The Poughkeepsie Tapes (2007) User Reviews

I wanted to believe

[BA_Harrison · 5/10 · 9 July 2016]

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.

It doesn't live up to the hype.

[Hey_Sweden · 5/10 · 8 October 2021]

"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.

Kudos to the director/producer for distributing a serial killer film done on a shoestring budget

[Ed-Shullivan · 6/10 · 12 February 2020]

Okay so this homemade small market film was written/directed and produced on a shoestring budget, and thus the results were not expected to be of epic proportions as the much bigger budget(s) of either The Silence of the Lambs (1991), and/or Hannibal (2001). Knowing in advance that the Poughkeepsie Tapes was produced and directed by independent film makers I wasn't expecting an Academy Award winning performance in the acting and/or the cinematography, but what I did get was an impressive enough THRILLER genre film which kept my interest sustained throughout.

No doubt there are many areas of improvement that can be recommended for The Poughkeepsie Tapes, but not for the miniscule budget and short timeline (30 days?) that the film makers most likely had to work within. I am taking into consideration what others may have been able to accomplish with the same restrictions that this team had and I must say that I am impressed with their end result.

I make no false claims as it is a grade B level film at best, but having said that I have watched a heck of a lot of films with 100-1,000 times larger budgets and timelines and with major Hollywood stars promoting their less than stellar films that were a lot worse than the Poughkeepsie Tapes.

I have zero affiliation with the film makers so please do not assume I am providing a generous complimentary review as I am no more than an enthusiastic film lover of the Thriller/Serial Killer genre and if you are too than please appreciate this Grade B film for what is their end result on a shoestring budget and a 30 day timeline (I found this tidbit out by watching the writer/director extras included on the Blu Ray release)

A decent 6 out of 10 rating

Cheryl Dempsey makes the film worthwhile

[ratzzila · 18 July 2011]

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.

A chilling movie!

[deatman9 · 6/10 · 19 October 2012]

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

Extremely wicked, shockingly banal and vile

[reelreviewsandrecommendations · 1/10 · 29 August 2022]

There is nearly nothing as viscerally entertaining as a well-made, low budget, found-footage horror film. Terrific, clever movies like 'Man Bites Dog, 'Creep' and 'The Blair Witch Project' are proof of this notion. There needn't be a whole lot of capital invested for a good director with a good script to be able to produce something entertaining, or at the very least original.

'The Poughkeepsie Tapes' suffers from having- and being- none of the above. The derivative screenplay and its story are awful, the performances are stilted when they're not over-the-top and Shawn Dufraine's cinematography is constantly shaky and overly grainy (even for a found footage flick) making it incredibly difficult to watch. In short, the product of John Erick Dowdle's direction here is a total mess of a movie.

The film is about a stash of snuff films found in an abandoned house in Poughkeepsie, New York. Interviews with the local authorities in an attempt to catch the serial killer on the tapes prove fruitless, and the fiend seems to be getting more and more audacious and meticulous as his murderous spree continues.

It's a very depressing, repetitive and borderline misogynistic affair that offers the viewer no entertainment value whatsoever. Ugly looking and poorly written, it is completely devoid of anything original; offering viewers nothing but cheap perversion. Who wants to watch eight-year-old girls as they are raped and murdered, or countless women as they're tortured in increasingly barbaric ways? For that matter, who wants to make a film like that? No-one- besides John Erick Dowdle, it seems.

Perhaps it wouldn't be so offensive if the script was well-written, or if Dowdle had any ideas for the movie at all beyond making women suffer; but it isn't and he doesn't. It's a cheap rip-off of better films like 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer,' or the great 'Man Bites Dog;' two movies with similar plots executed with style and skill in front of and behind the camera. There is nothing in 'The Poughkeepsie Tapes' but poorly photographed violence, cruelty and pain- and Dowdle doesn't have anything interesting to say about any of it.

