GamerTab That was an excellent one.

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Fella_shibby I first saw this some ten-twelve yrs back on Sony pix channel. Revisited this recently on a DVD. Plot - A national park is terrorized by a man-eating grizzly of extraordinary size, picking off stray campers and backpackers... It has enuff kills n gore. There are pools of red blood, a decapitation of a horse, a leg torn off, arms torn off, mauled faces, a beheading, and a child losing a couple of limbs. One effective trick that is utilized regularly is a shot from the bears point of view that was a new gimmick in the late 70s. But there was zero tension n suspense. The photography and editing are atrocious and William Girdler's direction is completely without interest or pace. The bear chase scenes r dull n makes no sense. There is one waterfall bathing scene which lacked the nudity n to top it all our killer bear is hiding in the waterfall like some pervert.

Heres_Johny Somehow I found myself watching Grizzly, a mid-70's monster-horror featuring a giant grizzly bear. The promotional original tagline was "18 feet of gut-crunching, man-eating terror." Well, it was grizzly, all right, but not the kind of 'grizzly' the producers aimed for.The film opened with some promise as one of the main characters, Don/'NamMan, helicopters some sightseers over the unnamed national park which serves as the film's setting. We get some beautiful shots of tree-clad mountains and valleys which 'NamMan claims are virgin and untouched since before Europeans came to America. I'm thinking "Hey, maybe we've got an environmental message!", and the long shots in the title sequence - along with the recommendation of a previously trusted friend - make me think Grizzly was headed to be something more than just a monster movie.Act 1 quickly dispelled those naive notions.After some confusion with who the heck the protagonist is, we find out it's Michael Kelly. I'll be calling him Chiseljaw, though, since that's all he is: a beautiful jawline meant to attract reluctant female movie-goers. Chiseljaw runs Unnamed Park as the direct supervisor of its many inept rangers. The majority of his job involves babysitting hikers and making sure they don't go about setting wildfires or getting lost. He has a romantic interest who's cast as the "Strong Female", but there's no point in even assigning her a nickname, since she's completely irrelevant to the plot. As a matter of fact, there isn't a single female in Grizzly who exists for any reasons besides fodder for the aforementioned giant bear. Oh, and cleavage/midriff, which I suppose passed for racy back in the 70's.The only characters who matter - as much as any character matters in this sort of film- are Chiseljaw, 'NamMan (Don, the obligatory Vietnam veteran who I thought was the protagonist when he flew us over the forest), and BearDude, whose name I forget but was maybe Scott but doesn't freaking matter because all you need to know is that he's a naturalist and cosplays as a bear, or deer, or something.I dunno. He's got a massive fur cape, and he digs bears.Anyways, some sexy ladies get merc'ed by the bear, which sets off an investigation and a killing spree of approximately nine-thousand people. Plot juice, but it's cheap plot juice. Seriously, it's like they figured out they only had thirty minutes of actual film, and the director just said "Oh, it's cool, sprinkle in a bear-murder between every scene until we've got a movie." And I'm not using 'murder' flippantly, either. This is basically a serial-killer movie, only the serial-killer is a big dumb animal lacking the psychologically twisted aspect of a good serial-killer villain, and instead of cops, the good guys are park rangers. We even get the obligatory gun-and-badge scene we expect from that sort of cop movie, where Chiseljaw begs his 'Chief' (or park supervisor, whatever) "Let me do my job," to which the Chief responds "You're in over your head" and threatens to fire him. Not those literal words, but you get my drift. I'm not unconvinced that the writer didn't simply deconstruct the worst murder-spree movie ever and rewrite everything with a bear-centric focus.The irony there is that it's not even a good monster movie. I was unsurprised to discover Grizzly released hot on the tails of Jaws, which I suppose they wanted to emulate. Knowing that, the blatant ripoff was pretty obvious. But it still felt closer to a dozen cop movies I've seen than to Jaws.Trudging right along, Chiseljaw, BearDude and 'NamMan form the least effective power-trio in cinema history. Later on I started to like 'NamMan, who probably would have made a better protagonist than wet-blanket Chiseljaw, and BearDude was OK too in the lovable-weirdo sense, but we all know the best buddies are only there so they can die late in the game anyways. Their bumbling is only offset by the Chief, who is playing politics by bringing press to the park and hoping to attract more visitors, or a cushy job offer for himself, by illogically highlighting the fact that two million and counting visitors have been viciously mauled and devoured by a ginormous prehistoric bear.The worst aspect of Grizzly, though, is ironically the freakin' grizzly. Many of the shots of its feet (before the not-so-big reveal) are clearly a black bear. At one point, an adult black bear is trotted onto the set and a bunch of hunters think it's the grizzly's cub, which ends in some hilarious bear-on-bear violence. When the grizzly attacks, it never once bites its victims: its killing move, as far as I can tell, is split between either a lethal bear hug and a swing of its mighty claws, which at one point decapitates a horse in one swipe.I wish I had something good to say. I wish I could post a review that wasn't entirely comprised of ridicule and mockery. But the unfortunate fact is that ridicule and mockery are more than Grizzly deserves.It should have languished in ignominy, forgotten in the dusty halls of crappy films. It doesn't deserve a Wikipedia page. It should have withered and died on the vine anonymously, unreleased, and - barring that - nobody should have been talking about it one year later, much less forty.Instead my idiot friend recommended it to me, which is the only reason this review exists. I'd like to publicly declare that Jon "Bingo" of Fort Lauderdale, FL is an ignoramus, knows nothing about good film, and should consider checking into a mental institution if he thought a single scene of Grizzly was worth watching.To me, the real lesson in Grizzly is Be Careful Who You Trust. Oh, and if you're going to make a bear movie, you should know something about bears.

