Opiniones de usuarios

Imagine an episode of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom only instead of Marlin Perkins narrating you have an obsessive tracker who sees signs of bigfoot in all of the wildlife on film. That obsessive tracker is Ivan Marx and this is "The Legend of Bigfoot" a fictional documentary about a man that follows leads of the legendary apeman throughout the Northwest United States, Canada and Alaska. To say that he becomes a little fanatical is putting it lightly. After Marx captures some very questionable footage of what appears to be a guy in a gorilla suit skipping through the woods while waltzing with an imaginary partner he begins his pursuit of more "documentation" by stalking the creature all over the country. Where does this guy get his money from. It had to cost quite a bit to travel from state to state looking for bigfoot even in the seventies. Maybe its all the money he saved on gas by driving his red Volkswagen bug everywhere. Yeah, nothing says outdoorsman quite like a V.W. bug. Dork. Once he gets to a new location every natural act performed by the animals gives him insight into the creature. Geese arrive. Bigfoot must be migratory. Moose mate in the woods. Bigfoot must hunt here. A squirrel gets run over by a Buick. Bigfoot must have ties to the United Autoworkers. If Marx stumbled across a Snickers wrapper he would probably assume that bigfoot works in a chocolate factory. There's some other supposed footage of bigfoot that are just as silly and also appear to be just some stooge in a suit. Suffice to say this was as convincing as "Harry and the Hendersons" as far as lending credibility of bigfoot existing somewhere in the Pacific Northwest or anywhere else for that matter. Rumor has it Bigfoot's lawyer served Marx with stalking papers and he's now not able to come within 500 yards of him. I have the video to prove it.

This weird hybrid of nature footage, first-person narrative and fictive content is unimaginable as a theatrical release today--but such oddball packages (mostly from "Sunn Classics"), and many Bigfoot-themed features, managed to get fairly wide release in the 70s.

People dislike this cuz it's mostly the narrator's phony reminiscences (re-enacted on screen as if they were shot while happening) of his career as a naturist eventually obsessed with that rarest of alleged critters, Bigfoot. We only glimpse the latter in climactic footage of what very much looks like a tall guy in an ape suit. (The famous raw footage of an alleged Bigfoot is much more convincing, if not entirely so.) It's like an especially crudely-crafted episode of "Wild Kingdom," plus a couple actors in fuzzy focus and hairy suits.

This is an oddity, but hardly a fascinating one. Indeed, it's a bit of a slog, with no real payoff. There are better Bigfoot movies. If that's what you're into.

This movie is about 90% stock footage of animals with a really dull voice-over talking about Bigfoot. If I had a dollar for every time he said the name "Bigfoot" throughout this 92 minutes of coma inducing stock footage, I could take it and buy a decent movie. I like cheesy movies, but this isn't even remotely entertaining. By the one hour mark you will be praying for the sweet release of death. It took me not once, not twice but THREE different times before I could manage to watch this stinker all the way through. It became a challenge or a quest if you will, to watch this movie until the end without turning it off. At one point we are treated to a guy in a really cheap, and I do mean cheap suit hobbling around as a "wounded" Bigfoot. At the end of the movie (yay!!!) we get to see another shot of a guy in a suit splashing around in some water along with a young Bigfoot nearby. I was shocked and amazed that this was actually marketed as authentic footage back in 1976! Anybody that would believe this was actual footage of an undocumented, bipedal primate needs to get some serious help. If you want to waste 90 minutes of your life just save your dollar (thats what I paid) and go sit down outside and watch a blade of grass grow for that amount of time.

I got this film in the Mill Creek Drive-in 50-pack film collection. This is not a grand documentary but there is something fun about it to watch. What makes this film enjoyable is the narrator believe it or not.

Our narrator is very enthusiastic and narrates the story well. Believe it or not he is the highlight of this film. Almost comical to listen to him because he sounds overly crazy about finding Bigfoot but it's good!

This documentary has a lot of stock-footage and older photos as well as some quirky dramatization footage. There is some historical information about society and bit of information of historical information of Bigfoot (to take with the grain of salt).

If you are remotely interested in Bigfoot then I would recommend this film. It is actually entertaining.

5/10

Tracker Ivan Marx, who stars in and narrates The Legend of Bigfoot, purports this to be an authentic documentary on the search for Bigfoot, one that offers incontrovertible evidence of the creature's existence. Is his claim sincere? I doubt it, the supposedly genuine footage of Sasquatch being far from convincing. But even if if this is a bona fide attempt at proving the legend of Bigfoot to be true, the fact remains that it is a crushing bore, consisting primarily of crappy hand-held wildlife footage accompanied by Marx's terrible Disney-style voice-over.

