Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Wait A Minute... Someone At BNAT Liked THE POUGHKEEPSIE TAPES?!

Hey, "The Northlander", have you posted this objective view on I by JackPumpkinhead	Dec 21st, 2007 07:15:54 AM
I had a look at the movie's page there and it was amusing to see MGM and the Dowdies... errr, I mean, of course, "fully objective and impartial viewers like The Northlander" (usually registered within the same week) post "this is real" reviews links to the movie's fake sites about nonexistent serial killers.
Ugh - I Still Think... by Mr. Winston	Dec 21st, 2007 07:43:13 AM
...that the conceit in this movie is not that they're playing it as "real" - which they absolutely shouldn't, because no one could really mistake this for real - but because they failed so miserably in the execution of the mockumentary and that they apparently THINK that this works. And Christ, it couldn't work any less. But someone thinks it does, and that's just appalling. Obviously no one's going to post my review, and that's OK, but there's something you need to know if you're going to go see this movie. There's never a question as to whether it's real or not; if you can't figure out that it's fake from the first time the first character speaks, you shouldn't be allowed out of your bedroom. It's PAINFULLY obvious. However, that in and of itself shouldn't immediately disqualify this film as something you'd take a chance on. What you need to know is that there are flashes of real horror, real brilliance in this film, but they're so few and far between that ultimately they amount to very little. The opening sequence literally made me sick to my stomach. It's not gruesome and it's not graphic, but it hits a chord of depravity that, whether you think it's real or not, is revolting. There's a death sequence that, while again not graphic, is extremely troubling to watch. There are even really creepy, effective artistic moments, like when they make mention of how many serial killers are currently operating in the country. You see a cloth representation of the USA...and then about 50 spots just begin to bleed, soaking through. There's a sad, painful moment towards the end that then pays off the first scene. I saw it coming, kinda, but...I didn't see it coming the way it came. And even though there were parts of the movie I HATED by that moment, that gave me legitimate shivers. If you had to compare this to another movie you'd compare it to LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, a film that more or less sucked as a piece of cinema but that succeeded in chilling you with an idea even so. There are some awful, horribly executed facets to this film. Some of the sequences are just laughable, and the aforementioned cutaway to the "Dismemberment Expert" is so bad that it's shameful; it's inexplicable that anyone would think it a good idea to keep in the theatrical release. But the real problems come from the directors - they had no idea how to get naturalistic, unrehearsed-seeming performances out of their actors. Some of them are just bad actors (if you see anyone from any of the victim's families onscreen, just prepare to feel awkward at how bad they are). Otherwise I think there are a lot of GOOD actors in here who were failed by the writers/directors. If you're going to simulate a documentary - whether you're letting your audience in on the fiction or not - you had better get your actors to perform as though everything that's happening is unscripted. That's law, and see any GOOD mockumentary to know exactly how that's done. And yet every actor here, save for one or maybe two, feels painfully rehearsed, overly-nuanced, like they're playing stage-play roles in an adaptation of an actual documentary. It. Never. Works. I wasn't at BNAT, but I can imagine the rejection that must be innate after being told that this was real. It's the wrong way to market the film, plain and simple, in the same way that these filmmakers were the wrong ones to shoot it (I can only imagine what this might have been in a capable director's hands). That's not to say they're talentless, but they're clearly not "There" yet. It's a great effort, but such a heavily flawed one that I think most audiences are going to scoff at it. I am beating the corpse of a dead horse so badly here that I should be jailed for it, but I think an honest, non-BNAT opinion of the movie needs to come out. Don't reject it out of hand for the way it's being handled by the studio - check it out for the two or three scenes that really, really hit hard, and then hope that the next time someone gives this a shot it lives up to that level of promise.
JackPumpkinhead by TheNorthlander	Dec 21st, 2007 07:57:35 AM
I've expressed some of my views on this film on the BNAT MySpace group, but that's it. Do you have a link to what you're talking about?
One Other Thing I Forgot by Mr. Winston	Dec 21st, 2007 08:04:14 AM
This bothered me maybe more than anything else. OK, so we're supposed to believe that the footage shot was done on crappy-quality VHS tape in the early 90s. Fine, I can buy that. A lot of things were taped on crappy-quality VHS tapes in the early 90s. However, in this film, that's not what we see. What we see, in sorrowfully obvious obviousness, is that they've gone to painstaking lengths to make HD footage look like distorted, crappy VHS footage. It warbles and flickers in and out at a rate that's so prevalent that it goes far beyond early bad video quality. You can TELL they're trying too hard. Worse than that, it's all formatted in widescreen. How many of you ever saw a VHS camera in the early 90s that shot in widescreen, seriously? It begs an obvious question: why the HELL didn't they just shoot the killer's tape sequences with an old VHS camcorder? I'm sorry if that makes too much sense and would have saved too much money, but c'mon, seriously now. Gack, sorry, I'm just venting. I hate seeing wasted promise and I hate that the promise in this film was wasted just because these guys made such elementary and unnecessary mistakes. I'll stop now.
