Sasquatch Mountain (2006) User Reviews

Booooo!!!

[walshp1 · 3/10 · 10 September 2006]

SOME MILD SPOILERS!!! BEWARE!!!!! SOME MILD SPOILERS!!!!!!

I gave this movie a three out of ten. That is only because I am a sucker for really horrible monster movies. However, that being written, this movie was quite terrible. The acting was ridiculous and the character interactions were so random that I had a hard time realizing what was happening a few times. The monster was a very uninspired, run-of-the-mill man in a monkey suit, but at least the monster looked more believable than the sasquatch in the Sasquatch Hunters.

Lets start with the characters. The movie composes of an innocent female, four or five bank robbers, and several law officers. It was kind of fun trying to figure out which group was actually the most stupid. I cannot begin to understand some of the decisions made by the characters. For instance, around midway through the movie, the robbers and cops come across each others' paths. A stand-off ensues, with everyone holding their weapons aimed at one another. Then......BAM!!!! They all just start randomly shooting into the woods, I guess targeting Bigfoot. Then, in the very next scene, the two groups of conflicting interest are running through the woods, determined to fight alongside one another.

Then, as if the acting weren't bad enough, there is no real plot to the movie. It starts off like a really, really, really horrible version of From Dusk Til Dawn, but then ends up with only one sasquatch. The director and producers must have decided it to be a good idea to just through in an assorted batch of people, a farmhouse, and one Bigfoot, and Lance Henrickson, who I believe may have lost all his talent in choosing roles to parts not included in theatrical garbage.

Now, onto the few cool things. The Bigfoot in this movie must really dislike guns because it seems every time someone shoots a gun, Bigfoot is sure to just appear out of nowhere, run up to the attacker, hit them, and then run off. These parts were somewhat surprising and it is kind of cool to see a Bigfoot just run up and mix things up a little. However, you would think a gigantic, 600 lb. ape that smells like "a mixture of skunk and mother's milk" (in the words of Lance Henrickson) would be pretty easy to discern from the background noises in a quiet forest in the middle of nowhere.

This movie was terrificly bad. Three stars is so generous for this Sci-Fi channel, below average (and that's hard to be worse than the average Sci-Fi movie), mental masturbation flick. You might come out of the movie drooling on yourself, trying to remember why you watched this movie in the first place.

Terrifically bad

[dwixom4 · 3/10 · 3 March 2008]

My wife and I watched this movie and I cracked up through the whole thing because of the wonderfully bad acting. The 3 older gentlemen were good character actors, but for the rest: I've seen less ham on a hog lot. As for the "beautiful hostage", I was cheering for bigfoot to rip her up - just punishment for her acting abilities - but, alas, it didn't happen. If you have a Saturday afternoon to waste - like we did - it will surely bring a lot of laughs. I was done with my opinion, but apparently there is a minimum amount of lines for this site - how stupid (go ahead, ban me) - but let me go on to say I wouldn't pay money to rent this movie but I have always been a fan of the bad acting genre - this movie rocks in this respect. Back to the beautiful hostage, her obvious assets on her chest must have been the cause of the R rating. Unless, of course, silliness rates an R.

Another Sci Fi Channel Atrocity

[bobwildhorror · 3/10 · 2 March 2008]

My review could be summed up by the above title, but IMDb demands more, so more I'll give you. Not that this film deserves it. Despite some promise, it's another off the Sci Fi Channel assembly line. This means that you should expect to be subjected to a recycled idea, one borrowed from a far better and more influential film or TV show, battered into submission when it should be pushing the envelop.

I'd like to be surprised. I'd love to turn on one of the channel's movies and find that my low expectations were unfounded. This was not that case. SAQUATCH MOUNTAIN is a load of bullocks, top to bottom.

Despite the star power of Cerina Vincent and Lance Hendrickson, the cast is rounded out by cardboard bad guys. But the biggest crime here is the film's contrast level. For those unfamiliar with the term, this means that the film looks intentionally (I must assume) like a photographic negative. The blacks are overpowering, making everything dark and sinister (which is a great feature for the monster, but horrible for the actresses). On the flip side, the lighter colors "blow out." This means that lighter colors in the frame look like someone threw a can of bleach at them.

The question becomes, why would they want the picture to look like this? Was it to distract from the acting? To conceal bad cinematography? To hide the horrendous monster suit? I'd like to tell you I cared enough to contemplate this, but I've got better things to do.

More of the same?

