MovieChat Forums > The Poughkeepsie Tapes (2007) Discussion > I didn't love it, but the 2 main critici...

I didn't love it, but the 2 main criticisms of the film are idiotic.


COMMON CRITICISM #1 - "There's no way Cheryl would become attached to her captor."
Or the "romantic subplot" as some tards have called it. Look people. Go to wikipedia. Type in Stockholm Syndrome. If you think this doesn't exist, you need to pick up a book. Get out of the basement. Take Psychology 101. Not only would this happen, I guarantee you it would happen more often than not. Eight years of mental and physical torture? People's minds reprogram themselves all the time as a mechanism for survival. Bad Guy becomes Good Guy. Pain becomes Pleasure. Right becomes Wrong.
COMMON CRITICISM #2 - "The Acting Sucks."
Of course some of the acting sucks. Look at how many speaking roles there are! I counted 61. Imagine being in Poughkeepsie, NY with no money to pay professional actors and needing to fill SIXTY-ONE roles. You think Paul Giamatti is gonna drive himself up from NYC and do a day or two on your homemade snuff film/mockumentary out of the goodness of his heart? Get a grip on reality. There were wooden and stiff people being interviewed. But go watch a real true crime documentary. Guess what? There are wooden and stiff REAL people being interviewed.
If you don't put this movie in its context when you criticize it, you look like an idiot who knows nothing about films or filmmaking. (and like I said, I think the film is very flawed. And if your complaint is just that it didn't scare you, then fine. That's entirely subjective and hardly worth arguing.)
But don't tell me you could've done so much better yourself, because if that's the case, just shut up and do it. Put a chunk of your salary (or I suspect in most of these cases, your allowance) aside for a year. Soon you'll have enough to make a movie just like this. Show us how it's done. Because there are scores of homemade horror films up on Youtube. And they don't hold a candle to this movie. And that's the apple-to-apple comparison that should be made here. It's a No Budget homemade film. You can't hold it up to SAW. You can't hold it up to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. Don't be dumb.

reply

I can't agree more!

reply

Well said...

reply

BS. It's the result that counts, no matter the genre, no matter the year of production, no matter the budget.


Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to (P. Green)

reply

Ha ha ha ha, "You can't hold it up to SAW!"

Well, when you've set the bar THAT low, and it STILL can't reach it...

reply

The first Saw wasn't so bad. I mean sure it was a lesser ripoff of Se7en, but I thought it was compelling enough

reply

Agreed. I believe that i have seen the majority of the SAW movies (not sure, lost count), but I still think the first one is the best. No history, just the question you ask yourself - would you/ could you kill another human being to survive? Not necessarily an original idea, but definitely executed well.

LyndaLexi

reply

The acting was SO unconvincing it was distracting.

reply

I Didnt think the Acting Was bad for how many Relatively Unknown If Not Completely unknown actors made up the cast.. i Knew it Was a Movie When I Watched but my Friends didnt and they sure thought it was a legit snuffumentary hahaha

reply

[deleted]

Agreed with everything freidrich said...

reply

me too ... it's a cracking no budget horror

reply

I got over the acting, I've seen worse. What got me it when they played the "killer is a supergenius" card: how can he get away with all these crimes despite all leaving all this evidence? uhhhh, hes super brilliant, that's how! oh, magic then.

I think theres a hole in this bag, i aint dead yet

reply

[deleted]

I didn't get that he was a "super genius," just that he was a really talented killer who was smart enough not to follow any pattern that could be used to identify him. Of course, the whole thing does seem kind of ridiculous when you consider how haphazard the killings were, and how many stupid risks he took (talking to the victim's mom? Come on!) And what was up with the landlord? The killer murders the tenant, buries him in the backyard, and then lives in the place for years without the landlord ever showing up and going, "Who the hell are you?"

reply

100% agree with you...

Why so Serious ?

reply

I loathe this movie, but not for those two supposed main criticisms. In fact, Cheryl's character was the only haunting thing about that movie. Everything else just sucked so much ass... and here's why;

1) The cinematography is too dark to see a god damn thing. I know "what you don't see is often scarier" but that doesn't work because...

2) The killer himself isn't scary. Wearing those dorky outfits is just hysterical and his screaming fits are so laughable. He's less intimidating and more funny.

3) The fact that this guy manages to avoid the cops despite how much evidence he can leave behind is pure fantastical *beep* but not even in an entertaining fashion, especially since this is supposed to make you think it's potentially real. I know the whole "each kill is different" excuse, but that wouldn't stop the cops from catching this guy at some point. Plus, nothing is presented that convincingly makes me believe that this guy is some Hannibal Lecter level of intelligents serial killer.

4) Dragging in the 9/11 stuff is so contrived and borders on offensive. The lamest excuse, especially since he keeps on killing after the tragedy!

5) Most of these characters act so *beep* stupid. The worst bit was those girl scouts. I know kids can be gullible, but I think they know not to go into A STRANGER'S *beep* BASEMENT!

reply

agreed

reply