Review: The Poughkeepsie Tapes (dir. by John Erick Dowdle)


“She kept covering her eyes, whispering ‘please take me home, please take me home, please take me home…’ a week later I got her outta there and I brought her home… but she just kept repeating it. At that point I realized… she didn’t mean OUR home.” — Victoria Dempsey

The Poughkeepsie Tapes emerges from the shadows of independent horror like a grainy artifact unearthed from some forgotten police evidence locker, its found-footage aesthetic not merely a gimmick but a deliberate plunge into the abyss of real-world atrocity documentaries. Directed by the Dowdle brothers—John Erick and Drew—this 2007 effort masquerades as a television special pieced together from hundreds of VHS recordings left behind by a serial killer known only as the Waterworks Killer, operating in upstate New York during the late 1990s and early 2000s.

What sets it apart in the crowded found-footage subgenre is its unyielding commitment to procedural authenticity: interviews with beleaguered detectives, forensic psychologists, and shell-shocked family members intercut with the killer’s own unfiltered home movies, creating a mosaic that feels less like scripted cinema and more like a leaked FBI file. The film clocks in at a taut 86 minutes, yet its impact lingers far longer, burrowing into the psyche with the relentless persistence of damp rot. For those weaned on the polished shocks of mainstream slashers, this is horror stripped bare, a methodical dissection of evil that prioritizes psychological dread over jump scares or excessive gore.

From the outset, the mockumentary framework establishes an ironclad verisimilitude, opening with a SWAT raid on a nondescript Poughkeepsie home where authorities uncover not just dozens of bodies meticulously cataloged in black trash bags, but over 800 videotapes chronicling the killer’s decade-long reign of terror. These tapes, purportedly shot on consumer-grade camcorders, capture everything from mundane abductions in broad daylight to the most intimate depravities imaginable, all rendered in that telltale analog fuzz that evokes early 2000s true-crime broadcasts.

Edward Carver—unforgettably embodied by Ben Messmer—remains an enigma, never fully named in the tapes themselves, his face often obscured, voice distorted into a childish lisp that veers from playful taunting to guttural rage, embodying pure, motiveless malignancy without the monologuing backstory that humanizes figures like Hannibal Lecter. Messmer invests the role with a chilling physicality, his lanky frame clad in a grotesque yellow rain slicker becoming an iconic silhouette of suburban nightmare. Yet the film’s true brilliance lies in its restraint; rather than revel in spectacle, it lets the banality of evil seep through, as when Carver methodically dresses a victim in ballerina attire for a mock performance, or forces another into a twisted tea party, the domesticity amplifying the horror. This isn’t about blood sprays or final girls—it’s a taxonomy of sadism, each tape labeled with clinical precision: “Victim 31 – Jennifer,” “Victim 42 – Dance Recital.”

The ensemble of talking heads grounds the proceedings in stark realism, with standouts like Stacy Chbosky as Cheryl Dempsey, the survivor whose tormented recollections form the emotional core of the investigation. Their discussions—ranging from behavioral profiling to Carver’s fetishistic rituals—mirror actual criminology seminars, lending intellectual weight without descending into exposition dumps. These interludes humanize the victims, transforming statistics into shattered lives: a missing jogger here, a single mother there, their absence rippling through communities with quiet devastation. The Dowdles excel at pacing these elements, crosscutting between tape horrors and investigative fallout to build a suffocating tension, where the real terror is Carver’s omnipresence—he films himself stalking malls, taunting police press conferences, even infiltrating a family Thanksgiving. In a genre often criticized for laziness, The Poughkeepsie Tapes weaponizes its format, making viewers complicit voyeurs, questioning why we’re watching at all.

Thematically, the film probes the pornography of violence, echoing the likes of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer or the Paradise Lost documentaries, but with a rawer edge that anticipates the analog horror wave of the 2020s. It grapples with voyeurism’s allure, as detectives pore over tapes like addicts, one admitting the footage “gets into your dreams.” Carver’s escalating fetishes—binding victims in spiderwebs of duct tape, staging puppet shows with their limbs—escalate from perverse play to outright desecration, culminating in a sequence involving a captured police officer that tests even hardened viewers. Yet amid the depravity, glimmers of perverse artistry emerge: the meticulous framing of shots, the almost balletic choreography of assaults, suggesting a mind as creative as it is corrupt. This duality fascinates—evil as both banal and sublime—without ever excusing it. The film’s independent ethos shines through its low-budget ingenuity; shot on digital video run through VHS filters, it achieves a patina of age that rivals big-studio recreations. Sound design deserves special mention—the muffled whimpers, the hiss of tape rewind, the sudden shrieks—crafting an auditory assault that lingers in the ears long after the screen fades.

Of course, no film this ambitious escapes imperfection. The grainy visuals, while immersive, occasionally border on opacity, turning key moments murky when clarity might heighten the impact; a few tapes feel repetitious, padding runtime before the finale’s revelations. Acting varies—some interviews veer toward community theater stiffness, and the killer’s voice modulation can grate like a parody of itself. Pacing sags in the midsection amid procedural minutiae, demanding patience from those expecting non-stop carnage. Distribution woes didn’t help; shelved for years post-Tribeca premiere, it finally surfaced on home video in 2017, its cult status now cemented online but still niche. These are quibbles, though, in a landscape of forgettable slashers; they don’t undermine the core achievement.