[feistybritches · 2/10 · 25 September 2006]

Not a terrific movie but being a Sasquatch/Bigfoot fanatic, I wonder why every movie about this subject needs to make this creature so vicious????? There are very few documented cases of a Sasquatch being vicious. I think a more original idea would be to have these stupid folks in the woods being hunted by something that they THINK is a Sasquatch only to have it be something else entirely. Perhaps make the Sasquatch a hero for a change. Let the creature slyly give the fools in the forest help without them knowing it until the end. The whole vicious Sasquatch thing is getting on my nerves. There has GOT to be a different angle on this subject.

Some movies....

[Asteri-Atypical · 1/10 · 21 September 2006]

Some movies make you think.

Some movies make you laugh.

Some movies are guilty pleasures.

Alas, this is not any of the above.

Yes, Sci-Fi Channel is continuing on its mission to re-define "Science Fiction" as "brain-dead horror aimed at 9-year-old boys who find pro wrestling enjoyable".

The plot of Sasquatch Mountain is beyond stupid. Was it envisioned by someone deluded enough to find it quality? Or was it envisioned by someone who was selling out to an idea that a substantial number of fans WANT this drivel? We have become stupid enough as a nation without Sci Fi Channel trying to dry up what's left of our brains.

Oh, yes - DON'T BELIEVE the evaluations written by LIARS who are somehow invested in the movie PRETENDING to be fans who actually enjoyed it. First clue - these people voted this movie a 10/10. That's impossible. Even someone who is a fan of this kind of lunacy would never consider it among the BEST movies around. Don't believe the liars.

Not another Sasquatch movie!!!!!

[cojosh · 1/10 · 9 September 2006]

I just don't get it! The myth of Sasquatch is one of interest, but no one can pull off a descent film about the creature. This movie strikes out. The best actor in this flick is the monster, but none of the characters have no motivation or reasoning behind the decisions they make. The sasquatch doesn't stir any feeling either. This leaves the viewer in an awkward position. You can't back the humans or the booger! The climax fails and doesn't deliver anything other than an overwhelming feeling that you just wasted much precious time. I really thought this movie would be a little better. Alas, it gets 1/10 in my book.

Worse than I Ever Could Have Believed

[thelancinator · 1/10 · 28 January 2007]

I am as lenient as it comes with 'B' movies and Straight to Video releases but there always comes a time when I come across a truly bad movie and this is one of them. I cannot even begin to describe all the problems this film has, but I'll give you some of the major ones. From the beginning of the film, the soundtrack is out of sync with the video. At first I thought this might have just been a read error with my DVD player, but after stopping and starting the movie a couple of times, I realized it was in the film. And I don't know about the rest of you, but when the dialog is out of sync with the video it just bothers me a lot! But perhaps this was done on purpose to distract you from the ungodly horrific dialog and acting in the film. I love bad movies, but not this bad. How they got Lance Henriksen (Alien 3, The Quick and the Dead) to appear in this is beyond me. Also, the distinct lack of gore was puzzling since this movie is unrated! I have no idea why it carries no rating since the violence and language is on par with somewhere between a PG-13 and an R rating. And I got all of this after watching only half the film. This movie takes the prize of being the very first film I couldn't even watch through to the end. Please, do yourself a favor and do not watch this movie. As bad as I make it sound, you might even find it worse. About the only good thing I can say about this movie is that Cerina Vincent looks good, after that, it pretty much ends what's good about the film. As for the others that rated this movie highly, all I can figure is that they are related to someone in the film.

Solidly in the bottom 10% of Sci-Fi Channel originals

[gtc83 · 1/10 · 10 September 2006]

Some low-life criminals rob a bank in a small town and the local yokel cops chase them through the woods, and Bigfoot attacks. To say that I couldn't care less about any of the characters would be a huge understatement. Everyone in here is a secondary character, the type who get killed by Sasquatch and nobody cares. A good story is built around good, likable, sympathetic characters, not paper thin clichés; Anybody who bothered to stick with their creative writing classes past ninth grade knows this, but the Sci-Fi Channel just can't get it through their heads. The first characters we meet (after the video tape segment at the beginning is over) are one of the bank robbers and some sleazy waitress at a diner. They're both typical low-life's: They've known each other for four days, and they go in the back of the diner to have sex. The girl gives the guy her phone number, he walks out to his truck, tosses the paper on the ground, and rushes off to the bank. A cop sees him throwing the small piece of paper on the ground, and tries to arrest him for littering in the middle of the bank robbery. These are probably the two most well-developed characters in the whole movie.

