Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Maleeha Vincent It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

azathothpwiggins After a rather ominous opening sequence, THE LEGEND OF BOGGY CREEK begins. A giant, bipedal creature is roaming the countryside around the tiny town of Fouke, Arkansas, screaming its bloodcurdling scream. We know this because the narrator tells us so. One must feel sorry for the so-called "Fouke monster". I mean, here he / she / it is, minding its own business, and here come the hillbillies! Hell, it's probably part of an entire Sasquatch society, forced to co-exist w/ the Hee-Haw brigade! This movie points out the horror of this dire situation, especially during the infamous "draft on the baby" incident! Don't these backward humans have anywhere else to live? Must their dwellings encroach ever further into yeti land? What of the promises made to them during the Bigfoot Conventions of 1806? Hmmm? Explain that away, Uncle Sam!... P.S.- The banjo-rich theme song must be heard! It keeps popping in and out, piercing our skulls like a slaughterhouse bolt-gun!...

topsfrombottom The Legend of Boggy Creek - like so many 'cult classics' - is a great example of how a film can carry a low critical rating and still be awesome.I remember seeing this film in Roger's Theater in the (then little) town of Poplar Bluff, Missouri - the nearest town to where I grew up, in very wooded, lakeside, Wappapello. So, I actually DID live in the same sort of woodsy, lakeside spookiness setting the film. Where I grew up, the word 'neighbor' meant the 'nearest house' and often you couldn't see their lights - or they may even be a nervous flashlight-trek through the pitch-black woods and along lonely, moonlit, gravel roads - and if the Fouke Monster happened to be tearing you apart out behind your place, they MIGHT hear your loudest screams. Probably not - and definitely not, if he got INSIDE.My pal and I got brought into town by my Grandma and dropped off outside the Roger's that night. Having been lured-in by the short, terrifying trailers on TV, we anxiously bought our tickets and headed for the center-front seats, shoving and prodding each other over our mutual certainty that the other would get a scare that would make him pee his pants.I can still remember ourselves - along with many others - cringing and ducking through several parts of this movie. As far as me and Bruce were concerned, to our eleven-year-old brains, the (then novel) documentary-like presentation and 'I-Sweah-Befo'-Gawd-Awmitey' testimony just seemed ALL too plausible - and real. We both KNEW people like those!Leaving the theater in shudders from flashes of snarling memories - and a new and real dread of returning to the remoteness of where we both lived - we climbed into the big, crimson-velor back seat my Grandma's Delta 88, wordless and white. To us, that Fouke Monster was REAL - and not only that, but it - or one just like it - could easily be living in the endless woods behind our very own houses!This film is a treasure for several reasons, not the least of which is the nostalgia it will hold for those of us to who got to see it at that perfect, naive age when it hits a kid exactly the way it was intended to - it's the perfect 'scary movie' for preteen sleepovers.I can watch it now and roll my eyes, of course, but, when I reminisce back to that darkened, all-enveloping theater, so many of us gasping, crying out, grabbing our armrests and jumping in unison - and the nighttime nervousness for a week, afterward... it still makes me smile. :}

