Recensioni degli utenti

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

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.

I saw this boring B-movie under the title MANEATER and whichever title you give it, it's a real dog of a film. And that's coming from a reviewer who can gain mild enjoyment from the usual kind of monster nonsense churned out by the likes of both the SyFy Channel and Asylum, so I feel like I've got some experience with the genre.

The story is about a group of researchers in Alaska who uncover a nefarious government conspiracy style plot involving genetic testing on polar bears, of all things. What this boils down to, somewhat inevitably, is seeing a bunch of has-been actors being chased by a polar bear. Said actors include the likes of James Remar, Sherilyn Fenn, Graham Greene, and Ray Wise, all of whom look very tired and bored by the production. It's probably only the thought of their slim pay-cheque getting them through this.

By B-movie standards, MANEATER is a dull film. There's little in the way of genuine tension or horror and the action scenes are very badly staged. The special effects are really poor as well so it's little surprise that the actors are menaced by the unseen for the most part. This is a truly terrible film though and even with a decent monster it would have been poor.

I felt embarrassed for the actors that have great reputations but still appear in absolutely horrendous movies like this. The acting, even by the few seasoned pros in the film, was awful. Stilted. Jarring even. The women used as boner-bait and the photographer (the actual producer of this stinker) were so bad that it gives the impression the movie was made just so the producer could take a vacation and take advantage of young actresses. They spent no time writing a story here. They seem to have a fifth grade understanding of what it's like to work in science, how those offices and labs function. That's at least understandable: some new writer having never been exposed to such things. But then they write a fashion photo shoot in the same infantile manner. Did this writer never see a photo shoot in their lives? You think it's two bikini clad women in sub freezing temps, a photog with no lighting, one small crappy reflector (they also refer to a light meter once, pretending it would be kept in the photographer's clothing suitcase inside the winter hat he's already been wearing), and an assistant that is abused by the photog. It seems like this area should be more well written. Photography is not far from videography. Were the crew laughing their bums off during that scene? The cartoonish villainy of the photographer/producer was also just stupid. There was nothing redeeming about this movie at all. Did they need a bad movie as some sort of write-off? Was there a mob debt involved? Get Shorty Season 2 brings us the making of Unnatural?

I want to know the story behind this movie. Someone had to have been extorted.

ETA: I just did a little more research on the writer "Arch Stanton". It's not a real person. It was a purportedly deceased character at the end of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. And the funny thing about that character name is that the character name was also a fake name. Another character, Blondie, made the name up to put on a grave marker. Does this mean the producer/writer/lead actor knew this was a really poor script so he put a fake name on it?

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.

Set in Alaska, this is a film about a killer polar bear that has been genetically modified, making it larger, smarter and hungrier than his counterparts. The film has some beautiful shots of Alaska, and made me want to visit, providing that I wouldn't encounter any Polar bears like the one in the movie of course. I really enjoyed this. A good mix of comedy and horror and beautifully shot. Of course it was also great to see Ray Wise and Sherilyn Fenn sharing some screen time together too, and the addition of an animatronic bear sold me. Always great to see obnoxious types get their comeuppance, particularly misogynistic photographer types. Solid.

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.

"Unnatural" could have been a better movie if there was more of what people watch horror movies for. Morbid as it may be, horror movies focus on gore and blood and disfigurement, but "Unnatural" fails to provide much of that. Aside from a cast of mostly unlikable characters, except for the role played by James Remar, one doesn't really care much when each one gets eaten up along the way. The trouble is most of the gore occurs in the dark and basically all you see is the blood. The villains in this movie are generally not the focus, and it is unclear exactly what the company at hand was trying to do when it seems their mission was to preserve species. I was surprised who survived these attacks but all in all, a disappointing movie.

Saw this on a rented dvd. The poster was very convincing n so was the Alaska set up but the movie wasnt good. Period. The creature was pathetic but i will still forgive that coz of the budget. The poster had a menacing bear though. A low budget creature film without any good kills, nudity n tension zero. Two female models r doing a bikini photo shoot in the snowy Alaska n we dont even get to see good tits. There is a lousy sex scene that too without any nudity. Most of the kills r offscreen n the grizzly violence is pathetic. In fact some of the old bear movies has better kills. Grizzly made in the 70s, n among the new ones, Backcountry n Grizzly park were decent too. I hav yet to see Into the grizzly maze. Since imdb has allowed shorter reviews, so from now on i will make a shorter review for bad horror films. Yeehaw!

Do not waste your time. Awful dialog. Awful ( and stupid) storyline. Awful waste of my ( and your) time. Awful bear suit. The plot is reasonable, but they must have hired a fifth grader to write the script. Example: " I need blankets and hot water bottles". Really? This is 2015, no one has hot water bottles. No one even makes them anymore! This really could have been a suspenseful and dramatic movie. Instead, the unrealistic sequences and simplistic dialog were distracting from good photography, good acting, good direction, with good sets, wardrobe and lighting. It looks Ike much. Of the outdoor scenes were shot on location. The location was perfect. The indoor scenes were well set. Advice to exec producers: Next time spend a little more on the writing.

