Charlie Says Review
R: Disturbing violent content, strong sexuality, graphic nudity, drug use, and language
IFC Films, Epic Level Entertainment, Roxwell Films
1 Hr and 50 Minutes
Director: Mary Harron | Screenwriter: Guinevere Turner
Cast: Matt Smith, Hannah Murray, Sosie Bacon, Marianne Rendón, Chace Crawford, Suki Waterhouse, Kayli Carter, Annabeth Gish
Release Date: May 10th 2019
Years after the shocking murders that made the name Charles Manson synonymous with pure evil, the three women who killed for him—Leslie Van Houten (Hannah Murray), Patricia Krenwinkel (Sosie Bacon), and Susan Atkins (Marianne Rendón)—remain under the spell of the infamous cult leader (Matt Smith). Confined to an isolated cellblock in a California penitentiary, the trio seem destined to live out the rest of their lives under the delusion that their crimes were part of a cosmic plan—until empathetic graduate student Karlene Faith (Merritt Wever) is enlisted to rehabilitate them. Convinced the prisoners are not the inhuman monsters the world believes them to be, Karlene begins the arduous process of breaking down the psychological barriers erected by Manson. But are the women ready to confront the horror of what they did?
Holy hell, Matt Smith. I went into Charlie Says cold and, while some of the faces were recognizable, I had no idea who was portraying Charlie Manson himself. For most of the movie, I was twitching while narrowing down names. I was flabbergasted when the credits rolled and the first casted name that appeared was Matt Smith. Friggin’ Matt Smith, The Doctor - MY DOCTOR - portrayed Charlie Manson and he delivers a great performance with the material he’s given. I found him completely unrecognizable, mostly because I’ve never seen him with a beard and a non-British accent so it was a surprise... and a good one.
For some estranged reason, in 2019, we’re getting an overload of movies revolving around the Manson family murders and Charlie Says proves to be the weakest of the bunch. I haven’t seen the Sharon Tate movie where Hilary Duff portrays the late actress, but this film was enough. With names like Mary Harron and Guinevere Turner attached, Charlie Says is a phenomenal disappointment of a historical drama.
The film is about the Manson family. That’s it. That’s all you get. Just a blatant and obvious observation of Charlie Manson and his cult. The narrative is from the point of view of Leslie Van Houten (Hannah Murray) who is renamed Lulu by Charlie, but because of the lack of dimension in her character, the angle that the narrative takes isn’t that enticing.
The narrative is told is a non linear structure where it’s set on Leslie and two of her Manson sisters in incarnation who start receiving reconciliation of their past selves as it cuts back to events of their times with Charlie before the crimes. It sounds interesting, but the film is executed as a TV clipshow where it starts off with some of the girls in prison during their confinement saying, “HEY, REMEMBER WHEN WE STARTED DOING THIS WITH CHARLIE?!” and a crossfade transition back to their cult days would occur.
Instead of a coherent story in both the scenes of the girls’ incarnations and their time with Charlie Manson, the film feels like a string of vignettes that lack any engaging aspects of a theme, which this movie desperately needed. The film centers on Leslie having to realize the crimes she has done, but no focus of guilt is applied, for the major focus centers on recollecting the events of the Manson family and the shift to crimes that Charlie spearheaded. It just hits every beat of the time of the crimes, even down to the Sharon Tate murder.
Because of this, the story just feels so disjointed and can’t go for a fluent narrative without aiming for the obvious. Not even the dialogue helps, for it’s so simplistic and bland that not many of the characters bring an identity to the table, especially Leslie herself.
Hannah Murray is a great actress and does a fine job in her performance, but there is nothing about Leslie that stands out. Turner’s script showcases the family through Leslie’s perspective but after a while she just becomes a gullible observer who only reacts, but doesn’t add anything of insight. She barely questions any of the crazy and criminal occurrences and often delivers the same facial expression.
Matt Smith provides a great performance, but he adds nothing new to the figure. The way how Manson is written robs him of his alluring personality. Not so soon after you meet him, you come to realize immediately that Charlie was an asshole. He was a self-absorbed asshole. He wore it on his sleeve and nothing of significance engaged me with how he’s depicted and the angle doesn’t benefit it either.
The reason why Extremely Wicked worked for me was because of the perspective that story was told from: the person who only saw the good of Ted Bundy amidst his crimes, and that’s how Joe Bellinger presented him. Here, Charlie Manson is just presented as Charlie Manson. There’s nothing elusive about him. You’re supposed to believe his influence is so strong that he makes girls choose him over hot ass dudes. And the fact that this is nearly two hours long and drags so damn slowly just annoyed me that I found absolutely nothing to recommend about this.
Honestly, I hate historical dramas of this type where the narrative lacks substance and spends damn near two hours showcasing information we’re already aware of without any significant backbone to make this story stand on its own. Bohemian Rhapsody, All Eyez on Me and Charlie Says all suffer from simplistic screenplays that feel like they were just a printed copy of the subject’s Wikipedia page and lacks any form of style to compensate for its basic blueprint. Considering this is from the filmmakers behind American Psycho, I can’t seem to comprehend why this feels so bland.