What's worse, though, is that the film is a technical disaster as well as a creative one. The cinematography is terrible, looking like it was shot by someone who actively hated the project they were working on, and wanted to destroy it. When it isn't shaky, it's grainy, and when it's both- which is most of the time- you can barely see a thing on screen. In fact, that's almost a positive; as watching nothing would be preferable to having to sit through 'The Poughkeepsie Tapes' again.

There isn't a good performance in the film, but this fault probably lies with Dowdle's direction rather than with the actors. None of them are given anything interesting to do but scream or recite the poorly written dialogue from the banal screenplay- it's unsurprising no-one comes across as having performed admirably. Dowdle wrote the film with his brother Drew; it's scary to think what a family gathering at their house must look like if this film is what they consider fit for public consumption.

How this is so highly rated- and how numerous reviewers find it a positive experience- is beyond reason. It's boring, unimaginative and ineptly made. If you want to watch a violent horror film made by talented people with fresh ideas about the genre, watch 'Man Bites Dog'. In fact, watch anything at all, just avoid 'The Poughkeepsie Tapes'. It's nothing but a waste of your time.

This movie has a lot more creative juice than I was expecting...

[mickeyshamrock · 6/10 · 5 May 2008]

Based on the trailer for THE POUGHKEEPSIE TAPES I thought I was going to hate this movie – not because it looked disturbing but because it looked really lame. Truth is – it is a little lame, BUT the movie has a lot more creative juice than I was expecting and ultimately I found myself enjoying it. Similar to J.T. Petty's S&MAN or Remy Belvaux & Andre Bonzel's MAN BITES DOG, THE POUGHKEEPSIE TAPES is a pseudo documentary about a serial killer. While S&MAN and MAN BITES DOG are superior films, THE POUGHKEEPSIE TAPES excels due to its strict adherence to/understanding of the documentary format. Personally I didn't find the film as disturbing or horrific as I assume it was trying to be, however it did contain enough well thought out moments to convince me that the writer and director had done their horror homework (in particular a very William Castle "esque" sound bite/moment toward the film's finale). 2 little notes: the first 15 minutes are kind of slow so give the movie time AND I don't see this as a "theater" movie (I saw a DVD screener). THE POUGHKEEPSIE TAPES feels like a small screen movie. Have a few beers and toss it on during a late Saturday night or early Sunday morning.

Bad script and acting kills any chance (pun intended)

[crooow-2 · 3/10 · 3 September 2014]

This fake documentary had promise. I didn't mind the grainy film shot by the killer. It masks most of the actual violence (which they have characters tell you about afterward). It got more graphic near the end and I didn't need/want to see that but what can you expect going into a movie like this? What made this almost unwatchable was the incredibly bad script and bad acting by the peripheral players. The killer and victims were believable. The police, parents, news reporters and FBI agents were not. In one interview an FBI agent says "You know the funny thing about this?" which was unbelievable from all angles (including the delivery). Another interview has an agent saying "Maybe he thought I would admire him but I could never do that after what he did to Cheryl Dempsey". Oh so you were thinking of possibly admiring him? A couple of the cops were believable but it was so distracting to have these completely ridiculous interviews interspersed with the actual investigation footage and the killer's tapes. I persevered to the end but I thought about turning it off many times. For people who said that made it more realistic, try watching actual interviews with police and FBI agents on IDTV.

The other aspect was that the police work didn't hold together. They claim to have the killer on a gas station video covering his face and they also have the mother of a victim who saw him up close so they have a sketch and his car and yet they have zero clues. And the killer got enough sperm from a sperm bank from one police officer with a history of violence and no alibis who was near all the victims so that the killer could frame him? Ridiculous. I guess the sperm bank just gives out huge samples to random guys in their mid-20s with no documentation. And you can go in and request a specific person's sperm and keep it "fresh" enough to plant on multiple victims.

The more I think about it, the stupider this whole movie is becoming.

This is a gem.

[lolitaxxx7 · 9/10 · 6 May 2007]

I'm so incredibly tired of the sequel-slash-remake factory of Hollywood horror. This film is a very welcome change.

