• Aaron137520 September 2001
    2/10
    What class were they taking?
    Charles B. Pierce is a small time filmmaker who made a couple of films of note. One was The Town That Dreaded Sundown and the other was The Legend of Boggy Creek. He also made a sequel to Boggy Creek and then this one. So yes, he made three Boggy Creek films, but the third one is called the second one. This one would have the fortune or misfortune, of being featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000 and for good reason, it is kind of bad. Granted, it was more enjoyable than the second of the Boggy Creek films, which had a whole lot of nothing going on and the climax of the film was essentially the creature helping two kids out of the swamp. You never really got a good look at the creature in that one at all! Here, you see it from a distance right from the get go and you see it numerous times throughout. At least this time they were not afraid to show us the creature, who sadly is not quite as scary as Old Man Crenshaw!

    The story has a professor at the University of Arkansas going into the swamps and muddy bottoms to try and track down the infamous Boggy Creek creature. He brings two of his students and a friend of the female student into the swamp to track down the creature. During the first portion of the film we are under constant assail from flashbacks! At one point, you get two nearly back to back. Then the girls go on a pointless misadventure, before the film reaches its climax at Old Man Crenshaw's place! They could have seriously made a film just featuring him as a berserk super hillbilly from hell that skins his victims alive and trying to mate with the females! Instead, we just get the Boggy Creek creature busting in and then leaving.

    This film made a very funny episode of MST3K. It was really ripe for riffing and is funny throughout most of the episode. The only slow stretch was the two girls and their misadventure in the jeep as it just seems to go on forever. However, once they go to Crenshaw's place it picks up again. They make fun of the flashbacks in a funny bump segment and you can feel their pain as they watch the horrific tale of the man who was apparently a lawyer who cleans himself up with the Sears catalog.

    So this film is pretty bad, but it does have a lot going on in it, unlike the second film that is not part two, even though it is! This one could have been better had they gone for an R rating as I would have loved to seen the frizzy haired girl go topless! However, I am guessing Charles B. Pierce would not have asked the girls to do that as I am betting he knew them quite well. His son is in the film too and there is a female Pierce in the film two. I think she is in the water at the beach as I know she was not one of the main girls. Pierce did show some flair in his earlier attempts at making films, but there is only so much one can do with what I am guessing is a very low budget. On the plus side, it did make for a very entertaining episode of MST3K!
  • lemon_magic9 April 2005
    2/10
    An attempt at a 'mood piece' that fails on nearly every level
    Warning: Spoilers
    Boggy Creek II has the feel of a 'vanity project' that acquired a life of its own, and somehow got made against all the odds or lack of demand for it. And make no mistake it is a very poor movie. But it isn't loathsome or vile, just dull and pedantic and in poor taste in spots.

    The pros: The girls are cute, in an annoying, whiny way. Tim the Wonder Freshman seems to have no problem with his body image and is a shining inspiration to skinny adolescent boys everywhere. Charles B. Pierce can't write or direct, but he does have a nice sonorous voice, and the various voice-overs that drive the umpteen billion flashbacks sequences have a nice lilt. There are glimpses of the swamp area that are quite pleasing and restful to the eye and help you understand how people could be enamored of the place. There is a nice little musical piece at the end. And, um, that's about it.

    The cons: The plot is somewhere between a drunken walk and a complete random mess, and the actions of the 'questing' team as the movie proceeds make no sense. The pacing of the scenes alternates between 'plodding' and 'glacial'. There is a shot of 'Professor' Pierce, standing there in T-shirt and denim shorts with his paunch and groinicological area bulging all over the place that is enough to put a person off his lunch. (I actually like Pierce for leaving that shot in - anyone willing to look that bad on camera can't be too full of himself).The characters are completely wooden and irritating and you keep wishing that Boggy will spice things up by tearing their heads off, but he never does.

    A waste of film, not worth the effort to hate. Watch only for free on someone else's cable TV while zorched on cheap red wine. Mike and the Bots struggle mightily with it, and their version is good for some mild laughs.
  • les-11922 June 2005
    1/10
    Charles' home video
    My friend bought two DVDs for a pound (i.e. under $1 each) figuring that no matter how poor the films, the cases they came in would be worth the expenditure. That gives you some idea of what value the bottom end of UK retailing places on this...

    If you look at the credits: Written by Charles B Pierce, Directed by Charles B Pierce, Starring Charles B Pierce, Chuck Pierce, Mack Pierce (who probably provided his own boat), Pam Pierce (who I think did the make-up too), Coke scrounged from (here) Jeep borrowed from (here), Computer borrowed from (here) etc. you get the impression this is a family "let's help Dad/Charles out here" movie on the tightest budget and a lot of goodwill.

    The most frightening experience for Charles & the kids seemed to be an incident when a dog barked at them (a lot). Despite being armed Charles was unable to get a single shot in the noisy animal even at close range, utterly pathetic.

