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.

KineticSeoul 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

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

KinkyMinx21 As a true crime fan, I was very disappointed by the many, many inaccuracies in this film. I'm aware it's only 'loosely based' on the Manson murders but I don't think there's any reason to omit the truth & embellish the lies.Obviously the second storyline featuring Perry, the juror, is fiction but this aside, the real back story is shocking enough without twisting round the facts. Little things annoyed me, for instance, the complete absence of Tex who was obviously a key player in events at the time, the numerous missing explanations from Charlie about his apocalyptic prophecy & as if him saying 'it's all coming down' every 5 minutes is supposed to offer some clue to the uninitiated. Someone who does not know the story would be even more confused at this point as suddenly there's a complete & utter lack of comprehensive story progression from Bobby being jailed, to the murders taking place & then into the trial. The chain of events that led to it literally 'all coming down' is absent altogether & in actuality it was almost a year before the trial even began.On a positive note, the acting of both Gregory Smith & Kristen Hager was well thought out but sadly not enough to save this flop. Most of the characters were unconvincing & the whole thing just seemed cheesy & contrived. Not recommended if you want the facts.For the best portrayal of Charles Manson I have ever seen watch Jeremy Davies's performance in Helter Skelter (2004).