The Quachita Beast Incident

Even I can tell it's filmed with an iPhone... the quality of it is quite poor. I thought this movie would be intense for my taste with special effects but all this was just a low budget film with low budget crew. Well the only thing I can say is that I did enjoyed it just a tiny fraction at least when there was something based on true events, however the Sasquatch or whatever that thing is needs to be better, it doesn't look that scary at all and all I did was just laugh. I wouldn't waste my time watching this film unless you have nothing else around that you can watch but it is what it is. Music is not bad though, I dig it!

I think I used up my positive in the heading, but to be honest I've seen worse. Was there a script? I do love the looks to camera and the fumbling of lines, but as I say I've seen worse and it's a fine effort given that the chocolate bar was probably the most money spent on the production.

I'd say this was try indie film making and a vanity project - either that or they had some video left over from a recent 21st birthday party and didn't want to waste it. There's some decent wilderness scenes (mostly stock footage I'd imagine) in the movie and as someone has already mentioned you'll see several seasons in the space of an hour, but don't let this review or the production values put you off giving this movie a try. I'd much rather watch a low grade indie movie than a big budget pile of crap, of which there are many.

This is 114 minutes of your life that you will never get back... This 'movie', if you can call it that, doesn't even have a discernible storyline. It is devoid of any form of acting talent and was probably shot using and old mobile phone and a goPro.

Basically, a half senile old man goes for a walk in the woods, meets another guy who he hikes with for a while. They split and then nothing happens until about the 112 minute mark.

The big dramatic moment doesn't even have the shag pile carpet 'sasquatch' in the same frame as the senile old man. In fact the cheap fur coat 'sasquatch' doesn't appear at any point in the movie in the same frame as the old man.

Out of 114 minutes about 74 minutes are stock nature footage that has nothing to do with anything. Another 30 minutes are repeats of the same sequences presented as different points along the hike. Nobody associated with this film has ever heard of the term 'continuity'.

There is nothing about this movie that is either interesting, entertaining, informative or worth your time to watch it.

First of all, it's the Ouachita National Forest, not Quachita. It's right there on the map for anyone even glancing, not doing research for a screenplay. As someone who lives here, it's kind of insulting. And just like the Ozark Mountains here in the northern part of the state, none of them have snowcapped peaks like they show in the stock footage they used.

For an old guy who lives out in the country in Arkansas, why does his pickup have Texas plates?

When the shot is of the guy walking away from the truck to get a walking stick out of a shop building, didn't just keep rolling one long shot until he gets back. Nobody does that, Edit it short into two different shots from different angles. Better yet, leave the scene out altogether. It adds nothing to the story.

I honestly didn't see much more than a few minutes after because it's just that unwatchable.

And yes, it really does look like it was shot using a tripod and somebody's phone.

I enjoy movies with this type of subject matter, but dearie me, this was really really really terrible.

It apparently took 30 years to tell this story and perhaps it should have remained untold - or at the very least not told in this manner.

Cinematically the movie has nothing going for it. A lot of repeated scenes, even repeated conversations (like telling the buddy it normally takes 3-4 hours to get to the top of the ridge, and there's about an hour and a half left.... They walked really slowly!). I don't know what the budget was for this, but it couldn't have been much, looking at the quality of the filming.

Acting-wise: the less said the better.

There are quite a few "nothings" that the movie is good for:

• no sex or nudity
• no swearing
• no using of the Lord's name in vain
• no violence
• no gore
• no alcohol use
• no drug use
• no smoking

The one thing the movie has a lot of, is nature... A lot of nature! Made me wonder if perhaps the good people in charge of promoting tourism to Arkansas were in charge of producing the movie, or funded its production.... anyway, there's a lot of nature. From scenic views to (repeated) views of streams and the forest floor... And lots and lots of trees (somewhat to be expected in a forest, but even so). It felt like we were watching an episode of the National Geographic channel, but without the quality of filming or scene development or acting or commentary - actually, not much like National Geographic at all!

If you feel like wasting about 75 minutes of your time, go ahead and watch this movie. Otherwise, stay away!