• MartinHafer1 December 2015
    Boring beyond belief....but not bad enough to have ever made it to IMDb's Bottom 100.
    In their review of "Boggy Creek II", Utgard14 points out something very important. Every movie shown on "Mystery Science Theater 3000" automatically receives tons of 1 votes and these films choke the Bottom 100 on IMDb--even though very few of these movies are really among the worst ever made. So, while "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and "The Apple" are easily horrible enough to make the Bottom 100, they don't because they weren't featured on "MST3000". Now I am NOT saying "Boggy Creek II" is a good film--it stinks. But it certainly shouldn't be ranked among the Bottom 100...and currently it's #79.

    The film is about Dr. Lockhart who is supposedly a professor from a nearby university who has brought some of his students out to look for Arkansas' own version of Bigfoot. The guy looks and acts nothing like any college professor and why he chose these three idiots to go with him I have no idea--as they seem about as capable of doing serious research as Moe, Curly and Larry. Among them, the women are mostly whiny bimbos...and one is so whiny and annoying that audience members will be cheering for her to die...and soon! Not surprisingly, these knuckleheads end up getting into more than they bargained for when the creature arrives. And, in keeping with their being total idiots, these 'researchers' mostly run around screaming or almost shooting themselves! They also get to hang out with one of the Daryls from "Newhart" near the end of the film.

    The film is very low budget and none of the acting nor the script are any good. But here is the important thing about this...it's also quite boring as well as being stupid. It's not as funny a bad film as I'd hoped...it's just bad. Very often within the film, there are scenes of supposedly other attacks by the monster which have occurred over the years and they're just clumsily thrown into the movie and disrupt the plot. In them, folks just seem to be offing themselves because they are incredibly clumsy! Perhaps they're from the first "Boggy Creek" but this film was so boring, I doubt if I'd ever bother watching the original!
  • utgard1418 January 2014
    Poor sequel but deserves to be seen on its own not as an edited part of a TV show with snarky commentary
    A professor (Charles B. Pierce) takes three students into the wilderness to hunt for proof of the Boggy Creek monster. The Legend of Boggy Creek is one of my favorite movies. I generally defend director Charles B. Pierce as the interesting low-budget filmmaker that he was. This is actually the second sequel to Boggy Creek. The first sequel, Return to Boggy Creek, Pierce had no affiliation with. Since the original movie was very much Pierce's baby, I would consider this the true sequel and the other something separate.

    Unlike the original film, which was done in docudrama style, this is more of a straightforward movie. Although the flashback scenes are something akin to what I have come to expect from Pierce in previous movies. The principal actors are made up of amateurs, led by Pierce himself. The other characters and extras in the movie are regular people and not actors. None of the acting is that good but for a movie like this that can sometimes add to the charm. Pierce's son Chuck is particularly bad. Serene Hedin, the actress playing Tanya, is kind of cute and her butt cheeks overflow from her Daisy Dukes, for those interested. Speaking of Daisy Dukes, the sight of the Pierce men in short shorts is enough to scar you for life so steady yourself for that. Chuck Pierce, Jr. seems intent on removing his shirt as much as possible, as well. Someone sadly misinformed him about his physique.

    I enjoyed the Arkansas scenery. I always appreciated that Pierce shot on location for his movies. The creature is also shown more in this movie than in the original. That was probably a poor choice as the creature's fleeting appearances in the first movie added to that film's atmosphere. Here it's clearly a man in a suit, which just serves to provide chuckles to the audience.

