Grizzly (1976)

Best movie of this year hands down!

Undescribable Perfection

Best movie ever!

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Animal attacks are not uncommon things in the contemporary world. Humans can sometimes cross paths with a wild animal at the wrong time and place. Of course not all animals are intentionally setting out to harm individuals, but there are those moments where they had it coming. Whether it was due to their lack of awareness or just plain ignorance, certain animals should not be domesticated because it's just shouldn't be done. As explored in Steven Spielberg's ocean thriller Jaws (1975), the shark had proved to be a formidable force that should only be observed from far distances. It made a lot of people think twice about going back into the water. Smartly capitalizing on the fad and everyone's deepest fears, a producer by the name of Edward L. Montoro made this independent film focusing on a dangerous land animal. The animal of choice for this feature was the grizzly bear. So now instead of scaring the living life out of beach goers, Montoro wanted to make people fear their own backyard. Well done Mr. Montoro.Although the film has its own credited screenwriters, the parallels between this movie and Jaws (1975) are all too familiar. Written by Harvey Flaxman and David Sheldon, the script has few differences in its story. Michael Kelly (Christopher George) is a ranger at the local park and the season for backpackers and hikers has just kicked in. To his dismay a couple of campers were mauled by a grizzly bear and now he's on the hunt with helicopter pilot Don Stober (Andrew Prine) and nature boy Arthur Scott (Richard Jaeckel). Breathing down Kelly's neck is park owner Charley Kittridge (Joe Dorsey), who wants the bear gotten rid of. See the similarities in how the events reflect what goes on in Jaws (1975)? The noticeable changes are that it deals with a bear instead of a shark and it's on land and not at sea. There are even scenes where after the campers are attacked, a posse of hunters go out to kill the bear themselves. Even Kittridge becomes greedy and becomes okay with having the publicity.The minor changes within the story though deal with Christopher George's character. Unlike the main character of Jaws (1975), Mike Kelly is a single man who hasn't found the right woman in his life yet. Co-starring in this film is another actor by the name of Joan McCall playing Allison Corwin. She initially comes across like she could turn into Kelly's love interest but then goes nowhere. From the start Corwin explained to Kelly that she was trying to finish a project she was working on, but two thirds of the way through she completely vanishes from sight never to be heard from again. Something's a miss here. And McCall's character isn't the only one with an unfinished thread. There are a few others, and doesn't resolve much in the story. It's unbecoming that so much of the screenplay resembles another movie only to not completely take what they've learned and apply it correctly. Why bother introducing a character that adds nothing to anything?The only true actors to come out unscathed is Christopher George and "Teddy" the bear actor. Although much of his other co-stars have been in several films like him, George is the only actor to try and make his role his own. Christopher George is probably best known for playing a role in the so-bad-it's-so-good film Pieces (1982). This feature would be his next best. The rest of the acting by Andrew Prine and Richard Jaeckel act passably but do not stand out from any other cast member. Andrew Prine would take a minor roll Ronald F. Maxwell's epic of Gettysburg (1993) and Richard Jaeckel would also play a minor role in the science fiction drama Starman (1984). For animal actors, "Teddy" the portrayed grizzly bear killer was quite a looker. In all honesty, the thought of having a real bear on scene was not thought to be likely. Apparently they did have a real bear on set though, and he is something to watch. There are some pretty serious injuries that are filmed too but the actual mauling isn't too believable.The camera-work that goes with film is mostly doable. The only time it's too unconvincing is when the camera represents the animal attacks. The lens just moves too much to figure out everything. Other than that, the wide panning shots by William L. Asman are visually pleasing. The forest is a big place and the landscape is vast in its scope. The camera is also used as the eyes of the grizzly which has it pushing through brush so as to look like the viewer is the bear. That looks fairly accurate. Although Asman has done cinematography, his main credit is as a camera operator to films like The Rocketeer (1991) and Speed (1994). The music by Robert O. Ragland is also a supportive element to the film. It's by no means anywhere close to as recognizable as John Williams' music, but it has its moments. Sadly there's no main theme, which could've helped the movie greatly. Ragland also made the score to both The Fear (1995) and The Fear: Resurrection (1999). Hmmmmm okay.As a calling to what could be said as the land version of Jaws (1975), this film fairs out alright but nothing truly great. Only a few actors work among the whole cast and the cinematography is the only good looking visual. The gore is average at best and the script is in a lot of ways very much the same to Jaws (1975). The music is decent but it's difficult to remember it.