I've heard some criticism of the performances, and I cannot concur. The lead actress who portrayed Cheryl Dempsey did a really wonderful job. The slight unevenness adds to the realistic feel of the film. Without giving anything away, I must say that the true horror is not to be found within the videotaped torture. As brutal and horrific as that is, the real frightening stuff lies in the aftermath.

The writer & director Brothers Dowdle were present at the Tribeca screening which I attended along with two of the actors. The brief Q & A after the film was thoroughly enjoyable. Envisioned as the first part of a trilogy, this is not to be missed by fans of the serial killer genre. I'm looking forward to the next installment.

Not bad, tries it's best to feel realistic

[DogFilmCritic · 6/10 · 29 March 2016]

I saw this on TV, on of those nights were you just can't sleep and found this...let's not call it a hidden gem, but man it kept you on your seat.

This movie took a lot of effort and research, at times it actually felt like a real documentary, the acting was pretty good as well. You actually feel disturb in some scenes specially the ones with kids. As the FAQs says they made a lot or research on actual serial killers and their bizarre behavior with the victims, it's very shocking.

I don't understand why this movie is so "hidden" it's one of the few found footage (some of it) that's feels accurate to why it's tape the way it is. With a few plot holes involving a suspect,this movie is very gripping and shocking. I say give it a watch

Not nearly as shocking as it thinks it is

[Shattered_Wake · 3/10 · 9 January 2009]

After a massive collection of tapes containing video of the torture & murder of hundreds of innocent men & women is found in an abandoned house, an investigation forms to discover who is responsible for the decade-long terror put upon the town of Poughkeepsie.

After being pushed back more than a Detroit Lions offensive lineman, 'The Poughkeepsie Tapes' finally saw the light of day here in early 2009. Rumours and news swarmed around this film since its announcement. When trailers were released, arguments and debates (stupidly) broke out on the validity of the tapes. Let it be clear: None of it is real. It may be based on something real, but these are not real tapes (which is quite obvious while watching). But, that doesn't mean it can't still be good, right? Well, while that is true. . . there are more than a few other reasons why this wasn't good. At all. I think, of the technical aspects, one of the major flaws of the film is the acting. Just about every actor in this film is just plain painful to watch. I don't think I actually saw a single believable character in the film, especially the FBI agents. If I ever met an FBI agent that acted like some of these people, I would greatly fear for the security of our nation even more than I already do. In addition to that, what FBI agents would actually do a film like this? Not the film we're watching, clearly, but what the film represents: The documentary. For a fairly recent serial killer of this magnitude, the majority of this information would be kept locked away from the general public for a long while. Obviously that would ruin the 'effect' of the film, but the lack of realism was really damaging to a film trying to be as real as possible. Also, I had a major problem with both the cinematography and the film quality of the tapes. I mean, this killer is quite clearly invested in his 'work.' The profiler states that he thinks the killer did this as a way to enjoy the murders long after they ended, that he was very meticulous about the filming. . . yet, the majority of these tapes are grainy and choppy and low quality? Why? Why wouldn't he have good film/video? Even a basic $300 video camera will deliver reasonable quality (at least it would have a night vision function, which clearly his camera did not). I get that it was a way of differentiating between the tapes and the other parts of the documentary, but I think a viewer is smart enough to realize that when a woman is in her underwear bouncing on a balloon (seriously), it's not going to be one of the FBI agents. As far as the content of the tapes, I wasn't very impressed. They weren't overly shocking or gruesome, barring a couple examples. They weren't well done or convincing. They didn't scare me. The majority of them were just laughably bad, like a 'Scary Movie' spoof of the 'August Underground' movies (which, in themselves, are laughably bad enough as it is). But, I suppose that's what it kind of is. Not a spoof, really, just what seems like a more tame, more mainstream attempt at an 'August Underground'-type film. . . but, really, it's just bad.

