Boggy Creek II: And the Legend Continues (1983) User Reviews

What class were they taking?

[Aaron1375 · 2/10 · 20 September 2001]

Charles B. Pierce is a small time filmmaker who made a couple of films of note. One was The Town That Dreaded Sundown and the other was The Legend of Boggy Creek. He also made a sequel to Boggy Creek and then this one. So yes, he made three Boggy Creek films, but the third one is called the second one. This one would have the fortune or misfortune, of being featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000 and for good reason, it is kind of bad. Granted, it was more enjoyable than the second of the Boggy Creek films, which had a whole lot of nothing going on and the climax of the film was essentially the creature helping two kids out of the swamp. You never really got a good look at the creature in that one at all! Here, you see it from a distance right from the get go and you see it numerous times throughout. At least this time they were not afraid to show us the creature, who sadly is not quite as scary as Old Man Crenshaw!

The story has a professor at the University of Arkansas going into the swamps and muddy bottoms to try and track down the infamous Boggy Creek creature. He brings two of his students and a friend of the female student into the swamp to track down the creature. During the first portion of the film we are under constant assail from flashbacks! At one point, you get two nearly back to back. Then the girls go on a pointless misadventure, before the film reaches its climax at Old Man Crenshaw's place! They could have seriously made a film just featuring him as a berserk super hillbilly from hell that skins his victims alive and trying to mate with the females! Instead, we just get the Boggy Creek creature busting in and then leaving.

This film made a very funny episode of MST3K. It was really ripe for riffing and is funny throughout most of the episode. The only slow stretch was the two girls and their misadventure in the jeep as it just seems to go on forever. However, once they go to Crenshaw's place it picks up again. They make fun of the flashbacks in a funny bump segment and you can feel their pain as they watch the horrific tale of the man who was apparently a lawyer who cleans himself up with the Sears catalog.

So this film is pretty bad, but it does have a lot going on in it, unlike the second film that is not part two, even though it is! This one could have been better had they gone for an R rating as I would have loved to seen the frizzy haired girl go topless! However, I am guessing Charles B. Pierce would not have asked the girls to do that as I am betting he knew them quite well. His son is in the film too and there is a female Pierce in the film two. I think she is in the water at the beach as I know she was not one of the main girls. Pierce did show some flair in his earlier attempts at making films, but there is only so much one can do with what I am guessing is a very low budget. On the plus side, it did make for a very entertaining episode of MST3K!

An attempt at a 'mood piece' that fails on nearly every level

[lemon_magic · 2/10 · 9 April 2005]

Boggy Creek II has the feel of a 'vanity project' that acquired a life of its own, and somehow got made against all the odds or lack of demand for it. And make no mistake it is a very poor movie. But it isn't loathsome or vile, just dull and pedantic and in poor taste in spots.

The pros: The girls are cute, in an annoying, whiny way. Tim the Wonder Freshman seems to have no problem with his body image and is a shining inspiration to skinny adolescent boys everywhere. Charles B. Pierce can't write or direct, but he does have a nice sonorous voice, and the various voice-overs that drive the umpteen billion flashbacks sequences have a nice lilt. There are glimpses of the swamp area that are quite pleasing and restful to the eye and help you understand how people could be enamored of the place. There is a nice little musical piece at the end. And, um, that's about it.

The cons: The plot is somewhere between a drunken walk and a complete random mess, and the actions of the 'questing' team as the movie proceeds make no sense. The pacing of the scenes alternates between 'plodding' and 'glacial'. There is a shot of 'Professor' Pierce, standing there in T-shirt and denim shorts with his paunch and groinicological area bulging all over the place that is enough to put a person off his lunch. (I actually like Pierce for leaving that shot in - anyone willing to look that bad on camera can't be too full of himself).The characters are completely wooden and irritating and you keep wishing that Boggy will spice things up by tearing their heads off, but he never does.

A waste of film, not worth the effort to hate. Watch only for free on someone else's cable TV while zorched on cheap red wine. Mike and the Bots struggle mightily with it, and their version is good for some mild laughs.

Will you put a shirt on already??