    The primary reason this movie has as many reviews as it does and extremely low votes is because of the annoying Mystery Science Theater 3000 fans who give 1's to every movie that appeared on that show. That isn't to say it's a good movie. It's objectively bad on most levels and there is a lot to make fun of. The out of place mad dog sequence, the scene where a little creature attacks a guy for his fish, and the outhouse segment are particularly funny. But the best part of the movie is everything after they meet Crenshaw. I would watch a whole movie with just that guy. Pierce himself said this was his worst movie and that he regretted making it. However, I found it entertaining and even endearing in some ways. But that's admittedly probably due to a nostalgic soft spot of mine. I really don't think that it deserves a 1 or 2 and I blame MST3K for that. It would probably have a more fair 4 or 5 rating otherwise. The comedy value alone warrants a higher rating than it currently has. Just do yourself a favor, please, and see the movie and judge it on its own merits. Don't be one of these people who watches the edited version on MST3K with wise-cracking peanut gallery and claim you actually saw the movie. Any movie will seem worse when you're watching it under those conditions.
  • ElectricWarlock5 March 2013
    Definitely does not belong in the bottom 100.
    Warning: Spoilers
    The only reason whatsoever that this movie is in the bottom 100 is because it appeared on the television show Mystery Science Theater 3000. People assume that just because a movie appeared on that show that it must be bad which simply isn't the case. Many movies that appeared on that show are entertaining on their own and do not need jokes and commentary to make them worthwhile. This movie is a good example of how to do a sequel correctly. All of the characters are likable and the performances from all of the actors and actresses were pleasing. Charles B. Pierce creates a wonderful story that is unforgettable. The story manages to touch my emotions in a way few films do.

    I especially like how this movie showed another side to the Fouke "Monster." It showed that he wasn't really a monster at all. He was just a creature who was misunderstood and feared for no good reason at all. He just wanted to take care of his injured child who was kidnapped and locked in chains for the purposes of being exploited for money. The creature had determination. Seeing his child being treated in this way just because he was different gave him the drive to fight against Mr. Crenshaw's evil deeds and get his child back because he loved him. He fought for his son out of love and that is a truly special thing. Monsters can't love. When I think of monsters, I think of evil beings who have death and destruction on their minds, not creatures who are full of kindness for the ones they love. If the Fouke Monster is evil, it is because humans made him that way with their need to fear and exploit anything that may be considered different in some way. The first two movies touched on this concept too, but I think this movie put an interesting spin on it and made it an unforgettable cinematic experience. This movie is an inspiration to me, and I am proud to call myself a fan of it.

    If you are going to skip this film because of it's reputation being on the bottom 100, please reconsider. You may have the same point of view I did. Many films are on that list that don't belong there and this is most definitely one of them.
  • Anders Twetman27 February 2013
    The monster movie that wasn't
    Warning: Spoilers
    With a title like "The Barbaric Beast of Boggy Creek, Part II" you would think this is some kind of monster movie, but you would be wrong. Granted there is a bigfoot like "beast" in the film but it doesn't really do much. It mostly just stands around and growls a bit, also, it kills deer. Neither are the group of main characters there to capture it or maybe even kill it to stop it from harming people, they mostly just want to find it and... do nothing with it. As you can probably tell, this movie is rather dull, in fact, it's pretty boring.

    However, if you stop viewing it as a horror movie (I did after about 15 minutes) and view it as a mocumentary of a scientific expedition, it suddenly starts making sense. The bad acting, the cheesy narration, the blurry flashbacks, it all fits into some kind of feel-goo, travel journal style documentary. And as such the movie works, sort of. I wish the characters were more developed (Timmy's only character trait is his allergy to T-shirts) and less unpleasant, I wish they were not chasing a man in a gorilla suit and I wish it was less dull, but it does kind of work.
  • dirk27521 February 2013
    Another addition to a long line of Bigfoot movies
    Warning: Spoilers
    Charles B Pierce directs,produces,films,acts in, and even caters this mock-umentory style Bigfoot movie set in the State of Arkansas.

    Dr Lockhart(Pierce) and three students go on a camping trip to investigate the latest in a long line of sightings of what is called the Boggy Creek Creature. The trip takes them from camping in a swamp to the rundown abode of a man named Crenshaw, where the climax(sort of) of the movie takes place. Lots of flashbacks and back-story fill the movie along the way. Many of them are very humorous.