As Marx's investigation leads him North to the supposed Bigfoot breeding ground in the Arctic Circle, viewers get to enjoy nature movie-making its most banal—young coyotes meddling with a skunk, ground squirrels in love, moose mating rituals—while the presenter prattles on about survival of the fittest and animal migration patterns. Marx also caters for history buffs, giving a brief lesson on ancient tribal art and the gold rush in the Yukon. Sadly, those looking forward to his 'unchallengable proof' of Bigfoot will be left seriously wanting, the film's only footage of the creature being a few minutes of shaky film, shot from a distance, of what could easily be a man in a gorilla fancy dress costume.

I have watched many a bad movie, but never one in which there is no acting, or even dialogue spoken. This entire film is narrated, and is part of the old Bigfoot craze of the seventies, which includes such weird arse films as 'The Capture of Bigfoot', 'Creature of Black Lake', 'Legend of Boggy Creek' and 'Night of the Demon' (see that one now).

This one involves a tracker called Ivan and his wife Peggy starting off all sceptical about the old Bigfoot and eventually becoming fanatics about the whole thing. You get lots of footage of Ivan walking around, looking at bear corpses, watching Caribou get it on, and hiding in bushes knocking one out while watching Bigfoot wander around.

I can't give this one a bad marking because I could not take my eyes of the screen. This film is seriously strange. Wait until you see the bit with the squirrel being run over and the many, many questions that bit raises. Or the bit where the film goes back in time to a mining town where a Bigfoot appears, speaking in the voice of a dead woman. You don't get to see that, mind. The narrator just takes you through that, as he does with everything here.

Truly bizarre, and worth watching. I can't believe there are comments on here that actually allude to the authors being genuine Bigfoot hunters. That just adds to the madness.

It is extremely unlikely that a filmmaker today would make a movie like "The Legend Of Bigfoot". Even if by miracle it happened, there is no way a film distributor would try to release it to theaters. And all that unlikelihood is a good thing, if you ask me. If you are looking for proof of Bigfoot or at least a serious examination of the theory, you would best look elsewhere. I don't know who Ivan Marx is (or was), but he sure doesn't come across as an authority on the subject of Bigfoot. When he uncovers the few moments of "proof" in the movie, he says that authorities (who he never specifically identifies) back up his claims. But most of the movie is not a serious look one way or another to Bigfoot's existence. In fact, the movie plays like they took a number of wildlife home movies with Marx, added a few minutes of linking footage as well as a lot of boring and unconvincing narration, and waited for the audience to fork over its bucks. I am sure people who saw this movie back in 1976, even those that were kids, were really let down by this documentary. Don't join them.

...I mean, empirically, this film is a disaster- grainy stock footage, utterly no useful information about the Bigfoot legend, oddly tangential narration...but my fiancée and I had an absolutely great time watching the thing. It's utterly bazonko portrait of a cranky, loony obsessive old coot making the most tenuous points in pursuit of his lifelong obsession is worthy of the full-on MST3k treatment. I mean, sure, they've already done the Bigfoot-y 'Legend of Boggy Creek 2', but this 'documentary' offers comic possibilities aplenty. There's the 'critchety old man' angle, the 'discursive, seemingly completely-unrelated stock footage to fill up running time' thread. The possibilities are endless. This came included with one of the invaluable Mill Creek 50 Movie value packs, and, if the other 49 films included turn out to be total nothings, I feel like I'll have gotten my money's worth on this one alone. I'll give it a '4', just because we're walking around with big, goofy smiles right now...

I got this movie in a blister pack for a dollar with another movie. Being a armchair detective about Sasquatch, Yowie and Alma I was interested in what this was about. I never heard of Marx, but I did see once the footage of the "limping" or sometimes pegged "waltzing" bigfoot. Even then I thought it was odd. It did in fact looked like someone in a cheesy gorilla suit waltzing about.

Most of the footage in the film was dull and as everyone else here has posted "way off course of the topic." But one has to remember that when you are hunting something that is hard to find Nature is going to come with it. In some respects this reminded me of "Legend of Boggy Creek." Thank god there was not crooner singing "Hey Travis Crabtree......." But again lets remember if the movie used strictly his footage, the movie would be only about 20 minutes long.

