BA_Harrison Really good Sasquatch/Yeti movies are rarer than the legendary creatures themselves, Abominable (2006) being the only one I've seen that I would happily recommend to fellow horror fans (although 1980 gore-fest Night of the Demon is entertaining trash for those who enjoy a hefty dose of schlock). Up until today, I had The Legend of Bigfoot (1976) down as the worst example of the genre, but The Curse of Bigfoot is even more execrable—a dreadfully dull mish-mash of scenes from an old '50s flick clumsily edited together with newer footage from the '70s.The film sees a group of teenage archaeology students discover the body of a mummified creature sealed in a cave for hundreds of thousands of years. The creature turns out to have been laying dormant for all that time, and wakes from its slumber to kill, leaving the students and local cops to try and lure the beast into the open so that they can set it on fire. With very little monster action, but lots of interminably dreary chit-chat and horribly wooden acting throughout, The Curse of Bigfoot makes other mediocre missing-link monster films like Shriek of the Mutilated (1974), The Werewolf and the Yeti (1975) and Snowbeast (1977) look like works of genius by comparison.

Michael_Elliott Curse of Bigfoot (1975)* 1/2 (out of 4) A professor takes some of his students out into the woods where they discover an underground tomb. Inside that tomb they uncover the where abouts of a Bigfoot creature.If you've read my review of TEENAGERS BATTLE THE THING then you'll notice the first line above is the same and the reason that's the case is because this made-for-TV movie is actually that 1958 film but this here a little over twenty minutes worth of new footage. The history of this is pretty confusing because it was released in 1958 to at least one theater. This version was in B&W and ran for less than a hour. The film pretty much disappeared until this "new" version was released to television.Having now seen both versions there's no question that you'd be better off with the original since it runs shorter. As I said in my review, it adds up to a big fat zero but it's one of those movies where you're somewhat entertained hoping something is going to happen but then it ends up not doing so. This new version has some new scenes added in to make it seem like they were really hunting Bigfoot (it was an Indian mummy in the original film) and it's obviously a patch-job. The opening sequence is also added on and features some bad dialogue and an even worse performance.Is there a reason to watch either version? Honestly there's not because both aren't any good but at the same time horror junkies such as myself might want to just to see one of the strangest films ever made. I'd love to hear more about the history of these films but who knows if anyone else would really be interested.

kevin olzak Those Chiller Theater fans in Pittsburgh who stayed up for the special triple (as opposed to the usual double) feature on October 30 1976 were highly entertained by both "House of Frankenstein" and "House of Dracula." Ah, but the real Halloween 'trick' was this rickety home movie, shown in between the two Universal classics, which actually saw two repeat airings over the next 6 years (Aug 2 1980 and Jan 23 1982). With its classroom instructor discussing the shark in "Jaws," some of it at least appeared to be new, but by the time the flashbacks began, I noticed the late 50s vintage cars on display, and slowly began to realize that someone had decided to take an unreleasable 59 minute turkey of uncertain origin, add 29 minutes of 'new' footage, resulting in a full length feature that was truly a difficult sit. All I can say is that Larry Buchanan's Azaleas look like beloved works of art in comparison. The first half hour, set in a classroom, is interrupted by interminable stock footage of logging (!) and a slow crawl through the woods after a Bigfoot wannabe, seen for all of 10 seconds. Once the flashback begins, relating the original "Teenagers Battle the Thing," it fails to improve. By the time the excavation unearths an ancient mummy, it doesn't start walking until the last 23 minutes out of the 88 total, and is glimpsed for about 90 seconds (if that sounds like fun, be my guest). Bad movie buffs may find some entertainment value here, with no actual relation to Bigfoot (topical only during the 70s), I just hope that the updated version and additional footage did help the filmmakers turn a profit, since it has proved to be, in a sense, unforgettable, though for all the wrong reasons (just getting it shown must have been an achievement in itself).