But that's not the worst part. What utterly ruins this thing is the director. The entire movie is shot with some sort of weird, grainy, extremely washed out looking video effect. It looks like a worn out video tape. One can almost imagine the director saying "I am an artiste!". Good grief. It's just an ugly film to look at. And there's about a thousand fast forward moments; cars will be driving down a road, all of a sudden they fast forward a few hundred yards, then they're back to normal speed, then they fast forward some more. This effect is used whenever and wherever possible. It makes me wonder if the director is Ewe Boll's protégé or something. This is the sort of stuff amateurs do when they forget (or never knew) that character and story are the important things, and start thinking that playing with the knobs on the video equipment is what makes a movie good. It's actually rather sad. About halfway through it started getting politically correct, the white cop told the Native American cop that he could find his way through the woods just fine all by himself, so then he takes one step forward and falls in a hole. Remember what I said earlier about paper thin clichés?.

Overall, this is the crappiest movie I've seen in quite a while. I don't know what it is with Sci-Fi Channel Originals. I mean, how on Earth do they manage to make such utter garbage, week after week after week? If you just go to a video store and pick up some straight to video flicks that AREN'T Sci-Fi originals, usually half of them are fairly good. One in five is actually really good. But Sci-Fi manages to make 25 out of 26 of their movies absolutely terrible. It's getting harder and harder to believe they're not doing it on purpose.

More than just a Bigfoot flick

[Wuchakk · 7/10 · 1 April 2011]

DIRECTOR: Steven Monroe. WRITER: Michael Worth RUNTIME: 90 minutes. LOCATIONS: Williams, Flagstaff and Coconino Nat. Forest, Arizona. YEAR OF RELEASE: 2006.

THE PLOT: After an unfortunate auto accident, a woman (Cerina Vincent) is taken captive by a gang of bank robbers who are forced to flee into the Arizona timber by foot. They are followed closely by a posse made up of policemen and old Vietnam vets. The two groups ultimately team-up (sort of) when they encounter a Bigfoot creature who is picking 'em off one by one.

Although I doubt the creature exists, I'm fascinated by the Bigfoot legend and enjoy films on the subject. "Sasquatch Mountain" is one of the better ones. It was originally titled "Devil on the Mountain" and, in fact, that's the title that appears in the DVD version of the movie (but not the DVD cover).

To be expected, some people smugly laugh at the picture, calling it unintentionally funny and cheesy, but nothing could be further from the truth. This is actually a character study using the Bigfoot legend as a stage. The story and characters are taken seriously and there's no camp to be found. The reason some automatically laugh at the movie is because the idea of Sasquatch has become a big joke, which is understandable.

I should point out that if you're expecting a mindless slasher flick with Bigfoot in the evil Jason role you'll be disappointed. The film "Abominable" (2006) is a film along these lines; and it's a good film for what it is. There's nothing wrong with this approach, it's just that "Sasquatch Mountain" shoots for something deeper.

The screenplay was written, believe it or not, by Michael Worth who stars in the picture as one of the bank robbers, Vin. The guy comes off as a 35-year-old adolescent who is more likable than scary, even though he has a slight dangerous edge.

NOTEWORTHY ITEMS:

• Although the film is a low-budget straight-to-video flick it's a well-made film, unlike "Sasquatch Hunters" (2005) and "Sasquatch" (2002), which both have some amateurish qualities.

• The score is great, sometimes even moving, giving the film a palpable reverent quality.

• Although the set-up is a bit contrived (the way the bank robbers get a hostage and flee on foot), the story starts to pull you in at the half-hour mark when the posse pursues the gang in the woods. There are numerous well-written character-defining episodes that successfully capture the viewer's attention.

• For instance, the lead bank robber, Travis (Craig Wasson), laments how his father never paid him any attention growing up. I know what you're thinking -- aw, poor baby -- but the movie successfully shows the correlation between adult wellness and healthy parental relationships, in particularly with one's father-figure. Often children from dysfunctional families spend their entire lives trying to make up for the damage done by clueless parents.

• I also like the way Travis (Wasson) and others are shown not totally poisoned by evil, despite being bank robbers, e.g. Travis does a selfless deed without hesitation later in the film. It's a good scene. Not to mention, Vin (Michael Worth) comes off as more misguided than malevolent; though Harlan (Lance Henriksen) doesn't give in to his charm one bit.

• To be expected in a character study, the screenplay has some great dialogue and lines. For instance, Travis states: "No matter how hard you try or how high you get there's always some devil on the mountain waiting to knock you back down" or the Asian girl to Cerina: "Everyone has scars, but not everyone has the option of hiding behind a pretty smile."

• The film features no less than three beautiful women -- a Brunette (Cerina Vincent), a redhead (Lance's daughter in the story, played by Melanie Monroe) and the Asian bank Robber (Karen Kim) who comes off unattractive only because she's so bitter. Both Cerina and Melanie are magnificent. Melanie is the definition of spirituality.

