Claws

This movie is not a good killer grizzly movie. I just don't know why they also call it Devil Bear because it is not scary enough to be called that. The movie is very dark. Sometimes you can't see certain things and the sound in the movie is bad. Most of all, the movie is boring. 2.5 stars out of 5 for my rating.

Notable for it gratuitous use of flashbacks, even by 70's standards. This is a pure drive-in flick, the one your parents didn't want to stay awake for, so they drove home halfway through it. Right off the bat, you're introduced to bad stock footage, interesting color changes during scenes, and a so-called SATAN BEAR! Cheezy and vaguely energetic enough to be funny for awhile, halfway through it begins to lull the mind into a satisfying sleep. However, impressionable young minds might actually be frightened by this flick, since getting mauled by a rogue bear during a boy-scout outing is actually quite a plausable fear; as opposed to, say, getting mauled by Bigfoot...

But that's a different movie.

When a giant,killer grizzly bear terrorizes the countryside three men go on a dangerous hunting mission to bring it down."Claws" is not as good as "Grizzly"(1976)-in fact it's pretty dull at times.There is no gore to speak of and no suspense.The photography of Alaska wilderness is outstanding.The acting is pretty good and the climax is fairly exciting.Still the special effects are not too hot."Claws" is tough to find,but if you liked "Grizzly" give this one a look.

Since William Girdler's "Grizzly" supposedly was a shameless rip-off of "Jaws" (at least according to a lot of reviewers disliking the movie), then I guess this is an even more shameless rip-off of an already shameless rip-off and thus the ultimate rip-off of "Jaws"? Whatever! Let them say what they want. I usually enjoy these typically 70's and enormously cheesy "animals revolting" movies very much and even found a handful of redeeming elements in "Claws"! That certainly wasn't an easy thing to do, as this film is really poor and amateurishly put together. Basically speaking, a killer animal flick doesn't need a brilliant or flawless scenario in order to be entertaining, but it looks as if the makers deliberately tried to sabotage their own film with their continuous and inappropriate use of pointless flashbacks, dreadful clichés and irrelevant vendettas between dull main characters. There's an ordinary grizzly bear – perhaps a little bit over-sized, but still a normal bear – on the rampage deep in the Alaskan woods, but for some reason the plot insists to convince us it's not just a bear but a malignant Indian spirit known as the "Quistica". Consequently one of the supportive characters is an old Indian mumbling inaudible stuff all the time and having kooky hallucinations, whereas the story should be focusing on savage grizzly bear attacks instead! During the fairly good and atmospherically shot opening sequences, we witness how a trio of hunters illegally wound a gigantic bear but fail to put him down completely. The raged animal promptly attacks woodchopper Jason Monroe and terrorizes the woods for the following five years. When the bear beastly interrupts a boy scout camping party attended by Jason's son and his ex-wife's new fiancée, he decides to put together a hunting party to destroy the bear once and for all. Although nobody is likely to care or even sympathize with any of the lead characters, the film obtrudes their love lives to us through insufferable flashbacks. Worst of all is that these flashbacks serve absolutely no purpose and merely just count as filler and to make us care for the familial situation of the characters. That is called Emo(tion)-TV and really doesn't mix well with horror. The hunter has flashbacks about how he fell in love with his wife and then lost her, the wife has a flashback how she left her husband, the new lover has a flashback how he gradually stole the wife's heart and the annoying kid has a flashback of the time his parents were still happily together. I swear, at a certain point I was afraid that even the bear would have a flashback about the times he was carelessly swooping fish out of the river, or something. During the second half of the film, the lousy flashbacks are slowly being replaced with lousy gibberish about Indian mythology and brotherhood speeches. The bear attacks are okay, but not as virulent and exploitative as in the aforementioned "Grizzly" and the wildlife tableaux are occasionally enchanting to look at. The climax is exciting but unfortunately not exciting enough to make you forget the overall dullness of the script and the atrocity of the dialogs. Furthermore, "Claws" also suffers from terrible performances and inept direction, so unless you have an incredibly high level of tolerance for 70's eco-horror/killer-animal flicks, you probably shouldn't search for this puppy.

CLAWS features an enraged grizzly bear, out to avenge the loss of its fellow grizzly to some hunters. For years thereafter, it kills its way through the local population, until a group of men decide to track it down.

BEST SCENES: #1- When a group of yahoos decide to go after the bear, who is not impressed! #2- The sheriff having his skeleton rearranged! #3- The "experts" who use an array of technological gadgets in an attempt to take the bear alive! Unfortunately, the bear doesn't feel the same way about them!

Put out in order to cash in on the popularity of the JAWS imitation craze of the 1970's, it's mostly a forgotten artifact today. In spite of its low budget and inherent cheeeze factor, it is enjoyable to watch, and the fiery finale is definitely rewatchable!...