-Grizzly (2015) movie review: -Grizzly, opening in wide release next month, is a thriller following two brothers set out on a hike together in the woods after they reunite, having not seen each other since childhood. They soon discovery they are being stalked by a massive grizzly bear who has been terrorizing a local town. And it is from the director of some of the Saw sequels. Great
. That makes sense.
-This film missed a lot of opportunities to be meaningful and well done, plus with a cast like this, there is really no good excuse. Maybe if it was made by someone NOT known for horror movie sequels .
-The story is not too original to be honest. Reuniting and forgiving through desperate circumstances so they can work together? Plus the bear is apparently killing people and other bears because it is mad about deforestation. In Alaska. IN ALASKA. His next film will include a group of killer polar bears out against a local research base. In the middle of the Arctic .
-The pace was good, and it did keep me from being bored or too disinterested. It really it not all bad of a film. Kinda.
-The acting is passable. James Marsden (Cyclops) did not have to try too hard, and he did fine. Thomas Jane (Punisher) did not try at all and it kinda shows. Piper Perabo (Covert Affairs) did a very good job. Billy Bob Thornton did fine. And Scott Glenn played himself yet again.
-The characters were somewhat interesting, but none of the character motivations or development went anywhere. You start to get to know someone and then that is all, moving on to the next scene.
-The music was very forgettable. Because I don't remember it. Soooo .
-I have to talk about the effects now. The special effect in the movie are weak. The editing is good though. There were a few times that they made the bear look like it was there. Being a pretty gruesome movie, there were a lot of practical effects in it. This is where the director of Saw II shines, because the film was really over-the-top bloody and gory without cause. In fact most of it did not even make sense.
Another thing, if you are going to have a finale, make it good. Don't have characters you want to win get thrown around by a bear only to have them totally fine without a scratch. Add some tension. I was so tense at one point, then I realized that the leads are immune to bears. Take some decent production design and some not-to-bad editing and ruin it with an over-the-top ending that didn't need to be, and you have a very anti-climactic film with no actual danger.
-One more thing: A film like this does NOT need a plot-twist. No spoilers, just sayin'.
-Grizzly combines some good production design, editing, and acting with a poorly-made animal slasher film. It could have been a good film, and it was slightly entertaining, but ultimately, the direction of the film drove it into the ground too deep for a cast that could care less to redeem. Grizzly just isn't worth the time.
-Grizzly holds a strong R-rating for violence really. It also has some language in the film, as well as a short scene of nudity that didn't fit anything else in the film. Thanks director of Saw II, III, and IV.
-This film missed a lot of opportunities to be meaningful and well done, plus with a cast like this, there is really no good excuse. Maybe if it was made by someone NOT known for horror movie sequels .
-The story is not too original to be honest. Reuniting and forgiving through desperate circumstances so they can work together? Plus the bear is apparently killing people and other bears because it is mad about deforestation. In Alaska. IN ALASKA. His next film will include a group of killer polar bears out against a local research base. In the middle of the Arctic .
-The pace was good, and it did keep me from being bored or too disinterested. It really it not all bad of a film. Kinda.
-The acting is passable. James Marsden (Cyclops) did not have to try too hard, and he did fine. Thomas Jane (Punisher) did not try at all and it kinda shows. Piper Perabo (Covert Affairs) did a very good job. Billy Bob Thornton did fine. And Scott Glenn played himself yet again.
-The characters were somewhat interesting, but none of the character motivations or development went anywhere. You start to get to know someone and then that is all, moving on to the next scene.
-The music was very forgettable. Because I don't remember it. Soooo .
-I have to talk about the effects now. The special effect in the movie are weak. The editing is good though. There were a few times that they made the bear look like it was there. Being a pretty gruesome movie, there were a lot of practical effects in it. This is where the director of Saw II shines, because the film was really over-the-top bloody and gory without cause. In fact most of it did not even make sense.
Another thing, if you are going to have a finale, make it good. Don't have characters you want to win get thrown around by a bear only to have them totally fine without a scratch. Add some tension. I was so tense at one point, then I realized that the leads are immune to bears. Take some decent production design and some not-to-bad editing and ruin it with an over-the-top ending that didn't need to be, and you have a very anti-climactic film with no actual danger.
-One more thing: A film like this does NOT need a plot-twist. No spoilers, just sayin'.
-Grizzly combines some good production design, editing, and acting with a poorly-made animal slasher film. It could have been a good film, and it was slightly entertaining, but ultimately, the direction of the film drove it into the ground too deep for a cast that could care less to redeem. Grizzly just isn't worth the time.
-Grizzly holds a strong R-rating for violence really. It also has some language in the film, as well as a short scene of nudity that didn't fit anything else in the film. Thanks director of Saw II, III, and IV.