• There's a good subplot about Lance Henriksen being a laughingstock for the past dozen years. His wife had recorded a vague video of the creature on the day she was killed by a hit-and-run. The video put the town on the map as a tourist attraction but made him an object of ridicule. Will he ever be redeemed?

• Although the Sasquatch kills in the story, he is shown in a sympathetic light (unlike "Abominable" and "Sasquatch Hunters").

• The DVD features a worthwhile 20-minute "Making Of" Documentary.

FINAL ANALYSIS: While "Sasquatch Mountain" is a low-budget TV movie with the requisite flaws it's worthwhile for all the above reasons. It should be given credit for not being another mindless monster flick; the Bigfoot legend is simply a frame for something deeper, which is relayed in a veritably venerable manner. Not everyone can look beyond the Sasquatch trappings; I understand this. I could and found it quite entertaining, and even moving.

GRADE: B

Awful and Cheesy

[claudio_carvalho · 1/10 · 24 May 2008]

A group of thieves heist the bank of a small town and shoot a deputy. While escaping from the police chase, their van crashes another car on the road. They make the driver hostage and they run to a forest, followed by the "men-of-law". Meanwhile a "big-foot" chases both groups, and they join forces against the "thing".

"Sasquatch Mountain" is one of the most awful movies that I ever seen. The story and the dialogs are ridiculous; the camera work and the edition are terrible, maybe because the restrained budget; even the sexy Cerina Vincent is not able to save this garbage. In respect to the veterans Lance Henriksen, Tim Thomerson and Rance Howard, I am not writing any word about their performances. The authors of the favorable reviews in IMDb (ten stars?) misleading the readers are probably included in the payroll of this cheesy flick. My vote is one.

Title (Brazil): "O Demônio da Montanha" ("The Demon of the Mountain")

"Sasquatch" makes a stand

[squidlips64 · 8/10 · 12 September 2006]

I wasn't going to review this (saw it over the weekend) but am reading so much emotional response to it I thought I'd at least get my few cents in.

This is a Sasquatch movie. It's not Lord Of The Rings. The biggest rips seem to be on story line. Sorry, it's no worse a story line than, say, Predator (military goes into jungle, gets set up and runs from Alien hunting them) or any other film of its kind so lets get that out of the way. They are not doing Shakspeare here, but then again.... It's a Sasquatch movie.

So, I for one had zero problems with the characters. In fact, I thought each one had their own personality and for the most part an arc (SPOILERS):

Bad guy leader redeems himself through a surrogate father.

Wana-Be hero gets an opportunity to be one before he dies.

Insecure bad boy does selfless act for a female he mistreats.

Old war hero sheriff is treated like he should "stay home" but ends up being one of the most durable.

Bigfoot fanatic haunted by the ghost about what his wife saw when she died finds peace.

Female on the run from a bad relationship faces up to another bad relationship during her plight and can move on with her life.

Etc, etc.

Look, my point is, when people want to rip on "paper mache" characters, they really better be. What is funny is that there is probably ten times the character development in this than in any of these Sci Fi type of films I see. In fact, it is more about the people than the monster which is very unusual in these films. Watch Sabretooth or Chupucabra, etc. and tell me they spent more time on the characters. Granted, it's not The Big Chill or a John Casavettes film but.... It's a Sasquatch movie.

The acting is obviously above average too. In fact, most of these actors I have seen working before so it is not a cast of nobodies. Henriksen, Wasson, Vincent, Worth and Tim Thomerson are all professionals and no slouches. The rest of them I have seen in other films but not so sure of their names. All were believable and funny (it wasn't a brooding group of dramatic camera muggers). No Oscars coming here but.... It's a Sasquatch movie.

The directing was WAY above par than most of these other Sci Fi films. Lets pick any of them on this budget level: Komodo, Abominable, Frankenfish, Slayer, Sasquatch Hunters, Boa, etc., etc. Very few have a style. The scene usually has a master and a bunch of close ups over and over again. Very TV. The look and color of this film gave it a moody feel and it worked for me. The hand-held stuff was not over done (like on so many TV shows these days) and it had a good pace considering it was a very non-action oriented kind of film. Monroe has done a fine job here with what they are doing. And what is it..... That's right...A sasquatch movie.

