IMDb RATING
4.2/10
1.2K
YOUR RATING
A tiger is loose on a small town and only a young boy, a sheriff and the hunter to destroy the beast.A tiger is loose on a small town and only a young boy, a sheriff and the hunter to destroy the beast.A tiger is loose on a small town and only a young boy, a sheriff and the hunter to destroy the beast.
Ian D. Clark
- Colonel James Graham
- (as Ian D Clark)
Stephen Eric McIntyre
- Pat
- (as Stephen McIntyre)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Well, technically and grammatically speaking, a more accurate review title would be: "Gary Busy vs. A tiger IN THE woods", but I think we can all agree that wouldn't be as eye-catching, right? "Maneater" was released - in my country, at least - in a DVD series together with a bunch of other creature-features. This one is about a tiger, but there's an entire zoo appearing in the complete collection, including an octopus, bees, spiders, a crocodile, a bear, snakes, and monkeys. None of them are truly great, obviously, but I have yet to encounter a title in the series that didn't entertain me.
Same goes for "Maneater", in fact, as it provided me with an hour and a half of undemanding and straightforward fun; - nothing more but also nothing less. The plot is as standard as can be. Gary Busy is the sheriff of a quiet little town where normally nothing ever happens, except for now, since there's a big hungry Bengal tiger on the loose in the nearby woods. The animal escaped from its cage after a transporting accident, and four half-eaten bodies and a whole lot of "That's impossible" dialogues later, the town is overrun by media clowns, overly confident hunters, and military men. Ah yes, in good old "Jaws" tradition, there's also the annual town parade taking place!
Busey carries the film without any effort, the tiger looks realistic enough (although it appears to be sometimes massive and sometimes normal-sized), and there aren't too many dull moments. The sub plot suggesting a spiritual connection between the tiger and a strict Catholic raised boy was totally unnecessary, though. The attack-sequences are rather weak, and so is the ending. Don't expect an extended or spectacularly heroic "man vs animal" end-battle, is all I'm saying.
Same goes for "Maneater", in fact, as it provided me with an hour and a half of undemanding and straightforward fun; - nothing more but also nothing less. The plot is as standard as can be. Gary Busy is the sheriff of a quiet little town where normally nothing ever happens, except for now, since there's a big hungry Bengal tiger on the loose in the nearby woods. The animal escaped from its cage after a transporting accident, and four half-eaten bodies and a whole lot of "That's impossible" dialogues later, the town is overrun by media clowns, overly confident hunters, and military men. Ah yes, in good old "Jaws" tradition, there's also the annual town parade taking place!
Busey carries the film without any effort, the tiger looks realistic enough (although it appears to be sometimes massive and sometimes normal-sized), and there aren't too many dull moments. The sub plot suggesting a spiritual connection between the tiger and a strict Catholic raised boy was totally unnecessary, though. The attack-sequences are rather weak, and so is the ending. Don't expect an extended or spectacularly heroic "man vs animal" end-battle, is all I'm saying.
This is one the descent Sci Fi original i have see.
The plot: The hunter becomes the hunted when the forested shadows of the Appalachian Trail are stalked by a wild animal out of its element, hungry and born to ravage. After Sheriff Grady finds a dismembered body in the area, he quickly discovers a print near the scene that identifies the predator as a Bengal tiger. Six hundred pounds, twelve feet from nose to tail, it's one of the most powerful cats on Earth. Now it's loose -- and there's no man on the Appalachian Trail with the skill, or the courage, to take it down.
As i am huge fan of Killer Animals movies, There is no surprise that i liked this movie. What i liked about this movies was fact that it had boy who had Connection with Killer Tiger , Was such Great Idea and other Great idea was the boy Also had a religious nut of a mother keeps him out of school and has him memorize Bible chapters all day in their trailer while she's at work. When he tells her about the tiger, she dismisses it as an imaginative lie. Believing that the only useful information is that found in the Good Book, she avoids television and is thus completely unaware of the local attacks. Roy is also unaware, and when he discovers that the police are hunting it, he believes it is his responsibility to save the tiger and protect it from harm.
They use an actual real tiger so there were no CGI in this movie at all.
There are some good death scene in here more Bloody then Gory.
The Biggest problem i had with this movie was the ending, i hated as the ending felt to rushed, it kinda of ruined the whole movie for me.
