Unnatural

"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.

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.

It's an hour before you see this dangerous mutated "polar bear" whose deleted half of the team, and by the time you do, you're already semi invested in some of the characters.

So when a dude in a football mascot outfit appears, you kinda feel like you have to finish the rest. Even though it would have been turned off if the creature was revealed in the first 10 minutes or so.

Really bad CGI "beast" A Bearly (🤣) watchable movie.

Nice location shots. Just so "mehhhh" on the creature.

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.