![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Review: Cropsey (2009)
This was a true crime documentary about an urban legend by the name of Cropsey, and the man who was arrested and assumed to be the perpetrator of several kidnappings and murders of children and others with intellectual disabilities. Spoilers.
Story
The story followed the investigation and conviction of Andre Rand. He was first convicted for the kidnapping and murder of Jennifer Schweiger, and later for Holly Hughes. Most of the evidence that was used in court were eyewitness testimonies, which we are meant to be skeptical about, especially for cases that happened so many years ago. At that point, I admit that I was a bit skeptical about whether Rand was the true perpetrator.
The film took a detour to talk about Satanic Cults, but I think it was more to demonstrate how the general public let their imagination fill in the gaps.
Andre Rand's behaviour that was revealed towards the end of the movie pushed me towards believing that Andre Rand was truly the killer, but just didn't want to reveal the information. His sister implied that he enjoyed manipulating other people, and there were past accounts of Rand agreeing to interviews only to refuse them at the last minute. Then, there was the interview with the Reverend who'd housed Andre Rand before he was arrested, and had heard Rand admitting to some of his crimes.
Like most true crime documentaries, the truth is not explicitly revealed like they would be in mystery movies. In the real world, cases are often messier, with evidence that don't match up. I think that the police will probably never recover all of the evidence, so some of the disappearances will remain mysteries forever.
The final message of the film was that the truth will never be known, but that people will fabricate their own stories to suit what they want to believe.
Production
A lot of the clips that were taken from old news reports and such were quite old (80s and 90s), so they were of a certain older quality.
The parts that were filmed in the current day didn't seem that far off in quality from those older clips though. I don't know much about camera quality, but I'd assume that the film crew was using a camera that probably wasn't the same quality as one in a film studio.
Overall
This documentary was okay. Again, like most true crime documentaries, the truth is not revealed, so it was unsatisfying in that sense.
The final message of the film was that the general public form their opinions regardless of what happens. Honestly, I didn't see this as the main takeaway of the film. I thought it had more to do with the technical proceedings and evidence that were found. A lot of the interviews with other people weren't so much about what they thought of Cropsey and whether he was guilty, but rather about specific pieces of evidence or testimony. So I didn't think we saw the extreme end of how people fabricated their own stories.
I don't think I would recommend this movie. It wasn't terrible, and I do think some people might be interested in this kind of documentary, but I didn't find anything spectacularly remarkable about it that I think would appeal to people outside of a specific niche.
Story
The story followed the investigation and conviction of Andre Rand. He was first convicted for the kidnapping and murder of Jennifer Schweiger, and later for Holly Hughes. Most of the evidence that was used in court were eyewitness testimonies, which we are meant to be skeptical about, especially for cases that happened so many years ago. At that point, I admit that I was a bit skeptical about whether Rand was the true perpetrator.
The film took a detour to talk about Satanic Cults, but I think it was more to demonstrate how the general public let their imagination fill in the gaps.
Andre Rand's behaviour that was revealed towards the end of the movie pushed me towards believing that Andre Rand was truly the killer, but just didn't want to reveal the information. His sister implied that he enjoyed manipulating other people, and there were past accounts of Rand agreeing to interviews only to refuse them at the last minute. Then, there was the interview with the Reverend who'd housed Andre Rand before he was arrested, and had heard Rand admitting to some of his crimes.
Like most true crime documentaries, the truth is not explicitly revealed like they would be in mystery movies. In the real world, cases are often messier, with evidence that don't match up. I think that the police will probably never recover all of the evidence, so some of the disappearances will remain mysteries forever.
The final message of the film was that the truth will never be known, but that people will fabricate their own stories to suit what they want to believe.
Production
A lot of the clips that were taken from old news reports and such were quite old (80s and 90s), so they were of a certain older quality.
The parts that were filmed in the current day didn't seem that far off in quality from those older clips though. I don't know much about camera quality, but I'd assume that the film crew was using a camera that probably wasn't the same quality as one in a film studio.
Overall
This documentary was okay. Again, like most true crime documentaries, the truth is not revealed, so it was unsatisfying in that sense.
The final message of the film was that the general public form their opinions regardless of what happens. Honestly, I didn't see this as the main takeaway of the film. I thought it had more to do with the technical proceedings and evidence that were found. A lot of the interviews with other people weren't so much about what they thought of Cropsey and whether he was guilty, but rather about specific pieces of evidence or testimony. So I didn't think we saw the extreme end of how people fabricated their own stories.
I don't think I would recommend this movie. It wasn't terrible, and I do think some people might be interested in this kind of documentary, but I didn't find anything spectacularly remarkable about it that I think would appeal to people outside of a specific niche.