This will be a very simple and easy review. This is a "why did you make this" moment. Terribly acted, horrible script, editing was horrendous, honorable mention to the BEAR. A dumb as nails plot 2 couples taking a road trip become stranded in a minivan when a Grizzly shows up. One man shoots, empties his clip into bear killing it. The bear's mate right behind it seeks vengeance. Why? Bears are smart and predatory creatures. These supposed intelligent humans seek refuge YEP in the van. COME on, Stupid. 1 out of 10

There are movies that are so bad that they are hilarious to watch. And then there's movies like Bear. They are simply bad, without any hilarity. To quote Roger Ebert here, I think the crew tried to make a wonderful movie, but they failed in doing so. Why did they fail? Because there's not much that fits together. 4 people in a car, two brothers and their girlfriends. From the very first scene we see those 4 they try everything to come across as the most unlikeable characters in the world. They are constantly picking at each other and are acting in the most stupid way possible. It's not even that the actors are particularly bad (they are not good either, they are just average actors), but it's the script that makes this movie almost unwatchable.But let's start at the very beginning. As already stated, there are 2 brothers and their respective girlfriends/wives in a car. They are traveling to the brother's father's birthday dinner, which for some reason is held in the most remote countryside ever ("Cell phone doesn't work" trope, YAY). Of course they decide "to take a shortcut" and of course they have an accident. One of the tires goes flat, so they have to stop. The changing does take some time (starts at bright daylight and ends during the night... however, during the night there seems to be a pretty awesome light source, since we can see everything just fine) and during their forced stop, they are attacked by a bear. Luckily one of the brothers carries a gun, and he fires every bullet he has to kill off the bear. OK, up until this point it could've been an okay movie, but it already starts to go downhill from here. A second bear appears and he mourns the loss of his partner(?) and even has a flashback(!) of how bear #1 was shot. He then goes on to attack the group. They hide inside the car and even get it going (trope of "my car hates me" avoided!), but somehow end up running it into the next tree. The car is flipped over by the bear. After some minutes the bear leaves again. So, what does the script now holds in place for the unfortunate 4? Of course, they are whining over the birthday cake that got all messed up during the attack. I mean, who wouldn't think of the cake (which apparently isn't a lie) in a situation like this? Anyway, they manage to flip the car into a normal position again, but it won't start this time. After some more boring dialogue the bear appears again and somehow (at this point I wasn't paying too much attention anymore) one of the 4 is caught outside and gets killed. Nick (boyfriend of the girl that got killed) is sad at first, but his sadness somehow vanishes after some time. The other two don't care too much about the death either. And now the movie just starts to repeat itself. Nick tells some stories about some native American legends and how the bear takes revenge, the others keep arguing, bear attacks, leaves, Nick tells some stories, they are arguing... it goes on for some time. This is where I think the script writers just weren't sure in what direction the movie should go. Either follow the plot line of Nick's stories about that legend and create some "supernatural bear" movie or leave it out. Cut down on the arguing and let the characters actually DO something productive. After some time Sam (brother of Nick) decides to just run to the steakhouse where the party should've taken place. Why he didn't do so after the first attack isn't really clear. I mean, the car is broken down, the cell phones have no signal and the road is deserted (apart for one car that passes by but obviously doesn't see the flipped over car right in his headlights... oh well). So... what was their plan? Just sitting there and hope the bear would starve to death? But Sams plan doesn't work out. He is dragged back by the bear, but somehow manages to appear on screen without a single scratch on his face. After that the story repeats itself a few times again until both brothers are dead and only the pregnant Liz survives. Hooray!As I've said at the beginning of this review: The script doesn't make much sense. It's as if the script writers didn't knew what to do with the idea of a "killer bear", so they tried to fill it up with unnecessary dialogue that no one cares about anyway. I mean what's the point of all the arguing if at the end, all characters are dead anyway. They sure as hell haven't learned anything from this experience... because they die. Liz hasn't learned anything from this experience, because her husband and the father of her unborn child (yes, Nick had an affair with Liz and got her pregnant). How is she supposed to get on with her life now?So, apart from the average actors, does this movie has something else that isn't completely bad? Yes! The bear is REAL (for most of the time). There's an extra on the BluRay that shows how the bear was trained, which is quite interesting. Oh, and they let the bear tear apart a real car it seems.I rate this 1 out of 10. The script doesn't make sense and the characters are awful (not so much the actors, mind you). You just don't care for them. You just wish the bear would get them sooner, so the movie would end more quickly.