[InzyWimzy · 3/10 · 31 March 2004]

There's a thin line between movies and documentaries. Boggy Creek straddles that line and steps deep in outhouse fecal matter. Where do we start? Yes, incessant flashbacks which don't really add much to getting us anywhere in the story. Besides, these witnesses forget to add in: "Maybe it was the gallon of moonshine I was chugging...". Boggy looks like an outcast from Ape City . Oh, but I wish there was more Boggy cause we get unending scenes of Professor Know-it-All, his son, oops, I mean Tim the Topless assistant, and two gals who whine about lost cosmetics. Boggy Creek 2 gives you that first hand experience of stepping into the edge of a mucky swamp, feeling your leg sliding into mud while trying to pull yourself out to no avail and rodents, lemurs, and vicious canids chew on your flesh for an afternoon snack.

An extra star goes to Ol' Man Crenshaw. You know, 3 miles down, first cabin on the right? Crenshaw makes a quick cameo, but man, it's so needed. In overalls and everything, Crenshaw is the epitome of Boggy Creek as his pyromaniacal tendencies kick in anyone's "fight or flight" instincts. Either that or his emanating stench. So, watch this for laughs a la MST style and remember: it's coma-inducing!

Sponsored by the Arkansas Caps Inc.

Repulsive yet strangley attractive

[Pooter-3 · 5/10 · 30 May 2002]

Ha! The original Boggy Creek was one of those films you see as a kid that really feaks you out and you cant quite explain why. So when I saw this DVD in a bargain bin I knew i had to snap it up. This film freaks you out in a totally different way. It starts as what seems to be a vanity project for its star and director, an ageing monster hunter with a very sad outfit and red cap. But theres this weird charm about the whole thing that just keeps you watching. It has the quality of an old tourism film abou the american woodlands. And there are actually a few effective moments, most noteably the finding of the decapitated animal and the approach of the beast as seen by the motion sensor computer. Is this where Aliens got its ideas from? Who knows?

Theres a hilarious scene where the lead guy has to protect the others from a "MAD DOG!" which he shouts at the top of his voice. But what is cool in this is that he really messes it up and the young bloke their sorts it out. So the director doesnt totally see himself as the Dirty Harry of the woods.

Watching it in its original form you cant help but find it trashy and daft. But theres a glint in the eye that elevates it. Even small touches like the soft focus in the flashback sequences, and the animal being attacked in the water all have an imaginative flavour to them.

Would love to see the original again, but for now this film will do nicely. Its schock but I loved it!

Dull and Moronic

[Gafke · 1/10 · 16 January 2005]

In the untouched primordial swamplands of rural Arkansas lurks a giant creature, 8 feet tall and covered with hair. It's either Slash, Rob Zombie or Bigfoot. No one is sure, for those who have seen it are not believed or have not lived to tell the tale. That doesn't stop smarmy Professor Lockhart from taking a couple of his prize students and a whiny girl with a bad perm down into the swamps to look for the monster.

This movie reeks like an outhouse in high summer...and, in fact, features an outhouse scene that we could all do without. The hillbilly's look frighteningly like the real thing and are a lot scarier than the Boggy Creek Creature. Cindy Butler whines and screams her way through the entire film, making you wish that Boggy would rip her head off. Charles Pierce as Lockhart is so annoyingly smug and condescending you'll be wishing he'd run afoul of the Deliverance cast. Serene Hedin as Tanya must have been wondering what the hell happened, going from the beautiful film "Windwalker" to this dung heap. Poorly acted, badly lit and simply boring. Stick with the MST3K version of this film.

Charles' home video

[les-119 · 1/10 · 22 June 2005]

My friend bought two DVDs for a pound (i.e. under $1 each) figuring that no matter how poor the films, the cases they came in would be worth the expenditure. That gives you some idea of what value the bottom end of UK retailing places on this...

If you look at the credits: Written by Charles B Pierce, Directed by Charles B Pierce, Starring Charles B Pierce, Chuck Pierce, Mack Pierce (who probably provided his own boat), Pam Pierce (who I think did the make-up too), Coke scrounged from (here) Jeep borrowed from (here), Computer borrowed from (here) etc. you get the impression this is a family "let's help Dad/Charles out here" movie on the tightest budget and a lot of goodwill.

The most frightening experience for Charles & the kids seemed to be an incident when a dog barked at them (a lot). Despite being armed Charles was unable to get a single shot in the noisy animal even at close range, utterly pathetic.

