Michael Ledo The movie has a good use of juxtaposition as it contrasts the difference in people and families growing up in the Age of Nixon. Perry is a young Christian chemist who suffers from sexual repression because his buxom blond girlfriend loves Jesus more than him. (Her words, not mine.) The Christian tract they hand out is about a girl named Leslie who takes LSD and gets pregnant by Satan. Leslie happens to be the other story that runs parallel to Perry's tale. Leslie ends up with Charlie, who has a God complex. The scenes swap back and forth in a surreal John Waters' style. During the trial Perry and Leslie make extensive eye contact. Perry, who has begun to doubt the values drilled into his head by society has second thoughts about Leslie, seeing her more as a victim than criminal.The background may have been historical, but this film is in no way close to being accurate. The end credits claimed the title of this movie was "Leslie, My Name is Evil." You might look for further reviews under that title. This also appears to be a Canadian production so when the box claims, "gratuitous nudity" that means one scene (Perry's dream). The killing is also lame. You see the knife swing and blood splatter, but no penetration. It is not a horror film. It is not a documentary. It is not that good drama. It is a cult classic wannabe. It loosely pokes fun at society and Christianity, but never makes a definite statement, after all, they are being compared to the Manson family. The character of Charlie in this movie was poorly written.Point of history. Leslie was not involved in the original Tate murders, but only later in the Labianca murders. The woman who plays Leslie in the movie looks very much like her. Leslie was disruptive during the trial and giggled a lot, particularity at times when she should not have giggled. Leslie held Rosemary while she was being stabbed and as the movie portrays stabbed her in the lower torso after she was dead. There was a question of her guilt as she stabbed someone who was already dead, but her said court actions landed her in prison. John Waters has been attempting to get her released. I suspect he had some uncredited work to do with this film.

Thomas 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.

Rich Wright 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

dbborroughs The original title and the dedication at the end of the film calls this Leslie My Name is Evil. Billed as a Horror/expose on Manson the film is actually about a juror who falls in love with one of the girls on trial with Manson...and its a comedy of the blackest sort...actually a pointed satire.Its a very artificial very deliberate film that I admire more than I like. Yea its obvious at times, but its occasionally still intriguing, the final bit where we drift from Manson and his trial to juror at his job making napalm which we then see dropped on people is nicely telling.More an interesting misfire than any sort of hit- I still have to give the film points because I'm curious about how it will play knowing what it is that I'll probably try it again.Its a sort of WTF sort of film.-- Actually I've seen the film a second time since I wrote that and I find it better the second time, when the expectations for the film weren't colored by an out of place title