Willow Creek (2013) User Reviews

A worthwhile slow burn, assuming you can endure the first 40 minutes.

[lnvicta · 5/10 · 17 June 2015]

Willow Creek is another Blair Witch Project rehash, but don't let that deter you. It's a different approach to minimalist found-footage horror, and it winds up being a truly frightening experience if you can make it past the first half. Not that the first half is poor - it's just a long setup to introduce you to these characters: Jim, the believer, and Kelly, the skeptic, on their hunt for the one and only Bigfoot. It's satirical in a way, watching Jim interview these townsfolk about Bigfoot sightings and you as a viewer knowing how ridiculous it all is, but that is what makes Willow Creek work so well. You're led to believe it's going to be a dumb satire on the Blair Witch Project for the first half of the film, which makes it all the more terrifying when things take a turn for the worse.

Rather than having jump scares and disturbing imagery, the scares in Willow Creek come almost entirely from sound. There's even a point where the main character shuts off the camera light so you can't see anything. All you can do is listen to the open wilderness: wood knocking from a distance, leaves crunching, ominous howls, getting closer and closer. It taps into everyone's innate fear of the unknown in the simplest and most effective way.

As far as minimalist horror goes, Willow Creek is right up there with Blair Witch, possibly even surpassing it. The only complaint I have aside from the overlong build up (which ends up paying off anyway) is the atrocious rock song that plays during the end credits. It takes the dreadful atmosphere you were experiencing moments before and slams your eardrums with this horrendous upbeat music. It can be a relief for some people, reminding us that it's only a movie, but I found it grating. However, this doesn't take away from the fact that Willow Creek is another reminder that found-footage can work with the right team in front and behind the camera. A perfect midnight horror movie.

Dark Implications of the Ending

[drm2642 · 5/10 · 6 February 2023]

I think a lot of people are missing the darker implications of the ending. The crying naked woman they find with the creatures is being held prisoner by the big foots (feet?). Why are they keeping her alive when they attacked and killed the male character? Also, why was the woman naked? The answer is simple if you think about it. The creatures are mating with her (probably NOT consensual) and trying to breed with her. At the end we don't hear Kelly get killed, but instead she is screaming for the creatures to leave her alone. Kelly's fate will sadly be the same as the woman's, being used as breeding stock with these creatures. Kelly even foreshadows this earlier in the film when they are at the diner. She asks her partner, what if the biggest thing about Bigfoot isn't their feet, but a different part of its anatomy. I think this is meant to tell us that in the end she is about to find this out first hand. Yikes!

Willow Creek

[Scarecrow-88 · 4/10 · 14 July 2015]

Fair attempt at a type of Bigfoot variation on Blair Witch Project has a couple in Willow Creek, California, taking in the sasquatch culture and iconography, enjoying this trip, using a camera, documenting what they experience, ultimately hoping (well the guy anyway) to capture the creature in the woods near the famous sighting by Gimlin-Patterson in '67. After a trip around the town, the two drive into the woods, encounter a local who insists (rather hostilely) they turn back around, but take a different route. A late night/early morning "visit" while in their tent emphasizes that maybe the whole documentary was a bad idea. But when they get lost, and seem to be walking in circles, their situation reaps despair and terror. While the guy lives for finding a Bigfoot, his girlfriend, an unbelieving skeptic, just tags along because she cares about him. The second night doesn't go as non-violently as the previous night which has the Bigfoot growling, snapping branches, knocking on wood, and howling ourside their tent. This time, no tent is set up, and the dark of night could yield a horror they wasn't prepared for.

Director Bobcat Goldthwait doesn't vary too much from the found footage formula. In face he stays close to vest, but I can certainly see the "nothing much happens" argument having some validity in this film's case. The couple get along quite well, and their arguments about Bigfoot's existence never sours how they feel about each other. Of course, the end, when they're lost, does upset the harmony. The film's ending reveals a naked woman (she whimpers and they hear it in the tent) which kind of adds a real strange jarring spot in the final minutes as the sasquatch accosts them. Not much is shown and the camera is drug behind (I guess) its human operator as the Bigfoot has about conquered him. You hear tearing of clothes and a gurgling which might indicate violence to the guy. The girl screams. The tent scene could gain notoriety for its extended take, as the couple listen attentively for what is outside, possibly a monster or human prankster in the vicinity. Getting to the tent scene has a lot of filler. The couple visiting tourist spots and mockingly grinning and commenting on the hokey nature of the Bigfoot's brand on the town.

