Hola all. Massawyrm here.

1999 is on the phone and it wants its crappy horror film masquerading as a documentary back.

How does one take the wind out of a truly jazzed audience flying high on about 15 hours of perfect film? First you get on stage and tell them they are about to watch a documentary. To add insult to injury, make sure you are lying through your teeth. Finally follow it up with a horror film that is pretending to be real but completely lacks the internal consistency to convince a discriminating audience that it is in fact real. The sit back, relax and watch an entire audience deflate over the course of 86 minutes.

Look, the real problem with The Poughkeepsie Tapes isn't that it is particularly bad. It isn't. The concept is genuinely creepy, some of the performances - especially those of a few of the victims - are some of the single most disturbing performances you are likely to see in such a film in recent years, and the film has a few genuinely brutal moments. The real problem is that it gets bogged down in its own attempt at cleverness. It is not real. It is part of the new wave of "Mock-umentaries" that we haven't even had the chance to name properly. Not done for laughs, this growing style has begun to be used as a widely accepted narrative form that can be shot cheaply, easily and tell a story in a slightly more unconventional manner. Hell, earlier this year I just watched George Romero's riff on the style with his excellent and soon to be loved Diary of the Dead. The style is cemented. And most importantly, we will gladly sit down and watch a piece of fiction masquerading as a documentary without thinking less of the filmmakers.

But when you try to fool us, bullshit us into being scared not because of mood or story but simply with the idea that this is very real, then you are not making a film. You are perpetrating a gimmick. The Poughkeepsie Tapes is nothing but a cheap gimmick, and one that has zero chance of pulling one over on a sophisticated audience already well versed in true crime television, mockumentary film or even the justice/legal system. This thing is so full of holes, the biggest after-chatter was the What tipped YOU off that it was bullshit conversation. For some it was a man being tried, found guilt and unwillingly executed in under 5 years. For others it was that the interview subjects were TOO comfortable in front of the camera. Still others noted the performances that not only didn't seem real, but weren't well acted either. My favorite was that we were supposed to be looking at video from a VHS camera in 1993 that instead looked like an HD camera being held out in front of the killer in reflections and shadows.

And the kicker is – there's nothing wrong with that…if you're watching fictional entertainment. We as an audience will suspend a certain amount of disbelief in a film we know to be just a story. But tell us it's all true and the logic centers in our brain start whirling and clicking and processing every little fact you throw at us. And when things don't add up, we look for the bullshit. And this film is full of it.

Look, I want to blame Moriarty for standing up in front of us all and selling us a line of crap. But it really isn't his fault. This lie is the films and the films alone. From the opening credits to the closing credits, this film – even at times much to its own detriment – is trying every trick in the book to convince you that this is a 100% true account of a serial killer who could get you at any moment. They even make the laughable assertion that he could be in your very theatre, watching the movie with you. And every moment that they spend laying it on thick could have been used to tell an even better story. Most of this film's inconsistencies actually stem from trying to get all the math to work. But no matter how much you try 2 and 2 will not equal 5. No rational sophisticated adult will believe that. But that's exactly what this film is trying to tell you.

If this film accomplishes anything, it will hopefully put the final nail in the coffin of pulling one over on the audience. When Peter Jackson did it in the 90's with Forgotten Silver it was funny. When The Blair Witch Project conned a nation for a short time, it was truly creepy. When Gang tapes was honest about being fictional, a scene posted online actually fooled a police department into believing a crime had been committed. But no one, no one, has been able to do it right since. And for the love of all that is holy, I hope no one else ever tries. The con is tired, weak and not even worth the try any more.

And the most tragic part of all this isn't that it killed BNAT cold, but that there is one, genuine breakout performance here that will sadly get lost in the shuffle and frankly is done a real disservice by being pawned off as real. Stacy Chbosky, who plays the lead victim Cheryl, is fucking incredible. If there's anything that would make this film believable, it is her chilling portrayal of a story we've all heard in the news – the tortured, sexually abused girl in the box. Although watching it as fiction it is much easier to appreciate the subtly contrasted with all the tortured screaming. And, oddly enough, it would have been much more believable were we allowed to immerse ourselves in this world.

I wish I could say that by going into this armed with the knowledge that it is a fake, you could see a completely different film than I – but it won't. You'll still have to deal with the logic flaws, the attempts to convince you otherwise and the piecemeal way news stories of the last 10 years were all pirated and woven into one cluttered mess. Gimmick. If you want to watch a gimmick, here one is. Personally, I prefer to watch film.

This film may not have been real, but it sure murdered an entire audience's enthusiasm in one fell, 86 minute swoop.

Until next time friends, smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em.

Massawyrm

There, now that I got that out of my system - onto the awesomeness.
In the meantime, drop me a line.