Along with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Aquarius, Nothing Good at the El Royal Hotel, and So Said Charlie, this film continues the series of films dedicated to the events of the summer of 1969. Roman Polanski's wife, Sharon Tate, was killed. And this movie is an attempt to look at that story from a different angle.
You know, there is a saying, "attempt is not torture." In this case, this expression on the one hand applies to the picture, and on the other it refutes. The creators really tried, but they failed. You could say that. There's another way. Making a movie for them was already torture and they were just trying to finish it.
Probably, except for obscurantism this movie can not be called. Director Daniel Farrands, by his 50s, is remembered for nothing but dubious projects, including this one. The picture, which is a feature film called the language will not turn, tells about the last three days of Sharon Tate, describing both her life and herself. Fueled by visions, the heroine performed by Hilary Duff, rushes like crazy around her house, clearly not understanding what is happening there at all.
If what has been shown here is an alternate version of the director, then his alternate reality is an inflamed mind and nothing more. The film in a completely mocking and mocking manner takes place on a pregnant woman (exposing her as a schizophrenic patient) and her husband (who at all did not care what was happening to his wife). This story has nothing to do with what really happened, giving ugly taste (or rather lack of it) on the part of Farrands.
Parasitic in the bright memory of the young Sharon Tate and passing heresy for reality, the creators of “Sharon Tate Ghosts” actually achieved serious heights, because few people will be able to surpass them in poverty in terms of information transfer. Especially with a bunch of talentless actors and Hilary Duff in particular. She, being the performer of the main role, is the embodiment of incompetence in her own work, because apart from the semblance of a grimace of fear, there is nothing to notice it anymore. One would assume that the plot is to blame for everything, time after time slipping idiotic sectarians snooping under the windows, but it’s not only the plot, it’s also how the actress herself plays her part.
Taking into account the fact that the film “Ghosts Sharon Tate” was released a month and a half before Tarantin’s “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” and was also dedicated to the fate of the wife of Roman Polanski, we can safely say that this “movie” is nothing more than a mockbuster. Yes, it is a mockbuster film with an extremely low budget, released shortly before the major premiere. As a rule, he is pogromed among critics and lives somewhere at the bottom. It’s even worse than a B movie. A vivid example of a mockbuster is the film Carnosaurus in 1993, released next to Spiliberg’s Jurassic Park. Or the Dark Knight. The Return has nothing to do with Nolan’s The Dark Knight. In this regard, “Ghosts of Sharon Tate” should not be reproached for worthlessness and third-rate, because initially this film pursued these goals – to be disgusting and evoking a gag reflex. This is the case with this sub-genre...
Oh, if it were possible to send Farrands to visit Jason Voorhees for Crystal Lake (the director shot documentary films about how the famous horror franchise was filmed). After all, he has already managed to shit (in other words and can not say), another high-profile story is the murder of two people attributed to actor and athlete O Jay Simpson and committed in 1994. An entire season of American Crime Story had already been filmed on the subject, but Farrands wanted to leave his mark here. . .
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
Enjoy your visit.
2 out of 10
P.S. Two points only for the fact that this is a mockbuster and from him to expect something supernatural is not worth it.
How to erase your memory after watching this masterpiece? No, seriously, this is the worst and most offensive movie. Very often, filmmakers turn to this tragedy, but only out of respect (the same Tarantino). And specifically, this film shames all the characters (and these people really once existed!), respect for this tragedy does not smell.
The plot of the film tells us what would have happened if Sharon knew her fate in advance and tried to change it. The idea is interesting, but with the implementation of the creators of this picture trouble. How did you turn cute Sharon into a toxic drama queen? From the first seconds of the film, she is disgusted, and not only her. Why muddy Polanski? In his life, he called her almost every 10 minutes. And in general, what normal person would cheat on his pregnant wife?
She suffers not from visions of death, but from her roof. Even before her dreams, the main character behaves disgustingly and constantly freaks out. And to blame for such behavior wretched in every sense of acting. Does Duff even know who she played? She overplays, her tears do not believe and she does not want to sympathize. No money for Margot Robbie? Keep free advice: do not remove such nonsense, abandon the project and do not be ashamed. The other actors did better with their roles, but this is not ideal either.
