Opiniones de usuarios

I have to admit, the movie was quite entertaining. But after I was done watching it I realized that this wasn't really a documentary at all. The genre classification for this movie is more of a decoy since the majority of the movie focuses on hearsay and Talese's career. So to claim that this is a documentary is a little bit far fetched.

At the end of the day there isn't much meat to this story. It's about a guy who used to perv on his customers/guests. That's it. The entire story was divulged in the first 15 minutes. From there the "documentary" took a sharp turn. Focusing mostly on Foos' private life and Talese's past achievements. In my humble opinion the sole intent of this movie is to normalize the kinks of Foos and Talese. They're both questionable characters. And throughout the movie they tried to justify the "immoral" choices that they've made by assuming the role of apologists. Foos wants us to believe that he's a pioneer of some sort. Meanwhile Talese's exploiting the documentary to tell us more about his all so illustrious career.

The way I see it both are narcissists who found each other because they're wired the same way. For reference: Talese's home is decorated with a deluge of life-sized photos of himself. I think that says it all.

Foos' motivation for the documentary was to spread the word about his upcoming book. For him it was nothing more than a PR stunt. This is the only noteworthy thing he has ever achieved in his life (which is probably the realization that he himself made at some point, hence the resilience). And the reason why Talese was so interested in this documentary/story was because he's been invested in it for almost 40 years now. He saw this as a the perfect opportunity to end his career with a big bang/story. As we later find out both got more than they bargained for. Some might say it's kismet.

Greetings again from the darkness. We are watching the final product of filmmakers watching a reporter watching a man whose hobby is watching those who don't know they are being watched. Lacking a single redeeming individual, the film's creep factor slithers towards 11 on the (SPINAL TAP) scale.

It's understandable if you assume this is the story of a pathetic and disgusting Aurora, Colorado motel owner who, for many years, quietly leered at his guests from a self-constructed perch in the attic. Gerald Foos methodically documented the sexual actions of the Manor House Motel guests, which numbered 2000-3000 per year. If his actions aren't remarkable (not in a good way) enough, Mr. Foos actually married not one, but two women who were complicit in his hobby.

In 1980, renowned reporter and author ("from age 15 to 80") Gay Talese received a letter from Gerald Foos, kicking off a three decade relationship culminating in a controversial feature article in "The New Yorker" and a book entitled "The Voyeur's Motel". Once Mr. Foos agrees to have his name published, co-directors Myles Kane and Josh Koury jump on board to document the final steps in Mr. Talese's writing and research process. It's here that we enter the oddest man cave you'll likely see. In the basement of Talese's immaculate Manhattan brownstone is not just his writing office, but also a lifetime of research and writing … boxes and shelves of material that will surely one day be part of a museum or university collection.

The unexpected parallels between writer and subject are made clear. Both are voyeurs and both are collectors. As a journalist, Talese observes the actions of people, while Foos is quite obviously the definition of a Peeping Tom. Talese collects the years of research for his writings, while Foos shows off his extraordinary sports memorabilia collection (also in his basement). Beyond these similarities, what stands out most are the unbridled egos of these two men. Both seemed most focused on getting or keeping their names and stories in the headlines. Of course, Talese has built a career on his name and reputation, while the aging Foos simply sees this as his legacy that somehow deserves historical prominence.

The filmmakers remain more focused on Talese than Foos, and that takes us inside "The New Yorker" where the editors are justifiably concerned about a single-source story – one that without Talese's name attached would likely have never made it past an initial perusal. The aftermath of publication reminds us that we've seen con men before, and there is little joy in being taken on a long ride of deceit. Perhaps the best description of what we see on screen is that it's a sideshow of ego and the need to be seen (watched).

When I came cross the title, I assumed to be psychologically startled and thrilled . Yet, I didn't not expected it's more on the entertaining side like the black comedy.

We are living in the era of consistently sexual exploitation nowadays. Nothing seemingly shocks us no more than self inflicted horrors. We desensitize our sexual desires into what medias present to us. There is a degree of sadness about that. Because we are no longer excited about anything. This documentary would be a shocking if it was done 20 years ago. Now it's more like a sideshow. I don't discount its value. It's still worth to watch.