    There's no way, in my right mind, that I can say this is a well crafted movie. The production is poor and so is the acting. The plot and characters are ridiculous. And yet, I find myself enjoying this movie. It's crazy to say, but it's very relaxing to watch. It's very much like watching a documentary about Bigfoot. I also must say that Charles B Pierce is an excellent narrator. His voice has a rich quality that is very easy to listen to. I wonder if he ever did voice over work.

    As far as the characters, there are many to laugh at. Steroetypes abound in this movie, from the lawyer that takes the Sears catalog into the outhouse to the overall wearing Crenshaw.

    There's not much else to it but to say, see it and enjoy. It's not great but it's firmly in the "So bad, it's good" genre.
  • Michael_Elliott15 October 2012
    So Bad You Can At Least Have a Few Laughs
    Boggy Creek II: And the Legend Continues (1985)

    * (out of 4)

    While this is technically the third film in the series, the original's director Charles B. Pierce returns so I guess it's fair to call it the second in his duo of films. This time out Pierce also plays the lead role of a college professor who takes two students and one of their friends into the Arkansas swamp searching for Bigfoot. As with the first one, this here tries to mix a real movie with that of a documentary but the end results are more laughable than anything else. What we've basically got is this professor taking his students in the woods and every so often he will tell them a story about a Bigfoot sighting. This is when we'll get a flashback to that encounter but most of the stories are just laughable. Check out the scene with the man in the outhouse who gets attacked and ask yourself why anyone would take this serious. There are even dumber scenes without Bigfoot including one where the group get attacked by a "mad" dog but it's obvious there's nothing wrong with this dog and it's trainer just isn't doing a very good job. The entire movie is incredibly silly because it never makes a bit of sense why this professor would be taking the kids out there and you really have to wonder what on earth class they were taking for this. The performances are all pretty bad and that includes Pierce who clearly wasn't an actor. Just check out how he handles a gun during the mad dog sequence. Speaking of guns, there are several times where he's close enough to shoot Bigfoot yet one thing after another happens to prevent it. The highlight of the film, if you want to call it that, happens with around twenty-minutes or so remaining when the professor and kids happen upon a true redneck who just happens to be friends with the creature. What follows is almost funny enough to make the rest of the film worth sitting through.
  • toastedslipers25 August 2012
    And The Legend Continues, For No One To Hear About, Ever
    Boggy Creek II & The Legend Continues, periods and all, was an attempt by the director of the original Boggy Creek (Charles B. Pierce) to say "Piss Off" to the man who decided to make a sequel to his glorious shlock of a film.

    And Charles B. Pierce takes that hate, molds it, shapes it, and passes it onto you.