Look, I just felt it needed to be said as I hate when I read reviews by people that seem more interested in reading their own words than giving an honest opinion of the film. It's a creature movie that takes some risks. They don't all work, but then I suppose the movie was not a multi million dollar film where they had lots of time or money. I feel the characters are more interesting than not in this film. The acting is professional and not amateur. The story is what it is and if you are expecting something else don't watch it. I can see where gore hounds would not like it as there is very little blood. The film is more about the characters than the creature so be ready for that as well. But I would pick it over most of the movies on Sci Fi or direct to video. Someone below was criticizing the clothes, but of course they also admit they are a costumer. So, "normal" people like me would never notice anything like that in a hundred years, so maybe best not to use that for a point of contention. I could be a boxer and point out the way the British guy threw a punch was totally wrong. But I doubt that means much, you know...

So, I am giving it an 8 on the scale of what it is: an independent creature feature. Its funny when it's supposed to be, has some good acting, good music and does it's job. And the creature, which I like, is kept in the shadows. And the ending is more an emotional one that wraps up everyone than the typical bomb thrown at the feet of the monster and as it blows up the male and female kiss and the credits roll....

Remember folks... It's a Sasquatch movie.

Decent entry, if not overtly spectacular

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 7/10 · 2 October 2021]

After taking a woman hostage, a group of thieves finds their mountain hideout after a bank-robbery is near the home of an enraged legendary creature that soon begins to hunt them down one by one, and when a group of hunters arrives looking for it, they have to team up to get away from the area alive.

This one was better than it should've been, although there are some issues present. Among the films' better qualities comes from the rather enjoyable setup that provides plenty to like here. With the early stages here showing the robbery of the small-town bank and the eventual escape as well as the inadvertent accident that brings them together with the girl, their need to escape together and get away from the police officers on their trail for the robbery becomes quite an ingenious one and has some creativity to it. Given that the two parties are both wandering through the woods on foot with both sides getting off enough of a bit of background information regarding the group and their different characteristic quirks in between some good action sequences throughout that are nicely used to keep it moving along. The other likable quality to be had here is the treatment of the main creature. The fact that the Sasquatch is never able to be plainly seen until the end gives him an air of mystery that few have. We only catch glimpses or blurred focus shots, making it hard to detail tell what is out there, and this makes viewing the creature pretty hard to do. It's not that there's much of an opportunity to catch a glimpse of it, but that trying to get one is pretty hard. Its viciousness is pretty apparent early on, and it never really has any problem providing gory deaths in a back-breaking bear-hug, a neck broken, a very brutal beating, and a couple of mangled body aftereffects. This also has several great suspenseful stalking parts coupled with some great gun-play and fighting between everyone, and the ending assault through the forest is just as good. These are some of the best parts of the film while there really wasn't a whole lot against it, but they are serious errors. The biggest distraction is the camera that shoots it. It makes it look very unprofessional and like something that was shot on the cheap. Normally, had this been used for only a few scenes, it would've been a little more tolerable but it lasts throughout the whole film and it really grates on the nerves, really lowering the film. Also lowering the rating is the Sasquatch himself. It's great that it's hard to see him at times, but when we do get to see it, it looks really bad. It's got the traditional appearance of being a bunch of carpeting leftovers strung together into some vague form of a hairy beast. It rarely looks imposing and basically just relies on its actions to generates fear. There's a couple of small little nit-picks here and there that stand out, however, those big problems are big ones to overcome.

Rated Unrated/R: Graphic Language, Violence, and Attempted Rape.

How do films like this get made?

[ray-edwards2 · 1/10 · 8 February 2007]

I recently viewed this on the Sci-Fi Channel. The acting, the cinema-photography, direction, story-line....boy I have seldom seen a worse film. I suppose it would appeal to some die-hard fan into flesh-eating Sashquatches. The story line is lacking a lot. The whole film gives one the impression that it was meant to be a Television Series in the guise of 'Lost'. Non-captivating, messy and all over the place, the cinema-photography too! The strange, blurred camera angles do nothing for the film. If B-movies were still made, this would not have made that grade either. Because of the messy direction, it is very difficult to get captivated by this film.Sorry, but a poor film all round.

The Sasquatch Union is filing a grievance; this movie should be called "Bank Robber Mountain"

[Phillemos · 2/10 · 22 October 2006]

It's wonderful to see Cerina Vincent in another movie on SciFi Channel. It's just too bad this movie is so dreadfully awful. She's part of a bank robbers (she's not one of them but they kidnapped her) who get into a gunfight with police. They hide out in a secluded cabin in the Arizona mountains, which happens to be owned by Lance Henriksen (who, like Vincent, seems to get roped into doing a lot of horror movies that wind up on SciFi Channel). Of course, what Henriksen knows that everyone else doesn't is that Sasquatch-type monsters live in the area and they actually find the taste of human flesh quote satisfying. We really don't get too wrapped up in the story, though. There's too much time devoted to the robbery and not nearly enough into the Sasquatches; you almost feel like they're just a time-killer until more robbery scenes are filmed. Note to SciFi Channel: if you're going to do a movie about a bank robbery, call it "Robbery Mountain." But hey, Cerina Vincent does have great legs.

