Watch Leslie, My Name Is Evil For Free

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Absolutely Brilliant!

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

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

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

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.

Opinionated Christian drivel, layered with self-righteous prejudice. I can't help but wonder why some people choose historic events as a basis for a film, and spew out irreverent fantasies.Here is a film where you will learn nothing, understand even less… and walk away with a feeling of bemused distaste. Seriously folks, I *severely* doubt that the Manson family was brought down through divine intervention, and that the jury in the trial was coerced by demonic powers.In short, this was a farcical journey not worth the dollar I paid to RedBox.