    The film is about a college professor and his students who get a call saying that there has been sightings of the skunk ape Sasquatch known as the Boggy Creek Creature and hightails it up to the remote countryside of Arkansas in the hopes of trying to document it And without giving too much else away, I will say this, what started off as an idea to incorporate "leave nature as it was intended" into a bigfoot movie turned a redneck booty-short fantasy land of laughable attempts at acting This isn't to say that the film still isn't enjoyable, very much the opposite I've watched it ten times, each viewing offering something more to savor from the mind of the late Mr. Pierce
  • abigailjeffries5 May 2011
    The Best Boggy Creek Movie
    I had generally low expectations for this movie after seeing it on MST3k, but surprisingly I enjoyed it very much. Charles B. Pierce is a good actor as well as director, producer, and writer. The plot is interesting and the music is fantastic! The best Boggy Creek movie for sure-it beats the original smash-hit The Legend Of Boggy Creek and anything is better than the dull Return To Boggy Creek. The genre is a bit different than the original-this time Pierce makes a fictional movie with made up characters; although they do base some of the facts about the Boggy Creek Creature on actual descriptions of the creature. The acting of the others in the cast is also very good-they make it seem as if they are actually in Boggy Creek having close encounters with the Boggy Creek Monster.
  • Coventry12 December 2010
    Noooo, make it stop!
    When I started watching "Boggy Creek II: The Legend Continues", I had already dozed off during "The Legend of Boggy Creek" and suffered my way through "Return to Boggy Creek"; two of the most slow-paced and bloodless exploitation movies ever made. Actually it means that I had been watching nearly three hours of Arkansas swamp footage! It's beautiful enough, and all that, but also quite dull. Imagine my excitement when within the first five minutes of this film, there's already some blood and carnage on display! The victim is a deer, but who cares! We're talking about the first drops of red liquid in three films. Hooray. Other than the opening, "Boggy Creek II" is immensely boring and pretentious rubbish. Writer/director Charles B. Pierce offered himself the leading role and play a university professor with gay characteristics. Together with a handful of students, one of them being his own son for budgetary reasons I presume, he goes on an expedition to Texarkana in order to capture a shot of bigfoot. They don't have much luck, though, as their dog catches rabies and they only manage to spot the monster as a blimp on the radar. Pierce clearly didn't like the other sequel "Return to Boggy Creek", as he refers to his own sequel as part two instead of part three. He definitely shouldn't throw stones, because his film is a dreadfully boring and irritating monster movie that nobody ever asked for. This is truly the low point of his career.
  • alistairc_200022 January 2010
    A bona fide American classic
    This movie is a classic and if you can get a chance to see it with a 12 pack of bud check it out. You will need most of those beers to get through this movie. Why do i say it is a classic? It is one the the most truly awful movies it has been my misfortune to see along with Michael Bays Transformers 2.

    This tosh has to be seen to be believed...

    I am looking forward to Bogey Creek 3 the road to the Whitehouse

    and Bogey 4 President Bigfoot

    both made on a budget of 1000 bucks

    Perhaps Rob Zombie can be persuaded to do a medium budget Sequel
  • Scarecrow-8827 December 2009
    Boggy Creek II
    Warning: Spoilers
    Arkansas professor and students decide to camp in some woods near Boggy Creek hoping to get scientific proof of the existence of a Sasquatch. I admit that I'm a big fan of "The Legend of Boggy Creek", but I think that had a lot to do with how director Charles B Pierce constructed it, using the narration of "someone who lived there", recollecting to us memories while sharing anecdotal testimonies from various locals affected by the Boggy Creek monster. It wasn't just about the monster, but about the place, which carried an atmosphere, an idyllic, yet threatening aura. And, Pierce wisely avoided showing too much of the monster, and, in shooting his movie in a documentarian style, capturing a place and it's people(..real people who look like they'd actually lived there). In this film, Pierce himself, his son(..playing student Tim, a scrawny kid spending way too much time with his shirt off), and two whiny girls(Cindy Butler and Serene Hedin)all set off to find the monster, encountering Arkansas folks who might can help them in their task. Equipped with tools to help them find a creature, the group venture off into the wilds. Unlike his first excursion into Boggy Creek, Pierce, this time, shows the creature(..and offspring)a lot, and this is a fatal error, dissolving his attempts at building suspense..essentially the creatures are ape costumes which will undoubtedly induce ridicule and giggles. Pierce uses narration in this film sparingly, from the point-of-view of his professor, but the lack of atmosphere, poor lighting during certain flashback sequences(..mostly from stories Pierce's Doc had read about), grating characters, and story with little excitement, and an inability to produce any real sense of dread or spooks, drags "Boggy Creek II" into the pits with no way to escape. The inclusion of "Old Man" Crenshaw(Jimmy Clem), an unkempt, pot-bellied hillbilly in overalls, in need of a bath, introduced at the end, during the climactic face-off with the Boggy Creek creature, should tickle the funny bone, for he's quite a character. A definite low point in Pierce's directorial career.
  • Tommy Nelson4 March 2008
    Why was this made?
    Nobody wanted another sequel. We already had the atrocious first one from the early 70s, then the sequel, now....wait. Shouldn't this be Boggy Creek 3.....I guess the directors felt they should just ignore the second film, which is what I would recommend you do for all three.