Think of people in monkey suits, literally. I found a slight tendency to smile when I saw a monkeyed-up kid 'attacking' someone, but the entire thing was very poor indeed. I can't remember why I forced myself to watch this, but force myself I did. Perhaps it was a desire to see the credits that kept me going?

Never, ever - life's too short.

The monster movie that wasn't

[a-twetman · 4/10 · 27 February 2013]

With a title like "The Barbaric Beast of Boggy Creek, Part II" you would think this is some kind of monster movie, but you would be wrong. Granted there is a bigfoot like "beast" in the film but it doesn't really do much. It mostly just stands around and growls a bit, also, it kills deer. Neither are the group of main characters there to capture it or maybe even kill it to stop it from harming people, they mostly just want to find it and... do nothing with it. As you can probably tell, this movie is rather dull, in fact, it's pretty boring.

However, if you stop viewing it as a horror movie (I did after about 15 minutes) and view it as a mocumentary of a scientific expedition, it suddenly starts making sense. The bad acting, the cheesy narration, the blurry flashbacks, it all fits into some kind of feel-goo, travel journal style documentary. And as such the movie works, sort of. I wish the characters were more developed (Timmy's only character trait is his allergy to T-shirts) and less unpleasant, I wish they were not chasing a man in a gorilla suit and I wish it was less dull, but it does kind of work.

And Charles B. Pierce ruled the world...well, Arkansas at least.

[mcelhaney · 1/10 · 12 January 2006]

Never trust a man who directs, produces, stars, & even hires his own son to be in his picture.

The Plot? Here goes; A know-it-all Professor of "Boggy Creek Studies" (yea, right) takes two okay-looking girls and his son...excuse me, a male student named Tim off to the bowels of Arkansas to find the "Boggy Creek Monster". After telling some uninteresting tales of the beast, they actually encounter it a couple of times before running into a real monster, a huge, smelly man named "Crenshaw". Turns out, Crenshaw is keeping a baby Boggy for some reason when "Momma Boggy" is downright ticked. After giving the baby Boggy Monster back to his rightful parent, our troop of the University of Arkansas' finest decides it's best to forget the monster ever existed in the first place.

Jeesh, this is one slow flick. About 35 minutes of movie lasting well over 90 (and seeming like 8 hours). At times this film dares you to watch it. The fault can be put squarely on the shoulders of Charles B. Pierce who not only helms this grim excuse of a film, but also bores in with uncalled for narration. The flashbacks are dull, the acting is flat & uninspired, particularly "Tim" who is in reality Chuck Pierce, the director's son in his (I hope) final movie appearance. About the only thing worth looking out for is the bra-less Serene Hedin (porn name?) as Tanya who looks kinda cute and shows off a good part of her "assets" (sorta, but the shirts are see-through).

What makes absolutely no sense is why this expedition has no cameras or any type of equipment that might help to prove the monster's existence. Plus, after encountering the monster about a third of the way into the film, why do they leave the area to gather more stories about the monster's possible existence? Hey guys, you've SEEN it! No need to listen to more eyewitness accounts.

Unless there are two robots and Mike in the corner, I would suggest avoiding this film at all cost. Unless you are an aspiring director and wish to know just what to avoid in making a good picture.

This needless and belated sequel to the excellent original is strictly up the creek

[Woodyanders · 3/10 · 7 January 2007]

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.

I just don't know...just don't know

[floss-2 · 15 May 1999]

After having watched Boggy Creek 2 I am glad that I saw it on MST3K because it is clear to anyone with a pulse that this is a film that must be viewed in the proper context. I find it hard to believe that it could be enjoyed outside of the MST3K universe.I found the dialouge contrived and, along with situational elements, often forced.Still, I do hope there will be a Boggy Creek 3 so that some nagging questions may stand a chance of being answered. Why couldn't Tim keep his shirt on? Exactly why did the professor drag the girls along with him? Why did a retired lawyer of all people have an outhouse? Did someone actually part with hard earned money so this film could be made? Why is it I feel less intelligent after having seen this movie? Why? Why? Why?

Funny, spooky, the works!

