No spoilers you will have to judge it for your self. I have watched some terrible films in my time, some claiming to be fantastic and then turn out to be awful. Thankfully this is not one of them. Not a bad film but not great either. They could have done so much more with this. Acting was OK again not great. Suspense and tension in parts.good build up as I said they could have developed this film and made it great, Obviously they only had a small budget. Although I have watched films with a big budget that are far worse. Interestingly the film is written and directed by the main stars of the film so hats off to them.I would watch it again but would not go to the cinema just to see this. Well worth a watch if you have nothing else on. On the whole a good effort.

I think I may have seen most of the Sasquatch/Bigfoot horrors ever made- I've even ordered the most obscure titles in search of more. They are almost uniformly terrible, but I don't regret watching a single one of them. I place "Travis (aka The Sighting)" in the middle of the pack in terms of a specialized "Sasquatch rating system." It's nowhere near as good as Willow Creek, Exists, or any Sasquatch film starring the great Lance Henriksen (and there are several). But it's much, much better than the lower end of the Sasquatch spectrum. The first half of "Travis" is appealing, largely because of the good acting by Nathaniel Peterson, who plays the protagonist's best friend and road trip buddy. I enjoyed this film quite a bit up until the first sighting- the special effects are poor, but that's to be expected in a low budget outing. The second half of the film suffers from poor acting in the "scientist scenes," although a novel and interesting theory of the Sasquatch is offered. Sasquatch maniacs may enjoy this film- I did- but I doubt anyone else would.

OK, I just ejected the DVD, and I'm just gonna start writing some thoughts.Wow.Good job, Badfritter films. Lots of good things about what could have been a terrible movie. Somehow you managed to avoid a load of opportunities to screw it up! It doesn't give anything away to say I like the ending. If it turned out the way I suspected, I was gonna be disappointed. But you went a little further, and muddied that tidy ending up. Good move. I think the average joe will have different opinions as to what really happened. That's good. You want people to ponder after the film, so thoughts linger. You find yourself wanting to go back and look at the film again for hidden clues.Also, you used techniques of the older classic horror movies that work. It made me think of the classic 1950's horror film, THE THING, which never clearly showed the monster, to GREAT effect. You probably know that movie? The trick is to not show enough of the creature to make viewers go, "What cheap special effects." , but you DO show enough of the creature to ignite the imagination and let the viewer fill in the blanks, which makes for much more effective psychological horror. And that's exactly what you did. Another good decision. The problem with modern horror is that there's no mystery anymore, with excellent special effects that show every detail. You wisely avoided that.Do I have any critical thoughts?.....Well, the opening sequence is very misleading. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not. It's full of partying teenagers, etc and the first thing that went through my head was, "Oh, this is gonna be one of those movies where there's hints of teen sex, that get interrupted by slashing until all the characters are dead. Great, another one of those predictable movies." I was so relieved when the movie moved away from that. As soon as the 2 guys were on the road, the movie changed, and it was a different film altogether. It's good that happens early in the movie, because as a film rental, you might lose people before the movie gets going, and they might pop the thing out and not watch it all. But it changes from teen-slasher -film so early that it still keeps you in, and interested. (Yes, there's gratuitous gore here and there, but you didn't over-do it, or under-do it. I don't like gore films, but I can take it.) The main guy who plays Travis is a good actor, and the other dude that plays his friend does fine as well. He's a little annoying, as he should be. The guy who plays the Sasquatch crypto expert is VERY good. It's his behavior that I studied for clues as to what really happened.As an artist, I also liked the fact that Travis was nervously sketching and writing in his journal all the time, and surrounded by art in his room. Also, the chalkboard art depicting the history of Sasquatch was very good. Art and writing is a big factor of the main character in this film. Scary!

It's rare that we see such a new and original take on an old story. The Sasquatch myth has been around forever, but this film gives us a whole new way to look at it. I can't say too much without giving anything away, but I can definitely recommend this film. After the film was over, and on the entire drive home, we had a heated discussion in the car about various aspects within the film.From David Blair's frat-boy like performance in the beginning, to Kent Harper's completely believable portrayal of a demented, but curious recluse, all the characters were well acted and believable. Mostly, however, Adam Pitman was a shining star. The range of emotions he went through not only highlighted his acting talent, they made the whole story, through the twisted turns and trails it takes, completely believable.To anyone considering picking up distribution, you'd be a fool not to. To those who know of a showing near you, go see it. You won't be sorry (but you might be scared.) I was afraid of Sasquatch (don't call him Bigfoot) when I was a kid. After seeing this film, that fear is creeping back up on me.Kudos on a well-written, well-acted, well-produced, and high-quality piece.