    This atrocious mess starts off like a really boring nature video. That is the highlight of the film. We see a Bigfoot like creature walk around, a deer get eaten, and all together, we see a very boring opening. The actual plot is a college professor takes some kids out to the woods to find this creature. The creature reminded me of a less scary, yet bigger, version of the gremlin from the "Nightmare at 20,000 feet" Twilight Zone episode. The main character is played by director/writer Charles B. Pierce, and he proves that he can't do anything good.

    This is a slow, laughable, but not very funny movie, and it's recommended you don't see it.

    My rating: * out of ****. 90 mins. PG13 for violence.
  • bensonmum25 August 2007
    "These river bottoms are truly a sight to behold."
    Warning: Spoilers
    For the life of me, I cannot imagine why anyone thought that The Legend of Boggy Creek (1972) needed a sequel – and 13 years later at that. The first Boggy Creek movie isn't anything special (though I admit to an explained fondness for it), but episode #2 is something different altogether. Boggy Creek II is beyond bad. In this one, Professor "Doc" Lockart from the University of Arkansas assembles a team to explore the swamps of Southern Arkansas in hopes of finding the Boggy Creek Monster. Along the way, he tells his research assistants stories of the creature. Once in the swamp, they encounter something they can't explain, but come away with no real proof. No proof, that is, until they make the fateful decision to take a boat trip down river to Old Man Crenshaw's place. There, they find all the proof they'll need.

    The actual legend of the Boggy Creek Monster seems to be about as ridiculous as this movie. I'm probably wrong about this, but if it weren't for Charles B. Pierce, I doubt anyone would have even heard of the thing. He has single-handedly kept it alive. And some of the stories he uses in Boggy Creek II as evidence of the creatures existence are just plain old stupid. Through his mayonnaise covered flashback lens, he relates the story of an old man who has a blowout while traveling a lonely stretch of road one night. While changing the tire, the man is "attacked" by something. He never regains consciousness before dying. Pierce blames the creature. Huh? So let me get this straight – the man dies before he can tell anyone his story yet Pierce jumps to the conclusion that he was attached by some mythical creature? Yeah, right. That's certainly one giant leap in logic. Why not just blame all the unexplained deaths in Southern Arkansas on the creature? Sure would save a lot of time and effort.

    The other problems with Boggy Creek II are too numerous to even attempt to mention. Everything from the believability of the "research team" to the acting to the special effects is bottom of the barrel. And you can put the blame squarely at the feet of auteur Charles B. Pierce. What's more pathetic is Pierce's apparent attitude toward the whole thing. He has a smug look on his face that just screams "Hey! Look at me! Writer, director, actor – boy, am I cool or what?" Even sadder (if it can get any worse) is that Pierce plays it all with the straightest of faces even while wearing short-shorts and waving a gun at a guy in a monkey suit. And his narration is just as bad (or should I say funny). His unnatural style of delivery, combined with some incredibly corny lines about the beauty of nature, is laugh out loud funny. Unintentionally, Boggy Creek II is a laugh riot!
  • Woodyanders7 January 2007
    This needless and belated sequel to the excellent original is strictly up the creek
    Warning: Spoilers
    In the mid 80's Do-It-Yourself low-budget indie filmmaker Charles B. Pierce cranked out a belated and unnecessary "nobody asked for it" sequel to his '72 original regional smash. Alas, with the strictly middling "Boggy Creek II" (a.k.a.. "The Barbaric Beast of Boggy Creek, Part II") Pierce decided to drop the documentary pretense which gave the first flick its engagingly modest appeal and intimate immediacy, producing instead a trite and over-familiar horror thriller stock plot concerning yet another overly curious college anthropology professor and three gung-ho students once again venturing into the murky, soggy backwoods to snag themselves a Bigfoot with the use of state-of-the-art computer tracking equipment.