If you liked the movie Prey (2007) should give this a watch. i rate this movie a 5/10
The plot: The hunter becomes the hunted when the forested shadows of the Appalachian Trail are stalked by a wild animal out of its element, hungry and born to ravage. After Sheriff Grady finds a dismembered body in the area, he quickly discovers a print near the scene that identifies the predator as a Bengal tiger. Six hundred pounds, twelve feet from nose to tail, it's one of the most powerful cats on Earth. Now it's loose -- and there's no man on the Appalachian Trail with the skill, or the courage, to take it down.
As i am huge fan of Killer Animals movies, There is no surprise that i liked this movie. What i liked about this movies was fact that it had boy who had Connection with Killer Tiger , Was such Great Idea and other Great idea was the boy Also had a religious nut of a mother keeps him out of school and has him memorize Bible chapters all day in their trailer while she's at work. When he tells her about the tiger, she dismisses it as an imaginative lie. Believing that the only useful information is that found in the Good Book, she avoids television and is thus completely unaware of the local attacks. Roy is also unaware, and when he discovers that the police are hunting it, he believes it is his responsibility to save the tiger and protect it from harm.
They use an actual real tiger so there were no CGI in this movie at all.
There are some good death scene in here more Bloody then Gory.
The Biggest problem i had with this movie was the ending, i hated as the ending felt to rushed, it kinda of ruined the whole movie for me.
If you liked the movie Prey (2007) should give this a watch. i rate this movie a 5/10
Maneater (2007)
** (out of 4)
Sci-Fi Channel movie is yet another Jaws rip, although this one has a few things going for it. A giant tiger is eating people in an Appalachian Mountains town so the sheriff (Gary Busey) and a bounty hunter (Ian D. Clark) try to track it down and kill it. Both of these characters are directly out of the Jaws handbook but thankfully both actors give very good performances so this weakness is the script can be overlooked. The story itself is another story as it's very weak and doesn't really offer anything new that we haven't seen countless times before. The one added storyline is a young boy who seems to have a connection with this tiger but this here comes off very forced and silly. The tiger used was real except for a few scenes where a CGI one was used.
** (out of 4)
Sci-Fi Channel movie is yet another Jaws rip, although this one has a few things going for it. A giant tiger is eating people in an Appalachian Mountains town so the sheriff (Gary Busey) and a bounty hunter (Ian D. Clark) try to track it down and kill it. Both of these characters are directly out of the Jaws handbook but thankfully both actors give very good performances so this weakness is the script can be overlooked. The story itself is another story as it's very weak and doesn't really offer anything new that we haven't seen countless times before. The one added storyline is a young boy who seems to have a connection with this tiger but this here comes off very forced and silly. The tiger used was real except for a few scenes where a CGI one was used.
MANEATER concerns a small town with a big cat problem when a truck crashes, unleashing a Bengal tiger to hunt for local prey. Several human snacks later, the sheriff (Gary Busey) is on the case.
Alas, the killer kitty isn't so easy to catch. Many lives are lost, including an entire national guard unit!
While there are a few bloody extremities on display, the actual violence is mostly offscreen. There's no real profanity or nudity either. Busey is quite good in his role, and the low-budget CGI is kept to a blessed minimum...
Alas, the killer kitty isn't so easy to catch. Many lives are lost, including an entire national guard unit!
While there are a few bloody extremities on display, the actual violence is mostly offscreen. There's no real profanity or nudity either. Busey is quite good in his role, and the low-budget CGI is kept to a blessed minimum...
Maneater is the kind of movie that seems to start with the right idea but soon slinks away in reverse, as if apologizing for existing. There's a loose tiger, yes, but it acts with the timidity of an insecure extra. Instead of spectacle, what unfolds is a long and fruitless wait-like a circus tent set up, but the lion never shows. The plot even rehearses a greatest hits of disaster cinema: a small town, a local festival, sensationalist journalists, a mysterious hunter, a rigid sheriff, and a weird kid with a spiritual connection to the beast. But it all feels like window dressing-a suspense of "almost," an action of "maybe," a tension of "later." And when that "later" finally arrives, we're already emotionally checked out.
