Best movie of this year hands down!

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Blistering performances.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

I've seen this title lurking forever on my library and kept meaning to watch it. Well I finally found some time and a bottle of wine. This is an incredible journey not only into Arkansas but into the mockumentary art. It may seem a little cheesy at times but it opened doors to the future films and one of the best documentary directors I've seen in a long time small town monster productions.

Rather than pay actors to tell a story, a new art form was created with The Legend of Boggy Creek. I guess you could call it a Faux Documentary with real folks from the piney woods of southwest Arkansas telling of their story with a Bigfoot type creature.This film has become something of a cult item. It shows that folks with absolutely no talent at all can get in front of a camera and just simply be themselves. For that reason I can't really criticize those in the film. It's not bad acting, it's no acting at all.Some apparently found some entertainment value in the Boggy Creek saga. I did not.

The legend of boogie creek is a documentary reenactment of real life accounts that plagued a rural community in the 70s.The same producers who created the town that dreaded sundown use a lot of the same techniques like using outdoor scenes that linger, a menacing villain who haunts in the background and characters leaving an impression no matter how short a time they have on screen.Going for realism, it does drag in a few sequences, using the same locations or an oil painting for a stand in and characters who can't act themselves out of a paper bag.The narrator was a mixed bag sometimes going for the cheery Disney fairy tale approach before switching to Boris Karloff rendition of the horror befalling before your eyes leading to unintended humor. It felt like they couldn't come up with any lines so they improved using a narrator to explain detail what is happening during every scene.What was effective is the creative's appearance during key scenes, blending in the dark and let out shivering cries of pain. Following what I consider the best approach less is more until the ending when you can see its a suite. The camera tries not to linger for long, but the eyeholes are visible ridding the claustrophobic feel it once had. Plus I never laughed so hard to see a man so frightened he runs through a fake door, the slide ins left visible, leaving you rolling on the ground in delight.Check out the DVD finally released and knock a few back for an interesting look on this quote unquote true story.

Sometimes low-budget works - and "The Legend Of Boggy Creek" is an example of that. Yes, it is obviously and sometimes dreadfully low- budget. The sound quality is often poor, the picture is grainy and sometimes blurry and the "cast" (such as it is) is composed of various local townsfolk from Foulke, Arkansas combined with a handful of otherwise unknown actors - and sometimes the quality of the cast shows. The movie also features truly one of the cheesiest theme songs ever used in a movie. There are a lot of terrible reviews here and in other places, and the rating here is awful. Now, having said all that, I say forget about the problems, reviews and ratings. This is a low-budget movie that actually works! It had to do something right. As I understand it, this was the 7th highest grossing movie of 1972, making $122 million on a budget of $165,000. You can't argue with that. People liked it - and I can understand why.It's based on real-life reports of a sasquatch-like creature seen in the area of Fouke, Arkansas in the early 1970's. The creature basically prowls around by night. The movie never offers a good look at it. The best you can say from what was shown is that it had a lot of hair, and there was a lot of emphasis on 3-toed footprints that were found. I understand one anthropologist later dismissed the footprints as a hoax because there's no such thing as a nocturnal, three-toed primate. Well, I don't know if it was a hoax or not, but wouldn't that be the point - it's an unknown creature! Who knows. I've never been to Fouke, never driven the local roads, never gone into the woods around Boggy Creek.The encounters are pretty well portrayed. Unlike a lot of these kinds of movies, there's even a degree of sympathy for the creature that's developed, as it's pointed out that the creature never tried to harm anyone until it started to be shot at, and there's a lot of emphasis on the creature's loneliness, as the narrator tells us that it must be the only one of its kind. Basically, this leads up to what's known as "The Ford Encounter" when the creature spends a few night prowling around the house occupied by two young couples, then one night sticks its arm through the window and then attacks one of the men who run out after it. The last half hour or so of the movie portrays that encounter, with some earlier encounters with the creature being taken out of chronological order of the reports. (For example, from what I've read, the beanfield footprints came after the Ford Encounter, not before it.)I have to say that I thought this was pretty well done. It's a quasi- documentary type film that's largely narrated. It established a pretty "spooky" feel, making good use of the heavy woods around Foulke and the fact that much of it takes place in the dark cover of night, and it builds the suspense quite nicely, especially as people hear the creature prowling around various homes. While the narrator is supposedly someone who heard the creature, the movie also acknowledges those who don't believe in it - especially backwoodsman Herb (who played himself) who's lived deep in the woods for 20 years and never seen nor heard anything.In the end - you decide whether to believe or not. I liked it. I think the low rating is unfair. You can't compare this to a mega Hollywood blockbuster. Based on the budget it was made on, this works really, really well. (8/10)