    After 70-odd minutes of barely tolerable tedium, the film finally comes to life in the third act when the professor and his students come across a mean, obese, ill-mannered evil hick (a nicely scummy portrayal by Jimmy Clem), who has abducted the creature's sickly young 'un. But this sequence happens far too late in the game to compensate for the dreariness which transpires beforehand. To be fair, Pierce delivers a decent and competent performance as the friendly professor. Pierce's scrawny son Chuck is likable as one of the students while gorgeous brunette Serene Hedin and attractive spitfire Cindy Butler are both real easy on the eyes. Shirok Khojayan's clear, sparkling cinematography looks mighty sweet. The creature itself is an impressively sinewy, bestial, not-to-be-trifled-with 8 foot, 300 pound behemoth. Unfortunately, Pierce's plodding direction, a deadly slow pace, the none-too-lively story, the failure to effectively utilize the Texarkana forest setting to its full potential, strained attempts at humor (one guy gets a fright from Sasquatch while he's in the outhouse doing his business), and a severe paucity of tension doom this picture to outright instantly forgettable mediocrity.
  • DJAkin19 October 2006
    Great Movie for Big Footers
    As a sasqualogist, this was a grade A movie. I am a huge fan of all things BIG FOOT and this movie was NO LET DOWN. I can't tell you how great the narration was. It gave you a sense of being in Boggy Creek. The Doctor who was in charge of the expedition was simply, well INGENIOUS. He reminded me of the folks that used to tell me about Yetti's as a young man. I can't say I was scared, because I was not scared during TLOBCPT (The legend of boggy creek part two). I was simply amazed. The super SHORT SHORTS were a tad bizarre that the doctor was wearing. Also, the dude who looked like a REDNECK HILLBILLY with a pair of OVERALLS and one strap was a little strange. Still, the chicks in this movie were right out of EIGHT IS ENOUGH. The dude who ticked me off was that blonde kid who REFUSED to wear a shirt the entire movie. Other than THAT, this movie kicked butt.
  • venckman-130 September 2006
    It's I Expected and More!
    If you like the kind of film where everyone, men and women both, prance about swamps wearing extremely short shorts that ride up severely, in pursuit of a gap toothed man in a monkey suit, then this is for you! If you've always dreamed of seeing inappropriate teacher/student relationships unfold in agonizingly slow motion before your unbelieving eyes, then run, don't walk, to whatever Z-grade video store is nearest you to get your mitts on this gem. But even these wonders don't begin to approach the real joy of this film. Just when you are ready to gouge out your eyes, the movie unleashes it's secret weapon on us. His name is Crenshaw, and he is obese and filthy and quite hairy. He wears a tourniquet on his head, and is far too scantily clad for his, or our, good. All of the eye bleach in the world will not erase the image from your mind. He alone raises the score from the 1 that this movie deserves to the 2 that I've given it. And has there ever been a more unwelcome bit of product placement than the University of Arkansas enjoys with this film? I think not.
  • Seth Nelson8 March 2006
    Funny, spooky, the works!
    If you want to sit on down to a really bad movie that has all the fun, all the humor, and all the scariness in it, then "The Barbaric Beast of Boggy Creek, Part II" is the movie to watch! It is fun because this movie has plenty of action in it; it is scary because it has a monster running around the swamplands and the hills in the night; and finally, it is funny because the folks from "Mystery Science Theater 3000" had played this movie for their enjoyment. Which is why this movie gets one star; all those elements together make up for one really bad, really awful film! Just to be on the safe side, make sure you watch the MST3K version, please?
  • AngryChair29 January 2006
    We need more B's in this title!
    College professor and his three students take a trip into Boggy Creek in hopes of learning about its legendary Big Foot monster.