"Bear" (2010) is a low-budget nature-runs-amok flick in the manner of "Prey" and "Black Water." Like those films, the plot is simple and the location confined. The plot consists of four people, a mini-van and an attacking bear, that's it. The location is the mini-van and the surrounding desert-like forest, that's it. A third shortcoming is that -- except for the first eight minutes -- the entire film takes place at night! (Thankfully, you can clearly see what's going on throughout).On the positive side, the story does stress characterization. In fact, the film gets increasingly more soap operatic as it moves along. On top of this is a very dramatic score along the lines of, say, "The Passion of the Christ" and all the actors give it their best shot.The film was shot in Angeles National Forest near Acton, CA, about an hour drive from Topanga State Park near Malibu, where "Sasquatch Hunters" was filmed. As such, there are some similarities: Both films involve a group of people being attacked by a large forest creature (or creatures), both take place in the same general vicinity, both have long stretches of night sequences, and both feature very dramatic scores. Regardless, "Sasquatch Hunters" is the better film, by far, because the plot and locations aren't one-dimensional. Another similar film is "Night Skies" since it also has a thin plot and the same general location (Santa Clarita), but like "Sasquatch Hunters" "Night Skies" is the better film, simply because it's not as limited in scope (take, for instance, the excellent ending to "Night Skies").At 82 minutes this is a short film, but like "Prey" and "Black Water" it's sometimes hard to sit through just because it's so one-dimensional. Fortunately, the character dramatics, the score and the REAL bear tend to hold your attention, but just barely.Despite its shortcomings, you have to respect director John Rebel because in many ways this is a respectable film made on a very small budget with a real bear and worthy actors. He did the best he could with what he had and it's a well-made movie, albeit one-dimensional and micro-budgeted.Some might understandably complain that some parts of the story are highly unrealistic. For instance, one of the members of the party leaves the rest at the mini-van to get help. He hikes for at least a couple of miles where he encounters civilization, and also the bear, which drags him all the way back to the mini-van! How did the bear drag him back to the vehicle? Did he have his leg in his maw or what? How come the guy showed no signs of serious injury from being dragged in such a manner for a couple of miles through hilly, forested terrain?Because of this, I don't think the film's really about the bear attack; it's only this on the surface. So what's it really about? This is a story about the serious conflict of two brothers and their babes. One appears to be successful and happily married while the other is a struggling rock musician hoping to make it big. Appearances aren't always reality and many truths emerge during the engagement with the bear. Will these awful truths further separate them or ultimately bring them together? Will they even survive? FINAL WORD: The thin plot and confined-location of "Bear" are a huge detriment, but it has some positive qualities that make it worthwhile, like the emphasis on characterization and the dramatic score. If you have a taste for films like "Prey," Black Water" and "Open Water" then you'll probably appreciate it, although it's the least of these.GRADE: C-

This movie is retarded. There was no convincing feasible reason for the 4 people in the van to get attacked by the bears. I started to fast forward through the movie after watching it for 15 minutes and then eventually just stopped watching and never finished it as that's how stupid this movie is. I felt like I was watching a really bad effort by someone in a high school film class whose dads friend happened to have a trained bear. I hope that no one actually invested in this movie and that the budget for this piece of garbage was not paid by someone hoping to make money. Though at the same time I hope no one convinced another human to "believe" in their "art".I suppose they maybe made a few thousand off this garbage, I feel bad for anyone who actually paid for this. The DVD-R my friend burnt it to which cost 50 cents and his time downloading it was more than any human should have to spend on this garbage.