I desperately try to not watch one single David DeCoteau movie every year, yet for some reason I always seem to end up watching one of them every single year. This has been going on for some years now. I have no explanation for this phenomenon.<br /><br />So what about GRIZZLY RAGE? Well, the bear was good, wasn't he? The bear was a beautiful specimen. The bear was nice. Watch him roar. Watch him run. Watch him do not much else, really. I have no idea where DeCoteau got the bear footage from, as it was obviously shot on another day, somewhere else and with none of the actors & crew around. That's called stock footage. And if not, then it's lousy film-making.<br /><br />Once again, DeCoteau manages to poop out a movie that has absolutely nothing to offer. He gives us nothing but endlessly padded scenes with no content. Not a single remotely interesting thing is going on in this movie. Three guys and one girl in some woods with a bear out for revenge after them. Seriously, the bear wants revenge. Get even. Up close and personal. Why? Because the youngsters killed Mommy Bear's Baby Bear in a hit-and-run accident. And since Mommy Bear is a law-abiding specimen, she wants justice. So, in a way, this film is like DEATHWISH set in some forest and with a bear replacing Charles Bronson.<br /><br />It might also be a spin on THE TOXIC AVENGER, as the bear apparently had been drinking water polluted by toxic waste. However, that part of the plot was completely lost on me, until I read about it in another user-comment on here. It made me remember there were indeed a few barrels of toxic waste in some shots. I think this film made me very stupid all of the sudden, because I completely failed to link those toxic waste barrels to the bear. And it didn't help things that the bear just looks plain normal. It's a big one. And a beautiful one. Yes. But normal and furry. No Mutant Bear Avenger. I want to re-watch PROPHECY now.<br /><br />What about the killings? Well, we sometimes see a fake bear's claw hitting nothing but thin air really. And then an actor flies through the air. Then cut back to the bear going "rooaaarrr" and some CGI blood splatters on the camera-lens, and... that's it, basically. This stunt gets repeated a couple of times. Oh yes, something else: I wanted to see a crappy CGI bear and I didn't get any. Color me disappointed.<br /><br />Another funny thing. Why on earth did that one actor have to run around through the woods at night in his underwear? Was it because he felt like Tarzan? Or did he feel like going back to nature to go barbaric on the bear's ass? No, of course not. He was starring in a David DeCoteau movie, and that requires any hot-looking male actor to take his cloths off at some point. He ran around in his underwear, climbed up a tree and just sat there for a while. Really a profound sequence that was.<br /><br />What? There's no boobs in this movie? Now I'm getting mad.<br /><br />Forgive me if I'm not even going into the movie's plot or other details. Other people have given it their best shot already on here. But I'd like to share one more thought about this film that involves a truly puzzling aspect. Have you ever noticed in certain movies (especially cheap B-horror movies) whenever there's supposed to be a storm going on outside, those light-guys are just a tad bit too eager to push the buttons on their strobe lighting effects? A 5-minutes-long scene might have for instance like 20 lightning flashes in it. While in real life, you're even lucky if you catch about two lightning flashes during a whole rainy night. Now DeCoteau really goes way beyond this. Not just a few steps too far, but so ridiculously beyond this, that he's just gone. The last 30 minutes or so of GRIZZLY RAGE take place at night, during a storm (they actually didn't have the budget to produce rain effects either, but whatever). Now, about every 3-5 seconds, those lightning strobe-effects come on. For about 30 minutes straight, relentless and persistent. You'll be flashed out of your mind, I tell you. Seriously, I'm pretty sure DeCoteau was not at all simulating a nightly storm. I'm convinced he wanted to show audiences he had a stroboscope on the set by simply making it part of the scenery. Part of the story even. Like, "Hey look, there's pulsating lights in the woods. They just grow there. Ain't that cool?".<br /><br />Some movies just eat the cake, and GRIZZLY RAGE is one of them. Now, I could swear I will never watch a David DeCoteau movie again in my entire life. But chances are if someone would throw DEMON SPEED or LEECHES! at me, I'd just pop it in and watch it anyway. But not this year, I guarantee you. Next year, maybe.