umimelectric I decided to give this a viewing after reading how disturbing it's supposed to be and that it was never given its cinematic or home releases that were intended for it.Some imagery and themes are unsettling, particularly those involving the younger victims. If you are very bothered by the implication of children being harmed then you should probably watch something else but I find real life is much scarier than fiction.It's loosely based off of an actual serial killer in that city in the 90's though it's really a work of fiction as most if not all of the events in the film do not reflect reality. Found footage genre so some people will treat it like they are viewing real events anyway.The acting is so mediocre that the best I can do is a 5/10. Acting is not this challenging...and even worse it's not challenging for someone to notice poor acting so it's a mystery why it's allowed in so many indie films as if a director can't notice it, yet I can without a problem.In the case of found footage, it would seem acting should be relatively simple...but the "FBI agents" that are interviewed on camera just seem like loser actors hamming it up, right down to the hesitant breaths they take before speaking, and the dramatic facial expressions. Watch some true crime stuff on TV where they speak to real FBI agents...they are completely calm and collected, factual and to the point. These FBI agents in the film come off as actors who want to be noticed by exaggerating their parts and making their lines seem more poignant than that of how your typical dull federal agents would express themselves on camera, a place where they are not naturally comfortable being.All in all, if you want some torture porn, this movie may suffice. If you want convincing acting, you may feel insulted.

BA_Harrison The Poughkeepsie Tapes is a faux documentary featuring found footage of a serial killer's handiwork. Through interviews with FBI profilers, the police, and the families and friends of the victims, and with excerpts from the murderer's videotapes (horribly distorted imagery: next time, Mr. Killer, buy a better camera!), we learn how the murderer has successfully evaded capture.I've seen an awful lot of found-footage horror/pseudo-snuff in my time, some of which has achieved a level of realism that has bordered on the limits of what I will watch. But despite it's controversial reputation, I didn't find The Poughkeepsie Tapes in the least bit shocking, largely because at no point was I convinced that what I was watching was real.Some of the acting was very weak, which certainly didn't help (those girl scouts selling cookies were dreadful), but the main problems I had were with the killer, who wasn't in the least bit intimidating (his voice and ridiculous costumery were laughable), and the fact that no genuine documentary would ever show uncensored footage of dismembered victims, as this did.I wanted to believe and become fully immersed in the movie, but in the end I couldn't, and that seriously spoiled the experience.

Jess C Look, this movie is definitely disturbing on many levels and that is exactly why I gave it 2 stars even though I wanted to give it none. "Found footage" style is the new go-to for every hack in Hollywood and I'm tired of it. It was barely good back in 1999 when Blair Witch was released. Every moronic filmmaker with a flimsy idea and no money wants to use this method. So why is this one worse than most? Because it used something real. Something this was a REAL tragedy that ruined quite a few families. And I'm not being a moralist here; I would not have had any problem with this film, had it only been artistic, original, or inventive in any way. But it wasn't. It was just another gross-out ripoff trying to suck from the teat of the Saw franchise, but even worse because actual women were murdered by this guy. So I was bothered and disgusted for NO reason, because I could have watched a legitimate documentary about this case. Or, even better, a well-made movie based on characters that weren't either victims of actual, serious crimes or fat pieces of psychotic s*** that died in their prison cells. Do we really want to appreciate anything made by sick, non-imaginative a-holes who spent this much time trying to emulate a snuff film? I sure as hell don't. This was an abomination and I regret every minute I spent watching it.

badbones777 I was quite impressed with this film and definitely think it's worth a watch.It is low budget and in some instances the acting isn't stellar and occasionally some of the really dark sequences make it a bit too dark to see what is going on - normally this works fine as it makes your imagination do a lot of the work, but in one or two cases I really would have liked it a little brighter just so I could follow what was happening (mainly involving the killer moving and I didn't fully catch exactly what he was doing.) This is however a fairly minor gripe and I enjoyed the film and found it pretty engrossing.As many people have noted, the standout parts of the film involve the gradual breakdown and degradation of the Cheryl Dempsey character and the Master/Slave relationship that develops between herself and the killer. It was a surprisingly effective story and I don't think the film would be anywhere near as good without it.For the most part I like that the vast majority of the killers motives and so on go completely unexplained (though it does lead me on to one of my gripes later on). One of the FBI profilers offers some conjecture as to what might have driven the killer to do these ghastly murders but that is about it. The film also does a pretty good job of making you dislike the killer (some of the stuff he does is pretty awful and sadistic) and wanting background that is never provided - in most cases this works well as it makes the viewer feel the same level of exasperation as the authorities.That said....there were a few things that didn't work for me -almost all of them mechanical/technical details.1.) There is too much emphasis on how awesomely great the killer is. By this I mean things like not a single finger print being found at the house, etc didn't work for me. I began to wonder at one point if they were building toward a superhuman/supernatural angle and it did spoil some of my suspension of disbelief.2.) Partially tying in with the above point - the whole James Foley storyline. i seriously think this entire thing could be cut form the film and it would make the film a lot better. For starters, it only serves to make the killers skills laughably good rather than intimidating (the whole taking his sperm donations from a fertility clinic......I guess it's not impossible but I found the level of planning/resources and time involved in the frame job so ludicrously unlikely that I think the film suffers for it).Secondly, given that the killer actually approaches Cheryl Dempsey's mother and she becomes aware that he is the killer before he leaves just makes the whole Foley angle even more ridiculous. If Mrs Dempsey has met the killer then unless he was masked/heavily disguised (which would be rather odd at a crime scene) then she must have known enough to know that Foley was not the killer (I don't think she comments on the Foley angle at all in the film). I certainly think she would know enough to help narrow down some of the profiling issues the authorities have been having, unless the killer actually looks like Foley, but even then, that's a pretty good lead. No, for me the Foley angle weakens the film considerably.3.) While I realise that a lot of stuff goes unexplained in this (and as I mentioned above this is mostly actually a positive thing) I think at least some hint of a reason as to why the killer chooses Cheryl to be his "Slave" rather than a victim would have been good.Beyond that though it is a good film and I would recommend watching it.