Final Verdict: 3.5/10

-AP3-

disturbing lost flick

[trashgang · 8/10 · 7 September 2015]

Another found-footage flick that people said, you must see it and I tried to track it down, for years. When it came out it vanished from the planet like nothing, it never had a proper release or was seen in the theaters. Strange things went on with this flick and even up to today it doesn't have a proper release, only available on VOD. So I thought yeah well, this is going to be a terrible flick if it didn't has a release but God was I wrong.

Must say that I was warned that it was a disturbing flick and yes, it was. Always loved flicks about serial killers and this found footage is one with that theme. We do follow the cops trying to nail the killer and slowly we do see the video's the killer has left behind and it all starts so easy and low profile but towards the end it really get you by the throat. Even as it isn't that gory at all still the score used and the way it is filmed you will forget that you are watching a film. You are dragged into a documentary and into the sickness of a killer's mind.

As strange as The Poughkeepsie Tapes is it is a gem. It was made a good two years before the receding tide of found footage flicks out now. Due to budget concerns they may have pulled the plug on the promising film. This is all really speculation, for there was never any public statements about the decision to not distribute the film. MGM still owns the rights, and other studios have offered to buy it. The hole might be dug too deep now, the film is possibly no longer culturally relevant for a theatrical release, and the studio may be hiding in the underbrush, waiting to pounce it on an unsuspecting public. The fear that is may get lost in the already crowded sea of found footage trash to sift out of Hollywood. A second release date was scheduled for January 2, 2009 but that date too faded into memory. A must see.

Gore 1/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 3/5 Story 4/5 Comedy 0/5

Quite effective, but could have been better.

[BloedEnMelk · 7/10 · 27 March 2011]

I'm somewhere between a 6,5 and 7,5 if it comes to rating this movie, so I'll keep it on a 7. It is creepy and effective, but I think more could have been done with it to make it come above average.

The story of this movie is a simple one. In the house of a serial killer there are a lot of tapes found. On those tapes are the abductions, torture and murders of his victims. The Poughkeepsie Tapes is about this found footage, and in between the footage we see interviews with all kinds of people. FBI, students, parents, friends, and a surviving victim.

A few things that annoyed me were the background music and the quality of the 'found footage'. If you are a serial killer, and you want to videotape everything you do, then why do it on such a low-quality camera? IMO it would be a lot more realistic if the 'found footage' quality was a lot better. And, found footage doesn't come with sound effects or a sound track.

An other annoying thing was the surviving victim. It made me think of a real girl who was abducted by nutcase Cameron Hooker in 1977 and been hold captive for 7 years, spending a lot of that time in a box. It is also reminding of an equally sick nutter called Gary Heidnik who kept (and killed) girls as slaves in his cellar. But though the surviving victims were obviously extremely traumatized for life, the Stockholm Syndrome of the girl in the Poughkeepsie Tapes is totally over the top. Which makes it more unbelievable. Speaking about unbelievable, what about the time he spends hidden in the girls room, with the camera still going? Does he have an everlasting tape?

The good thing though is that there are some very unsettling parts in this movie, and overall it does feel pretty realistic. One thing I liked for example was that the normal voice of the killer was indeed very next-door guy, which is a good contrast for those moments where he is a total sick bastard. There were some moments I could feel my hair standing up.

I can imagine that for people who are not used to disturbing movies, this one is very disturbing. But if you are pretty thick-skinned like me and you watch a lot of movies, then you might be disappointed. Still, I did enjoy it, it could have been a lot worse, but then again it could also have been better.

