User reviews

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.

From Joshua Zeman who brought us the fantastic Killer Legends (2014) we have a documentary about the urban legend Cropsey. For those unaware it was a name given to a faceless (Not literally) individual who snatched children and resided in abandoned buildings within the forest. Alike many urban legends the story changes dependent on who you ask and where they're from.

But instead of focusing on the origins of Cropsey it instead focus's on the true story of Andre Rand a man suspected of abducting and killing a number of children with learning difficulties. A living, breathing Cropsey.

The team give a history on the man and the lost children, interviews experts and those involved in the case as well as the usual incorporation of archive news footage and stock interviews.

Its all well made, but considering how little they actually have to go on much of it feels like filler and it's all assumptions leaving the viewer with unanswered questions and I found that a tad frustrating. This isn't a water tight case and therefore they could never provide 100% certainty but for this reason it felt like rather flawed subject matter.

Regardless the archive footage is very moving and the man in question is rather fascinating. The viewer is left to make up their own mind as to what they believe happened based on evidence presented.

Passable stuff, but Zeman's later works are superior.

The Good:

Well made

Great archive footage

The Bad:

Feels like too much critical information is missing

Too short

"Cropsey" is a 2009 documentary by Joshua Zeman and Barbara Barbara Brancaccio dealing with the real-life disappearances of several children from Staten Island, New York. The film, for the most part, follows the investigation and jailing of suspect Andre Rand, and the film delves into whether or not Rand did it, while questioning his motives, the possibility of there being accomplices, etc.

The film, for it's subject matter, is entertaining in a perverse way to watch. Much in the same way you might shiver at a campfire tale or watch a train-wreck with morbid curiosity. And it does provide some thrills and chills for the audience, particularly with some bizarre scenes in which it is proposed that Rand was in cahoots with, or knew members of human- sacrificing, Satanic cults. (Although, like most things in the film, this goes nowhere real fast.)

But the film feels too much like exploitation. From using the "Cropsey" urban legends and stories in a way that doesn't quite fit in well with the film (at least to me, it felt like a bit of mudslinging), to the fact that nothing is accomplished in the runntime. Nothing gels together, nor is it particularly compelling to watch.

No answers are given to any of the burning questions that the film proposes (which becomes the documentary's taunting theme- "We don't know..."), and to be honest, it makes you question everything way too much. From moment to moment, you'll hate Rand, then feel sympathy, then question if he's the real culprit, then hate him again. It's too much of a roller-coaster ride for the complete lack of payoff, and it leaves you feeling thrilled, but empty.

I give "Cropsey" a 6 out of 10. It's an eerie watch, and does have some good moments, but it doesn't accomplish anything major. It just exists for the sake of existing.

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.

Lazy documentary about Andre Rand and the child abductions that led to his convictions. Joshua Zeman and Barbara Brancaccio share the director's chair--and not to mention, annoyingly, the unnecessary center of attention. Loses focus at the beginning--the title itself is merely a lead to the actual subject of Andre Rand and the kidnappings. Some call it unique and terrifying, winning the Audience Award at SINY Film Festival. One of the biggest problems with the film is that Andre Rand is painted--and arguably presents himself--as a simpleton, yet he clearly gives the run around to the directors all throughout the documentary. Delivers nothing more than a simple news report. What a joke.

** (out of four)

Cropsey was said to be a a mythical monster / man that lived on Staten Island , New York who supposedly kidnapped and killed children. The one big problem with this monster is that he was not so mythical, in fact he was very real and he goes by the name of Andre Rand.

I don't know what it is about the 1970's but people seemed to be incredible slow and somewhat naive. On Staten Island children went missing over a long period of time but nobody seemed that bothers , including the police. Parents still let there kids out and they still went missing . People were odd and especially in America or were they?

The one thing Cropsey shows is that people had a completely different mindset back then and that's the overriding impression this film gives me.

On Staten Island there used to be an horrific mental institute. One of which you only see in horror films. There is original footage of how the kids housed in this hospital were treated and it's very , very disturbing.

The film makers try to get to the bottom of who killed these kids by interviewing family and witnesses but none seem that credible. You start to believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice with Andre Rand but despite the lack of evidence , he and his lawyers do themselves no favours.

Ultimately this is a frustrating film because unlike the Paradise Lost documentaries this answers very little.

CROPSEY is a film chock full of atmosphere, but seriously lacking in sense. Three quarters of the film is devoted to establishing an aura of unease and impending doom which is common to the Horror Genre. The film makers introduce documentation about abducted and possibly murdered children, makes the case for a mythical madman who might live near the site of an abandoned hospital, and relates numerous legends and rumors about who might have been responsible for these unsolved crimes. And then, we learn that The Bogeyman is real. His name is Andre Rand, and he has been convicted of kidnapping, but not murder. How can this be? If there was enough forensic evidence to link Rand to any of the kidnappings, how could he not be held responsible for their disappearance? The "No Body, No Murder Rule" can be waived if sufficient forensic or circumstantial evidence can be presented. It would seem that the prosecution really bungled the case, however, the film becomes almost infuriating because it stubbornly refuses to divulge details of the trial, or present reasons why a jury could reach such an absurd conclusion. It would be like finding the hijackers of the 9/11 plot guilty of plane theft, but not guilty of flying the planes into the twin towers. To borrow a phrase from the immortal Husker Du, that just, "Makes No Sense At All".

