Unnatural (2015) User Reviews

Not particularly outstanding, but still entertaining enough...

[paul_haakonsen · 5/10 · 9 June 2018]

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.

100 percent perfect title

[TheLittleSongbird · 3/10 · 13 March 2018]

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

Polar Bear From Hell

[shawnblackman · 4/10 · 3 November 2016]

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.

Unwatchable

[dcarsonhagy · 2/10 · 14 November 2015]

Have you ever watched a movie and after it was finished you said to yourself (or maybe outloud) "This should have never been made"? Such is the case for After Dark's installment of "Unnatural." The general message of this movie was supposed to be a statement on global warming, climate crisis, melting of the polar icecaps, glacier loss--take your pick. However, somewhere along the way, all that got lost and what you got stuck with was a poor attempt at schlock.

It seems that a photographer, his lackey, and two bimbos are off somewhere close to the Arctic Circle for a photo shoot involving fur. Once they arrive at Black Wolf Lodge, you get lots of giggling, posing, jerking about, faux sex (no nudity), and are introduced to characters you really will never care about.

The viewer sees the killer bear almost immediately, so there's no tension introduced there. You then get a lot of grunts, huffing, and crackling branches to let you know he's in the vicinity. Supposedly, the particular polar bear is a freak of nature because scientists have (once again) decided to mess with mother nature. Yawn. The makeup for the beast was high-schoolish, as was most of the acting.

This truly was much ado about nothing. Rated "R" and it should have been rated PG-13. Not recommended.

2015 - The Year of The Bear!

[Krackoon · 2/10 · 22 October 2015]

Hank Braxtan brings us our third killer bear film of 2015.

'Into The Grizzly Maze,' didn't live up to expectations, with it's major cast, and horrible editing, more fit for television than big screen. 'Backcountry,' on the other hand, exceeded expectations, as more of a survival flick, with one gruesome kill scene.

So, how does 'Unnatural' hold up?

Creature features really depend on the type of director/writer involved. Are they less is more kind of guys, or do they believe in going all out? Believe it or not, bears are rather frightening and dangerous without being genetically modified (Backcountry.) Personally, I would have preferred your normal, ornery, territorial polar bear, but Hank Braxtan wasn't having any of that. He decided to overcompensate for something... So, what could have been a solid experience, ended up being 'Into The Grizzly Maze' set in Alaska. 'Unnatural' just throws in an unnecessary back story about genetics, that no one will care about. We just want to see the bear rip through those typical, annoying characters - played by your typical bad actors/actresses.

Oh yes, the cast - Somehow, James Remar continues to get work - and he's as wooden as ever here. Seriously, though, this guy supplies more wood than your local paper mill. Graham Greene pops up for about 3 minutes of screen time (It's nice to see he's still alive.) Sherilyn Fenn may or may not be involved here. I couldn't really tell - She used to be attractive.

Random Ramblings of a Madman: If you're going to spend 95% of the film avoiding actual shots of your enormous, genetically modified bear, why not just, you know, use a regular sized Polar bear? I hear those things pack a mean bite. 'Unnatural,' however, does not.

Great actors in a not so great film

[BlahX10 · 2/10 · 30 November 2015]

Maybe if I'd never seen a movie before, this one would be worthy of more stars, but alas, I have.

Having said that, now I will say even more! The bear! OMG...that sad sad sad bear! It would have been better if was made out of paper mache. Maybe I just gave some good advice for this film producer for future projects involving fake bears.

I am a fan of James Remar, Gregory Cruz, Sherilyn Fenn, Graham Greene, and Ray Wise. They all gave great performances, but that didn't help this movie.

They could have easily named this movie Polarbear!!!!!! Maybe with a few more or less exclamation marks. I'm not an expert on these sorts of things.

One of the cheapest, dumbest monster movies yet

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 8 June 2016]

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.

Embarrassing

[running-1 · 1/10 · 24 November 2017]

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?

Cringe-worthy

[pro-05370 · 3/10 · 7 November 2015]

Okay, so this is my first review, sadly there's nothing much to say about this B-listed horror flick.

You'll most likely recognize some faces in this one, especially James Remar. Actually that's all I have to say about the cast, you might know them from TV series and go: "Hey , I know that guy!". The acting is not there at all, the writing is horrible and so is Hank Braxtan.

The location is amazing but sadly not exploited enough.I would have liked to see more wide shots of the beautiful Alaskan wilderness.

I did 'enjoy' however that they didn't go for CGI when making the bear, or wolf-seal-bear, whatever that thing was... well, they tried. The script annoyed me a bit, as the two characters i liked either got mauled pretty quickly or weren't the person I imagined them to be.

Overall a mix between goofy script(God, I hope it was on purpose), sub-par acting and poor directing choices.

Don't watch this unless you really have nothing else better to do, go check out Frozen, Backcountry, The thing, The Grey etc. not this BS.

Tension, good kills, grizzly violence n nudity r all lacking in this film.

[Fella_shibby · 4/10 · 21 January 2018]

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!

Practical Polar Bear - What's Not To Like

[millijackson · 8/10 · 17 October 2015]

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.

90's feel horror

[s3276169 · 6/10 · 26 November 2015]

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.

Absolutely unnatural

[soneagu · 1/10 · 8 June 2016]

This movie is born out of childish imagination, nonsensical stuff put together in a random order, and childish knowledge about science: the scene with the lighter thrown in the car's tank followed by the explosion is nightmarish: are people on Earth who know that little about chemistry?

The creature is hilariously conceived, without the slightest drop of realism. Characters' attitudes and reactions are non-realistic as well. You don't really feel their fear, it's more like an appearance of fear. Their actions are random. The creature appears out of nowhere, disappears in the same manner,being kind of omnipresent. Sorry guys, for me is a no- no.