I'd give this flick a Zero if not for some good outdoor shots. I Loved Sherilyn Fenn in "Boxing Helena" her beauty & talent made that role phenomenal. But her character was one of the worst (and there were a lot of choices) in this disaster.That pic below needs to add 50lbs & 10yrs to it because she looked horrible, so bad I had to pull up the Cast again to be sure it was Her. More importantly, as one of the better known actors in this, Her "acting" was terrible. Don't waste Your time unless you're looking for a comedy & want to feel good about You're age or weight! I cannot believe it was in one of the "8 Films to Die For" franchises.There's usually a couple that are just not worth watching, This must fall into that spot out of those 8, It was "Unwatchable" All the Way Around!

The movie has a nice look and great locations and moody opening title music. The set up of a photographer going on a shoot with a Bear attack getting in the way is obviously lifted from THE EDGE. A cast of familiar, if aging, faces and a supporting cast of capable performers also includes a "real" bear suit rather than computer created bear. So what's not to like about this movie?

Well everything else.

For one thing the movie is short on content, and full of padding, making it a dull affair for the most part. The bear is mostly off camera and so there are a lot of sitting around the cabin and talking scenes--most of them pretty routine. This still can't get the movie legitimately to feature length, even the end credit music runs out with about 2 minutes of special thanks and company logos filling the dead air at the end of the movie to make it a feature.

The movie proceeds like this. You get ten minutes of talk or more and then one very brief not convincing attack scene and or a very long "suspense" scene with no pay off--repeat this enough times until you run out of money to spend and the movie is finished.

Neither the photo shoots nor the Alaska wilderness "facts" are convincing either.

The "real" bear suit isn't that good, and doesn't look very large. So the resulting bear attack scenes are murky an not frightening or bloody. One attack with the bear attacking from underwater like some shark is silly. The rest are very darkly lit and the bear suit looks rather shaggy and inert. James Remar has a lead role as a good guy and does well at it. Ray Wise fans can stay home, he only appears in commercials for the genetic research company at the beginning and end of the film.

Several scenes awkwardly have characters put themselves in danger. A native bear expert rushing a the bear with a hand gun is especially stupid for anyone who really knows about guns or bears. A lot of time is spent with the unpleasant photographer character--played by the producer of the movie--imagine that?!? The fact that the movie tries to be about something with its pseudo-message ending doesn't help either.

Some nice Alaskan sunsets sadly don't a bear attack movie make. Credit and debit where it's due.

First of all this film has a decent cast including James Remar and Graeme Greene, so I expected it to be decent, well I was pleasantly surprised, it was pretty good. Yes it was silly with some bad acting, especially from the annoying photographer guy but it was very entertaining and it actually had some pretty decent tension

Well enjoyed it anyway.

Unnatural,or Maneater which is the title I saw it under, is a fun nature-runs-amok horror movie.

Some of the reviews here made this movie out to be a statement on the ecological effects of global warming. I completely disagree. Although the subject gets its mention, its pretty much isolated to the final reels of the film; the audience is not beaten over the head with it. Like cooking with bourbon, the alcohol is in there, but not anywhere near enough to get you drunk. This is not an ecological thriller. Its a killer bear movie.

Although this film is not as effective as The Edge (probably the best movie dealing with a rampaging bear) or as the gore-soaked guilty pleasure Grizzly, its the better of the killer bear movies as of late.

Thanks to the a great cast of character actors who play this story straight, truly gorgeous photography & a high body count, Unnatural is entertaining movie junk food. No heavy thinking required here. Just some horror movie-loving buddies who brought beer & wings.

This was a thoroughly disappointing, drawn out movie, with a very poor script that made it arduous to watch.

It had the potential to be so much better but just kept falling flat at every available 'twist and turn' and apart from a few good scenes and some remotely okay acting it just appeared to become a bit cliché and lacklustre.

Shame as it had the potential to be so much more.

The most direct and accurate way to describe this movie is "okay". The plot isn't really anything new but is reliable. The aberrant animal looks good and is made from practical effects rather than CGI, and though you get some pretty decent looks at it you never get to see it in a way that emphasizes what a terrifying creature all that gene splicing produced which is a shame, because while the design seems pretty realistic in its depiction of what animals its DNA is composed of, it's not glaringly unnatural enough for the movie to rely on showing only about half of it at a time. There really ought to have been a full display of its size to fully sell it. Aside from this and some disappointing decisions regarding who dies and how, if you're a fan of creature features you'll probably like this one even though it's nothing to write home about.

I can't forgive the bear for looking like that. It's comically bad, and really, that's the deal breaker. The acting is OK and the film is shot well, but the "bear" is so bad it's distracting. You don't see the bear for quite a while and usually that's the bad part of a horror movie, but not this time.

Everything else about this movie works well enough, you could have had a good time. The cinematography is solid, the scenery is good, the action moves along at a decent pace. There is no plot to speak of, but we don't really need one for a creature feature.

It's that awful bear, it ate all those people and it will eat ninety minutes of your life.