Documentary filmmakers Barbara Brancaccio and Joshua Zeman examines the urban legend of Cropsey growing up on Staten Island. The legend seems to center on the Willowbrook State School. It's a dumping ground for the mentally disturbed. In 1972 Geraldo Rivera made a report on the disturbing conditions. It took another 10 years before the hospital started to shut down. The closed hospital and the surrounding Greenbelt forest in the middle of Staten Island became the source of many stories. In 1987, 12 year old Jennifer Schweiger with Down Syndrome disappeared. Homeless Andre Rand is arrested after Jennifer's body is found in the woods. There was no physical evidence connecting them but he was convicted of kidnapping. Then other missing persons cases are reinvestigated and he is charged with the kidnapping of missing Holly Ann.

I actually think the story of Andre Rand is good enough to headline this movie. The legend of Cropsey is only an easy way into the story although discovering the kids exploring the old hospital is an interesting find. There is a creepy unresolved feeling for this movie. The fact that no decisive resolution to the question of Andre Rand only adds to that feeling of unease. There are no easy final answer here.

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.

Cropsey is great documentary in the mold of Paradise Lost, The Keepers or The Jinx. What stands out about Cropsey are the clear voices of the directors (Zeman and Brancaccio), both of which grew up close to where the murders happened. They bring a personal feel to the film which is not present in so many true crime documentaries. Another key to this documentary is the way that it weaves legend (i.e. Cropsey) and reality to the point that the viewer is left questioning what we know and what we don't know. A truly powerful documentary that is well worth watching, especially if you are into true crime documentaries.

Cropsey (2009)

**** (out of 4)

Excellent documentary from filmmakers Joshua Zeman and Barbara Brancaccio, two people who grew up hearing stories of Cropsey, a killer of children living up in Staten Island, New York. Through the documentary we hear how various children were told different stories of who exactly Cropsey was but then we get to a drifter named Andre Rand who many believed killed at least five children in the area. Throughout the documentary we hear about the urban legend that stalked the people of this town and we learn about the little evidence that got Rand convicted and how perhaps the legends are what got him found guilty and not the actual case against him. CROPSEY came to my attention as a horror movie fan because I had heard that both MADMAN and THE BURNING were based around this case. Both of those slashers took a lot of liberties with the actual story and that's what makes this documentary so interesting because it really does seem as if the two filmmakers wanted to get the truth and not just paint a picture of a monster. The directors try to paint an open and honest look at the case and by the time the picture is over you really don't know what to believe in regards to Rand's guilt. There are moments where you feel this guy is a monster and he must have committed the crimes but then a minute later you realize that there's really nothing connecting him to the crimes and there are even more mysterious circumstances around the case. As someone who had never really heard of the cases, I found it really interesting seeing the news clips from back when the crimes were committed as well as hearing from those who actually searched for the children. Out of the five victims only one's body was recovered and how it was uncovered was a little suspicious to say the least. The documentary also gets quite a few interviews with those who were connected to the case, those who searched for the body as well as a possible witness who is the most questionable person in the entire film. CROPSEY is certainly a very entertaining documentary taking a look at the connection between an urban legend and the truth.

Andre Rand may or not be guilty of crimes against the missing children of Staten Island. There were sure a lot of coincidences between him and the missing children. I would have preferred a more detailed background of his life. I remember when Jennifer Schweitzer, a young girl with Down syndrome disappeared and her remains were found. There were other missing children but they've never been found. I suspect their remains were disposed at the large landfill on the island. Staten Island is the least populated borough in New York City. The documentary tried to get Rand to talk on camera but to no avail. He was facing his second trial.

What I admire most about "Cropsey" is that Barbara Brancaccio and Joshua Zeman actually stood up and made it. The cases of children gone missing sadly aren't unique, and urban legend/folklore tales developing themselves in the region of an abandoned orphanage-slash-institute for handicapped children are more than normal as well. But, unlike myself and probably hundreds of other true-crime fanatics, Brancaccio and Zeman persisted and made a documentary about the "boogeyman" of their hometown. I bow my head to them for that!

Personally, I'm convinced that every town - or at least wider region - has its own local urban legend and/or (unresolved) murder cases. In the area where I grew up alone, there were three bizarre - albeit unrelated - murders and the tragic story of a 9-year-old girl who disappeared in 1989 and never got found. And no, I did not grow up in a particularly dangerous place. It's just the ugly world we live in, and almost every single and individual murder can be turned into a semi-interesting and compelling documentary, I'm sure.