The last bit of footage has me raising an eyebrow with some interest. Having seen not 1 but 4 of these beings and a hell of a lot closer than probably Marx would have wanted, I always get a cold chill when I look at filmed footage or listen to its cries. While the supposed young one does nothing at all for me, the supposed older bigfoot gave me some severe cold chills. The younger one looked too thin and his acts too rehearsed or fact. The older one was massive in size. so I am at odds that the footage of the younger bigfoot maybe fake along with the waltzing bigfoot. If the waltzing/limping bigfoot film is real then one need to consider: 1) Could such a creature so lame survive? And if so how much more or less elusive can he be compared to a healthy creature? Sure such a lame creature would not find it easy to get away from hunters and others.

2) That the creature is not JUST lame but deformed, as his one arm was always on his chest and looked stiff and his one leg looks like its stiff all the way up to the hip.

My last statement is directed to Marx' comment about Sasquatch eating habits. Front evidence collected all over North America, it seems these creature have a huge diet and many rancher and farmers have found cattle, goats, pigs, chickens, fish, dogs, deer and other animals half eaten. Remember in the film, it all starts off with the killing of cattle and a bear???? Oh yeah in one report a roaming bigfoot was even treated to peanut-butter sandwiches which it seemed to enjoy.

Not a bad film. A lot better than Boggy Creek if you ask me.

This movie is not a true documentary in the hollywood sence. It's more nature footage with a narration. The shots of the Bigfoot may not be the best I've seen but they are used well. That said how can a man in a hairy suit limping shot from about 300 feet away look real. The over all tone is keep me watching even though nothing new is learned from this movie about Bigfoot.

Come on you people, be serious, this movie was made in 1976. It was made for kids and young adults. Do you remember 1976? Jimmy Carter was President. There were no laptops, or internet, no digital cameras. Grizzly Adams had a hit TV show. The Bermuda Triangle and UFOs were still capturing our imaginations. If anything this film grounded us to earth, and it time travels well. It has dramatic narration, amazing nature footage, great scenery of our parks and redwoods, cuddly animals, road trips in a VW bug (who could imagine a famous tracker would drive a Bug), and cool hillbilly music. You meet interesting people like Yukon Freida, and hear from various North American tribes telling their tribal lore. It showed the kitsch that was the 70's. It took me right back there. Ivan does his best to get the audience to respect nature and understand his love for the woods. He shows his disappointment at orchestrated indiscriminate hunting and the loss of habitats, which is a great lesson for kids, and he goes through his own exploration of the myths surrounding the legend. He then offers his theory so that any kid can become fascinated like he was. This was all done in the vein of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom. I am even surprised Ivan didn't bump into old Marlin Perkins himself. This film can capture the imagination of any normal kid. My ten year old girl loved it in 2009. We think it was awesome! A perfect Sunday morning film.

A documentary or faux documentary about one man's quest to track Bigfoot based upon his following of geese migration patterns. Also features his wife, who is either very devoted or just as loony as he is.

I really don't like giving films a "one" but in this case there's nothing I can say to really be nice about what I was seeing. The film is misleading and excessively boring, if not an all-out fraudulent piece of work.

This came in a pack of movies called "chilling" which is just about the last thing I would describe "The Legend of Bigfoot" as. I would say boring, pointless or asinine, but not chilling. After less than five minutes, I felt this would be a stinker and it never really improved. All we are treated to is one man's droning voice over wildlife footage. If you like deer walking around and such, you might get a kick out of this, but that's it... you're better off watching PBS or looking at natives with no clothes in National Geographic magazine, because there's no thrill in this.

And you say, but what about Bigfoot? Yes, there's a Bigfoot in this movie (actually more than one) but you'll only see him from far away and out of focus, appearing more as a man in a fur coat than anything else. I admit I'm skeptical and don't believe in Bigfoot, but either this is fake and the creators put no effort into it or it's real and they didn't bother to stop by Wal-Mart to buy a $5 video camera. I've seen better quality photos taken with a piece of light-sensitive paper wedged inside a Quaker Oatmeal cylinder (seriously).

Because this film is in the box set, perhaps that means it's in the public domain. I hope so, because if I gave this guy ten cents for the movie it was too much. He should owe me some money for my wasted time and the psychological damage that might be latent and come out in my later years when I start decapitating chipmunks. Thanks, Bigfoot, you've ruined my life, and maybe the lives of the two young men I watched this film with (Seth and Nate).

