audience, whilst the lyrics uemphatically draws the viewer's eyes back to the screen.

The main subject is Leslie Van Houten - a murdering member of Charles Manson's 'Family'. However, there is a plethora of storylines, surrounding the 'era' of the Charles Manson Murders.

Whilst I Am still struggling to find the 'Comedy' bit, the mood of the movie gave me the impression that it was in defence of the Charles Manson Family - not the crimes - but the family members, or there was a bias towards the Manson Girls, so the ending - the end credits is a bit of surprise.

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.

I attended the World Premiere of "Leslie, My Name is Evil" at the 2009 Toronto International Film Festival. Gregory Smith stars in this Canadian feature from writer/director Reginald Harkema. Loosely based on the 1960s Charles Manson murder trial, "Leslie, My Name is Evil" is a surreal comedy filled with whimsy and camp. That such a horrific event in American history can be the basis for humor may offend some, but there is a long history in cinema of biting satire which, when infused with the right creative spirit, can be entertaining as well as enlightening. Smith's brilliant performance as the "boyish juror" carries this freaky film, which is destined to be a cult classic for those with a good sense of satirical satanic humor. Fans of the actor's portrayal of Ephram Brown in the long-running television series "Everwood" (2002-2006) will love his positive innocence and dominating presence in contrast to, arguably, some of the most despicable characters in history.