During some of the scenes I wanted to laugh, they looked really dumb. Manson has nothing to do and he entertains himself, making secret codes?
Who are you trying to scare with such cheap scenes and such a terrible production? This is a horror movie, don’t forget it!
Of the pleasant in this film only the atmosphere of the 60s, it turned out to be great. But because of the atmosphere alone, I do not want to close my eyes to this clown.
If I were you, I would have avoided this movie. Watch Once Upon a Time in Hollywood or Sharon movies.
2 out of 10
I missed these so-called “Ghosts” at the box office, but they were registered in the plans. After watching, I was amazed by the “inspiring” ratings. Out, so, “The Haunting of Sharon Tate” – throwing all poop, they say sacrilege, dancing on the bones. Previous Previous post: Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood Tarantino - everyone applauds: you don't understand! It's the magic of cinema, the cancellation of reality! In some ways, the films were very similar. For example, a cold attitude to a foreigner Polanski, who here for 10 minutes managed to call behind his eyes a traitor, a garden dwarf and a toxic egoist.
Pregnant actress Sharon in the absence of her husband-director Roman remains under the care of a friend of Jay and friends Polanski, Abby and Wojciech. Despite the presence of a company of guardians, Sharon feels uncomfortable in the villa. Moreover, every night she has a dream about how she and everyone else in the butcher’s house are carved by some erratic maniacs. At the same time, some sinister hipparies are really starting to hang out in the residential area. It seems like trouble.
In fact, the movie is about fear and anxiety (haunt is the first or first “obsession”, “anxiety”). Feeling something inevitable, reasoning about the possibilities of other realities and parallel currents of the trajectory of fate. All this slips into conversations and eats abandoned and lonely Tate on the eve of the irreversible, developing into paranoia and tantrums. At least that's how her carefree surroundings see it. But we know where it's going. Moreover, the film of Daniel Farrands is supported by both real recordings of the figures and the crime scene, and small details of those days.
Unless, according to the plan, all this is stretched in time and for the better crypots Charlie Manson with followers dig up to the victims of slowness, for three days, drumming at the door, leaving on the threshold of the recordings of the non-musician and cutting out Mr. Saffelstein (dog), delaying the key moment of the finale, in which suddenly there seems to be an attempt to rewrite this very reality, like “Point of Destination”, but leaving behind a fig of bifection of events that pulls on a more honest than Quentin Tarantino’s claim on the court case.
Despite the fact that Farrands really creates a good feeling of anxiety and doom in a compressed space, supporting it with a very successful soundtrack of a certain Phantom and Charles Manson records (maniacs here just look like they should), still he is not Tarantino, and as a production of course loses a little, leaving a feeling of inexpensive spectacle with not the most successful actors. However, if we consider a specific theme of the massacre on Cielo Drive, the movie in the potential seemed much better than the same “Charlie says”.
5 out of 10
I just want to erase this ugly and shameful movie. And not because the story is terribly unpleasant and shocking, but because the film is incredibly fake and implausible. You do not believe in any scene, everything is terribly played: starting with dubious directing and ending with very bad acting.
In August 1969, the wife of popular director Roman Polanski Sharon Tate was brutally murdered. The poor girl was killed in her own home nine months pregnant. The killers were members of 'Family' the infamous Charles Manson. In addition to her, her friends were brutally stabbed to death, those who were with her at home.
This terrible and inhuman story no one dared to film. She was mentioned in passing in the film ' Helter Skelter' but with respect to the memory of Sharon Tate and without terrible scenes.
In 2019, Quentin Tarantino shoots a big film ' Once Upon a Time in Hollywood...' which touches on the story surrounding the murder of Tate, but Tarantino does everything brilliant, and his film turns out to be unexpected and with its secrets and surprises. It is not about brutal murders, but about the love of cinema of the 60s, and the film itself turns out to be like a love letter to films of the 60s.
Director of documentaries (such as 'Never Sleep Again: The Legacy of Elm Street' and 'Memories of Crystal Lake: The Complete Story of Friday the 13th'); Daniel Farrands takes the courage to direct a brutal and merciless thriller about the murder of Sharon Tate. In 2019, it was 50 years since this terrible tragedy happened, and by the sad date this movie called ' Ghosts of Sharon Tate' is released.
