User 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

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.

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

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.

So yes, it's called Maneater, which is dodgy, and yes it looks as if it was shot with a budget of about $12.50, and yes it's clichéd and cheesy, but it was about a million times better than I was expecting it to be.

Gary Busey plays Sheriff Grady Barnes, who is the main main character (yeah, double "main", there's a few, they can't decide which to follow). There's a tiger (just a regular tiger, which surprised me, not like, 500 kilo, 10 metre long killing machine, just a Bengal) loose in his hick-town, and they don't take too kindly to tigers 'round these parts. Seriously though, it's an actual tiger, no CG, not even a puppet, it's a genuine freaking tiger. The acting was much better than I thought it'd be, the most terrible was just from the red-shirts, who basically don't even count. The setting was believable and the characters were bearable.

That is not however to say, that the movie was good, or even remotely interesting for that matter. I say it was about a million times better than I thought it was, but I had it pegged as bad as it was, then a whole lot worse. At the end of the day it's just another film that seemed to have been made for the sake of being made. Gary Busey's usual wild charisma was noticeable, literally in only a single line. And that's pretty much it.

There's an evil Christian mother, but she's not that evil. I mean, compare her to the bitch from Carrie and she's like mother-of-the-year award material, she just doesn't let her son go to school or play make-believe games, they had room to make her big-bad, but didn't. Then there was her son, who has some bizarre connection to the tiger, he sleep walks, he's a traumatised little kid, so of course he must be twisted, right? No wrong, no Michael Myers secreted away here. Ah, and that British hunter, a foreigner! Surely he is the human menace! No? He's not? Oh, just another guy who gets a whole lot of screen time but does nothing? Yeah, figured.

So, if someone told me they wanted to watch it, I probably wouldn't go so far as to kill them for even suggesting such a thing, but I'd probably leave the room.

-Gimly

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.

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.

Me and my husband are huge movie fans! We watch one every chance we get and thank goodness we decided to give this one a chance. I never do reviews but I felt compelled to since so many people were hating on this movie. I don't really understand why some people expect Academy Award winners everytime? Gary Busey was incredible and he did not disappoint. I've always loved him as an actor. The little boy in this movie was so much fun to watch and his relationship with the tiger was beautiful. It reminded me of an adult jungle book and I thought the English gentlemen from South Africa with the ridiculous mustache was perfect for this movie. We loved the cast, the story, and what a great ending. I've already watched it again with my girlfriends and we had so much fun. Jump scares are the best and we all were on pins and needles from beginning to end! The haters should just relax a bit and not take life or movies so seriously.

I knew about this movie existing, because I had stumbled upon movies in the 'Maneater Series' before, I just never had the opportunity to sit down and watch this 2007 movie titled "Maneater" before now in 2024.

The storyline was pretty straightforward, and something that would would expect from a TV movie. So writer Philip Morton didn't exactly fail to deliver here. However, nor did he deliver anything outstanding or spectacular for director Gary Yates to bring to life on the screen. There are two storylines running in the movie, the one with the sheriff trying to protect the town against a wild tiger near the town, and the story of a strange wonder kid who turned into a 'Tiger Whisperer'. The latter felt so out of place with the tone of the movie.

"Maneater" wasn't exactly a movie that was crammed with big names and familiar faces. Of the entire cast ensemble, I was actually only familiar with Gary Busey. And you know what you get with that guy, so enough said. Actually, I do enjoy watching new faces and unfamiliar talents on the screen when I watch movies, so "Maneater" was not losing any points on that account.

There is a fair amount of people being mauled and killed by the tiger, except we don't get to see it. We always get to see what is left behind after the attack. It worked okay, but I mean it would have been nice to have had some exciting and thrilling scenes where we see a tiger attacking people. But with "Maneater" being a TV movie, then of course that was just two things that didn't go hand-in-hand.

It should be noted, however, that the prosthetics and props of the mauled body parts were actually fairly good and came off as being somewhat passable for realistic. And that, at least, counted for something when we were deprived of the scenes where the tiger was mauling its prey.

My rating of "Maneater" lands on a generous three out of ten stars.

It says a lot that one can watch a SyFy creature feature, entering with low expectations, and still be awfully disappointed. Even in a niche genre built on the reputation of subpar film-making, 'Maneater' is slovenly.

The acting is the first thing to catch our attention, because from the moment he appears on screen, Gary Busey's performance is so strained and underwhelming that one wonders if he wasn't suffering from indigestion throughout the production. Moreover, while it seems unfair to the rest of the cast to call what Busey is doing "acting," no one else fares much better, as every characterization and line of dialogue feels very perfunctory and by the numbers. What is anyone supposed to do with that?

So it goes with Philip Morton's writing in every instance. Characters are so one-dimensional that they're not interesting, only annoying, and one wishes fervently for each one to be the next to be mauled. Individual scenes and story beats are so thin, incomplete, and unconvincing that it's not unreasonable to think director Gary Yates was working with a sketched outline instead of a full screenplay. "Action scenes" are altogether bereft - owing to, accordingly, the use of a live tiger for filming instead of CGI, to say nothing of the rank production quality generally.

And then there's the young boy, Roy, who even from the opening scene is shown to have some undefined special connection with the tiger. Terms like "wishy-washy," "hogwash," "flim flam," and simply "nonsense" immediately come to mind, and there's just nothing more to be said about this entire aspect of the movie. Just as fantastical is the appearance of the experienced English big game hunter, who in his first scene holds promise of giving the picture at least a small hint of personality - but that turns out to be a false hope.

