Grizzly l'orso che uccide

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 .

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.

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.

Rip-off of "Jaws". A giant grizzly bear is (inexplicably) attacking humans in a forest. It's up to Christopher George and friends to track him down.

I saw this in a theatre when I was 14 and never forgot it. At the time it (sort of) scared me. The bear itself I thought looked kind of cuddly--even when it was growling and showing its fangs. The attacks were (for a PG movie) pretty bloody and had me actually cringing in my seat! The show stoppers were when a little boy is attacked (we don't actually SEE it, but we do see half his leg torn off) and when, with a swipe of its claw, the grizzly decapitates a horse! Silly...but effective! Also there's some really beautiful scenery here (if you see it letterboxed) and a really great score.

So, this is a good gross-out movie for kids--there is a lot of blood but you don't take it seriously. As for the rest of it--the acting and characterizations are strictly by the numbers but I thought George and Andrew Prine were lots of fun. Also the dialogue is terrible and I got a good laugh out of the guy who doesn't want close the park despite the fact that people are being killed! Talk about ripping off "Jaws"! Good example of a 1970s exploitation film.