Hi gang ... this is a well-known flick that has been kicking around awhile but didn't see much in the way
of thread activity for it. Sid posted a news item for it and it's positively mentioned in the "Scary Places ...
and Cellars" thread, but none for itself.
Quick backstory: For folks raised around the greater New York area, Cropsey is the name given to a
local boogeyman who was never caught. This folk tale, if you will, has spread throughout the country
and has taken on all sorts of versions: The maniac waiting for the couple parked at the end of Lovers'
Lane, to wit. You've probably heard your own version one night around a campfire. I heard the camp-
fire story as a kid in The '70s but it never had a name to reference it. The name may have come from
a well-known 19th century judge of New York state who fell onto hard times and went batty and commit-
ted atrocities, but nothing clearly sheds light on those purported events. Nevertheless, Cropsey is a known
New York name, and streets commemorate it. As time passed, the name Cropsey, as a result of this so-called
urban legend, became synonymous with the "escaped mental patient with a hook for a hand who ran around
loose years ago terrorizing the people". This is a well-told "story" that has been kicked around for probably
better than one hundred years, if we believe the origins of the story. Then, if "Cropsey" really is a story
informed by life, I suppose it was only a matter of time before something similar to its origins began to
happen for real in modern times. So it's interesting we have a film that documents what happens when
an old urban legend intersects with a real case of disappearances.
The developers of "Cropsey" came from Staten Island and both had heard the local stories and while
reminiscing over their youth, they begin to realize the similarities between the weird campfire stories
and the case of serial killer Andre Rand, an unpleasant fellow who terrorized Staten Island in The '70s
and '80s. Now, the connections between the story and case itself are fleeting and allusionary, but the
coincidences illustrate how legends have basis in fact only to be embellished to the point of comedy.
This is no comedy. Frankly, I found this almost as disturbing as "Henry", without that film's brash
exercise in telling the story from the killers' points of view, never mind the shameless marketing
of "Henry" T-shirts in that dvd's Extras section.
Well, I admit I sat through about a third of it before succumbing to exhaustion. Not because of "Cropsey",
but because I sat through a good chunk of the director's cut of "Nixon", which is, at over 200 minutes,
an exercise in Monkey Butt. I awakened, "Ta-Dah!", to the "Cropsey" end credits, but instead of going
back to the film, which I will soon enough, I skipped over to the Extras. Most were more chapters on
the search for the missing children believed connected to the "Cropsey" case, really more filler that
should have been jettisoned. More interviews with the detectives working the case were revealing at
how difficult it is parsing through circumstantial and tangible evidence and positively connecting it to
the perpetrator. One scene that should have made it to the final cut is the recollections of Jennifer
Humphrey, a now-grown woman who claims she was in the cross hairs of since convicted "Cropsey"
killer, Andre Rand. For that chapter alone, it's worth picking up and watching "Cropsey".
So, if you "enjoy" tales of people squatting on abandoned institution property snatching women and
children, "Cropsey" is for you. Me, I live within ten miles of not one, but three mental institutions, one
of which has been mothballed for years, though I've heard rumors it may be renovated and put back
into service. Two o'clock in the morning, and I'm watching a flick about people's spaces being violated.
Plus, our house supposedly was called upon by a resident by one of those aforementioned houses of
pleasure some years before we moved in, if my neighbor is to be believed. Like, YiKES.
of thread activity for it. Sid posted a news item for it and it's positively mentioned in the "Scary Places ...
and Cellars" thread, but none for itself.
Quick backstory: For folks raised around the greater New York area, Cropsey is the name given to a
local boogeyman who was never caught. This folk tale, if you will, has spread throughout the country
and has taken on all sorts of versions: The maniac waiting for the couple parked at the end of Lovers'
Lane, to wit. You've probably heard your own version one night around a campfire. I heard the camp-
fire story as a kid in The '70s but it never had a name to reference it. The name may have come from
a well-known 19th century judge of New York state who fell onto hard times and went batty and commit-
ted atrocities, but nothing clearly sheds light on those purported events. Nevertheless, Cropsey is a known
New York name, and streets commemorate it. As time passed, the name Cropsey, as a result of this so-called
urban legend, became synonymous with the "escaped mental patient with a hook for a hand who ran around
loose years ago terrorizing the people". This is a well-told "story" that has been kicked around for probably
better than one hundred years, if we believe the origins of the story. Then, if "Cropsey" really is a story
informed by life, I suppose it was only a matter of time before something similar to its origins began to
happen for real in modern times. So it's interesting we have a film that documents what happens when
an old urban legend intersects with a real case of disappearances.
The developers of "Cropsey" came from Staten Island and both had heard the local stories and while
reminiscing over their youth, they begin to realize the similarities between the weird campfire stories
and the case of serial killer Andre Rand, an unpleasant fellow who terrorized Staten Island in The '70s
and '80s. Now, the connections between the story and case itself are fleeting and allusionary, but the
coincidences illustrate how legends have basis in fact only to be embellished to the point of comedy.
This is no comedy. Frankly, I found this almost as disturbing as "Henry", without that film's brash
exercise in telling the story from the killers' points of view, never mind the shameless marketing
of "Henry" T-shirts in that dvd's Extras section.
Well, I admit I sat through about a third of it before succumbing to exhaustion. Not because of "Cropsey",
but because I sat through a good chunk of the director's cut of "Nixon", which is, at over 200 minutes,
an exercise in Monkey Butt. I awakened, "Ta-Dah!", to the "Cropsey" end credits, but instead of going
back to the film, which I will soon enough, I skipped over to the Extras. Most were more chapters on
the search for the missing children believed connected to the "Cropsey" case, really more filler that
should have been jettisoned. More interviews with the detectives working the case were revealing at
how difficult it is parsing through circumstantial and tangible evidence and positively connecting it to
the perpetrator. One scene that should have made it to the final cut is the recollections of Jennifer
Humphrey, a now-grown woman who claims she was in the cross hairs of since convicted "Cropsey"
killer, Andre Rand. For that chapter alone, it's worth picking up and watching "Cropsey".
So, if you "enjoy" tales of people squatting on abandoned institution property snatching women and
children, "Cropsey" is for you. Me, I live within ten miles of not one, but three mental institutions, one
of which has been mothballed for years, though I've heard rumors it may be renovated and put back
into service. Two o'clock in the morning, and I'm watching a flick about people's spaces being violated.
Plus, our house supposedly was called upon by a resident by one of those aforementioned houses of
pleasure some years before we moved in, if my neighbor is to be believed. Like, YiKES.