Larry Landolfi How does one even begin to describe a movie this awful? I'd first seen Curse of Bigfoot one Saturday afternoon way back in the late 70's with some of my brothers and friends . Even as a dopey teenager I realized that this movie was somehow VERY different than all the other "Godzilla" and "Creature Feature" movies we would make fun of and add our own dialogue to (yes, we WERE Mystery Science Theater 3000 before it ever existed). It was just SO HORRIBLY bad that it actually left an impression on you.......like a Mack truck does when it runs over your face. I did a Google search and couldn't believe I could now own this wretched movie.I sat down with my wife (whom I excitedly told over and over again how bad/ funny this movie was) and for the first time in more than 25 years "experienced" Curse of Bigfoot. Just as I remembered, it was the most boring piece of garbage ever put on film.First of all, imagine a film where they don't hire an editor. It seems that EVERY piece of film shot for this movie (including outtakes, flubs, and any other time the camera might have been accidentally left in the "on" position) was stitched together, in sequential order or not."Don't worry Jimmy if you have a temporary case of dyslexia with that line, just keep going. We'll use it somewhere in the picture!" Obviously the director thought (in his own mind, sadly) that he was creating SUCH an "every frame could be a postcard" cinematic achievement that he didn't want to see any valuable frames left on the cutting room floor. Everything moves at a super slow motion speed, also. The few motor vehicles shown NEVER go more than 5 mph. I think the gear boxes were ripped out the night before just so it would be impossible to go faster than "idle".....and to not give any of the "amateur hour" actors a means of escape off the set of this ticking time bomb of boredom. Now imagine an entire cast, and no doubt crew, who look like they don't even want to have anything to do with this film. Almost as if being there were the raw end of a losing wager, or maybe the final humiliating prank before joining a fraternity. The acting (more like "bad cue card reading") is also a thing of beauty. "Method" acting? Try Methadone acting. No emotion, no feeling, and barely any eye contact. It seems as if everyone just wants to say their lines like a robot and get the heck home.And being a serious amateur photographer myself, let me tell you about the fine cinematography. They probably had only a week to shoot this entire movie (before word got out to the authorities / film reviewers/ investors about how REALLY awful this disaster was turning out ) so there are plenty of "let's squeeze every ounce out of daylight we can and just keep shooting no matter what" type scenes scattered all over this thing, including those super cheap "let's shoot this night scene in broad daylight and just add a dark blue filter over the lens to fool our way less sophisticated than us audience into thinking it's really dark" visual tricks. It's a miracle anyone actually remembered to take their sunglasses off. And how many shots of looking up at the top of trees, or slowly panning through bushes (trying to maybe remotely cause some accidental suspense) can one movie have!?! If these scenes alone were cut the movie would probably be only 15 or 20 minutes long.The background music, or whatever that sound is keeping you awake through this exercise of unending visual and mental torture, has all the rhythm and snappy beat of a machine gun firing at close range over your head. It's about as memorable as verses 62 and 61 of "99 Bottles of Beer".You're probably wondering if there are any Special Effects in Curse of Bigfoot. If using someone else's stock footage of 45 or so logs rolling into the water, one after the other, after the other, after the other, after the other, is what you call "special" then march right into the boss's office and demand a raise because this IS your lucky day! And how about earth moving vehicles? Have you waited all your life to see a Bigfoot movie with earth moving vehicles in it!? Pinch yourself......hard, because you're NOT dreaming. Watch them going into a ravine about 10 or 20 stories deep. Maybe it's a mass grave for all those who had anything to do with this film (including all original negatives and prints).It's at about this point in the film that the normal person would start cursing up a blue streak, wanting to know exactly what the heck they're supposed to be watching. Maybe this is where the "Curse" in Curse of Bigfoot comes from. Maybe the original title was simply "Bigfoot".And what about the actual bigfoot itself? Imagine a drunken homeless guy sprawling around from scene to scene, dressed in an old Halloween paper mache mask looking for a handout. Tape on some of grandma's old wigs to a hockey mask, plop in a ping pong ball in one of the eye sockets for a "creepy" bulging eye, spray paint everything sorta black and red, and you have one the most embarrassing attempts at horror since the Kerry-Edwards ticket.A movie like this is so fascinating to watch because it dawns on you (in those rare fleeting moments of lucidity) that someone thought they were actually making a GOOD movie. One that people might want to tell everyone they knew to go see, and maybe see over and over again. This IS one of those movies, but sadly not for the reasons they'd hoped for.