Yet I'm not letting Yates off easy, either. His involvement seems to have been to follow his writer's bent to the haphazard letter. In fact, rather than guiding the production with a unified vision, one would be forgiven for thinking he deferred to Morton. It truly feels like the director was uninterested in his own film.

Even for all the blood and gore we see after the fact, 'Maneater' is a horror-thriller with no horror, and no thrills. For such lack, one would hope it's at least worth a good laugh, but the entirety is so wooden and subdued that it becomes a chore to watch; it feels inescapably longer than 90 minutes. It's rather incredible the movie ever successfully wrapped production, as everyone involved seems so unexcited and nonplussed that I can't believe no one just walked off the set and went home.

The only circumstance in which I could possibly recommend 'Maneater' would be for those viewers with the most morbid, unyielding curiosity. Otherwise, even for audiences who generally enjoy cheesy B-movies and creature features, this should get a hard pass.

A Bengal tiger is on the loose in the woods near a North American community. The local authorities can't seem to do much to stop its rampage, and the National Guardsmen don't look like they'll be much use. A young boy (Ty Wood) feels a connection to the beast, and feels some sympathy for it; meanwhile, a veteran tiger hunter (Ian D. Clark) would appear to be the most knowledgeable and capable person on the scene. The local sheriff (Gary Busey, the movies' one name actor) tries to warn citizens of the danger.

'Maneater' earns some points for not being the usual ultra-cheesy creature feature that this viewer was expecting. We do occasionally see the tiger attack, but kills are often performed off screen; we only see the gory aftermath. Plus, these filmmakers look like they used an actual animal much of the time (on the few occasions when we see the beast); there's no ropey CGI to turn the story into a live-action cartoon. Plus, the scenario is treated with some gravity. The viewer won't see any self-aware or self-referential humour here. The actors put on their best poker faces in this thriller that is therefore a bit more nuanced than what one is used to if they've seen a lot of made-to-order monster movies, whether done for TV or home video.

The performances are generally decent. Nothing spectacular, but they get the job done. The hunter, the kid, and the sheriff are the three roles that get fleshed out to any degree. The kid, in particular, is amusing because he's the product of an isolated existence, home-schooled in a trailer in the woods by a deeply religious mother. But he has no fear of constantly traipsing through these woods and possibly being mauled by the big cat. He also possesses great tracking abilities.

Overall, this is very passable stuff. Hardly inspired, but it's not nearly as goofy as this viewer thought it might be. It was filmed on location in my home province of Manitoba (Canada).

Six out of 10.

.....that was written by the humble hunter of man eating tigers named Jim Corbett from a book called "the man eaters of Kumaon" or "maneaters" from the early 1900's. Except that the Champawatt man eating tiger had killed between 300-400 Indians in Northern India. Corbett also hunted a tiger called the Thak man eater that had so terrified a section of India that one village was almost abandoned.These man eating tigers were also was able to kill and take away one person for food within 10 feet of another person without them realizing it. I found it fantastic that the writers picked an English man named Jim who was born in India as the hunter (like Jim Corbett). Corbett loved nature and spent most of his free time in the jungles and forests of India He was a true hero in the grandest sense of the word. A very realistic film story line that shows what a man eating tiger is capable of.

Sheriff Gary Busey, in a restrained performance, gets right down to business, trying to protect his small Appalachian town from a menacing escaped Bengal tiger. As locals, National Guardsmen, and deputies, become cat food, the situation rapidly deteriorates, until a self appointed British tiger hunter arrives on the scene. Ian D. Clark is quite good in this role, and along with Busey, gives the movie some above the norm acting. The little boy and his religious nut-bag Mother are nothing but damn annoyances, as are all of the news media. "Maneater may not be a work of art, but for it's intended audience, it is totally acceptable. ............... MERK

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...

Gary Busey stars as the sheriff of a small town in the Applachian Mountains where a series of tiger attacks has the community in an uproar. With the upcoming festival drawing near the mayor is worried about all of the visitors abandoning his town because they are scared of the tiger, the little boy in this movie has a problem with sleepwalking which involves him with the tiger , but i won't ruin it for those of you who haven't seen this movie yet. Gary Busey seems kinda stiff cardboard like in his acting, but it is a real performance , very character driven, after the national guard and the townspeople can't handle the tiger, a tiger hunter from India comes to help the sheriff track down the manheater in hopes of killing it,, it is laughable with how the guardsmen handle the whole tiger dealings,, and watching the media is hilarious,, not a bad movie for sci-fi.

Gary Busey's recovery, after a serious accident, shows a little in his slow delivery, but is totally in character for a rural Appalachian sheriff faced with a wild animal loose on the Trail. I found it campy but very watchable. As a Busey fan, it is very satisfying. As a wildlife and locations fan, the husband and I thought it may have been filmed in North Carolina, as the setting is the Appalachian Trail that goes through the western part of the state. The swamps....in the mountains? I liked the supporting cast, relatively well-acted for a TV movie. All in all, there was enough gore and tongue-in-cheek reference to other wildlife- gone-awry films like "Jaws" and "The Ghost and the Darkness" to make this worth the two hours including endless SYFY channel commercials. I would rent it and watch so you can take a break when necessary.