Six college friends decide to go on spring break retreating to a cabin at Holler Creek Canyon falling prey to a Sasquatch. Chiseled hunks and delicious girls, these six characters represent eye candy for their appropriate demographics with some gore and nudity, but the plot, what little there is, is threadbare, the pacing tedious, and camera work mediocre. Anna Bridgforth is Jill, her parents divorced, she furnishes the cabin. Justin Alvarez is Matt, a would-be documentary filmmaker, in love with Jill, always shooting footage with his camera, getting the recording of the Bigfoot. Melisa Breiner-Sanders is Bree, actually interested in Matt, but feelings aren't mutual(although Matt does have sex with her; it's to his shame that he leads her on). Johnny Ostensoe is one of those irritating jocks("Oh, yeah!"), as Stu, who thankfully exits the film as one of the first victims, not before getting high on weed, gulping some beer, and getting laid with Viv(Tammie Taylor). Stu and Viv have that kind of loud, raucous sex that is less erotic as it is tiresome. Danny Darder is Chris, Jill's ex, who we are introduced to in a cold sweat after a threesome. Matt sweet talks Jill into believing he wants to reaffirm their feelings for one another all the while bopping Viv(who is linked to Stu as established above). To wit, these people can't get butchered fast enough for my liking. Ron Jeremy adds some comedy relief as a grocery store owner who fancies himself a crack shot bear hunter, caught by the gang wacking off to a recording of Stu and Viv "doing the deed." All the melodrama included is window-dressing for what matters most--young adults made mincemeat by a furry monster man. Most of the human carnage is after the fact, bodies ripped apart, guts spilling out, faces rent. All the girls get naked which is one of the few reasons to waste your time on this. Director-writer John Poague(who somehow talked some very attractive girls to participate in his cheap horror outing)stars as a backwoods hick with dolls he considers his children, wearing make-up(!), often a nuisance towards the cast. Director Poague wisely avoids ever really shooting the Bigfoot as a whole on screen, instead revealing the creature often out of frame or at a distance.
6 Reviews
Terrible, and almost no bigfoot
gregberne1128 December 2018
This is a terrible movie with terrible writing and acting. Worst of all it is almost all point of view from the bigfoot's perspective whenever he is around so we almost never get to actually see bigfoot. Also Ron Jeremy is just gross to me.
Just about as low budget & as bad as they come.
poolandrews1 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Bigfoot Holler Creek Canyon (the on screen title has no 'at' like the IMDb seems to think) starts as six assorted friends, enemies & lovers set out during Spring Break to spend a weekend in the woods at Jill's (Anna Bridgforth) parents log cabin. Joining Jill in no particular order are Danny (Gentry Ferrell), Stu (Johnny Ostensoe), Matt (Justin Alvarez), Bree (Melisa Breiner-Sanders) & Viv (Tammie Taylor). They talk about beer & sex & not much else, however out in the woods lives a creature similar to the Bigfoot of legend. A creature that kills on sight, as the teenagers are killed off one-by-one the survivors have to figure a way out to escape before they end up like their buddies...
Co-edited, executive produced, co-written, produced & directed by John Poague who even has a role in the film as a Hermitt one has to say that I was not that impressed by Bigfoot Holler Creek Canyon, in fact I would go as far as to say that I was deeply unimpressed by it. In principal I have nothing against low budget film-making which has produced some absolute genre classics like The Evil Dead (1981) but to me these days it just seems that anyone & everyone thinks that they can make their own horror film with a camcorder, a bit of fake blood, some teenage actors & a editing program on their PC which of course they can't. These people also seem to think that horror fans are gullible & will enjoy this sort of crap, well I'm telling them all now that even us low brow sicko horror film fans have standards to which for me Bigfoot Holler Creek Canyon doesn't come anywhere near meeting. The script by Poague & Barbara Kymlicka is all about sticking to a budget rather than concerning itself with being good, all the hallmarks of low budget film-making is here with the isolated single location where the majority of the film is set, the small principal cast, the lack of gore or excitement, the idea that writing a sex scene into your film will somehow give it some exploitation credentials since whats cheaper than filming two people having sex & the lack of any special effects sequences or anything over a guy in a hairy suit. The teenage cast of character's are both clichéd & annoying, the lads think about sex & beer all the time while the girls just go along with them & it's pretty painful to watch. The pace is very slow, at almost 100 minutes virtually nothing happens for long stretches & it becomes incredibly hard to keep watching.
Director Poague films in the same way many low budget filmmakers do, without any style or flair since they can't afford much more than a single camera & one tripod. The special effects are pretty thin on the ground, there's a decapitated head, some mangled after the fact bodies & in the one & only proper gore moment someone has their head stepped on & crushed by the Bigfoot who obviously has big feet like his name would suggest. At the very end of this film after the credits have finished there's a strange piece of text that reads 'for distribution call....' which is odd, do the makers of this think someone sitting at home will be willing to distribute this? Maybe they would set up their own video company just to do that very thing!
With a supposed budget of about $200,000 this looks cheap & feels cheap because it is cheap. We never get a good look at the Bigfoot monster which is probably just as well. The acting sucks, I didn't like anyone & thats the truth.