B Grade Movie

[chrisandtonia1 · 4/10 · 26 November 2015]

I kept watching it hoping it would get better but it didn't. The acting was average, apart from some decent scenes from Graham Greene and James Remar. The other actors are not very believable. There is not much depth in the story, it just expects you to put the pieces together. If you like some blood and gore, then you will get plenty but without much realism. The animatronics bear doesn't seem real, a bit like the shark in jaws..big but doesn't seem to move in the right way. If the writers had taken the time to show us more of the behind the scenes lab work that led up to the making of the bear and also taken time for us to get to know the characters, this may have worked better. Really don't waste your time with this one.

An Objectively Very Bad Creature Feature

[TwistedContent · 2/10 · 28 November 2018]

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.

Awful

[blackwell4 · 1/10 · 17 March 2016]

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.

More hype and tension than content.

[ellectrika · 3/10 · 29 November 2018]

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.

Waste of Time

[gtrgirl1962 · 1/10 · 28 September 2016]

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!

Seems like a movie but freezes into dullness

[HEFILM · 3/10 · 8 August 2016]

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.

Crappy stuffed trophy bear is 'monster'

[davego-48776 · 1/10 · 25 November 2017]

**** SPOILER ALERT ****

Opens with a 'climate change crisis' Intro. Plot then veers completely off-topic.

Storyline: expounds almost same premise as 'The Edge' ie. city folk do photo-shoot on location in the arctic circle. Hopelessly out-of-their- depth they then run foul of a man-eating stuffed trophy animal/live grizzly bear.

Foregrounding: enter said stuffed trophy bear. An experimental subject, an actual bear is shown, gets loose in a research station that has no stated research goal. The prop from this point onward is a fluffy, plush stuffed trophy bear with maybe a bear tooth denture plate stuck in its mouth.

Development: A bear has been noticed entering the NP-2 corridors on cctv by a brilliant researcher, stroke of brilliance she hails her genius-level colleagues at their galley by intercom to warn. They are not there. The formidable scientists that she aims to warn of danger continue on a path toward their death, she persistently hails the galley intercom in her 'genuine' desperation to save them. She hails it over, and over again; a room, it happens, in which nobody is present anyway. Hollywood did NOT foresee that possibility. Yeh right.

Said scientist flees, escapes research station in panic, leaves door open ..bear escapes. Main protagonists story arc now begins...

Cliché 1950's b+w horror genre except with color. I mean, the budget is post-Silent Movie Era, pre-Star Trek/Space Family Robinson/Jaws theatre stage-prop production quality. Not much of a serious production effort in the Art department. No amount of performing art in the medium of empty space/stage is going to cover for the captured image.

Or

Cue 'The Edge' with Anthony Hopkins and Alec Baldwin also Elle MacPheersom. It is a way better film production.

'Un-Natural' movie is a complete fraud.

Unnatural is the new Natural.

[bear_adam · 10/10 · 18 October 2015]

Wow I just finished watching this movie and it was crafted with excellence by Hank Braxtan and it was quite remarkable in my opinion. I'm a horror fanatic and I have seen a lot of the After Dark Horrorfest Films and so far I have watched Bastard and Lumberjack Man in this new set of the 2015 ADH Films and here is my review for Unnatural. I will start with the story which is about a group of people who are enjoying a nice weekend in a remote Alaskan lodge when an altered Polar Bear starts hunting them down. The premise was straightforward enough but it definitely flipped the script around 180 degrees from the normal way a movie of this nature would have gone which I found to be a breath of fresh air. I will now move onto the acting which I enjoyed thoroughly but the standout of course was James Remar which everyone will know from Dexter. I will now move onto the kills and while there aren't a ton of kills that are shown here there are certainly enough. The dread that is invoked while watching the bear hunt is quite unnerving I must add which is a rare commodity to see now in horror films. The bear that is displayed looks very vicious and not to be trifled with by any means. I'm glad they actually let you get a great look at him and not just the shadow of him. The setting was great and really set the tone for a desolate place where no one is around to help you out when you're in trouble. I will finish by saying that you should check this movie out especially if you love nature versus nurture films. I have no doubt that you will enjoy it.

Not the best killer animal story....but still fun

[tbaio-25866 · 6/10 · 28 November 2015]

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.

Unnatural it is.

[Patient444 · 3/10 · 10 December 2017]

Sorry to say but I will ruin the 4 stars stats of this movie and grade it with 3! There was nothing to see here, except low budget animal/monster horror, with the same plot as always, the most typical moves possible which anyone could anticipate from miles away and the most obvious ending.

James Remar is one of my favorite actors, in my opinion completely under-appreciated, for he has so much to offer. Always doing his best on screen, he is the only reason I watched this abomination. Except him you will see nothing: no nudity, deaths, gore, just a little blood and very few glimpses of the animal itself. Do stay away. Into The Grizzly Maze wasn't the best either, even tho it had Thomas Jane but Backcountry felt more natural. If you wanna point your eye towards something familiar, look there. That's as close as you'll get into seeing something worthy.

Cheers!

A par for the course creature feature

[dyarnell4 · 5/10 · 18 February 2024]

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.

Dear me 🙈

[jhmoondance · 2/10 · 4 April 2024]

Well I watched this one afternoon and I was quietly anticipating a good creature feature movie which had 4 stars on amazon prime. Instead it was an overly acted bad character and mediocre acting from threat of them.

With Graeme Green amongst the cast I was quite excited but he is only in it for a handful of scenes before being killed off by a supposedly giant polar bear 🙈. This would have been a really good creature feature had we actually seen the beast but it lurked in the shadows.

Much of it is filmed in the dark but the scenery that we get to see is breathtaking.

Unfortunately I gave it two stars as it was stilted n quite boring.