    Fictional sequel of Charles B. Pierce's 1972 low-budget docudrama is an entertaining but not particularly eventful B movie. As with his other films, Pierce sets this film up with a narrative style and well-uses the raw wilderness of rural Arkansas. This movie does lack some of the subtleties that made the original creepy though. Pierce throws in the occasional bit of humor, including one especially raunchy flashback sequence involving an outhouse. The music by Frank McKelvey is a nice highlight.

    Director Pierce stars and does a decent performance. Chuck Pierce (our director's son) plays one of the students. Best of the cast though are Serene Hedin as a game student and Jimmy Clem as one rough-looking river man.

    Over all, a tame sequel but watchable. Appeared on Mystery Science Theater 3000 in 1999.

    ** 1/2 out of ****
  • mcelhaney12 January 2006
    And Charles B. Pierce ruled the world...well, Arkansas at least.
    Warning: Spoilers
    Never trust a man who directs, produces, stars, & even hires his own son to be in his picture.

    The Plot? Here goes; A know-it-all Professor of "Boggy Creek Studies" (yea, right) takes two okay-looking girls and his son...excuse me, a male student named Tim off to the bowels of Arkansas to find the "Boggy Creek Monster". After telling some uninteresting tales of the beast, they actually encounter it a couple of times before running into a real monster, a huge, smelly man named "Crenshaw". Turns out, Crenshaw is keeping a baby Boggy for some reason when "Momma Boggy" is downright ticked. After giving the baby Boggy Monster back to his rightful parent, our troop of the University of Arkansas' finest decides it's best to forget the monster ever existed in the first place.

    Jeesh, this is one slow flick. About 35 minutes of movie lasting well over 90 (and seeming like 8 hours). At times this film dares you to watch it. The fault can be put squarely on the shoulders of Charles B. Pierce who not only helms this grim excuse of a film, but also bores in with uncalled for narration. The flashbacks are dull, the acting is flat & uninspired, particularly "Tim" who is in reality Chuck Pierce, the director's son in his (I hope) final movie appearance. About the only thing worth looking out for is the bra-less Serene Hedin (porn name?) as Tanya who looks kinda cute and shows off a good part of her "assets" (sorta, but the shirts are see-through).

    What makes absolutely no sense is why this expedition has no cameras or any type of equipment that might help to prove the monster's existence. Plus, after encountering the monster about a third of the way into the film, why do they leave the area to gather more stories about the monster's possible existence? Hey guys, you've SEEN it! No need to listen to more eyewitness accounts.

    Unless there are two robots and Mike in the corner, I would suggest avoiding this film at all cost. Unless you are an aspiring director and wish to know just what to avoid in making a good picture.
  • jerome_horwitz7 January 2006
    How could I go against a tradition?
    Warning: Spoilers
    Boggy Creek II is a horrible movie. There's no doubt about that. I'm not really sure if it deserves a 1, it probably does, I'm just not really sure! The weird thing is I could never see myself voting higher for it. There's no reason in the world I would, except maybe if old man Crenshaw threatened to come and live with me!

    The story revolves around a legendary swamp monster. In the film, the monster resembles your typical sasquatch. A professor and some students set out to prove that this creature does indeed exist. What occurs is a very campy story, the likes nearly that of home movies. Basically a tale is told of little adventure and lacking much interest. However, it's there to watch - therefore you do.

    The odd thing is the acting at some points isn't always horrible. Charles Peirce (Dr. Lockhart) actually reminds me a little of R. Lee Earmey, which is an actor I really like (FMJ). I even sort of liked Dr. Lockhart's ending narration, about leaving the creature be and that sort of thing. Cindy Butler doesn't do too bad of a job either, and she's really quite attractive. Old man Crenshaw, who probably smells worse than the creature ever would, isn't too bad of a character either.