The story tells about the visions of actress Sharon and the premonition of her death. . .
What a shameless and pathetic movie. It's just a parody of the movie. Directing is sucked out of my finger, and without exaggeration I say that scenes in the film, dialogues do not believe. Everything is false and horribly unpleasant. How this could be released remains a mystery. From the first to the last shot, everything is saturated with playfulness.
I would love to award this film the Golden Raspberry for the worst film of the year. As far as Hilary Duff is concerned, it is a total disgrace. You have to look for such a fake game. Shame on this young actress... She would at least watch an interview with Sharon Tate, watch her films and at least try to prepare for her role. . .
Hilary Duff is incredibly overplaying, and somewhere and does not finish. I just wanted to turn off all this nonsense. In a word, shame. In addition to this actress, pathetically trying to play the image of Tate, the actors on the second roles also played terribly badly: Jonathan Bennett, Lydia Hirst and Pavel Schaida. They all deserve the Golden Raspberry as the worst actors of the year. Shame on them. . .
This movie belongs in the trash can. This ' cinema' does not deserve attention and for such garbage tado punish those who remove it.
'Sharon Tate's Ghosts' is a 2019 American-Mexican horror film. Bottom line, a fake, horribly played movie, to which we say 'no' Go around and don’t waste your time.
You will be responsible for this movie, sooner or later!
Everyone involved. . .
Sharon Tate's Ghosts
Tate was the wife of director Roman Polanski (Rosemary's Baby, Knife in the Water, Pianist). She (along with friends) was brutally murdered by the henchmen of the cult of Charles Manson. Um, Tate was nine months pregnant. Polanski himself worked on a new picture in Europe (fate).
I had terrible feelings after watching it, so you can’t. The director (at the end) tried to pull to his side - uselessly, in the furnace. There's a word for desecration. This is it. I just have one question for the creators: Why? Like, it's the 21st century, so there are no boundaries, remove any nonsense.
After all, Roman Polanski is still alive (like some of Sharon's relatives, the sister there)! No matter how terrible a person Roman himself, just imagine – you killed your wife and child (it is impossible to imagine), and after 30-40-50 years, a certain Daniel Farrands, suddenly decides to enlighten you. Yes, yes, a cheap thrash called Sharon Tate's Ghosts. Roma, sit down, darling, in one hand of popcorn, in the other hand of Corvalol, you don't know, now Hilary Duff and I will tell.
By the way, taking on the role of Tate, um, once again um, old Duff is a cosmic disgrace. She's disgusting. Don’t confuse the girl from the youth comedy and the actress Tate, different levels. Duff won't pull off a serious role, much less such a dramatic one. Is cinema really so degraded, that is, people? Probably.
And the apotheosis of mediocrity - ready? Directed by Farrands in the second half of the film, he left in the direction of a bloody slasher. Seriously! Tate's murder is not a horror, it's not a slasher, remember forever. Tate's murder is a tragedy! Crazy tragedy. Don’t get me wrong, you can go into this topic, but very carefully. The director must have a flair so that no one will be offended later.
From Sharon Tate's Ghosts, Zombion learned that Palansky didn't care about his wife, and his wife was a psychotic schizophrenic. Thank you, very informative. I mean, it's their fault, genius. Manson's a handsome guy, hanging out with the kids, ciphering demonic messages, running into this Tate, my, the cult almost fell apart, poor guy. But seriously, shame on the creators. It is better to look at a documentary. Anyway, I was upset. Why did I turn it on...
P.S.
Do you like Sharon Tate much? Watch the movies with her. You want to make a horror movie where a pregnant girl is killed? Take it off, just change your name. What is it, this director has already done a similar orgy about the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson - no words, check the psychiatric hospitals, please, the patient escaped. And in the film about the wife of O. J. Simpson, Nicole similarly saw his death? I hate-uh-uh.
