Boggy Creek (2010) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
12 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Good start but with a lackluster end
moviebuff_0926 September 2011
So I had looked forward to this movie since I heard that it was being made, filming was at the lake that I spent most of my childhood. The acting was actually a lot better than many mainstream teen horror films and for that I say Kudos! But it seemed to me that the closer we got to the end of the film it seemed that the director and crew felt the need to hurry up and finish the movie, ending in a disappointing end with many unanswered questions. This being a inexpensively made movie I don't see a sequel being made. So when watching you need to take the film for what it is, a pretty good movie for the first 45 minutes and then followed by a less than desirable ending with many holes in the plot. This would have easily been a really good independent film had the story line been tweaked just a hair. So I say if you can find it for cheap get and watch it but don't go out of your way to get a copy of it.
21 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It was.....very average
jcs_vh17 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This movie looked like it had so much going for it,but sadly it fails at almost everything.first off nothing happens for the first hour and five minutes.there were maybe four kills in that time,three of which where off-screen.during that time all we get is a bunch of kids wondering around the swamp doing nothing.the acting was pretty bad,there's so many times throughout the movie where the kids overact things and turn a scene thats suppose to be heart wrenching into a soap opera.another thing is you would think since this is a b movie about college kids getting killed by Bigfoot,that there would be tons of nudity,but sadly there is none and its not that there wasn't any nudity,its the fact that there was about five scenes where a chick gets topless but all you see is her back.if your not gonna have nudity,don't have chicks get naked to tease us.the one good thing about this movie is the effects.the Bigfoot makeup looked good and there were a few good looking kills and now the was just so abrupt and there were so many scenes that were meant to be scary,but the acting made them funny as is just a brief summary of some of the things that were wrong with it... SPOILERS!!

-first,we spend an entire hour getting to now these kids,but they all get killed off in twenty minutes or less. -Theres a scene were the last two girls are in their tent and Bigfoot is right outside their tent and one of them whispers to the other "if you ignore it,it will go away". -one of the girls just collapses and the other has to carry her down a hill -the last girl runs right into the arms of a man with a gun,but what does she do?..she runs away from him and deeper into the swamp -she makes it to a highway,but instead of running full speed for it,she just stands there and then collapses when she sees Bigfoot.

Over all this was a pretty bad movie,that could have been so much better
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Melodrama 1, horror 0
unbrokenmetal19 April 2016
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.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
slough stalker
Angelo Landrum6 October 2011
I couldn't wait for this movie to come out, due to the fact that it was filmed in Uncertain, Texas. Caddo Lake is a beautiful and mysterious place, and I'm personally familiar with almost every shooting location shown in this film, especially the lake scenes. This film seemed to have good intentions. The acting was better than expected; however, the storyline was somewhat of a disappointment. The premise of the film was good, but the sub-plots and relationships between the characters dragged on for way too long. If you're going to shoot a creature-feature … focus on your entrée, not the garnish. The creature effects were fairly decent for the budget. Even though this film is strictly for entertainment, I felt it shed a negative light on the locals, especially the folks at Crip's Camp. No need for a sequel. If you really want to be spooked, take a boat ride on Caddo Lake at night. Bring along some night vision or a thermal-imager … that's where the real action is.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Sucked big time
Chatani9 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
What can i say?.....*sigh* 1 n a half hours of my life i will never get back. i think writing this review is more productive than watching the movie.

For starters there's a horrible storyline, which never really climaxes btw. Expected my heart to stop for a couple of seconds during the movie, it did but of boredom.

You're left with more questions at the end of the movie than when the movie first started.

Just really horrible.

Gota give props to the makeup/costume of sasquatch tho, it was pretty good but wasn't enough to save this movie. If there anything less than a one star it would probably be an appropriate rating to give this.

I don't really wana "spoil" the movie but if u ask me the movie pretty much does that itself. Trust me if u wana avoid a terrible mistake, don't watch this. YOu're better off TRYING another movie and hope it's a good one.

Tho gota admit the "good looking guy" in this movie wasn't as bad looking as i thought he'd be, tho still not that much of a hunk either.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Be afraid, be very afraid.
rushknight30 September 2013

What we have here is a little horror story filled with the usual clichés. While certain parts of it are fairly fun to watch, the good parts seem to be overshadowed by the overall cheesiness.

To be fair, the movie is fairly well produced and shot. But that's about all I can say in terms of what worked. As for the rest?

The soundtrack baffled me, as most of it was atmospheric "feel good music "that accompanies the protagonists excessive nostalgic episodes. The acting, while decent, was centered entirely around the weak character clichés. To put it bluntly, I spent more time living in dread of the potential dialogue than I did of the monster. Every time a character was ready to open their mouth I felt myself cringe.

I do approve of the monster though. The creators made the wise decision to use costuming rather than CGI, which is much more appropriate and doesn't kill the atmosphere by looking so cheap. While there is fairly little gore, what you do see is believable enough.

But the overreaching weakness of the film is the unlikeliness of the story. Teens traveling out in the woods, spending the night in cabins and tents, after HUNDREDS of corpses of men have been found ripped to shreds and young women are disappearing all over the place? No police notifications to vacate the area, stay inside homes, or always carry a loaded fire-arm for defense? Where are the investigators and news reporters?

Add to this the black screens with the words "Sunday" and "Monday" to give you a timeline, regardless of it's importance, and encyclopedic descriptions of the the monsters at the very beginning, and you get the feeling that the director was shooting for a mix of reality TV, documentary, slasher and drama. The lack of focus in the film leaves it wanting for any real effectiveness.