ferbs54 A common thread runs through the four films of director William Girdler that I have seen: All are somewhat crudely made, shlocky entertainments, and all are nevertheless quite fun to watch. First, there was 1975's "Sheba, Baby," a lesser Pam Grier action flick; then, 1976's "Project: Kill," with Leslie Nielsen (of all people) starring as a drug-enhanced secret agent on the run who gets involved with the forever yummy Nancy Kwan; and then 1978's "The Manitou," in which a large tumor growing on the neck of Susan Strasberg turns out to be the developing fetus of a rebirthing Indian medicine man! And now, for this viewer, 1976's "Grizzly." Released a year after "Jaws" kicked box office tuchus, the film makes zero attempt to conceal its debt to Steven Spielberg's big-fish classic; indeed, the film's poster itself proclaimed its monstrous ursine protagonist "The Most Dangerous Jaws In The Land." In the film, for reasons that are never adequately explained, a 15-foot-tall, 2,000-pound grizzly takes to killing and eating campers in a national park (the viewer must assume it to be Yellowstone or Yosemite, although the picture was shot in Clayton, Georgia, near where the state borders both North and South Carolinas). Thus, it falls on head forest ranger Kelly (Christopher George), chopper pilot Don (Andrew Prine) and maniacal naturalist Scott (the great character actor Richard Jaeckel) to put a stop to the ferocious attacks....To "Grizzly"'s credit, the viewer does not have to wait long to see the film's first attack sequence, and these scenes crop up fairly regularly throughout. The film is fairly bloody (or should I say grisly?), and there really is no way of predicting who will be attacked and who will survive; even little moppets are open game! As if the film's debt to "Jaws" were not already transparent enough, however, "Grizzly" gives us POV shots from the bear's eyes, accompanied by ominous music; a scary nighttime tale told by one of the hunters; a bureaucratic jerk who wants to keep the park open, despite the obvious danger; and an explosive death for the beastly nemesis at the picture's end. The acting by the film's three leads is certainly passable, although the thesping by the lesser players (especially the grizzly's victims) is often quite lame. Girdler's film has been shoddily put together, like his others, and, most egregiously, features a "monster" that just isn't that fear inducing; indeed, despite his murderous inclinations, the grizzly here often looks kinda cute and cuddly (although still a long way from Winnie the Pooh or Yogi!). One element of the film that this viewer did enjoy was the breezy, outdoorsy score by Robert O. Ragland, conducting the National Philharmonic Orchestra of London; so reminiscent, somehow, of many of these cheezy, mid-'70s entertainments. Other aspects of "Grizzly" to find pleasure in: the best horse decapitation scene since "The Godfather" and the hilarious name of the film's editor-- Bub Asman. I wish MY name was Bub Asman! Anyway, as I mentioned up top, all in all, good, shlocky fun. My psychotronic guru, Rob, by the way, tells me that Girdler's follow-up film, 1977's "Day of the Animals" (also starring George and Jaeckel), is even more fun than this one, and it will surely be my next visit to the world of Girdler....

utgard14 Simian actor Christopher George is the star of this dreadful Jaws wannabe. The film's plot centers on a rampaging giant grizzly bear that we are told has survived extinction for a million years in order to wreak havoc on the forests of Georgia in 1976. Where the bear has been for the last million years is never explained but honestly does it need to be? There are a few reasons to watch this otherwise avoidable mess. First we have the always hammy Andrew Prine lighting up every scene he's in, especially with his overdone Southern accent. I particularly enjoyed the "Indian story" scene, which is I suppose this movie's version of Robert Shaw's classic USS Indianapolis speech from Jaws. I defy anyone to find a point to Prine's story, except that bears can and will kill people, which has "duh" written all over it. Also watch for the scene where the bear attacks a young boy. The child actor can't refrain from smiling throughout his vicious mauling. Another character worth watching is the TV news reporter, who bears a striking similarity to John Oates. This actor seems to have gone from his first day at acting class straight to the set to film his scenes in this movie. His role is small but amusingly memorable. Finally the most important reason to watch Grizzly is for the great simian actor Christopher George. It's a little known fact that George is actually a shaved ape. It's a shame because this wonderful animal actor deserves his recognition alongside famous animals like Lassie and Benji that have entertained moviegoers for decades. Well, if any of the reasons I listed above is enough to make you give Grizzly a shot, good luck. Otherwise I'd suggest watch Animal Planet or National Geographic Channel instead.