Cropsey

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.

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.

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 documentary about the disappearances / murders of five male and female youths, of varying ages. All five vanished on Staten Island, NY in the 1970's-80s. All were developmentally disabled. Several avenues of investigation are followed, including a disturbing connection to the infamous Willow Brook Institution -a horror story in itself!- and the labyrinthine tunnels beneath its vast acreage.

CROPSEY himself is part real, and part urban legend, in that the original killer has become a larger than life boogeyman. Through interviews and archival news footage, the filmmakers present the facts, as well as some of the theories the public latched onto in order to make sense of the case. Not-so-shockingly, Satanism was suspected!

As a side note, the origin of the name CROPSEY is never explained. Personally, I've only ever heard the name used in the movie THE BURNING, about a vengeful, teen-murdering camp caretaker. The usage here is interesting indeed...

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)