I do not understand the negative attitude of most people to this film. After all, in our time there are very few strong and atmospheric horror films with physical evil. Horror movies with ineradicable impersonal villains cannot go out of fashion, while in real life evil continues to come from real people. They have names, surnames, and other details that do not differ from the average person, who has quite lively and understandable interests and goals in life, no matter whether they are representatives of the ordinary working class or celebrities. Without putting anyone as an example, because everyone is inherent in competition on the way to their goals, there is not always a place of humanity and honor, but to make others suffer, showing cruelty and sadism, because of self-affirmation, one’s own resentments and failures in the past (present), because of one’s insanity, antisociality or other factors is a common evil as such. It is films about such evil that look most naturalistic and frightening (the most vivid examples that come to mind: 'Seven', 'Paradise Lake', 'Funny Games', 'Martyrs'), because everyone understands that this is next to us and can take by surprise absolutely anywhere and break sharply even the happiest state, the moment of great success, victories and all other outstanding merits. 'Sharon Tate's Ghosts' - a vivid example in the movie about the above, but compared to all other films, much scarier, because the slogan ' based on real events' here it is not necessary!
Understanding the concept of the plot, it is worth noting that you need to know before watching the sad backstory, then everything will be clear at once. I will not judge the acting abilities of Hilary Duff, I am not for, I have nothing against her, I have not watched a single movie with her, I have not heard her songs. I can say that in this film I have no complaints about her. The emotions played are quite consistent with the situation on the screen. Periodically overplays, there is such, but it is uncritical, I did not notice any hysterics or excessive tears in her. She plays a man in a critical situation: she knows about the infidelities of her husband, who does not even call her; she is tired after filming another film; the devil is happening around - in addition to nightmares, strange people come home, meet her on walks, someone killed a dog, nightmares occur; in addition, she overcomes the annoying foreboding of the approaching disaster and all this at the last stage of pregnancy. It is unlikely that there are any patterns of behavior that can perform actors on 5+, any person will behave differently. Moreover, none of us knows how Tate herself behaved in life, even Polanski may not have known her for the past six months, since she was often absent from home. Maybe she had a sense of anxiety, it is not for nothing that friends often stayed with her for the night and relatives also offered their presence constantly (this is already historical facts). This is an assumption that deserves the right to exist, and the director has it reasonably stated in the film. Signs of prophetic dreams, of course, fiction, but this is a feature film, not a documentary tape, and according to the events occurring in the last days of the heroes’ lives, it is not a little close to reality.
The story is rather creepy. Having discarded all the nagging associated with reliability and fictional elements introduced, as well as not taking into account the low budget (for which everything looks very decent), it is easier to feel the atmosphere of hopelessness and fear that reigns from the first shots. This consists in the musical accompaniment, gloomy and foggy shooting of major Hollywood Hills even in daylight hours, as well as in the events taking place on the screen. Knowing how the story will end, the everyday life of the heroes looks with particular concern, to which the death, shown in the reverse report of the days, before August 8, is approaching. The filmmakers added events especially acutely conveying the tension from the danger that inevitably approaches them. Even in the daytime, the danger comes on the heels, the camera work is quite competent in this regard and the musical accompaniment complements the overall picture. Moments with playing a song that at first glance sounds like a blues track of the 60s, but the manner of performance and sounds in the background seriously frighten the heroine, because it becomes clear that it is recorded on the head of a sick person who clearly has malicious intentions. The moment when a young maniac looks at her future victim, and she notices this and cannot move with horror, is filmed competently, a kind of boo-effect, shown not sharply, as it usually happens, from which it looks more realistic, perhaps this is how the game looks with the victim before the attack and perhaps it was in real life. Who knows. . The dead do not know, and those degenerates after the detention told only their pleasant impressions of killing people, as everything happened before they collected the victims on the 1st floor, it remains to guess and the director tried to do it, as he sees.
Play actors, of course, does not reach the awards, but no one claims it. It shows the story of those who did not make expensive films and the actors are almost ordinary people unknown to the viewer, with the exception of Duff. But it is worth giving credit - the efforts of the majority are noticeable, only 2 characters in my opinion did not work out convincingly. But again, they play ordinary people who once lived in the real world and were not maniacs, not Tate's friends were actors, so everything here is logical.
The conclusion I have formed is the simplest - danger can lie in wait absolutely everywhere, even in such a sweet place where it would seem impossible, even a group of healthy people can be powerless before an equal number of madmen who do not have special training. The effect of surprise takes its toll and those who are not going to do evil, it does not wait, so the chances to resist this evil are negligible. The film shows an alternative version of how everything can be turned, if you just counteract it in time, but then we are again returned to how it actually happened, that is, a miracle did not happen and it is a pity!! I would like to see not only in the cinema, how bastards are arranged a cruel massacre, crushing them in different directions. So, the scum of the Manson gang got life, lived their lives (some still live), wrote books, gave interviews, glowed on the covers of magazines, got the same sick fans and kept at the expense of taxes, and in fairness, should also be torn and hanged on a rope through the ceiling beam, as they did with others.
