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 may seem harsh, but you will agree at once after seeing this...thing. The monster itself is well done, but doesn't even come close to being as scary as the old hermit. Charles returns with his son at his side. For some reason, Tim the skinny lad can't wear a shirt for more than ten minutes. Charles makes a fool of himself on screen by dancing around in short shorts holding a gun. Although they claim to be in college, they exhibit behavior of third rate idiots. The list of flaws goes on and on. Charles leaves behind a legacy of shame. But wait! We must not forget the dreaded poop scene! This delightful sequence of a man being attacked in his outhouse features a truly disgusting sight, as his wife has to spray the gunk off his pants.

If there's one thing I despise more than any other in the movie world it's false advertising. In this case, if the DVD case depicts a horror movie, and the words on the cover and in the synopsis describe horrific events and suggest a horror film, then that is what should be found within.The tag-line on the cover of my copy describes "The most feared inhabitant of the backwoods is back with a vengeance." Which is about as far from the actual movie content as one could get. What we do get is something rather like those 1970's Disney documentaries, where cine-footage of a real live wild animal,is made into an edited story, with a seemingly appropriate, cutesy name for the starring animal, to give us a feature length docu-movie which would keep any 7yr old completely transfixed and happy for the duration. Which is interesting, because the horror content of this wouldn't scare a 7yr old either! So, filmed in a documentary style, with a past tense narrative throughout, a group of highly dubious student/teacher characters head out from a college ball game, to go study this mythical, mysterious creature, of which another sighting has recently been reported. Initial reconstructions and glimpses of the 'creature' are quite good, and draw the viewer into the story. But as the documentary turns into it's concluding action-phase, the film suffers from too much budget monster syndrome. We are subjected to an obvious tall guy in a budget badly made hairy suit with a plastic monkey-mask sewn in. This is the type of horror movie making which doesn't make the grade, any grade. Ever!I must admit, that I couldn't help thinking that there could be some entertainment, and even success, from re-making this film Blair Witch/docu-movie style, relying on mere glimpses of creature, or even no glimpses at all... but then, I am such an idealist, and really do try to see the good in everything... honest!! Overall, bad acting, bad editing, bad sound with some OK ideas. Unfortunately the lasting memory is of the totally false and ridiculous advertising, deployed to coax horror movie lovers into paying a tiny amount of money to buy this film... which they will obviously be dis-satisfied with once they watch it.Gives the movie, or at least DVD/video world a bad name.In a word, "Don't." I rated a 2, for re-make potential!