i find it strange that the director of this film reportedly claimed that though this was intended to be based on the manson murders that it wasn't actually being directly named.

because i could see there being a decent horror about a home invasion loosely inspired by the real life manson cult story. i mean, something in the vein of the strangers but make it ari aster would be something i'd watch. and while no ones claiming ryan murphy is a moral compass for the ages, he's done a fairly decent job of balancing the exploitation of true crime for entertainment with original content and twists (i mean i think i wrote a group therapy session among different fictional villains once and the serial killer dinner party in ahs hotel was basically the grownup version of that but STILL). so there's space for horror based in truth.

this was not loosely inspired by the tate murders. this took an entirely real, terrible tragedy with awful consequences and pasted it into a film with pretty people. having a mid credits roll that shows the actual photos of the people and reviews the aftermath isn't "loosely" following reality. this movie took everything down to the type of restaurant that the friends ate at prior to the murders and put it in their film, and then they tried to spin it for entertainment with a former scream queen lead and a scene basically making light of the fact that the groundskeeper didn't hear a single sound because he was listening to music. i don't understand who does that and thinks it's not exploitative.

don't watch this. i watched for the leads, expecting a very loose manson connection and a campy horror. instead i got a weird 4k hd reenactment of the tate murders wikipedia entry that left me unhappy and vaguely wanting a shower. i don't honestly know how two women with successful television careers would agree to a film as shitty as this, it's not like they're in desperate need for work.