Unnatural

Every winter I gather together some christmas/winter/snow themed horror flicks to watch. "Unnatural" had been on my radar for the 3rd winter already, so I finally watched it. Now I don't understand how could I think that there was something good behind the bad ratings & unpopularity. I'd like to note that I do enjoy a good b-horror flick, practical fx creatures features & all that stuff, but "Unnatural" falls below many b-horror movie standarts.

"Unnatural" a.k.a. "Maneater" is an utterly bad and cringy piece of horror. I'm guessing they spent all the money on James Remar, because this was cheap as hell. James did not save anything trying to act out an underdeveloped, badly written main character. Firstly, the story can be told in one sentence, it generates literally no interest in the viewer and has a very high predictability factor. Secondly, do not expect great gore, action or dope looking killer bear - "Unnatural" is seriously lacking all of those things. You're gonna get a shady looking bear that you can see maybe 3 minutes in total & a few dark, shaky & blurry action sequences. There's also the awesome snowy setting of which's potential the filmmakers used about 5%. Even the things that cost nothing were not used efficiently. The characters were probably the worst. Annoying, unrealistic, cringe-worthy writing.

"Maneater" is 80 minutes of pure boredom that can maybe be saved by a few beers & a friend or two. I'm giving it a well deserved 2/10 & that's only because of James Remar and his bear killing tactics.

This one has some scientists making hybrid creatures by messing around with DNA and some gene splicing. They create a polar bear from hell that ends up escaping the facility. Being in Alaska you would think they were all alone, but not far from there a swimsuit shoot is taking place in the snow. All the crew involved slowly become eats for the bear.

This wasn't good at all. They didn't know how to create tension or even how to keep us engaged. No CGI was used but the bear looks fake when you do see it. I was surprised to see Graham Greene in a creature feature but he was only in it for a few minutes. Even less screen time was Ray Wise. Sherilyn Fenn dominates the screen time and she looks puffier these days.

The only thing unnatural is the way they put this film together. Avoid this one.

While "Unnatural" was every bit as generic and stereotypical as these types of movies go, then it should be said that writers Arch Stanton and Ron Carlson actually managed to put together an entertaining man-eater feature.

The creature itself had some interesting aspects to it, but it was painstakingly clear that they had not blown their entire budget on the creature effects.

The storyline was straight to the point, albeit very predictable. And that fact was working against the overall enjoyment of the movie, of course.

They had some interesting enough names on the cast list to spice up the movie, such as James Remar and Sherilynn Fenn.

"Unnatural" is not the most innovative of movies, but still worth a watch if you got some time to kill - pardon the pun.

Unnatural has the feel of a 90's horror. There's a straightforward simplicity and almost an innocence about this film that sets it apart from the standard 21st century fare.

Lets start by stating the obvious. This is a "B" movie and I'll review it on that basis. Its in no way exceptional but in one sense its refreshing. Its not gratuitously violent and it has a simple premise thats not really all that new but it is moderately entertaining.

The cast do a reasonable if not exceptional job and for myself I rather enjoyed this film. I also liked its message about the responsibility of corporations and science to be good governors to the planet and not destroyers.

All in all, a nice little horror flick. Don't come to it with exaggerated expectations, its not a horror master class but it is certainly watchable. Six out of ten from me.

Will admit having low expectations before seeing 'Unnatural', with a concept that sounded mildly intriguing but also incredibly silly and like so many other low-budget creature films seen. That there were actors who have been good in other things involved sparked some interest.

There are certainly far worse films, in terms of creature films and overall, than 'Unnatural' and there were a few redeeming merits that saved it from being unwatchable that were sadly outweighed by the numerous things done wrong and to such a big extent. 'Unnatural' is still not a good film though and was more or less what was expected before watching. Unnatural, as much as it saddens me to say it, sums it up very well.

James Remar and Sherilyn Fenn do well in their roles, and although they are not in the film anywhere long enough Grahame Greene and especially Ray Wise do more than reasonably with what they had. Generally the acting and their chemistry made 'Unnatural' a better film than the disaster that it could easily have been.

The scenery is also lovely and atmospheric and for low budget there has been far more amateurish photography than here.

However, the bear looks absolutely terrible, very cheap-looking and goofy. It does affect is impact on screen, which it doesn't leave much, there is not much menace here or even unintentional humour, just there for the sake of it bland. The dialogue is utter gibberish and truly juvenile and unnatural.

Nothing thrilling, tense, suspenseful, emotionally investable or fun about the story. The predictability may have been forgivable if the film was actually engaging let alone exciting but it fails to be either throughout, and instead ruined by draggy and sometimes unnecessary padding, ridiculousness and ideas that didn't belong and just muddled the film's tone and intent.

Didn't find myself rooting for or liking any of the characters that much, despite the actors' best efforts. The direction is pretty leaden.

Overall, not irredeemable but not good. 3/10 Bethany Cox