The film left a sense of anxiety that such people are among us, although everyone understands this and the story of the victims & #39; Family & #39; known to many, but here, presented vividly enough that would be part of the experience of the victims to feel for themselves. . .
The horrific crime committed by members of the so-called "Family" of Charles Manson on the night of August 9, 1969, was so shocking for Hollywood that long after the incident, celebrities did not let go of their hands pistols and looked around several times before going anywhere. There are several versions of why the killers broke into the mansion of Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski, and each of them evokes exceptionally sad thoughts. Someone connects the actions of the Manson gang with Polanski's film "Rosemary's Baby", which has become a cult among various groups of Satanists. The official investigation draws attention to Manson’s conflict with producer Terry Melcher, who previously lives in the house, which later became the family nest of Tate and Polanski. According to the information obtained, Manson was going to take all the money from Melcher, and then kill him to strengthen the faith of his flock in dubious doctrine. There is a very strange version, which says that Sharon Tate became a victim of some mystical forces, as a year before her death, she saw her killer in a dream and told about it in an interview. To perceive such a statement as true in the only true instance was at least ridiculous, and nevertheless the director and screenwriter Daniel Farrands decided to focus on it, in order to accurately release the film “Sharon Tate Ghosts” on the screens by the 50th anniversary of the bloody massacre, rightly counting on the special attention of the public. Not feeling the slightest moral embarrassment in front of the living relatives of Tate, Farrands positioned his work as free thoughts about what happened, a kind of independent entertainment craft with a sense of deep respect for Sharon Tate herself. However, these were only words that were not confirmed by anything significant. And when it became known that the role of Tate was chosen Hillary Duff, never distinguished by special skills of dramatic play, it became extremely clear that the upcoming picture will be something extremely doubtful and does not deserve to trample on the bones of one of the most promising actresses of his time, for which Hollywood still cries.
Directly the plot of the film takes us to the same mansion 10050 Cielo Drive, where after a long absence in Los Angeles returns the pregnant wife of the director of the novel Polanski, Sharon Tate (Duff). Preparing to become a mother, the girl does not want to stay in the mansion alone, as she begins to visit various nightmares in which she and her friends die at the hands of unknown people. Of course, all this could be attributed to the psychological load of Tate during pregnancy, and nevertheless, the horrors revealed in her subconscious are so true that they can no longer be so easily taken and attributed to the fear of future motherhood. To support Tate in such a difficult period for the absence of busy in London on the set of Polanski volunteered her faithful comrades, among whom is the former boyfriend Jay Sebring (Jonathan Bennett) and girlfriend Abigail Fogler (Lydia Hearst). Realizing that something bad is happening to Sharon, they are ready to listen to literally everything from her, while laying out their own theories about what a pregnant actress dreams, but in fact all this makes absolutely no sense, because the characters can in no way affect the inevitable, and no matter how empty conversations they have, the clash with the gang of Charles Manson is coming closer every day, which means that for the most part all these visions and omens do not bring anything significant to this story, but only prolong the time before they forever entered into the horror story of the present.
Contrary to possible expectations, Daniel Farrands does not really reveal all the possible underlying mysterious visions of Tate, but only uses them to throw on camera a couple of repulsive moments that should scare us and entertain us in anticipation of the main action. Diluting the recurring horrors with long philosophical speeches, the director thereby tries to convince us that everything here is not accidental, Providence has a special plan for Sharon and her friends, but in fact, in addition to spatial speeches leading to nowhere, we simply have nothing to be content with. Talking about depression associated with pregnancy, mysticism and psychosis, the characters do it so artificially that you can simply skip all their discussions past attention, and nothing will change. Farrands ruthlessly pulls timekeeping, tries to deceive us with irrelevant worries and sometimes rolls what is happening on the screen into some inadequate chaos only to finally give us what was already known. No alternative reality, irony and author’s approach here you will not find. Instead, prepare to watch craftsmanship in its purest form, which could be forgiven if the director took a fictional story, but not a biography of Sharon Tate. Of course, Farrands in no way counted on the special spectator excitement, as it was with the film Quentin Tarantino “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” but “Sharon Tate’s Ghosts” thanks to the chosen theme and the participation of Hillary Duff a priori could not go unnoticed, and it is very sad that the mystical version of the actions of “Family” Manson was so faceless, predictable and frankly unnecessary. But despite all the speculations, the tape could turn out to be at least a real horror, which would scare no worse than “The Conjuring”. But when a person takes on the case, the best creation of which is the script for one of the optional and thrown out of the canon sequels of Halloween, of course, you do not have to count on this revelation.