Two insecure people hear sounds in their tent for 40 minutes

[JJProdMast · 7 June 2014]

The entirety of the plot could be boiled down to, "Two insecure people hear sounds in their tent for 40 minutes." The characters are vapid, boring, and lack anything insightful or interesting to say. The interviews with the locals are as exciting as you'd expect "unedited" footage with a bunch of random people discussing Bigfoot to be.

When things finally do begin to happen, they don't proceed anywhere. It goes on and on with no point or purpose until all I wanted was for both of them to die, and die slowly.

Bobcat's other films showed some promise in some regards, but this was just awful.

Yawn...

[jhhbeck · 1/10 · 11 October 2015]

Awful. A solid hour of useless, bumbling interviews with local townspeople and the male protagonist standing in front of Bigfoot sculptures, none of which adds a single plot device. We get it. This is Bigfoot country. Do we really need to hear the local musician's entire folk song, mistakes and restarts included? Awkward pauses are acceptable for building suspense, but if you're going to make the tent scene last twenty minutes, perhaps we could get a bit more than some growling and something poking the tent? And whomever was responsible for the sound effects has an illustrious career ahead of them in something other than sound editing. The Bigfoot howls sounded like a man trying to sound like a young cow/tornado warning.

The encounter with Bigfoot lasts all of two minutes, and the only thing the viewer gets to see is the camera flying around and a fat woman in a loin cloth for a split second. I'm all for ambiguity, but, when you've spent the entire film avoiding plot devices like the plague, ambiguity turns into "Eh, I suppose this ending will suffice. Plus, we don't have enough money in our budget to pay the fat woman for a re-shoot."

I think the single most annoying thing about this film is that it received an 86% on RT. Did it release on April 1st, or did all of the critics decide to try a new drug beforehand?

Well acted and very organic

[superqd · 7/10 · 24 July 2014]

I admit that I like found footage films, or, rather, I find that story telling device compelling. Assuming it's done well. To do it well, your film relies heavily on acting first, then editing, then sound They all work well here.

Too often, these sorts of films have actors who don't know what to say, or how to say it, as they are expected to improvise and aren't confident how to be "natural". In this film, the actors are brilliantly natural and their chemistry is superb. They are a very believable as a couple and as people.

The goal itself is interesting, as I have rarely watched a Bigfoot movie, so I found that part of the film at interesting spin. But really, the slow burn here is what really makes me like this movie.

As with other films in which the protagonist is a wannabe filmmaker, there are lots of establishing shots with the local townsfolk to talk up the legend, and to get a sense of what is to come. It's all done pretty realistically, and, again, the actors dialogue/exchanges with each other are especially convincing.

Again, this film is very much about the slow burn of tension. This is very much exemplified in a scene near the end that lasts nearly twenty minutes for one continuous shot. And it's not boring. At all. The actors are brilliant in the scene, as is the sound. It's a highly effective scene and you really begin to get into the same dread of what's next as the characters due to the immersive nature of the scene.

Overall, I really liked it. I think the director did a great job in choice/direction of actors, and the overall story was not over the top. It's a great example of how found-footage should be done.

Though, the film doesn't actually try to tell you it's found footage, it's just that the only point of view is the camera(s) used by the characters. But I'll assume someone found the footage in that fictional universe at some point.

No,, just no,,,

[reddiemurf81 · 2/10 · 3 July 2022]

A couple decides to go and find evidence of the existence of Bigfoot.

This is terrible. I'm giving it a 2 bc the two leads aren't necessarily bad, and the other people aren't bad either. What's bad is that after 45 mins of getting to the woods,, we then see the two leads in a tent,, hearing sounds,, getting freaked. That's about it. They try to make it out of the woods. The get lost. It gets dark. More sounds. Naked chick. Monster sounds and running,, oh no,,, ah,,, and close. It's just bad. Terribly written, directed, or edited. Possibly all three.

A Good Bigfoot Movie

[BenWhoLikesMovies · 7/10 · 19 September 2014]

If you're looking for a good Bigfoot movie this is the only one that comes to mind.

Now, I call it good, not great. It has it's fair share of flaws, but being from the same guy who directed God Bless America and World's Greatest Dad I expected a certain level of quality often not shown to horror movies, and almost never to the found footage genre.

This movie handles it's scares with tact and maturity, and even has a very tense scene in a tent. I won't delve into detail as I do think this movie is worth watching. It's certainly nothing new, but it takes the good well established staples of horror, arranges them in a pleasant package, and doesn't have anything that really made it a bad movie...

