Poughkeepsie Tapes

For some reason I was fully expecting this to be brutal and particularly violent and traumatic and as such just instinctively avoided it for a while. But boredom got the better of me and I went and watched it. Thankfully it is not as overly gorey or gruesome as I expected, instead relying a lot on extreme discomfort and the implications of torture without actually seeing much of the actual torture.

The story is one of cops in Poughkeepsie New York finding a huge stash of VCR tapes during a raid on a serial killer's house, and there's literally thousands of tapes chronicling the killer kidnapping and killing people. It all unfolds in a documentary style which serves very well as a framing device.

But right away the film starts to quake a bit. Some of the actors portraying FBI agents or specialists look badly out of place or way too young, some of the actors add in unrealistic comments that are supposedly meant to show just how extreme this killer is/was.

The uneven quality of the acting starts to cause some of these scenes to be literally laughable, as an FBI specialist, in his most overly dramatic "barely holding it together voice" tells us that his wife accidentally watched 30 minutes of a tape and wouldn't let him touch her for over a year. Even remembering it now just made me laugh out loud not because of how it sounds, but just the absurdly serious way it was delivered.

Other events that are supposed to be serious, including even clips from the tapes themselves, filmed by the killer, sometimes struggle to maintain a balance between the theatrical/macabre and the absurd, in particular whenever the killer is shown dressed in his Plague Doctor costume. No matter how brutal or disturbing the content on screen is, the ridiculous theatricality just makes me laugh.

Some of the content matter actually fares better as a result of this unintentional comedy; without the absurd image of the killer walking on all fours with a mask on the back of his head, it would be much more difficult to take in the more brutal and sadistic things he does.

But at the same time, some of these "unintentional comedy" moments aren't a naturally flowing element to leaven a horrible moment. A lot of the police and witness interviews just try too hard to come across as "Serious true crime Netflix presents AmazonPrime documentary" and it comes across as almost wacky as a result.

The way the killer is repeatedly described as being an almost Mary Sue-ish caliber of serial killer, able to always outsmart the cops at every turn, always have everything pre-planned to perfection, described in such a way like if the killer was a Sith Lord, he would be "more powerful than Darth Vader and the Emperor and Darth Maul put together on steroids baaaa"

Some of the unexpected best parts of the film are when it touches upon Cheryl Dempsey, the longest-running victim of the killer, that it could almost become the story of her alone, her experiences and how it permanently damaged her as a person. But most of the film is spent fixating on the serial killer like he was a living Terminator, an absolute unstoppable genius that would make Hannibal Lecter look like a buffoon.

In fact it spends so much time hyping up the killer that I ended up spending more time laughing at the film than being disturbed or grossed out by it.

"The Poughkeepsie Tapes" treads on very familiar ground for any movie watcher who's used to serial killer dramas. Functioning as a faux documentary, it relates the tale of a particularly odious monster, Edward Carver (Ben Messmer). Sadistic and creepy in the extreme, Edward has taken the time to document *practically every second* of the stalking, abduction, and torture of his victims. So investigators have had to go through tape after tape of some very sick stuff. We get to see how this crafty and slick psycho has managed to elude the authorities for a long time.

The filmmaking Dowdle brothers make a serious effort at shocking and disturbing their viewers, but all of this may have had more impact if this viewer hadn't been somewhat inured to this sort of material over the years. The main problem is, this viewer was never convinced that he was watching something "real". Part of that is due to some very amateurish acting. And part of that is due to the fact that Messmer is not really successful at making his villain truly menacing in any way. One way that a viewer can tell this is fictional is the way that the Dowdles take the time to wallow in depravity and gore when an actual documentary would be more likely to exercise restraint rather than go for sensationalism.

Despite the reputation of "The Poughkeepsie Tapes", it would ultimately be much more interesting - and genuinely disturbing - to watch or revisit "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer", the real high water mark as far as this kind of film goes.

Five out of 10.

I watched this movie the other night and I was pleasantly surprised. The acting is was really good from the serial killer it was a very creepy performance. The acting from the rest of the crew was not that good but this movie is definitely worth a watch.

This movie is a found footage mockumentary. So the movie takes off with a bunch of interviews of police and FBI who found hundreds of tapes containing murders and torture.

This movie was actually better then I thought it would be. It was actually really creepy. The bad quality of the camera kind of annoyed me but it was good overall

The Poughkeepsie Tapes is a faux documentary featuring found footage of a serial killer's handiwork. Through interviews with FBI profilers, the police, and the families and friends of the victims, and with excerpts from the murderer's videotapes (horribly distorted imagery: next time, Mr. Killer, buy a better camera!), we learn how the murderer has successfully evaded capture.

I've seen an awful lot of found-footage horror/pseudo-snuff in my time, some of which has achieved a level of realism that has bordered on the limits of what I will watch. But despite it's controversial reputation, I didn't find The Poughkeepsie Tapes in the least bit shocking, largely because at no point was I convinced that what I was watching was real.

Some of the acting was very weak, which certainly didn't help (those girl scouts selling cookies were dreadful), but the main problems I had were with the killer, who wasn't in the least bit intimidating (his voice and ridiculous costumery were laughable), and the fact that no genuine documentary would ever show uncensored footage of dismembered victims, as this did.

I wanted to believe and become fully immersed in the movie, but in the end I couldn't, and that seriously spoiled the experience.

This horror flick is unique in the way it leaves a lot to the imagination. Most of the acting is poor, but the story of Cheryl Dempsey makes the movie worthwhile. In fact, her story, could have stood on its own. The character is portrayed well, and it is very hard to forget what happens to her and how she is affected. Because of how devastating her story is, and because a lot is left to the imagination as to how her story progressed, the movie is actually worth watching for horror buffs. If they'd left her story out, most of the movie would be a waste of time. Her story also makes the serial killer in the story much more engrossing, since it gives a kind of unusual psychological depth to his character which is often missing in horror.