Final say, it was dry, but not terrible.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A creepy, delightfully gruesome, and horrific flick but.....
bloodcuda20 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
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 language

Is it worth the Buy on a scale of 1-10: 4 For the Movie itself on a scale of 1-5: 3
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Five stars for Creature Effects, but that's about it
walkingdead-fan505 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I must say that this film seemed to have it all: a great new imagining on the Killer Big Foot genre, and reawakening a classic! The location was awesome, and the trailer for this movie really grabbed me. I saw an article on Dreadcentral about the creature Fx, and I knew this was going to be the best Big Foot movie ever made.

boy was I wrong. The movie was nothing like I expected it to be. The story got too caught up on the B.S. of some emotionally disturbed chick and her daddy issues. It was more like watching a French coming of age teen drama than an American made monster movie. I found myself fast forwarding through the eternally long scene where this girl wanders through the house while an out of tune piano tortures the audience. I kept waiting for the sightings of Big Foot.

I did not like the characters, they did not interest me at all. And there seemed to be pieces of the story missing. A lot of holes. Not that I gave a damn about the story, because I bought the movie to see the monster. Where is the monster?

FINALLY! We see the monster. It's a pretty bad ass monster! Facades FX created the creature FX and the gore for the kills, and they did a KICK ASS JOB! they saved this movie for me. The kills were great, the creature was great, but there wasn't enough of either. Also, there is a kill pictured on the DVD box, but it was not in the movie. That disappointed me.

The Behind the scenes footage and interview with the FX man Phil Nichols along with what few scenes of the creature there were, made the price of the purchase worth it for me. But I am hesitant to recommend this title to anyone based on the plot or cinematography or other elements. The scenes seemed somewhat blown out at times, and it had a lot of continuity problems (it's raining, now it's not, it's raining, now it's not... it's night, no it's day, oh wait it's night again).

I'm not sure what the screenwriter and director had in mind, but this wasn't what Boggy Creek / Big Foot/ Monster fans were expecting. So I will give it five stars for the creature effects, but that is about it.

Let's hope they learned their lesson with the Zombies V. Humans that is due out soon from this same group.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Pointless and Dull
thestarkfist7 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
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.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Why do I do this to myself? *SPOILERS*
aloysius_predato17 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
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.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Yet Another Bad Bigfoot Movie
Michael_Elliott6 March 2015
Boggy Creek (2010)

* (out of 4)

Obnoxious horror film mixed with some really bad drama has Jennifer (Melissa Carnell) inheriting a cabin from her late father. The cabin, located in the swamps of Boggy Creek, apparently has all sorts of people and animals being mutilated. The locals believe it's a Bigfoot creature but Jennifer and her friends still decide to hang out at the cabin and sure enough the hairy fellow shows up.

BOGGY CREEK is yet another disappointing film in the ever-growing list of disappointing films that deal with the legendary monster. For the life of me I can't understand why such a well-known creature has gotten so many bad movies made of him. Perhaps the reason we can't locate a real one is because it's ashamed of all the bad movies out there? Probably not but this film really doesn't have anything fresh or original going for it and in the end it comes across as a real time-killer.

I think the biggest problem with the film is that it runs 87-minutes and about 75-minutes are nothing more than boring melodrama. There's a long-running and downright boring plot dealing with Jennifer and her troubled relationship to her mother. We get several flashback sequences that are just downright boring and there's never a single moment where you're caught up in the character's drama. Even worse is the fact that the other subplot dealing with a neighbor whose wife was killed by the creature and another guy who gets to have feelings for Jennifer never come to anything worth caring about.

I will say that the cast members do what they can with the material and while none of the performances are great, they're at least worthy enough to keep you entertained in the slightest way. Carnell is at least cute enough in the lead role and one wishes she had something better to do. BOGGY CREEK has some really bad looking editing, some poor cinematography and just nothing in it really comes together in the end. The biggest problem a low-budget film can have is it being boring and this one here just doesn't have any energy.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Nifty little indie regional horror winner
Woodyanders26 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Following the death of her father in a terrible accident, sweet, yet troubled Jennifer Dupree (a fine and sympathetic performance by the cute Melissa Carnell) and her friends decide to check out her dad's cabin that's located in the deep woods in Boggy Creek, Texas. While staying at said cabin for a week, Jennifer and company run afoul of an evil and vicious monster of local legend that kills men and abducts women. Director Brian T. Jaynes, who also co-wrote the engrossing script with Jennifer Minar, relates the absorbing story at a steady pace, offers a flavorsome evocation of the remote sylvan marshland setting, builds and sustains a spooky atmosphere, delivers a satisfying serving of grisly gore, and pulls out the heart-racing stops in the tense and harrowing last third. Moreover, Jaynes warrants extra praise for not only taking time to establish likable characters that one genuinely cares about, but also for handling the potentially exploitative premise with admirable taste and restraint. The sound acting by the capable cast rates as another major asset: Carnell makes for an appealingly vulnerable lead, with excellent support from Shavon Kirksey as Jennifer's perky and loyal best gal pal Maya Jones, Damon Lipari as the amiable Dave Marshall, Texas Battle as the raucous and wise-cracking Tommy Davis, and Stephanie Honore as the sexy, but snippy and stuck-up Brooke Tyler. The Bigfoot creature is truly scary and gnarly-looking. Francois Frizat's sharp cinematography gives the picture a strikingly pretty and polished visual sheen. Brandon Bentli's shuddery score does the spine-tingling trick without ever becoming overdone or too obtrusive. The surprise downbeat ending packs a devastating punch. A neat fright feature sleeper.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews