Brandon Lee Movie:

		List Price: $9.98		Label: First Look Pictures Salesrank: 56454 Released: May 16, 2006
		Our Price: $4.00
		Used Price: $0.33
		MPAA Rating: R (Restricted) Media: DVD

Clawed - The Legend of Sasquatch Reviews:
Why this movie is FIVE STARS!!!!!
2008-09-26 - The best number of stars this movie was given so far was three stars I believe. One reviewer gave it three stars, while 4 gave it two stars, 8 gave it one star.

Wrong! Yes it is cheesy as cheez whiz (if that's really cheese) and yes it is campy (it is filmed in the woods of Echo Mountain by the way) but cheesiness and campiness go a long way in this movie.

Don't get your expectations too high, your enjoyment of this movie is to expect the worst. It may deserve a razzie in one person's opinion, but that's because ***** to great to write out. Movie form at its best. **** just doesn't describe it. *** sounds okay. ** puts it mildly. * says what?

This is perfect for your children's first rated R movie. The one nude scene is just enough to deter your children away from R rated movies forever, yet the BIGFOOT/Sasquatch saves the day once again in folklore history.

The only thing missing in this movie is me, in the starring role. Just think, with my acting skills, one college theater credit, and Alaskan-born background; I would have made this movie at least one hundred, no fifty, no, at least 10 dollars more. Heck, when I do buy this movie, it will make at least 10 dollars more with shipping costs.

Sorry, I know running a bit long but let's just say the writing is great, I'm not the writer but I know the writer and his latest movie Skid Marks (2007) should hopefully be out on DVD within the next year, if that movie is anything like the script or this movie, its at least watching once (or twice if you want to see no-name actors without me in it attempting to earn your hard-earned money).

Horrible!
2007-11-02 - I liked many bigfoot films that have received less than stellar reviews, but this one insults the entire genre. There is NOTHING good about this film what so ever.They dare title this the legend of sasquatch? What a complete & utter joke. I would love to know where the budget went for this because it sure did not go on the creature or the actors? Don't waste you're money, its not even worth watching on tv let alone renting. I was forced to give one star to post, but its not even worth 1/16 of a star. Totally pointless.

Another piece of junk
2007-02-28 - I can't quite recall certain things to bring up about this movie because it's just that memorable. The only thing I do remember is how bad it was. Bad acting, bad filming, bad story. Do yourself a favor and pass on this one.

More De-Clawed than "Clawed"
2006-10-17 - Okay, let's just get it out in the open; this movie is just your basic 70s/80s tv movie-of-the-week retro-horror flick , a contemporary version of the kind of thing that the broadcast networks would give you weekly in the days before cable, CGI, and Dick Smith gruesome make-up correspondence courses. Like those tv movies of yesteryear ("Snow Beast" springs immediately to mind), this one is judicious in its bloodletting,
formulaic in its plotting, and run-of-the-mill in its cinematic execution.
It does feature some acceptable acting performances and some positively gorgeous scenery...and where else would you get to see Miles O'Keefe doing a homicidal Kris Kristofferson imitation.

In order to pump up its appeal to the hormonal male sales/rental market, some interestingly nubile nymphets are on hand (with arresting thoractic protrusions), and one of these lends her...protrusions...to a brief bit of semi-nudity....all in the spirit of good teenage fun. This spot UPDATES "Clawed" from classic retro-tv fare, as does the amount of blood and gore you DO get to see in this film (as opposed to, say, the aforementioned "Snow Beast").

There has been some mention of plot-holes in some reviews here (such as why does the monster attack the hunters, but merely seem content to chase the teenagers off?). There does seem to be a reason, but you have to dig for it, as it isn't clearly brought forward by the director in his storytelling. The hunters (poachers) at the beginning of the film have been out shooting the woods up (drunk). The killing seems to begin after
the chief butthead hunter finds a place where trees are broken down and arranged as though to cover over something. The psuedo-Kristofferson moves some foliage away and peers into this camouflage work only to see a very humanlike, hair-covered hand lying deathly still within this pile of pine and cedar branches. He is attacked while snooping there and knocked unconscious.

Later on the teenagers find this same pile of branches and spot the hand itside it. The message the filmmaker seems to want to impart is that there was evidently more than one of these creatures out here and that the drunks shot and killed one of them. The mate covered up the body of the fallen Squatch and then went on a murderous rampage of revenge. It struck down "Kristofferson" at first and may have THOUGHT (wrongly) that it had killed him. He returns later, though, looking for it (and the Indian forest ranger), and the creature...either by sight, or scent, or both, recognizes its tormentor and goes after him...AND the flunkies he has brought along with him.

By the same token, either by sight..scent...or both...the Squatch does NOT recognize these kids as enemies and , consequently, does NOT attack them. It watches them..."monitors" their doings... but nothing more. In the end the creature leaves without attacking the remaining humans at all, after it sees "Rich" shoot and kill its primary tormentor.

So you see, there actually IS a story line here...it is just vaguely and ambiguously represented. You have to DIG for it...and you just CANNOT get CAUGHT UP in a story you have to DIG for!

As for the very end of this movie ( AFTER the biology teacher gets the shaft), I found the last image quite tantalizingly ambiguous. Many old Native American legends describe "the Big Man" as a Spirit Being; not a permanent inhabitant of our woods and mountains, but a kind of interdimensional "slider" that comes and goes in our reality. The last scene of this movie shows the "Squatch" as standing in the woods as though meditating, then turning to walk away. And then it vanishes into thin air...something that has been described in the book "Bigfoot", by B. Anne Slate and Alan Berry, and "The Locals", by Thom Powell. Is this what the director is implying here? That Sasquatch "comes & goes" in our world, but isn't a permanent fixture? Interesting if he is, but how does one know for sure WHAT all these directorial subtleties imply? I sure don't.

If you like grue and gore and fast-breaking , relentless horror, then skip this one. If "hurling horror" isn't your cup of tea, though, and you want something a bit less intense...while still kinda scary-spooky...then "Clawed" might work well enough for you ( though the BEST
boogery bigfoot movie out there in the DVD marketplace right now is, unquestionably, "Abominable").

sooooooooooo stupid
2006-10-01 - bad acting, bad plot - oh wait, there wasn't a plot! it's almost like it was made as a joke. we watched it because we were so bored but ended up being just as bored while we watched it!