Bigfoot Holler Creek Canyon is a terrible no budget made in someones log cabin over the weekend type horror flick that anyone who has a camcorder think they can make & distribute. If your looking for a good killer Bigfoot film then go for Night of the Demon (1980) instead.
Co-edited, executive produced, co-written, produced & directed by John Poague who even has a role in the film as a Hermitt one has to say that I was not that impressed by Bigfoot Holler Creek Canyon, in fact I would go as far as to say that I was deeply unimpressed by it. In principal I have nothing against low budget film-making which has produced some absolute genre classics like The Evil Dead (1981) but to me these days it just seems that anyone & everyone thinks that they can make their own horror film with a camcorder, a bit of fake blood, some teenage actors & a editing program on their PC which of course they can't. These people also seem to think that horror fans are gullible & will enjoy this sort of crap, well I'm telling them all now that even us low brow sicko horror film fans have standards to which for me Bigfoot Holler Creek Canyon doesn't come anywhere near meeting. The script by Poague & Barbara Kymlicka is all about sticking to a budget rather than concerning itself with being good, all the hallmarks of low budget film-making is here with the isolated single location where the majority of the film is set, the small principal cast, the lack of gore or excitement, the idea that writing a sex scene into your film will somehow give it some exploitation credentials since whats cheaper than filming two people having sex & the lack of any special effects sequences or anything over a guy in a hairy suit. The teenage cast of character's are both clichéd & annoying, the lads think about sex & beer all the time while the girls just go along with them & it's pretty painful to watch. The pace is very slow, at almost 100 minutes virtually nothing happens for long stretches & it becomes incredibly hard to keep watching.
Director Poague films in the same way many low budget filmmakers do, without any style or flair since they can't afford much more than a single camera & one tripod. The special effects are pretty thin on the ground, there's a decapitated head, some mangled after the fact bodies & in the one & only proper gore moment someone has their head stepped on & crushed by the Bigfoot who obviously has big feet like his name would suggest. At the very end of this film after the credits have finished there's a strange piece of text that reads 'for distribution call....' which is odd, do the makers of this think someone sitting at home will be willing to distribute this? Maybe they would set up their own video company just to do that very thing!
With a supposed budget of about $200,000 this looks cheap & feels cheap because it is cheap. We never get a good look at the Bigfoot monster which is probably just as well. The acting sucks, I didn't like anyone & thats the truth.
Bigfoot Holler Creek Canyon is a terrible no budget made in someones log cabin over the weekend type horror flick that anyone who has a camcorder think they can make & distribute. If your looking for a good killer Bigfoot film then go for Night of the Demon (1980) instead.
Horribly boring
Leofwine_draca16 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this on Amazon Prime under the title HOLLER CREEK CANYON. It's your usual indie horror flick, shot on digital in the woods, with the visiting characters bumped off in various kill sequences featuring brief gore effects. The Bigfoot menace is little-seen and barely utilised, while the nonsense plotting is padded out with sex scenes and some nudity. There are also some of those horribly boring bedroom interludes with characters sitting on a bed and chatting endlessly about nothing. A real-life dead deer gives the best performance, better even than Ron Jeremy's turn as the park ranger.
Performance focus
metzro459 May 2007
A quality horror piece that includes nice direction from Poague, a method-actor-in-the-making in Alvarez, and of course, the incomparable Ron Jeremy.
I was kind of surprised by the choice in female leads since they weren't the classic hottie-looking types. It looks like some of them have a history with the director though since one of his earlier pieces, "The Wickeds," seems to have had a number of the actors in it as well.
To be honest though, I was most impressed by the work turned in by Bigfoot. Very believable in the role, this Sasquatch has a long career ahead of him. (Looking at the cast list, it appears that two men were used in the role, but the bigger of the two guys was really the one that stole the show.)
Finally, any movie that has a Bean Snapper as one of the main characters automatically moves into my top 100 all-time horror list.
I was kind of surprised by the choice in female leads since they weren't the classic hottie-looking types. It looks like some of them have a history with the director though since one of his earlier pieces, "The Wickeds," seems to have had a number of the actors in it as well.
To be honest though, I was most impressed by the work turned in by Bigfoot. Very believable in the role, this Sasquatch has a long career ahead of him. (Looking at the cast list, it appears that two men were used in the role, but the bigger of the two guys was really the one that stole the show.)
Finally, any movie that has a Bean Snapper as one of the main characters automatically moves into my top 100 all-time horror list.
this is what horror is supposed to be.
johnanthonymazzei12 January 2023
This movie had it all. Gratuitous nudity and gore are standard in these movies as is the comic relief. This one actually had a complex plot. Another reviewer praised the movie for not using "Model Pretty" people and I concur. The cast looked and behaved like real people, even the abnormal ones. The script / plot / dialogue were above average for the genre. What sets this movie above many others is it has suspense.
The cinematography was better than most. It had multiple, coherent sub-plots. This movie would stand up well if it were shown in an edited for TV version. And the crowning achievement it sets itself up for a sequel.
The cinematography was better than most. It had multiple, coherent sub-plots. This movie would stand up well if it were shown in an edited for TV version. And the crowning achievement it sets itself up for a sequel.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