Skip it

[seachase21 · 2/10 · 24 October 2017]

There are several factors that weaken this thriller/horror, but the one dire thing that makes it an overall failure is the makers grave mistake of making every moment of the "found tapes" all super grainy, flickering, fading, distorted, blinking and rolling frames of footage. I have home video tapes that I recorded in the 80s, with the absolute cheapest camera and cheapest blank tapes, stored in an outside shed, and over 30 years later, none of them look or perform like the "found footage" of over 800 videotapes in this film. It's mind boggling how no one involved in making this film realized this horrible error they were making. They even point out during the film that the 800 tapes were kept safely stored in a closet, in a controlled temperature environment, yet they expect the viewer to believe that every second of hundreds of hours of footage are all in horrific condition. So, that huge, unforgivable mistake combined with some poor acting and some very laughable, obviously and poorly scripted "input" from many of the authorities involved with the case, makes me tell others that this movie is one to skip.

"When You See Something Like This, It's Hard To Get It Out Of Your Head... But You Have To!"...

[azathothpwiggins · 30 September 2018]

After having watched THE POUGHKEEPSIE TAPES for so many years online, it's odd to have a "legitimate" release of the film now available. In a way, it's bitter-sweet, since it had enjoyed such a dark, mythic life on the internet. The "tapes" are suitably gritty, grimy, and at times, difficult to watch. From the first abduction / murder (of a child), to the last, the atmosphere is bleak, doom-filled, and insane.

The stalking of Cheryl Dempsey, takes us along like co-conspirators while this madman operates. One scene in particular, wherein the killer creeps up on his victim on all fours like some sort of animal, is truly unforgettable, generating quite an uncomfortable viewing experience! Like something found by accident on the dark net!

Upon first viewing TPT, one is struck by its realism. Its "documentary" style makes it feel all the more like this guy could actually be "out there" somewhere.

Of course, this is also art reflecting reality, since we all know about the state of our world. Hell, in a sense, the killer in TPT does exist / has existed. Any casual viewing of COLD CASE FILES, FORENSIC FILES, etc., bears this out. Having grown up on Gacy, Bundy, Dahmer, et al,, imagine stumbling upon their video collections! TPT delivers that sort of terror, making us very uneasy in the process.

Is it perfect? No, but it is very effective.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THIS MOVIE: #1- Never leave your children unattended, even in your front yard.

#2- Never let a stranger into your car. Ever!

#3- Do NOT allow your children to sell cookies door-to-door.

#4- Never get too comfortable in your own home. And don't think your boyfriend can help you!

#5- When will we ever learn to NOT accept rides from strangers? Just don't do it, folks!...

A very good horror film with only a couple of flaws holding it back

[jtindahouse · 7/10 · 29 November 2017]

There are only two things holding 'The Poughkeepsie Tapes' back from being a truly great movie. The first is the acting. My goodness it is shocking in some scenes. It's rare for a movie released as recently as 2007 to have acting this bad. The girl trying to pop the balloon is possibly the worst piece of acting I can remember seeing. The second thing is the inclusion of some scenes in the final cut. This is supposed to be a (fake obviously) documentary on a serial killer and yet there are a tremendous amount of things that would simply never be shown in any real documentary (explicit patient records spoken out loud by a doctor is a very obvious one that comes to mind). Apart from those two things though I have to say I quite liked this film.

This is an exceedingly dark film, make no mistake about that. It was made without a conscious, and I quite like that quality in a film. There is also one element to the story (revolving around 9/11) that I found very innovative, creative and original. It's one of those things that keeps you thinking after the film is finished. This certainly isn't for the faint of heart, however if you're up to it you may just find yourself very much enjoying 'The Poughkeepsie Tapes'.

Fire the visual FX team next time

[mattdean-43813 · 4/10 · 21 July 2020]

Heard about this movie and was surprised to see it on my streaming service, decided to see what the fuss was about. The movie was decent, for its originality and story focus (as opposed to the generic, slasher flick). I didn't find it as horrendous to watch as it was made out to be, and that was mostly due to what I'm about to mention... The film was grossly let down by the over the top VFX. It made this very painful to watch. Old VHS tapes just do not look that bad, and it was a constantly annoying over the top attempt at selling the idea. It pulled me right out of the movie and killed the realism it was so desperately trying to sell. It's just like, we get it, these are the killer's self shot tapes. Get over the VFX! Also the early "news" segments were presented in the same manner as the later, even though they were supposed to be decades apart. Same camera quality, same graphic treatment, this was a pretty big oversight. I guess the VFX team were too busy overdoing the tapes effects to notice! That said, kudos for doing something different.

