Little Bigfoot (1997) User Reviews

Art Camacho's directorial style is unmatchable

[esgue001 · 1/10 · 2 July 2007]

We picked up Little Bigfoot at a Winn-Dixie supermarket. I can't believe that the store would have the utter gall and contempt for its customers to place Little Bigfoot in the bargain DVD bin. From the initial shot of the sneering, eye-patch-wearing logger to the subtle POV shot of sawdust from a logger's chainsaw falling on the camera lens, the director unflinchingly inserts every known movie cliché, only to skewer it in the next utterly unique shot. Our group of reviewers discussed the merits of the film well into the night; I have not had such an enjoyable movie experience since MST3K was canceled.

It is incomprehensible that a work of this magnitude should be followed by a sequel, but indeed Little Bigfoot II was released mere months later. Apparently the power of this one-two combination was too much for the producers, as we have not been treated to a third blockbuster installment.

A horrendously sappy and heavy-handed direct-to-video children's movie dud

[Woodyanders · 1/10 · 22 January 2007]

A suburban family vacationing in the Oregon wilderness befriends a vomitably adorable baby Bigfoot (who looks like a squat, wizened old Chinese man) and its benevolent ape-like mommy, whose natural environment is being destroyed by an evil, greedy logging company. Art Camacho's soft-hearted direction does nothing to improve on Richard A. Preston's ungodly script, which wallows in abhorrently glutinous mush, resorts to all-thumbs moronic slapstick humor at regular intervals, and even makes a few clumsy attempts at topicality (besides the painfully overstated anti-deforestation theme, we also got a single mom trying desperately to raise three unruly teenagers on her own). Worse yet, the screenplay grossly overplays its hand with a strident and unsubtle "protect the environment" treehugger propaganda agenda (the baby Bigfoot at one point actually cries when it comes across a bunch of tree stumps!). The characters in particular are laboriously drawn: the good guys are disgustingly sticky-sweet, pure of heart and well-meaning to the point of total obnoxiousness while the villains are hard-drinking, trigger happy, brutish'n'boorish macho louts (one even sports a piratical eyepatch!). The cast gets horribly misused as well: "Halloween" strangulation victim P.J. Soles appears haggard and worn-out as the harried, but caring single mother, Matt McCoy nerds it up something annoying as a nice guy sheriff, Kenneth Tiger does far too much one-note snarling and sneering as the callous, mean-spirited logging company owner, and a pale, raspy, way past his prime Don Stroud seems very ill at ease as a jerky logging foreman. Ken Blakely's dewy, honey-hued cinematography, Louis Febre's sub-John Williams orchestral sap score, and the hideously fake Sasquatchs further contribute to this bomb's overall shoddy quality.

A piece of garbage!

[drewper · 1/10 · 17 February 2005]

This is one of the worst movies I've been forced to sit through (I had to work on this movie as part of my job--I need to find a better job). The acting is terrible, and the bigfoots (bigfeet?) look like cheap gorillas. What's worse, they name the little bigfoot "Bilbo." I hope it doesn't remind me of this horrible film whenever I pop on the LOTR trilogy. I wonder what kind of garbage was passed over for a company to decide to make this movie. That there is a sequel to it scares me even more! The best part of the movie is seeing Nick (Lloyd from Seinfeld's "Serenity Now" episode) playing a cop. It's pretty laughable. Stay away from this unless you want to lose 92 minutes of your life.

Worst Film I Have EVER seen

[elis-9 · 1/10 · 21 March 2009]

I have not been compelled to comment on any film, on any forum, until watching this sentimental, predictable, drivel. The directing was a mix of the static, unimaginative, and the cliché crap. The screenplay followed suit... Wearing similar suits, were the actors. The static-ness of some scenes were laughable, as seen in the 'don't' section of do's and don't's of film making in a bad film school. Characters who were supposed to be the 'goodies' made me sick, and equally annoyed, while the 'baddies' made me laugh... (especially the eye-patch) Please remember that this film will be an hour and a half of your life you will never get back!

too predictable and corny to work WARNING!!!!!! SPOILERS!!!!!!

[callanvass · 18 September 2004]

too predictable and corny to work that is weakly written and obvious as well.i admire it's attempt to be a touching family film but it just does not work way too predictable for it's own good and weak romance to boot plus throw in the fact that most of the characters are weak and annoying and you got this weak flick. i just actually saw this on (TV) a while back and remember it well. It's watchable and decently made but it gets a bit too corny for my liking. The Acting is okay Ross Malinger does so so here annoyed me at times and liked him at other times he does okay. P.J Soles WHAT HAPPENED???????? she was great in Halloween and GORGEOUS but here ugly unconvincing and just plain horrid what happened girl?. Kenneth Tigar is okay here as the Bad guy but is kinda weak not that great. Kelly Packard delivers the best performance here she is GORGEOUS!! focused and does a great job way to go! Matt McCoy does well here but is a bit too goofy at times as the Sheriff and acts with his hair at other times Overall not really worth recommending as it is below average pass on this one folks *1/2 out of 5

good for a family movie

[clbarret · 10/10 · 12 September 2006]

Pretty good for a family movie-ya some cheesy parts, but what can you expect? I thought that the animatronics where pretty good considering it was made in 1998. The story line could have been better, but like I stated, it is just a mind-less family movie. The mom and daughter looked a lot alike and the best parts where with the family-also some good action parts. Either way it was a good movie for what I was expecting. I would see it again and since it is on HBO a lot where I live I will. See the movie and then decide for yourself-not everyone will like it, but it is good clean, mindless entertainment that does not require deep thinking, just a deep bag of popcorn. Not much else to say, but little big foot is pretty good.

What do you think?

[parky-3 · 2 February 1999]

Exactly as you'd expect. A youngster adopts a baby bigfoot, only to find himself in grave danger from a gang of bad old thugs determined to snatch his new friend. The same as many films before and since, which can't achieve its aspiration of matching Harry and the Hendersons - and that's saying something.

A family film worth watching

[Flmcrtic · 1 June 2001]

Little Bigfoot is a small but warm tale of a family trip that turns into a quest to save a small creature from a certain fate. The characters are well thought-out and acted. The writing is clever and the director did a great job at telling the story with a stylish touch. This film proves that you don't need to have several million dollars to create a good film. This film really does have something everybody, not just kids. The film's antagonists aren't just some stick figure villains you see in so many movies. They are real people concerned with real problems and their motivations stem from this. The kids are real. They aren't precocious. They are just real kids. One of the highlights is pre-Baywatch Kelly Packard. She's a tremendously underrated actress. She's not only great to watch but her performance is wonderful.