Most every review you read of this movie points out that it is a rip-off of Jaws, so I won't belabor the point. The interesting thing, however, is that much of the movie is so implausible that you wonder if perhaps the writers are doing it for laughs. The best bit is of course the female forest ranger who strips down to bra and panties to go skinny dipping while hunting a dangerous bear that has killed two people, but there is also the park manager who decides that the best way to combat the bear is to open the hunting season and let the masses of hunters go after him. This is COMPLETELY unrealistic. I can only guess that the film is employing a certain exploitative impressionism, kind of like when you are telling your five-year old a story and you exaggerate stuff for the fun of it. As a result, this movie is actually fairly entertaining, sort of like bedtime horror story for adults.

Grizzly is, as many reviewers have noted, basically Jaws on land. Except cheaper. And not as well written. And not Jaws.It is wonderfully fun for what it is. The gore effects aren't too over-the-top, but they represent the budget this movie must've been made on back in 1976.One thing that's really worth noting is that the color effects are delightfully 60s-70s. The colors are rich and vibrant, with strong dark contrasts. The visual texture of the film has a very gritty feel to it, a heavy realism that is both reminiscent of filmstrips and such of the 60s and 70s that were used well into the late 80s. It's a rich color that becomes nostalgic for the time period.The writing and characters are often what you'd expect, with a couple surprises, but the actors take their roles seriously and some of the over-the-top clichéd dialog is delivered with such a straight face that it's actually good. Exchanges like "Listen -" "NO, YOU LISTEN!" carry a lot of acting talent with them - even if they were clichés then - they're played straight and played well. There is a lot of manly manliness in the movie, but none of it is parody, and that gives it a wonderfully dated charm as well.Richard Jaeckel's character is great every time he's on screen. His proto-Timothy Treadwell is a great addition to the story, and is a lot of fun.The monster effects, like the gore effects, are limited by a small budget, but they're adequate for the story, and are still fun.The ending is unintentionally wonderful if you watch it as a bad movie, and adequate if you watch it as a good movie.Overall, if you like bad movies, you'll be pleasantly surprised by this as a really good bad movie. If you like good movies, you'll be pleasantly surprised with the earnestness of the film, and you'll enjoy the visuals as well as the often quite good acting.

There's something paradoxical about the Hollywood film industry . It's often tagged as " The dream factory " but dreams can be defined as our imagination being played back to us in our sleep . Sometimes Hollywood producers give the impression they're sleepwalking . Take this film GRIZZLY . You can just imagine that someone walked in to a cinema in 1975 , saw JAWS and shuffled out thinking they'd have a great idea for a movie where instead of a great white shark terrorising a coastal community we get a grizzly bear terrorising a forest . This isn't plagiarism but it does indicate a serious lack of imagination . That said the dream factory is an industry and like all industries it has to make a profit to survive . No profit equals no more films and where would IMDb junkies like myself be without cinema ? Sometimes a lack of imagination should be viewed as a virtue The problem with GRIZZLY is that it fails to disguise its influences in anyway . A giant grizzly bear stalks a parkland forest eating campers and it's left to Christopher George as park ranger Kelly to defeat this menace . His job is made more difficult because his bosses aren't going to close the park . Right away you're reminded of the double obstacle Sheriff Brody had with Mayor Vaughn refusing to close the beach because that's going to impact upon the local tourist industry so the protagonist finds himself battling both against the opponents of nature and the greed of human nature There's also the stylistic connections that JAWS gave the films that followed it . Quite often the animal attack is done via point of view and much of the time the monster remains unseen with its brooding presence felt rather than visualised . The problem is that once the monster is seen in its full glory it's rather disappointing . Like the shark in JAWS which looks a bit too much like a mechanical model ( Not necessarily a criticism in the CGI obsessed present day ) here the eponymous grizzly is hyped up as a terrible man eating beast over eighteen foot high when it makes its pivotal climatic appearance it looks far too cute and cuddly to induce fear .As a footnote and it's nothing to do with the producers GRIZZLY was broadcast pre watershed on the British horror channel which meant certain scenes involving the bear attack had been curtailed . Someone coming in to this film having never seen it might find it very difficult to believe that it caused children to have nightmares . You have to take onboard the context that people saw this in the 1970s and 80s but even so it's hardly a great film