Charles Ng and Leonard Lake

[thomasjones59 · 7/10 · 25 March 2020]

Obviously based on he torture dudgeon murders of Leonard Lake and Charles Ng, in California. They murdered from babies to grown men, and left a videotape library. Covered their property with graves. Beyond the videotapes, they left many photos of young women who have never been identified. This was an excellent dramatization of the fear and confusion they caused.

Tries to hard to be shocking

[GethinVanH · 2/10 · 20 June 2009]

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.

can't get this movie out of my head!

[Stauch · 10/10 · 8 May 2007]

I'm a big fan of the horror genre, but I've gotten used to "disposable" horror flicks that stop being scary the moment the lights come up. So I'm especially grateful to admit-- I CANNOT GET THIS MOVIE OUT OF MY HEAD! I thought it was scary in the theater, but it's just become so much scarier in the week since I saw it at the Tribeca Film Festival (where the audience, BTW, went nuts for it. it was the big "buzz" film at TFF.)

I don't want to add any spoilers so I won't go into detail, but MAN, there were a handful of "video footage" scenes that were so scary, I haven't been able to wash my face without keeping one eye open while I splash with water, you know what I mean?

For me, the thing that makes it so scary is 1.) it's all so hyper realistic 2.) the characters (some of them) are so vulnerable and authentic and even kind of lovable that the scares have a lot more impact. If you're hoping to see just another popcorn movie where the gang of vapid teenagers gets butchered, this probably ain't the film for you. On the other hand, if you wish they were still making movies as meaningful and scary as Rosemary's Baby, Repulsion, The Shining, Texas Chainsaw, Henry Portrait Of... and even (to mention a newer flick) The Ring, then you absolutely have to check out this new cult classic.

uneven tone and uneven quality

[phenomynouss · 6/10 · 28 February 2021]

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.

Good directing altogether but falling short in the characters

[deslegumes · 4/10 · 23 May 2010]

Although this in essence is a truly scary horror movie which will undoubtedly scare happy teens for years to come, the characters in it are sadly - despite very good acting skills on some parts - largely unrealistic in the way they are portrayed. It became a bit annoying in the end, because they were all acting in that particular way, indicating that this perhaps was just a directing mistake - or I speculate it could also be that it was done intentionally to "take the edge off" and make the movie a bit "less" frightening actually (though unlikely).

My issue is that there is a bit "too much" acting; people who have been involved in cases like these, be it up close or just a reporter, tend to speak about them in a detached, matter-of-fact way. This is both natural and helpful, and is probably a kind of defense-measure on part of the human psyche. The officers, forensic investigators, family and so on are often here showing the "theatre" syndrome, exaggerating both voices and body language.

Maybe I'm just boring, analytical and interested in details, but don't forget - every good police officer or forensic detective probably are as well :-P

If you don't care or saw the movie and didn't notice anything unnatural, then good for you - you got your moneys worth :)

For a comparison in what I mean, take a look at *any* episode of *any* true crime investigation, e.g. Crime Investigation Australia.

Certainly not perfect, but effective nonetheless.

[FrightMeter · 8/10 · 20 January 2009]

"The Poughkeepsie Tapes" is a tough film to review. Much like any recent horror film, there are going to be people who love it and people who hate. Reading some of the recent reviews here and on other prominent horror sites, one would think this film is as sloppy and as terrible as "Ax 'Em" or "Dark Fields." In fact, though this film has a plethora of problems, I believe it is an effective, creepy, and thought-provoking little film.