[sethn172 · 1/10 · 8 March 2006]

If you want to sit on down to a really bad movie that has all the fun, all the humor, and all the scariness in it, then "The Barbaric Beast of Boggy Creek, Part II" is the movie to watch! It is fun because this movie has plenty of action in it; it is scary because it has a monster running around the swamplands and the hills in the night; and finally, it is funny because the folks from "Mystery Science Theater 3000" had played this movie for their enjoyment. Which is why this movie gets one star; all those elements together make up for one really bad, really awful film! Just to be on the safe side, make sure you watch the MST3K version, please?

Definitely does not belong in the bottom 100.

[ElectricWarlock · 9/10 · 5 March 2013]

The only reason whatsoever that this movie is in the bottom 100 is because it appeared on the television show Mystery Science Theater 3000. People assume that just because a movie appeared on that show that it must be bad which simply isn't the case. Many movies that appeared on that show are entertaining on their own and do not need jokes and commentary to make them worthwhile. This movie is a good example of how to do a sequel correctly. All of the characters are likable and the performances from all of the actors and actresses were pleasing. Charles B. Pierce creates a wonderful story that is unforgettable. The story manages to touch my emotions in a way few films do.

I especially like how this movie showed another side to the Fouke "Monster." It showed that he wasn't really a monster at all. He was just a creature who was misunderstood and feared for no good reason at all. He just wanted to take care of his injured child who was kidnapped and locked in chains for the purposes of being exploited for money. The creature had determination. Seeing his child being treated in this way just because he was different gave him the drive to fight against Mr. Crenshaw's evil deeds and get his child back because he loved him. He fought for his son out of love and that is a truly special thing. Monsters can't love. When I think of monsters, I think of evil beings who have death and destruction on their minds, not creatures who are full of kindness for the ones they love. If the Fouke Monster is evil, it is because humans made him that way with their need to fear and exploit anything that may be considered different in some way. The first two movies touched on this concept too, but I think this movie put an interesting spin on it and made it an unforgettable cinematic experience. This movie is an inspiration to me, and I am proud to call myself a fan of it.

If you are going to skip this film because of it's reputation being on the bottom 100, please reconsider. You may have the same point of view I did. Many films are on that list that don't belong there and this is most definitely one of them.

why doesn't you like this?

[Campbell_for_President · 6/10 · 20 April 2005]

i don't understand why so many people dislike this movie. i thought it was great. maybe not as a horror movie, but more as an adventure movie with some horror elements in it.

i haven't seen the other two movies about the boggy creek monster but i will be sure to pick them up.

the only things i see that is bad with it, is some of the dialogs and that it has an 18 year age limit on it. (wich it doesn't deserve)

this is a cult movie that doesn't deserve to be forgotten. i recommend everyone that likes to see big men in monster suits to watch this movie.

Ow.

[electronsexparty · 1/10 · 14 July 2005]

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.

Don't ask...

[BigHairyKev · 1/10 · 31 July 2002]

If this was a turkey, we wouldn't even have it for Thanksgiving. It was bad, real bad. In fact, bad doesn't even come close. Now, don't get me wrong, we ADORE bad horror movies. Cheesy effects, bad sound, no acting at all, cameramen who seemed to be drunk at the time. But THIS movie doesn't even have the charm of a bad movie. If I had to film this I would HAVE to be drunk, or dead (maybe both).

Sad to say I spotted this in a bargain bid (I was robbed) and having never heard of it I gave it a try. BAD MOVE. My recommendation? AVOID. If anybody ever tells you they actually liked it, never talk to them again.

Susie & Kev

Poor sequel but deserves to be seen on its own not as an edited part of a TV show with snarky commentary

[utgard14 · 5/10 · 18 January 2014]

A professor (Charles B. Pierce) takes three students into the wilderness to hunt for proof of the Boggy Creek monster. The Legend of Boggy Creek is one of my favorite movies. I generally defend director Charles B. Pierce as the interesting low-budget filmmaker that he was. This is actually the second sequel to Boggy Creek. The first sequel, Return to Boggy Creek, Pierce had no affiliation with. Since the original movie was very much Pierce's baby, I would consider this the true sequel and the other something separate.

Unlike the original film, which was done in docudrama style, this is more of a straightforward movie. Although the flashback scenes are something akin to what I have come to expect from Pierce in previous movies. The principal actors are made up of amateurs, led by Pierce himself. The other characters and extras in the movie are regular people and not actors. None of the acting is that good but for a movie like this that can sometimes add to the charm. Pierce's son Chuck is particularly bad. Serene Hedin, the actress playing Tanya, is kind of cute and her butt cheeks overflow from her Daisy Dukes, for those interested. Speaking of Daisy Dukes, the sight of the Pierce men in short shorts is enough to scar you for life so steady yourself for that. Chuck Pierce, Jr. seems intent on removing his shirt as much as possible, as well. Someone sadly misinformed him about his physique.