Mr. Winston by TheNorthlander	Dec 21st, 2007 08:17:03 AM
You make some points, but about your comparison to Last House on the Left, I think a more fair one would be to a movie called The Last Broadcast. That one was made shortly before The Blair Witch Project, and is a horror mockumentary set up with a presenter who is also the maker of the documentary. He tells the story of a couple of young filmmakers that go into the woods searching for the Jersey Devil and end up dead. Then, through interviews with people surrounding the case we found out what happened. It's a very similar idea to both Blair Witch and Poughkeepsie, only it came before both. And was better than neither.
I Did not think this movie was well made. by Stubbadub	Dec 21st, 2007 08:25:29 AM
I saw the trailer for this film before The Mist, and it was pretty obvious to me that it was fictional. Those sitting around me for the most part seemed to realize it too very early on in the film. This film does a poor job of convincing people otherwise. Maybe I'm wrong and have too much faith in people's intelligence, but I don't feel like many people are going to have this problem. There were two points early on that msde me suspect it was a spoof. One was the flyover scene you mentioned, the other was the balloon scene. It became pretty clear before long that there was no more funny coming. This wasn't an expectation of mine going in, and didn't stay an expectation for long once the idea had occured to me. I could not enjoy this film. It's a shame because I think the idea is a good one, but the filmmaker's just failed in their execution. I'm normally a lot more forgiving of horror films than other genres, but I just couldn't get into this film.
TheNorthlander by Mr. Winston	Dec 21st, 2007 08:37:49 AM
I think you mostly got my point but missed the basis of my comparison. I'll blame that on the fact that I didn't explain it well enough. You're right, LAST HOUSE and TPT are totally different movies - different styles, different subject matter, different scope. What I was trying to say was that they are both, for the most part, efforts that had some brilliant moments but overall are pathetic films. That's to compare nothing about their story and genre, just a more philosophical idea that they missed the mark as per execution but succeed in being ethereally creepy in concept. You'll never find anyone who will call LAST HOUSE a good movie. It's poorly shot, poorly written, mostly poorly acted, and just altogether rough. But Craven was trying out some wholly original ideas, and even though it was bad it STILL horrified people and people still love it even for (and I'm sure in large part because of, in many cases) its flaws. It had its moments, too - the metallic sound effect that accompanies the machete coming out, the villains pulling the girl's guts out. I'd have to look at TPT as a similar kind of failure - the kind that flashes some genius but collapses under its own crappiness. I think that there are ideas in TPT that really could set the bar for future horror mockumentary, but all the same the film itself will be regarded as something of a joke.
Another person saying that if we didn't like it, we must be dumb by 433	Dec 21st, 2007 08:58:20 AM
Waaaaaaay back at BNAT 2, the first film screened was DESTINATION MARS. It was billed as a real "found" film, with a documentary running beforehand. It was a fake, which people figured out at various times throughout the first 20 minutes. It was fun. As far as TPT, we weren't "offended" at being joked with. It's not that we "didn't get it". The movie was just bad, from both the creative and technical aspects.
Relax, 433 by Mr. Winston	Dec 21st, 2007 09:22:15 AM
Jesus, the guy's just trying to offer a different perspective. Where does he talk about how dumb we are for not liking it? God I hate Internet Attack Culture. On another note - even though I don't think the comment was directed at me - I didn't want anyone to think I insinuated that BNATers were cheated or offended by the way the film was presented. In fact, the way it happened, it sounds like Mori is suffering the ultimate case of Don't Shoot the Messenger. That said, I still think it's shitty that the studio ever tried to pull off that kind of campaign. It's not just kind of stale, but more than that it's so misguided and inept that it's actually almost funny.
Drop it Drew by Saluki	Dec 21st, 2007 09:30:06 AM
No gives a shit about this. Just drop it.
Have you ever picked your feet in Poughkeepsie? by Osmosis Jones	Dec 21st, 2007 09:31:01 AM

When viral marketing goes bad... by Rubiks Doob	Dec 21st, 2007 09:37:37 AM
AICN was obviously well-paid to pimp this horrible looking flick. They've tried repeatedly to prop it up after it nearly single-handedly sunk BNAT 9. Here they are one last time going to the well. Let this one die already guys. You blew the marketing, but you'll get paid anyway so stop ramming this turkey down our throats.