It is presented as a documentary. Basically, a serial killer has been terrorizing the community of Poughkeepsie, New York for years. Cops are baffled by the cleverness of the killer. He is even able to frame a police officer, who is executed for the crimes. When they discover the home of the serial killer, police and FBI find hundreds of VHS tapes, each detailing the crimes of this vicious killer. We are shown footage of these tapes, interwoven with interviews of police officers, family members of victims, and even a victim herself to get a perspective of the killer and his crimes. Some of the footage is downright creepy and disturbing, including the murder of a young child and torture of several victims. The mask the killer wears is also quite creepy.

One of the main problems with the film is in presentation. We are suppose to be viewing "real" footage of the killer and his crimes, but can't help to notice the convenient "suspenseful" background music that plays during each clip. Did the killer go in and edit and add music to each of his tapes? The killer's identity remains a mystery throughout the whole film and it is a stretch to ask viewers to believe the he was able to get away with some of the stuff he did (framing a police officer). The acting by some is rather hokey, but I can't decide if it was meant to be that way because is is suppose to be "real" people being interviewed, or if these people are just bad actors.

Despite the flaws, "The Poughkeepsie Tapes" does some things extremely well, mainly making the viewer uncomfortable. The killer is pretty brazen, and it is horrifying to think that, yes, there ARE people out there like that. Like the film says, there are anywhere from 25-40 active serial killers working at any given time in the United States. The black and white footage of the "crimes" is pretty effective and provides some great tension. There is also one scene where the killer is walking on all fours toward a victim with his creepy mask on that gave me chills. Though the ending is unsatisfying, it almost couldn't have ended any other way.

Overall, I have seen MUCH worse. Those dismissing this as nothing but brainless torture porn obviously have short attention spans or just weren't paying all that close attention to it. The film is constructed and edited very well (despite the flaws I mentioned above) and the story is actually pretty solid. I can tell a lot of thought went into this film. It could have been better, but that can be said about any film. Go in with an open mind and watch this with the lights off at night. I am willing to be you will be looking behind you and checking to see if your doors are locked more than once.

FrightMeter Grade: B

Lesson: Don't put profiles in your movie if you can't profile

[serina25801 · 6/10 · 19 September 2020]

This movie had potential. Keyword: "HAD". Any potential it carried, it squandered on its horrible understanding of behavioral analysis and opted for cheap gimmicks to shock the audience. If you have any type of law enforcement background, just avoid this film. It'll just upset you at how inaccurate it is when it tries to come off as a documentary.

Is the film bad? Not necessarily. The acting's on-par and the effects are nice. It's a good film to put on in the background while you're doing something else, which is more than I can say for a lot of flicks. Where this movie fails is its attempt to be taken seriously.

Anyone with any type of training is going to know that the majority of the methodology is ridiculous. A serial killer doesn't go around targeting adults and children - even if they're after victims of opportunity. They have a type, may once or twice go against it due to an outside interruption, but that's it. And those that they do go after because it was either kill them or be caught, those are their most disorganized.

It's apparent the filmmakers just wanted to put something together to make people uncomfortable. And if you have no experience in anything criminal-related, it might get to you. But even the torture that was described was pretty standard for even things you'd watch on regular television (Law & Order, Criminal Minds, NCIS, etc.).

I give it 6/10 because it didn't bore me to tears, it just had me going "that's not how that works" way too often.

Sleep inducing drivel

[Cedric_Catsuits · 1/10 · 12 August 2013]

I admit I gave up on this half way through, but nothing I saw led me to believe it was about to get any better. The use of the 'tapes' may have been for 'realism' but they are so poor in quality it makes much of the film unwatchable.

This is supposed to be a horror film? Certainly there was nothing horrific in the first half. Films with such low production values need to pile on the blood and gore or spine-tingling thrills to get any sort of reaction, but this is just mildly unpleasant and utterly pointless.

I guess it's just another bunch of clueless amateurs jumping on the budget horror bandwagon, and failing miserably. How this averages a 6 is beyond me - there must be a lot of people with low expectations who don't watch many movies, because if they did have something to compare this with they would see how dreadful it is.