Mabel Munoz Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Sabah Hensley This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Celia A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

toastedslipers 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

bensonmum2 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!

Woodyanders 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.

electronsexparty 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.