In addition to the criminal script and inexpressive directing, "Sharon Tate's Ghosts" also suffer from a mediocrely chosen actress for the title role. I don't doubt Hillary Duff looks pretty cute in romantic teen comedies, but she couldn't be trusted with Tate because she was never made for him. Most of the time, Duff wanders around the mansion of his heroine and suffers from various kinds of seizures and visions that annoy the viewer already closer to the half of the film, when it becomes finally clear what the Farrands story leads to, and what place Duff occupies in all this dubious show. The actress tried in vain to squeeze out worthy grimaces, screamed, worried and even angry, only to believe in her efforts does not work. She also fails to demonstrate the nervousness of pregnancy, although she herself is a mother in real life. Apparently, without a strong director’s hand, Duff simply loses his excitement, and she herself was not going to try to give out something special at all, because she did not want or simply could not.
In the end, I want to say that “Sharon Tate Ghosts” rightly go into oblivion and it is better not to remember them at all, so as not to be upset again.
Is it worth denying Farrands the creation of new worlds?
The film is not as bad as it is written about. And, notice, this is written by a person who gives the lowest ratings to the vast majority of modern films. It really was a good thing.
The film is full of internal tension. Violence is in the air, and the heroine sees pictures of brutal reprisals. It looks a little simple, but that’s why it seems sincere. And we, as viewers, naturally understand the predestination of the plot - the film will end in an understandable sad essay. However, the director managed to unfold, twist, refer to the philosophical context. Unexpectedly? Not at all.
The fact that the tape came out on the eve of the tape Tarantino, which also tells about the murder. It is not difficult to assume that the director can re-examine the ending of the famous strategy. Why not? And it is obvious that Farrands' move anticipates such a development a little.
Yes, the movie is secondary. Yeah, Hillary Duff doesn't play the lead. But here everything is decided by several other moments - atmosphere, heat, tension. And that's where Farrands succeeded. As well as in the editing, camera work, soundtrack. You can argue for a long time, but the film looks exactly like 'Visions' Altman. And that's what makes it so nice.
And I like the ending. It all looks like a foul. But should Farrands not be allowed to create new worlds? He's the master here. You have to understand, Sharon died exactly one month before he was born. This is probably a very personal topic.
However, for all my enthusiasm, I can’t help but note that the whole idea of making films about Sharon does not seem decent to me. It would be better if the creators read the memoirs of Roman Polanski. There he described everything in great detail. And the producers should think about family and friends. You can't take it to court. Therefore, my assessment is purely about the film itself, how it was shot. I take the choice of the topic out of brackets.
The wife of director Roman Polanski Sharon Tate was young and beautiful, and after the role in the film adaptation of Jacqueline Suzanne’s novel “Valley of Dolls”, many predicted a bright future for her. Unfortunately, her life tragically ended on August 9, 1969, when a woman, who was in the last month of pregnancy, along with her friends, was brutally murdered by members of the gang of maniac Charles Manson. The sad events of those past days predictably excited filmmakers, but for some reason primitive horror stories in the spirit of “Wolves at the Door” were born. Fresh horror "Ghosts Sharon Tate" really wants to look at the history of the crime from an unusual angle, but, alas, in the end, it turns out to be another talentless hack.