Wow, a snuff movie that isn't actually a snuff movie by DannyOcean01	Dec 21st, 2007 09:40:29 AM
OHMIGAWSSHHHH, you're all so clever for working it out. For working out that a fucking studio would EVER put out a fucking snuff movie as a theatrical release. You sit there basking in the glow of your geek power you deluded wankers. Judging by the almost rabid ferocity that so many of the BNATers greeted this film with I have no interest whatsoever in attending a future event. You all sound like obnoxious, sanctimonious assholes....especially that Nordling.
Mr. Winston by TheNorthlander	Dec 21st, 2007 11:15:46 AM
Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree about Last House on the Left. I think it's a good film, and like you say the fact that it's horrifying despite its technical flaws is what makes it as good as it is, in my opinion. But that's me.
Mori I wouldn't sweat the BNAT reviews by CarmillaVonDoom	Dec 21st, 2007 11:34:46 AM
Stay current! We already know what happened at BNAT.
Uh, what fools would think this is real? by christian66	Dec 21st, 2007 12:20:28 PM
We live in the 21st century where babies can surf the web. If there are people that think TPT is real, it just proves that teh internets are making people even stupider.
The only scary thing about this film by liljuniorbrown	Dec 21st, 2007 02:43:47 PM
Is that there are people that actually enjoyed it. I'm not one to knock others taste in films but this whole torture porn genre is waaaaay past it's expiration date. I'm looking forward to Cloverfield, the idea of a monster movie shot through a handheld camera is a good idea, same as the new Romero film with a similar direction,but to put that together with a genre that does nothing to entertain is just crap. I don't think the bnat crowd were mad that they were told it was "real" ,I think they were mad because they are tired of seeing the same old shit, how many times can you see... " as she is stalked for a few days or weeks, to when she's kidnapped, tortured into slave submission in a basement dungeon somewhere, and held over the course of several years."? That shits old ,played out and kind of creepy after a while. Gotta start worrying about the writters of this shit.
Honestly, who is going to believe this is real? by The Dum Guy	Dec 21st, 2007 02:50:11 PM
The trailer hints that it isn't fake, but it obviously is. Blair Witch had more going for it with the Sci-Fi network special and the internet marketing, but that was almost ten years ago. Does the film even mention why this "real" news story never got national coverage, which in real life it would?
I'm with Winston on Last House. by Tourist	Dec 21st, 2007 03:24:40 PM
Its a dreadful film, almost retarded in its poor craftsmanship. However, I did leave the room in disgust, which is pretty rare for me, considering I tend to enjoy rather depraved media. I think, like perhaps this Poughkeepsie Tapes, or other recent efforts like Broken or August Underground, its a combination of someone who sets out to entertain by degrading and abusing someone, but lacking any abillity as a film maker, and not having the honesty to just make porn that pisses me off, or offends me about some of these flicks. Damn, I feel like Roger Ebert.
the "interviews" with experts... by smallerdemon	Dec 21st, 2007 05:12:54 PM
Those "experts" that they have during the interviews, though, a lot of that is acted or played directly for laughs. I'm not sure what, exactly, that's supposed to represent from the POV of the filmmakers. Either they intended that or it is a hugely unfortunate consequence of them not getting the right performances from their actors OR them not communicating what they wanted from the performances. I was in and out of TPKs, and every time I did walk in and catch part of the experts interviews, every one of them was inappropriate in tone for it to be a genuine horror movie, which just killed it in its tracks. Those folks really needed a grim tone, but what they portrayed was befuddled astonishment with zero feeling that what they witnessed in the tapes and the crime scenes had any impact on them whatsoever aside from "Well lookee here! He's done gone and put this feller's head inside this gal's torso! Hunh! Now THAT my friend... is weird. Oh, hey, coffee break!"
Last universally despised BNAT horror sneak was House of 1K Corp by UnChienAndalou	Dec 22nd, 2007 02:35:26 AM
...and it actually turned out to be somewhat okay so I'm not going to let the overwhelmingly negative reaction to Poughkeepsie sap the openness of my mind towards it. Everything else Zombie has made since Corpses has been grade A shit but his debut feature had lots of good ideas that were just executed shoddily which is not unexpected since he's a cinematic dilettante.
August Underground by hamslime	Dec 22nd, 2007 03:26:48 AM
A friend showed this little trilogy at Splatterhouse. People actually went outside and waited for the next feature because they (and I) thought we were watching a snuff film. He had to show the interviews on the special features with the "victims" to prove otherwise. Every scene is one long shot with the torture happening in camera. The victums screaming to the point of exhaustion and you can see in their body language that they have just finally given up. Really brilliant film-making from a logistical standpoint and the gore effects were OUTSTANDING!Does this compare with that or is it just Saw with bad cinematography? I'll actually be happy with either one.
In case you care by hamslime	Dec 22nd, 2007 03:30:34 AM
I wasn't making some ironic statement with different spellings of VICTIMS, I'm just a jack-ass who didn't proof-read.