...until the end. Sadly, without revealing too much, the movie has a rather disappointing, confusing, and unsatisfying ending. It doesn't ruin the movie as a whole, but since it's the last thing you see, a bad ending skews the rest of it in a negative light.

This movie was made solidly enough to the point where I can definitely recommend it. Willow Creek isn't the best movie in world, or even the best horror movie, but with all the recent schlock like Devil's Due and Paranormal Activity 5 it stands leagues ahead. I want a sequel to this, one that hopefully solves the problems this one had.

TLDR Version: Good, not great. Worth a watch despite it's flaws.

Go watch someone's vlog rather

[umjetnik_david-1 · 2/10 · 4 June 2014]

That's all there is to it. I like found footage movies, but his was just silly. Just two people traveling for an hour, there is something at the end, but not worth it. It's not a horror movie (except last 10 mins but a little dumb). It felt like I was watching Blair Witch Project parody more than watching Bigfoot movie. If you can skip it, but if you must... watch it, I wouldn't recommend it. 6.2 score is misleading, and soon it will probably fall to 3-4. I think i rated only 2-3 movies with 2, maybe this one deserves 3, but I felt so cheated and bored through the whole thing. Not one of the worst movies I saw, but ultimately boring and pointless.

Blair Witch meets Bigfoot.

[johnbkaramazov · 7/10 · 25 October 2014]

I'm not going to lie, I was pretty terrified by the movie. That's the main reason I've given it 7 stars out of 10. The plot is basic but plausible, the acting is very good for most of the film and importantly the back and forth between the two leads is totally believable which really helps draw you into their world and suspend your disbelief enough so that you really do begin to feel involved in proceedings. Exactly what a good found footage film should do, in other words.

So far so good, right?

Well now for the bad part. This film is just the Blair Witch Project with Bigfoot. It really is. It's the same film, practically identical premise (just substitute Blair Witch for Bigfoot), same exact scares, even some of the dialogue is the same or as close as as to make no difference. Scary or not, the level of repetition is quite unforgivable, I'm surprised somebody hasn't sued. Watching the later stages of the film I was equal parts crapping myself and increasingly infuriated as it began to dawn on me quite how closely this movie paralleled the (superior) Blair Witch Project.

The final verdict:

Ultimately despite everything, I'm really glad I watched this film. It left me feeling pretty strung out, so in that respect I have to say it was a really successful horror movie. It's just a shame it relied so heavily on somebody else's original genius and had so few ideas of its own.

Update: Having just watched the new Blair Witch (2016), I'd like to mitigate some of my criticism of this film. Whilst everything I said was true, in many ways this film is more of a spiritual successor to the Blair Witch than the 2016 sequel, which is really, really bad. It made me realise that whilst this film is very similar to the original Blair Witch, a good horror movie is a rare thing, a well-made one even rarer. This film is well-made and scary as hell. I was too harsh on this movie and from now on I'm going to look on it as the unofficial successor to the Blair Witch and try to forget about the awful sequels the people in charge of that franchise keep knocking out once every decade or so.

Cheap, unimaginative, and dull

[harryplinkett14 · 1/10 · 9 January 2017]

I would have preferred a film about a couple being stalked in the woods by Bob Goldthwait himself.

This is total rubbish. The first half of the film is literally about nothing. We do learn a bit about the characters, but otherwise it's just filler. Also, nothing we learn about the characters ends up being relevant for the plot, which is another characteristic of bad writing.

The drawn-out sequence at the end is just lazy and unconvincing. It seems to copy other similar scenes from Bigfoot movies and the stuff we saw in Blair Witch Project. But it's just not intense and it is way too long. Again, one gets the impression this was done because the writer was lazy. Also, to save money. If half the film is just two people sitting in a tent, that tends to cut down on your expenses a lot.

I imagine Goldthwait was doing the silly noises himself, no need to get a team to do sound design.

As for the dialogue, it starts badly, and it doesn't improve. One gets the impression it was written ten minutes before they started shooting. There is nothing in the dialogue worth one's attention. Unbelievably bad writing. And as for the plot, it is crap. It copies the template established in other similar films, adds nothing new, and copies the clichés so brazenly that one almost has to think it's a joke.

Zero for effort. Don't watch this, even for free.