I enjoyed the Arkansas scenery. I always appreciated that Pierce shot on location for his movies. The creature is also shown more in this movie than in the original. That was probably a poor choice as the creature's fleeting appearances in the first movie added to that film's atmosphere. Here it's clearly a man in a suit, which just serves to provide chuckles to the audience.

The primary reason this movie has as many reviews as it does and extremely low votes is because of the annoying Mystery Science Theater 3000 fans who give 1's to every movie that appeared on that show. That isn't to say it's a good movie. It's objectively bad on most levels and there is a lot to make fun of. The out of place mad dog sequence, the scene where a little creature attacks a guy for his fish, and the outhouse segment are particularly funny. But the best part of the movie is everything after they meet Crenshaw. I would watch a whole movie with just that guy. Pierce himself said this was his worst movie and that he regretted making it. However, I found it entertaining and even endearing in some ways. But that's admittedly probably due to a nostalgic soft spot of mine. I really don't think that it deserves a 1 or 2 and I blame MST3K for that. It would probably have a more fair 4 or 5 rating otherwise. The comedy value alone warrants a higher rating than it currently has. Just do yourself a favor, please, and see the movie and judge it on its own merits. Don't be one of these people who watches the edited version on MST3K with wise-cracking peanut gallery and claim you actually saw the movie. Any movie will seem worse when you're watching it under those conditions.

Another addition to a long line of Bigfoot movies

[dirk275 · 5/10 · 21 February 2013]

Charles B Pierce directs,produces,films,acts in, and even caters this mock-umentory style Bigfoot movie set in the State of Arkansas.

Dr Lockhart(Pierce) and three students go on a camping trip to investigate the latest in a long line of sightings of what is called the Boggy Creek Creature. The trip takes them from camping in a swamp to the rundown abode of a man named Crenshaw, where the climax(sort of) of the movie takes place. Lots of flashbacks and back-story fill the movie along the way. Many of them are very humorous.

There's no way, in my right mind, that I can say this is a well crafted movie. The production is poor and so is the acting. The plot and characters are ridiculous. And yet, I find myself enjoying this movie. It's crazy to say, but it's very relaxing to watch. It's very much like watching a documentary about Bigfoot. I also must say that Charles B Pierce is an excellent narrator. His voice has a rich quality that is very easy to listen to. I wonder if he ever did voice over work.

As far as the characters, there are many to laugh at. Steroetypes abound in this movie, from the lawyer that takes the Sears catalog into the outhouse to the overall wearing Crenshaw.

There's not much else to it but to say, see it and enjoy. It's not great but it's firmly in the "So bad, it's good" genre.

Mild followup to the 1972 regional hit

[lor_ · 27 February 2023]

My review was written in December 1985 after a Times Square screening.

Charles B. Pierce's "Boggy Creek II", made in 1983, finally arrived in New York with the misleading retitle "The Barbaric Beast of Boggy Creek Part II". Pic is actually a very mild and folksy piece of regional filmmaking in which it is clear that the filmmaker (who doubles as his own leading man) really likes the creatures. Though labeled number 2, pic is actually the third trip to Boggy Creek, since Pierce's 1972 hit "The Legend of Bobby Creek" was followed in 1977 by a film aimed at the kiddies (and made not by Pierce but by Tom Moore) called "Return to Boggy Creek".

Pierce stars as Bryan Lockhart, a University of Arkansas professor of anthropology who is pulled away from a football game (where the Razorbacks are beating Tulsa) to investigate reports that the Boggy Creek creature is on the loose again. He quickly rounds up an expedition peopled by student Tim (Chuck Pierce, the director's son) and two pretty girls (Cindy Butler, Serene Hedin).

Quartet travels south to Texarkana to interview folks who've sighted the beast. Camping out, they set up a computerized system of sensors to track the nearly 400-pound creature's movements. Pierce includes fuzzy-focus flashbacks illustrating previous tales of this creature's contacts with humanity. Pic doesn't really pick up steam until the final reel when Jimmy Clem appears in a fine acting turn as a hermit who has captured the creature's offspring which he is holding as bait to attract the parent. Prof. Lockhart lets both creatures go, intoning the film's message that they're part of nature living in harmony and ought to be left alone to roam free.