It's about an aging man somehow would like to put his name out there before his final call upon. It's not on any counts of nobility. But in my opinion, the value of examining dark human behaviors might still deserve some attentions . Sociopath to be exact is still something worth to understand. I suspect his long and tedious journal likely containing a lot elaborately fictional stories which just most sociopath would do unsurprisingly . My curiosity is very much contented by the film. I don't think I will be digging into the book any time soon.

Watch it if you haven't done so. It's actually quite entertaining.

What makes this documentary interesting is that both the main characters are obsessive/eccentric. They are proud of their lives work and struggle to make one last stunt together. The psychological tension builds up which is very interesting to watch because both characters are unashamed and show themselves as they are: eccentric and obsessive but at the same time they can function like completely normal persons. The other people in this documentary seem very small minded and judgemental in comparison to the two main characters. But as I watched, as a viewer I wondered if I was being tricked? I do recommend this one.

After 28 minutes, I feel in need of a shower - or three. Alone, I must add.

This documentary is creepy on the motel level, and was actually interesting on the Gay Talese portion, but then even that gets too twisted for me.

I felt the muscles in my mouth tightening and my teeth clinching until my teeth and cheeks hurt. Enough already.

Talese claims the motel owner and voyeur is a nice normal guy. Nope. He is not. He is a sleazy guy in sunglasses that would give me the creeps and literally make my skin crawl if I ran into him anywhere - cause he did that while on my TV. Oh. The voyeur believes God has a hand in everything. There are no words ............. because my teeth are clinched.

Foos - the man who wanted the attention so very desperately is a total character - and not in a good sense. One to be taken in incredibly small doses. I took me 4 hours to watch this documentary due to Foos's bravado and "look at me!! Look at me!!" mentality. He was exhausting and exasperating through out the entire process covering decades. Anita, his wife, needs to be put up for sainthood.

On the other hand, I fast forwarded to Talese parts on - and there were some interesting points.

This documentary is a massive disappointment. But ........ in fast forward ..... and after a shower ................

So glad I have a dog.

"Voyeur," a documentary purportedly about an infamous voyeur, should really be titled "Pseudo-Journalist," since what it really demonstrates is what a terrible writer Gay Talese is. It's not "true crime," since so many of the claims in it are debatable or demonstrably false.

Talese correctly notes that it's dangerous to rely on just once source, but never bothers to check on important alleged facts of this story himself. He seems unfamiliar with Google, only learning from his daughter and others about details readily available online. He never checks property records central to the story and does a sloppy job checking on a crime mentioned by the voyeur, Gerald Foos. He unconvincingly brushes aside key discrepancies on dates.

At one point, when Foos claims that his Mickey Mantle baseball card is worth a huge sum, Talese laments, "How am I supposed to know if he is lying?" How about looking it up online? Or asking someone knowledgable? His methods are so shoddy, one has to wonder about the rest of his books.

At another point, explaining why he participated in group sex as part of his research for a book on sex in America, Talese explains that, as a reporter you can't just observe, you have to experience. Really? Did he have to kill anyone as part of his reporting on the mob? Can no one write about war, space exploration, professional sports, medical research, or anything else without being an active participant?

The documentary begins with him talking about his townhouse in Manhattan and his impeccably tailored suits. He should have spent some of his apparent wealth hiring a research assistant to ensure that what he wrote wasn't garbage. "Voyeur" reveals him wearing the emperor's clothes.

A story about a man (Gerald Foos) and his apparently dead-inside wife letting in the world on his program of spying on motel guests.

Such a claim in this day is hardly surprising, and so the content and character on display here merely comes off as slightly 'odd' but not especially insightful or fascinating for me.

The main focus here is a man that is clearly a bit of braggart, a bit delusional and ridiculous, a bit cash-obsessed yet also enjoys a bit of voyeurism. He exclaims the values of souvenirs he's collected like it's impressive, yet is surprised his story is met by the media with a sense of wrong-doing.

The journalist here makes some odd choices indeed, why only one source for a one-note story is a huge point -- although one he does mention at least, there just isn't enough here to claim anything of special interest.