The Bigfoot from Sasquatch Mountain

[sol1218 · 5/10 · 4 March 2008]

**SPOILERS** Overly talky and underly exciting Bigfoot movie with the elusive Bigfoot, played by the over seven foot tall ex-basketball player "Tiny" Ron, getting less time in the film the its both beginning and ending credits; About five minutes! In fact the film "Sasquatch Mountain" is more about a bank robbery gone wrong then a movie about the big footed 800 to 1,200 pound, and over seven foot tall, gorilla-like creature roaming the Great American North West.

These crooks wearing gorilla or "Planet of the Apes" masks rob a local bank where in the crossfire with the police kill Officer Sirom Sauls, Bob Harter. As the crooks make their getaway they smash into, outside of town, Erin Price, Cerina Vincent, who just left her abusive boyfriend and is traveling to California to start a new life. With the cops lead by the ailing senior citizen Sheriff Zeff, Rance Howard, catching up with the bank robbers the only thing they have to bargain with is Eirn who was taken hostage during the confusion.

At this point the movie doesn't seem to know where to go in that it's only some 15 to 20 minutes old and has some one hour of running time left to cover! So we have this Bigfoot show up out of nowhere uniting both cops and robbers in a mutual cause! Killing the Bigfoot before he ends up killing them!

In fact we got to see the Bigfoot at the beginning of the film where local town resident Chase Jackson, Lance Henriksen, is fixing his van Chase's wife Sara, Kate Connors, who for some reason is videotaping the great "event" is killed by a runaway car! In Sara's videotape we see a shadowy Bigfoot running through the woods! It's later in the movie that Chase who had since become a hermit on Sasqatch Mountain not only tracks down the Bigfoot but the robbers as well.

Both the cops and robbers are a mixed bag of nuts who get picked off by the Bigoot one at a time during the film. It seems that Bigfoot is only in the movie to spice it up when things start to get really boring with the endless philosophical exchanges between the two sides. One of my favorite exchanges, or meetings of the minds, is between the kidnapped Erin with the co-leader of the crooks who kidnapped her Kayla, Karen Kim. Talking about how they were abused by their ex-boyfriends Kayla shows Erin her battered and scared behind as if to prove to the unmarked and beautiful Erin that she by far got the worst, beating by her boyfriend, of it.

The Bigfoot, or Tiny Ron, himself does what best he can with his part in the movie but is given so little time to do it, despite being the star, that he's relegated to nothing but a cameo role in the few scenes he has in the movie. The few surprises in the film that had mostly to do with the old and grizzled "White Hunter" & "Indian Scout" Eli Van Cleef, Tim Thomerson, came across so flat and uninteresting that when they hit you, after Ol' Eli was completely forgotten about, they had absolutely no effect at all!

Couldn't even watch the ending

[klrwriter · 1/10 · 9 September 2007]

I tried to watch this last night and couldn't.

So bad beyond compare. What a waste of $$ and film and time.

Could it have been any worse? Don't think so. Gag.

I hope all the characters in the film died in the end cause they deserved to for their bad acting. Couldn't relate or feel for anyone because there was nothing redeeming about this. I frequently watch bad movies but this is in my list of worst along with some Stephen King stuff.

My suggestion is don't waste your time on such drivel and maybe companies will stop making such crap. Although I doubt they will since FX is showing it and they are making some money off other people's misery.

I'd rather be stuck in the eye with a needle than watch this again.

Believe the legend....avoid this movie....

[merklekranz · 1/10 · 9 March 2008]

Just when it appeared that "Abominable" would hold down the crappiest recent bigfoot movie award, along comes "Sasquatch Mountain" to claim the prize. Anytime the sasquatch is an afterthought, the acting is totally cardboard, and the script spews forth with endless meaningless dialog, expect bad news. Indeed "Sasquatch Mountain" is guilty of all of the above and more. The sasquatch looks like a dirty broom, and his attacks are filmed so rapidly that you will get whiplash trying to watch. Do not be tempted by Lance Henriksen's presence. This is strictly one of his "paycheck performances". As the DVD box says "believe the legend". Do believe the legend, but skip this abominable crap. - MERK

"Do you know why divorce is so expensive? Because it's worth it." Rubbish.

