UnowPriceless hyped garbage

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

valleyjohn 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.

Geeky Randy 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)

L This film held my interest, and was solidly creepy in terms of the atmosphere it created. Unfortunately, it hovers in the uncomfortable space between a documentary and a fictitious film.Cropsey tells the stories of five children, many of them developmentally disabled, who disappeared from Staten Island in the late 70s and 80s. While the remains of one were found, the others remain missing until this day.The movie makers attempt to uncover a seedy and tragic underbelly of Staten Island, revealing its past in the form of unsanitary and inhumane mental institutions, such as the notorious Willowbrook Institute, and suggest that the abandoned patients had formed an underground society of sorts beneath the foundations of an abandoned building (which may or may not even be Willowbrook). It is suggested that these people are connected with the disappearances of the children, though no exact evidence is given. It seems these people, who are never seen (except in footage from a Geraldo Rivera expose) but only talked about, serve as scapegoats and freaks for the filmmakers and viewers alike, and this discrimination is ultimately one of the more chilling aspects to the film. There are some references made to the tragedy of the sub-human conditions in which these patients were forced to live, but the film keeps coming back to the idea that the mentally ill are somehow people to be feared.There's also the obligatory mention made of a "Satanic cult," but that subplot never really goes anywhere. The main suspect, one Andre Rand, who has been in prison for these crimes without, it seems, solid evidence other than his weirdness, is an easy villain, and while some of the people interviewed are not willing to believe his guilt, many are, including, it seems, the filmmakers.Overall, Cropsey does little to uncover any truth about the legends or the missing children. To its credit, the film owns up to this in the end, saying that urban legends, with their manifold versions, are not things that can easily be determined as true or untrue. The film stays exactly in the place it started, offering little breakthroughs or even possibilities. The belief in Rand's guilt seems present from the outset, and little is done to explore any alternatives.The one good thing this film does, perhaps unintentionally, is bring to light the mob mentality and the simultaneous repulsion to and interest in the sensationalism of the crimes seen in the Staten Island locals. Interviews with them show a shocking lack of critical thought on the matter, and a willingness to believe the most "us-vs-them" version of possible events.I'd recommend this movie, but caution viewers not to take it literally, and to actively think about what they are being shown.

gavin6942 Two film-makers document the second trial of serial killer Andre Rand on Staten Island, and connect it to the overall picture of the Cropsey urban legend and the fate of those who were released from institutions. Also, Satanic cults come into play.The film has been called atmospheric, ghoulishly fascinating, creepy, intelligent, nightmarish, profound, absorbing, terrifying and unsettling. These are words from reputable sources like the New York Times, New York Post and Wall Street Journal. There is little I can add that has not been said. This film is a triumph.I had a minor issue with it, because it did not really explore the legend of Cropsey, or mention the "Burning" movie. But the focus was never on Cropsey, but Andre Rand. If I can forgive this sleight of hand, I have to say I loved the film and the issues it discusses.What is in the forefront is the fate of Willowbrook and by extension the other mental health institutions in this country. As they closed down in the 1980s, millions of people were let loose on to the streets, creating a homeless epidemic. Much of this was harmless, but some was terrifying. Having no job or skills, some homeless turned to crime and some with more severe issues turned to murder. Rand is shown here as a form of evil, but he is a symptom and not the cause.The film has a wide variety of interviews, and I have to give them plenty of credit for tracking down the people they did and finding the documents they needed to find. The police officers who were willing to talk on camera added a great deal to the story. Most striking was the conversation with Robert Graham. He comes across as a potential killer himself, but also has the most insight inside Rand's mind.I could talk about whether I felt Rand was innocent or guilty, but the truth is I really am not sure either way. I found the evidence against him to be a stretch, and although he did not come across as a "good guy", it was unclear that he was involved in the crimes he was accused of. Was he guilty, or did the police just need someone to blame and he was the sort of guy people were happy to lock up? I spoke with Joshua Zeman, who says there is no plan at this time for a forthcoming book. I hope he changes his mind. The DVD has extra footage (about 30 minutes) but does not fully cover all the angles the film begins to explore. I want to know more about Rand, I want to know more on Willowbrook, and what is the big picture?