Truly Dreadful Film

ridiculous rating

Expected more

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Not sure how this is even considered to be a sequel to "The Legend of Boggy Creek" at all other than the use of the name "Boggy Creek". The original took place in Fouke, AR, this one however seems to take place in south Louisiana. You'll here several Cajun accents, people at the landing speaking French, yet not a single country accent. The monster isn't even called "The Fouke Monster", it is instead called "Big Bay-Ty". That along with names like "T-fish" and "Crawfish Charlie" would be typical Cajun nicknames.It's not as bad of a movie as people are making it out to be. If you disassociate it from the original and view it as a standalone movie. When you take away the expectation of a sequel, it becomes your typical '70s campy movie.

I thought I had seen this movie, twice in fact. Then I read all the other reviews, and they didn't quite match up. A man and three young students, two girls and a boy, go to this town to study alleged bigfoot sightings. I still feel pretty confident that this is the movie I saw, despite the discrepancies in the reviews. Therefore I'm putting my review back: If you like the occasional 'B' movie, as I do, then Return to Boggy Creek is the movie for you! Whether it's setting the sleep timer, and nodding off to your favorite movie-bomb, or just hanging out with friends. Boggy Creek, the mute button, and you've got a fun night of improv. Look out! Is the legend true? I think we just might find out, along with a not-so-stellar cast. Will there be any equipment malfunctions at particularly key moments in the film? Does our blonde, manly, young hero have any chest hair? Will the exceptionally high-tech Technicolor last the entire film? You'll have to watch to find out for yourself.

i totally disagree.i thought that this was a great movie for kids.dawn wells from gilligans island,and promise shown of a barely then known dana plato.it was disneylike and for that it can hardly be disregarded as meaningless fluff.no it wasn't scary and wasn't meant to be.i wont ruin the ending.but it was unusual the way that it was done.i mean the kids characters were great and i didn't know what to expect in the end.the basic plot also had a lot more to do with these kids than you say the fact that these kids were expert fishermen is very central to the plot especially initially.it also helps them out of a jam towards the end.it also has the plus of not being overly long.i think it clocks in at under 95 minutes

The only parts I can stand now, or would ever have been able to stand, are scenes where the monster is on screen. He looks huge! Then again, never seeing the fury swamp beast's face is a let down, even if it's hidden to preserve the creature's mystique.Most of the movie consists of the fishing adventures of three siblings. No thanks. As a childrens' film, it's still tame fare. I'd rather watch 'Harry and the Hendersons', the TV show.