A Scary Tale Of Babes In The Woods

[venusboys3 · 8/10 · 9 November 2014]

This really worked for me. I know the usual contingent is out with cries of, "Boring!" and "Worst movie I ever saw!"... but... whatever. They show up for everything short of Chainsaw Gynecologist IV. First off... if you don't like found footage movies, you won't like this. If you didn't like The Blair Witch Project or June 9, you won't like this. If you can't stand low budget movies that don't have loads of special FX and jump cuts... you definitely need to look elsewhere.

Willow Creek is a slow convincing build-up to a chaotic slap of weirdness. Everything leading up to that ending is atmosphere and getting to know the characters and ramping up the dread of what might happen to folks who wander out into the woods looking for monsters. There's a LONG scene in a tent with the characters becoming increasingly terrified... can you watch long scenes where not much happens? Do you have that sort of patience? If so you might like this movie as much as I did. Also, I'd say the real horror of the film doesn't sink in until after a few moments are taken to mull over the implications of what we see in those final moments. How they were foreshadowed early on. It's a creepy movie and I'm glad I watched it.

Good suspenseful shaky cam horror.

[duffyscript · 7/10 · 24 September 2014]

I'll be honest. This film definitely went for full Blair Witch and just barely did not make it. On the upside though, it did get very close. Willow Creek is one of those movies that although it doesn't quite scare you, it leaves you unnerved. The film is very amateur but this serves to benefit the film. The buildup is fantastic but in my opinion, the payoff was a tad lackluster, but perhaps that is just because i wanted to know more.

Willow Creek is by no means a masterpiece of horror but it is a very effective shaky cam film with good suspense and eerie atmosphere.

Warning though, some parts of this film do drag on... a lot. The beginning of the film lasts forever, and one scene in particular drums up the suspense well but ultimately runs too long in the middle of this very short movie.

If you read about this film and immediately though you might be interested, watch it. I did not go in expecting too much, but I was pleased with what I saw.

Terrible, boring movie

[gunnymo · 1/10 · 14 August 2014]

I watch a lot of horror films and can usually find at least some redeeming quality in even the worst of films. This one, however, is really the worst of the worst. It's just awful. There is no tension, no scares and is monumentally boring throughout its entire run time. There is no engagement, no suspension of disbelief and, well, there's nothing.

It's as if Bobcat said to himself "Hmmm, how can I make a film that even coma patients would find so incredibly dull that they would wake up just so they could leave the room to escape the mind numbing tedium?"

A frustrating watch throughout

[Edeards · 8 September 2020]

I cannot quite comprehend how one could go hunting for Big Foot yet be so ill-prepared to be in the wilderness. No knife, torches, bear spray, headlamps, no night vision camera, no interest in building a fire. This is the most frustrating movie to watch, not due to the slow burn nature but just the sheer idiocy and naivety of the main character. Incredulous.

One of the worst found footage flicks I've ever seen!

[Hellmant · 3/10 · 1 July 2014]

'WILLOW CREEK': One and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

Actor/comedian, turned filmmaker, Bobcat Goldthwait wrote and directed this ultra-low budget found footage flick. Alexie Gilmore and Bryce Johnson star in the movie; as a couple making their own documentary about the Bigfoot myth (and the Patterson-Gimlin film). I enjoyed Goldthwait's last writing/directing effort, 'GOD BLESS America' (to a certain extent), and like him as a comedian and actor, but I have to say this movie was pretty bad. It's one of the worst found footage flicks I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot).

The story revolves around Jim (Johnson), and his girlfriend Kelly (Gilmore), traveling to Willow Creek (in Humboldt County, California) to make their own Bigfoot documentary film; Jim believes in the legend and Kelly does not. Willow Creek is where Roger Patterson and Robert "Bob" Gimlin supposedly captured footage, of a Sasquatch, in October of 1967. Jim interviews various locals, while Kelly films, and they tell all kinds of Sasquatch stories (and sing songs). Then the two travel into the woods, to find the location of Patterson and Gimlin's famous film, but of course something goes horribly wrong.

I will say that parts of the movie are really funny (in the first half) and the two leads are pretty good (they've both worked with Goldthwait before on previous films); especially Gilmore (who's strikingly beautiful). The second half of the movie is where it really goes downhill though. It's a complete rip-off of 'THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT'; there's even a similar tent scene and a portion of the movie where the couple, while trying to leave, circles past the same tree again. It's ridiculous how unoriginal and recycled this movie is (and I really like most found footage films). It's entertaining at times but most of it is a waste. Extremely disappointing coming from Goldthwait.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://youtu.be/QyJ3WU3eIos

A creepy movie

[znegative · 7/10 · 4 July 2016]

In my review for the mediocre found-footage/horror film 'Followed' I talked a bit about my dislike for how serial murderers are often portrayed in cinema. While Se7en was a good thriller, it epitomizes IMO the problem... Serial Killers murder for sex and power, and usually a bit of both. However, fart too often, movies seem to depict them as these brilliant psychopaths whose sole purpose in life is to get into a game of 'cat and mouse' with their equally brilliant adversary, that is, whatever detective Morgan Freedman might be playing in any given film.

