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-
86 out of 132 found this helpful