The creature looks like a man in a gorilla suit and film is painfully short on thrills. This type of filmmaking went out with the wilderness adventures, whose heyday was a decade ago.

We need more B's in this title!

[Nightman85 · 5/10 · 29 January 2006]

College professor and his three students take a trip into Boggy Creek in hopes of learning about its legendary Big Foot monster.

Fictional sequel of Charles B. Pierce's 1972 low-budget docudrama is an entertaining but not particularly eventful B movie. As with his other films, Pierce sets this film up with a narrative style and well-uses the raw wilderness of rural Arkansas. This movie does lack some of the subtleties that made the original creepy though. Pierce throws in the occasional bit of humor, including one especially raunchy flashback sequence involving an outhouse. The music by Frank McKelvey is a nice highlight.

Director Pierce stars and does a decent performance. Chuck Pierce (our director's son) plays one of the students. Best of the cast though are Serene Hedin as a game student and Jimmy Clem as one rough-looking river man.

Over all, a tame sequel but watchable. Appeared on Mystery Science Theater 3000 in 1999.

** 1/2 out of ****

Say Hello To My Little Creature....

[Mister-6 · 1/10 · 4 January 2002]

Sasquatch...Yeti...Beowulf...Little Creature?

Is it fitting to say that "The Barbaric Beast of Boggy Creek, Part II" is as much a part of horror legend as his better-known brothers? No, but it's good to say for a laugh.

After some documentary-style flair in the original "Boggy" feature, Charles B. Pierce bogs down (get it?) in a film that anyone with a broken camcorder and smeared lenses could make..oh, and no script.

Instead of a plot we get pretension, and loads of it! Pierce drags two chicks and his shirtless wonder assistant (i.e. - son of the director) into the bogs and swamps of Lose-iana to find the "Beast" of the title. After many stupid stories they find the big, greasy Crenshaw who holds a dark, greasy secret out in his barn....

Oh, why continue? Mike Nelson and Little Mechanical Creatures put this lame beast out of its misery and hopefully discourage Pierce from any further filming endeavors.

Hopefully.

One star (in apology to Louisiana) for TBBOBCP2, seven stars for the MST3K version.

MADGOAT!

Boring beyond belief....but not bad enough to have ever made it to IMDb's Bottom 100.

[planktonrules · 2/10 · 1 December 2015]

In their review of "Boggy Creek II", Utgard14 points out something very important. Every movie shown on "Mystery Science Theater 3000" automatically receives tons of 1 votes and these films choke the Bottom 100 on IMDb--even though very few of these movies are really among the worst ever made. So, while "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and "The Apple" are easily horrible enough to make the Bottom 100, they don't because they weren't featured on "MST3000". Now I am NOT saying "Boggy Creek II" is a good film--it stinks. But it certainly shouldn't be ranked among the Bottom 100...and currently it's #79.

The film is about Dr. Lockhart who is supposedly a professor from a nearby university who has brought some of his students out to look for Arkansas' own version of Bigfoot. The guy looks and acts nothing like any college professor and why he chose these three idiots to go with him I have no idea--as they seem about as capable of doing serious research as Moe, Curly and Larry. Among them, the women are mostly whiny bimbos...and one is so whiny and annoying that audience members will be cheering for her to die...and soon! Not surprisingly, these knuckleheads end up getting into more than they bargained for when the creature arrives. And, in keeping with their being total idiots, these 'researchers' mostly run around screaming or almost shooting themselves! They also get to hang out with one of the Daryls from "Newhart" near the end of the film.

The film is very low budget and none of the acting nor the script are any good. But here is the important thing about this...it's also quite boring as well as being stupid. It's not as funny a bad film as I'd hoped...it's just bad. Very often within the film, there are scenes of supposedly other attacks by the monster which have occurred over the years and they're just clumsily thrown into the movie and disrupt the plot. In them, folks just seem to be offing themselves because they are incredibly clumsy! Perhaps they're from the first "Boggy Creek" but this film was so boring, I doubt if I'd ever bother watching the original!

Why was this made?