This documentary is not about the fact that Foos was a peeping tom, it actually covers very little about this and does not even discuss the fact that there are 1000s of people victim to this horrible little man. It is 90 mins of 2 narcissists, that should have been in Jail, trying to prove to themselves that they are the best, you just need to look at the fact that both men are surrounded by their own pictures. There is no journalism here, no proper research, no explanations given for timelines. Complete waste of time.

Upon seeing that the documentary story of Gerald Foos was coming to Netflix, I could hardly believe it. When I read the source material book "The Voyeur's Motel", I thought I was maybe the only actual person to have read it (I now understand why...watch the doc to find out). Much like the book, this documentary adaptation is often a bit of a mess...but it also stumbles upon such an interesting scenario/person that it is riveting for all the right (and often very wrong) reasons all the way through.

For a basic plot summary, "Voyeur" recounts the story of Gerald Foos, a motel owner who spied, peeping Tom-style, on his guests for many years via a crawlspace above the rooms. Eventually, Foos began corresponding with journalist Gay Talese and the two formed a sort of "pact of secrecy", as Foos wanted the attention/outlet and Talese knew he was on to a story. But then, a murder takes place and culpability issues abound, and Talese even discovers that Foos may not have been 100% truthful in many of his claims/statements.

The "star of this show", so to speak, is easily Foos. He's such a polarizing figure that he will captivate your attention. On one hand, he seems to be a terrible human being. On the other hand, there is a "psychology fascination" with what he is doing (it initially started all about "watching for sex", but then became as much a classification of private behavior as anything). The key here, of course, is to not be turned off by the snap judgment of "this guy is a perverted creep", because there is absolutely no doubting that. But the scale of what he accomplished/observed is fascinating for those who are able to open their minds a bit and give the story a chance to play out.

Sadly, this entire concept (from Foos' letters to Talese, to the book, to this doc) has been basically botched from beginning to end. There is no way to verify any of Foos' claims (besides the fact that indeed the crawlspace was confirmed by one visit from Talese to Foos), Talese actually disavowed his book at one point, and this doc is kind of all over the place too. It's messy all over the place.

What carries the day and made this so fascinating to me, though, was a look into the psyche of Foos. In a lot of ways, seeing him in front of a camera makes this whole thing "work" a lot more than it did on the printed page. I really think, though, that one's enjoyment of this documentary will be determined by whether morals can be set aside for a bit. What Foos did was reprehensible, but at the same time fascinating (from a purely psychological and logistical perspective). If you can wait and pass judgment on him at the end, you will enjoy "Voyeur". If not, it's probably best you steer clear.

This semi-documentary wants us to believe it will present this big, revealing story about a man who observed his motel guests for years through hidden peepholes.

Instead we get presented a story about one guy saying he is this voyeur and another guy, mister Talese, willing to believe him and choosing to disregard confirmed discrepancies in the story (the more than important dates, anyone?!) in order to write his report and book about the subject matter. Two more than irritating narcissists bonking heads and at the same time working together to get what they crave: attention.

To me, this dynamic was as vulgair and obscene as the alleged voyeurism that triggered it all in the first place. This documentary isn't worth your time, in my opinion, and i will definetely skip the book and article. The main question that lingers here is: why was this mess of a story even brought out there in the first place?

This was creepy as hell. Man.... at the end of the day there are some weirdos out there. Pretty cool access to a strange story. Interesting characters. The cinematographer was on point most of the time. Wonder what happened to get his guy to do the film? Lol

Wasn't sure how I really felt about it until a while after it was over. My initial thought was that of what it portrayed.... A journalist that was approached by a self-absorbed individual that felt he was so perfect in what he did he would never be remembered. Eventually it led to me thinking Talese was manipulating a potentially mental deficit individual for his personal benefit. My view changed with what the "documentary" wanted it to and that being Foos was a master con and was looking at an opportunity to not only enrich himself in what he had done, but to manipulate everyone for financial gain. After the end I think it became clear it was a combination of all. Foos is manipulative, Talese saw a last bang going into the final chapters of his life (since he repeatedly referenced the death of both of them), and both conspired to fool the peons.