    Think of people in monkey suits, literally. I found a slight tendency to smile when I saw a monkeyed-up kid 'attacking' someone, but the entire thing was very poor indeed. I can't remember why I forced myself to watch this, but force myself I did. Perhaps it was a desire to see the credits that kept me going?

    Never, ever - life's too short.
  • InzyWimzy31 March 2004
    3/10
    Will you put a shirt on already??
    There's a thin line between movies and documentaries. Boggy Creek straddles that line and steps deep in outhouse fecal matter. Where do we start? Yes, incessant flashbacks which don't really add much to getting us anywhere in the story. Besides, these witnesses forget to add in: "Maybe it was the gallon of moonshine I was chugging...". Boggy looks like an outcast from Ape City . Oh, but I wish there was more Boggy cause we get unending scenes of Professor Know-it-All, his son, oops, I mean Tim the Topless assistant, and two gals who whine about lost cosmetics. Boggy Creek 2 gives you that first hand experience of stepping into the edge of a mucky swamp, feeling your leg sliding into mud while trying to pull yourself out to no avail and rodents, lemurs, and vicious canids chew on your flesh for an afternoon snack.

    An extra star goes to Ol' Man Crenshaw. You know, 3 miles down, first cabin on the right? Crenshaw makes a quick cameo, but man, it's so needed. In overalls and everything, Crenshaw is the epitome of Boggy Creek as his pyromaniacal tendencies kick in anyone's "fight or flight" instincts. Either that or his emanating stench. So, watch this for laughs a la MST style and remember: it's coma-inducing!

    Sponsored by the Arkansas Caps Inc.
  • mcelhaney12 January 2006
    1/10
    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.
  • Gafke16 January 2005
    1/10
    Dull and Moronic
    In the untouched primordial swamplands of rural Arkansas lurks a giant creature, 8 feet tall and covered with hair. It's either Slash, Rob Zombie or Bigfoot. No one is sure, for those who have seen it are not believed or have not lived to tell the tale. That doesn't stop smarmy Professor Lockhart from taking a couple of his prize students and a whiny girl with a bad perm down into the swamps to look for the monster.

    This movie reeks like an outhouse in high summer...and, in fact, features an outhouse scene that we could all do without. The hillbilly's look frighteningly like the real thing and are a lot scarier than the Boggy Creek Creature. Cindy Butler whines and screams her way through the entire film, making you wish that Boggy would rip her head off. Charles Pierce as Lockhart is so annoyingly smug and condescending you'll be wishing he'd run afoul of the Deliverance cast. Serene Hedin as Tanya must have been wondering what the hell happened, going from the beautiful film "Windwalker" to this dung heap. Poorly acted, badly lit and simply boring. Stick with the MST3K version of this film.
  • Anders Twetman27 February 2013
    4/10
    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.
  • 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.
  • Seth Nelson8 March 2006
    1/10
    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?
  • Woodyanders7 January 2007
    3/10
    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.
  • electronsexparty14 July 2005
    1/10
    Ow.
    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.
  • BigHairyKev31 July 2002
    1/10
    Don't ask...
    If this was a turkey, we wouldn't even have it for Thanksgiving. It was bad, real bad. In fact, bad doesn't even come close. Now, don't get me wrong, we ADORE bad horror movies. Cheesy effects, bad sound, no acting at all, cameramen who seemed to be drunk at the time. But THIS movie doesn't even have the charm of a bad movie. If I had to film this I would HAVE to be drunk, or dead (maybe both).

    Sad to say I spotted this in a bargain bid (I was robbed) and having never heard of it I gave it a try. BAD MOVE. My recommendation? AVOID. If anybody ever tells you they actually liked it, never talk to them again.

    Susie & Kev
  • fletch117 May 1999
    A movie worth a good shredding
    I'm so glad that I saw this on MST3K; I don't know how anyone could have liked this film otherwise. The pointless trip into the woods, the bizarre flashback scenes, and Crenshaw make this film an absolute delight to destroy. The scene where they first encounter the creature in the woods is enough to put you over the edge. And Crenshaw is a classic character in the whole Boggy Creek extravaganza. The pathetic road scene where they encounter a headless deer. And if a shirtless Tim doesn't make you want to do push-ups, nothing will. I could go on and on about this movie. Just remember, if you are ever tracking a creature in the swamp, be sure to bring along two women and tell a story about an outhouse and a Sears catalog.
  • floss-215 May 1999
    I just don't know...just don't know
    After having watched Boggy Creek 2 I am glad that I saw it on MST3K because it is clear to anyone with a pulse that this is a film that must be viewed in the proper context. I find it hard to believe that it could be enjoyed outside of the MST3K universe.I found the dialouge contrived and, along with situational elements, often forced.Still, I do hope there will be a Boggy Creek 3 so that some nagging questions may stand a chance of being answered. Why couldn't Tim keep his shirt on? Exactly why did the professor drag the girls along with him? Why did a retired lawyer of all people have an outhouse? Did someone actually part with hard earned money so this film could be made? Why is it I feel less intelligent after having seen this movie? Why? Why? Why?
  • MartinHafer1 December 2015
    2/10
    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!
  • toastedslipers25 August 2012
    10/10
    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
  • Hancock_the_Superb4 January 2003
    Idiotic **spoilers**
    Warning: Spoilers
    This is one of the stupidest movies ever made. At least it was able to make me laugh on occasion.

