Let’s see what we wandered into now.

MV5BOWIxZWE0MGUtNmI0MC00ODY5LWI2YTQtOTNhYThhODVkOThkXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyODc2MjA4Mg@@._V1_

Don’t Call me Bigfoot kept coming up on my suggested viewing, so let’s give it a go. I suppose with these urban legends we should discuss our stance as reviewers. The film is basically an introduction to cryptozoology (studying unknown animals) while using Bigfoot as their case study. That previous description might be a little reductive, but it covers the basics.

Do I believe in Bigfoot? Not really, but I know that a lot of people do. My concern here is how entertaining is the documentary?

The film jumps right in with little introduction to the discussion (I guess they figured the title was enough) or who these people are. I do think introducing our experts other than “enthusiast” would help the ethos of the documentary. Their stories are told with varying degrees of intrigue, but without knowing much about them I think everything has to be taken with a grain of salt.

I know, you’re saying “but isn’t entertainment what you’re looking at, not facts?”—Yes, you’re right, but knowing who these characters are would make the stories more entertaining. It is weird to be thinking “who is this person” while they are discussing (often out of chronological order) their exposure to this type of study.

The film wants to be scientific in the way it presents information, but it isn’t. There is a lack of precise language here. Almost all claims are buffered heavily with uncertainty, which makes a lot of the arguments feel a little slippery. Now, once again, I can hear you saying this does not matter for entertainment, but I think it does. Scientific claims aren’t always specific, but the language used to describe a theory has to be precise, flipping between evolution and creationism is a weird way to go about a biological argument. I was a bit floored here, we are making an argument about evolution, and then just dump it?

We are given a lot of vague references to studies (without citation) and this leads us to the conclusion that Bigfoot “100% exists.” It also exists “worldwide” [five seconds later] “or where it is able.” For the viewer, the construction of this film is more confusing than anything else. We bring in other creatures from differing regions and just conclude “those are also Bigfoot.”

The research here is too sloppy to not notice. The whole thing is frustrating and this failure of the film to clearly make an argument makes it not only poor research, but a joyless watch. The ultimate part is when they start complaining about not making money.

This movie sucks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s