Whitech It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Mischa Redfern I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

dvts First, the good - it's a very involving doc, well-made and interesting and full of good interviews and inherently fascinating material. But that's also the problem. The material is so good, and so involving, that you wonder why the filmmakers, in editing, didn't think better of their idiotic, immoral crusade, abandon their untenable argument, and just make a straight documentary about the killings.What we have here is a prime example of an agenda running up against reality. Andre Rand is obviously guilty of these killings. A reasonable person watching this doc, which means to cast doubt on his guilt and on the process involved in arresting and prosecuting him, will come away 100% sure he did it. How did the filmmakers fail to realize this? The man is obviously guilty. They mention his presence near literally every single dead kid around the time of the kid's disappearance, but never even attempt to address this impossible coincidence. They just leave it there, and it looms over the entire film and undermines any attempt to exculpate him. He did it. Obviously he did it. His letters and his lifestyle and background and the entire set of circumstances only reinforce his guilt. This guy did it. Did he do it alone? Hard to say. The film never said whether or not the one body showed signs of sexual abuse (if that could even have been ascertained), and imo, the involvement of others would only have occurred had there been a sexual element. But, imo, the nature of his likely motive would seem to exclude sexual elements or that kind of exploitation. He would seem likely to have just killed them. But yea, this is a nonsense documentary. It spends all this time trying to paint the cops as out of touch and incompetent, and undermine them, showing them chasing Satanist boogeymen - but then later on we're told an important Satanist figure lives on Staten Island and has for years. Oh, and we're shown a Christian cult-y church on the island whose creepiness and weirdness is shocking - if THAT can exist, why couldn't a Satanist church exist there?We're shown witnesses obviously making stuff up and lying in court. But so what? This is heartening, to me, since he's obviously guilty. It's nice to see a community not be victimized by its own laws, but stand up for itself and use the law to get justice and protect the community. But the worst sin is a cheap shot at one of the contributors to the doc, the woman who runs the local Friends of Jenny or whatever it's called. This woman helped the filmmakers, gave interviews, let them into her home - they even thank her in the credits. But they end their film on an out-of-nowhere cheap shot at her, painting her as an attention-seeking glory hound with base motives. At the same time, in doing so, they effectively absolve Rand of the same thing, when HE is obviously guilty of just that (as well as being guilty of, ya know - the murders). Rand plays these dumb, credulous, misguided kids like a piano, as his sister wisely observes in meeting them. One of his letters (the one where he talks about other filmmakers/writers "continuing what you've started") pretty much outright reveals how he's using them. And they were only too happy to be used this way - maybe they considered it mutual exploitation and manipulation. They got a film out of it, and the child killer got free public advocacy and got a start at being turned into a 'legend'. In any case, the filmmaking wasn't nearly skillful enough to hide the obvious fact of the man's guilt. This is ultimately an immoral, exploitative film. I feel bad for the families of the children Rand murdered, who participated in good faith and were straight with the filmmakers. Perhaps they didn't even realize their grief was being exploited, and that they were contributing to a piece of advocacy in defense of their child's murderer. There was more than enough material here to make a great documentary about the true story of Rand, the mental institution, the island, and the killings. It's a shame the filmmakers didn't realize it.

tereseatbiocybernaut One thing I like about this film... and that I don't like... is that it opens the way to the next step in the story. Unfortunately, the film does not provide an avenue for the step to be taken. It didn't move forward fast enough and left the juicy bits for us to imagine. Feels like perhaps there was not the will or the money needed to take the story to the final conclusion. The dissection of his psychological profile. As made clear in the movie, he is very affected by his experience at Willowbrook (and his mother's experience in care) why not look at what happened at Willowbrook because he probably started there and what was Willowbrook's official or unofficial means of disposing of the deceased patients? Were there many unexplained accidents while he was there? Who did he work with and then have contact with or visit on Staten Island after Willowbrook shutdown? But mainly, what did Willowbrook do with the deceased patients in their care? and where was his mother buried? How could he have recreated those circumstances on Staten Island? Plus, he likely knew of ways to get into parts of Willowbrook that seem totally unaccessible to folks unaware of what it is like to be homeless. Take the camera in there, not just superficially look over the grounds please. There were furnaces and other places on those grounds that would naturally be a place he would have known about which could very well be buried in ruins now and that's what I needed to see- more effort.

