Coventry When I started watching "Boggy Creek II: The Legend Continues", I had already dozed off during "The Legend of Boggy Creek" and suffered my way through "Return to Boggy Creek"; two of the most slow-paced and bloodless exploitation movies ever made. Actually it means that I had been watching nearly three hours of Arkansas swamp footage! It's beautiful enough, and all that, but also quite dull. Imagine my excitement when within the first five minutes of this film, there's already some blood and carnage on display! The victim is a deer, but who cares! We're talking about the first drops of red liquid in three films. Hooray. Other than the opening, "Boggy Creek II" is immensely boring and pretentious rubbish. Writer/director Charles B. Pierce offered himself the leading role and play a university professor with gay characteristics. Together with a handful of students, one of them being his own son for budgetary reasons I presume, he goes on an expedition to Texarkana in order to capture a shot of bigfoot. They don't have much luck, though, as their dog catches rabies and they only manage to spot the monster as a blimp on the radar. Pierce clearly didn't like the other sequel "Return to Boggy Creek", as he refers to his own sequel as part two instead of part three. He definitely shouldn't throw stones, because his film is a dreadfully boring and irritating monster movie that nobody ever asked for. This is truly the low point of his career.

Scarecrow-88 Arkansas professor and students decide to camp in some woods near Boggy Creek hoping to get scientific proof of the existence of a Sasquatch. I admit that I'm a big fan of "The Legend of Boggy Creek", but I think that had a lot to do with how director Charles B Pierce constructed it, using the narration of "someone who lived there", recollecting to us memories while sharing anecdotal testimonies from various locals affected by the Boggy Creek monster. It wasn't just about the monster, but about the place, which carried an atmosphere, an idyllic, yet threatening aura. And, Pierce wisely avoided showing too much of the monster, and, in shooting his movie in a documentarian style, capturing a place and it's people(..real people who look like they'd actually lived there). In this film, Pierce himself, his son(..playing student Tim, a scrawny kid spending way too much time with his shirt off), and two whiny girls(Cindy Butler and Serene Hedin)all set off to find the monster, encountering Arkansas folks who might can help them in their task. Equipped with tools to help them find a creature, the group venture off into the wilds. Unlike his first excursion into Boggy Creek, Pierce, this time, shows the creature(..and offspring)a lot, and this is a fatal error, dissolving his attempts at building suspense..essentially the creatures are ape costumes which will undoubtedly induce ridicule and giggles. Pierce uses narration in this film sparingly, from the point-of-view of his professor, but the lack of atmosphere, poor lighting during certain flashback sequences(..mostly from stories Pierce's Doc had read about), grating characters, and story with little excitement, and an inability to produce any real sense of dread or spooks, drags "Boggy Creek II" into the pits with no way to escape. The inclusion of "Old Man" Crenshaw(Jimmy Clem), an unkempt, pot-bellied hillbilly in overalls, in need of a bath, introduced at the end, during the climactic face-off with the Boggy Creek creature, should tickle the funny bone, for he's quite a character. A definite low point in Pierce's directorial career.

Tommy Nelson Nobody wanted another sequel. We already had the atrocious first one from the early 70s, then the sequel, now....wait. Shouldn't this be Boggy Creek 3.....I guess the directors felt they should just ignore the second film, which is what I would recommend you do for all three.This atrocious mess starts off like a really boring nature video. That is the highlight of the film. We see a Bigfoot like creature walk around, a deer get eaten, and all together, we see a very boring opening. The actual plot is a college professor takes some kids out to the woods to find this creature. The creature reminded me of a less scary, yet bigger, version of the gremlin from the "Nightmare at 20,000 feet" Twilight Zone episode. The main character is played by director/writer Charles B. Pierce, and he proves that he can't do anything good.This is a slow, laughable, but not very funny movie, and it's recommended you don't see it.My rating: * out of ****. 90 mins. PG13 for violence.

mcelhaney Never trust a man who directs, produces, stars, & even hires his own son to be in his picture.The Plot? Here goes; A know-it-all Professor of "Boggy Creek Studies" (yea, right) takes two okay-looking girls and his son...excuse me, a male student named Tim off to the bowels of Arkansas to find the "Boggy Creek Monster". After telling some uninteresting tales of the beast, they actually encounter it a couple of times before running into a real monster, a huge, smelly man named "Crenshaw". Turns out, Crenshaw is keeping a baby Boggy for some reason when "Momma Boggy" is downright ticked. After giving the baby Boggy Monster back to his rightful parent, our troop of the University of Arkansas' finest decides it's best to forget the monster ever existed in the first place.Jeesh, this is one slow flick. About 35 minutes of movie lasting well over 90 (and seeming like 8 hours). At times this film dares you to watch it. The fault can be put squarely on the shoulders of Charles B. Pierce who not only helms this grim excuse of a film, but also bores in with uncalled for narration. The flashbacks are dull, the acting is flat & uninspired, particularly "Tim" who is in reality Chuck Pierce, the director's son in his (I hope) final movie appearance. About the only thing worth looking out for is the bra-less Serene Hedin (porn name?) as Tanya who looks kinda cute and shows off a good part of her "assets" (sorta, but the shirts are see-through).What makes absolutely no sense is why this expedition has no cameras or any type of equipment that might help to prove the monster's existence. Plus, after encountering the monster about a third of the way into the film, why do they leave the area to gather more stories about the monster's possible existence? Hey guys, you've SEEN it! No need to listen to more eyewitness accounts.Unless there are two robots and Mike in the corner, I would suggest avoiding this film at all cost. Unless you are an aspiring director and wish to know just what to avoid in making a good picture.