I heavily compare to this to The Blair Witch (1999), not because it's found footage as I watch a vast amount of these but for a number of reasons.
The whole structure from the premise, to the interviews to the going into the woods to the losing the map. It all reeks of Blair Witch, only with a Bigfoot.
Also alike The Blair Witch very little actually happens and at no point do you see the antagonist.
So we have 3 documentary filmmakers given a grant to research Bigfoot, after conducting interviews with folks who claim to have seen it then venture into the forests of Utah to try and capture it on film. Surprisingly enough it doesn't go very well for them.
Bigfoot At Millcreek has not one but two sequels in production as we speak and this interests me. Let me be clear this is a bad film, but because of it's lack of content I'm just curious where they are going to go with it and how they can make another 2 movies from this?
If you don't like found footage films you won't like this, if however you do like found footage films you erm.......still won't like this.
Not the worst but still pretty damn bad.
The Good:
Well enough made
The Bad:
Very boring
Heavily recycled
Ultimately nothing happens
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
Dogs are commonly mistaken for 9ft Bigfoot
