Voyeur (2017)

This is an average. The story was entertaining and 7 stars, but the preposterousness of the premise and major oversights is 3 stars. Supposedly, Foos is a voyeur. He may have peeped on some people, but the story doesn't hold water. He has all kinds of notes, but no photos? Do we really think that he'd spend all this time in endless hours of boring spectating and not film or photo the highlights? I think these were his fantasies, perhaps when people checked in. Do we really think this guy could move around in the rafters and not ever be heard? Also, looking at this dump of a hotel, do we really think that there were 3000 visitors in a year. This 21-room place would be 50% full every night for that to occur. The math, to me, doesn't add up. He could be a complete crackpot. Or, a lonely old man. His reactions to the phone call "threat" and being exposed as having money, were equally preposterous. Does this rational-talking person really think that this wouldn't happen, as he bragged about all his "exploits"? What is more amazing is that if he even did this, wouldn't at least some of the many thousands of people who stayed at this hotel over the years confront him, of not do worse? It's hard to believe that any of it happened. Talese is no better. He may have written articles and he may have written books, but you could not, in all fairness, call him an investigative journalist. He never asked even the most obvious questions. Where on earth did Foos get the money to buy his collection? Why does Foos think a given baseball card is worth $X. Was it appraised? If he's so rich, why does he need a book written about him (because he does get a cut of the proceeds) and why does he say that he needs to get paid to talk to anyone? If he's not going to live that long, and has no friends and has no heirs, why does he even have the collection to begin with? How can Talese not have checked the tax records and other public information about the motel? I believe that either Talese never wanted to know the truth, he now delusional or has lost his way in a desperate attempt to get attention again in his career. He just wanted to write something sensational. For all we know, the people that he "voyeured" with Foos were hired by Foos as actors. It is puzzling that after he learns that he's been duped and goes on a tirade and discredits his book. Then, later, rationalizes that it was okay that the hotel was owned by someone else and that the fact that he got confirmation from the named former owner, that he had access, so now it's okay that Foos, again lied. Maybe the publisher was going to sue him, and Talese was advised by counsel to switch his position post-haste.

This documentary film tells the story of a man who owns a motel for peeping into the private activities of motel residents.The fact that someone put their perverted idea into action for a sustained period of time, then write about it and share with the world is quite beyond me. The documentary does do due diligence on whether the claims are true, and you will have to decide for yourselves whether the claims are true. My assessment of Foos is the same as the female journalist in the beginning. It is an interesting documentary.

A story about a man (Gerald Foos) and his apparently dead-inside wife letting in the world on his program of spying on motel guests.Such a claim in this day is hardly surprising, and so the content and character on display here merely comes off as slightly 'odd' but not especially insightful or fascinating for me.The main focus here is a man that is clearly a bit of braggart, a bit delusional and ridiculous, a bit cash-obsessed yet also enjoys a bit of voyeurism. He exclaims the values of souvenirs he's collected like it's impressive, yet is surprised his story is met by the media with a sense of wrong-doing.The journalist here makes some odd choices indeed, why only one source for a one-note story is a huge point -- although one he does mention at least, there just isn't enough here to claim anything of special interest.

Upon seeing that the documentary story of Gerald Foos was coming to Netflix, I could hardly believe it. When I read the source material book "The Voyeur's Motel", I thought I was maybe the only actual person to have read it (I now understand why...watch the doc to find out). Much like the book, this documentary adaptation is often a bit of a mess...but it also stumbles upon such an interesting scenario/person that it is riveting for all the right (and often very wrong) reasons all the way through.For a basic plot summary, "Voyeur" recounts the story of Gerald Foos, a motel owner who spied, peeping Tom-style, on his guests for many years via a crawlspace above the rooms. Eventually, Foos began corresponding with journalist Gay Talese and the two formed a sort of "pact of secrecy", as Foos wanted the attention/outlet and Talese knew he was on to a story. But then, a murder takes place and culpability issues abound, and Talese even discovers that Foos may not have been 100% truthful in many of his claims/statements.The "star of this show", so to speak, is easily Foos. He's such a polarizing figure that he will captivate your attention. On one hand, he seems to be a terrible human being. On the other hand, there is a "psychology fascination" with what he is doing (it initially started all about "watching for sex", but then became as much a classification of private behavior as anything). The key here, of course, is to not be turned off by the snap judgment of "this guy is a perverted creep", because there is absolutely no doubting that. But the scale of what he accomplished/observed is fascinating for those who are able to open their minds a bit and give the story a chance to play out.Sadly, this entire concept (from Foos' letters to Talese, to the book, to this doc) has been basically botched from beginning to end. There is no way to verify any of Foos' claims (besides the fact that indeed the crawlspace was confirmed by one visit from Talese to Foos), Talese actually disavowed his book at one point, and this doc is kind of all over the place too. It's messy all over the place.What carries the day and made this so fascinating to me, though, was a look into the psyche of Foos. In a lot of ways, seeing him in front of a camera makes this whole thing "work" a lot more than it did on the printed page. I really think, though, that one's enjoyment of this documentary will be determined by whether morals can be set aside for a bit. What Foos did was reprehensible, but at the same time fascinating (from a purely psychological and logistical perspective). If you can wait and pass judgment on him at the end, you will enjoy "Voyeur". If not, it's probably best you steer clear.