Cropsey

Cropsey (2009)

**** (out of 4)

Excellent documentary from filmmakers Joshua Zeman and Barbara Brancaccio, two people who grew up hearing stories of Cropsey, a killer of children living up in Staten Island, New York. Through the documentary we hear how various children were told different stories of who exactly Cropsey was but then we get to a drifter named Andre Rand who many believed killed at least five children in the area. Throughout the documentary we hear about the urban legend that stalked the people of this town and we learn about the little evidence that got Rand convicted and how perhaps the legends are what got him found guilty and not the actual case against him. CROPSEY came to my attention as a horror movie fan because I had heard that both MADMAN and THE BURNING were based around this case. Both of those slashers took a lot of liberties with the actual story and that's what makes this documentary so interesting because it really does seem as if the two filmmakers wanted to get the truth and not just paint a picture of a monster. The directors try to paint an open and honest look at the case and by the time the picture is over you really don't know what to believe in regards to Rand's guilt. There are moments where you feel this guy is a monster and he must have committed the crimes but then a minute later you realize that there's really nothing connecting him to the crimes and there are even more mysterious circumstances around the case. As someone who had never really heard of the cases, I found it really interesting seeing the news clips from back when the crimes were committed as well as hearing from those who actually searched for the children. Out of the five victims only one's body was recovered and how it was uncovered was a little suspicious to say the least. The documentary also gets quite a few interviews with those who were connected to the case, those who searched for the body as well as a possible witness who is the most questionable person in the entire film. CROPSEY is certainly a very entertaining documentary taking a look at the connection between an urban legend and the truth.

Cropsey is a well-produced and well-written story of some missing children on Staten Island, centered around the story of the man who might have kidnapped and murdered them.

The filmmakers tracked down and interviewed dozens of people connected with the stories of the girls, of "Cropsey," and of the taciturn man at the center of the case. Although there are the usual talking head scenes, the film also includes much atmospheric and thematic footage of the area in Staten Island where the activities took place that they are probing.

There are plenty of oddities in the legal and moral cases presented and discussed. The timeline extends more than 30 years. I found the film disquieting both because the central characters seemed to be less than innocent but at the same time, the film makes clear that the circumstances being explored are themselves foggy. Good film, subtly highlighting the difficulties of justice and the pain of not knowing.

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

Cropsey was said to be a a mythical monster / man that lived on Staten Island , New York who supposedly kidnapped and killed children. The one big problem with this monster is that he was not so mythical, in fact he was very real and he goes by the name of Andre Rand.

I don't know what it is about the 1970's but people seemed to be incredible slow and somewhat naive. On Staten Island children went missing over a long period of time but nobody seemed that bothers , including the police. Parents still let there kids out and they still went missing . People were odd and especially in America or were they?

The one thing Cropsey shows is that people had a completely different mindset back then and that's the overriding impression this film gives me.

On Staten Island there used to be an horrific mental institute. One of which you only see in horror films. There is original footage of how the kids housed in this hospital were treated and it's very , very disturbing.

The film makers try to get to the bottom of who killed these kids by interviewing family and witnesses but none seem that credible. You start to believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice with Andre Rand but despite the lack of evidence , he and his lawyers do themselves no favours.

Ultimately this is a frustrating film because unlike the Paradise Lost documentaries this answers very little.

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.