Grizzly

Due to the year in which it was released, 1976's "Grizzly" seems to get summed up as a land-locked "Jaws" wanna-be, but people tend to forget that even before "Jaws," drive-ins were well stocked throughout the 1970s with a near endless series of killer animal/"nature takes revenge" flicks (i.e. "Squirm," "Frogs," "Night of the Lepus," etc.). So if anything "Grizzly" can merely be accused of having excellent timing, as it rode the coat-tails of "Jaws" to the tune of $39 million in box office and briefly held the title of most profitable independent movie (till it was unseated by the original "Halloween").

As for the movie itself, it's a fairly typical killer animal flick. A rogue Grizzly bear has suddenly begun tromping around a national park, munching on campers and back-packers, and the park's bad-ass head ranger (Christopher George) has to hunt it down and kill it, assisted by his two best friends, a naturalist (Richard Jaeckel) and a redneck chopper pilot. Due to its low budget nature, we don't see much of the actual bear till the film is three-quarters of the way finished, till then "attack" scenes are shown from the bear's eye view so all you see is a hairy paw reach from off camera and lots of growling on the soundtrack. Those attack scenes are still fairly brutal and gory (particularly when the bear goes after a young boy and his mother, and we see the poor kid thrown to the ground with his leg bitten off!), and when we finally do get to see the Grizzly in all his glory, he's a fearsome looking S.O.B. indeed. I won't reveal whether or not Ranger Smith (haha) manages to defeat Yogi Bear in their climactic battle, but I will say that it's the best scene in the movie, due to the total overkill weapon used by George's character.

Director William Girdler keeps the suspense level up and Christopher George is a suitable tough-guy hero, making "Grizzly" a decent night of schlocky-but-fun creature-feature entertainment, 1970s style.

This movie is a total rip off of Jaws and I enjoyed it almost as much. The first bear attack scene was cheap and fake looking but stick with it because the rest were pretty good. The bear can act! I enjoyed this 70s flick, it was fun. I give it a 5 because it wasn't scary enough.

A huge grizzly bear is terrorizing local campers at a national state park and leaving a bloody trail. The Park Ranger (George) enlists the aid of a Vietnam vet helicopter pilot (Prine) and a naturalist (Jaeckel) to help end the bear's reign of terror. Also thrown in the mix is the state park's head honcho owner who keeps making things as difficult as possible for the trio.

Sound familiar? Does a shark, Roy Scheider etc. spring to mind? Well, the similarities to "Jaws" are undeniable and they're very obvious but that doesn't mean "Grizzly" is not a decent film. It's fairly good overall, the acting is horribly stilted on occasion, the script has it's fair share of stupid dialog, the gore scenes are a tad fake looking and the constant usage of fake shots of the bear (who is clearly in a completely different location) does indicate a relatively low budget. But sometimes the faults only add to the enjoyment, as is the case here.

This was a tremendously ambitious project for it's time and the grizzly bear scenes were a horror to film (and not to mention; quite dangerous). The film had a low budget and was shot in a short amount of time. Director William Girdler, a specialist for low budget rip-offs (I'm really interested to see his blaxploitation "Exorcist" rip-off "Abby"), makes the most out of this project. It's fast paced, gory, reasonably suspenseful and obviously made with passion. The cinematography is splendid and makes the most out of the gorgeous scenery. The only nit picking I have is the music score; a completely inappropriate orchestral score that looks and sounds like it belongs in a comedy rather than a horror film.

As for the actors, Christopher George may not have been a forceful dramatic performer but he's extremely likable and what he didn't have in the acting department he more than made up for that with charisma. Andrew Prine and Richard Jaeckel are a fine pair as George's aids but pretty much everyone else has an amateur night in terms of acting.

Late director William Girdler knew how to get the most out of a limited budget (check out "Day of the Animals", a semi-sequel to "Grizzly") and would probably have made plenty of first rate B-movies had he lived longer. "Grizzly" is a fine example of what the guy could manage and it's pretty impressive.

Okay, I think everyone going in knows that this is another one of those "nature-runs-amok" flicks. If you're a fan of these types of movies you'll enjoy "Grizzly;" you won't be blown away or anything, but it's a nice little time-waster.

"Grizzly" was made one year after the hugely-successful "Jaws." It's obvious that the creators wanted to profit from that film's popularity because the plot is basically the same, albeit with a different animal, land instead of ocean, etc. The main difference, however, is that "Jaws" was a first-rate film, whereas "Grizzly" is strictly Grade B.

How can one tell? Well, First rate films like "Jaws," "Raiders of the Lost Ark" or "The Bridge on the River Kwai" stand the test of time -- although you can tell they're older films for obvious reasons, they're so well done on all levels that you hardly even notice. Grade B films like "Grizzly," however, do not pulsate with creative originality, they lack that certain pizazz to set them apart.

This is not to say that "Grizzly" isn't entertaining; it is, as long as you understand going in that you're seeing a Grade B Jaws-on-land type flick. We're not talking "Apocalypse Now" here.

WHAT WORKS: The Northern Georgia location -- Black Rock Mountain State Park -- is a pleasant surprise. If you enjoy deep forest adventure type movies, then this film's for you.

The scene wherein the bruin destroys a fire outlook post is good.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK: aside from the obvious "Jaws" rip-off and Grade B film problems mentioned above, the grizzly in the picture doesn't look as big as they say it is. In the movie the bear is supposed to be a prehistoric survivor, some 15 feet tall or so. Don't get me wrong here, the thought of running into a grizzly is frightening enough, ask my wife who had a nervous breakdown on a trail in Glacier National Park, Montana (one of only two areas where grizzlies still dwell in the lower 48). It's just that the bear doesn't look as big as they SAY it is in the film.

Also, as with most Grade B fare, the score is substandard and dated.

FINAL ANALYSIS: Think rip-off, think Grade B, think "Paws" or "Claws," and you won't be disappointed.

GRADE: C+

Generally after a movie comes out is when people , critics or whoever, begin making comparisons between it and other films.

If there happen to be any similarities at all then the film is labeled a rip-off and then sent off to the wonderful land of the back room shelf. This is one that I am glad stayed off the back room shelf, if anything, for nostalgic reasons.

Most film makers would tell you they were inspired by something whether it was "Spider Man" or "Black Narcissus" when they were a kid. It doesn't mean they directly ripped it off.

The story for "Grizzly" was written before "Jaws" came out, the writers didn't know each other, and though one might be able to draw parallels as far as the story goes it is not a "Jaws" rip-off. It's just that you have blood, guts and gore and so did Jaws which came out, theatrically, a year earlier.

One is on land and one is in the ocean...How exactly is that the same? No. The real rip-off movie of "Jaws" is the Italian movie "The Last Shark".

"Grizzly" came out in our nation's Bi-Centennial year. "Jaws" kept me out of the water and "Grizzly" kept me out of the woods for a LONG time. Even now though,31 years later, the film is still worth a look and it has some very interesting ideas represented and some very interesting camera shots and a couple of good scares.

Does it have a cheese factor? Of course, but overall it a pretty good low-budget flick which makes me think of guerrilla film-making and it makes the effort at trying to tell a good story..

I put it right in the middle of the scale and worth checking out depending on your own personal perception of what a monster movie should be .