The creator of the film Daniel Farrands loves horror for a long time and declared himself back in the early 90s, having sculpted the script for the sixth “Halloween” and subsequently removed several documentaries dedicated to cult samples of the genre like “His name was Jason: 30 years of Friday the 13th” and “Never Sleep Again: The Legacy of Elm Street”. An attempt to make a full-length film, presented by “Murders in Amityville”, turned out to be nonsense, but this did not stop him, and then “Sharon Tate’s Ghosts” appeared, in which Mrs. Polanski, according to Farrands, could have the gift of foresight and in advance saw her own death in all the details in a dream. All the more reason for nightmares she has at least enough - on the nerves of a pregnant woman who is in a secluded house in the company of several friends, some strange man named Charles, hanging out in the vicinity with shaggy hippies and leaving creepy messages on audio tapes. The plot concept, of course, is somewhat dubious, but, at least, he could claim originality and, with proper handling, had every chance to transform into a spectacular thriller, but in the end everything happened the opposite.
A complete failure began at the stage of casting – it is almost impossible to understand people who managed to see in the image of one of the most promising celebrities of those years, Hilary Duff. Unlike her prototype in any place, Duff presents Tate as a paranoid and tearful tantrum, who screams at every rustle, snots every minute and periodically tries to portray something like a fright - at least this emotion she still somehow comes out, in all other scenes Duff drowns completely and irrevocably. There is nothing to say about other actors at all, they act out walking furniture, they know this well and therefore do not even soar over the animation of their characters. But they could still somehow be reconciled, if Farrands competently developed his own ideas, and did not follow the path of least resistance, stupidly piling up a bunch of moldy cliches of horror stories about crazy maniacs in someone else’s house. Moreover, he directs them in such an amateurish way that sometimes “Sharon Tate’s Ghosts” resemble amateur work, unnecessary, uninteresting, and not worthy of viewing even in a free online cinema.
3 out of 10
100500 Cielo Drive, just north of sunny California. Sharon Tate is 8 months pregnant and returns home after 6 months abroad. In her absence, according to rumors, there were strange parties, and soon Sharon Tate in his own house begins to feel extremely uncomfortable.
The situation is even more heated since the actress begins to experience terrible nightmares in which a man and two women hurt her and her friends. Are these dreams a warning of something to come from a parallel reality? Or a consequence of physical and emotional fatigue from a long journey? Will Sharon's friends listen to what she says?
It seems that 2019 is dedicated to Charles Manson and his cult. In early June, the film Mary Harron 'So said Charlie' about the infamous ranch, on the way the work of Quentin Tarantino "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood". Ghosts of Sharon Tate, the latest film from horror director Daniel Farrands, is a free mystical retelling of the tragic events of 50 years ago.
One day in an interview, a year before the terrifying events, Tate will recount a terrifying dream in which she and her friend Sebring are killed at the hands of a strange man in her own home. This interview is the basis of the film by Daniel Farands.
With the help of several jump screeners, ragged editing and annoying sound effects, Farrands tries in vain to create a tense atmosphere on the screen. When watching, I had the impression that in front of me is nothing more than the graduation work of a student of the director’s faculty, who made a film with parental money.
Heroes and events unfolding on the screen cause absolutely no emotional response. Characters constantly discuss the basics of existentialism, trying, probably, to impress inexperienced viewers. All these pseudo-philosophical conversations are conducted with one goal - to turn the storyline in the right direction for the director, an attempt to reveal the inner world of the characters through these arguments is not taken at all. Cinema tries to appear smarter than it is, essentially giving no worthwhile food to the mind (like Coelho's books). In the film there are almost no attributes of suspense.
What happens on the screen, however, sometimes causes genuine horror, but this is not the merit of the film - the very thought that these terrible events actually occurred in 1969 is frightening. A scene in which a pregnant woman asks to save the life of her baby can cause a particularly impressionable uncontrollable flow of tears. In the lead role starred 2000 – Hilary Duff.
'The Ghosts of Sharon Tate' is a story about real people, not fictional slasher characters. This raises a reasonable question – how correct was it to make such a film, given the fact that still alive those people whose fate was influenced by the events of the terrible night? Undoubtedly, the director sympathizes with the main character – is it worth considering his work as an attempt to “save” the heroine from reality? Like trying to rewrite history? Or is it nothing more than the exploitation of a sensational event?
With his film, Farrands asks the viewer whether we can change/control our destiny or whether everything is already determined in advance. What if Sharon Tate could change the night from August 8 to August 9?
