VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

oldsloughstalker For almost 50 years, the debate on whether or not that this vintage film is genuine footage of a real animal is still alive and well. Hopefully, this submission will shed some light to the novice on this subject, as well as some of the skeptics. As an experienced outdoorsman, my honest opinion is that the footage shows a living animal. I will not bias anyone's opinion by stating any of my many reasons for this conclusion. However; for those who may think otherwise, such as that this may simply be a hoax, or footage of a man in a mask and costume ... let's try a little experiment.First of all, please watch the footage and pay close attention to the subject in the film, especially its head. Please notice that as the subject walks away from Roger Patterson through the creek-bed as it is being filmed (which is very rugged terrain, I might add) that not once does it ever look down. Now for the experiment, which I have tried several times with the general public at outdoor wildlife expos: I have asked participants to put on an over-the-head gorilla mask and then briskly walk away from me until I instruct them to stop. I generally let the participant travel between 10-15 yards away before stopping them, and then immediately turn to my audience of "witnesses" and ask them, "How many times did the subject look down?" The answer averages 3 to 5 times by audience response for each time that I have tried this experiment.So now, my question to you the reader is ... how can a man in a mask and bulky costume possibly traverse that rocky and uneven of terrain without either looking down or tripping? It was hard enough for Roger Patterson to pursue the animal while filming, all the while trying to keep focused on the subject as well as focusing on where he himself was going. For a novice photographer with an unfamiliar rented camera, I feel that Roger did a fairly good job of filming considering the circumstances. Thank you for your time and interest in this film, and I hope that this review will help you to form your own opinion on its authenticity.

ackstasis Ah, Bigfoot! These 952 frames of shaky 16mm colour footage have contributed more to the plight of cryptozoology than any piece of evidence besides Robert Kenneth Wilson's 1934 "Surgeon's photograph" of the Loch Ness Monster {now widely considered a hoax}. Additionally, it might also be the second most widely-viewed amateur footage ever taken, runner-up only to Abraham Zapruder's grisly images of President Kennedy's assassination. To the untrained eye, 'Bigfoot (1967)' may simply appear to show a man in a particularly well-constructed ape-man suit traipsing through the forest, but those with experience can tell you better – it surely depicts a large, hairy bipedal apelike figure, a species unknown to science, which had momentarily emerged from its wilderness paradise to oversee the filming of Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin's Bigfoot documentary. If you think you can detect a hint of sarcasm in that remark, then you're completely correct, as nothing could convince me that the figure in the Patterson-Gimlin footage is anything but a hoax, albeit an ingenious one.As a youth, I was consistently fascinated by the field of cryptozoology. Even more so than plain zoology, it really fired the imagination to consider what enigmatic creatures may be roaming the wilderness, just waiting to stumble across our paths and into science. Hell, I even once struck out into the Grampians in search of the black panther that is rumoured to roam the region, a species reportedly released into the Bush by American servicemen during WWII {our investigation was interesting but rather inconclusive}. However, I've never given much belief to the notion of Bigfoot; for me it seems wholly beyond the realms of credibility. Peculiarly, most continents have their own variations on a common theme – the Sasquatch or Bigfoot of North America, the Yeti of Tibet and Nepal, the Yeren of mainland China, the Orang Pendek of Indonesia, and the Yowie of Australia. Perhaps it's only natural for humans to envision a hidden human-like species, more closely related to us than the chimpanzee or gorilla.I don't wish to launch into any in-depth discussion on the implausibility of an undiscovered hominid existing in North America. It would only serve to alienate those who do believe in such a thing, and what's life all about if we can't use our imaginations? However, given that I've established my stance that the film is a fabrication, I'd like to analyse a few details to ascertain why the footage has proved such a cultural phenomenon. First of all, the ape-suit is convincing, at least from a distance, and at least while being shot with a shaky camera. The actor {Bob Heironimus, allegedly} walks with a stooped back, uses padding to expand his frame but otherwise walks with an assuredly human-like gait. Most importantly of all, he looks back! Such a detail should not be underestimated, for it is this legendary frame 352 – an image of a potentially-inhuman entity glaring directly at the viewer with clear recognition and even a certain degree of contempt – that has enduringly captured the collective public consciousness.Just one year before 'The Planet of the Apes (1968)' and '2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)' unveiled very impressive ape-man costumes that were convincing at close range, it's not difficult to believe that Patterson got his hands on a simple animal suit that would have been quite sufficient for his purposes. When he passed away in 1972, Patterson gave no hint that he had fabricated his Bigfoot. Perhaps he was simply being noble, protecting the credibility of his fellow filmmaker, or perhaps there's even greater glory to be found in the fact that nobody will ever know the truth. Gimlin is still around, and delivers occasional lectures on the search for Bigfoot, but you sense that Patterson was the real mastermind behind the ruse. There's also the slight possibility that both filmmakers are completely earnest, and that a third party decided to take them for a ride, but surely such an elaborate prank would have been far too difficult without the filmmakers' cooperation. That this footage is fabricated certainly doesn't negate its importance or cultural value – the myth of Bigfoot owes its continued existence to 952 seconds of shaky home video.

jeff9242 This was and continues to be one of the biggest pieces of mystery ever captured on film. At 6'6 and 350 pounds the object in the film cannot and has never been proved to be a man in a suit. Roger Patterson died in 1972 and to his last day swore to its authenticity. Whoever suggested Patterson admitted its a fake got some bad info. Bob Gimblin is still alive and frequently speaks at conventions and symposiums on the film and what the 2 men saw that day. Had Patterson ever admitted it as a fake Gimblin would have never been seen again in the spotlight. I have an open mind about this film. Its quite possible this is a real bigfoot. At the very least its the most elaborate hoax of its time.

oreamnos1 Genuine, not fake, film of a Sasquatch. ONE OF A KIND film that has never been repeated. An utter million-in-one-shot lucky fluke that Patterson happened on this creature while out shooting a documentary in the open in broad daylight. He did not even have a telephoto lens on the camera (unfortunately) as he was prepared for shooting scenic views. Contrary to the utter nonsense one poster left here, the film has NEVER been shown to be a fake NOR did Patterson ever confess to having faked it. There is no deathbed confession. Claim by a Hollywood effects person to having faked it has no merit. The reality is that, when the image is blown up and the central portion of the image is enlarged, a frame-by-frame viewing shows substantial muscle action in the legs of the Sasquatch. How does one fake that? Especially as it was shot in 1967 and filmed by a guy who possessed meager financial resources - and no known connection to Hollywood special effects personnel.