My final conclusion is the latter. It was just good enough with Talese having this information for what is portrayed as being decades, getting into his elder years, and a final remembrance of his journalism. Add Foos with most of the former plus a narcissistic character and you have the perfect combination of "going down in history".

I wish both would go down in history though, in the fact they are two perverts that are so upset they got called out by another journalist on something that is public record that they went to Netflix as a scheme to put this "documentary" over on us as them being of anything legitimate.

But ultimately I wish they would go down in history in the court records as two perverts and nothing more.

This documentary film tells the story of a man who owns a motel for peeping into the private activities of motel residents.

The fact that someone put their perverted idea into action for a sustained period of time, then write about it and share with the world is quite beyond me. The documentary does do due diligence on whether the claims are true, and you will have to decide for yourselves whether the claims are true. My assessment of Foos is the same as the female journalist in the beginning. It is an interesting documentary.

I'm a 46 year old educated, white woman. I am not a prude but am very interested in people's peccadilloes, true crime and the lives of others. I love watching the dramatic Gerald Foos and his aloof wife. They are normal people, and I do not judge. There are no video tapes and thus the anonymity of the hotel guests has been kept intact. The journalist/author seems to of course, be capitalizing on this man's hobbies. I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with these people and it's a fascinating look into what fetishes/fantasies develop in men (mostly) but not exclusively. Also love the miniature hotel and wonder if it's an Alan Wolfson....

This one is so crazy that if it was fiction you would not believe it. Gay Talese, the famous journalist, tells this story as well as chronicles his own story and 50 year journalism career. He is a respected investigative journalist. This story will make you think twice when you ever check into a hotel or motel room again. Gerald Foos bought a motel for the sole purpose was to be a voyeur to the patrons who checked in to the establishment. The creepiest part of this guy is how he recounts for Talese this crime as if it is a legitimate scientific experiment. This film gives you an understanding of how Talese was so successful in his career getting people to open up to him. This relationship with Foos became the basis of the book, The Voyeur's Motel. You also get the perspective of a respectable Publisher dealing with a delicate and scandalous story. The interesting construct of this documentary is that while Poos disgusted me I found myself as a Voyeur fascinated but the Voyeur. This guys hatred of Dogs says a lot. This is a good watch. It made me laugh, angry, and disgusted.

I see a lot of reviews on here that have reviewed this based on their feelings of the subjects/interviewer and not based on the actual content. This is an interesting documentary. Is the subject super creepy and narcissistic? Yes! You are watching a documentary on a voyeur, a dude that watched people thru the vents at his motel. What did you expect? "This is not a documentary, it's based on he said she said". This is absolutely a documentary, it follows the process of an author writing an article for the New Yorker. The New Yorker picked this up, one of the most well respected magazines out there. If they did a story on it why is it unworthy of a documentary? It doesn't make sense to me why people come on here to make reviews based on their feelings of the people in the documentary and not based on how interesting the movie actually is. There are twists, it's an interesting (screwed up) topic and it kept me entertained while watching it. If this topic makes you too uncomfortable, don't watch it. It made me uncomfortable but not to the point that I'm going to review it poorly and potentially ruin someone's chance to see it. 6.5-7/10. Rounding up because people in their feelings are reviewing it poorly.

This is the sad story of two old men who were unable to learn the lessons that a long life should have taught them. Their narcissism is as deep and broad as any adolescent male at the height of their testosterone laced years. Their temperament, in full display, is even worse. If the film has any value, other than exposing the egos of these misanthropes, it's to teach a lesson to the rest of maledom: The true value and reward of maturity and aging is to be found in the seeking of greater wisdom, understanding and kindness -- not in the unending, ever expanding pursuit of materialistic selfishness.

This isn't really about sex. It's about the human condition. Why we do what we do. How our upbringing affects us.

A great story. And an even better book.

I enjoyed this documentary, it was interesting to learn about this strange character of a man and how he got away with his actions for so long. It was also interesting seeing how other people were reacting to him.

What a glorification of a sexual predator and a coward of a journalist that befriended him.

As a documentary it's fine and nothing beyond standard. Writer gets duped by source. The end.

The real story is about years of a sexual predator who made a friend in an equally depraved human being who instead of turning him in, wanted to make a buck and failed.