Cropsey

Lazy documentary about Andre Rand and the child abductions that led to his convictions. Joshua Zeman and Barbara Brancaccio share the director's chair--and not to mention, annoyingly, the unnecessary center of attention. Loses focus at the beginning--the title itself is merely a lead to the actual subject of Andre Rand and the kidnappings. Some call it unique and terrifying, winning the Audience Award at SINY Film Festival. One of the biggest problems with the film is that Andre Rand is painted--and arguably presents himself--as a simpleton, yet he clearly gives the run around to the directors all throughout the documentary. Delivers nothing more than a simple news report. What a joke.

** (out of four)

From Joshua Zeman who brought us the fantastic Killer Legends (2014) we have a documentary about the urban legend Cropsey. For those unaware it was a name given to a faceless (Not literally) individual who snatched children and resided in abandoned buildings within the forest. Alike many urban legends the story changes dependent on who you ask and where they're from.

But instead of focusing on the origins of Cropsey it instead focus's on the true story of Andre Rand a man suspected of abducting and killing a number of children with learning difficulties. A living, breathing Cropsey.

The team give a history on the man and the lost children, interviews experts and those involved in the case as well as the usual incorporation of archive news footage and stock interviews.

Its all well made, but considering how little they actually have to go on much of it feels like filler and it's all assumptions leaving the viewer with unanswered questions and I found that a tad frustrating. This isn't a water tight case and therefore they could never provide 100% certainty but for this reason it felt like rather flawed subject matter.

Regardless the archive footage is very moving and the man in question is rather fascinating. The viewer is left to make up their own mind as to what they believe happened based on evidence presented.

Passable stuff, but Zeman's later works are superior.

The Good:

Well made

Great archive footage

The Bad:

Feels like too much critical information is missing

Too short

One thing I like about this film... and that I don't like... is that it opens the way to the next step in the story. Unfortunately, the film does not provide an avenue for the step to be taken. It didn't move forward fast enough and left the juicy bits for us to imagine. Feels like perhaps there was not the will or the money needed to take the story to the final conclusion. The dissection of his psychological profile. As made clear in the movie, he is very affected by his experience at Willowbrook (and his mother's experience in care) why not look at what happened at Willowbrook because he probably started there and what was Willowbrook's official or unofficial means of disposing of the deceased patients? Were there many unexplained accidents while he was there? Who did he work with and then have contact with or visit on Staten Island after Willowbrook shutdown? But mainly, what did Willowbrook do with the deceased patients in their care? and where was his mother buried? How could he have recreated those circumstances on Staten Island? Plus, he likely knew of ways to get into parts of Willowbrook that seem totally unaccessible to folks unaware of what it is like to be homeless. Take the camera in there, not just superficially look over the grounds please. There were furnaces and other places on those grounds that would naturally be a place he would have known about which could very well be buried in ruins now and that's what I needed to see- more effort.

Realizing the urban legend of their youth has actually come true.

Two filmmakers delve into the mystery surrounding five missing children and the real-life bogeyman linked to their disappearances.

Nothing really new here, but it puts everything together in one place. Goes on a bit long. The filmmakers try to suggest the killer was supplying kids to devil worshipers to to a group of abusers. The killer denies everything of course even though he was the last person seen with all the victims.

I would have preferred way more information on the killer than just random conversations with cops and residents trying to remember what happened 20+ years ago.

So net net is the documentary could have been way better than it is. And the fact that they could not get an interview with the killer sort of creates a big dud.

First, I'm a native NYC'er. I grew up in Manhattan, and remember this (and the Willowbrook exposé of Geraldo Rivera).I remember Holly Ann Hughes disappearance, and a lot of the stuff presented in CROPSEY. Also, I went to one of the 'Jewish Sleepaway camps, up and down the Hudson Valley' – in my case, it was Camp Equinunk, where kids DID hear stories of the 'Cropsey Maniac' from our counsellors (to this day, I HATE the woods). I also lived in Staten Island for about 6 years.

Having said all that, this is ONLY about the DOCUMENTARY - NOT about horror movies, etc. JUST about what's presented.

Personally, it's been a long-time since I heard any reference to Cropsey. I heard the 'Cropsey Maniac' stories in camp during the late 70's - so, that urban legend's been out there for years.

The documentary opens up a wound that engulfed both Staten Island, and NYC'ers as a whole. ANY town, ANY city where such a (similarly) unfortunate event took place can identify with the story.

Did André Rand do (all) the killings? After watching this, I can't say.

YES - he's a VERY 'strange' man, but, as one person in the documentary said, does being 'weird' MEAN you're a killer? As a reporter for the S.I. Advance pointed out, (after the murder of Jennifer Schweiger) one paper said a 'drifter' had been caught, with 'drifter' being 'shorthand' for 'undesirable, not normal.'

Mr. Rand DID feel he was 'on a mission' to 'save families' of the 'burden' of having disabled children,' but, what exactly did that 'mission' entail?

The cops (here in NYC we're constantly bombarded with the NY Post constantly calling NYPD 'heroes')are civil servants, doing a job. Yes, there ARE good ones - but, there ARE bad ones as well. NYPD has (had) a history of making the crime 'fit' the criminal, and, as the two defense attorneys of Rand point out, a lot of the evidence (in the Holly Ann Hughes trial) was circumstantial.

I think the film makers have opened up a sad time here that NYC'ers remember. A story of a ghoulish time here, and have (hopefully) encouraged the POSSIBILITY of bringing this tale of horror here to an eventual resolution.

Considering their budget,and resources, the film-makers made a valiant documentary, using archival news reports, and interviews - both past and present - with NYPD detectives, family members and others connected with Staten Island/Cropsey, examined and retraced these events.

Ultimately, HAS Cropsey been caught (Rand)? DID the murders stop AFTER his 1st conviction? Or, did THAT murderer continue (and, maybe STILL is killing), only the capture/imprisonment of Rand 'solved' the cases for NYPD - and they never bothered to investigate further? CROPSEY leaves us with the thought that - maybe - one day - Rand will talk, and with that an end. But, now - more than 20+ years since Rand was arrested, this sad, horrible time still is left to dangle. For the families of those children (and, perhaps others), Staten Island, and, NYC as a whole.

It's a mystery that only André Rand can help illuminate (and perhaps solve), but as of this time, he isn't, so one can only wait. And hope.