So, once again a bunch of teenagers goes to a lonely blockhouse in the forest, not scared by rumors that many people disappeared in this area or were even found dead. Then Bigfoot appears to terrify and kill them one by one. Sounds like the same old song, but 'Boggy Creek' differs somewhat from other movies of this type. Usually, cheap horror flicks disappoint on the acting and cinematography, but deliver the slashing and the blood. With 'Boggy Creek', it is just the other way around. Acting is decent, no horrible cliché types like the nerd with glasses. The characters are well developed with more background story than usual. The picture is not looking as cheap as it probably was; good job in all technical departments. The creatures are designed as hairy and ugly as they should be. The DOP used 'long' lenses to achieve blurred backgrounds a lot which is helping the eerie atmosphere, the editing is pretty fast and rhythmic in the right places, also the music is tasty and fits the environment. Obviously there were people at work who understood something about cinema techniques.But unfortunately, they forgot about the horror along the way. The movie never really gets to a climax, and the few killings there are lack enthusiasm, like 'let's get it over with quickly'. All in all, it feels like somebody who was a melodrama expert was unwillingly assigned to do a horror picture, so the result is looking great for the budget, but lacks any impact. The characters become interesting, and then they don't do much. It's a pity, because the beginning was promising.

In 1972 an advertising salesman from Texarkana borrowed $100,000 and made an indie picture entitled "The Legend Of Boggy Creek". His name was Charles B. Pierce. The film was released on the drive-in circuit and earned an astounding $20 million. Bigfoot was just emerging into the public consciousness at that time and we all wanted to know more about the elusive and frightening creature. Charlie's film was a "docudrama", containing re-enactments of alleged encounters between the residents of Boggy Creek and the mysterious monster. Many of the locals actually portrayed themselves in the film. That was the humble origin of the Sasquatch film. Over the years many others have tried to emulate the success of that picture. Some have retained the documentary format while others have woven fictitious tales of men and women being menaced by the beast. Mr. Pierce himself tried to follow his initial success with a Boggy Creek II, which mixed new re-enactments with a fictitious story about a college professor and a few students trying to find the legendary critter. Although this movie bears the name of Boggy Creek it does not follow the original's documentary format, preferring instead to offer up a fictional narrative concerning a troubled young lady and some friends attempting to stay a week in her recently departed father's cabin in Boggy Creek, Texas. The filmmakers should have stuck with the re-enactment format, then they would have actually had a story to tell. Instead we get this plodding, deadly dull pile of Squatch poop. The movie runs 1 hour and 27 minutes. That first hour is pretty much filled with nothing but padding. Jennifer, the troubled young woman, loved her father and hates her mom, who left daddy when she was still a child. The fact that Jennifer's loss has come as a crippling psychological blow to her is established by long, lingering shots of her staring off into the swamp, shots that seem to go on forever. Friends and their boyfriends show up to help Jenny get over it. They are all trite and stereotypical. There is a brooding redneck with a shotgun, who lives next door and warns them that there is something evil in the woods and that they should leave. Guess what? They don't. Instead they decide to follow through with camping in the woods. The two young men are brutally dispatched by a Sasquatch in short order. The women run for their lives, but to no avail. The final scene shows poor, pathetic Jennifer surrounded by Bigfeet, her fate all but sealed. The original Boggy Creek was an amateurish affair, to be sure. Mr. Pierce had never directed a feature film before, and it showed. (He actually did go on to make a couple of very fine films and is credited with coming up with the line "Do you feel lucky, punk?" for Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry.) Amateurish though it was it still managed to deliver a few chills to that 1972 audience. This movie delivers nothing. There is no plot, no suspense, no insightful or witty characterizations, no drama, and no horror. The highlight of the film is when they all take a boat ride and you get to see footage of the lake. It appears to be a very lovely place. I wish they'd showed us more of it!So this is the fate of the Boggy Creek franchise, if it can be honestly labeled that. From an inauspicious but promising beginning it has quickly devolved into a cheap vehicle for stock characters and clichéd situations and, of course, lots and lots of padding. Do yourself a favor and seek out the original, if you're determined to see a Boggy Creek movie. The rest of them are just a waste of time.

Unfortunately that's all it was besides it having cool monsters and a few hot actresses! The film really didn't look finished to me.... it needed more answers like how a guy is showing defending someone from the bigfoot's but yet we never see what happens to him after the person he is helping runs away! that and the fact that they had a whole bunch of pointless scenes that lead to nothing and introduced no new characters... and what was up with the sheriff and his deputy... they were in a few scenes in the beginning and were never shown again! Plot: a group of five college kids go to a one of the friends' house whom hasn't been there in years after a unexplained accident! But after a few drinks and smokes they soon realize (when there out in the middle of the woods with a tent and some toilet paper) that there is something out there and it is picking off and killing the (now 4) college kids off one by one and they are keeping the woman for breeding! Review: The whole movie had such a "I've not been completed and been put onto DVD as fast as possible" feel to it but maybe there was a reason why... maybe they needed more money to finish it... but anyway... the acting was decent and the gore/creature effects where nasty and sick yet fun and creative. I'll admit that some of the noises used for the gore scenes (such as when a Bigfoot eats someone guts) where a little bit too Low-budget sounding! I wish it had a bigger budget like the movie "Creature (2011)" but alas it has no spot in theaters or even DVD as a matter of fact... but just not for now because I bet this film has a lot more potential that it gives! Acting: The acting was okay I mean Texas Battle acted like a thug and I wish he acted more like he did in"Wrong Turn 2: Dead End (2007)" and also some of the characters where put in and were never used like the old couple from the trailer.. Theywere shown only once! And the deputies that were used like two or three times I bet they would've been good actors too if they were given the opportunity! Gore: Disembowelments, mangled corpses, a really harsh slashed throat and some more! it had good special effects but it could've used more gore! Bottom Line: A sickening, decent acted, and bloody yet UN-fished, overdone, and a "leave you upset" ending that doesn't really work well for the movie kind of film that feels wrong yet right at the same time! Suggested MPAA: Rated: "R" for bloody violence, sexuality, and languageIs it worth the Buy on a scale of 1-10: 4 For the Movie itself on a scale of 1-5: 3

If a construction went into a project with no plan, paid no attention to detail, worked without any clear-cut responsibility or leadership and just kind of decided to throw a bunch of bricks and mortar together in order to see what would happen; we would be left with the architectural equivalent of 'Boggy Creek.' It seemed to me that 9/10ths of the movie was spent on fluff attempting to build up to a climax that never happened. The storyline would have a hard time standing against the most generically idiotic stories written with 12-year- olds in mind. This was like a spooky episode of the OC. The word of the day is contrived - contrived emotions, contrived dialog, contrived situations, contrived shots, contrived character archetypes, contrived death. I'm not upset, there have been many movies worse than this, made with worse actors. The pacing, incomplete plot and one of the worst scripts ever imagined are to blame in this case. The camera-work was not too bad, the make-up and effects were plausible, the girls were pretty, though I almost think they told the black guy to improvise or perhaps his character was just meant to behave like the most stereotypical Hollister-sporting black guy ever. There was one surprise though, the male "eye-candy" didn't turn out to be as big a moron as we're led to believe. Nevertheless, it wasn't enough to save him in the end. So, it's the mysterious backwood version of Seth Rogen to save the day (yawn). I didn't even make it that far. I woke up and the blonde girl was screaming... fade to black and cue credits. I didn't bother going back to see.