[poolandrews · 2/10 · 9 February 2007]

Saquatch Mountain, also known as Devil on the Mountain which is what I saw it under, is set in a small rural backwoods American town where a young woman named Erin (Cerina Vincent) is drifting through on her way to a new life somewhere, not that that matters though because while driving along Erin is involved in an accident with a gang of bank robbers lead by a guy named Travis (Craig Wasson), in an ensuing gunfight with the local Sheriff (Rance Howard) the gang kidnap Erin & flee into the forest with the local law enforcement in close pursuit. However there is something that lives in the forest, something that isn't human & the crooks & police are forced to work together to try & survive, but is it enough?

Directed by Steven R. Monroe Sasquatch Mountain is a pretty terrible film all round almost as if there weren't enough really bad low budget horror films already. The boring script by Michael Worth takes itself far too seriously & tries to mix the basic 'criminals on the run encounter all sorts of horrors' taken from From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) & the basic killer Bigfoot scenario from the much, much better Night of the Demon (1980) both of which I think are throughly excellent films by the way & a hell of a lot better than Sasquatch Mountain which is crap. Anyway, there are lots of problems with Sasquatch Mountain, from the basic concept which is pretty bad in itself to the truly awful character's including a getaway driver for a bank job who would rather go down on a pretty girl than actually wait outside the bank (actually when you put it like that...) for his mates who are shooting the place up, then there's the inevitable in-fighting & petty arguing rather than working together as a team to survive & an annoying British guy who I just wanted to die. I have to mention the ending which is terrible in itself, I think it's meant to be all 'emotional' but it comes across as just embarrassing. Then there's the fact it's incredibly dull, boring & predictable, not much really happens & there's an unforgivable lack of horror or gore or anything that might keep you awake. It's all rather obvious, it felt like the thing went on for hours & in my opinion it basically has zero entertainment value.

Director Monroe makes this thing even more annoying to watch as he uses all sorts of editing tricks like most of the time when the creature is on screen the picture goes very blurry, he uses slow-motion, there's some highly annoying & somewhat dizzying shots where he insists on spinning the camera 360 degrees around people for little reason, the whole film seems to lack colour so it's quite drab to watch & the creature ends up looking like a gorilla more than anything else. Forget about any gore as there isn't any.

With a supposed budget of about $800,000 the makers of Sasquatch Mountain didn't have the biggest budget ever but having said that it's still a terrible film. One of the most disappointing things about Sasquatch Mountain is that the always fantastic Lance Henriksen is in it, the guys just class, he deserves better & it's a shame that he's making films like this. Apart from him the acting from everyone else is poor.

Sasquatch Mountain is a terrible straight-to-TV piece of rubbish that I got no enjoyment or entertainment from at all & it's as simple & straight forward as that. One to avoid.

Amateurish, plodding and lazy- not good at all

[TheLittleSongbird · 2/10 · 14 April 2013]

There are worse movies from The SciFi Channel in my opinion, but that is saying very little in Sasquatch Mountain's favour. Lance Henrikssen and Tim Thomerson deserved much better but give good performances and the music(apart from the beginning where it is a little out of sync) has a haunting vibe and isn't too obvious. That's it. I do agree though that the monster is the most likable character of the entire movie and Cerina Vincent is gorgeous. Unfortunately, while it also looks decent the monster is severely underutilised and is not scary at all, and Vincent has none of the acting chops and charisma to match her beauty. A sad waste really. The rest of the acting is terrible, as with most SciFi Channel movies there is a weird mix of hammy over-acting and under-acting to the point of being non-existent. There is very little of an in between or acting that is right on the nose. The way their characters and script are written though do them no favours whatsoever though. When I said that the monster was the most likable character of the movie, that was very faint praise and hardly says anything.

With everybody else, paper mache objects have more personality and likability than any of these irritating cardboard cut-outs that pass for characters here. The script is too much talk, that became increasingly lazy and senseless as it went along, it also does nothing to flesh out the characters or to make us care for them. The film looks incredibly amateurish, especially in the action scenes it looks really blurry. That way the scares are diluted and makes the action incoherent, also managing to waste the monster some more. The story has no sense of momentum, no thrills, no suspense, no surprises, no anything. Everything just felt predictable, bland and tedious, with the second half dragging so badly that the temptation to turn off was getting stronger and stronger by the minute. The action is not thrilling in the slightest, partly because of the way it was shot and edited and partly because it looked clumsy. There is an almost complete lack of gore, so the scare factor is very low(I'd say on zero and going down into the negatives) on the authenticity or genuine shock scale. When any attack happened even I could feel myself cheering, saying to myself one less character to try and care about. The ending also falls completely flat and emotionally it was insufferably cloying and in a way manipulative. In conclusion, outside of Henrikssen, Thomerson and the music, Sasquatch Mountain is a big huge mess. 2/10 Bethany Cox

One of the best made for network movies I've watched

[john_ellison-1 · 8/10 · 22 September 2006]

First, I knew what I was getting into. A made for network movie is not going to have Blockbuster $$$ to wow the audience. Therefore, it is unfair to use the same 1-to-10 ranking that one would use for a theater movie. I get this one an 8 for made for network movies.