[TOMNEL · 2/10 · 4 March 2008]

Nobody wanted another sequel. We already had the atrocious first one from the early 70s, then the sequel, now....wait. Shouldn't this be Boggy Creek 3.....I guess the directors felt they should just ignore the second film, which is what I would recommend you do for all three.

This atrocious mess starts off like a really boring nature video. That is the highlight of the film. We see a Bigfoot like creature walk around, a deer get eaten, and all together, we see a very boring opening. The actual plot is a college professor takes some kids out to the woods to find this creature. The creature reminded me of a less scary, yet bigger, version of the gremlin from the "Nightmare at 20,000 feet" Twilight Zone episode. The main character is played by director/writer Charles B. Pierce, and he proves that he can't do anything good.

This is a slow, laughable, but not very funny movie, and it's recommended you don't see it.

My rating: * out of ****. 90 mins. PG13 for violence.

Boggy Creek II is a good movie.

[Movie Nuttball · 10/10 · 1 February 2002]

Minor spoilers

I saw Boggy Creek 2 a long time ago when it came out and I really liked it and I still do.With out spoiling much the budget and stuff isn`t big here but we do see the Boggy Creek creature several times and he doesn`t look cheap.The acting is pretty good and the film is always interesting.Infact it can be scary at times especialy the beggining of the film.I really don`t see why this film is bad.I have seen it many,many times and each time was good.If your looking a REAL Bigfoot type movie besides Harry and the Hendersons this is the one to see,rent,or even buy!

A decent sequel!

[jp_91 · 6/10 · 2 February 2021]

"The Barbaric Beast of Boggy Creek, Part II" (it should be part III) is a low budget funny movie, the filming locations and the cinematography are good, the performances are not bad and the script is decent. A horror story with a twist: the human being could be an awful creature and a monster could be a better being.

A Bloated, Barbaric Sequel... :=8P

[MooCowMo · 1/10 · 16 June 2000]

Wretched, excremental ABSM(Abominable Snowman)piffle from Charles B. Pierce, the man who brought us the original "Legend of Boggy Creek". At least the original, though cheap and choppy, had a great pseudo-documentary feel to it, sort of like "Blair Witch". This shameful sequel has "straight-to-video" written all over it. Pierce himself plays the lead, an anthropology professor from Arkansas, who shows up in the swamps around Texarkana with a heroin-thin geek(Pierce's son), 2 brainless bimbos, and lots of gadgets. For a little while there, Pierce had some slight success with a string of minor drive-in hits, including "Legend of Boggy Creek", "The Town that Dreaded Sundown", and "Sacred Ground". In fact, the rest of the actors are all veterans of Pierce's udder flicks, but none of them were quite as bad this before! And the monsters...incredibly stupid-looking suits evoke moore sighs than laughs because they are far moore pathetic than funny. One of the reasons the original film worked is because you don't see the creature very well or very long. Unfortunate long shots of the hairy guys show just how crude, fake, and stupid they really are. Many mooments of hilarity in this one - one of the MooCow's favorite shows our favorite hairy manbeast acting like Bruce the Shark from "Jaws", as he kills a stock footage deer, and then forces fake blood out of it's obviously fake mouth. And the mad dog scene is just too stupid for this cow to put into words. The MooCow's favorite line, from dumb bimbo #2: "I don't like it here; what if that's a madgoat??". Stilted, poorly shot flashbacks only serve to add moore pain to the viewer. It moost be said that Jimmy Clem's obnoxiously fat, hairy redneck swamp hick is the best part of the moovie, which is a real shame because he is simply vile. And the Big Hairy Guy? Well, when not out ripping the heads off critters in the river, he's usually throttling the bejesus out of some local hayseed, or forcing them to step into outhouse doo-doo(which, metaphorically, is what Pierce is making us do here...). For those who care, this Big Hairy Guy is nothing like the elusive, enigmatic shadow in "Legend of Boggy Creek", and that's a shame. The baby bigfoot here is nothing moore than a obvious, gag-inducing plot device. The MooCow can think of a thousand moore interesting/funny flicks to waste yer time on that this feeble folly, but if you simply MUST watch such rank failure, at least do yerself the favor of checking out the MST3K version. Udderwise, the horrible stench of this brainless, boggy breakdown won't come off yer carpets for weeks. :=8P