U.N. Owen First, I'm a native NYC'er. I grew up in Manhattan, and remember this (and the Willowbrook exposé of Geraldo Rivera).I remember Holly Ann Hughes disappearance, and a lot of the stuff presented in CROPSEY. Also, I went to one of the 'Jewish Sleepaway camps, up and down the Hudson Valley' – in my case, it was Camp Equinunk, where kids DID hear stories of the 'Cropsey Maniac' from our counsellors (to this day, I HATE the woods). I also lived in Staten Island for about 6 years.Having said all that, this is ONLY about the DOCUMENTARY - NOT about horror movies, etc. JUST about what's presented.Personally, it's been a long-time since I heard any reference to Cropsey. I heard the 'Cropsey Maniac' stories in camp during the late 70's - so, that urban legend's been out there for years.The documentary opens up a wound that engulfed both Staten Island, and NYC'ers as a whole. ANY town, ANY city where such a (similarly) unfortunate event took place can identify with the story.Did André Rand do (all) the killings? After watching this, I can't say.YES - he's a VERY 'strange' man, but, as one person in the documentary said, does being 'weird' MEAN you're a killer? As a reporter for the S.I. Advance pointed out, (after the murder of Jennifer Schweiger) one paper said a 'drifter' had been caught, with 'drifter' being 'shorthand' for 'undesirable, not normal.' Mr. Rand DID feel he was 'on a mission' to 'save families' of the 'burden' of having disabled children,' but, what exactly did that 'mission' entail? The cops (here in NYC we're constantly bombarded with the NY Post constantly calling NYPD 'heroes')are civil servants, doing a job. Yes, there ARE good ones - but, there ARE bad ones as well. NYPD has (had) a history of making the crime 'fit' the criminal, and, as the two defense attorneys of Rand point out, a lot of the evidence (in the Holly Ann Hughes trial) was circumstantial.I think the film makers have opened up a sad time here that NYC'ers remember. A story of a ghoulish time here, and have (hopefully) encouraged the POSSIBILITY of bringing this tale of horror here to an eventual resolution. Considering their budget,and resources, the film-makers made a valiant documentary, using archival news reports, and interviews - both past and present - with NYPD detectives, family members and others connected with Staten Island/Cropsey, examined and retraced these events.Ultimately, HAS Cropsey been caught (Rand)? DID the murders stop AFTER his 1st conviction? Or, did THAT murderer continue (and, maybe STILL is killing), only the capture/imprisonment of Rand 'solved' the cases for NYPD - and they never bothered to investigate further? CROPSEY leaves us with the thought that - maybe - one day - Rand will talk, and with that an end. But, now - more than 20+ years since Rand was arrested, this sad, horrible time still is left to dangle. For the families of those children (and, perhaps others), Staten Island, and, NYC as a whole.It's a mystery that only André Rand can help illuminate (and perhaps solve), but as of this time, he isn't, so one can only wait. And hope.

druid333-2 As most of us growing up were told by (some,'tho thankfully not all) parents & older siblings/peers..."the bogyman will get you if you don't watch out",just to scare the living crap out of us. In Staten Island,New York,a real life bogyman was apparently doing so. Between 1972 to 1987,several children went missing in the area of Willowbrook State School for the mentally disabled. The prime suspect was one Andre Rand,a former inmate at Willowbrook in the 1950's,and who would be found creeping around the abandoned building. Andre Rand was eventually captured,put on trial & convicted for several grisly murders. Cropsey (Rand's nick name)attempts to try & make some sort of sense out of what could have happened (and makes attempts to try & clear Rand's name). Did Andre Rand commit all of those gruesome murders,or is he (Rand) just being used as some kind of scapegoat to pacify the community of Staten Island? Life long Staten Island residents,Joshua Zeman & Barbara Brancaccio direct this riveting documentary,from a scenario conceived by Zeman. Cinematography is by Chad Davidson & edited by Tom Patterson. Not rated by the MPAA,this film contains some truly disturbing images & testimony that will haunt you for a long time after,as well as a bit of rough language. Not a good choice for children.