What I liked: 1.) What the film director and crew did with the lighting and camera angles was pretty interesting. The early scenes shoot outdoors have a glowing feel. The actors faces are very natural and I felt I could see inside them and relate to their situations. This helped to setup the story for me.

2.) If you've ever been hunting or even just stopped in a small town in the middle of nowhere USA, you can almost feel an aura of mystery and legend in your bones. These towns have legends and lore's with personal accounts that are neither proved or disproved true. This movie captures this wonderfully.

Only dislike: Without spoiling (I hope), I couldn't really see all the gun action. Several robbers and criminals come through THIS town. What criminals would pick this place? It took away from item 2.) above. That kind of stuff seems too far fetched. But, it is a science FICTION movie and it's not supposed to necessarily mimic reality. Plus, there had to be some way to get the main actors in the same town. How else would the plot make any sense.

Good movie...check it out! Hat's off to Mr. Monroe and I can never get enough of Henrikson.

Soooo 2006

[jkitley-22107 · 4/10 · 1 March 2020]

See above. About the most 2006 you could make a film.

funny but the beast hurt the movie

[TheGOLDENWALRUS · 3/10 · 5 February 2007]

Why did I rent this? I wanted a good laugh. This movie kind of did this but the beast was more of a sub-plot.

I liked the first sequence with the camcorder so I thought maybe this film will be somewhat serious. Nope! Though the acting was a bit better than average for a b-movie (maybe it's because I've seen to many Ulli Lommel films). The character development wasn't even that bad. A little rushed but I've seen a lot worst.

I didn't know what the main focus was: The beast was just thrown in there to baffle everyone. It really hurt the film. After a bank robbery, six (maybe it was seven) people try to escape but only hit Cerina Vincent's character with a car. They fight it off with some cops than try to escape in the woods. That's where the beast came in.

This movie obviously wasn't good but it actually had potential. The music was OK but the writing was horrible (what do you expect). This may entertain some of you but it didn't really entertain me. Though there are a lot worst films than this. Watch anything from Ulli Lommel - he's a scam artist!

Better a bear

[ctomvelu1 · 1/10 · 28 October 2009]

The legend of Bigfoot is that he or she is a timid creature, always on the run from any contact with humans. Why then in this silly TV movie does Bigfoot attack and kill numerous folks who have accidentally landed in his part of the forest? A team of bank robbers makes its getaway and end up hiding out the in the woods. They are quickly pursued by the law. Sasquatch doesn't want any of them there, and proceeds to do some serious slaughtering. Lance Henrickson is on board but it's not his movie and he only appears intermittently. A terrible movie. Beter it should have been about a killer bear. That might have been more believable.

One of the worst creature features ever made

[borden721 · 1/10 · 27 January 2013]

I'm a huge fan of Bigfoot movies and I love Lance Henriksen and Tim Thomerson who are in this film. I really expected something decent, something watchable at least. Very sad to say 'Sasquatch Mountain' isn't watchable. Steven R. Monroe managed to make one of the worst horror films in history. The plot is promising, we have gangsters who just robbed the bank and because of unfortunate crash, they ended up in the forest, running from the steel hand of love. There is a whole bunch of characters walking around the woods for various reasons, none of them are really likable and acting is probably the best part of the movie. I mean we have Henriksen and Thomerson in a really good performances as they always deliver, no matter how crappy the film is. We have Cerina Vincent who became some sort of 'Scream Queen' lately and while she is pretty, she has not much acting talent to be honest with you. The rest of them(actors) are rather weak and forgettable but at least they don't behave like amateurs. The biggest disappointment for me personally was a Bigfoot. It was a man in the costume which is always great but the design was just awful. It looked like a poor man's Chewbacca, behaved like a retarded. The whole film sounds and looks like SyFy Channel and I know they screened it. The script is weak, music is forgettable at best and it just follows all the clichés from the other movies. Can't believe they actually spent more than 300k on it as it looks nothing but cheap. As a Bigfoot/horror movies lover I can easily say that it was one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

Yes!

[devils_neighbor_667 · 10/10 · 30 March 2020]

I'm very impressed with this thrilling and even dramatic Sasquatch flick! Never lost my interest at any point.