MovieChat Forums > The Poughkeepsie Tapes (2007) Discussion > I didn't love it, but the 2 main critici...

I didn't love it, but the 2 main criticisms of the film are idiotic.


COMMON CRITICISM #1 - "There's no way Cheryl would become attached to her captor."
Or the "romantic subplot" as some tards have called it. Look people. Go to wikipedia. Type in Stockholm Syndrome. If you think this doesn't exist, you need to pick up a book. Get out of the basement. Take Psychology 101. Not only would this happen, I guarantee you it would happen more often than not. Eight years of mental and physical torture? People's minds reprogram themselves all the time as a mechanism for survival. Bad Guy becomes Good Guy. Pain becomes Pleasure. Right becomes Wrong.
COMMON CRITICISM #2 - "The Acting Sucks."
Of course some of the acting sucks. Look at how many speaking roles there are! I counted 61. Imagine being in Poughkeepsie, NY with no money to pay professional actors and needing to fill SIXTY-ONE roles. You think Paul Giamatti is gonna drive himself up from NYC and do a day or two on your homemade snuff film/mockumentary out of the goodness of his heart? Get a grip on reality. There were wooden and stiff people being interviewed. But go watch a real true crime documentary. Guess what? There are wooden and stiff REAL people being interviewed.
If you don't put this movie in its context when you criticize it, you look like an idiot who knows nothing about films or filmmaking. (and like I said, I think the film is very flawed. And if your complaint is just that it didn't scare you, then fine. That's entirely subjective and hardly worth arguing.)
But don't tell me you could've done so much better yourself, because if that's the case, just shut up and do it. Put a chunk of your salary (or I suspect in most of these cases, your allowance) aside for a year. Soon you'll have enough to make a movie just like this. Show us how it's done. Because there are scores of homemade horror films up on Youtube. And they don't hold a candle to this movie. And that's the apple-to-apple comparison that should be made here. It's a No Budget homemade film. You can't hold it up to SAW. You can't hold it up to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. Don't be dumb.

reply

So wait, the reason that the terrible acting isn't a valid avenue for criticism is because...the actors are actually terrible?

If a low-budget film has terrible CGI or some really bad special effects of some kind, I suppose that's off limits too? We all have to like it anyway?

Nonsense. Like someone else in the thread said before, it's about results. If your movie sucks, it sucks. You don't get to petition for better audience reaction by making excuses. There's a reason that only certain no-budget horror films from the 70s and 80s are classics now, and that's because they MADE SOMETHING of their budget, no matter how little they had.

Plenty of classic (and convincing) films, from all genres, have been made on incredibly small budgets. Is it also unfair to like those films, since they did something the filmmakers behind this turd couldn't do and we are morally obligated to feel sorry for them and like their bad movie? Don't be dumb.

reply

Nowhere did I say you need to like the movie, numbnuts. Allow me to make my point again in Child-Speak for you.
1. Stockholm Syndrome is a real thing.
2. To expect 61 dynamite performances in a no-budget pseudo-documentary makes you a fool.

reply

The acting wasn't even that bad. Some of it was good, some of it average but all perfectly passable. I don't know why some people are making such a big deal over it.

reply

Because people like to seem insightful and clever. They want to make it blatantly obvious they werent fooled by this mockumentary. They claim the acting is bad but rarely give examples of why, let alone how it could have been better. The actors are here to play characters, not caricatures. If you dont understand the difference, you dont understand acting.

reply

Yeah, the actors are there to play characters. But lots of people (including me) don't think they did a very good job. I don't see how that's not a valid criticism.
There's nothing to "understand" about it either. It's good or it isn't.


I'm the grim reaper, lardass, and you're my next customer.

reply

I counted 61.
Well it's nice to know you have a life.


"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Hey, you provided the setup, I provided the punchline. That you took it so personally and responded so viciously is frankly disturbing and unwarranted.


"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

reply

I get what you're saying, but Poughkeepsie is about an hour and a half minutes from NYC. Not a bad drive in a limo.

reply

There's nothing wrong with either of these two criticisms, especially the second one (the first one could get a pass if it doesn't feel believable within the film, but it's a tricky one). People don't look like idiots if bad acting takes them out of the films so much they can't enjoy it. Having no budget doesn't excuse you from those kinds of criticisms. You can appreciate something being made on a budget and NOT like it.

And why can't you hold it up to Saw or Silence of the Lambs? What makes them so special and above this film? What if people hate the acting in those films? If you're comparing the budgets and production values, then ok, but comparing 'quality' is always going to be highly subjective. If the acting doesn't impress you, it doesn't impress you and no amount of context is going to change that fact.

Aristotle versus Mashy Spike Plate!

reply

I totally agree with you. Stockholm syndrome is a real thing and everyone here's just like this story is ridiculous and all.

Even the acting thing. Its a found footage kind of horror film and it was decent acting for such genre. Were they expecting an Al Pacino or Kevin Spacey to act in this genre??

SOMEONE ELSE IS ON THE MOON! 😯

reply

SPOT ON.

reply

The killer was so bad that we were often laughed nag at him rather than dreading anything he was doing. The concept was interestingly n but the execution was way off. Why you wouldn't get a seasoned actor for the killer is beyond me.

reply

Agree with you on the first part. i think the movie made it understandable how the brainwashing occurred.

The second part, I do not agree. I get that you won't get a list actors, but the problem is it is filmed as a documentary and when the performances (and also some of the shots) suggest to you that it is staged, it's hard to suspend disbelief.
So while it may be understandable for some actors to not be that good, it is a valid criticism.

reply