User reviews

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 ****

This movie is so putrid it looks like it came from a boggy creek. Heres the plot: Chuck Pierce takes his anorexic son (assistant) and two cousins/family friends (female students)on a trip through an Arkansas forest to find Bigfoot. Along the way, he has awfully filmed flashbacks that try to be funny but only serve to grate on the viewers nerves. His assistant, Tim, reminds me of those commercials where they show all of those starving children in Africa. I'm not kidding...a light breeze would floor this guy! Anyway...it turns out the real bigfoot is Crenshaw...a louse ridden 8 foot tall hillbilly with a koosh ball for head. Its pretty awful. Still, I'd probably watch this over "Harry and the Hendersons" any day of the week.

Jimmy Clem's portrayal of a backwoods idiot is the most entertaining part of this movie, which otherwise drags interminably like some kind of Disney wildlife video as the "professor" (director Charles Pierce) takes us into the backwoods of Arkansas. There are some flashbacks of the creature "encountering" people, and the professor and his students have a few encounters with the beast. It really makes you think...about how movies like this are still being made as recently as the mid-80's. This one isn't even good enough for direct-to-video: where do they _show_ stuff like this, anyhow?

Saw the original in a drive in double feature with 1 million BC re release.

I was probably 5 and didn't sleep for a week, cause the area of the Boggy Creek movie resembled my home so much.

In high school I watched the "return" on vhs and thought it was horrible.

Later in college, around 88 or 89, we watched this "Continues" on a dorm movie night in our lounge, on our huge 27" glass tube TV.

My initial take away wasn't as awful as 21st century viewers pan it.

It wasnt good either, more like a TV movie, which were still fairly common at the time.

My final take away, is the overall mid 80s vibe you get from it now.

Having been there, you recognize it instantly.

There is so much nothing going on, you can focus on snack boxes, shoes, boom box, attire, hair styles, random car in the background, last days of the old true mom and pop gas stations, the fad of weird shingled motels, cut offs were truly still the norm and almost always inappropriatly short on men, little things captured on film, that make this movie a unique flick, having been shot in the "wild", not on a set or back lot.

The movie follows the basic premise of the original in design, but added more creatures for monster audiences.

Did it work? 2020? Nope.

Mid 8Os? Well...It at least was better than stop motion over lays.

I say this is a solid average low budget movie.

A must have for lovers of the true star: the classic 7.

I dont know why so many people think was such an awful film... i happen to disagree. I watched this movie with my dad when i was little and it scared me. I'm 21 years old now, and after watching it again.. it still gave me the chills. I've always had this fascination with bigfoot for reasons such as is it real or not. If any of you out there are any, if at all interested in a bigfoot flick, i would recommend this one to you. It is a "B" film, but very respectful in the folklore genre.

"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 truly appalling attempt to cash in on the accidental success of "The Legend of Boggy Creek." Charles B. Pierce caught a lucky break and notoriety from the original but this movie just proves how lucky it was... Right bad movie at the right time.

The 'hero' of this movie is a creepy-as-hell, sexist pig of man with about as much charisma (and acting talent) as piece of wet toilet paper.

The girls are the typical 'pretty little dumb things' that look good in tight shorts and are expected to be sub-servient to our hero.

The plot, if that is what it is, is ridiculous... the scripting is puerile, the acting is at least on par with your typical D grade creature feature (bad but watchable).

Worth watching if you're into cult movie sequels and particularly worth watching if you love watching third rate unknown actors make fools of themselves...