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
Gary Busey leads in this, no don't go!
Anyway if you're still there Gary Busey leads in this Scyfy channel-esque movie about a small town that falls under siege from an escaped Bengal tiger.
You know drill, a panicked Sherriff, an authority figure who wants it all kept quiet because they're up for re-election and over confident rednecks looking to make a name for themselves.
Every cliche in the book can be found right here in Maneater, but despite this it's not actually the worst.
Don't get me wrong this is hardly enjoyable viewing but I've seen considerably worse. Busey is a lot less manic than usual and is more bearable, the sfx for the tiger are better than you'd assume and though the plot has facets that make little to no sense it has its redeeming features if you look carefully enough.
Dumb fun? Meh, honestly it's just dumb but it's essentially what you should expect going in. Want a decent tiger movie? Watch Burning Bright (2010) instead.
The Good:
Visually better than you'd expect
The Bad:
Cliched to hell and back
Certain elements don't make a vast amount of sense
Anyway if you're still there Gary Busey leads in this Scyfy channel-esque movie about a small town that falls under siege from an escaped Bengal tiger.
You know drill, a panicked Sherriff, an authority figure who wants it all kept quiet because they're up for re-election and over confident rednecks looking to make a name for themselves.
Every cliche in the book can be found right here in Maneater, but despite this it's not actually the worst.
Don't get me wrong this is hardly enjoyable viewing but I've seen considerably worse. Busey is a lot less manic than usual and is more bearable, the sfx for the tiger are better than you'd assume and though the plot has facets that make little to no sense it has its redeeming features if you look carefully enough.
Dumb fun? Meh, honestly it's just dumb but it's essentially what you should expect going in. Want a decent tiger movie? Watch Burning Bright (2010) instead.
The Good:
Visually better than you'd expect
The Bad:
Cliched to hell and back
Certain elements don't make a vast amount of sense
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.
With all the beatings I've dished out to the Sci Fi Channel for its horrible movies, I felt the need to finally post something a little upbeat.
Granted, MANEATER is no classic. But it's not a stinker in the typical Sci Fi Channel sense, either. There's a reasonable script. A few eccentric performances. And a director, Gary Yates, who realizes that CGI is not the best way to convey tension. In fact, he uses a real tiger to play...are you ready for it?...a real tiger. Sheer genius, especially when he has the good sense to hide it for the majority of the picture.
Of course, there's also Gary Busey, looking like he wandered off an accident scene, his hair askew, his suite ill-fitting (the same suit he wears for the entire film). He is truly a wonder to behold. It seems like he's The film, however, belongs to Ian D. Clark, who plays a big game hunter on the trail of the titular beast. He creeps through the underbrush spouting gibberish that wouldn't sound out of place in a martial arts movie, a Buddhist monk with a shotgun bloodlust.
Goofy fun.
Granted, MANEATER is no classic. But it's not a stinker in the typical Sci Fi Channel sense, either. There's a reasonable script. A few eccentric performances. And a director, Gary Yates, who realizes that CGI is not the best way to convey tension. In fact, he uses a real tiger to play...are you ready for it?...a real tiger. Sheer genius, especially when he has the good sense to hide it for the majority of the picture.
Of course, there's also Gary Busey, looking like he wandered off an accident scene, his hair askew, his suite ill-fitting (the same suit he wears for the entire film). He is truly a wonder to behold. It seems like he's The film, however, belongs to Ian D. Clark, who plays a big game hunter on the trail of the titular beast. He creeps through the underbrush spouting gibberish that wouldn't sound out of place in a martial arts movie, a Buddhist monk with a shotgun bloodlust.
Goofy fun.
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...
Nothing to say about this film actually... It is boring, slow, predictable and so on and so on with negativity. The story is very lame, a tiger escapes his cage, due to road accident and he "befriended" with a little loser kid with imaginary friends... whose mother is a religious fanatic, I don't find this interesting. The killings in the film... well... well done! As expected, because filmmakers wanted to show that only. But fat sheriff's (Gary Busey) question "How come that tiger take out two heavily armed men?" Really! How?!?! How the f*ck he did that!??!?! The only thing I like about this film is Gary Busey, I really like that guy... even here, as a slow, monotone, gruff voiced sheriff, who looks like he don't give a flying f**k about his little town. And of course, I love tigers and that's because I gave it 4 out of 10. However... don't watch it, or better watch it... just to put you out of your insomnia.
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
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content