MartinHafer 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!

toastedslipers Boggy Creek II & The Legend Continues, periods and all, was an attempt by the director of the original Boggy Creek (Charles B. Pierce) to say "Piss Off" to the man who decided to make a sequel to his glorious shlock of a film.And Charles B. Pierce takes that hate, molds it, shapes it, and passes it onto you.The film is about a college professor and his students who get a call saying that there has been sightings of the skunk ape Sasquatch known as the Boggy Creek Creature and hightails it up to the remote countryside of Arkansas in the hopes of trying to document it And without giving too much else away, I will say this, what started off as an idea to incorporate "leave nature as it was intended" into a bigfoot movie turned a redneck booty-short fantasy land of laughable attempts at acting This isn't to say that the film still isn't enjoyable, very much the opposite I've watched it ten times, each viewing offering something more to savor from the mind of the late Mr. Pierce

jerome_horwitz Boggy Creek II is a horrible movie. There's no doubt about that. I'm not really sure if it deserves a 1, it probably does, I'm just not really sure! The weird thing is I could never see myself voting higher for it. There's no reason in the world I would, except maybe if old man Crenshaw threatened to come and live with me!The story revolves around a legendary swamp monster. In the film, the monster resembles your typical sasquatch. A professor and some students set out to prove that this creature does indeed exist. What occurs is a very campy story, the likes nearly that of home movies. Basically a tale is told of little adventure and lacking much interest. However, it's there to watch - therefore you do.The odd thing is the acting at some points isn't always horrible. Charles Peirce (Dr. Lockhart) actually reminds me a little of R. Lee Earmey, which is an actor I really like (FMJ). I even sort of liked Dr. Lockhart's ending narration, about leaving the creature be and that sort of thing. Cindy Butler doesn't do too bad of a job either, and she's really quite attractive. Old man Crenshaw, who probably smells worse than the creature ever would, isn't too bad of a character either.I'm sure something else that made the viewing OK was watching the MST3k version. I'm quite sure the movie would have been very hard to swallow sans MST3k. But they, as always, put a shiny gold coating on top for all to enjoy and that's the only way I'd recommend viewing this campy flick.1/10

electronsexparty 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.