What's frightening to me about serial killers is that for the most part they go undetected and often get away with multiple homicides for years. That, and to top it off, they blend in with the outside world very well. That is what Willow Creek gets right-there is a hint of realism here on top of the campy thrills that separates Willow Creek from your average slasher film.

This is one of the few movies that I actually felt a certain sense of dread for our hero's, Jim and Kelly-which is a big thing for me, as it takes a lot more than gore and a loud bump to make me jump.

I would like to also mention that I thought the actors did quite well-not only the killer, but the protagonists as well. I thought Jim was really likable, which is another surprise for this type of movie, which usually has very poor character construction.

Worth the watch.

You wait and then it's over.

[kjjames81 · 4/10 · 11 November 2020]

First thing's first this film is boring, about 45 minutes of this film is talking and driving. Then our couple get to the woods and get warned off, which happens in most if these films. When that happened I thought great the film will pick up, it didn't for awhile. Then we get to the infamous tent scene, for me it didn't work. This part was meant to be 18 minutes of flights and scares, where? By the time we get to the end of the movie, I had lost interest in the film. There was nothing wrong in the acting, in fact they did look like a real couple, which worked. The film had one problem as I said earlier, nothing happened. I would give this a three and a half but since I can't I will give it a four.

BLAIRSQUATCH PROJECT delivers taut tense terror for 'found-footage' horror.

[george.schmidt · 7/10 · 5 November 2013]

WILLOW CREEK (2013) *** Comedian-turned-filmmaker Bobcat Goldthwait's first foray into horror is his self-professed "BLAIRSQUATCH PROJECT", found-footage account of a young intrepid couple (likable-to-a-fault Bryce Johnson and Alexie Gilmore) who go deep into the Northern California woods in search of the elusive mythic Bigfoot, and get more than they bargained for. With its sense of fun (some wry ad-libbing) and adventure (Johnson's blind- desire to get immersed in the rustic iconography) the tension gradually builds to its inevitable climax but Goldthwait (whose taut film is at 67 cuts only!) shrewdly gives us characters to develop (and care for) when harm's way is a pot boiling evening in the dark.

Allow Bigfoot to grow on you

[Coventry · 5/10 · 20 April 2014]

I promised myself several times already I would stop watching so-called "found-footage" horror movies. No matter how interesting and tense they initially appear to be judging by their synopsis or uncanny poster art, you always end up scammed! For "Willow Creek" I made another exception, for two reasons. First and foremost I have an inexplicable weakness for Bigfoot movies, even though experience already taught me there are very few good ones, and secondly because I was curious to watch a film from writer/director Bobcat Goldthwait. Like most people, I only know him from his comical roles during the 1980's - most notably the "Police Academy" sequels - and wasn't even aware that he became a versatile director nowadays. Moreover, Goldthwait came to the Brussels International Festival of Fantastic Films to introduce his project and tell a bit more about what he wanted to achieve. Apart from still being a funny guy (everyone ought to hear his Bono impersonation), he definitely also know a thing or two about horror cinema and gave a pretty accurate analysis of the genre. Of course, all this happened before the film begun

At first, I must admit that I was very disappointed - infuriated, even - with "Willow Creek" because it was just as dull, clichéd and uneventful as every other dreadful found-footage movie ever made. However, a couple of days later now, it's strangely growing on me. This is definitely a back-to-basics example of the sub genre, very similar to "Blair Witch Project" in fact, but with a much cooler monster. Jim Kessel absolutely wants to prove once and for all that the notorious Bigfoot really exists and heads out to Willow Creek - Bigfoot capital of the world - with a handy-cam and his non-believing girlfriend Kelly. They have a lot of fun at first, munching Sasquatch burgers and mocking the local yokels, but late at night in their tent in the middle of isolated nowhere their laughter quickly fades. With "back-to-basics", I refer to the limited number of protagonists (two people instead of a whole amateur film crew), a very patient and extended introduction to the lead characters and the surrounding and an extreme emphasis on slow-brooding tension and suggestive horror. This last aspect is particularly underlined through an eighteen-minute (18!) monotonous shot of Jim & Kelly anxiously embracing each other in their tent while uncanny sounds and presences lurk outside. Together with a full festival theater, I found this scene very unnerving, but I can't deny it's a powerful and intense sequence. The acting performances of Alexie Gilmore and Bryce Johnson are impressive and the authentic (I think) filming locations are sublime. The climax is dumb, but that also appears to be a found-footage tradition. It's definitely my second favorite title in this totally redundant sub genre, after Barry Levinson's underrated "The Bay".