    I'm sure something else that made the viewing OK was watching the MST3k version. I'm quite sure the movie would have been very hard to swallow sans MST3k. But they, as always, put a shiny gold coating on top for all to enjoy and that's the only way I'd recommend viewing this campy flick.

  • jbento12 August 2005
    This is how God punishes movie watchers
    Warning: Spoilers
    This may seem harsh, but you will agree at once after seeing this...thing. The monster itself is well done, but doesn't even come close to being as scary as the old hermit. Charles returns with his son at his side. For some reason, Tim the skinny lad can't wear a shirt for more than ten minutes. Charles makes a fool of himself on screen by dancing around in short shorts holding a gun. Although they claim to be in college, they exhibit behavior of third rate idiots. The list of flaws goes on and on. Charles leaves behind a legacy of shame. But wait! We must not forget the dreaded poop scene! This delightful sequence of a man being attacked in his outhouse features a truly disgusting sight, as his wife has to spray the gunk off his pants.
  • devinecomic19 July 2005
    A Disney documentary gone bad...
    If there's one thing I despise more than any other in the movie world it's false advertising. In this case, if the DVD case depicts a horror movie, and the words on the cover and in the synopsis describe horrific events and suggest a horror film, then that is what should be found within.

    The tag-line on the cover of my copy describes "The most feared inhabitant of the backwoods is back with a vengeance." Which is about as far from the actual movie content as one could get. What we do get is something rather like those 1970's Disney documentaries, where cine-footage of a real live wild animal,is made into an edited story, with a seemingly appropriate, cutesy name for the starring animal, to give us a feature length docu-movie which would keep any 7yr old completely transfixed and happy for the duration. Which is interesting, because the horror content of this wouldn't scare a 7yr old either! So, filmed in a documentary style, with a past tense narrative throughout, a group of highly dubious student/teacher characters head out from a college ball game, to go study this mythical, mysterious creature, of which another sighting has recently been reported. Initial reconstructions and glimpses of the 'creature' are quite good, and draw the viewer into the story. But as the documentary turns into it's concluding action-phase, the film suffers from too much budget monster syndrome. We are subjected to an obvious tall guy in a budget badly made hairy suit with a plastic monkey-mask sewn in. This is the type of horror movie making which doesn't make the grade, any grade. Ever!

    I must admit, that I couldn't help thinking that there could be some entertainment, and even success, from re-making this film Blair Witch/docu-movie style, relying on mere glimpses of creature, or even no glimpses at all... but then, I am such an idealist, and really do try to see the good in everything... honest!! Overall, bad acting, bad editing, bad sound with some OK ideas. Unfortunately the lasting memory is of the totally false and ridiculous advertising, deployed to coax horror movie lovers into paying a tiny amount of money to buy this film... which they will obviously be dis-satisfied with once they watch it.

    Gives the movie, or at least DVD/video world a bad name.

    In a word, "Don't." I rated a 2, for re-make potential!
  • electronsexparty14 July 2005
    This movie hurts. In fact, I just watched it (the MST3K version no less)and now have a headache. I don't normally review a film if I've only seen it on MST3K, but this movie is so bad I think it deserves all the scathing reviews it can receive. Did I mention how much this film hurts me?

    I've compiled a checklist of all that is wrong with this film. (As if the whole film wasn't a huge mess.)

    Annoying narration- check. Unlikable (detestable, odious, vomit inducing, ridiculous) characters- check. Horrible story- check. Stupid, inane dialogue- check. Pretty bad acting (not the worst, but not good)- check. Idiotic flashbacks "covered in cheese cloth"- check. Bad lighting (it's either too dark, or daytime when it's supposed to be night)- check. Insulting to the audience- check. Crap, cop out ending- check.

    Hell, I could go on forever. If there's one bad movie I never recommend fans of bad movies watch it's this one. You'll want to drill your brain and gouge out your eyes. One of the most painful movies I've seen on MST3K (with the 'Blood Waters of Dr.Z' tying for the top). Horrible.
An error has occured. Please try again.