It isn't that there isn't some good nature footage. It's just a public school documentary with animals fighting and doing other things. There isn't even the campy awe inspired Steve Irwin kind of speculation. It just goes on and on. Haven't we had enough of the Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster? What evidence there is is so inconsequential that it isn't even worth following. This movie offers no knowledge that wasn't already out there and what do a couple squirrels fighting have to do with anything? I wish when someone had the bucks to produce a documentary, they could have a little more imagination than this. Oh, well.

As any bigfoot movie aficionado can tell you there are two basic types of bigfoot movies. First, there are the purely narrative bigfoot flicks like the original "Bigfoot", "The Creature of Black Lake", "Shriek of the Mutilated" (kind of), the TV movie "Snowbeast", and the wonderfully gory "Night of the Demon" (you might also throw bigfoot-sex movies like "Beauties and the Beast" and "The Geek" in here as well). Then there are the bigfoot docudramas inspired by the seminal TV movie "Bigfoot- Monster or Myth" and the very successful theatrical film "The Legend of Boggy Creak". These latter movies combine supposedly real footage of bigfoot with "dramatic re-enactments" of supposed bigfoot encounters, along with often shameless amounts of padding. The regionally produced "Legend of Boggy Creek", for instance, contains lots of down-home Southern ballads and interviews with real, honest-to-god Southern "folk" which is often pretty peripheral to the bigfoot investigation. And "Sasquatch-the Legend of Bigfoot" and this movie, simply called "Legend of Bigfoot" have so much wildlife footage and cheesy voice-over narration, you often feel like you're the watching the old 1970's TV series "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom".

These bigfoot docudramas frankly have not aged very well. Even for people who still believe in bigfoot, they are kind of a gimmicky, phenomenon of their time like "The Blair Witch Project". If you are not a true bigfoot fan with fond childhood memories seeing these bigfoot flicks on the big and/or small screen, you will probably be pretty bored by any of these docudramas, but especially this one, which leaves out most of the drama until the very end. Personally though, I like to put this movie in the DVD player when I am very sleepy. I almost always fall asleep before they ever get to any of the bigfoot "footage", but I go to sleep bathed in the warm, gentle, nostalgic glow of bigfoot.

This movie, though extensively terrible, is an unique watching experience, that I happened to stumble across on Netflix, it has since been removed. I tried to explain this to a buddy of mine and sent him the link on Youtube and have him watch the movie to get his take on it, and in the end we are both in agreement that it's not a good movie by any means, but it's fascinating at the same time. Here's why.

Try to find any information regarding this movie. It's very difficult, there's not much out there. When you couple that with the style of the movie, basically a cut up of home videos with narration behind it, you can genuinely leave this moving asking yourself if what you saw was real or not. Ivan, the tracker, was a real tracker, he was a real hunter, he was a real big foot hunter. he's not an actor, he's not a guy playing a character, the movie isn't shot in a studio with sets. But you see this guys obsession turn into madness as the movie progresses, and it seems the movie leaves you with more questions than answers, questions that because of the lack of information around this movie, will never get answered.

So overall, it's not good, it's like a 16mm educational movie you used to watch in elementary school, but it is very unique.

As a people, we tend to view things like Bigfoot as larger than life. We tend to forget that in nature, things occur according to nature's law, and not our need for sensationalism. Marx is indeed a man of the land, and in the course of this movie draws us in with the often subtle ways of nature, interspersed with some rather amazing things- such as the squirrel pulling its injured mate to safety. Marx speaks of the history of Bigfoot and tells us how he was drawn into the search for the creature. Marx tracks the creature up through the Arctic circle, and in "by the" way fashion, shows us how our species is becoming less and less appreciative of our natural heritage. Marx postulates that the creature migrates and is a fierce predator. His search proves him right on the migratory issue, but he has a surprise that awaits him on predation issue. Perhaps here, for many, is where this film is noted as "Boring." Subtlety, quietness, awareness of self and environment and obtaining harmony therein is not what most modern audiences crave and in so doing overlook a part of who we are, and our own place in nature. As a child I remember the Travelogue type of documentary that would draw one in about places and people one could visit. This film is reminiscent of this and has the ring of truth about it. Is it real? Many think so, and so do I. Even if not entirely true, it is well worth watching, if only to be quiet and see nature in a fresh light, and to take a fresh look at ourselves. You can always turn on sex, gratuitous violence and general depravity after wards if you suffer too much from withdrawal. Lol.