The video sequence quite captures the spirit of the 60s - the first few minutes do not leave the feeling that the film was driven through the filters of Instagram. Sometimes it seems that you are not watching a movie, but a video clip of Lana del Rey, for example.
Because Sharon is constantly haunted by visions, the murders are shown several times, sometimes in such horrifying detail that you want to close your eyes. Because of the premonitions and fears of the actress, the atmosphere of paranoia literally hovers in her house - the girl is lost and does not know which of her friends you can trust. The anxiety of the main character, however, is not transmitted to the viewer, who by this point already knows who will commit the crime. However, Sharon Tate's Ghosts doesn't just focus on violent scenes. One moment in the film will turn everything upside down, and the further perception of the picture by the viewer will depend entirely on whether he can “accept” all the oddities of the picture and go on an absurd journey together with the characters or, twisting his temple, continue to hate everything that happens on the screen.
This film received mixed reviews from critics and viewers. Many find the idea of using a real tragedy as the basis for a script disgusting. Those who share this view are 100% likely to be dissatisfied with seeing Sharon Tate's Ghosts. I will say more, even among those who do not see anything reprehensible in such films, there are many people who do not like the picture Farands. Why? “Ghosts” is a low-budget movie, a kind of indie slasher that can please true connoisseurs of the genre. Or the Freaks (in a good sense of the word). It is difficult for me to give any adequate assessment of the film - bad? or so bad that even good?
4 out of 10
Over the years, the Manson case has haunted the public. The incident with the infamous “Family” and the murder of Tate / Polanski directly relates to the world of Hollywood: as if monsters from the movie came out of the screen in real life and killed one of the most beloved actresses of the time. Of course, this has led to hundreds of documentaries, fiction, thrash horror, and the image of the charismatic and devilish Manson has gone into pop culture and now and then pops up in the mainstream. Well, the original story itself, to be honest, has never been conceptual in cinema, although it would seem that this is the case when the viewer needs to convey all the shades of the unique and terrifying experience of the most resonant side of the American dream - the very one that turned out to be a nightmare.
"Sharon Tate's Ghosts" tries to be a serious dramatization of those events of 1969. But, let’s be honest, what if the viewer is presented with an artistic picture with an adult Lizzie McGuire in the lead role, a group of attractive young actors, well, not at all like members of the death cult, and an obvious end that the writers wanted to postpone for as long as possible (and this translates into predictability and stretching of timekeeping)? Exploitation of clean water: the plot wants to seal the viewer inside the Los Angeles estate with maniacs and victims, and in the end only float to the surface stupidity and inability to imagine.
The script was written and directed by Daniel Farrands, the B-director responsible for the Amityville Murders. Strictly speaking, "Sharon Tate's Ghosts" to some extent follows that film's formula: worn-out ideas about what supposedly happened. The inert project tells the story of the last three days of Sharon Tate’s life, which she spent in the house of her friends. The idea is that Sharon, who is eight months pregnant, feels something bad. That literally makes up the whole story! The script sucks fake signs and psychic abilities of Sharon: allegedly for a year she guessed about her imminent death, finds a board game predicting death, etc. All this looks incredibly stretched, does not work on the atmosphere and causes only a sad smile.
In Ghosts, such paranormal elements are not associated with fantasies or metaphors. These are just cheap tricks needed to warm up the viewer before the murder scenes. The problem is that these shocking episodes don’t work either. It all really looks like a film-stage: it’s not a tragedy, it’s just a story filler, reproduced literally. The viewer does not empathize: whatever the original intentions of Farrands, everything that happens resembles a nefarious version of “Destination” with dancing on the bones of real victims of circumstances.
The vast majority of the action is limited to the tenacity of Hilary Duff, who goes back and forth and stares at all kinds of game. From the technical side, at least, everything looks acceptable: “Ghosts” are implemented in the spirit of the retro of the 60s, and the soft stylish atmosphere contrasts with the further monstrous level of violence.
It is the desire of the creators to focus on some small supernatural theme that devalues everything that happens: there is nothing wrong, probably, in embodying those terrible events on the screen, but you should not roll everything into a capito. Specifically, this exploitative movie makes the worst thrashing mistake: a monumental event is wrapped in shame, from which, as blasphemous as it sounds, the real victims of events spin in the graves with a top.