"Cropsey" is the legend of a boogeyman that originated in Staten Island, New York. Originally an intellectually disabled orphan who got left behind when the infamous Willowbrook institution shut down, the myth suddenly became a bit too realistic when other mentally handicapped children in the area started to go missing during the 80s. Brancaccio and Zeman are Staten Island locals and revolved their documentary primarily around André Rand; - another local convicted twice for the kidnapping and murder of two young girls, but his guilt was never factually proven.

Of course, it's an interesting and fascinating case... But not more interesting or more fascinating than any other murder/kidnapping case, and I write this with utmost respect for the victims and their families. It's objectively made with respect for all persons involved, even the alleged monster, and there's a professional balance between melodramatic interviews, foreboding news bulletins archive footage, and atmospheric footage of the ugliest and most ominous places to be found on Staten Island. The documentary tends to get boring occasionally, but - again - big respect to the makers.

Disjointed true crime story told through interviews with a massive cast. Repetitive and poorly stitched together, this would have benefited greatly from extensive editing to convey key information without the conceit of "peoples' views of the boogeyman".

The aside that gives the film its name, the boogeyman character "Cropsey" lends the whole thing a distasteful air once it becomes apparent the crimes were real- it tries to straddle true crime and horror movie, and botches both.

A frustrating and tiresome watch.

Cropsey is a well-produced and well-written story of some missing children on Staten Island, centered around the story of the man who might have kidnapped and murdered them.

The filmmakers tracked down and interviewed dozens of people connected with the stories of the girls, of "Cropsey," and of the taciturn man at the center of the case. Although there are the usual talking head scenes, the film also includes much atmospheric and thematic footage of the area in Staten Island where the activities took place that they are probing.

There are plenty of oddities in the legal and moral cases presented and discussed. The timeline extends more than 30 years. I found the film disquieting both because the central characters seemed to be less than innocent but at the same time, the film makes clear that the circumstances being explored are themselves foggy. Good film, subtly highlighting the difficulties of justice and the pain of not knowing.

The makers of Cropsey don't seem to know what kind of film they wanted to make and as a result the finished product is a mishmash of story bits that never come together. The first few minutes make it look like this film is going to be an exploration of an urban legend about 'Cropsey,' Staten Island's version of the bogyman. The film makers talk to Staten Islanders about the various forms of the legend and an urban history/legend expert at a university. They discard this storyline and move on, never to return to it.

Then the film moves on to talk about the history of a cruel and inhumane facility in the borough where the city hid its unwanted developmentally disabled. However, the film relies on Geraldo Rivera's gripping expose and moves on with the throwaway line that it still took the city 10 years to close down the asylum. Except for the fact that the asylum is on Staten Island, its real relationship to the Cropsey legend (the origin of that name is never discussed)is not answered.

They jump into a convoluted story of some real child murders on the island and the police's hunt for the killer. A former employee of the asylum is arrested and the documentary gives a brief nod to the possibility that he was convicted because the islanders were looking for a scapegoat. The remainder of the film is devoted to a trial of the man two decades later for a second child disappearance.

Here again the movie falls short. Despite interviews with police and the defense they can't decide whether to advocate that perhaps the man is innocent of the second murder. A brief exploration of the possibility of satanic rituals rounds out the film, but aside from a remark from one of the directors on camera that there is no devil worship here (in the remains of the asylum), they leave that aspect unexplored. Overall they ended up with very little in terms of exploration of 'Cropsey'. The film makers end up with even less in terms of expose.

Realizing the urban legend of their youth has actually come true.

Two filmmakers delve into the mystery surrounding five missing children and the real-life bogeyman linked to their disappearances.

Nothing really new here, but it puts everything together in one place. Goes on a bit long. The filmmakers try to suggest the killer was supplying kids to devil worshipers to to a group of abusers. The killer denies everything of course even though he was the last person seen with all the victims.

I would have preferred way more information on the killer than just random conversations with cops and residents trying to remember what happened 20+ years ago.

So net net is the documentary could have been way better than it is. And the fact that they could not get an interview with the killer sort of creates a big dud.

Cropsey is one of the best documentaries I've seen in a long time. An interesting look at a society growing up with a bit of fear. It takes you to a place many can relate to even if they didn't grow up in Staten Island. It actually captures a time in the past and successfully brings it front and center in the times we live in now. It was also fascinating to see how history lives with us long after the time has passed. The story unfolds in a bit of a spooky way, which only adds to the documentary's allure. It's hard to look away. The documentary delves into a mystery and how a society deals with it during and long after the mystery manifested itself. How deep the documentary goes into finding the truth just draws you into the story more. There were so many times I had chills watching this documentary. Truly impressive story telling.