Big Foot is coming to get you

[kosmasp · 7/10 · 4 December 2013]

We all know where this is going and it still is able to entertain until that moment we are waiting for. The moment that will freak us out. And while I am not a fan of Found Footage, I do like Bobcat G. a lot. His introduction to the movie (at Frightfest) was awesome too. He acknowledged the fact, that people are fed up by the "genre" ("I know you've been all waiting to see yet another Found Footage movie" he quipped along other things).

And he still was able to make a fun movie that makes sense (sort of). I put the spoiler tag there for a reason. Not because I pointed out the obvious (Big Foot), but because there is a "Missing Person" poster in the movie. And this poster has some significance as a friend of mine first noticed. Because the "monster" could very well be that woman, who got lost in the woods. Whatever the case there is a very long shot towards the end of the movie that will scare you ... really scare you and keep you on your toes or the edge of your seat

Terrible film

[dnb_smurf · 1/10 · 10 June 2014]

1 hour 20 minutes of my life I'll never get back. I'll break it down;

Plot 1/10 - Long drawn out first 40 minutes or so whilst our couple journey through the surrounding area of the big foot forest, followed by another 40 minutes actually in the forest. Both parts were equally as bad/boring.

Scares 1/10 - Total anticlimax, sounds were terrible (what was up with that long, blatantly human wale). Very amateur.

Acting 4/10 - The acting wasn't too bad to be fair. However not good enough to redeem the actual content of the movie in any way.

Ending 1/10 - Rubbish.

One of those films which I really wanted to turn off half way through, but thought I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. It's got to get good at some point, right? Wrong! Avoid at all costs.

Good found footage!!

[taylorrives-18642 · 8/10 · 7 May 2021]

Don't know why I've never seen this before now! It's an Interesting take on the found footage style of film, which I like. It's not super cut which can be annoying so I appreciate that. The dynamic between the two of them is organic and believable. The movie is very accurate about the locations and mythology of Bigfoot and the site they visit is spot on. I don't jump in movies but this one got me for sure. Slow burns are hard for me to enjoy... I usually turn them off, but the build up was worth it.

Goldthwaite does it again

[victoryismineblast · 7/10 · 9 June 2014]

From writer/director Bobcat Goldthwaite comes the story of Kelly and Jim, who drive out to the forest to follow the trail of a 57 year old Bigfoot sighting.

The movie begins with a lot of interviews as they start to film Jim's lifelong dream of making a documentary on the subject. After gathering as much information on the subject as they can, they go hiking into the forest in the hopes of capturing some footage on their own.

The two main characters' dialogue and interactions seem natural and not forced as in some other found footage films. Once they enter the forest and camp for the night, things really start to happen. I found myself holding my breath a couple of times.

All in all this is a decent found footage entry from Goldthwaite, who first captured my attention a few years ago with his entertaining film festival entry, God Bless America.

Watch Bigfoot: The Lost Coast Tapes

[LiamBlackburn · 1/10 · 5 June 2014]

If you want to see an actual good FF Bigfoot movie. Do not watch Willow Creek. The main actors are annoying and boring. The movie takes about 75% of its life to get any type of suspense going. The FF cinematography is good. There are just too many scenes that should not have been included. Such as the guitar-playing guy, that scene was how long? 10 minutes?! Why? The restaurant scene where they're eating Bigfoot burgers? What? What is the purpose of this....These scenes serve no purpose whatsoever....they do not help build the characters...nor do they help build the "Bigfoot" tension. If anything, they detract from it. How long is their first night scene in the tent....it lasts like 30 minutes....lol why? It was probably the most boring scene of the movie. I do not understand how Bigfoot (the Lost Coast Tapes) is given such a bad rating when that movie is 1000 times better than this pile of rubbish. I have to rate this a 1 to drag the rating down sorry. Overall there were some tense moments but it's a failed execution.