The tiger, which should be the star, is filmed like a state secret. The camera hides in leaves, branches, cowardly POV shots-the predator is more heard than seen, more rumor than presence. And while this spares the film from disastrous CGI, it only reinforces its narrative cowardice. The creature attacks as if following a serial killer's manual-ripping limbs, scattering body parts-but without the heat of savagery. Everything feels procedural, almost administrative. There are pathetic attempts to instill fear, like the scene where a journalist tries to lure the beast with bait-an unlicensed Jaws-cage-sequence knockoff. But all we get is a hard cut to an already bloodied scene. No attack, no climax, just silence and shocked extras.
Sheriff Grady Barnes, played by Gary Busey (still nursing a hangover from his more notable roles), carries the plot with the fixed gaze of someone clearly cast in a different movie. The town he tries to protect has no charm, identity, or emotional geography-it's just backdrop, generic forest with slapped-on signs. As for the hunter, James Graham, he sports a Poirot-worthy mustache but can't even solve a crossword, let alone the mystery of the beast. And the boy, Roy-who seems to be rehearsing some Carrie-esque suburban mystique-never evolves beyond a sketch. In theory, he embodies the sheriff's dead son; in practice, he's just another weak link between two characters who never share real emotional weight.
In the end, the beast does attack-but only on the clock. The final minutes unfold in a roadside convenience store, with explosions, gasoline, and a whole lot of noise for very little impact. Maneater tries to be the kind of movie that survives on concept alone: "What if Jaws, but with a tiger?" But it forgets that a good concept is nothing without execution that bites. There are no scares, no bold choices, not even glorious mistakes. The film is afraid of its own roar. If there's any consolation, it might be in the cinematography-which, surprise, has color. The forest is green, the lighting decent, the festival poor but quaint. But that's not enough. I'd take a festival of cheesy CGI and digital blood with some ambition over this domesticated danger. It's a movie that behaves like a pedigree-less beast, caged in the ditch of near-cinema.
The tiger, which should be the star, is filmed like a state secret. The camera hides in leaves, branches, cowardly POV shots-the predator is more heard than seen, more rumor than presence. And while this spares the film from disastrous CGI, it only reinforces its narrative cowardice. The creature attacks as if following a serial killer's manual-ripping limbs, scattering body parts-but without the heat of savagery. Everything feels procedural, almost administrative. There are pathetic attempts to instill fear, like the scene where a journalist tries to lure the beast with bait-an unlicensed Jaws-cage-sequence knockoff. But all we get is a hard cut to an already bloodied scene. No attack, no climax, just silence and shocked extras.
Sheriff Grady Barnes, played by Gary Busey (still nursing a hangover from his more notable roles), carries the plot with the fixed gaze of someone clearly cast in a different movie. The town he tries to protect has no charm, identity, or emotional geography-it's just backdrop, generic forest with slapped-on signs. As for the hunter, James Graham, he sports a Poirot-worthy mustache but can't even solve a crossword, let alone the mystery of the beast. And the boy, Roy-who seems to be rehearsing some Carrie-esque suburban mystique-never evolves beyond a sketch. In theory, he embodies the sheriff's dead son; in practice, he's just another weak link between two characters who never share real emotional weight.
In the end, the beast does attack-but only on the clock. The final minutes unfold in a roadside convenience store, with explosions, gasoline, and a whole lot of noise for very little impact. Maneater tries to be the kind of movie that survives on concept alone: "What if Jaws, but with a tiger?" But it forgets that a good concept is nothing without execution that bites. There are no scares, no bold choices, not even glorious mistakes. The film is afraid of its own roar. If there's any consolation, it might be in the cinematography-which, surprise, has color. The forest is green, the lighting decent, the festival poor but quaint. But that's not enough. I'd take a festival of cheesy CGI and digital blood with some ambition over this domesticated danger. It's a movie that behaves like a pedigree-less beast, caged in the ditch of near-cinema.
Did you know
- TriviaBased on the novel 'Shikar' by Jack Warner.
- GoofsSeveral of the attack scenes show the tiger charging the victim from the front. All cats, from house mousers to the largest tigers, approach prey from the rear or side, and kill with a bite through the spine at the base of the neck. There are several documented cases of people avoiding big cat attack simply by keeping the approaching animal in front of them.
- ConnectionsReferenced in The Tonight Show with Jay Leno: Episode #20.159 (2012)
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- L'instinct du chasseur
- Filming locations
- Stonewall, Manitoba, Canada(street scenes)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content