The_Film_Cricket I do not fit the mold of the classic skeptic. I admit that my mind is comfortably open to permit such pop oddities as UFO's, Ghosts, telepathy, ESP and in some late night pseudo-intellectual discussions, possibly the Loc Ness monster. Catch me a on a good night.Sasquatch is another matter.Not that I would give Bigfoot any less affirmation then Nessy but for me it all comes down to an issue of credibility. Judge for yourself but take note that the sort of people who claim to have seen Bigfoot 'Dun seed it wit'tay own two eyes!' There are just as many reasons, I suppose, to affirm the existence of Bigfoot as there are to deny it. The people of Fouke, Arkansas have been convinced for generations that a large, hairy, hulking beast walks among the heavy acres of trees (follow it around long enough and I bet you'll catch it stumbling out of the bar late at night). Looking at The Legend of Boggy Creek, it isn't difficult to understand where the legend was born. Fouke is densely populated and seems to be mostly made up of trees, swamp and eyewitness who were scared right out of their trailers.One of Fouke's residents is the film's director, Charles B. Pierce who set off a generation of hokey, jokey sort-of documentaries about the legendary creature with this 1973 turkey. A folksy narrator informs us that for several years the creature lived back in the woods and would occasionally how, steal chicken and pigs and would occasionally stumble upon a trailer and scare the pee-jingles out of some hapless resident.Those occurrences make up half of the film, as actual assaults are re-staged and we suffer half-cocked explanations from the actual eyewitnesses, one of whom informs us: "I reckon there's a lot of folks that won't believe nothing til they see it for theyselves, and if they're like me, they'll wish they hadn't seen what they did. You know, that thing is gonna up and kill someone one of these days, sure as the world".The rest of the movie is made up of long shots of thick clusters of trees which occasionally contains glimpses of a hairy behemoth stumbling through (actually it's a guy in a suit, the movie assures us in a pieces of text). The shots are so clumsy that you can almost see the wristwatch on the actor.What makes the movie a gem are the reenactments. Pierce doesn't spare a bit of detail and at one point, right before the creature drops in on a slumber party, we get such heart-tugging dialogue as 'I wonder where that thing is they talk about, oh well I'm gonna go get a coke, y'all want one?' This is followed by one of the girls heading off to use the bathroom. Pierce, ever the stickler for details, allows the camera to follow her in and we get a peeping tom view of her sitting on the can. When the creature comes banging on the window . . . well let's just say the kid is lucky to have been sitting on the toilet.These scenes are so bad that you wonder if this is a documentary with reenactments or Oh, Chuck Pierce you hard-working craftsman you. You didn't even spare us a theme song: Here, the sulfur river flows, rising when the storm cloud blows, this is where the creature goes, lurking in the land he knows. Perhaps, he dimly wonders why, is there no other such as I? To love, to touch before I die, To listen to my lonely cry.*sniff* nor did he resist the temptation to make a sequel, two unfortunately. The first Return to Boggy Creek, a fiction film feature a pre-felony Dana Plato and the other Boggy Creek: The Legend Continues where one half of the movie is documentary and the other is just half-baked.The Legend of Boggy Creek serves its purpose. It's not more or less believable than any other Bigfoot movie. Do you believe that a fur-bearing creature stumbles about the woods and swamps howling and screaming and scaring the locals. To me it all seems plausible because that's my uncle Ernie after a bender.

sddavis63 Sometimes low-budget works - and "The Legend Of Boggy Creek" is an example of that. Yes, it is obviously and sometimes dreadfully low- budget. The sound quality is often poor, the picture is grainy and sometimes blurry and the "cast" (such as it is) is composed of various local townsfolk from Foulke, Arkansas combined with a handful of otherwise unknown actors - and sometimes the quality of the cast shows. The movie also features truly one of the cheesiest theme songs ever used in a movie. There are a lot of terrible reviews here and in other places, and the rating here is awful. Now, having said all that, I say forget about the problems, reviews and ratings. This is a low-budget movie that actually works! It had to do something right. As I understand it, this was the 7th highest grossing movie of 1972, making $122 million on a budget of $165,000. You can't argue with that. People liked it - and I can understand why.It's based on real-life reports of a sasquatch-like creature seen in the area of Fouke, Arkansas in the early 1970's. The creature basically prowls around by night. The movie never offers a good look at it. The best you can say from what was shown is that it had a lot of hair, and there was a lot of emphasis on 3-toed footprints that were found. I understand one anthropologist later dismissed the footprints as a hoax because there's no such thing as a nocturnal, three-toed primate. Well, I don't know if it was a hoax or not, but wouldn't that be the point - it's an unknown creature! Who knows. I've never been to Fouke, never driven the local roads, never gone into the woods around Boggy Creek.The encounters are pretty well portrayed. Unlike a lot of these kinds of movies, there's even a degree of sympathy for the creature that's developed, as it's pointed out that the creature never tried to harm anyone until it started to be shot at, and there's a lot of emphasis on the creature's loneliness, as the narrator tells us that it must be the only one of its kind. Basically, this leads up to what's known as "The Ford Encounter" when the creature spends a few night prowling around the house occupied by two young couples, then one night sticks its arm through the window and then attacks one of the men who run out after it. The last half hour or so of the movie portrays that encounter, with some earlier encounters with the creature being taken out of chronological order of the reports. (For example, from what I've read, the beanfield footprints came after the Ford Encounter, not before it.)I have to say that I thought this was pretty well done. It's a quasi- documentary type film that's largely narrated. It established a pretty "spooky" feel, making good use of the heavy woods around Foulke and the fact that much of it takes place in the dark cover of night, and it builds the suspense quite nicely, especially as people hear the creature prowling around various homes. While the narrator is supposedly someone who heard the creature, the movie also acknowledges those who don't believe in it - especially backwoodsman Herb (who played himself) who's lived deep in the woods for 20 years and never seen nor heard anything.In the end - you decide whether to believe or not. I liked it. I think the low rating is unfair. You can't compare this to a mega Hollywood blockbuster. Based on the budget it was made on, this works really, really well. (8/10)