Intro killed this film at BNAT... by Bob Loblaw Law Blog	Dec 22nd, 2007 04:26:36 AM
Having spoken to TheNorthlander several times at and after BNAT, I can understand why he enjoyed this film. And, he seems to make some decent arguments about why so many of us (including me!) hated it. Mori should never have told us this was a documentary. It made the viewing awkward and uncomfortable... not exciting, thrilling or even interesting. In fact, this film made me realize why some documentaries are so good in the first place: they present testimonies, evidence and people in a compelling manner that invite you to follow the narrative. My problem with TPT is it wasn't compelling at all... it was like watching a film by a couple of douchebag frat guys wanting to gross out their friends and include ridiculous scenes like a woman "consenting" to be raped. So, yeah... I may have liked this film a bit had it just been shown. But, once I realized that this was nothing more than another lame attempt to "fool" the audience, I was done. I watched the whole thing, sure... and I'll never do it again.
re:august underground by chaosound	Dec 22nd, 2007 02:45:09 PM
i was wondering when/if someone would mention these i too have chased people out of the room viewing these films because they believed it to be actual snuff when i saw the trailer for TPT at The Mist i was surprised they were releasing something like this theatrically while i may personally enjoy these films i still find it unsettling that society as a whole accepts them enough to warrent a full-on major film release
birdie birdman by hamslime	Dec 23rd, 2007 02:02:19 AM
Do you want us to be burned alive because you don't like the movie itself? If that's the case you're morally wrong, but I understand (see Fall Out Boy fans). Or do you feel that way because it is "torture porn" and anything that falls under that blanket is a disgusting display of human cuelty? If that is the case... well, birdie, you sir are a hypocrite, and your god will see to it that you will burn in hell. Now the only question I have left is: When a god watches people burning in hell, is that then considered "torture porn"?
Not so, TallBoy66. by hamslime	Dec 23rd, 2007 04:39:09 AM
It is simply meant to debase any credibility to the term "tortue porn". If you don't like the story in the August Underground movies that"'s fair enough as there isn't one. To dismiss the acting, setup, and most importantly the make-up and special effects (sans CGI no less!)because of the subject matter is what's retarded. AND TO WANT ME AND OTHERS BURNED ALIVE IN A THEATRE! Well, as I said, I get the sentiment but it's counter-productive to ones plight for morality. I think I've explained myself and if you disagree then I suppose you can go back to church and plan more terroristic attacks on infidel movie enthusiasts. Just like Jesus would do.
After being SCAMMED into viewing, you can't get your money back by MooYork	Dec 23rd, 2007 01:38:16 PM
So if you are tricked into going to a film, thinking it is going to be a documentary about Kendall Francois (a real poughkeepsie murderer), you can't get your 10 bucks back when tricked into seeing a fake mockumentary. Even if it's 30 seconds in and you realize you were scammed into seeing a fetish movie and not a documentary. That was my point before, not that you thought what you were seeing was real (since the acting and use of music/heart beats is horrible), it's that you you want your money back, because it's not about what you thought it was about. Hopefully word will get out through reviews and talkbacks so people won't be tricked and only people who want to see a fetish mockumentary will pay for and be happy.
I never really understood by Garbage	Dec 23rd, 2007 03:38:52 PM
this so-called "torture" "porn," or "torpor." What's the point? Anyone can torture porn. No, seriously, I'm glad this genre is crawling back to its cave. No offence to anyone who likes it, but I think it's kind of sick and creepy, kind of like Wild Hogs.
It's not glorification by hamslime	Dec 24th, 2007 02:58:16 AM
Movies like Saw and Hostile don't glorify torturers any more than American History X glorifies nazi skinheads, or Goodfellas glorifies gangsters. The movies take flawed characters in extreme circumstances and anylize how they come to be. If you want to talk about glorifying murderers check out the news. Here in Omaha we had some jack-ass shoot up the mall because he wanted to be famous, and on cue the news stations plastered his name, face, family, life story, GPA, and underwear size on the television. What's scary is that some other jack-ass is going to see the "noteriety" he got and follow suit. You could argue that movies inspire murder and in some cases you may be right, but movies don't create "stars" the way that news media does.
bad movie is bad by ArcadianDS	Dec 26th, 2007 01:01:42 PM
guys, if a movie is bad, its bad. Telling people, "its only bad because you think its in a different category of film" is about the worst damage-control I have ever seen. Remember when BNAT was about geeks watching geek-tastic movies? Its all gone commercial now, and is just another avenue of marketing for studios with really bad movies tied around their necks like millstones. Reminds me of those so-called 'new woodstock' concerts that were going on in the mid 90s - trying so hard to set up facades of 'home-grown geek festival of fun' when really its just paid marketing for crap features.

Talkbacks

Wait A Minute... Someone At BNAT Liked THE POUGHKEEPSIE TAPES?!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks