As Fitas de Poughkeepsie

The Ploughkeepsie Tapes is an absolutely awful movie. It's not even a movie, I would call it a slaughter/torture porn film for people to watch in groups during sleepovers to scare each other. This movie is written by people with the minds of teenagers, for people with the minds of teenagers.

There's very little purpose for the movie other than to utterly horrify the viewer with gruesome details of a fake serial killer. At one point the police go into extreme detail about the intestines of a victim being ripped out and "laying on the floor like Christmas lights". There's absolutely no realism. I didn't believe for a second that it was anything but a mockumentary. The acting and writing were atrocious.

It's pretty much Blair Witch Project meets Saw. It's the mockumentary style which has been done many, many times. It's been done a lot better in Blair Witch, Cloverfield, and dare I say, Diary of the Dead.

And unlike Saw and Blair Witch, there are no characters to root for, all the viewer gets is screaming victims, who are introduced, murdered or survive and get tortured.

This film is pretty much the equivalent to a sucker punch to the balls. You know those youtube videos where nothing is happening and then someone pops up and screams very loudly? That's what this movie is. I'm not sure who enjoyed this movie? Probably the same people who think Ouija boards are scary.

"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.

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.

An interview at the Tribeca Film Fest with director John Dowdle revealed - when asked if this movie is based on an actual killer in Poughkeepsie - that (and I quote): "It's actually a combination of a number of them, but there's one -- Edmund Kemper. He was a really, really scary guy and we took a lot of pieces from him and we took some from the Green River Killer. There was a guy in Chicago we took pieces from. There was a duo in Michigan who worked together and filmed everything they did, and we took some stuff from them. Some from Ted Bundy too. So we sort of combined a lot of different real stories. Remember that couple that kidnapped a 19-year old girl and kept her as a slave for six years? We took pieces of that as well." So all of you out there insisting that this is a true story about a Poughkeepsie killer who video-taped his murders are making fools of yourselves.