    This is actually the third (or fourth?) in the "Boggy Creek" series by Charles B. Pierce, a man apparently trying to make a buck by making up a Bigfoot-like quasi-cryptozoological creature that has no proof of existence (though it does bear more a passing resemblance to the Florida Skunk Ape) as far as I have read. It is a cheesy B-Movie/quasi-documentary "weird animal" movie that was so prevelant in the '70s.

    Dr. Whatshisface (Pierce) is an extremely smart man, tinkering with his Atari in the middle of nowhere with a collapsable trailer and three complete idiots (all unconvincingly portrayed by, well, completely talentless idiots), shooting what appear to be Troll pens (I know it is a dart, who cares?) at vicious monsters, etc. I also like his technical skills. While watching the approaching beast on his "sensitor" (what he calls the computer), the lights go out, and he screams for the shirtless, short-short wearing, possibly gay assistant Tim (Pierce's son) to bring him cantaloupe (if that's not what he said, please clue me in; that's what it sounded like to me). And later, after filling up a generator (?) with gasoline, he apparently tells Tim to "drink it" (the gasoline?). That's the kind of genius I'd want as my teacher!

    Obviously there are many other irksome scenes, but I think they've been covered pretty well by the dozens of other comments.

    The only moment I enjoyed was the story about the guy in the outhouse; the scene with his wife spraying his crap-covered pantleg with a hose was hilarious.

    MST3K, as usual, did a great job on this film.

    Three stars for "Boggy Creek II"; eight for the MSTing.

    "Goodbye, Tim - wherever you are . . ."
  • dirk27521 February 2013
    5/10
    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.
  • vanity6fan18 March 2003
    Hilarious and Overblown!!
    Hilarious and poor sequel to The Legend of Boggy Creek. What was the director thinking about this one when the original was so much better?? Bottom of the barrel effects and acting makes this a real hoot. If you hate someone you could show this film to them. The mother and child bigfoot costumes look like they were rented from some mangy costume shop on the corner. If you love bad movies and commenting on them while watching them, then this is one you'll like. I was lucky enough to catch this at my drive-in around 1985. Still more entertaining than Sasquatch: The Untold!
  • HighHat15 August 2000
    oh, that crazy tim
    "I'm driving my car, lookin' for a Waffle House, drinkin' my Wild Turkey!" Watching this movie on MST3K is the ONLY way to view this totally horrible flick. The acting is so bad, it's beyond belief. How Charles Pierce ever thought this would work, I have no idea. This movie makes me want to break something. WATCH ONLY ON MST3K.

    "Good night Tim, where ever you are..."
  • Op_Prime18 February 2002
    "And the legend continues to be not heard about by anyone."
    This movie sucked. The incredibly thin story has a professor and three students looking for Big foot or something. The acting is terrible and the writing is awful. It's just one lousy scene to the next. A boring and incredibly stupid movie certainly deserves the worst treatment possible. Enter: Mystery Science Theater 3000. Mike, Servo and Crow do amazing work here, actually making the movie watchable. So if you're in need for a good laugh, check out the MST version of this terrible movie.
  • Mister-64 January 2002
    1/10
    Say Hello To My Little Creature....
    Sasquatch...Yeti...Beowulf...Little Creature?

    Is it fitting to say that "The Barbaric Beast of Boggy Creek, Part II" is as much a part of horror legend as his better-known brothers? No, but it's good to say for a laugh.

    After some documentary-style flair in the original "Boggy" feature, Charles B. Pierce bogs down (get it?) in a film that anyone with a broken camcorder and smeared lenses could make..oh, and no script.

    Instead of a plot we get pretension, and loads of it! Pierce drags two chicks and his shirtless wonder assistant (i.e. - son of the director) into the bogs and swamps of Lose-iana to find the "Beast" of the title. After many stupid stories they find the big, greasy Crenshaw who holds a dark, greasy secret out in his barn....

    Oh, why continue? Mike Nelson and Little Mechanical Creatures put this lame beast out of its misery and hopefully discourage Pierce from any further filming endeavors.

    Hopefully.

    One star (in apology to Louisiana) for TBBOBCP2, seven stars for the MST3K version.

    MADGOAT!
  • Tommy Nelson4 March 2008
    2/10
    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
    3/10
    "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!
  • AngryChair29 January 2006
    5/10
    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 ****
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.