Ultimately, The Poughkeepsie Tapes endures as a gut-punch reminder of horror’s primal function: to confront the void within humanity. It doesn’t titillate or moralize—it documents, with unflinching gaze, the machinery of monstrosity. Fans of vérité terrors like Lake Mungo or The Bay will find kin here, a film that trades spectacle for seepage, leaving stains no bleach can remove. In an era of sanitized streaming chills, its refusal to look away remains a defiant virtue. Seek it out on a lonely night, but keep the lights on after.

October True Crime: Zodiac (dir by David Fincher)


Who was the Zodiac Killer?

That is a question that has haunted journalists, cops, and true crime fans since the late 60s.  It is known that the Zodiac Killer murdered at least five people in Northern California in 1968 and 1969.  He targeted young couples, though he is also thought to have murdered on taxi driver as well.  What set Zodiac apart from other killers is that he was a prolific letter writer, who sent cards and ciphers to the police and the journalists who were reporting on his crimes.  In one of his ciphers, Zodiac claimed that he had killed 37 people.  Cartoonist Robert Graysmith later wrote two books about his personal obsession with the case.  He estimated that the Zodiac may have been responsible for hundred of murders, up through the 80s.  Of course, reading Graysmith’s first Zodiac book, it’s also easy to suspect that Graysmith reached a point where he saw the Zodiac’s hand in every unsolved murder in the San Francisco area.  Of all the unidentified serial killers in American history, Zodiac is one that most haunts us.  Zodiac was a serial killer who operated in an era when such things were still considered to be uncommon.  Much as Jack the Ripper did during the Victorian Age, Zodiac announced the arrival of a new age of evil.

Zodiac wrote about being a film fan and he was probably happy about the fact that he inspired quite a few films.  1971’s The Zodiac Killer came out while Zodiac was still sending letters to the police and cops actually staked out the theaters showing the film just to see if he  would show up.  Dirty Harry‘s Scorpio Killer was also based on Zodiac, right down to the taunting letters that he sent the mayor and again, one has to wonder if Zodiac ever showed up to watch Clint Eastwood take him down.

And, if Zodiac survived into the 21st Century, one has to wonder if he showed up in the theaters for 2007’s Zodiac.

One of the best true crime films ever made, Zodiac not only recreates the crimes of the Zodiac but it also examines the mental price of obsessing over the one unknown force of evil.  Mark Ruffalo plays Dave Toschi, the celebrity cop who nearly sacrificed his professional reputation in his search for the identity of the killer.  Jake Gyllenhaal plays cartoonist Robert Graysmith, who spends over a decade searching for the Zodiac’s identity and who loses his wife (Chloe Sevigny) in the process.  And Robert Downey, Jr. plays Paul Avery, the crime reporter to whom the Zodiac wrote and who sunk into paranoia and addiction as a result.  This is a film that is less about the Zodiac’s crime and more about how this unknown killer seemed to unleash a darkness that would come to envelope first a city and eventually an entire nation.

As one might expect from a film directed by David Fincher, Zodiac plays out like a filmed nightmare with the starkly portrayed murders being all the more disturbing because they often take place outside, where people would think they would be safe.  (The second murder is especially terrifying, as it plays out without even the sound of background music to allow us the escape of remembering that it’s only a movie.)  Fincher heightens our paranoia but having a different actor play the killer in each scene, reminding us that the Zodiac could literally be anyone.  Indeed, one of the scarier things about Zodiac is that, in the course of his investigation, Graysmith meets so many different people who seem like they could be the killer.  Even if they aren’t the Zodiac, the viewer is left with the feeling that the world is full of people who are capable of committing the same crimes.  The film becomes a journey into the heart of darkness, with the Zodiac becoming both a malevolent force and potentially your next door neighbor.  And with the film’s detailed recreation of the 60s and the 70s, the film becomes a portrait of a country on the verge of changing forever with the Zodaic and his crimes representing all the fear waiting in the future.

Again, as one might expect from a Fincher film, it’s a well-acted film, especially by Robert Downey, Jr.  Zodiac came out a year before Iron Man, when Downey was still better known for his personal troubles than for his talent.  Downey perfect captures his character’s descent into self-destruction, as he goes from being cocky and self-assured to being so paranoid that he’s carrying a gun.  (Paul Avery’s actual colleagues have disputed the film’s portrayal of Avery being mentally destroyed by the Zodiac.)  Ruffalo and Gyllenhaal also do a good job of portraying Toschi and Graysmith’s growing obsession with the case while Charles Fleischer and John Carroll Lynch both make strong (and creepy) impressions as two men who might (or might not) be the killer.

Though the film was not a success at the box office and it was totally ignored by the Academy, Zodiac has built up a strong reputation in the years since its released.  It’s inspired a whole new generation of web sleuths to search for the killer’s identity.  Personally, my favored suspect is Robert Ivan Nichols, an enigmatic engineer who abandoned his former life and changed his name to Joseph Newton Chandler III in the 70s and who committed suicide in 2002.  I think much like Jack the Ripper, the Zodiac’s identity will never be definitely known.  There have been many compelling suspects but most of the evidence seems to be circumstantial.  (That’s certainly the case when it comes to Nichols.)  The Zodiac was thought to be in his 30s or even his early 40s in 1969 so it’s doubtful that he’s still alive today.  In all probability, his identity and his motive will forever remain an unsolvable mystery.